It is important to note here that, despite relentless propaganda from their corporate media and political leaders from both major political parties, a strong majority of Americans disapprove of Israel's war on Gaza and want the U.S. to stop supplying arms and military aid to Israel. See: https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx ) It remains to be seen how this majority disapproval affects the presidential elections tomorrow. If the results are less than clear, remember that both Trump and Harris have been disagreeing only about who backs Israel most strongly. This makes it impossible for voters to express their disapproval of the genocide without abandoning their concerns about the many other issues facing their nation in this election. (Not just grocery prices.) I personally voted for Jill Stein, primarily based on my government's immoral support for Israel's continuing atrocious treatment of the Palestinian people, but am not ready to condemn all of my fellow citizens and voters as heedless genocide supporters because they find it necessary to vote for one of the two genocide supporters likely to be elected to run their country. Such condemnation is better reserved for the criminally cynical elites running the nation's major political parties, its mainstream media, its universities, its Congress, its intelligence agencies, its arms manufacturers and all the other parts of the American establishment, who don't and won't listen to the majority American people and who have constructed a system in which they have no need to do so. You know all this, of course. But sometimes forget that moral condemnation lose can force when the brush is too broad and the available choices involved are oversimplified.
The people who are in charge in DC could care less if 99% of the American public wants to stop the genocide. I remember Cheney being asked directly if it bothered him that the majority of Americans were against the Iraq war and his answer was “so what?”. This election extravaganza is strictly a distraction to maintain the illusion we have a say in our government. Not one interviewer held Trump or Kamala’s feet to the fire to acknowledge they support Israel no matter what.
Unfortunately I remember clearly a British journalist spending a whole 50min explaining that the Vietnam war was lengthened & not shortened by the huge worldwide campaign against it . If true it is a perfect argument against any expression of opinion by eg any population . (It reminds me of when I was told that I should not attend certain political meetings because I talked too much/was too articulate/ had read too many books). So sorry for posting !
What would be the logic in "lengthening" the Vietnam war "because" of "huge worldwide campaign against it"? Why would that be a factor? There are multiple factors/reasons for why the US might have wanted to prolong the war, but I don't see the logic in how "protesting against a war" lengthens it.
Also, I wouldn't take ANY journalist at their word. I would need to do due diligence and critical thinking (based on my capabilities at the time...)
I think what was meant was that opposition strengthened the "we shall not be moved" attitude of the President . It doesn't have to be logical - it might just be childish/bloody minded !
Anyone that believes that "The truth shall set you free" has been gaslighted. The "truth" often traps you, makes you a pariah, excludes you from peer groups and society, and so many other things. I would love for someone to explain exactly HOW "the truth shall set you FREE" in the general context.
It is important to note here that, despite relentless propaganda from their corporate media and political leaders from both major political parties, a strong majority of Americans disapprove of Israel's war on Gaza and want the U.S. to stop supplying arms and military aid to Israel. See: https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx ) It remains to be seen how this majority disapproval affects the presidential elections tomorrow. If the results are less than clear, remember that both Trump and Harris have been disagreeing only about who backs Israel most strongly. This makes it impossible for voters to express their disapproval of the genocide without abandoning their concerns about the many other issues facing their nation in this election. (Not just grocery prices.) I personally voted for Jill Stein, primarily based on my government's immoral support for Israel's continuing atrocious treatment of the Palestinian people, but am not ready to condemn all of my fellow citizens and voters as heedless genocide supporters because they find it necessary to vote for one of the two genocide supporters likely to be elected to run their country. Such condemnation is better reserved for the criminally cynical elites running the nation's major political parties, its mainstream media, its universities, its Congress, its intelligence agencies, its arms manufacturers and all the other parts of the American establishment, who don't and won't listen to the majority American people and who have constructed a system in which they have no need to do so. You know all this, of course. But sometimes forget that moral condemnation lose can force when the brush is too broad and the available choices involved are oversimplified.
The people who are in charge in DC could care less if 99% of the American public wants to stop the genocide. I remember Cheney being asked directly if it bothered him that the majority of Americans were against the Iraq war and his answer was “so what?”. This election extravaganza is strictly a distraction to maintain the illusion we have a say in our government. Not one interviewer held Trump or Kamala’s feet to the fire to acknowledge they support Israel no matter what.
Unfortunately I remember clearly a British journalist spending a whole 50min explaining that the Vietnam war was lengthened & not shortened by the huge worldwide campaign against it . If true it is a perfect argument against any expression of opinion by eg any population . (It reminds me of when I was told that I should not attend certain political meetings because I talked too much/was too articulate/ had read too many books). So sorry for posting !
What would be the logic in "lengthening" the Vietnam war "because" of "huge worldwide campaign against it"? Why would that be a factor? There are multiple factors/reasons for why the US might have wanted to prolong the war, but I don't see the logic in how "protesting against a war" lengthens it.
Also, I wouldn't take ANY journalist at their word. I would need to do due diligence and critical thinking (based on my capabilities at the time...)
I think what was meant was that opposition strengthened the "we shall not be moved" attitude of the President . It doesn't have to be logical - it might just be childish/bloody minded !
"British" is the key word there.
OK but in which direction ? I mean was he wrong because British or right because British ?
Since when did the people have any say in how things are run?
But if they did, would things really be that much better?
That is a different question. "The truth shall set you free, but first, it will piss you off."
Anyone that believes that "The truth shall set you free" has been gaslighted. The "truth" often traps you, makes you a pariah, excludes you from peer groups and society, and so many other things. I would love for someone to explain exactly HOW "the truth shall set you FREE" in the general context.
yes, if informed and eyes opened.
That is a big "if".
i think it has been done and could be again.