This is scary

[Marc in Calif]

On 10/17/2023 at 1:01 PM, stevenkesslar said:

As one of the 88 % of Americans who supported an invasion of Afghanistan, I get it.  What the fuck else were we supposed to do?

An invasion of Afghanistan, with ALL the eventual changes and deaths, was intended to accomplish what exactly?

Were you not aware of the history of foreign invasions of -- and externally coerced regime changes in -- Afghanistan? I certainly was. 

What did you think the so-called Operation Enduring Freedom would likely achieve, given the difficulties (and past histories) of foreigners accomplishing anything at all that lasted in Afghanistan?

In hindsight, how did that turn out for you?

And by saying "What the fuck else were we supposed to do?" about 9/11, you unwittingly disclose your actual motivation -- and the motivation of the US government and the 88% of Americans who agreed with Bush & Cheney, Inc.

[Latbear4blk]

@stevenkesslar, you should have sucked it up. 9/11 was a horrible day, but this time was the US's turn to have a horrible day after decades of US abussing, bombing and murdering other peoples. You should have taken the hit as a good loser. You should have improved your defenses as you did. You should have target the terrorists leaders and assets as you did. But you should have not invaded another country.

Is this tribalist mentality that is universal and is taking us to these horrible massacres. Is this specific Superiority mentality that takes the US and another few powers to believe they are the world police. Imagine the US or Israel or Rusia or China accepting a UN resolution. Instead, we are bullied and talked down and lectured.

 

[stevenkesslar]

17 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

In hindsight, how did that turn out for you?

Is this the right GIF for, "We fucked ourselves"?  ☹️

17 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

And by saying "What the fuck else were we supposed to do?" about 9/11, you unwittingly disclose your actual motivation -- and the motivation of the US government and the 88% of Americans who agreed with Bush & Cheney, Inc.

I stand by that question.  It's a good question.

What the fuck were we supposed to do in response to brutal and unprovoked terrorism that killed thousands of Americans?  

So I'll turn it around.  What the fuck was the US supposed to do?  Say, please, come fly more airplanes into our skyscrapers to punish us for being imperialist pigs?  Should we have said,  "We deserve to die, because we are hopeless murderous mother fuckers.  Please, kill us."  Is that the right response?

Should Israel say, "You stupid assholes.  You did not behead and burn enough of our babies.  We are all genocidal monsters, and our babies all deserve to die.  Come finish the job, quickly!"

I cited a poll above that said after 9/11 most of the world thought the US should have pursued legal mechanisms rather than military ones.  So that is one obvious answer of what we could have done instead.  That said, how would taking the Taliban or bin Laden to court have worked out?  Not very well, I'm guessing.

Another answer is a different version of a military response.  We should have invaded, overthrown the Taliban, and left.  The good news is it would have taught the terrorists a lesson, and got the US military and our allies out of a mess that instead lasted for decades.  The bad news is an invasion probably still would have created a mess that lasted for decades.  Whether it would have been a worse mess than the mess the Taliban had already created is a question that can't honestly be answered.

15 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

9/11 was a horrible day, but this time was the US's turn to have a horrible day after decades of US abusing, bombing and murdering other peoples.  You should have target the terrorists leaders and assets as you did. But you should have not invaded another country.

That certainly makes more sense with 20/20 hindsight.

There's two big differences that I think put the US in a better position globally after 9/11 than Israel is now.  Other than the obvious thing, which is the US's overwhelming military might.  Of course, Israel has overwhelming military might, too.

First, it was hard to argue the US somehow did something to provoke 9/11.  Yes, we will always have Paris, and US imperialism.  But we didn't occupy Afghanistan.  The argument that was made at the time was that our benefactors actually turned on us.   It's not like we had spent decades turning Kabul into an "open air prison,"  like Gaza is referred to.

19 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

An invasion of Afghanistan, with ALL the eventual changes and deaths, was intended to accomplish what exactly?

Second, while the immediate goal was to get rid of The Taliban, which we did (for a while), the broader goal was to national build.  Which, with hindsight, now looks like the biggest mistake.  But that's likely why public support lasted as long as it did.  The main priority of the US wasn't to blow the shit out of lots of buildings and people in Kabul in order to take out terrorists.  We spent a huge amount of money to develop Afghanistan.  There are still many people who think we abandoned women and girls to the Taliban when we left.  Meanwhile, nobody is arguing that Israel somehow protects Palestinian women and girls from Hamas, or any other Palestinian organization.

I'm not stating either point to defend what what the US did, or how we did it.  I am stating them to underline how we underestimated how difficult it was going to be.  And, yes, it's easy to argue in retrospect that Afghan History For Dummies was all anyone needed to read.

I personally don't regret that we invaded, even with the benefit of hindsight.  If we had a do-over, I would support a short-term invasion to topple the Taliban, drive al Queda into the hills, and then get the fuck out.  Then watch them like a hawk to try to prevent them from regrouping and doing it again.  Which is basically the position that Israel is in.  They can't get rid of Hamas, even if they do turn Gaza into a parking lot. 

Part of the reason I feel this way is that the idea of using legal mechanisms to bring the Taliban or al Queda to justice seems like a joke.  I'm curious if anyone wants to suggest how a legal approach to 9/11 could have worked.   Sue bin Laden in Afghan courts?   Or, for that matter, how is Israel supposed to bring Hamas terrorists to justice in - what?  Palestinian courts?  Instead, to paraphrase you, @Latbear4blk,  I think it makes sense to "target the terrorist leaders" with bullets.  I don't regret that bin Laden was turned into fish food in an ocean.  I doubt many Americans feel sorry for the guy.

‘Netanyahu Got All the Warnings,’ Says Former Head of Israeli Military Intelligence

Former chief of Israeli military intelligence Amos Yadlin on where the war goes from here.

I was going to post that anyway.  It fits in here as one respected Israeli hawk's answer to the question, "What the fuck else are we supposed to do?"  

That article has a certain kind of moral clarity to it, that goes like this:

Hamas = Nazism = Holocaust =  They Are Evil And They Must Be Destroyed. Whatever It Takes.

It's just that simple.  And that's the only way it can be.

Given who the guy is, and how many people he has probably ordered killed, there is a clarity to saying we really just have one priority.  "We are going to destroy Hamas, as Nazi Germany was destroyed," to quote Yadlin.  No worries about whether Israel did anything to provoke Hamas.  Or whether what Israel is doing now may provoke terror in the future.  No worries about Palestinian nation building.  The point is this:  we will kill a lot of Nazis, and build really good defenses.  That is what matters now!  And that is what we will do!

I'm guessing Yadlin is right that most Israelis, as well as perhaps most Jews across the world, see things this clearly.  Or this black and white, if you prefer.  Netanyahu won't be replaced by a dove. 

Yadlin is interesting because he was a Labor candidate.  And he is a self-proclaimed "dove" on supporting a political two state solution.  But what he makes crystal clear is that the real priority isn't a political settlement.  In fact, any political settlement just got a lot harder, he says.  The real priority is to destroy Hamas.  Period.  Just like the Nazis were destroyed.

For that reason, I can't imagine this is going to work out better for Israel than it did for the US in Afghanistan.  Part of the US's "what the fuck were we supposed to do?" is we tried for a few decades to develop a political solution.  In retrospect it's easy to say it was doomed to fail.  In part, of course, because of all the human rights abuses that were tolerated along the way, as one article I posted above argued.  

In the short term it will probably help Israel - and certainly the IDF - that they have the moral clarity of feeling, "They are evil, and they must be destroyed."   But the lesson of the US 9/11 is that it's not that simple.  The moral clarity many people feel now will dissipate.  And so it's going to lead to a lot more destruction. 

I hope Yadlin is right that the scope of the war can probably be contained.  Which is what Biden clearly wants to do.

 

 

[vinapu]

10 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 They can't get rid of Hamas, even if they do turn Gaza into a parking lot. 

 

Getting rid of Hamas is noble undertaking but impossible to achieve even if all Gazans would be annihilated. Quite opposite parking lot solution by it's cruelty  may invite even more support for Hamas next incarnation.

As long as Palestinians will be driven into desperation that will feed their support for extreme measures.

 

[stevenkesslar]

5 hours ago, vinapu said:

Getting rid of Hamas is noble undertaking but impossible to achieve even if all Gazans would be annihilated. Quite opposite parking lot solution by it's cruelty  may invite even more support for Hamas next incarnation.

As long as Palestinians will be driven into desperation that will feed their support for extreme measures.

 

I agree.

This time, I'll be brief.  There is a sort of moral certainty, one could even say moral superiority, in saying that these people are like Nazis.  And we simply have to wipe the vermin out.  And the guy who is talking in that interview I posted above ran Israeli intelligence, and knows way more than you and I about practical methods for wiping out vermin.  He's very good at it, and rational in his plans for the eradication he supports.  He clearly believes what he says.  And the moral justification of it.  

Therein lies the tragedy.  As you said, it is a noble undertaking.  But impossible.  And it will lead to even more extremes.

[Marc in Calif]

6 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

___________________________________

On 10/24/2023 at 3:09 PM, Marc in Calif said:

And by saying "What the fuck else were we supposed to do?" about 9/11, you unwittingly disclose your actual motivation -- and the motivation of the US government and the 88% of Americans who agreed with Bush & Cheney, Inc.

___________________________________

I stand by that question.  It's a good question.

What the fuck were we supposed to do in response to brutal and unprovoked terrorism that killed thousands of Americans?  

So I'll turn it around.  What the fuck was the US supposed to do?  Say, please, come fly more airplanes into our skyscrapers to punish us for being imperialist pigs?  Should we have said,  "We deserve to die, because we are hopeless murderous mother fuckers.  Please, kill us."  Is that the right response?

First, it was hard to argue the US somehow did something to provoke 9/11.  Yes, we will always have Paris, and US imperialism.  But we didn't occupy Afghanistan.  The argument that was made at the time was that our benefactors actually turned on us.   It's not like we had spent decades turning Kabul into an "open air prison,"  like Gaza is referred to.

Second, while the immediate goal was to get rid of The Taliban, which we did (for a while),the broader goal was to national build....

I personally don't regret that we invaded, even with the benefit of hindsight.  If we had a do-over, I would support a short-term invasion to topple the Taliban, drive al Queda into the hills, and then get the fuck out.  Then watch them like a hawk to try to prevent them from regrouping and doing it again... 

So you continue to rely on "revenge" as your suggested US response to 9/11. Each of the highlighted remarks above belies a knee-jerk but very naive armchair response to a major issue in the Middle East and South Asia:

• "Nation building"
• "Our benefactors [sic] actually turned on us."
• "Get rid of the Taliban." 
• "Topple the Taliban."
• "I personally don't regret that we [sic] invaded."

But guess what? We had no "benefactors" in Afghanistan. "Nation building" in Afghanistan resulted in the Taliban still in control. The Taliban still protects and encourages Al Qaeda. More important is the fact that Al Qaeda and its family of Salafi-jihadi groups have increased their influence throughout the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa, Central Africa, and East Africa.

So you "don't regret" these results? You're satisfied that "we" got our knee-jerk revenge for 9/11? 🙈🙉🙊

And I encourage you NOT to write another essay in response. I won't read most of it if there are hundreds and hundreds of words. You've already said all you need to say. 😵‍💫

 

[Marc in Calif]

37 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Therein lies the tragedy.  As you said, it is a noble undertaking.  But impossible.  And it will lead to even more extremes.

Substitute Israel's response to Hamas with the US response to 9/11. Pretty much the same results -- even more extremism.

But you will probably not "regret" that either. 

[Mavica]

3 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

Substitute Israel's response to Hamas with the US response to 9/11. Pretty much the same results -- even more extremism.

Everything I see, read and hear leads me to believe the US is cautioning Israel not to make the same mistakes it, the US, made responding to 9/11.

[Mavica]

4 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

And I encourage you NOT to write another essay in response. I won't read most of it if there are hundreds and hundreds of words. You've already said all you need to say. 😵‍💫

Though I appreciate reading / considering the opinions of others written on the forum no matter if I agree / disagree, book-length postings are a turn-off and I (and probably most others) stop reading after the first paragraph.  Less is more (effective).  💋

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, Mavica said:

Everything I see, read and hear leads me to believe the US is cautioning Israel not to make the same mistakes it, the US, made responding to 9/11.

I think that is true of Biden.   

I'm not sure I would say that about the US, in general.  There are lots of warmongers in both political parties.  And lots of people say this is black and white.  Hamas is Hitler, and they need to be exterminated.  Period.  Read some of the posts above.

I used the pronoun "we" to generally refer to the 88 % of Americans who supported an invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, at least in one poll.  I don't think there is as clear a "we" - meaning a vast majority of Americans - on Israel and Gaza now.  A much better example would be the Iraq invasion, which I deeply opposed and which was bitterly divisive in the US from the start.  Not to mention the world.  

I've maintained that the US no longer has a pro-Israel majority.  Meaning a majority of Americans who will back Israel, "whatever it takes."  I think many, and perhaps a majority, of Americans see deep moral ambiguity.  And they lean toward peace, not war.  That is particularly true of younger Democrats.

All that said, everything I see, read, and hear leads me to believe that most Palestinian Americans feel Biden has stabbed them in the back.  He is sending weapons to Israel, and dismissing their concerns.  That is part of what makes this both poilitically and morally fraught.

‘The man broke my heart’: Biden’s Arab-American boosters begin to leave his side

These Arab-Americans were among Biden’s biggest fans. Now they’re warning they — and others — could abandon him in 2024.

If Trump beats Biden by 100,000 or so votes cast in a few swing states in 2024, like he beat Clinton in 2016, it could be blamed on about 1,000 different things he did.  But this would be one at the top of the list.  If it is another thing that makes young voters especially feel like Biden's moral compass is off.   With Trump, at least we don't have to worry about it.  He has no moral compass.  ☹️

 

 

If Trump beats 

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

So you continue to rely on "revenge" as your suggested US response to 9/11.

Thanks for pushing back.  I'm intentionally saying some things to provoke debate.  As I suspect other people posting are.  It would be a very good thing if there were a long and deep debate right now.  Among Israelis and Palestinians especially.  But also among the world who will be held hostage by whatever Israel and their enemies decide. 

Sorry if you don't want anything more than sound bites.  If sound bites win, I'd bet on "Hamas = Hitler = Bomb Them Into Oblivion" being the winner.  Which would be a tragedy.

I actually believe more is more.  That's a five minute summary by Fareed that pretty much sums up how I feel about the current situation.  Sorry if listening to someone for more than a sentence or a paragraph is too exhausting for some people.   But this longer 45 minute conversation with Fareed gets even deeper into ambiguities, and I think adds a lot.  Less is not more.  Sound bites are not policy. 

Sorry if I'm offending Trump lovers or Twitter lovers who prefer simple sound bites. 

7 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

So you continue to rely on "revenge" as your suggested US response to 9/11. Each of the highlighted remarks above belies a knee-jerk but very naive armchair response to a major issue in the Middle East and South Asia:

• "Nation building"
• "Our benefactors [sic] actually turned on us."
• "Get rid of the Taliban." 

You did seriously misrepresent what I said about what I believe motivated the US.   Which was not revenge.  National building is more like the opposite of revenge.  In sound bite terms, building a nation is much more difficult than bombing a city into a parking lot.

I did say the immediate goal was to "get rid of the Taliban."  I still think that was the right thing to do.  In that regard, Americans are seemingly very much like Israelis - both in 2001 and today.  The principle I agree with, and I think most people agree with, is that terrorists and acts of terror need to be punished, so they don't occur again. 

I don't think that is the same as "revenge."  Part of the reason I think toppling the Taliban in 2001 and then leaving Afghanistan shortly afterward might have made more sense is that even if the Taliban eventually returned to power, whether in 2011 or 2021, the experience of being removed from power - or killed -  might have taught them not to try that again.  Hopefully that is still true of the Taliban today. 

Israel clearly has the same thing in mind with Hamas.  And I agree with that policy.  They talk as if they think they will destroy Hamas.  They won't, of course.  But it makes sense to let Hamas and the world know that beheading Jewish babies is a very bad idea, and will result in the certain assassination of Hamas leaders.  I stand 1000 % behind Israel on that.

"Nation building" is pretty much the opposite of "revenge,"  I think.  Sorry if thinking things through irritates some people here.  But a conservative Republican friend who loved posting on Daddy's site and I pretty much correctly predicted 20 years of tragedy within months of 9/11.  He argued that we need to just bomb the living fuck out of Afghanistan.  But, he predicted, W. will fuck it all up by putting US boots on the ground.  I asked him what happens if we bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan, and what rises from the ashes is even worse?  He said, verbatim, "That's easy.  Then we just go bomb the fuck out of them again."

I think that five minute conversation pretty much nailed 20 years of tragic American history.  Especially when you add Iraq to the mix.  And how we bombed the fuck out of a country we had no right to invade.  And instead managed to create ISIS.  

"Nation building" in Afghanistan was not a "revenge" motivation.  You can argue it was liberal.  And you can certainly argue it was naive.  And expensive, in treasure and blood of the US and our allies.  I think the record is clear that the agenda was to make Afghanistan a better place, and a democracy.  Not to blow it to shit and turn it into a parking lot.

And that is precisely where I part ways with Israel.  And I think lots of moderate people who abhor violence do. 

Sorry to believe more is more.  But Fareed mentions in his 45 minute conversation that past Israeli PMs, like Barak and Olmert, offered Palestinians a state that they were dead wrong not to take.  Because whatever deal future Palestinians could possibly get as they grow weaker and weaker, and more of the occupied lands are settled by Israelis, will only be worse.  So you could argue Israel used to be for at least accepting a Palestinian nation.  If not actual nation building.  As Fareed argues, I think the Netanyahu Doctrine was basically "nation denying."  The one thing Bibi and his right wing supporters could not tolerate was the idea of a Palestinian state. 

It's perhaps a stretch to argue, as Fareed does, that Bibi was essentially for "Hamas building." Because having them around as bad guys made it easier to suppress peaceful and moderate Palestinian voices.  But I agree with Fareed on that.  I lay the blame at the feet of Netanyahu.  I'm glad many Israelis do, too.

I don't think you can compare a 20 year nation building project in Afghanistan that promoted democracy, womens' rights, and economic development with the idea of systematically turning Gaza into an open air prison.  And then turning off their lights and water when they do something hawks in Israel don't like.  If your point is that Afghanistan was a 20 year failed effort, we agree.  If your point is that Americans spent 20 years of blood and treasure because we wanted revenge, plain and simple, I think you are just wrong.

There's one more complicated and ambiguous point Fareed makes that is vital.  As fucked up, and as predictably fucked up, as the Iraq invasion was, it's not like the withdrawal of US power in the Middle East has resulted in a utopian society anchored in tolerance and peace.  It created a power vacuum that is clearly being filled by bad players doing bad things.  So I don't think "it's just that America sucks, stupid" is a useful bumper sticker.  I was loud that America sucked for starting a war in Iraq.  I don't think America did or does suck for what we tried to do in Afghanistan.

As Biden said, explicitly, these are exactly the things Israelis should be debating and reflecting on if they want to avoid 20 more years of tragedy.  I hope they listen to him.

 

[stevenkesslar]

14 hours ago, Mavica said:

Less is more (effective).  💋

Okay love.  Here ya go.

Problem solved.  Piece of cake!  Thank God Israel listened to John and Yoko back when this was filmed.  And there has been nothing but love and peace between Israelis and Palestinians ever since.  I just fucking hate history and complexity.  Let alone ambiguity.  It's so unnecessary!

Any other global crisis we need to solve with a bumper sticker?  This was fun!

I'm free tomorrow.  Are you guys up for solving things between Vlad and Xi and Joe?  I have a few great bumper stickers in mind.  😉

 

[Latbear4blk]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Okay love.  Here ya go.

Problem solved.  Piece of cake!  Thank God Israel listened to John and Yoko back when this was filmed.  And there has been nothing but love and peace between Israelis and Palestinians ever since.  I just fucking hate history and complexity.  Let alone ambiguity.  It's so unnecessary!

Any other global crisis we need to solve with a bumper sticker?  This was fun!

I'm free tomorrow.  Are you guys up for solving things between Vlad and Xi and Joe?  I have a few great bumper stickers in mind.  😉

 

Okay, love. Of course we will not solve world crisis with a bumper sticker. Obviously, we will resolve them with long posts that no one reads. 🙄

[stevenkesslar]

30 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

Okay, love. Of course we will not solve world crisis with a bumper sticker. Obviously, we will resolve them with long posts that no one reads. 🙄

Excellent point.  While we're on the subject, I'd recommend staying away from magazines, too.  Too many essays.  And, at all costs, never buy a book.  If you do, you are in deep trouble.  😉

I actually do take this as a compliment.  The rise of Twitter and the rise of Trump coincided.  I don't think that was an accident.  The nicer way to say it is that social media is filled with misinformation, many lies, little fact checking, and a bounty of simplistic ideas that never hold up.  Example:  Trump won in 2020, and the Deep State is covering it up.  Nice bumper sticker that 1 in 3 Americans actually believe.  Which is why America is in deep trouble.  The nastier way to say it is that social media is all about hate, venom, and vitriol.  Thought?  Nope.  That's an afterthought on most social media.  Why would anyone read a book when they can simply know Trump won in 2020, for Christ's sake?

But, back to the deep trouble you are in, my love.  And since you won't read this, I won't worry about your feelings.

On 10/24/2023 at 6:07 PM, Latbear4blk said:

stevenkesslar, you should have sucked it up. 9/11 was a horrible day, but this time was the US's turn to have a horrible day after decades of US abussing, bombing and murdering other peoples. You should have taken the hit as a good loser. You should have improved your defenses as you did. You should have target the terrorists leaders and assets as you did. But you should have not invaded another country.

You lost me, and most of America, right out of the gate.  And since you perhaps don't care about reading polls and essays, I can take my time to go through the reality you don't want to admit.  Let alone debate. 

I was wrong when I said 88 % of Americans supported a military invasion of Afghanistan right after 9/11.  Another poll said 92 %.  Tell me something else really important that 92 % of Americans have ever agreed on?  Including who won the 2020 election? 

The question "what else?" was not asked.  But my guess is most of the other 8 %, and much of the rest of the world, supported legal mechanisms to seek justice, rather than military ones.  Perhaps you supported them as well, since you do state "target the terrorist leaders."  In truth, "suck it up" because the US bombs and murders people was not an option offered in any poll.  I'm guessing maybe 1 % of Americans would have chosen "suck it up and lose."  Bad news is you are at an extreme margin of the debate.  Good news is you don't seem to care.

The main value in debating the US 9/11 now is that Israel wants to insist it just had its own 9/11, and the world should be on its side.  Meanwhile, Biden wants Israel to avoid the mistakes the US made after 9/11.  So it is quite relevant. 

The same polls show that I am in the mainstream of Americans.  Most Americans, including me, view the invasion as a failure.  Most Americans thought at the outset it would be a hard fight, that would take a long time.  They were right.  2 in 3 Democrats, and a majority of Republicans, now say "the war was not worth fighting."  Now I may slippery, like Oily Obama and Both Ways Biden have been for decades on this issue.  But I am in that 2 in 3 Democrats.  I don't think the war was worth fighting, as it was actually fought. 

That said, I stand by what I said earlier.  I think invading Afghanistan to seek justice and prevent more terrorism was the right thing to do.  With 20/20 hindsight, we should have gotten out quicker, based on more limited and defined objectives.  I haven't seen any poll or focus group that really explores "what the fuck else were we supposed to do?"  I appreciate the fact that instead of misquoting me or attacking me, @Latbear4blk, you actually stated what else you think we should have done.  You think we should have "sucked it up" and been "good losers".  It's a fine opinion, which put you at a very marginal extreme.

There is a 0.00000000000000000000001 % chance that Israel will now "suck it up" and be a "good loser."  So this is a bit like the food fight between Cornel West and the Green Party.  Interesting.  But mostly it generates fodder for long articles (ugh!  I hate essays!)  about how The Left will never have power.  Because they sound like academics who would rather have purist debates among themselves.

My bumper sticker for the lesson to draw from Afghanistan is very simple and very Gay.

I know it is shitty to want to expand on a vague bumper sticker and explain why I think "there's no place like home" is actually good policy.  But now I will be a real shit.  I think the lesson is we fucked up by thinking we could make Afghanistan a home to US-style democracy.  And what many liberals like me view as basic decency.  Like don't be sexist pigs to women and girls.  What we learned is that many or even most Afghans liked their home the way it was.  The longer we stayed, the more they wanted us to get the fuck out.  This especially happened under Oily Obama, who was POTUS when most US and allied soldiers (and innocent Afghans) got killed in a hellish cornucopia of terror attacks, US counterterrorism operations, and warlord revenge bloodbaths.  Since we owned the warlords, arguably the US also owned what they did to their own people.  It's an important point.  Because if they did it before we came, or after we left, we didn't own it.

You being a well read guy, I am sure you would have connected the dots by now.  If you actually read shit.  The obvious lesson is we should give the Palestinians a home.  Period.  That is what they most want.  That is how to defuse the violence and terror over the long run.  The lesson of Afghanistan, and Israel, is don't feed the terrorists.  Because that is what they want.  That is why bin Laden killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, and Hamas went out of their way to behead Jewish babies.  But here's the tricky part.  While we can't feed them, we do have to kill them.  More on that later.  For this (ugh!) paragraph, I think the single most important long-run priority is figuring out how to get Palestinians the home they want.  Not figuring out what to do in Gaza.  Or how to kill Hamas terrorists.  Israel has it exactly wrong, unfortunately.  They think bombing the shit out of Gaza and Hamas is the priority.  And figuring out a political solution is an afterthought.  Or, for Bibi, a Palestinian home is just a bad idea not worth thinking about at all.

The other important lesson is that once the Palestinians have a home, they can behead as many Arab babies and kill as many of each other as they want.  And the US and Israel won't own it.  Realistically, I'm not too worried about Palestinians wanting to behead their own babies.  More realistically, though, a Palestinian government can also be as corrupt as they want.  Just like Kharzai and the various other Afghan leaders backed by the US were.  The US can instead spend money backing Ukrainians.  Who seem to want their own home, too.  And even a democracy.  We can try to force Ukrainians not to be corrupt.  Because it pisses US and European taxpayers off, who are sending them a fortune.  Did I mention polls show Ukrainians overwhelming love Americans, because we want to help them have a home that is democratic and mostly free of corruption?  But if Abbas And Friends want to behead Palestinian babies, be assholes, treat women and girls like shit, or just involve themselves in garden variety political corruption, who gives a shit?  Let them run their home as they wish. 

That is the lesson of Afghanistan and the West Bank.

Now, I've written many stupid paragraphs no one has read.  But a well read person might still have this nagging thought.  "But what the fuck do we actually do when they kill thousands of our people?  Is terror okay?  Should we just be good losers?  And then won't they just do it again?"

On 10/24/2023 at 3:09 PM, Marc in Calif said:

And by saying "What the fuck else were we supposed to do?" about 9/11, you unwittingly disclose your actual motivation -- and the motivation of the US government and the 88% of Americans who agreed with Bush & Cheney, Inc.

Sadly, a real debate about motivation and responding to terror would involve putting aside the idea that this can all be blamed on Bush and Cheney.  Not that I don't love blaming Bush and Cheney myself.  Especially for lying to the world about WMD and invading Iraq.  And we'd also have to set aside the quaint notion that 88 % of Americans are seemingly naive, stupid,  and hellbent on revenge.  And that they (or "we") should have known better. 

We would have to go into detail about Oily Obama and Both Ways Biden.  Both supported the invasion.  Which apparently makes them part of a horrible country brimming with naive and stupid people who are hellbent on revenge.  Yet, for some strange reason, most of the rest of the world likes them.  At least more than Trump.

Obama even started the Afghanistan surge.  Which is when most US and allied soldiers and innocent Afghans died.  VP Biden advised Obama against it, and lost the debate. Biden wanted to gradually withdraw and focus on counterterrorism.  Which seems like what most naive and stupid Americans currently want.  But people still dislike POTUS Biden for being a "good loser", because of the way he carried out Trump's withdrawal deal with the Taliban.  Which suggests that there is no way to actually be a "good loser."  Because it just makes you very unpopular.  Which is of course why I don't read essays, books, or polls.  It's just way too fucking complicated!

Obama did actually define some objectives that hold very clear lessons for Israel today.  (Spoiler alert:  "revenge" was never a stated objective of Bush, Obama, or Biden.)  Obama ran for President based on the bumper sticker, "This is a war we have to win." Americans being naive and stupid, they elected this guy in a landslide in 2008.  And lest we naively think his agenda was "revenge," he did clearly lay out objectives for the surge:

Quote

In his announcement, Obama laid out three primary objectives that the United States would pursue in Afghanistan: 1) “deny al Qaeda a safe haven;” 2) “reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government;” and 3) “strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government.”

Take out the words "al Qaeda" and "Taliban" and replace them with "Hamas" or "Palestinian," and the lessons for Israel are right there in black and white.  Of course, who in their right mind would read an essay, and think about such things? Israel wants to deny Hamas a safe haven.  But they can't, and won't.  What they do to try to eradicate Hamas will almost certainly add to the momentum of Palestinians who think Israel sucks.  This is what Hamas wants.  Just like Obama's surge added momentum to the Taliban and opponents of the corrupt government the US backed.  And added momentum to the idea that we should kill US and allied soldiers who are occupying our home.

There's another idea that was never even tried, that is worth a mention:  permanent occupation.   McCain argued we should just occupy these places like Afghanistan or Iraq for 100 years.  Or however long it takes.  I feel like a shit for comparing McCain to Netanyahu.  I admired McCain, mostly.  And I mostly despise Bibi.  But the US happily didn't even want to try to occupy Afghanistan or Iraq for 100 years.  So maybe Americans have actually figured out something all the Israelis who back Bibi need to eventually learn.

Both Ways Biden has been all over the map, both on Afghanistan and Iraq.  That said, I think he has been consistently less wrong than Bush 43, Cheney, and also Oily Obama on this issue.  I think if you had put Bush 41, Colin Powell, and Both Ways Biden in a room, they would probably have quickly agreed that the Powell Doctrine makes a lot of sense.  And tended to work well, like in the first Gulf War under Bush 41.  "We"  (the US and many global allies) had defined objectives that were winnable.  Like, "don't eat other countries."  And we won.

Arguably, we could have done the same in Afghanistan.  Or at least tried.  Here is a long and well written (ugh!) defense of Biden's doctrine of counterterrorism.

Quote

Moreover, there are three main reasons that the President should have narrowed US objectives in Afghanistan to counterterrorism, rather than stabilization. First, as the administration was no doubt aware, the United States had already expanded the use of drone operations to kill Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the policy was showing signs of success. The United States killed so many top-level operatives that it was hard for Al Qaeda to replace them.[xi] Second, the presence of US troops in Afghanistan had spurred more terrorism, not less. According to Robert Pape who studied the motivation of suicide terrorists and tracked attacks in Afghanistan, “The picture is clear: the more Western troops we have sent to Afghanistan, the more the local residents have viewed themselves as under foreign occupation, leading to a rise in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks.”[xii] Perhaps just as important, the presence of US troops made the United States, rather than rival warlords and tribes, the target of terrorism and insurgency. Without this motivation, terrorist groups would have little if any incentive to plan attacks on the US homeland. Third, the worst case scenario—where the Karzai government fell and the Taliban returned to power—posed at most a marginal threat to the United States. Even a rejuvenated Taliban would be unlikely to once again give sanctuary to Al Qaeda, and, if it did, Al Qaeda would have difficulty planning another operation from Afghanistan with the United States now adequately alert.[xiii] Worries that the Taliban would support extremists in Pakistan were similarly overblown.

The evidence suggests that counterterrorism is a pretty good strategy.  It's been over 20 years since 9/11.  And we haven't had another 9/11, or anything even close.  (School shootings don't count.)  The Taliban doesn't seem to be itching to blow up more US cities, kill more Americans, or go through 20 more years of running from US soldiers and targeted assassinations.  Which mostly left the assholes dead or in prison.  Or feeding fish at the bottom of an ocean.

23 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

More important is the fact that Al Qaeda and its family of Salafi-jihadi groups have increased their influence throughout the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa, Central Africa, and East Africa.

You don't want to debate complicated ideas, rather than anti-Cheney slogans.  Which is fine.  But the question a statement like this begs is:  "What the fuck should we do, then?"  I agree with Fareed that since terrorists kill lots of innocent people in horrific ways because they want us to react, the first thing we should do is think hard about how to react.  But anyone who thinks most Americans or Israelis like to be "good losers" to terrorists is being both extreme, and naive.  

The evidence suggests that for the US, and our military, counterterrorism has worked pretty well.  Outside of the tortured history of Afghanistan and Iraq, US soldiers tend to kill assholes, rather than be killed by them.  It has stopped anything like our 9/11 or Israel's 9/11.  Palestinian Americans are not plotting on how to behead Christian babies.  There is no evidence the Taliban, which is back in the saddle, has either the capacity or will to blow up US cities or kill lots of Americans.  They would rather have their own home, so they can fuck it up just the way they want.

If we are going for a political center, rather than an extreme, I think Biden was right.  Obama won in a landslide in 2008.  That would have been the best moment I can think of to flip flop, which they both have done a lot anyway, and get the fuck out.  There is no political way Bush 43 could withdraw from Afghanstan after being the POTUS that got us in.  Had Obama listened to Biden, it would have prevented most of the deaths of US soldiers, allies, and innocent Afghans.  Obama would have taken a big political hit, like Biden did in 2021, for being the "good loser" who let the Taliban back in on his watch.  But I personally think the policy of counterterrorism has been pretty effective to date, both in the US and Israel.

For a well read guy, the implications for Israel seem pretty clear.  Let Palestinians have the home they want.  Most of them won't kill Jews.  If they end up being corrupt, or inept, and fuck up their home, let them.  But it means Israel, like the US, is going to have to be very good at counterterrorism.  Which, happily, Israel tends to be very good at.  Until Netanyahu fucked it up with his stupid and counterproductive "Hamas building" strategy.

There.  No more nation building.  Except for the Palestinians.  Problem solved.  Next?

I'm so glad nobody read this.  Because I really enjoyed researching and writing it.  🙄

 

[Marc in Calif]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

Excellent point.  While we're on the subject, I'd recommend staying away from magazines, too.  Too many essays.  And, at all costs, never buy a book.  If you do, you are in deep trouble.  😉

I actually do take this as a compliment....

I'm so glad nobody read this.  Because I really enjoyed researching and writing it.  🙄

The hubris of equating yourself with professional nonfiction writers and magazine staffs is hilarious but not unexpected.

The most significant differerence is that they are experts in shaping and organizing long-form writing. They structure their essays into sections labeled with headings and subheadings. They know how to introduce a topic and then conclude it. Their sections build on one another. And they usually have fact checkers; adding links isn't sufficient. 

This makes it easy for readers to figure out where and what to read. It makes it easy to skip to another section and then come back to read previous portions of the text. 

You don't do any of these things. But I doubt that you'll change the way you present information. It's much too easy to just do stream of consciousness with no outline or even plan -- at least that's how it appears when long, unbroken blocks of text face a reader. 

Maybe someday you won't have to add a snarky comment and emoji like this:

"I'm so glad nobody read this.  Because I really enjoyed researching and writing it.  🙄"

[Pete1111]

On 10/14/2023 at 1:32 PM, JKane said:

Torn on this, Israel was going ever more to the right, more settlers, more oppression, no sign it might ever get better, I can understand seeing no other option than something violent.  If this topples Netanyahu maybe it did accomplish something...?  

But the atrocities committed by Hamas will have the effect of making everything so very much worse for Palestinians.  And Hamas doesn't care.  In fact their hope is for unchecked atrocities to be returned in kind.  Keep the cycle going, more grist for the mill.  

The welfare of Palestinians is not a priority for Iran.  Iran wants to stir the pot in Gaza and Lebanon.  They help keep the cycle going.

Regarding Netanyahu, it seems Israelis blame him.  Can anyone be surprised how it looks, that a corrupt leader willing to diminish democracy and enrich himself may have taken his eye off the ball?

[stevenkesslar]

On 10/26/2023 at 5:26 PM, stevenkesslar said:

I'm so glad nobody read this.  Because I really enjoyed researching and writing it.  🙄

 

On 10/26/2023 at 5:53 PM, Marc in Calif said:

The hubris of equating yourself with professional nonfiction writers and magazine staffs is hilarious but not unexpected.

Point taken about succinct writing.

Another advantage of succinct writing is, in theory, it makes it more challenging for people to put words in my mouth.  Or misquote me.  Because you've done it repeatedly.

The main misquote that was just weird was suggesting that I had a "revenge" agenda about 9/11 - your word, not mine.  You implied that almost all Americans, presumably including Obama and Biden, shared this naive revenge agenda, which is lacking in an awareness of history.  So you completely misread what I said about that.  I think because you wanted to go after what something like 90 % of Americans believed at the time, and for years after.  Including Obama and Biden. Although I think you tried to lay the naive thinking at the foot  of Bush and Cheney, inaccurately.  Obama was elected in 2008 promising to "win" the war.  And he okayed the surge that exploded the count of dead soldiers and innocent Afghans.   @Latbear4blk holds a similar opinion, which is that the US should have sucked it up and been a "good loser."  Good for you guys for expressing yourselves, succinctly.

You've now misquoted me again by laughing at words you put in my mouth.  Namely, that I'm equating myself with professional nonfiction writers.  I have written essays that have been published.  And I've been quoted in papers and books and interviewed on TV a lot.  So I know how to speak on camera and edit myself.  You're correct that I don't put the time into editing myself in online posts like I do when I have an editor publishing something I write.

Excellent Article by Steven Kesslar on Rentboy Shutdown

My point here was completely different.  And you didn't get it.  Because for whatever reason it seems like you'd rather "laugh" at me, to use your word.   The day I wrote that post I did spend most of the day reading long wall of text essays on the US invasion of Afghanistan.  And especially the surge.  I was curious what analysts years later are saying now about what worked, and what failed.  My post was shorter and no more stream of consciousness than much of what I read.  Some of which I quoted from.  The long essays I read were all dry, somewhat boring, and very informative. 

Your point is that you'd like to debate, but not read essays.  Which is fine.  But I stand by what I said.  I liked researching it, and writing it.  That doesn't make me a professional writer.  At least in this instance.  It does make me someone interested in learning things I don't know.  

But I'll repeat that I'm glad you challenged me.  In my mind, that's a big part of the point.  Especially right now, people really need to have their minds and hearts challenged.

Speaking of which, I thought about your point about "revenge" when I read this awful thought, in an awful essay with the awful headline, "Why Israel must destroy Hamas."

Quote

To Mr. Friedman I would pose the following question: How many Jewish civilians does Hamas need to torture and murder to justify its full destruction? Is it 10,000 Jews? A million Jews? Six million Jews? Is there any number which would justify Israel’s complete destruction of Hamas in self-defense?

He's referring to Friedman's excellent essay against an invasion, which I posted above. Friedman made a whole bunch of thoughtful points about how an invasion will make things worse.  Including for Israel.  This right winger only has one argument:  the only thing that matters is destroying Hamas.  Period.  

I think that quote is a perfect example of the kind of mindless "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" revenge I think you may have been referring to in your post above. We agree way more than we disagree.  And I certainly agree with you on that.

I didn't feel driven by a need for revenge after 9/11.  I think most Americans felt driven by a need to deter more horrific terrorist attacks on US soil.   And that motivation has actually worked out well.  I think Israelis appropriately feel the same way.  But I hope Israel isn't driven by revenge now. 

We all know one important fact.  Which is that the body count of dead Palestinians is always way more than the body count of dead Israelis.  That's always been true.  And it is already true, yet again, in Gaza - even before an IDF invasion started. If you take out the word "Jewish" and replace it with "Palestinian" or "Arab" in that quote,  exactly the same logic of revenge could be and just was used to rationalize the very sick idea Hamas has that we must destroy Israel.  

So I commend you for making the point that "revenge" should not be the motivation.  Because it will simply feed the terrorists, and continue the violence.

[stevenkesslar]

The Biden coalition risks a damaging break over the US role in Israel’s response in Gaza

Here's a good reason for liberals and progressives to try to avoid sniping based on standards of moral purity.  It may get Trump elected in 2024.  (Anybody remember how Nixon won in 1968?)  Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good.  😵

Biden's approval rating among Democrats dropped 11 points in one month.  I was hoping that an economy that we just learned is growing at an annual rate of 6 % actually might put some luster on Bidenomics.  But I suspect Axios is right that this is about Biden and Israel and Arab Americans.  Not to mention liberal Jews.  And young people who empathize with an occupied and oppressed people.

Quote

The bottom line: Many Muslim and Arab Americans who consider themselves loyal Democratic voters have expressed a sense of betrayal over Biden's support for the Israeli military campaign.

• "Joe Biden has single-handedly alienated almost every Arab American and Muslim American voter in Michigan," Democratic state Rep. Alabas Farhat told NBC News last week.

The good news is that most Americans, including a majority of Republicans, seem to favor a ceasefire.

 

The bad news is Biden doesn't get it.  As a Democrat, who is neither Arab American nor young, this is just painful.  I voted for Sanders in the 2020 California primary.  I did that knowing Sanders would lose the primary, hoping that Biden would beat Trump, and wanting to signal a desire to go left to Joe.  Biden mostly got that message, I think.  And I'm still a Democrat who approves of him.  But this reminds me of all the reasons I voted for Sanders.  Like, in particular, how Biden backed the Iraq War, even though he wanted to have it both ways.

If I believe the common themes in countless articles I've read, Biden has:  1) slowed the invasion of Gaza right wing Israelis want down, 2) elevated humanitarian measures and aid for Palestinians, and 3) focused on measures to deter escalation into a regional war.  So the verdict is out.  But Trump's 40 % + will vote for him passionately, no questions asked and no facts necessary.  So if Biden is discouraging a lot of his 40 % from even wanting to vote for him, this is bad news for Democrats.

This is also bad news for Israeli and Jewish American hawks.  Every poll shows that the vast majority of Americans empathize with Israel.  And view Hamas as a terrorist organization that needs to be deterred.   But this poll further reinforces that Israel has lost a pro-Israel US majority, even among Republicans, when it comes to right wing horror stories about doing "whatever it takes" to destroy Hamas.

[unicorn]

5 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

... Can anyone be surprised how it looks, that a corrupt leader willing to diminish democracy and enrich himself may have taken his eye off the ball?

I've been as surprised by the popularity of BN as of DT. I mean, even if one were to agree with his policies, how can one support someone so completely lacking of any moral fiber or character? One so completely bereft of any sense of honesty or trustworthiness?

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

I mean, even if one were to agree with his policies

I'll slip this in, succinctly.  It surprised me.

Israeli Poll Finds 49% Support Holding Off on Gaza Ground Offensive

Nearly half of all respondents believe Israel should wait with its ground operation in Gaza, while just over a quarter believe the IDF should embark on the offensive immediately.

 

If you read the whole article, the context is 65 % of Israelis supported an immediate ground offensive when asked by the same pollster on Oct. 19.   I don't think Israelis read my post and decided to give peace a chance.  😉  The big shift is short-term thinking about hostages.

The article states that 50 hostages have been killed "in Israeli strikes on Gaza." Presumably bombing of Hamas tunnels where the hostages were being kept.  I'm guessing Hamas thought that one through in advance.

Biden can't run on age.  So he has to run on wisdom.  We'll see.  If Sanders were POTUS and he forcefully demanded Israel agree to a ceasefire, I doubt Netanyahu or most leaders would listen to him.  I'm hoping Biden is being slippery, knowing that he can't tell Americans, let alone Israelis, what to do.  And they may listen to him more if they feel he is on their side.  Every account I've read states the Biden White House is not telling Israel what it can or can not do.  We'll see.  But Biden has been clear for a long time he is not a fan of Bibi's policies.

 

 

[lookin]

Although it's not surprising, the thing that distresses me is the willingness of so many to put millions of folks in one basket, labelled the 'other', and treat them as objects rather than human beings.

We say 'Palestinians' and don't distinguish between zealots who murder Israelis indiscriminately and fathers who are searching for their children in the rubble.

We say Israelis and don't distinguish between IDF forces who drop bombs on apartment buildings and protesters who are out in the streets calling for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid.

A few weeks ago, I was filled with admiration for the Israeli citizens who were protesting Netanyahu's anti-democratic actions.  Many of them are still there, but their voices have been lessened and confused with other Israelis who want to see Gaza obliterated by Israeli hawks.  I hope the compassionate Israelis survive this terrible time and grow even stronger.

Across many parts of the world, I think we're watching authoritarian followers in action as they let their fear of the 'other' take over their lives and cause them to see other human beings as worthless.  Never mind that all major religions, including the ones they follow, are based on love and compassion.

About the only generalization I'll make is that people who kill civilians are murderers.  I don't care where they live, what religion they follow, or what their genetic heritage is.  They're murderers and I won't support them.

[stevenkesslar]

4 hours ago, lookin said:

Across many parts of the world, I think we're watching authoritarian followers in action as they let their fear of the 'other' take over their lives and cause them to see other human beings as worthless.  Never mind that all major religions, including the ones they follow, are based on love and compassion.

Thanks, as always, @lookin, for setting a thoughtful and compassionate tone.

The Left Is Tearing Itself Apart Over Israel

Pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian liberal factions now divided as ugly accusations fly in both directions

That article explores the potential problems for Biden 2024 more deeply.  An interesting, and I think true, quote:

Quote

“It really is, I think, a battle for the soul of our party,” says Joe Vogel, a Maryland state delegate who is seeking the open congressional seat to be vacated by Democratic Rep. David Trone.  “It shouldn’t be that hard to condemn the murder of innocent women and children and seniors, yet many have either said nothing or equivocated,” Vogel said. “We have a serious problem in our party right now.”

In context, he is talking about the horrific murder of Jewish women and kids by terrorists.  But obviously people opposed to the IDF bombing free for all feel the same way about Palestinians women and kids.  

I think the intensity is manifesting itself here.  I was really surprised to be challenged so hard for something that up to 92 % of Americans agreed on after 9/11.  That was for sure the moment of greatest US national unity in my lifetime.  Now we have the opposite.  Deep division, even within the same political parties.

This can't help Biden politically.  The only positive thing I can think is it ups the stakes for peace, at least among Democrats.  in the long term, the only way to win a war that neither side can win, politically or militarily, is to not fight a war.  And instead fight for peace.  

What's interesting is that neither Republicans nor Independents are the oasis where people turned off by Democratic peaceniks can go.  Strong majorities of them favor a ceasefire, too.  Killing a lot more innocent women and kids, on either side, probably isn't going to change that.

 

[KeepItReal]

59 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Thanks, as always, @lookin, for setting a thoughtful and compassionate tone.

The Left Is Tearing Itself Apart Over Israel

Pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian liberal factions now divided as ugly accusations fly in both directions

That article explores the potential problems for Biden 2024 more deeply.  An interesting, and I think true, quote:

In context, he is talking about the horrific murder of Jewish women and kids by terrorists.  But obviously people opposed to the IDF bombing free for all feel the same way about Palestinians women and kids.  

I think the intensity is manifesting itself here.  I was really surprised to be challenged so hard for something that up to 92 % of Americans agreed on after 9/11.  That was for sure the moment of greatest US national unity in my lifetime.  Now we have the opposite.  Deep division, even within the same political parties.

This can't help Biden politically.  The only positive thing I can think is it ups the stakes for peace, at least among Democrats.  in the long term, the only way to win a war that neither side can win, politically or militarily, is to not fight a war.  And instead fight for peace.  

What's interesting is that neither Republicans nor Independents are the oasis where people turned off by Democratic peaceniks can go.  Strong majorities of them favor a ceasefire, too.  Killing a lot more innocent women and kids, on either side, probably isn't going to change that.

 

There is so much noise coming from all across the opinion spectrum, it is hard to draw conclusions, never mind take a position.  I can both sympathize and criticise aspects on all sides - and there are many sides with many stakeholders. It is the proverbial "barrel of fish hooks". Approach with caution. ⚠️

[Pete1111]

48 minutes ago, KeepItReal said:

There is so much noise coming from all across the opinion spectrum, it is hard to draw conclusions, never mind take a position.  I can both sympathize and criticise aspects on all sides - and there are many sides with many stakeholders. It is the proverbial "barrel of fish hooks". Approach with caution. ⚠️

That's a good point, especially in these modern times when so many  are gathering their political ideas from TikTok.

[vinapu]

1 hour ago, Pete1111 said:

That's a good point, especially in these modern times when so many  are gathering their political ideas from TikTok.

nothing wrong with that, when we were young we got our political ideas from barbers and taxi drivers.