Bush didn’t care. Dude was an asshole. He tried to drum up support with our allies, and when most of them said no, he just did it anyway.

That said, it was a mistake to warmonger, don’t get me wrong.

I don’t think the invasion of Iraq can be blamed on the NYT. I think the Bush administration and Al Qaeda get the credit for that one.

However much is necessary to arrive at the truth.

Nobody and no system should be expected to be perfect all the time, I would anticipate some mistakes over a course of decades.

Have you checked for any times they were critical of US foreign policy within the same timeframe?

“Consistently” and “in-these-specific-cases” are different things.

it has the resources and will to outlast the West.

Yeah, they have sorely underestimated how entertaining dumb internet arguments can be.

Militaristic? Check. Hyper-patriotism? Check. Heavy focus on discrimination against out-groups? Check. Totalitarian power structure? Check. Subjugating citizens for the greater good of the state? Check.

By golly, I think he’s right.

Good thing we’re on a service fighting back against algorithmic control in the service of greater profits, where more nuanced takes are not buried by algorithm-served emotional sound-bites.

It’s a legit argument. Though I would counter by saying it was hamas’ goal to further strengthen the right-leaning elements in Israeli society, and it was successful in that regard.

Netanyahu was in a very ugly position, and it was looking like he might finally be succumbing to his own corruption, which would open things up for his leftist opposition. The leftist opposition wanted peace, while Palestinian militants did not want peace, they wanted a continuation of violence. The best way to secure the continuation of violence and halt any peace progress was to empower the Israeli far-right towards ultra-violence, to further inflame the whole region towards a future of war.

So that’s what they did, to wild success.

Regardless, blaming all of Israel is unproductive. The real blame should fall on the Israeli Netanyahu government, and far-right settler movement.

Before Netanyahu took over, the Israeli military was evicting their own settlers, which Netanyahu put a stop to, if memory serves:

https://youtu.be/ZSGjBr_c_QM

Pandaplomacy is absolutely a thing. That said, much like in the Cold War, it’s good for nuclear superpowers with big armies to have a certain degree of open communication and, if not warm, at least cordial relations. Helps defuse potential problems early, before they turn into news articles.

So, I welcome the move on that basis alone.

On top of that, the move does have symbolic power, as the panda occupies a similar place in China as bald eagles do here in the US. Anything that warms feelings between Chinese and American citizens themselves is probably a good thing.

I don’t think he knows what the word “directly” means…

Which is why diplomatic tools should be attempted first, then escalation to economic tools. Military deterrence is too big a jump, currently.

I agree, it’s a very big deal. I never said it was nothing and we shouldn’t respond. I said we should respond in kind, as we can.

I merely draw a distinction between these kinds of attacks, and the actual invasions of places like Gaza or Ukraine. Information warfare has a culpable deniability to it, similar to espionage, that makes it inherently harder to tackle.

It’s just not so simple as bomb the people that fuck with us or something like that. That would not fix the problem. It’s trickier.

Fair arguments. I would say, though, that none of these rise to the level of military hostility, they’re still forms of economic and social contest, with a healthy dose of espionage. Thus, we can respond in kind. This will not prevent their rise, nor the return of some kind of Cold War mentality. But it will still allow us to protect ourselves as an alternative to authoritarianism, which is what is most important.

Nothing wrong with self defense, or defense of ones allies, or responding to subtle hostilities with other subtle hostilities. The key is to understand how different these are from outright, full-blown warfare, and to maintain that distinction for the sake of planetary stability and not all dying in a hot war, potentially going a little extra-hot.

The trickiest part is the information warfare, since we can’t always respond in a similar way due to intense authoritarian controls of their local information spaces. We’re largely on the defense in that arena, though we should counter as best we can while we build up our own defenses. Economic counters like Trump’s trade war are an option, but need to be more carefully calculated at strategic “chokepoints” than just broadly slapping down a bunch of tariffs and calling it a day. The microchip restrictions were a good move in this direction.

An important thing to remember is we can’t control everything. There is zero possibility of success for a ground invasion of the Chinese mainland, for instance, so we do need to work within what is realistic and able to be accomplished.

In India’s case, I think careful diplomacy can still accomplish our goals to the satisfaction of both parties. I would expect any rising power to “test the waters”, so to speak, they’re not supposed to just cower before our might or something. But we can handle this in a more civil manner, so far.

edit: Didn’t expect the complex middle-ground position to be popular, but nobody wants to actually respond?

Dammit, you’re right. What’s most important in life is what feels good. Feelings are the most important thing, not facts or evidence. Of course, how silly of me.

Why do so many people struggle with the difference between reality and fiction? It’s mind-boggling how powerful syncretism has become.

To be fair, a multipolar world is fine. It’s not in our, or anyone else’s really, interests to try to dictate to other overseas peoples how they should structure their lives and governments. We did give it a shot, make no mistake, but it doesn’t tend to work out all that well.

We have no ability to stop the rise of places like China and India though, so fine, rise. We’ll only run into problems if this whole “spheres of influence” thing makes them think they can attack someone we have a security treaty with. That would be a problem.

You want to use economic or social power instead of military power though? Try to convince people instead of force them at gunpoint? Fine. No big deal. These methods honor their freedom. That’s a multipolar world we can work with.

Did hammer manufacturers add little pillows to the heads so they didn’t accidentally hurt someone? Of course not. They must trust users not to do mischief with their product.

Oh don’t give us that blatant bullshit meant to fool the old people. We’re the internet generations, we know full fucking well exactly why anonymous internet behavior is so much worse than real life behavior, and the kinds of harm it can do.

Fucking laughable.

That said, the chatbot idea is great. lol

Tucker is our most famous right-winger. That’s basically it. He can say whatever the hell he wants, due to our first amendment, which protects both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This includes a freedom to willfully lie, unfortunately, unless one has been placed under oath.

That Banksy quote really is just utterly and thoroughly fantastic.

Sounds like a fantastic option for folks that don’t like any mandatorily enforced censorship.

They should all go there.