I agree with this take completely. The parent comment just seemed to encourage senseless retribution without nuance, which is what I tried to voice my opposition to.

Is it? I'm not saying it's likely, but for the sake of argument let's say Netanyahu is voted out and a new Israeli government takes power that says, "We are tired of endless violence. We will remove all settlements, checkpoints, etc, and respect a two state solution with Palestinian sovereignty over the agreed upon Palestinian land." Would that not be the goal, the ideal? Or would you throw that away by trying to get back at Netanyahu and all the horrible people who have committed these crimes. Maybe I'm naïve, but you can't say that at least the aspiration should be peace. Whether that's possible without something happening to the perpetrators of violence is another question, but the retribution shouldn't be the end goal and aspiration, peace should be.

There can be no sustainable peace with constant retribution, I think that's the core thing going through this conflict this last century. For example, Israel wanted "justice" for the October 7th attacks. Did that lead to a better outcome for humanity and people living in the area? No, only more war and suffering. More war, bloodshed, and retribution is not the answer, we need to break the cycle of violence.

No, let us hope peace comes to the region and the endless cycle of bloodshed ends. That may include justice for the people responsible, but our main aspiration should be peace and prosperity, not retribution.

Is it okay to bomb economic infrastructure of a sovereign nation because it doesn't treat its women with respect? Because that's a little ironic coming from an American.

Ok, there are two apartheid genocidal regimes, but what else have the Romans ever done for us?

I really hope this is gonna be a landslide election and it's possible for the Dems to take a page out of Waltz' book and pass a whole bunch of meaningful legislation, which will help carry on support for the Dems next election as well. But oh well, I might be too optimistic.

Did you not read the post, idiot? She's a woman.

This decision really raises my opinion of Biden so much. God damn do I love that man, he is truly a great person who dedicated his life to serve his country, literally. He honestly had a great term given the circumstances, and the only thing he probably should have done differently is to not run for reelection to begin with. But he seemed to genuinely believe he could win and stave off Trump. Now that that seemed impossible, he makes a very courageous decision that a lot of people probably wouldn't have made and puts the country ahead of his ego. Lots of respect from me, and I hope this reinvigorates the democratic base and makes the future brighter for all of us.

Is there not some unconstitutionality in making the language of a bill so restricted that it's clearly aimed at a single person?

As someone who does know about this field, and absolute despise Musk, that's not quite true. SpaceX is very successful thanks to help from the US government, and despite the influence of Musk, but also because they are a team of very competent people who have actually innovated and pushed the boundaries of launch vehicles. To say they have nothing going for them and are being propped up by the government is not at all accurate, and they have been much more succesful than traditional government contractors.

Thanks Bill, what a guy.