u/filipinoboy11

Trump Truth Social post: "I settled 8 WARS, am close to ending or settling 2 more, got all of the Israeli hostages back, including the final 28, both living and dead, had hundreds of hostages, from countries all over the World, released and sent back home, won a war in Venezuela, and captured the violent dictator who so viciously ran that country, and stopped the number one state sponsor of terror, the Islamic Republic of Iran, from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon — AND MUCH MORE! Yet, with all of that I, or the United States of America, did not get the Noble Peace Prize. WOW!"

Lol. I swear he is still on this. I dont know what the obsession is.

I just wanted to point out the difference here between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both withdrawals had a set date in mind if I remember correctly it was September 11 for Afghanistan and both withdrawals had plenty of time to prepare to leave.

During Bidens run it seemed like nothing was done for preparation and it seemed like the plan was not to start withdrawing until September 11. I mean the embassy still had a full staff. If your withdrawing you would expect them to be at least on half staff the months before. Not to mention all of the gear left around.

In Iraq you had an active war going on. Multiple militias aligned to Iran who want to kill US soldiers and everything went of without a hitch. The US troops were able to leave honorably without raising too much of a fuss.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iran-grants-permission-number-iraqi-oil-tankers-pass-through-hormuz-2026-08-22/

On the one hand this signifies closer ties between Iran and Iraq however the Iraqis do need a break. More than Iran Iraq has suffered economically in this war.

Pre War Iraq used to send 4 million barrels of oil per day.

Before I begin I have a riddle for you. How can you occupy a land when there was no state there before?

In any case it really doesnt have anything to do with the reason why we support Israel. To be honest this stems from our general view of foreign policy and the place of the US in the world.

Essentially if you think that the US should be the global empire then you would necessarily want the strongest states to be your allies that are still willing to be subservient to you. If you believe that the US empire is a bad thing and are willing to cede control to China then you have other priorities.

In some cases in the world you can find a middle groung but in some cases you really just have to go with one side or the other. US v China. North v South Korea. India v Pakistan. Israel v Palestine. Peace is not going to happen between both sides so you back your ally and marginalize the other one.

If your thinking from an imperialist perspective theres really not much to discuss. Israel has the superior intelligence arm, army, and airforce. Alongside Russia and Ukraine they are one of the three armies in the world that know what they are doing with drones. And no im not talking about just blowing stuff up. Im talking recon, risk mitigation, target aquisition. China recently debuted a mixed commando robot dog team where the robot dog took most of the risks. Israel has had that for years. Of course I do acknowledge most of that was developed in Gaza and the West Bank. After all you only really know what your missing while your fighting.

I think the major misconception is Israel will collapse without US support. That hasnt been true in a while. All that will happen is they will move to the Chinese sphere of influence and once the big war with China comes we will have to fight them as well.

Historically speaking Israel wasnt even supposed to be a US ally. Due to its initial kibbutsim configuration it was thought that it would be under the Soviet sphere of influence. Which is why the US didnt even supply it with weapons in 48. In the Suez crisis Israel was actually aligned with Britain and France against the US. In fact the relationship only solidified when Israel was the only US proxy winning conflicts vs soviet arms in the cold war.

Israel is called "settler colony" by most of its detractors and thats to emphhasis that like French Algeirs if things got to hot Israelis can always retreat to Europe which is their "actual" home country leaving the land to the palestinians. Thats not true either. At least half of Israelis are of arab descent and most european ones have been there so long they no longer have any connection to their homeland.

The Palestinians on the other hand... Well they did start of relatively equal to Israel. They had almost the same GDP arms etc, they even had the entire region as their allies. Even if the US were to give them a state now it would most likely be a basket case like Lebanon so from a power perspective theres no value in an alliance with them. You cant even say they will bring the other arab countries with them as in truth most arab countries are annoyed at the Palestinians as well.

Also I would also like to add there has been this warning that we cant go after Iran because they would destroy all gulf infrastructure. What do you think the Israelis will do if cornered? They ran just as many sorties as us against Iran.

So there you have it on the one side you get a technologically advanced ally on the other side you get the Palestinians.

If its alright with everyone id like to split off Israel from this and discuss it in a later topic as I feel like if Israel is part of it it will be the only thing discussed.

If I were to simplify the position of DSA in this field it could be summed up into two things. First that the US empire should end and as a collorary to that the US should stop acting like the first of equals and instead join more multilateral organizations and bind itself to international law.

First of I dont necessarily have a problem with international treaties. If you think everyone to the right of DSA is Hitler well even he had international pacts with Japan and Italy and honored them for the most part. If anything its Japan who did not honor it by not declaring war on Russia.

The problem with the current international treaties is that it tries to bind you to things you did not agree to. Take the recent Iran deal. Iran agreed to get 300 bn in funds and to charge after 60 days. Trump says they agreed to open the straits but not the benefits. Take Oslo. Everyone says Israel agreed to give the Palestinians a state. When in reality all Oslo said is there would be negotiations. Take the JCPOA. Everyone thought it would be as binding as treaty when in reality every GOP president said they would leave it. Take even the Geneva Conventions. The US or Israel did not agree to the additional protocols but all of a sudden they are bound by it if the opponents agree to it.

People and nation states agree to what they agree to. The problem with international law is it constantly insists that you agreed to things you didnt. If were being honest if advocates of international law stopped trying to expand it to force nation states to bend to their will fewer people would have a problem with it.

On to the bigger thing which is the American Empire. Well discuss the benefits of Empire later on but first of lets talk about the aftermath. The DSA types seem to believe that there will be this multipolar utopia after the US empire breaks down where every nation is independent.

That is not true. After the US empire there will either be another empire in China or more likely a bi polar world with China and the US heading 2 co equal empires. Thats how it always happens historically. Rome did descend into the dark ages right away. First it split into Eastern and Western empires and then into multiple power centers in the dark ages. I would actually argue multiple co equal states is even more dangerous as that is what encourages wars since multiple states beleive they can win and start wars.

Be that as it may why should the US empire be preserved? In my opinion and I know many people will disagree with this is the anglo-saxon empires actually have a unique characteristic in that they constantly do altruistic things that empires in the past wouldnt have done.

The UK ended the trans atlantic slave trade. That was a major harm to its economy. It could have just looked the other way and moved on. The US protects international shipping for free. In the past this would never have happened. If you were a Spanish merchant you recieved protection from the Spanish Navy. If an English Ship saw you raided by pirates they would probably laugh at you. In exchange the Spanish merchant pays the Navy in the form of taxes etc. None of the thousands of ships transiting the world pay the US anything. That act alone massively drives down the cost for everyone. Theres no guarantee that future empires would do this.

Does the US act for itself and make other countries act to its benefit? Sure. But I contend any empire would do that. With the US you at least get some benefits to go along with it.

I feel like this should be a big deal but isnt? Ive been told by anti war media that UAE is not being attacked as they are paying Iran off by delivering gold and frozen assets yet they are now cutting off trade?

How much trade can they do if the ports are blockaded?

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/2026-08-16/ty-article-magazine/.premium/once-rejecting-israeli-citizenship-golan-druze-are-now-getting-ready-to-vote/000001a0-0a64-d88f-abbf-deedb15f0000

some good news from Israel. As most of you know the apartheid regime does not let the people from occupied territories vote. However for the first time in this election the formerly Syrian Druze from the Golan Heights have elected to take Israeli citizenship and will be voting this election!

It seems like they were targeted by Hezbollah in some attacks which changed their mind. Of course no proof was presented that these werent false flag attacks from Israel.

I think its fair to say that no matter where you are on the DSA spectrum you would like everyone to be tougher on the police and the sentencing to be more lax and focused on rehabilitation. Id imagine you would also like nicer facilities for criminals in jail etc.

Theres this phrase among progressives "Progressive except for Palestine". It generally means you have progressive principles except for Palestine because it becomes harder. Theres also another phrase the DSA wont acknowledge "Pro worker but for Police"

In a regular workplace the DSA would love to promote unions and would understand that workers slow down or dont give their best when they feel mistreated by management or even customers.

However when it comes to the police it is turned around. The unions must be busted and the police can be treated as badly as possible and they must still perform their duties. Or they can quit as the DSA would say.

Police and other law enforcement are just like every other worker. If they feel that management and customers are being unfair they will not perform their best. They will take sick days. Why wont they just quit? Well they need the income. Again just like any other worker.

I find the "Defund the Police" crowd to be particularly cowardly. They hide behind a shield by saying that they never managed to enact any of their policies when they know full well its the act of the demonization of the police and their reaction to it which caused so much chaos after George Floyd.

The question then arises should police be treated better? In a perfect world no. Everyone should be equal. However I would ask you who would you treat better a server getting you your morning coffee or a doctor who is about to perform open heart surgery on you? Its up to us to decide on the value we want to place on police and law enforcement in general.

The DSA has some variety when it comes to immigration. The extreme would say no human being is illegal, anybody who wants asylum should be given it etc. The more moderate would say they want safe routes to request asylum and for more asylum cases to be heard and more people granted it.

Wherever you may fall in the spectrum we can all agree you want a more accepting system than one that we have under Trump and Miller.

That makes sense because you view immigration in all its types as good.

On the other hand the other side believes that immigration, specifically illegal immigration and by its current use asylum seeking is one of the worse problems to have in a country. In a normal healthy situation when you do well you are rewarded. Illegal immigration switches that reward structure around as when your country does better you attract more illegal immigrants compounding your difficulties.

At this point you can mention that neighboring countries usually takes in asylum seekers. Which is true. Pakistan for example recently expelled 2 million afghans. They didnt go to the US they went to Pakistan. However we can alll agree if they had a choice they would go to the US. They just didnt have the resources too. The reward structure pops up again as the more prosperous you are the more people are willing to spend.

If you care about the home countries this hurts them as well. Each person you see camped out in the US border more likely than not represents the yearly income of entire small villages or families that had to pool all their savings to send that person there. Thats money not being used in the local economy to buy stuff or start businesses.

At this point the DSA person would waive a study by some think tank or other showing that immigration is good for the economy. Immigration and its study is one of the strangest sciences. Normally a scientist would try to be as precise as possible when using words. You dont use Atlantic River for example you use Atlantic Ocean. Immigration is the only topic I know of where the scientists actively resists the urge to be as precise as possible. Everyone has to be an immigrant. You cant be a high net worth immigrant, a low skill immigrant, an illegal immigrant. They resist each cohort being judged seperately and instead insist that the entire cohort of immigrant must be judged as one.

On the other hand the Trump admin has made the determination that high net worth individuals are positive to the economy (golden visa types etc) and low skill and resource individuals are turned away at the border as they hurt the economy.

The major difficulty with immigration is that your policies dont matter as much as the perception of your policies. People think its a domestic issue but its not as the people impacted by it, the immigrant is judging whether or not to take the risk and investment from where he is. More than anything perception matters. Trump is viewed as an ogre on immigration. If you change him with say Biden then more illegal immigrants will come as they perceive he will not be as harsh with them.

At this point your probably wondering doesnt this mean that any step leftward of the extreme right were trump is will trigger a crisis? Thats true. Its sad but it is the way the world works now. There used to be honor in the asylum system. Only the truly desperate would use it. Now, coached by some NGO or lawyer probably, every single person in the border is an asylum seeker.

DSA types would be very aware of the military industrial complex and its tendency to self perpetuate. Why do you think the humanitarian industrial complex would work any different?

At this point you would probably ask why not safe and legal routes? Now if you believe only some types of immigration is desirable you would say we dont want safe and legal routes we only want to take in those we deem to be of benefit. If you believe all immigration is good then yes you can do this and grant asylum to everyone.

If this was too long TLDR: any move towards the DSA will trigger a border crisis worse than Biden. Remember the right has already learned that they can ship asylum seekers to New York.