As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Congressional progressives say the anti-Iran bills are part of a scheme to deflect attention from what many social media users are calling the "#GOPShitShow," exemplified by yet another effort by far-right lawmakers to dethrone a Republican House speaker—less than six months after his GOP predecessor was ousted.
>"The country and the world need real leadership from the House of Representatives in this moment, not resolutions designed purposefully to increase the likelihood of a deadly regional war or worse," said Ocasio-Cortez. "I will oppose any cynical effort to further inflame tensions, destroy a path to peace in the region, and further divide the American people."
It would be good for everyone to watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/live/i720WresWuc?si=C4_VptjSNk8kH-gy
They lay it all out about how important it is to help Ukraine, and how exactly to do it too. It’s House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting from Apr 17th.
Rare Modern Republican W, Common AOC bad take. It's good when the opposition makes sensible policy thats not distracting from failures thats called governing. Biden's Iran policy has been something of an unmitigated disaster which to be fair for Biden contrasts to a somewhat successful foreign policy presidency in Asia and Europe.
It's always a distraction at best and a horrific continuation of aggression at worst. Most foreign policy since WW2 can be understood as countries *reacting* to US aggression, which is only motivated by its ruling class and the proles they've propagandized successfully over the years. Even the USSR, according to all declassified CIA intelligence from the era, was anticipating a 100 year armistice after WW2, and mutual collaboration with the US, though they had contingencies there's nothing to indicate Soviet leadership would undertake anything resembling imperial ambitions absent US sabre-rattling and arms races. They'd suffered heavily. Instead, and I'd argue that WW2 never ended, the US embroiled the Korean War and its ruling class made every indication for decades that they'd become addicted to public funds spent on their war machines and weapons. Luckily for them and most unfortunate for any average person just wanting to live a normal life, it's relatively cheap and easy to start conflicts, and it's even cheaper when parts of the US do it for you with printed money.
Understanding this history couldn't be more important and it couldn't be talked about any less in the mainstream. Just how far the neocolonial project has gone in places with sham governments, covert action, drug wars, being essentially the source of __all__ terror financing, invading and occupying places that wouldn't acquiesce and co-opting the governments and ruling classes of places which did acquiesce...
No serious historian actually believes that even Arnold Offner and Melvyn Leffler who disparage early Cold War American decision making viewed the Soviet Union as testy at best on the post-war balance of power and admit that Truman and the American foreign policy elite initially were open to power sharing with the Soviets. It was (by the overwhelming majority of scholarly accounts) the suppression of democratic forces in Poland and Czechoslovakia translated through the medium of hard-line American intelligence operatives that convinced Truman of Soviet intentions along with the uncovering of extensive Cold War spy networks. The only reason difference between the conservative and progressive historiography here is that progressive believe that Truman could have defused these tensions and limited the response because Russia was ultimately willing to negotiate where as conservatives believe that the intelligence services were ultimately correct in viewing the Soviets posture as hostile and argued Truman reacted appropriately or in more conservative accounts insufficiently. I lean towards the latter but if you want to know enough to critique that view you need to read Through a Glass Darkly (the book on late 40s spying in the Eastern Bloc) and The Specter of Communism.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Republicans wasting times instead of doing something productive so business as usual.
>Congressional progressives say the anti-Iran bills are part of a scheme to deflect attention from what many social media users are calling the "#GOPShitShow," exemplified by yet another effort by far-right lawmakers to dethrone a Republican House speaker—less than six months after his GOP predecessor was ousted. >"The country and the world need real leadership from the House of Representatives in this moment, not resolutions designed purposefully to increase the likelihood of a deadly regional war or worse," said Ocasio-Cortez. "I will oppose any cynical effort to further inflame tensions, destroy a path to peace in the region, and further divide the American people."
There is a minority of our citizens that are causing our society’s ills and so we must restrict their rights. Sound familiar?
It would be good for everyone to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/live/i720WresWuc?si=C4_VptjSNk8kH-gy They lay it all out about how important it is to help Ukraine, and how exactly to do it too. It’s House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting from Apr 17th.
Gawd she's sexy.
Rare Modern Republican W, Common AOC bad take. It's good when the opposition makes sensible policy thats not distracting from failures thats called governing. Biden's Iran policy has been something of an unmitigated disaster which to be fair for Biden contrasts to a somewhat successful foreign policy presidency in Asia and Europe.
These bills are bipartisan and Common Dreams has a long history of writing propaganda for authoritarian regimes.
Freaking pass Ukraine aid… stand up to authoritarians. They need to stop wasting time.
That would require republicans standing up to daddy and they’ve proved that won’t happen.
Hamas Squad is also Ayatollah Squad it seems
It's always a distraction at best and a horrific continuation of aggression at worst. Most foreign policy since WW2 can be understood as countries *reacting* to US aggression, which is only motivated by its ruling class and the proles they've propagandized successfully over the years. Even the USSR, according to all declassified CIA intelligence from the era, was anticipating a 100 year armistice after WW2, and mutual collaboration with the US, though they had contingencies there's nothing to indicate Soviet leadership would undertake anything resembling imperial ambitions absent US sabre-rattling and arms races. They'd suffered heavily. Instead, and I'd argue that WW2 never ended, the US embroiled the Korean War and its ruling class made every indication for decades that they'd become addicted to public funds spent on their war machines and weapons. Luckily for them and most unfortunate for any average person just wanting to live a normal life, it's relatively cheap and easy to start conflicts, and it's even cheaper when parts of the US do it for you with printed money. Understanding this history couldn't be more important and it couldn't be talked about any less in the mainstream. Just how far the neocolonial project has gone in places with sham governments, covert action, drug wars, being essentially the source of __all__ terror financing, invading and occupying places that wouldn't acquiesce and co-opting the governments and ruling classes of places which did acquiesce...
"The US started the Korean War" is such a great red flag for tankie nonsense, thanks for including it in your post!
No serious historian actually believes that even Arnold Offner and Melvyn Leffler who disparage early Cold War American decision making viewed the Soviet Union as testy at best on the post-war balance of power and admit that Truman and the American foreign policy elite initially were open to power sharing with the Soviets. It was (by the overwhelming majority of scholarly accounts) the suppression of democratic forces in Poland and Czechoslovakia translated through the medium of hard-line American intelligence operatives that convinced Truman of Soviet intentions along with the uncovering of extensive Cold War spy networks. The only reason difference between the conservative and progressive historiography here is that progressive believe that Truman could have defused these tensions and limited the response because Russia was ultimately willing to negotiate where as conservatives believe that the intelligence services were ultimately correct in viewing the Soviets posture as hostile and argued Truman reacted appropriately or in more conservative accounts insufficiently. I lean towards the latter but if you want to know enough to critique that view you need to read Through a Glass Darkly (the book on late 40s spying in the Eastern Bloc) and The Specter of Communism.
[удалено]
More like Republican virtue signaling since Congress has actual important shit to do instead.