United States escalates trade war with Canada following Palestine stance
-
Get fucked Donnie, sincerely all of rational Canada.
Heyyy relax guy!
-
canada actively aids the genocide in the same way that the united states and the united kingdom do; this is little more than political copycat of the french and british gov'ts so that the canadian gov't can also insist that they were always on the right side of history when the next few generations read their history books in school.
Exactly. Demanding that Palestine give up its arms in the face of a massive nuclear power that has already turned Gaza to rubble. Is an absurd demand.
-
So you’d prefer nothing at all happening? Cuz that’s what that this “all or nothing” mentality accomplishes
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's a perfect example of a False Dichotomy - there are literally thousands of options other that merely "nothing" and "non-binding promise full of caveats of no-impact future action".
Quite a lot of those thousands of options actually impact Israel NOW.
Chosing to avoid any of those impactful action options and pushing instead for a "promise of future no impact action, if certain vague conditions are met" is exactly how politicians avoid being accused of "doing nothing" whilst de facto doing nothing: this a very common political strategy to avoid action until it's too late when under pressure from public opinion to act now, so it's actually worse than doing nothing at all (because it has the same practical results as doing nothing at all, whilst reducing pressure to act hence making it less likely that effective actions will ever be taken).
You seem to have fallen for this common political scam hook, line and sinker.
-
That's a perfect example of a False Dichotomy - there are literally thousands of options other that merely "nothing" and "non-binding promise full of caveats of no-impact future action".
Quite a lot of those thousands of options actually impact Israel NOW.
Chosing to avoid any of those impactful action options and pushing instead for a "promise of future no impact action, if certain vague conditions are met" is exactly how politicians avoid being accused of "doing nothing" whilst de facto doing nothing: this a very common political strategy to avoid action until it's too late when under pressure from public opinion to act now, so it's actually worse than doing nothing at all (because it has the same practical results as doing nothing at all, whilst reducing pressure to act hence making it less likely that effective actions will ever be taken).
You seem to have fallen for this common political scam hook, line and sinker.
At what point has anyone said “oh yep that’s all I need from you Canada that’s good enough”
nobody is claiming this is a good stopping point. Nobody is using this to halt their push for more. They’re just saying that it’s a good thing to have happened.
-
At what point has anyone said “oh yep that’s all I need from you Canada that’s good enough”
nobody is claiming this is a good stopping point. Nobody is using this to halt their push for more. They’re just saying that it’s a good thing to have happened.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Had this been done when there was no Holocaust by Starvation in Gaza and those politicians were not under public pressure to do something about it, then yeah, it would have been a positive action for Palestine as whole since it would open the door for eventual improvements there, but right now, by delaying effective action as wished by the public, that tiny positive potential impact in the future is more than offset by the continued deaths that mean there will be no such Future for tens of thousands or even millions in Gaza, and this "action" does nothing to address that.
The greatest impact this has is to reduce pressure on those politicians to address the problem, so de facto this is a step backwards compared to "doing nothing" as it wields the same result to Gazans whilst by reducing the pressure on politicians makes it less likely that they're forces to take an effective action.
The only way to confuse this with a step forward if you completelly ignore the broader context of how most of the people who might derive a tiny benefit from this will be dead or have lost far more than they will gain from said tiny benefit when that benefit delivers anything, and the political managing of public opinion component of this.
-
Had this been done when there was no Holocaust by Starvation in Gaza and those politicians were not under public pressure to do something about it, then yeah, it would have been a positive action for Palestine as whole since it would open the door for eventual improvements there, but right now, by delaying effective action as wished by the public, that tiny positive potential impact in the future is more than offset by the continued deaths that mean there will be no such Future for tens of thousands or even millions in Gaza, and this "action" does nothing to address that.
The greatest impact this has is to reduce pressure on those politicians to address the problem, so de facto this is a step backwards compared to "doing nothing" as it wields the same result to Gazans whilst by reducing the pressure on politicians makes it less likely that they're forces to take an effective action.
The only way to confuse this with a step forward if you completelly ignore the broader context of how most of the people who might derive a tiny benefit from this will be dead or have lost far more than they will gain from said tiny benefit when that benefit delivers anything, and the political managing of public opinion component of this.
Okay bud, enjoy the grandstanding all you want.
-
Okay bud, enjoy the grandstanding all you want.
You're the one dying on the hill of defending that grand proclamations of how they're going to help Palestine from the very politicians currently shipping weapons to Israel should be taken unquestionably at face value, and hence that they're really taking a step forward.
-
One can praise a step in the right direction while acknowledging there are many steps to go.
where is the step in the right direction?
Imagine you are dying of thirst so I show up, hold a glass of cold water and yell at the world "I will give this water to @Shiggles" and then whisper to you "if you pay me a million dollars, agree to be my slave for life, let me dunk my dick in the water first and finally let me have my way with your partner"
Would you still say I took a step in the right direction?
