General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBiden's Choice.
Stop a genocide in progress, or win an election.
Assume that it is a given that what is happening in Gaza is a genocide in progress.
Assume that the United States can effectively intervene to stop this genocide.
Assume also that by intervening Biden will almost certainly lose the election.
Assume finally that a Republican victory will result in the transformation of our republic into a christian nationalist authoritarian republic.
Im not at all interested in arguing the merits of those assumptions.
The question is simply, given these assumptions what is the correct ethical choice? Stop the genocide or save the republic?
no_hypocrisy
(48,492 posts)Both options have undesirable alternatives.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilemma
Voltaire2
(14,626 posts)woodsprite
(12,160 posts)Attacks. Only stop them until Trump was installed. Its not worth relinquishing the United States democracy. We have to put our oxygen masks on ourselves before helping others.
Voltaire2
(14,626 posts)You actually answered the question. But I am not convinced that a genocide deferred is not the right choice. Arent we ethically compelled to act even if we eventually fail?
woodsprite
(12,160 posts)Constitution and our country to fascism and everything Trump/GOP would destroy with it.
Voltaire2
(14,626 posts)As per the assumptions, the genocide is 'in progress' while the election is ''almost certain'' but in the future. I think ethically Biden has no choice other than to act to stop the genocide despite the risk to the republic in the election. Unfortunately it appears that the opposite decision has been made.
The Bopper
(252 posts)As though the US controls Israel as the right wing crackpots think we do. I have no doubt Israel should go out of its way to not harm civilians but to blame America and or its President is just playing into Russian propaganda.
Voltaire2
(14,626 posts)what is the right choice.
KS Toronado
(19,325 posts)voters would gravitate towards him, especially after TSF told Putin to do whatever he wanted with NATO.
Voltaire2
(14,626 posts)Basic LA
(2,047 posts)Stopping Netanyahu's genocidal vengeance-fest, and framing it as such, would be a heroic & popular move.
Mountainguy
(950 posts)would be a great move in American politics.
Basic LA
(2,047 posts)from genocide would be a great move in American honor & prestige.
Note: we are not Israel.
Mountainguy
(950 posts)And to be clear you think that putting US troops into Gaza to stop Israel is a good move politically or otherwise?
Basic LA
(2,047 posts)And a weapons freeze, both as leverage for ceasefire / aid. No one on earth has suggested military intervention.
krawhitham
(4,840 posts)It's a number game, 800k in Gaza, 340M in USA
Trump winning will lead to far more deaths that 800k
Now I believe he needs to try to stop the war (netanyahu will not stop, he knows when he does he will be voted out and end up in jail for his crimes before all this went down) OR he will lose to trump
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Voltaire2
(14,626 posts)would be, given the assumptions.
Fiendish Thingy
(17,982 posts)That said, it is definitely a difficult needle to thread.
All Mixed Up
(597 posts)myohmy2
(3,569 posts)...statesman should be able to do both...
...
BlueKota
(3,309 posts)If we were to not do that the world's 3 major power countries would be controlled by dictators. More people lives would be endangered around the world. Look at the number of people Stalin and Hitler killed.
What country would have the power to face off against China, Russia, and the U.S, if the U.S becomes part of an evil trio. Look what's happening in Gaza is tragic, but stopping Trump has to be the #1 priority. If we don't it will be a global catastrophe not just a regional one.
I seriously don't understand how people can so blithely dismiss how dangerous it would be if the U.S. turns into a dictatorship run by Trump? The tragedy in Gaza will not be stopped by the destruction of the U.S. as a free country.
Beastly Boy
(11,010 posts)without questioning the merits of the rather questionable set of assumptions that go into favoring these two options to the exclusion of all others?
I see no purpose in this. This is a version of a push poll: the assumptions it contains lead to a predetermined choice of outcomes.
angrychair
(9,624 posts)I do think he can do both. Its all in how you sell it.
The factor you leave out is Ukraine. I think that is the harder sell with Republicans in the House.
I think the way around that is already in the works. We will give money/weapons to NATO and they will in turn contribute those weapons/money to Ukraine.
NATO recently took a vote to approve contributions directly from NATO so I assume that is why.