kfprt

This is hardly unsubstantiated as it is a widespread acknowledged problem. [1] It should also be noted that this is not the first time I criticized the UK's 'unique' take on justice. The reception then was quite different however. Is moderation at the whim of the mob? Perhaps 'joke of a country is a bit harsh' but I can't think of a better description of such lopsided priorities.

[1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/839509/Britain-towns-citie...

China's hostage diplomacy is a bit different than breaking export laws.

Write everything at work as if it were going to be read by a judge.

I suppose teslas could come with warnings, "this vehicle is not intended for use in Arizona".

I tend to think the military needs to be split in two. One half to deal with boots on grounds kinetic action and a second to deal with the permanent economic and cyber war. Of course integration of women would be far easier the the latter.

These things always happen when a low trust society comes into contact with a high trust society.

When a classical building is run down people flock to visit it. Pantheon/Coliseum. Brutalist buildings we're ugly and depressing as built.

I believe no one died in this incident.

Brutalism was just another communist crime, razing old europe so they could stamp their manifestations of authoritarianism on it.

Unfortunately liberties are almost never given back without violence. It is a shame on the west for accepting this abject surrender of individual liberty with docility.

I suppose you can get mad at God

Do you think God has sovereign immunity?

Most other differences seem to be too weakly correlated with genes we've identified to result in such a stark change to society.

These findings were always driven more by politics than science.

Every societies security model relies on people simply not wishing to act violently. Literally followed by a police team and still stabbed people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Auckland_supermarket_stab...

If you set a price and multiple people are willing to pay it then it can't be exclusive.

I don't understand this thinking at all. Hydrogen itself doesn't weigh much but the containment does. The actual change in mass due to hydrogen being used up should be <1% of the ship mass. This is entirely unlike aircraft.

This is of course ridiculous. UBI money is much more likely to be spent increasing the velocity of money in the economy than if it were spent bailing out companies. It's very hard to run a consumer economy whilst making the consumers too poor to afford to spend much.

A better question would be whether housing prices are increasing the same everywhere.

With the iPhoneification of their product line I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen.

bomb them or something

I thought we agreed that in principle the correct response to a deliberate attack would have been to bomb them in 1967? I don't understand why you keep intentionally misinterpreting this.

who you think the US is not being neutral towards

I find the less you know about someone the easier it is to be neutral.

the Palestinians

As I said before the Israeli/Palestinian intra semitic conflict is one America should stay a country mile away from.

That doesn't seem plausible to me.

I've yet to hear of the Lesotho lobby and practically zero people in America care about Lesotho. How about Belarus or New Guinea? The link between lobbying and public opinion seems quite strong to me.

anti-Israel rhetoric?

Please stop with the unfounded assumptions.

All I'm advocating for is for America to not get bogged down in foreign quagmires and for other countries to stop trying to drag us into their conflicts. It is beyond me how anyone can find this such a difficult concept. Mandatory disclosure of foreign interests would go a long way here.

If you are interested the Great War channel has a series that covers Mandatory Palestine. This is however entirely irrelevant to US foreign policy.

I always enjoy expounding upon my ideas in public discussion but when the conversation retreads over already trod points and the counterparty is disingenuous and intentionally mischaracterizes what I have plainly stated then I am forced to question whether their motive is discussion or to score cheap points in a discussion that no one will likely read.

I'd say modern science is concerned with selling something while science is the discovery of what currently exists.

As a point of clarification I was disappointed that you did not give me the presumption of good faith from the outset.

But to oppose Israel

I neither support nor oppose Israel. It could be on the moon for all the difference it makes to me. It simply doesn't factor into my life or politics.

Most Americans couldn't point to Israel on a globe. I think this implies an implicit agreement with my non interventionism. Out of sight out of mind. Domestic politics matter infinitely more than the squabbling of foreigners.

I would posit that without lobbying practically no one in America would care about Israel either. This is why it needs to be disclosed.

I wouldn't say Israel started because of WW2. The zionist congress and the migration started in the 1800's IIRC. Wasn't the Israeli government a continuation of the zionist congress too? Like a government in exile.

people in the military-industrial complex

Those in the military complex are just that, they could care less who the bombs fall on so long as they can sell them. You could even call this a blind pro interventionism.

If Milley never takes a dollar from the military industrial complex after retiring I will eat my hat.

As a practical matter the rule of law in China is more or less nonexistent.

I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion. American politics or foreign policy?

I don't see the threat, do enlighten me.

If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal.

I am aware of my limitations, I do not have dictatorial powers. What I have said here is merely what I see as the correct solution to US foreign policy. I have no grand designs nor plans to somehow convince the rest of the country of my correctness. I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself.

I do believe however that one can have convictions absent direct implementable practicality.

wouldn't it probably mean expanding the bureaucracy a lot too?

Not really. Like with most laws we rely on peoples willingness to follow them.

But then, since most of them aren't agents of the foreign government

Those that take actions on behalf of a foreign government and have a connection to that government are by definition foreign agents.

expense to decrease tax revenue.

What good is tax revenue without a stable government to spend it?

Do you want people with dual US/Israeli citizenship to register under a revised FARA, or do you want them to choose between the two?

That's up to them. All I'm asking for is disclosure. Merely a disclaimer.

problem if you want to target

I don't want to target anyone. I just want it disclosed if their actions are on behalf of a foreign power.

Ostensibly, I think for security clearances, they already take dual citizenship into account.

If it is worth disclosing in that case I don't see the harm in having some more honesty generally.

While I'm sure your religious politics are fascinating they are completely irrelevant to US policy as it relates to the USS Liberty incident. The US has nothing to gain by involving ourselves in that quagmire.

As a politically exercise I am completely uninterested in such issues. US foreign policy should be blind to them.

If Jews want to advocate for the existence of Israel that is fine by me, but they must not do it under an American flag. It is not patriotic to support another country over ones one.

I am also disappointed that you do not share the presumption of good faith.

how hard it is to renounce US citizenship

You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient.

My ideal model is something like what exists on twitter and youtube where there is a disclaimer if the account belongs to media funded by a foreign government. They are allowed but there is disclosure. For example if there is a dual citizen arguing in the US for policies that would impact the country of their other citizenship I would like that to be disclosed as well. If for example an Israeli/US citizen is arguing on a US website for policies that would be beneficial to Israel then I would like it to be disclosed to me that they may be speaking in their capacity as an Israeli citizen and not an American one so I can understand their position more fully. Just like ads are disclosed so should lobbying be.

Something like "As a citizen of X I may be arguing in that capacity".

It should also be noted that if you write a blog post exposing say a fraud in Nikola Motors you are obliged to disclose your short position.

You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith".

If you're going to accuse me of something then I would prefer you just came right out and said what it is that you're accusing me of. No beating around the (burning?) bush.

you didn't care about the Palestinians

It's not that I don't care, merely that as an American I see no benefit to intervening. To me the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis is the same as the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi. I see them as more alike than different. As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts which is all the more reason to not intervene.

As far as I am aware the Iranians are an indo european population group but this is an academic exercise not a political one. I would recommend the lectures given at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago if you would like to learn more.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCitjN1GDlEVcLz-fAy5VIpg

But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't.

I had already written my reply and felt it more expedient.

you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century

Of course it is not possible to right all old wrongs. I think we can agree in principle that the correct move on the US's part would have been to bomb Israeli military targets in 1967 though.

I am far more concerned with the present. I think all lobbying on behalf of foreign powers should be subject to FARA, paid or unpaid, as long as there is a proven link to that foreign power. For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting. The American people deserve to know who is working on behalf of foreign powers and may have interests that do not align with their own.

Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't.

If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free.

If you want to blow up Israelis

As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world.

Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me

If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me. There are details for military planners not foreign policy advisers.

It seems like you won't break character.

I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'.

Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of.

As an American my only consideration is that which is in the national interest. Ideologically I'm mostly a america first non interventionist. I am well aware there are many in this country that would lobby on behalf of foreign powers and I think they should register under FARA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...

I can't think of a more Orwellian name for a group set on controlling online speech.