So it took them 'weeks' to come up with an order that, as of now, sanctions just 4 people, none of whom are government officials or even particularly influential.
How bold.
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10181 readers
74 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's "bold" to issue an executive order against citizens of a friendly foreign country that's a partner in arms development... anything more, could risk being "unfriendly", or even "hostile".
"Man, I sure don't want my genocidal buddies to think I'm being unfriendly!"
Some decades ago, a stock broker said about carbon emissions: "if I could buy and sell carbon emissions, I would". Since then, carbon emissions have entered the markets, and carbon offsets, and derivatives. It's full of scams, but corporations that want to greenwash their image, do pay for them.
Now... have you seen the market vale of "genocide"? It's $0, meaning "free for all"... that's all corporations understand, then politicians have to follow, or get no funding for the next elections.
Genocide requires weapons and materials, and weapons are VERY lucrative.
Our economic system will find a way to turn anything into an opportunity for profit, death included.
Yes, but if "genocide" had a monetary value, and selling weapons for genocide meant having to pay for the weapons and on top of that for the genocide... then a smaller amount of weapons (and of genocide) could still be as lucrative.
Then just like "carbon offsets", someone could sell "genocide offsets"... maybe by offering shelter to the people getting genocided, or something.
I’m digging Axios’ format lately
There's definitely a problem when I compare this unfavorably to how much harsher and effective Ronald Reagan was when dealing with the Likuds' wanton violence. Ronald Reagan. The guy who wasn't even principally opposed to some wanton violence thought Israel was crossing the line and stopped them more than once.