• sab
    link
    fedilink
    48
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Not “they”, but Paul McLeary, the Politico defence reporter. Each point on the list is essentially an opinion piece by one of their journalists.

    And it’s not necessarily saying it’s a good thing: It’s a thing you might have missed. You could also question whether “the U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history” is supposed to be a good thing.

    Furthermore, as to McLeary’s point: Some - such as anyone in the region except the Chinese - might argue it’s important that the influence of China in the South China Sea is balanced out by other powerful players. It’s not about going to war with China, it’s about the continued independence of Taiwan and other fairly fragile balances in the region. It doesn’t take a moron to see that the situation is complex.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      011 months ago

      And it’s not necessarily saying it’s a good thing

      Did you actually read the article? They very clearly say it would be a major win for Biden.

      • sab
        link
        fedilink
        811 months ago

        Tech firms and lawmakers still want more specifics on how this is all supposed to work. But if things go as planned, the success of the program would be a major win for the White House, which has been eager to display American technological and industrial might.

        So, if it goes according to plan and is a success, it would be a major political victory for the White House/Biden in terms of their eagerness to “display American technological and industrial might”.

        It’s something they want to do, and which if this goes as planned, they will manage to do it. Hence, in politics, a “win”. This is different from passing normative judgment as to whether or not it’s a good thing: It’s a win in the same sense destroying the Supreme Court was a “win” for the previous White House.