Because Putin is bankrolling two or three minor political parties and the front runner of a major political party. That fucking anti-war protest in DC was the dumbest shit. Yeah let’s have two political parties that agree on absolutely fucking nothing except for hating Ukraine co-host an event where Ron Paul’s bitch ass makes up stories about how congresspeople told him that they needed to start a war to fix the economy while some limpdick tankie waves the Soviet flag around in the background
Most people posting as tankies today aren’t tankies.
As someone who has done extensive reading in modern Marxism, Rawlsian doctrine, anarchism both historical and modern, and so on and so on (and yes that was a Žižek reference), many of those posting as far leftists are coming from wholly self-constructed positions. They’re either deliberately playing the role of an agent provocateur or they’re people who have unwittingly become broadcast nodes with the same effect.
One of them on chapotraphouse said “I’m gonna vote for Trump just so see the US finally burn to the ground” and I replied “horseshoe theory: confirmed” and the mods removed my comment lmao
I opened accounts on multiple instances due to the instability (and information propagation dynamics) of individual ones. I figured “why not?” I had several Reddit accounts, after all, and it just seemed to make sense.
I thought lemmy.ml was for machine learning. The UI I was using didn’t include self-descriptions.
Crazy how tankies support Russia (despite them not even being communist, domestic abuse, treatment of gay people, and ties with conservatives). And are just okay with Russia killing entire villages of Ukraines because their supposed Nazi government (didn't let a Russian puppet in government).
They’re either deliberately playing the role of an agent provocateur or they’re people who have unwittingly become broadcast nodes with the same effect.
That's... a tankie, at least functionally. If they're spouting the propaganda, I don't care where it came from or whether it's officially certified as doctrine.
Because the half of the country that drools over the prospect of sending American sons and daughters to their death love dictators, like Putin, and hate liberals, like that Zelenskyy guy (I hear he's not even a Christian!)
It's probably because sending old scraps to Ukraine doesn't make any money. Sending soldiers to die in Afghanistan was futile and guaranteed the production, sale, and shipment of more military tech/vehicles. Sending shit that was already made just costs money and doesn't fellate the military industrial complex.
Not to mention that a Ukraine that survives the war relatively intact will then be familiar with NATO-standard equipment and not particularly likely to want to buy things from Russia
And will then join NATO as the 3rd, 4th, or 5th most combat prepared force. I’d assume they’d be behind the US and UK but in the mix of France, Germany, and Turkey.
Does it really cost money though? I would think that it's far more expensive to just store & maintain our massive pile of outdated equipment. I imagine the military would be relieved to finally get rid of their hundreds of shitty A-10s rather than constantly pay for their existence at least, it seems like it'd save a lot of money. hint hint
I mean I wouldn't wish using the A-10 upon anybody (eugh), especially Ukrainians. But it would be good for money
The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant Iraq, not Afghanistan (since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan). But even for Iraq, no one is making calculations on what's good for the military industrial complex - they're guessing on if the cost of human life is worth the human lives saved and suffering prevented, and yes "spreading democracy". We can certainly mock it now, and talk about the WMD justification proving false, but the idea of going to war to somehow make money is insane. War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it. The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks, and effecting global change still would be the point even if it worked for making money - which it doesn't.
The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has.
The fact that you think this is so insane shows that you have no idea how the actual finances of sovereign currency works. What'd it cost them? Numbers on the "debt" that's so astronomically high that it's a joke?
since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan
Yeah, sounds like you "worked" too closely to this militarization. That's just blatantly false. Portions of the fucking US itself, the target of the attacks, still protested and was against going there.
War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it.
Many huge corporations disagree, and profit off of this. Even in the early 2000s, while it was happening, Haliburton and Cheneys relationship were heavily criticized, because even if it's some "net" negative or positive, there are people that stand to make a lot of money off one side of that equation.
The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks
There were large issues people took with many international conflicts being about money and companies lining pockets. Whether it's oil in the middle east, fruit in central America, or any of the others, there are many conflicts in the "global order" which have had huge impacts for the aggressor and their economy. If you want to try to justify each one, sure, but many points point to a trend.
America doesn't have a fascism problem, Americans just like to see themselves as some sorts of victims. Russia, China and Iran do have a real fascism problem though.
The republican/right wing party attempted to overthrow an election. And they are unabashed about that. And somehow they still have a 3rd of the country still supporting them.
Is that not enough for us to qualify as having a real fascism problem?
Only once they've taken over. But once there's more than the unavoidable fringe of them around and they start having a real shot at power, you have a problem, even if they can't yet stop people from criticizing them
You have to factor in the length of human life. There isn't a lot of living memory from ww2 anymore. And the ones that are still living are too far gone to have any influence. It's also hard to justify higher taxes in peacetime for weapons that might never be used.
And the ones with living memory of the great wars remember how the buildup of European militaries led to the decimation of the European population. Large armies are costly and so need to do something to justify that cost, this leads to wars, wars inevitably lead to wholesale destruction and death of civilians, why build up again for that to happen.
Unfortunately while Western Europe didn’t build up, the Muscovy focused on expansion after the fall of the union. Now Russia is looking west at a continent not as armed as it should be and backed by an America that is once again isolationist, it’s a return to the status of the 1930s and I don’t see it ending well
No it's because we survived 2 VERY destructive world wars in our homes and don't have the stomach for massive military operations anymore.
Add to that the numerous laws and constitutional bans against building militaries too large (supported by America!). Austria constitutionally forced to remain neutral, Finland forced to remain neutral due to Russia, etc.
Do you really no tunderstand why Germany was discouraged and was resistant to building it's military after two fucking world wars it started?
Really?
It's not as simple as you make out. Europe also isn't one country and one law.
Someone in this thread said Americans are reticent to support Ukraine because of pointless wars in the Middle East. Well imagine how fucking reticent you'd be if a massive chunk of your population died fighting wars in your own homes and back yard?
But the EU is kind of one country with one law. It is a federal system, but you can make a federal military structure. And the current European defense structure has been failing for a generation, constantly requiring American involvement and leadership.
And the EU initially started as way to tie together industries tied to defense as a way to keep the peace. At this point, might as well tie together the militaries as well.
( european here ) we are an Usa colony, the Usa set the foreign agenda, laws and cultural norms , immigration policy... We have been damaged by sanctions on russia... And we have to pay to help our master to expand his empire? Your empire, you pay. The only state that slight oppose your foreign policy, hungary, is bullied to hell.
The Usa is the only empire that pretend to not be an empire.
You want europe to pay for the army? Remove every usa base from europe... No? Why?
the reason for this is, i guess, related to undelete feature. it's available for limited time, because unlimited storage of things like this would be probably GDPR violation
Because that ducking idiot Sarkozy came to power and loves US cocks so much he decided to join NATO and fulfill the prophecies. And her we are now, just like De Gaulle had foretold!
Ah right, UK and France, two countries known for their pacifist ways. Or Finland and Poland, countries totally not ready to defend against a Russian offensive.
They havnt. Its literally only when you compare directly to America that their militaries seem sub par.
Britain or France alone could go toe to toe with Russia in a conventional war. And would utterly dominate basically any county on the planet other than China Russia or the US. If it ever came to an all out war between Europe and Russia, Russia wouldn't stand a chance. There would be Eurofighters over Moscow within a week.
beacuse we spent the last 20 years helping America perform aforementioned counter-insurgency in the middle east, to the obvious detriment of peer-to-peer conflict.
Not sure how much attention OP has been paying, but American's trust in military/government leadership has been severely eroded by the wars in the middle east.
That is only very selectively true though, considering that the party responsible for starting those wars is the one playing pacifist now. And if there is one thing we know about GOP it is that they are definitely not pacifist
It is just a very poor excuse by disingenous liars.
The parties only exist to disguise the fact that the entire thing is being run by the exact same oligarchs no matter who is in charge. Who gets elected doesn't change the meat of what gets done, but only the flavour.
If you want to go down that rabbit hole, I'd point out a few things: He was considered to lean democrat in the 90s when there was speculation he might run, and he has faced significant scorn from many established republicans as well. He's hardly an example of a typical candidate no matter what else you think of him.
Sure. Does not change that there are significant differences in policies that affect people's life dependingvon the party and as you say yourself even more in the personality of the president.
Yea, they focus on things that affect you on a personal and emotional level, not things that affect their own bottom line or the continuing function of their control systems, so you're too busy fighting the "other team," worrying about issues which are inconsequential to them, to mount any real resistance to their plans. That's deliberate by design.
Again, the important point is that neither of those issues actually affect the continuing function of their control systems, such as monetary policy. You're being trapped by your emotions so you can't see the bigger picture. Those issues are deliberately selected because they fill people with fear and anger.
Like how your wages are tied to how submissive you are to their other control systems, so that everyone who doesn't sell out completely is just barely getting by, spending all their time and energy just trying to survive rather than being capable of building any sort of momentum which might represent real competition for them. That's why wages have stagnated while actual productivity skyrockets.
The point is that those broader topics about the fundamental functions of society do actually affect everyone significantly, but they're so all encompassing that it's harder for people to wrap their heads around, especially when harassed about things which elicit an immediate and intense emotional reaction. Everyone imagines nefarious conspiracies where their enemies hide in the darkness plotting their demise, while the best way to hide things is to just make them as dry and boring as possible, such as the legal system and monetary policy, so people who are addicted to the sensational and salacious don't even look at them in any detail.
Of course those issues aren't meaningless to you. They wouldn't be capable of occupying your time and energy otherwise. It's an issue which doesn't threaten those in power though, which is why they dangle it in front of you.
Put the military aren't getting involved. The point the US doesn't actually have to send soldiers to fight an enemy of the United States and yet people are against it.
To be fair, I always thought that the USA is more willing to do the latter rather than the former. And those protests existed in both cases, so a meme of an opposite meaning could probably be made. Or is it just that I don't get the deepness of the joke?
The only thing I remember is a bunch of restaurant owners changed french fries to freedom fries. I also was living in a fairly rural (redneck) area at the time. Depending on how long they stayed "Freedom Fries" really spoke volumes about the type, and quality, of the food that was served.
Up for a short amount of time: Food is probably fine. Restaurant owner was bandwagoning and probably didn't want to alienate his clientele.
Up for several months to a year: More likely to be greasy spoon type place. The food is probably okay with only a smallish (5-10%) chance of explosive diarrhea after eating there.
Up for 1-2 years: Literally every menu item has gravy on it somehow. You could probably order a piece if dry white bread it would come pre-soaked in gravy. You have about a 50/50 chance of shitting your brains out after eating here
Still "Freedom Frying" 2-3 years on: These places serve rat meat. It's the only explanation for how they are in business. Expect everything to have a weird taste like stale Marlboros. The people that own/work in the restaurant couldn't collectively come up with a full set of teeth combined. Food poisoning is part of the experience.
"Fredum Frys" in 2024: This is front. You should not ever eat here. You will most likely get food poisoning from walking in the front door. Those french fries are actually surplus from the Iraq invasion. They make meth in the back and their cook has a loaded pistol sitting on the counter.
Story time: I went to an Iraq War protest back in the day. Some people wandered out of the protest zone and (to be completely fair, I didn't see what started the altercation) got their asses beat by the cops. One brave kid stood out from the crowd and said, "Come on, guys! We have to help them!" We all looked at each other and were like, "Uh... no." The brave lad then charged in and promptly got his ass beat by the cops. The war still happened.
Holy shit Americans are lame. No wonder your country sucks so much. In the civilised world that would've been a full on brawl, and they'd have burnt down the police station later for good measure.
I mean the French are constantly protesting/rioting but their police still brutalize protesters, rioters and innocent bystanders like it's a sport for them.
(I get* that it's a joke but what worries me is that it's actually said candidly, and worse, sometimes I myself think stuff like that. It might be just or moral (debatable), but it sure as fuck isn't civilized)
Behold the native Internet Tough Guy in his comfortable habitat. From his keyboard, he is a great warrior. His hypothetical contributions to the history of war are legendary.
That's not really a relevant criticism, I'm not talking about anything out of the ordinary. Plenty of not very tough people (like me) go to protests, but people are tougher when they are united. The idea that a protest would stick to some zone, or that people wouldn't try to help each other against the cops, is super sad. It makes you think they don't really believe in the thing they are protesting for at all.
Honestly, if you don't look out for each other it seems to defeat the whole point of an organized protest. I can spread the word on my own in a safe space without fear of organized retaliatory violence.
Yeah, I mean the Vietnam war wasn't without protest, and nor was the Gulf.
Always hard to know which side of history they're going to be on though. Some wars are justified. You don't want to be the guy holding the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong sign when the guy from down the road is sifting for teeth in a pile of ash.
"Forty years ago Germany proclaimed the slogan: “Germany above everything. Germany for the Germans, first, last and always. We want peace; therefore we must prepare for war. Only a well armed and thoroughly prepared nation can maintain peace, can command respect, can be sure of its national integrity.” And Germany continued to prepare, thereby forcing the other nations to do the same. The terrible European war is only the culminating fruition of the hydra-headed gospel, military preparedness. "
She's absolutely right. And she identifies the core problem too. It only takes one country. So we're trapped by the prisoner's dilemma. There is a multiverse slice out there somewhere where Democracy solved these issues because proponents of military build ups were voted out everywhere. But it's not our universe. As long as there's a state building hard power to fuck with other countries we're all trapped.
Democracy governing with good sense and moral integrity? That sounds a lot like entropy reversing itself. Possible in theory, but requires access to an infinite number of random universes to actually witness.
Eh, military unpreparedness, to compare, leads to becoming a victim.
And (some) democracy, (relative) equality and all that (including trade and peaceful life being perceived as something more honorable than conquest) in Europe were historically spearheaded by United Provinces, Hanseatic cities and all those guys who were militarily prepared.
Because Germany, as well as any other european state at that time, was a genocidal maniac who shouldn't be trusted with guns. However the Germany of today is far removed from those times and rivalries. And we're not even talking about Germany, but the EU as a whole. We are talking about Europe, was a community of states, providing the protection themselves that they enjoyed by the US in the past.
