1709
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
1709 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2122 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean if a person does anything directly affecting a war (for any side) I'd say that person is a wartime volunteer.
Wartime volunteers that have taken up arms are a absolutely viable target for military strikes.
Just saying 🤷♂️
So the US government is a viable target?
Anyone considering striking US likely realizes the fallout from that strategy though
Emphasis on "Fallout".
Also the US could probably out fight anyone else on a conventional level. Far more humiliating too.
Iraq and Afghanistan had their militaries levelled in a matter of days. It's the occupation that created problems
🎵 I don't want to set the world on fire... 🎵
During the cold war, there were plenty of instances of fighting between us and soviet forces, not to mention the huge amount of proxy fighting done. Personally, I'm not interested in drawing up a sequel to the cold war.
I hate to say it, but we are likely already in the sequel.
As I see it, we're at a turning point. Either we continue a path of escalation, or we back down, either would be feasible given our current position, but that said current position isn't somewhere we can stay. We either need to accept that sacrificing some global influence is necessary to avoid foreign wars, or that maintaining our current global influence inevitably requires putting soldiers behind our words.
This is a weird take... The war in Ukraine is largely being fought because Russia isn't going to stop with Ukraine. We're protecting our allies in Europe, and looking to prevent further escalation, not simply exerting influence on a far-away foreign war.
The escalating party is 100% the aggressing party that's invading a sovereign nation. That's Russia, not the United States.
I mean, unless you're speaking as a Russian citizen? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point of view here.
This is the exact attitude I was trying to call out. We are absolutely escalating our participation in this conflict. Trying to strattle the line of participation, where nothing we do is our own fault, and neither are any of the consequences we face. Because I'm not sure how well you did in middle school geography, but the US is, in fact, not a part of Europe. This war has no direct impact on the US beyond the extent we choose to be involved.
Now if you view the benefits of involvement as greater than the risks, fine. That's a perfectly coherent position. One I don't agree with, but a rational position nonetheless. But to pretend our involvement is just a force of nature we have no control over? That's just a bunch of excuses to support involvement without having to openly commit to a position of involvement.
Lol, we tried your strategy, it just just emboldened Russia. Remember their attach on Georgia? How about their first invasion of Ukraine? Obviously, Russia wants to do what they want to do, especially if there's no consequences. Let's try this different approach and see if they feel being violent still helps them secure their goals.
Also, "appeasement" in this context should be awfully familiar to anyone vaguely familiar with history. It worked soooo well last time....
Your point being? There's only one Georgia I would care if Russia attacked, at it ain't the one they did.
First they came for...
If you seriously think taking some backwater nowhere gives Russia the military capabilities to invade the US, I'd like some of whatever you're smoking
Ukraine is hardly a backwater nowhere. It's a major industrial and agricultural player in the region. There's a reason that Russia wants it so badly.
Historically, nations with an appetite for conquest don't get sated and keep going. It cannot be tolerated for a nation state to just unilaterally conquer to expand.
Give an actual reason we shouldn't care about Russia's history of attacks, that show you're not ignorant of the topic, and I'll actually provide you an answer. Your reply appears extremely ignorant.
The onus is on you to show that a reason does exist, not on me to prove a lack thereof.
I agree, you should get informed on the topic, and maybe you can come up with a good reasons why the government should change course from it's current actions. Goodluck!
Lol you're the only one uninformed here since you've shown you have nothing except deflection and bullshit.
Are you seriously saying we should just stand back and let Russia take Ukraine?
I don't fucking care what happens in Ukraine
Your previous posts suggest the opposite is true. I think you need to make up your mind.
How so? I've repeatedly argued that it isn't our fucking problem what happens there.
That sure sounds like you care. Not liking something doesn't mean you don't care about it.
So again, I think you need to make up your mind.
EDIT: Wow. They went through my post history and downvoted every post. Hilarious.
What party is my party?
I think Neville Chamberlain had the right idea.
I know a lot of Jews who’d take issue with that.
Why though? There's been plenty of hot and cold wars, plenty of proxy wars.
This isn't special in that regard, except now using the propaganda talking points of view a fascist enemy is done without a hint of shame from the stooges who do it.
For a lot of reasons, yes
Always has been
Oh yeah, I don't mean to say otherwise. It was more a rhetorical question to point out the nature of how these things always end up escalating.
Starlink is not providing an essential service to Ukraine. They do not have the right to expect SpaceX to cooperate with their military effort when SpaceX is a US company under dual-use rules to not unilaterally provide military connectivity to weapons systems to foreign nations.
Ukraine must do military procurement properly and go through the US government to get approval, not whatever this is. They used a civilian service for military purposes, so they are in breach of the terms of use of Starlink and should not be surprised when services degrades at SpaceX's whims.
The law priorities the health of people, but Starlink isn't meant for use like this, so this analogy is moot.