Objection

joined 2 years ago
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Building the SUV would be more ethical though.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (10 children)

Why should we demand countries that are only spending 1/3 of what we spend disarm? No, let's focus on having the most militaristic country in the world, the one that spends as much as the next 9 countries combined, on having that country reduce spending and stop trying to dominate the entire world through military force.

And then we can spend some of that money on giving me healthcare! Everybody wins! Well, except for the corporate executives, corrupt politicians, and their chauvanistic bootlickers.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

It’s up to politicians to decide how to use those weapons, not engineers.

Exactly how far does this extend? Because a lot of people involved in supporting the Nazi war effort said the exact same thing.

If you go around solving every problem you're asked to with no concern for who's asking or why, that's how you wind up developing Zyklon B.

Giving a gun to a murderer is the same as pulling the trigger. Giving artillery to a murderer is too.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

If we cut back that much, then we wouldn't be able to fuel nearly as much death and destruction around the globe. But, not to worry, I'm sure we could still find enough evil to do to both satisfy your desire for blood and to earn the people responsible a cozy little spot in Hell, yes.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you for your service.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

How about we split the difference and only cut two thirds of all military spending? We would still be pouring more money into it than any country on earth.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, I absolutely support "attempting beneficial cultural change on the other side of the world." Go write a book, sing a song, make a movie, you can still do that, right now, nothing's stopping you!

What I oppose is drone striking weddings halfway across the globe, kicking in doors and screaming at people in a language they don't speak, classifying every "military aged male" as an enemy combatant even if they're just a bystander to falsify your casualty reports, abducting innocent people indefinitely to secret torture dungeons without charge or trial, and that sort of thing. You know, things like, "forced rectal feeding without medical necessity."

Like, have you looked into what the war actually, physically looked like for people? "Attempting beneficial cultural change," what the hell are you talking about? Even if it wasn't an extreme whitewashing of the situation, you don't impose "beneficial" cultural change as an occupying force, at gunpoint! The only thing we did was make them hate us more.

By the way, do you know how we finally got bin Laden? It was by using a fake vaccination campaign to collect blood samples in Pakistan. You wanna talk about humanitarianism, do you have any idea how many people could die, how many preventable diseases we could fail to eradicate, if people in developing countries mistrust vaccination drives because the CIA uses them as cover? But you know, at least our lust for revenge was satisfied. (Speaking of, the US also promoted anti-vax conspiracy theories in the Philippines, during COVID, to keep them from relying on Chinese vaccines.)

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

But pulling out at that point caused the deaths of western allies and handed victory to the Taliban, causing millions to suffer eg. women can’t get jobs and single-mother families starve to death… and it was entirely foreseeable.

That's a completely ridiculous and absurd position. They did not "hand victory to the Taliban," the Taliban won victory over 20 years of fighting and the withdrawal merely acknowledged that fact, a fact which Americans seem to have deluded themselves into thinking was anything but inevitable, and they really didn't like their delusions being shattered. The embargo, not the withdrawal, is what's caused most of the suffering. As the band Flobots said in 2007, "We already lost the wars they keep waging." Somehow, in spite of over another decade of accomplishing absolutely nothing, people seem, if anything, more willing to keep fighting the pointless, hopeless battle.

What is the alternative to the withdrawal? Please, provide an answer to that question. Do you think if we stayed there another 20 years, then we could leave and our puppet regime wouldn't instantly collapse? Or should we have just stayed there inevitably, even sending our grandchildren to go fight in that stupid pointless war?

The only thing that you said that's correct is that on day 1 of the war, we should not have gone in. But on day 2, we also should've left. On day 3 we should have left. On day 300 we should've left. On day, what was it even, 7000? On day 7000, we absolutely, 10000% should've left. What possible reason could you use to justify delaying it further? What could we do in another 300 days that we couldn't do in 7000? At that point, you're just arguing for making it a permanent war of conquest.

Your problem, and the problem of everyone who thinks like you, is that you're incapable of facing reality and accepting that sometimes good decisions are painful. When an alcoholic decides to go clean, what do you think that first day is like? Is it pleasant? Of course not. They may be irritable, they may have to have awkward conversations or confrontations with their drinking buddies, they may even lose friendships over it! But it's still the right decision, the important thing is that they stopped. This is the same way. Yes, the immediate effects of pulling out may have been unpleasant, but you have to be very short-sighted to not recognize it as an obviously correct and necessary decision. Y'all just see the unpleasantness and say, "Everything's been shitty since I decided to quit, I should just have another drink."

Even the government we propped up told us to leave! How can you possibly justify continuing the occupation? And how can I possibly view you as anything but a warmongering imperialist for taking that stance? You're talking about murdering people! Do you even realize that?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago

The funny thing about this is that if it were possible to reform the democratic party, it would only be through demanding change, and credibly threatening defection if those demands are not met. By setting conditions and giving those conditions teeth. What you're suggesting is just asking nicely for people to act directly contrary to their material interests and hoping for the best. It's complete nonsense.

Also lol at "enthusiastically voting." Yes, it's very important that you not only bend the knee to your corporate masters completely unconditionally, but that you do so with a smile on your face. You can trust me, I'm a leftist just like you, see how I say all the language about needing the downfall of capitalism?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I remember growing up in the 90's and it being fairly common to think that there were no real enemies out in the world, that all the conflicts were over. "The end of history," gets mocked a lot, but the idea of putting conflict behind us and working together towards a common cause of advancing together is something I really miss.

But if that period of relative peace had continued, then people would've started asking questions about why we're still dumping more money into our military than the next 9 countries combined when the USSR no longer exists (to quote Terminator 2, "They're our friends now") and China such a big trading partner that nobody would dream of rocking the boat. And if people started asking those questions, it'd be real bad news for the war profiteers who make bank off that spending. And so it all went out the window, starting with the "war on terror," and now the government's trying to make us see everybody as a threat.

And so we can't have nice things, like healthcare, we all have to tighten our belts so that we can make more tanks. I remember when that was seen as right-wing.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

And you've read zero of them.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Isolationism. I completely reject the idea that my country's (the US) military interventionism is in any way driven by benevolence, or makes life better either for Americans (outside of war profiteers) or for the people of the country we're fucking with.

This is really controversial on here, for some reason. The fact that I want to leave other countries alone and focus on investing in schools and hospitals and public transit instead of bombs and tanks (I don't even really care if it's being spent domestically or abroad, so long as it's being spent on good things instead of bad things) causes a bunch of people to call me a "tankie" and say that I'm just as bad as a fascist. All because I say shit like, that I don't want to start shit with North Korea. I don't even give a shit about North Korea. Like, I just watched how Afghanistan played out and went, "You know, we probably shouldn't do shit like that again," and supposedly left-leaning people really, really hate me for it. It's genuinely bizarre. I even got attacked once for defending Biden pulling out of Afghanistan! People just love sticking our nose in other countries' business, for reasons I can't even begin to understand.

view more: ‹ prev next ›