this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
826 points (96.1% liked)
People Twitter
5471 readers
2110 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
why does harris mean world war 3?
is it because of funneling weapons to israel? because trump has promised to do that too. and has also promised NOT to work for a ceasefire.
On reflection they probably mean Donald would ensure Ukraine is taken over, which is true. I suppose that means delaying WWIII until Russia's next invasion.
They must have forgotten Donald tweeting (nuclear?) threats at Iran from the Oval Office. Or they don't think that would be a World War situation.
I think he was talking about big scary Pootin, threatening for the undecillionth time to push the big scary red button. Don't think about Pootin being to scared to even call for a mobilization, just ignore that he'd rather throw north koreans into the meat grinder than his own voter base, because he's scared of them. Just ignore that. Focus on that big red scary button. WW3 around the corner!
It could also be because the US is standing alone against more or less the entire world in supporting Israels genocide.
Ah yes Harris is totally working towards a ceasefire
Like the one that Hamas just rejected because it did not call for Israel to stop bombing or for it to withdraw troops or for Palestinians to be able to return to their homes
Yes definitely a ceasefire if you let one side keep bombing
Basically, Harris is a war hawk. When she accepted the DNC’s nomination, she promised America would have the world’s most lethal fighting force.
On Ukraine, when they were asked about it in the debate, Trump emphasized the need to negotiate peace. Harris emphasized unconditional support for Ukraine.
Yes, there’s not a lot of daylight between Trump and Harris’s statements on Israel. But Trump’s statements were made before the conflict escalated to involve Lebanon, and I’m not actually sure if he even means what he says. Harris has maintained her commitment to Israel as the conflict has escalated, and even as it has generated discord in her party. I definitely believe that her commitment to Israel is sincere.
On China, it’s hard to be certain about Harris’s personal views, but the Biden administration that she is part of has escalated tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Trump, in stark contrast, is reported to have questioned the value of supporting Taiwan at all. (I’m not saying the US should abandon efforts at maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait. But the US should definitely not be escalating tensions either.) Right now there’s no reason to believe Harris differs from Biden on the issue, especially considering her hawkish tendencies elsewhere.
You are naive if you think giving countries who threaten war or even start them everything they want and more is going to decrease the chance of more of the same.
I love playing the uncompromising pacifist or vatniks game.
What does it tell you that those are the same side?
In what fucking world do people who unquestioningly believe Russian propaganda qualify as "uncompromising pacifists"?
I don’t actually know what vatnik means. I was guessing from context that it meant Communist or leftist or something.
We're on the internet, bro. You have a search engine right fucking there. I didn't know what vatnik meant either until I googled it 20 seconds ago. What is your excuse?
I googled and found it was a kind of jacket used in the Red Army.
British people call nerds “anoraks” because of a type of sweater they stereotypically wear. (It comes up a lot in Doctor Who fandom.) I thought “vatnik” was maybe a creative way of calling me a Communist nerd, modelled on anorak.
I said nothing about giving any country everything that they want.
And Biden had plenty of opportunity to de-escalate the situation in the Donbas before it resulted in war, and he escalated it instead, just as he escalated the situation in the Taiwan Strait.
Yet what you're suggesting is to appease dictators whenever they issue threats and attack countries. Gee that worked so well with Georgia, Crimea, and now the rest. Putin is a war criminal, a crook and an incompetent statesman (see the deteriorating Russian economy years up until the Ukraine war). They were always going to steal land like the cancerous leech they really are.
No, I was suggesting to de-escalate tensions and resolve territorial disputes peacefully and democratically before they spill over into armed conflict.
I wish he'd done more. Neither Russia or China or both of them combined would do well against the US, even without NATO. They wont start a conflict.
I suspect the opposite, but I'm hoping we never find out.
don't you think it says something that this is the only excuse people who defend trump can come up with anymore
Oh, I’m not defending Trump. He’s terrible.
Yeah I really got that impression from your comment framing Trump's stances on various wars as reasonable compared to Harris's
I wouldn’t use the term “reasonable”, because I don’t think Trump’s positions are well-reasoned, or even well-informed. I think his foreign policy is one of apathy rather than one of enlightened peacekeeping.
But I’ll take that over Harris’s instinct for military aggression, especially with the world on the brink of WW3.
Look how delusional you are. "Military aggression" for giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself from a foreign invader.
I’m not sure we should be giving weapons to a country that bombs its own people with cluster munitions.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/world/ukraine-used-cluster-bombs-report-charges.html
Hello Vlad, you're not a very good Russian disinformation agent are you? So you're going to cherry pick this one event from Ukraine and claim Ukraine doesn't deserve to defend itself from a foreign military aggressor based on this one event? Here are many more instances of Russian war crimes that are far greater in scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
"Russian forces used chemical weapons 465 times between 24 February 2022 and December 2023" "kidnapped over 121,000 Ukrainian children and deported them to Russia's eastern provinces" "forcibly deported thousands of residents from Ukraine to Russia during the Siege of Mariupol" "In December 2023 Igor Salikov, a colonel of the Russian army and "Wagner" group commander, defected to the Netherlands to testify about "atrocities against civilians" and forced deportation of large groups of children from Ukraine to Belarus." "In March 2022, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported 270 cases of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of civilians, eight of whom were later found dead." "The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, said Russia made indiscriminate attacks and strikes on civilian assets like houses, hospitals, schools and kindergartens."
And your favorite: "Russia repeatedly violated international humanitarian law with indiscriminate attacks and direct attacks on civilian targets Amnesty said, and verified reports and footage demonstrated numerous strikes on hospitals and schools and the use of inaccurate explosive weapons and banned weapons such as cluster bombs."
These are just the tip of the iceberg.
That is an ad hominem attack, and if you want a response from me, you should try again without the ad hominems.
I don't think many people want a response from you, Vlad.
You know Vlad is a Ukrainian name too, right?
Wouldn't it be great if Ukraine were free from Russian aggression and the Ukrainian people could live again in peace in their own country.
Yes, and it would also be great if Ukrainian citizens in the Donbas didn't have to worry about being bombed by their own government.
Ha! And you were trying to convince me that you weren't a Putin supporter!? Next thing you'll be claiming he's a leftist!
Why does that mean I'm a Putin supporter?
Are those the only two sides? Support Putin or support Ukraine indiscriminately bombing its citizens?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians
It absurd to me that you would look at two and a half years of Russian imperial invasion of Ukraine and seek to paint Ukraine as the aggressor. Nothing makes it more clear that you support Putin than this. It's so obviously counter factual that you're either short of news sources that aren't Kremlin-controlled because you're Russian, or you're for some reason a Putin supporter from elsewhere.
I did not do that.
I'm just pointing out that there are two sides to this conflict.
Rubbish. There's Russian aggression, Putin's trophy war, Russian invasion, Russian false flag operations and repeated Russian imperialist annexation of peaceful neighbours.
Are you calling Ukraine peaceful?
Because this all started with a presidential coup in Ukraine in which at least 26 people were killed, including 10 policemen.
No, this all started with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You're just repeating kremlin lies that no one believes outside Russia.
I get exactly 0% of my information from Russia because I don’t know any Russian.
I get a lot of my information from Wikipedia. Here, have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
You know that doesn't follow logically, no?