this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
916 points (95.9% liked)
Political Memes
5510 readers
1289 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Finland is correct. Though I have no idea what sort of situation those other people assumed to warrant such a claim.
There is the danger of manufacturing consent.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/remember-maine-1898
Raising tensions then using an incident to light the touch paper.
Russian's at the border is one thing.
But the most likely "attack" on the US is going to be much smaller.
Note the Houthis attacking merchant ships. Under a US flag.
There are 2 options
or
Option 1 is an escalation.
Option 2 is not.
The US military is is an odd position. I'd defend Ukraine from Russia. I'd defend Palestine from Israel. I'd defend Israel from Palestine.
I wouldn't support an aggressor.
There is a moral obligation to support violence in that it must be a necessary defence.
Joining the US military we've grown up seeing the US as an aggressor continuously. Supporting aggressors, not sanctioning them.
Then with Ukraine there is reluctance to help a defender.
A country that invaded nations at the drop of a hat 20 years ago has a recruitment problem. No surprises there.
If Russian troops are crossing the border then it's Russians who have manufactured the consent for violent action to drive them the fuck away.
I agree, but if that's the way the US, or any other NATO country, gets attacked I'll be surprised.
This is not the war that is proposed, it's a series of proxy wars. Just like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the decades long conflict with Palestine.
Ask if you'll defend yourself, you'll say yes.
Ask if you'll defend others, the answer is usually "it depends".
Ask if you'll go fight in a proxy war which protects largely corporate interests, you'll say no.
Joining the American military is saying yes to all 3. That's the recruitment issue going on there.
Well the whole point of NATO is that hopefully Russia wouldn't dare. Let's hope they'll not as fucking dumb and insane as they at times seem. But in any case, it was just a hypothetical. If Russia attacks here, I'd definitely fight in the WW3.
If there ever is a WW3 that can't be dealt with diplomatically, MAD is the result.
Not worth fighting, better to run and hide as the missiles fly.
Not necessarily. It could be like chemical weapons and WW2. Everyone had them nobody wanted to start using them. But in any case, I just offered a scenario where I'd be fighting. It's not necessarily the most likely one.
If Russia attacks the US, our government would try to use that as a recruitment tool, and would probably succeed.
Meanwhile the majority of us would be cheering on the Alaskan citizens that are armed for wildlife that would stop a T-70 in its tracks, to say nothing of the poor Russian conscripts.