69
Which one of your views gets you labeled as "the other"? (feddit.uk)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
155 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Broadly speaking, you probably agree with the large majority of the views commonly attributed to whichever group you identify with - what are the exceptions? Something that if you mention without a caveat immediately makes people jump to conclusions or even attack you?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 13 points 11 months ago (5 children)
[removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    We Americans used to at least try not to look for "foreign monsters abroad". I was raised on that sort of old fashioned idea. Do you ever feel like an impossible person from a land that never existed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    It still is a right wing position, but the trouble is not right or left specifically, it's that the empire is overextended with its military obligations, the dollar has been badly debased, the US pays more in debt than its GDP, and despite all our spending, the US couldn't possibly meet all of its military obligations if more than one big thing happened at a time. The dollar is still the world reserve currency, but only because there's not yet a credible replacement.

    The sad fact is that instead of minding our business, America wanted to be an empire - and empires have a pretty standard lifecycle. I don't think it's a question of if, but when, it goes the way of Spain and GB.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Probably being an absolutist instead of considering case-by-case leaves room for criticism.

    In your example, Biden pulling out of Afghanistan. Was it wrong to intervene in the first place, probably? 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.

    I would argue that Humanitarian Intervention should be excluded, and certain UN-led actions (although the bureaucracy has certainly led to interventions occurring after mass deaths, unfortunately).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago

    If a Taliban victory was inevitable, this is yeah totally true. The “rip off the bandaid” approach.

    The question of how long it takes to peacefully handover power in a colony is an interesting one. It can be an absurd amount of time, may never be 100%, or it may never be peaceful, if resentment persists. I think it is possible, but we may differ there.

    It’s certainly hard to justify the long-term cost to American life, expenditure, energy and focus to attempt beneficial cultural change on the other side of the world.

    Unsurprisingly perhaps, some things are actually better in Afghanistan, since 2021. Definite evidence that war is in fact, worse, generally, than even a very dickish government. Looking at the data, I might come down on your side, it’s tough.

    WHO Health data overview for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)