175
The American Age Is Over (www.theatlantic.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/collapse@slrpnk.net
132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 month ago* (71 children)

I mean. They can. They do. Over in .ml land, they talk about how NK, USSR, and China should expand their reach globally.

It's just that even the tankies realize that nobody really wants to live in North Korea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 71 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (70 children)

    What we talk about is more how the US should reduce it's reach globally. It is exactly that reach which has caused the overextension that we're now seeing, which is going to mean a much less controlled drawing back than if it had been done intentionally.

    It's y'all who can't get over the fact that a more cautious and reserved US foreign policy could allow its rivals to gain influence. That's the whole reason that you label us as "tankies." Because you literally cannot conceive of the idea that the US has been overextended and that there might be people wanting to correct that overextension before it blows up in our faces, entirely predictably. To try to address US overextension is something you see as inherently treasonous, and it is precisely because of that perspective that we're in this mess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 70 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (52 children)

    No, we call you tankies because you have a history of supporting dictatorships crushing their opposition with tanks.

    Those same dictatorships will, if they are allowed to, continue to crush their opposition with tanks. Sure, you would call NK invading SK "reunification", and youd probably call the Russian invasion of Europe "denazification", and you'd probably call the Chinese extermination of anyone that isn't han Chinese "cultural defense". But in reality what you're supporting is eastern imperialism and genocide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (51 children)

    I don't support any of that. I just don't believe in the US using military force to stop it.

    Guess that means I'm not a tankie?

    if they are allowed to

    Oop, there you go. By not supporting military action by the US, I am "allowing" them to do all that stuff. So I am a tankie on the basis that I'm opposed to using tanks. There you have it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 51 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (49 children)

    well…it’s time to use military force.

    Utterly idiotic. The US is weakening and you want to continue expending it's remaining resources on avoidable conflicts halfway around the world instead of actually addressing the reasons it is in a state of decline and confronting the domestic threat of fascism. You are an accelerationist, whether you realize it or not.

    Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK.

    Lmao. What has Kim Jong Un ever done to "bully" the US? It's the US that performs the largest military exercise in the world, every year, right on his doorstep, where they practice invading his country and bombing everything to smithereens the way they did before.

    But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.

    Sounds familiar. Except instead of one country, it's the world. You don't want a single place on earth to be free of the US and you're willing to let the US destroy itself with these conflicts than to show an ounce of caution or restraint. You are the one who would rather rule over ashes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (47 children)

    NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.

    And yet you can't answer when I ask for an example of how the tiny, impoverished state of NK has "bullied" the US. In reality, it's not about responding to bullying, it's just about extending the scope and authority of your empire.

    China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.

    Aww, peaceful smol bean America just wants to live in peace and harmony with everyone, but everyone else is just so aggressive.

    Meanwhile, back in this reality:

    Again, it's just empire building. You think you're somehow different from every other empire because you have all these justifications, but every empire has had similar justifications:

    There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall on the Roman people.

    • Historian Joseph Schumpeter

    Likewise, the British empire was said to have been built in "a fit of absentmindedness," as if it kept acquiring territory accidentally through "keeping the peace" around the world.

    You are no different, and history will remember your empire no differently than those of the past.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (46 children)

    They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it. Technically the war still hasn't ended. For some reason, people don't seem to forget when you try to conquer them.

    And that's why the US has allies, because they helped prevent the conquest of SK. That's why the US military is still there, to prevent the conquest of SK again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (45 children)

    They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it.

    Yeah, real imminent threat right there. I mean, what if the Soviets give them aid again? Will President Eisenhower be able to handle it?

    Did you just wake up from a 70 year coma? That's the most relevant example you can come up with for the claim that Kim Jong Un, who hadn't even been born, is a "bully" who "can't be reasoned with" and "keeps starting wars?"

    For some reason, people don’t seem to forget when you try to conquer them.

    Yeah, and they don't forget when you drop chemical weapons and murder 5 million people, primarily civilians, either. You sure that's a talking point you want to use?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (43 children)

    "One of the largest militaries in the world?" Are you actually for real right now?

    The US spends more on the military than the next 9 countries combined! Obviously, anyone sane who's in the US's crosshairs is going to desperately try to muster whatever military strength they possibly can, for fear of invasion! Which the US has done, not only generations ago before any of us were born, but with a full scale invasion and decades-long occupation in living memory, ending only a few years ago! Before going straight into attacking Iran, with no provocation!

    Jesus Christ, you imperialists are completely nuts! What is it about militaristic, authoritarian empires that makes you completely abandon any sort of reasoning or common sense, and start acting like a tiny hermit country halfway across the world that hasn't been in a conflict for 70 years is somehow a threat to the most powerful and militaristic country on earth? It's completely ridiculous.

    Fucking, Rome had more plausible arguments for "defending itself" when they conquered Gaul!

    You just keep licking the boot of the US government and accepting every bullshit justification it gives as it expands to every corner of the world, until it collapses on itself from the overextension, until the fascists take advantage of the decline and seize power at home, and when we're both being matched into the gas chambers, I'll ask you again whether fucking North Korea was really the threat we needed to be worrying about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (41 children)

    My money is not on NK.

    Yeah, no shit! You realize that's a point against you right? I'm the one arguing that North Korea isn't a real credible threat. That's exactly why they have to try to make up the difference in manpower! Even South Korea, on it's own outspends the north.

    Did you get distracted by the blood rushing to your dick, thinking about how your empire has a greater capacity for violence, and you lost track of what the conversation was about?

    Meanwhile, as all our money is poured into that idiotic nonsense so that people can get their rocks off and so that billionaires can profit off it, roads, infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc decay more and more each year, causing actually real suffering and danger to people's lives. But who cares? Building hospitals doesn't let you live out a juvenile power fantasy like setting off bombs and rockets does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (39 children)

    It's not at all clear that North Korea would be allowed to follow the same path that China did. However, the point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Again, we are not evaluating the North Korean government or their domestic policy, we are evaluating whether they pose a credible military threat, both in terms of their aims and their capabilities, and the answer to that is a resounding "No," by your own admission.

    In any case it's incredibly hypocritical to lecture another country about their military spending while the US is spending more than the next 9 countries combined. You can't pretend that you have some principled commitment towards deescalation if you're just focused on getting weaker countries to put down their arms so that powerful countries can dominate them. That is just imperialism, plain in simple. You might as well be a British colonizer calling for Zulus to not be so militaristic and to put down their bows and arrows, as they slaughtered them with machine guns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (37 children)

    NK doesn’t pose a credible military threat to the US. It poses a credible military threat to SK. That’s why the US acts as a deterrent.

    Of course, if Rome's interests are not threatened, then it's those of Rome's allies. Nevermind that SK outspends NK on the military, or that the north hasn't attacked in 70 years.

    The difference being: the US can afford to spend that money on the military much easier than NK can.

    First off, so what? This is a talking point I always see that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever, to look at expenditure as a percent of GDP instead of in absolute terms. As if it's just natural to keep pouring money into the military for no reason, just because you can!

    Military expenditure is only justified if it is countering a real, legitimate threat. If a small poor country is threatened by a large rich country, then the small country is of course justified in spending a higher percentage of its GDP on defense, because otherwise it would be completely defenseless. Conversely, to spend not only more than any other country, but more than the next nine countries combined, clearly means that the expenditure has nothing to do with responding to threats. Rather, it is about being a threat, which other countries then have to respond to.

    Secondly, I disagree that that the US can more easily spend the money. Because, despite how much richer the US is, it is also trying to hold together a globe-spanning empire through military force. Korea is only one of many theaters that the US is involved in, and what we're seeing now is that the US is being forced to pull military equipment away from Korea to the Middle East, where it's once again gotten over it's head. The money that we spend on trying to dominate Korea also has to be spent on every other imperial project, from Cuba to Iran to Syria and so on.

    Because of how massively overextended the US is, it is now $40 trillion in debt, many countries are turning to or at least considering dedollarization, and the US is scrambling to make trade deals more extractive which is causing long-term harm to its alliances. And that's just internationally! Domestically, the situation is even worse. Trump rose to prominence in a large part because he distinguished himself from the political establishment, both sides of which fully supported the disasterous, failed imperial project in Afghanistan. The far-right has jumped on the opportunity to take advantage of people'e frustrations with all these foreign entanglements, and the declining economic conditions such as inflation, while holding and promoting all kinds of extremist ideas (and while continuing to engage in such projects). The only prominent voices in American politics with a platform to present an alternative are useless liberals who refuse to adapt to the situation in any way, stubborning clinging the same kind of imperialist talking points you've said and not addressing people's actual material needs.

    The longer this situation is allowed to continue, the more likely it is that the fascists will seize power, permanently. If you think things are bad with Trump now, you have no idea how much worse the right is capable of becoming, and how much worse they will become. The US, at present, cannot afford to be involved in any conflict abroad. Frankly, I'm not even sure that the US could fix itself if it did drop everything and adopt the correct focus. The core of the empire is in a state of decay and crisis. And while that it happening, it absolutely cannot afford to be preoccupied with anywhere like North Korea, which certainly does not present any kind of existential threat.

    Every dollar wasted on pointless military exercises on the Korean peninsula is a dollar that isn't being spent revitalizing the domestic economy, and if the economy is not revitalized then it is inevitable that the fascists win. Why should I care about this absurd, exaggerated threat on the other side of the world, when there's an actual, real threat that my next-door neighbors could vote for me to be sent to a camp? It's delusional, it's complete and utter nonsense.

    Who cares if the empire is maintained and expanded, if it turns full-on fascist?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (35 children)

    You're insane. "Attacked?" A couple scouts wandered across the border. SK fired warning shots and they left. You call that an "attack?"

    How many Americans have been killed by police shootings and ICE raids? Those are attacks! When fascists mobs beat trans people to death and the cops look the other way, that is an attack! We are currently under attack, right now. Not an attack 70 years ago, not thousands of miles away, not an "attack" that's a random soldier with a bad map, but intentional, organized acts of violence, with the intent of establishing a new, oppressive order in the United States itself.

    It is beyond unreasonable and just full on delusional to think of anything else but complete and total focus on destroying the one, singlural existential threat that actually exists! They're at the fucking gates, my dude! They trying to kill us all! And there's a damn good chance they actually will!

    What the fuck is going on in your mind to worry about this non-issue half a world away? A border skirmish? It couldn't even be called that! Warning shots, fired by South Korea? Are you out of your mind? Fucking hell! Look at what our own government is doing to our own people! I can't even go to work without thinking what would happen if a bunch of jackbooted masked thugs showed up and started shoving everyone into a van, to be taken to a secret torture dungeon in El Salvador!

    Drop everything else. North Korea could be rolling tanks across the border as we speak, and it would still be less urgent then dealing with the fascists here at home! They want us in the fucking ground! What part of that do you not understand? They are an imminent threat to the entire world! North Korea doesn't give half a shit about us, except to the extent that we fuck with them! How can you have such completely ridiculous, mixed up priorities??

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (27 children)

    Why do I even bother? This country is doomed by it's own stupidity, it's own chauvanism and arrogance, and you are the perfect example of all of those traits, exactly the reason why we're so fucked. Maybe it's better to do it your way, where the whole fucking thing will collapse, and the world will be thrown into total chaos. Maybe we just deserve this. Humanity has survived the fall of empires in the past, so no matter how destructive you make this one's fall, perhaps we will even survive the complete and utter idiocy of people like you.

    I just can't understand why you want to do this the hard way and ensure we live through one of the most chaotic and unstable periods of human history, for no fucking reason, when we could just, not. If people like you would simply pull your heads out of your asses and look around.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (25 children)

    But we both know that the above is just dumbass wishful thinking, because the ruling class of every country is psychopathic. Kim doesn’t give a fuck, Xi gives few fucks, trump gives no fucks, Putin gives no fucks, that’s what leadership and hierarchy is. Identifying the person who truly has the fewest fucks to give when it comes to others.

    So then who the fuck gives a shit whether one country's ruling class controls a region or another country's ruling class does? This whole argument has been about you saying that you want to prioritize the interests of the US ruling class and expand their empire, instead of actually doing something that would actually benefit people's lives!

    This is so dumb. You realize that the ruling class doesn't give a shit but you don't care, you're fully on board with advancing their interests because, why? Because you just hate the people they told you to hate?

    If the ruling class of North Korea and South Korea are both bad, then why the fuck do you want us to keep going bankrupt from medical debt, just so that one shitty ruling class can control a piece of land thousands of miles away instead some other country's shitty ruling class? It makes no goddamn sense!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (21 children)

    Edit: I am incorrect. I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

    Honestly, I'm impressed. Correction accepted.

    I believe you argued for less US dominance, in which case we are left with a multipolar world, with great powers fighting for dominance. The US is now one of those great powers.

    Yes. That is the most practical and realistic pathway towards reducing the scope of existing heirarchies. Saying that you want to abolish the state is meaningless, unless you plan on winning a war against the most powerful military (or militaries) on the planet. After justifying their funding, strangely enough.

    When one country is global hegemon, then it has undisputed, centralized power and everyone has to do what it says or face severe consequences. In a multipolar world, smaller countries have more freedom to choose who they do deal with. Therefore, the heirarchies are weaker.

    Regardless of whether you want a multipolar world or not, it's the direction we're headed. The only real alternative is the accelerationist path where the US overextends itself and collapses altogether. I am not an accelerationist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (20 children)

    Not necessarily. To go back to my example with China: they were unable to compete with the US in the military sense. They probably can now, but we don't know that for sure.

    So China began to compete in the economic and political sense. Manufacturing development, BRI, etc. there didn't need to be conflict to collapse the hegemony.

    In a multipolar world, we have the NK situation but on a global scale. With no undisputed champion, lots of people begin disputes. Which means wars. More military spending as a fraction of the global economy, as countries fight for dominance, instead of figuring out ways to economically outcompete each other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    Maybe you should just spell out how, exactly, you plan to "abolish states" without conflict arising in the process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    So basically you hate my approach because it falls short of your perfect ideal, which you yourself acknowledge is impossible and unrealistic.

    And since you acknowledge that the ideal is impossible and unrealistic, the only real point of holding it is to maintain a pretense that that's what you stand for. What you actually stand for are the things you believe should be done in the meantime, but those things are pretty much just nakedly imperialist, so you don't want to actually stand by them.

    Just utterly ridiculous. The only reason you even pretend to be an anarchist is because you think the aesthetics are cool.

    That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict.

    Great! That's what I have been doing this entire conversation! The question is, if you're "trying to make people uninterested in conflict," why are you justifying the military that costs more than the next nine militaries put together? Why are you talking about how necessary and important it is to have soldiers go all over the world looking for fights? Why are you scaremongering about a tiny hermit country and acting like is super important that we use the military to stop it?

    What a load of horseshit. That's a blatant contradiction, it's blatant hypocrisy.

    Genuinely, I would need a degree in psychology to even begin to make sense of the bizarre mental gymnastics you're using to try to hold both of those ideas simultaneously and pretend they aren't completely contradictory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

    ...wut?

    I don't even know what your approach is, apart from disagreeing with people.

    But yes, in a multipolar world where every pole feels like they have a chance to make the world unipolar with them on top, the end result is conflict. This is what happened between 1945-1991, where there was a multipolar world and a whole lot of proxy war.

    I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn't think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South. Essentially a unipolar Korean peninsula. Because if NK thinks they can win a war against SK, they will go to war. That's why they maintain a massive military presence and routinely send raiding parties across the border. By "accident".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (15 children)

    I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn’t think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South.

    That's not how that works, my dude!

    How the fuck is it remotely "anarchist" or "anti-militarist" to support a state intimidating people into submission through military force? That's absolute nonsense. Basically every power-hungry dictator since the dawn of time has been exactly as "anarchist" as you. "I don't want to use military force to make those people submit, I just want to intimidate them into submission. But I will use force if I have to."

    Forget about the Roman Empire, fucking Ghenghis Khan held that position!

    At best you can argue that you're just trying to enforce the status quo. Which is about the least "anarchist" thing you could possibly do! It's fucking ridiculous! There is zero difference between your position, and someone who is full on, 100% statist, full on, 100% in favor of imperialism. Zero difference whatsoever. The only distinction is in rhetoric.

    Even then, while you try your best to maintain the empire, you're not even taking the right approach to it. I know you want your empire to span the entire globe, I know your ambition is to stamp out, sorry, intimidate into submission, anyone who would dare to stand against your authority, but I'm telling you it's just not possible. If you try to hold everything, you're not going to wind up not having any empire at all. The empire is overextended and if it collapses, which it is on track to, then you won't be able to make anyone submit to your authority. And the world will be thrown into chaos, potentially even setting of global thermonuclear war.

    You have to restrain your ambition, my liege, your lust for power and authority, at least a little bit! If you just accept that you can only dominate and control part of the world, instead of being dead set on total domination, then we can actually achieve some degree of peace and stability. No matter how much you want world domination, it's just not sustainable or viable. I'm sorry, liege, I know how much you hate the idea that anyone could be free from your authority, but it's just something you have to accept.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (12 children)

    Yeah. Can't really abolish the state when the state is being conquered by another, more oppressive state.

    By the way I've been skipping over your chargpt bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

    Okay, then your shitty attempts at fantasy writing. Basically your second paragraphs in most of your posts I've just not bothered to read.

    You really don't understand the concept of harm reduction, do you? A less oppressive state is better than a more oppressive state. Abolishing the state is less likely with an opporessive state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Your shitty attempts at taunting me are noted. Perhaps I was too generous in correcting myself earlier.

    You'd actually have a point if we weren't talking about North Korea. If we were comparing similar governments, not one that is problematic to one that is essentially a slave state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    Tell me, if a dude with a gun walked into your living room and said "hey don't worry I'm not gonna go in your bedroom", you'd be cool with that?

    The problem with NK isn't the fact that they could pose a threat. The problem with NK is that they could pose a threat, as well as constantly talk about how they will invade, as well as probe SK's defenses with repeated armed incursions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    Tell me, if a dude with a gun walked into your living room and said “hey don’t worry I’m not gonna go in your bedroom”, you’d be cool with that?

    If someone with a gun wandered into my living room, and I said, "I would like you to leave now" and he turned around and walked out of my living room, then I would certainly have an interesting story to tell but I absolutely would not claim that I was "attacked" or "invaded" no. And that's someone literally walking into my own residence and not just wandering around in the woods outside my house, technically within my property line.

    If a hunter crossed into my property line and then left when I told him to, calling that an "attack" would be even more ludicrous. I would absolutely laugh at anyone who tried to say that and not take them remotely seriously, just as it's impossible to take your claim seriously.

    The problem with NK isn’t the fact that they could pose a threat. The problem with NK is that they could pose a threat, as well as constantly talk about how they will invade

    And what I'm telling you is, again, that your precious beloved empire will fall to pieces if some poor country halfway across the world talking shit is enough for you to pour endless resources into the military while neglecting actual problems at home.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Alright. We're down to standard .ml discourse.

    Let me know when Ukraine the US collapses!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    You're right. Your empire will never fall. All those other empires that thought the same way were different. This one will last 1000 years.

    The US is already in the process of collapsing. That's what the OP article is about. International alliances are weakening. The military is facing shortages. More and more countries are abandoning the dollar. The extreme right is growing stronger and stronger. Trump got elected, twice, and he is only a symptom of the problem that you refuse to acknowledge or address.

    You clearly deserve the future you're creating with your stubborn imperialism. It just sucks that you're subjecting the rest of us to living under fascism because people like you couldn't get over your lust for power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Well, I'm glad that you're finally taking the mask off and admitting that you're an imperialist instead of doing that silly bit where you pretended to be an anarchist or a leftist. I don't know who you thought you were kidding with that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    I never wore a mask. I have always been open about my preference for the Western world compared to the eastern world. If I preferred it the other way around, I wouldn't have left the USSR.

    Of course we could do better...but we could also do much worse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    You seemed to take offense at that, and began singing the praises of NK.

    I'll take "things that never happened" for $2000, Alex.

    Go ahead. Quote me "singing the praises of NK. I'll wait.

    You're just lying.

    What would really benefit people’s lives is getting rid of the entire concept of states and hierarchies.

    Utterly laughable! You think you're an anarchist? You're one of the most imperialist people I've talked to on here, and that's a high bar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    happened to fire some warning shots.

    Idiot! Read your own fucking article! South Korea was the only one that even fired shots!

    You really just compared Vietnam, a full scale, years-long invasion and occupation, complete with a bombing campaign and chemical weapons, to someone walking into the DMZ and then leaving, without harming a single person. That's the single dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.

    Calling that an "invasion" somehow manages to be even more delusional than the right calling immigration an "invasion," because at least then there are multiple people, who don't just immediately leave.

    Are you trolling? Is this a joke to you? It's not gonna be a joke when the fascists put us both in camps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (3 children)

    You're gonna get us all killed. Idiot.

    None of that shit matters at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

    That's such a harebrained campist take 🙄

    The reason people get called "tankies" has nothing to do with the US and all to do with the kind of horrible dictatorships they support. It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)

    It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?

    Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like "tankie" acknowledges that in practice.

    When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I'm immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don't want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of "defending North Korea," labelled as a "tankie" and then subject to the whole rumor mill about "what tankies believe" that's completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I'm being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it's assumed that I'm just concealing my "real" views.

    It's the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn't respond to 9/11 by "turning the other cheek" like I'd been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of "terrorist sympathizer" because "you're either with us or against us." Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of "supporting" or "defending" the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.

    There's no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I'm trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I'd rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us "tankies" actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a "tankie" because if you don't want to build and deploy tanks then you're assumed to "support" whatever enemy-of-the-week they're to be used against, who is no doubt "authoritarian." Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a "campist" for "supporting" the target of that militarism. When you're being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between "supporting" or "opposing action against," and even if you insist on it they'll just say you're lying and that you actually do support the "bad guy."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take. The arguments then will by around pacifism and the issues with that and not if you secretly support Assad. Try it some time 🤷

    But since you avoided that term until I brought it up, I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist, and then your rethoric falls flat and becomes a "if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok". And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

    Try it some time

    I did. I did when I was 10 years old and knew nothing but the stories about Jesus my parents told me, well into my 20's, reading Tolstoy, and the rhetoric and accusations were always the same.

    Are you an American? Do you understand what the mood was like, trying to oppose war while growing up in a "post-9/11 world?" "It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take," what an utterly ridiculous thing to say. As if all the people whose blood was boiling with bloodlust, thirsting for revenge, fantasizing about torture and mass murder, talking about "turning the sand to glass," will suddenly be cool if you just say, "Um, actually, I'm only against you because I'm a pacifist." Only someone who's never experienced it could think that way. Nobody gives a single shit about your reasons, you will always be the villain and you will always be assigned the most damning motives possible.

    You are childishly naive, and I wish that I could live in the world you think we live in.

    I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist

    You don't have to assume, I just told you that I'm not a pacifist.

    “if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.

    Do you seriously believe that I tried to frame Syria as a class war with Assad as some kind of socialist hero, and I'm now lying about it? And you think that's more plausible than that people simply tried to discredit my opposition to US intervention?

    This is an utterly ridiculous conversation. You're claiming "this would never happen" while simultaneously doing the exact thing you claim wouldn't happen! You are ignoring my actual positions and assigning me the most damning positions you can, while simultaneously trying to deny that anyone would ever do such a thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    I am not American, but old enough to remember the situation around 9/11 well, and sure there was some of what you describe, but the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism and not accusing someone of actually supporting a dictatorship. No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.

    But if you go "uhm actually I am not a pacifist" and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can't really complain about people pointing out the hypocricy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (8 children)

    the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism

    No it wouldn't. Because they would simply accuse me of not actually being a pacifist, and instead being a "terrorist sympathizer." Just like how you are, currently, accusing me of not actually holding the positions I claim to. How is this difficult to understand when you're literally doing it right now?

    No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.

    No one? Did President Bush not say, "You're either with us or with the terrorists?"

    But if you go “uhm actually I am not a pacifist” and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can’t really complain about people pointing out the hypocracy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).

    "Highly selective" and "pretty obviously based on a campist mindset." Or, I'm talking about the US because I live in the US and it's the only country that I have some nominal ability to influence. Why would I focus on condemning Assad, do you think he'd read it and have a change of heart? And it's also literally in a thread about the US.

    This is exactly what I'm talking about. You expect me to constantly shift the focus to criticizing other countries, and anything short of that means that I'm secretly loyal to them. It's ridiculous. No different than accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I condemned the war in Afghanistan, because, "Why are you talking about that, why aren't you talking about Al Qaida's crimes?"

    At the very least you can't have it both ways, you can accuse me of whatever motives you want (believe me, I'm used to it) but you don't get to keep accusing me of having such secret motives while simultaneously trying to claim that no one would ever accuse me of having such secret motives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    You sleep in the bed you make yourself.

    The US is involved in way more conflicts around the world than the ones you listed, yet somehow you chose to focus nearly exclusively on the ones where the opposing sides are horrible dictatorships, all the while insisting that you are actually ok with armed conflict if it is against the right enemy. So the logical conclusion is that you consider these horrible dictatorships to be the wrong enemy...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    You sleep in the bed you make yourself.

    If that were true, you and others would attack me based on my actual positions rather than the ones you make up and assign to me.

    The US is involved in way more conflicts around the world than the ones you listed, yet somehow you chose to focus nearly exclusively on the ones where the opposing sides are horrible dictatorships

    I'm curious which ones you think I left off.

    all the while insisting that you are actually ok with armed conflict if it is against the right enemy. So the logical conclusion is that you consider these horrible dictatorships to be the wrong enemy…

    Did I say that? I don't believe I did. The narrow range of conflicts I'm ok with don't really have anything to do with it being "the right enemy."

    I am ok with conflict when it is necessary for survival or when there is a significant difference to the average person who wins. For example, WWII was a fight for survival, if one side won, entire races would be exterminated. WWI was not. Therefore, although many of the countries in WWI were despicable, colonial empires, very much "the right enemies," I would not have supported the war because it would just be a question of which colonial power came up on top, while ordinary people would be fed into a pointless meat grinder regardless. Furthermore, the correct position was to push to avoid the war as much as possible, because even though it involved "the right enemies," it was pointlessly destructive and the damage was not worth it.

    But if we were having this conversation a hundred years ago (as people were), then if we were British, then when I opposed the war with Germany you would say that I must be secretly loyal to the Kaiser, and if we were German, then when I opposed the war with Russia you would accuse me of being secretly loyal to the Tsar. This is exactly the justification that social democrats across Europe did historically use to support the war. It is, again, a tale as old as time.

    The US has had no business going after any enemy, right or wrong, after expending itself on a pointless, decades long occupation in an avoidable war halfway around the globe, with multiple domestic crises happening including the rise of fascism. If we don't refocus and deal with our shit, then we will burn out and be unable to deal with any enemy, right or wrong. If the fascists have their way, we will be the right enemy, that the rest of the world will have to deal with. There is no external threat anywhere in the world that comes remotely close to our internal threats.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Further up you listed seven conflicts and complained about people critizising you for the position you took. Of those seven, all but one or two are clearly horrible dictatorships, and the unclear cases are only marginally better, and one of them is even an imperialistic act of aggression threatening the very existence of the side the US supported. So clearly you are applying very different standards in a hypocritical way to these conflicts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    Just because a country is a dictatorship, does that mean I should support war against it? Do you want to invade Saudi Arabia? Or do you think Saudi Arabia is not a horrible dictatorship?

    There is no "hypocrisy" or "double standard" that I am applying. I am simply applying a different standard than yours.

    So long as the US is as burned out as it is, I will oppose involvement in every conflict, unless it presents an imminent, existential threat that is greater than the threat of domestic fascism. And no such greater threat exists, anywhere in the world. If you think there is, then you are underestimating the threat the American right poses. All other priorities are secondary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Pointing to these conflicts specifically and then complaining about people suspecting ulterior motives, when you could have simply taken a pacifist or even just an isolationist position (which would have been much easier to defend) is usually a sign that you are indeed a campist. If you don't want to be mistaken as one, I recommend you reconsider your arguments and who you associate yourself with (e.g. lemmy.ml).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    when you could have simply taken a pacifist or even just an isolationist position

    What? I'm not a pacifist, or even an isolationist, really. You're saying I should've lied about my positions? That's not something I do.

    If I said I was a pacifist, then you could criticize me and say, "Well what about WWII?" And that's a completely valid criticism of pacifism that I agree with. So what would I be supposed to say then? "Well, actually, I was lying and I'm not really a pacifist?"

    If I said I was an isolationist, then you could criticize me based on things like tariffs. In reality, I support international trade so long as it is fair and not exploitative. So once again, I would have to say, "Well, actually, I was just lying."

    That is nonsense. There's a reason (well, several reasons) I don't lie about my political positions, and it's that there's enough nuance and complexity to my views that if I wasted time and energy lying about them, then how could I expect anyone to arrive at understanding or agreeing with what I really believe? Way too much extra work when I can just be honest and direct.

    I recommend you reconsider your arguments and who you associate yourself with (e.g. lemmy.ml).

    Now why would I do that? Marxist-Leninists are some of the only people in the world I've ever encountered who actually have their heads screwed on straight and their priorities in order. They are the only ones who actually take the threat of the American right seriously and recognize that going around playing world police is not the correct approach in these conditions.

    I can't even discuss things with people like you, because the moment I say I oppose war (or most wars), you start assigning nefarious motives to me, trying to descredit me and painting me as a bad person.

    Also, I think you know that what you're telling me is nonsense. If I made an account on .world, and I went around saying that I condemn Russia but I don't support sending weapons to Ukraine, even if I lied and claimed to be a pacifist or isolationist, everyone would still call me a tankie and say that I support Russia, and they'd probably throw in a whole bunch of other stuff too, like that I think Russia is still socialist or whatever. Y'all are constantly making shit up about us like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Typical ML response, trying to play the victim when someone points out the obvious contradictions in the campist mindset 🤦

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    You haven't pointed out any contradictions, nor shown my mindset to be in any way campist, nor am I trying to play the victim. Bullshit as usual.

    The only contradiction in this conversation is your implication that wars against dictatorships are automatically justified, while refusing to answer what I asked about Saudi Arabia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)