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
[–] 0 points 1 month ago (48 children)

It would be nice to spend less time using military force where it is not necessary. Like the Middle East.

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

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (44 children)

    And they continue to maintain one of the largest militaries in the world, threaten invasion several times per year, and routinely send commando squads over the border, who often indiscriminately kill people.

    Turns out that type of shit, in addition to total invasion in the past, makes your neighbors kind of touchy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (42 children)

    Well, yeah. In terms of numbers. 30% of the population is military. Of course spending isn't gonna count, North Korea is poor as shit. They don't have the money for nice things, they just have bodies (in various forms of starvation).

    And sure, they can justify it with a fear of invasion. SK also has a justified fear of invasion. Looks like it's gonna be a pissing match, we'll see who's got the bigger dick. Militarily speaking.

    My money is not on NK.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (40 children)

    Yep.

    Now the question becomes: is NK going to continue to play a losing hand, or are they gonna do what China did and figure out what they can do to realistically counter US dominance?

    Based on the last 70 years, NK appears to be set on continuing to play a losing hand, hoping that one day the US backs down and they're able to restart the Korean war.

    They could pretty easily stop sending 80% of their resources to the military and start improving things for their people. But I don't think Kim Jong Un wants to do that. Nor do I think the current NK government would be able to survive demilitarization. Not from external threats, mind you. I don't think their society is gonna put up with Kim very long when there are ways to feed yourself outside the army.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (38 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.

    The difference being: the US can afford to spend that money on the military much easier than NK can. There really isn't shit to dominate in NK, by modern standards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (36 children)

    NK literally attacked SK last year.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn85pvv13e8o

    That money ain't no waste. NK is a problem, and keeping enough guns pointed at them that they stick to probing attacks is a good investment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (34 children)

    Yep. Armed and uniformed soldiers crossed a border between them and a state they are currently at war with. That is an invasion. A particularly shitty one, but what else do you expect, it's north korea, they've been incompetent since day one. Even during the korean war they needed the Chinese to do the heavy lifting.

    If you don't think that is an attack, then the US has never attacked anyone. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korean, Iraq again, whatever. Those armed and uniformed US soldiers probably just got lost on the way to the bathroom. Ya know, you're at a party at a new house, you've had some drinks, it's two doors over and to the right, but you turn left and accidentally topple a socialist government lol. Just a warning shot. S'all good.

    Edit: actually, the sheer incompetence explains why NK thought working with Russia to fight in Ukraine would teach them some good invasion lessons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (26 children)

    You are right. We could just Not.

    NK could just...stop sending raiding parties to SK and focus on resilience. After a decade of no border incidents, SK would probably get sick of the US and kick them out. The US could also stop fucking about in the ME, if only we had solar panels instead of oil derricks. We'll have slar panels soon enough.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (24 children)

    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!

    Um. No?

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

    This "argument" started with me pointing out that many tankies over in .ml land would rather establish NK/USSR/Chinese style authoritarianism. You can go back to the beginning of the thread and check that if you want. You seemed to take offense at that, and began singing the praises of NK. That's about the time I stopped taking you seriously.

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    Eh, if I knew how to do that, I would be a household name worldwide, not shitposting on Lemmy.

    That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict. Most people already aren't. Soldiers need to specifically be trained to kill, because that's not something the majority of people want to do.

    If the general says "fight!" And the foot soldier says "no, I think I'd like a nap", does the war happen?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    I think you're responding to the wrong person dude. When did I say this was the anarchist approach?

    This is the deterring Korean War 2 approach.

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

    When did I say this was the anarchist approach?

    When you talked about "abolishing the state," obviously.

    This is the deterring Korean War 2 approach.

    Sire, I fear that your focus is misplaced. There is a growing threat of banditry within your own realm, sire. These are no ordinary bandits, my lord, they are organized and well equipped. I fear they are plotting to seize your throne, milord. The rabble is discontented, there are whispers that the king cares not about protecting the people, that they cannot afford to pay the apocathary for treatment when they fall ill, and that even basic necessities have become harder to come by. I even have reports sire, that even the loyalty of the guardsmen is in question, as many are loyal to the bandits. Even the courts and magistrates are not free of their influence. And let's not even discuss the state of your treasury.

    You must turn your focus inward, my liege, for the security of the realm. Let us appease our allies with gifts and honeyed words, but not allow ourselves to be drawn into their campaigns. If we try to aid them while there is turbulence at home, it will only create more problems, my liege. I beg you, my liege, put aside your pride and ambition and see reason! I know you long for the field of battle, that the tribulations of the peasants bore you, but it is upon their backs that your power rests, lord. They will only answer the call of battle if they see that you are a wise and cautious ruler, who tends to his realm.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (11 children)

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

    Not a single thing I've said has been chat-gpt.

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

    Right, so then it's exactly what I said. You are not an anarchist, you do not believe in abolishing the state, that is purely rhetorical. You are an imperialist who believes in maintaining the empire (badly), and who likes to pretend that you're not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    Okay, then your shitty attempts at fantasy writing.

    I thought I might have more luck addressing you as a king since that's what you actually want to be and are acting like.

    You really don’t understand the concept of harm reduction, do you?

    No, I do understand the concept, and I also understand the fact that it's generally just an excuse to rally around the flag and support imperialism.

    When the British socialists rallied around their imperialist state as it sent people to the pointless meat grinder of WWI, to kill Germans and expand the power of their empire, they called it harm reduction, because they pointed to the flaws of the German government, and said at least we're not that bad, and we have to stop them from winning. When the German socialists did the same, they justified their imperialism by pointing to the Russian government's flaws and calling it harm reduction the exact same way. And so, ordinary people all over Europe got drafted and sent off to slaughter each other for the sake of expanding the power of their respective empires, with the full endorsement of supposedly "socialist" parties, justified with harm reduction.

    The only country where socialists that rejected that nonsense about "harm reduction" or "lesser evilism" was, in fact, the only one that was able to overthrow their government and set up a new system. And you can disagree with the direction it went all you want, but this idea that revolution would somehow be easier if the state is secure and has no other threats to worry about is obviously nonsense.

    You don't give a rat's ass about abolishing the state, or about opposing the ruling class in general. You only care about preserving the status quo, with the ruling class on top, and you can call that "harm reduction" or whatever else to justify it, but at the end of the day you're just a rube working to protect the interests of the ruling class.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    Your shitty attempts at taunting me are noted.

    Nothing I say could ever be as shitty an attempt at taunting as calling a random soldier wandering around "an invasion." If your imperialist views weren't enough to make me not respect you, that bit of trolling certainly was.

    You’d actually have a point if we weren’t talking about North Korea.

    If some random, dirt poor country a thousand miles away is enough to make you rally behind the ruling class, then you just wanted to rally behind the ruling class and found that to use as an excuse.

    There has never been, nor will there ever be, a state that doesn't have a threat at least as large as what NK poses. You will always find a reason rally behind the state and the ruling class, and any pretense otherwise is completely unserious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Given a choice between western imperialism and eastern imperialism I pick western imperialism. We have tacos.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    No, it is not a joke. Armed, uniformed, active duty military crossing a border is invasion. Even if they "just got lost".

    I will admit, though, north korea isn't stupid. When faced with strategic superiority, the tactically correct decision is probing skirmishes (see above) and suicide attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Gangneung_submarine_infiltration_incident).

    The strategically correct response is containment with overwhelming firepower. That's where NK is now. Sucks for them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •