You must log in or # to comment.
I mean c/NCD would strongly disagree with you…
(totally not for the Green M1A4 and CIWS memes)
c/NCD?
NonCredibleDefence
i meant the c. What’s that?
Lemmy community we are in now.
Reddit short links were /r/superbowl and Lemmy links I think are c/superbowl
The /c/ links assume that the community is on the same instance. A better link would be !superbowl@lemmy.world.
Thank you; that’s helpful. !test@sh.itjust.works
Ah, cheers. Didn’t know there was one for here.
No worries, bud. I’m not used to the new ones yet either.
Which instance is getting more posts? I’m hooked into two but they aren’t very populated.
Im not the one to ask. I didn’t know there’s more than 1 lemmy ncd instance.
Because the half of the country that drools over the prospect of sending American sons and daughters to their death love dictators, like Putin, and hate liberals, like that Zelenskyy guy (I hear he’s not even a Christian!)
It’s probably because sending old scraps to Ukraine doesn’t make any money. Sending soldiers to die in Afghanistan was futile and guaranteed the production, sale, and shipment of more military tech/vehicles. Sending shit that was already made just costs money and doesn’t fellate the military industrial complex.
The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant Iraq, not Afghanistan (since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan). But even for Iraq, no one is making calculations on what’s good for the military industrial complex - they’re guessing on if the cost of human life is worth the human lives saved and suffering prevented, and yes “spreading democracy”. We can certainly mock it now, and talk about the WMD justification proving false, but the idea of going to war to somehow make money is insane. War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it. The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks, and effecting global change still would be the point even if it worked for making money - which it doesn’t.
The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has.
The fact that you think this is so insane shows that you have no idea how the actual finances of sovereign currency works. What’d it cost them? Numbers on the “debt” that’s so astronomically high that it’s a joke?
since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan
Yeah, sounds like you “worked” too closely to this militarization. That’s just blatantly false. Portions of the fucking US itself, the target of the attacks, still protested and was against going there.
War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it.
Many huge corporations disagree, and profit off of this. Even in the early 2000s, while it was happening, Haliburton and Cheneys relationship were heavily criticized, because even if it’s some “net” negative or positive, there are people that stand to make a lot of money off one side of that equation.
The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks
There were large issues people took with many international conflicts being about money and companies lining pockets. Whether it’s oil in the middle east, fruit in central America, or any of the others, there are many conflicts in the “global order” which have had huge impacts for the aggressor and their economy. If you want to try to justify each one, sure, but many points point to a trend.
It does though, the money earmarked for ukraine is mostly going to buy new stuff for us to replace the old stuff we give to ukraine.
The reason is just so obviously that trump is a russian asset and now so too is the republican party.
Not to mention that a Ukraine that survives the war relatively intact will then be familiar with NATO-standard equipment and not particularly likely to want to buy things from Russia
And will then join NATO as the 3rd, 4th, or 5th most combat prepared force. I’d assume they’d be behind the US and UK but in the mix of France, Germany, and Turkey.
Oh god keep going
Does it really cost money though? I would think that it’s far more expensive to just store & maintain our massive pile of outdated equipment. I imagine the military would be relieved to finally get rid of their hundreds of shitty A-10s rather than constantly pay for their existence at least, it seems like it’d save a lot of money. hint hint
I mean I wouldn’t wish using the A-10 upon anybody (eugh), especially Ukrainians. But it would be good for money
Don’t forget the cost of disposal of expiring ammo, if not used on the range.
They’re so patriotic, they can’t sell out their country to its biggest enemy fast enough.
Because we have a fascism problem if you haven’t noticed
If we had a fascism problem you wouldn’t be able to say that.
Only once they’ve taken over. But once there’s more than the unavoidable fringe of them around and they start having a real shot at power, you have a problem, even if they can’t yet stop people from criticizing them
“You can’t say we have a problem until you’re in line for the death camps”
Great plan, very helpful.
It’s ok. The FBI has an anti-fascism department.
antifa terrorists have infiltrated the government??!! /s
America doesn’t have a fascism problem, Americans just like to see themselves as some sorts of victims. Russia, China and Iran do have a real fascism problem though.
We very much have a fascism problem. It’s very very concerning and it’s very concerning you either are disregarding it or know nothing about it.
A widely supported attempted overthrow of an election is not enough for us to qualify as having a real fascism problem?
It’s qualifying you for a real idiot problem, that’s for sure.
I’d be more concerned with why Europe has been neglecting their militaries for decades
beacuse we spent the last 20 years helping America perform aforementioned counter-insurgency in the middle east, to the obvious detriment of peer-to-peer conflict.
Ah right, UK and France, two countries known for their pacifist ways. Or Finland and Poland, countries totally not ready to defend against a Russian offensive.
Because that ducking idiot Sarkozy came to power and loves US cocks so much he decided to join NATO and fulfill the prophecies. And her we are now, just like De Gaulle had foretold!
They havnt. Its literally only when you compare directly to America that their militaries seem sub par.
Britain or France alone could go toe to toe with Russia in a conventional war. And would utterly dominate basically any county on the planet other than China Russia or the US. If it ever came to an all out war between Europe and Russia, Russia wouldn’t stand a chance. There would be Eurofighters over Moscow within a week.
Because Daddy America and NATO would protect them.
Europe really should have formed its own pan-europa defense organisation during the years that NATO was getting softer.
The NATO assasinated politicians in my country. If we had had free elections I’m not sure we’d be US allies.
No it’s because we survived 2 VERY destructive world wars in our homes and don’t have the stomach for massive military operations anymore.
Add to that the numerous laws and constitutional bans against building militaries too large (supported by America!). Austria constitutionally forced to remain neutral, Finland forced to remain neutral due to Russia, etc.
Do you really no tunderstand why Germany was discouraged and was resistant to building it’s military after two fucking world wars it started?
Really?
It’s not as simple as you make out. Europe also isn’t one country and one law.
Someone in this thread said Americans are reticent to support Ukraine because of pointless wars in the Middle East. Well imagine how fucking reticent you’d be if a massive chunk of your population died fighting wars in your own homes and back yard?
But the EU is kind of one country with one law. It is a federal system, but you can make a federal military structure. And the current European defense structure has been failing for a generation, constantly requiring American involvement and leadership.
And the EU initially started as way to tie together industries tied to defense as a way to keep the peace. At this point, might as well tie together the militaries as well.
The EU isn’t a federation or country. It has some federal characteristics but it’s nowhere near as unified as the USA.
It’s closer to a confederation.
Hindsight sure is sharp. We’re a short sighted reactionary species.
Hindsight sure is sharp
In hindsigth, are there strong reasons why european nato members should have invested significantly more in military, than they did?
You have to factor in the length of human life. There isn’t a lot of living memory from ww2 anymore. And the ones that are still living are too far gone to have any influence. It’s also hard to justify higher taxes in peacetime for weapons that might never be used.
( european here ) we are an Usa colony, the Usa set the foreign agenda, laws and cultural norms , immigration policy… We have been damaged by sanctions on russia… And we have to pay to help our master to expand his empire? Your empire, you pay. The only state that slight oppose your foreign policy, hungary, is bullied to hell.
Most intelligent Italian
i thought it was removed
It kind of is, but also not
Well he sent me the stupidest PM I’ve ever seen, so maybe he’s banned
jfc yes he’s banned
At least if you use Jerboa, if you attempt to reply to a deleted or removed comment, you can often still read it
the reason for this is, i guess, related to undelete feature. it’s available for limited time, because unlimited storage of things like this would be probably GDPR violation
I hate to be the history nitpick but the whole indiscriminate killing of Jews in incomprehensible ways was so well hidden that most of the Allies didn’t become aware until they were so deep into Germany they stumbled across Auschwitz. If I recall correctly, it was the Soviets who juggled with their own morality to take the German officers as prisoners or just execute them on their knees in the mud.
Most of Germany itself didn’t even know the extent of the Holocaust until after the war.
western allies were informed quite openly in late 1942 and quite possibly earlier, they just didn’t believe it at first for some reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raczyński’s_Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold’s_Report
The reason being that the war never was about attrocities but about sphere of influence?
Didn’t believe or didn’t care? Anti-semitism was hardly unpopular back then.
Not sure how much attention OP has been paying, but American’s trust in military/government leadership has been severely eroded by the wars in the middle east.
That is only very selectively true though, considering that the party responsible for starting those wars is the one playing pacifist now. And if there is one thing we know about GOP it is that they are definitely not pacifist
It is just a very poor excuse by disingenous liars.
The parties only exist to disguise the fact that the entire thing is being run by the exact same oligarchs no matter who is in charge. Who gets elected doesn’t change the meat of what gets done, but only the flavour.
Funny to say that after trump been in power. But also women in republican states might disagree.
If you want to go down that rabbit hole, I’d point out a few things: He was considered to lean democrat in the 90s when there was speculation he might run, and he has faced significant scorn from many established republicans as well. He’s hardly an example of a typical candidate no matter what else you think of him.
Sure. Does not change that there are significant differences in policies that affect people’s life dependingvon the party and as you say yourself even more in the personality of the president.
Yea, they focus on things that affect you on a personal and emotional level, not things that affect their own bottom line or the continuing function of their control systems, so you’re too busy fighting the “other team,” worrying about issues which are inconsequential to them, to mount any real resistance to their plans. That’s deliberate by design.
People are concerned with topics affecting them and aren’t concerned with topics that don’t affect the, go figure.
The cons outlaw abortion. The Dems try to relieve student debt. They’re exactly the same.
Put the military aren’t getting involved. The point the US doesn’t actually have to send soldiers to fight an enemy of the United States and yet people are against it.
Because they aren’t killing arabs
I’m assuming America’s #1 enemy is other Americans who don’t look or behave like them.
Oh, look, propaganda! I guess the enshittification finally found Lemmy…
You should probably do some research into what enshittification is before using it.
No, let’s just keep overusing it, like “gaslight”.
its the top post of r/ncd reposted. But sure… propaganda. You got me. 🙄
The bottom image is every liberal right now
Hey retard, it’s the Republicans that are against arming Ukraine.
Even in the context of US political crazyness your comment doen’t make sense.
'We must not do the right moral thing because that would hurt us financially and strategically"
To be fair, I always thought that the USA is more willing to do the latter rather than the former. And those protests existed in both cases, so a meme of an opposite meaning could probably be made. Or is it just that I don’t get the deepness of the joke?
When I cleared out my grandma’s attic there were her ww2 correspondence letters with soldiers on the front.
I was not prepared for the amount of american soldiers writing about how wonderful Hitler was and we shouldn’t be at war in Europe because the real enemy were the Reds.
“Heil Hitler and Fuck the Reds!” is a line from one.
It really put the inevitability of the Cold War into perspective.
America joined the war in Europe to prevent the Soviet Union from spreading communism.
Pearl Harbor may have also been a factor, but there is definitely something to that.
America was hoping to grind them both to dust with each other. And largely that was successful. The Eastern Front was a hellscape of death.
Pearl Harbor was a Japanese response to the American blockade and shipping operations in the pacific during the war.
The tonnage war certainly started well before that. Lend Lease act to the USSR was in place for nearly a year beforehand even.
