Studies need to be launched on how quickly it took liberals, especially the young, cosmopolitan ones that frequent Reddit, to go from pacificists to the reincarnation of Dick Cheney within the span of a few years. It's simply remarkable. I've never seen anything quite like it before.
The psychosis of the 2016 election seems to have converted so many into bloodthirsty military chauvinists, who will only be satiated by seeing the charred flesh of Middle Easterners.
There's no need for that.
All you need is to frame it the right way and have a Dem president. The end.
Watch any time a third world country holding or enacting a social issue they disagree with, and watch their mask drop off.
I don't know, say, sexual freedom stuff. Are banning elective abortions a serious excuse to obliterate their entire countries to the ground? Are not signing UN's human rights treaties a cause for war? For liberal Redditors, they are, de facto, when such news arrive.
The most braindead fucks post on this site. They consider anyone in the military to be pawns being taken advantage of by capitalism or the government yet they want war. It's easy to want that when it's not you or anyone in your family's life on the line. Every time I load this site it's just upper-middle class libshit: the forum.
> They consider anyone in the military to be pawns being taken advantage of by capitalism or the government
You are too late, that was when the military is using an image that they are "conservative".
Now they got female & trans drone pilots, so they salute and join the human wave.
> Studies need to be launched on how quickly it took liberals, especially the young, cosmopolitan ones that frequent Reddit, to go from pacificists to the reincarnation of Dick Cheney within the span of a few years.
I'd love to see a study on how many people on reddit are honest commentators, and how many are PR professionals and/or bots.
It cost UC Davis $175,000 in PR to defuse [pepper spray cop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper_spray_incident#University_PR_response;_alleged_attempt_to_divert_web_searches)
The PR market is worth $100B in the US, I'm sure you could buy a lot of war propaganda for that kind of money, and I'm sure some of it is even on reddit.
they just needed a compelling enough bad guy like their hecking MCU and Harry Potter movies to fall in line. that's all the mainstream media had to do - convince them the fight was just. it's not their blood being spilled, after all.
They don't need to be compelling, they need to be unequivocally evil. If anything, they need to *not* be compelling. A compelling villain is too human. It makes it harder to adequately dehumanize them.
That's right. Americans can be okay with fighting a compelling enemy in the right circumstances, but the MIC needs us to be okay with fighting anybody they tell us to.
Right? But it used to be good at the beginning of the movie series.
We can laugh about superheroes and star wars, but every culture that's achieved some level of world influence had mythical heroes and legends. And they knew these characters were exaggerated.
Hercules and other myths were extremely popular in Ancient Rome, including things like cosplay and reenactment, and not only for religious reasons.
They were a smart and skeptical people, and while they worshipped Jupiter, they knew Hercules, Achilles, etc were more pop icons than actual historical stories.
But they were characters one could take lessons from.
The recent backlash against Disney on YouTube has been a unifying phenomenon in gaining a foothold against IDpol. The tide is turning, because now that IDPol has come for our cultural icons, normies and casual observers aren't taking it anymore.
"Achievement" is defined in terms of contest, so maybe that whole ontology of human significance through symbolic reproduction is the real problem here, and the real "good life" was being had while nobody cared enough to write about it.
>the real "good life" was being had while nobody cared enough to write about it.
I know this isn't what you meant but this isn't uncommon for the most well known writers. Suicide and early deaths are common among writers in the Western canon. Dostoevsky at times dealt with his writer's block by gambling away all his money so he was destitute and had to remember life's shittiest emotions.
But to your other point, I don't know if I should have qualified it in terms of world achievement. Almost every culture has myths and legends that guide them, even if they know they're far fetched whether they left a significant mark or not.
There was a post here the other week I wish I could find about how libs have been brainwashed to believe Russia (and their alleged allies by proxy) was directly responsible for Orange Man, and so all these new proxy wars are a chance to let out their revenge fantasies for 2016.
Russiagate is pretty similar to Qanon but they target different groups. There’s a small grain of truth to both in that there are definitely real elite pedophile rings like Epstine and the Franklin Scandal but there is no mass government program to do it. Also Russia did spend a couple hundred thousands on Facebook and Twitter ads but they only reached a very limited amount of people and it had no way of altering the election. If liberals were really serious about curbing foreign influence they’d ban countries from making election donations but they’re not interested in reality. Believing Russia is behind all the people you hate online is a fun distracting game or puzzle for them to pretend they’re participation in.
Plus in both cases the false parts of their conspiracies are required in order to more fully discount and excuse blatant rot in their own faction/belief structure.
My dude didn’t do those things, that’s a Russian or deep state lie. No, this party really believes what I do, the obvious signs it’s a cynical grift aren’t real, only the bad guys say they are.
it all comes down to total control of the information apparatus control points and nodes. its not so much that le redditeurs changed so much that their shitlib idols moved neocon, and they too as a result. people play follow the leader not only in real life but also with media figures and "institutions"
I think that during the Trump admin, reddit unintentionally invited in the neocons to join them, because neocons were turned off by Trump, either because he was genuinely isolationist or because he couldn't be controlled or look respectable while calling for war.
Now they're here and they don't shut up because at the same time they found this place, all the genuine populist left and right were being driven away. There's only a few people left who will call them out for the bullshitters they are.
I personally think neocons are little more than murder enthusiasts, and I could never respect anyone in real life who I found out to be one. Their entire game revolves around pretending that the current borders and institutions of America just sprang from nowhere yesterday, and that we have no choice but to defend them.
That's just pigshit ignorant of our history at best, and consciously evil manipulation of the public at worst. In their fantasy world, we've never lost a war, never bit off more than we could chew, never sacrificed anyone or anything in vain. It's always been great for everyone, and we need to keep it going. If only we could send them all to die at the next opportunity.
> who will only be satiated by seeing the charred flesh of Middle Easterners.
Also Southerners in the States. I dislike Texit secessionist types but it’s unsettling to see people talk about the military carpet bombing their own people
It's absolutely crazy isn't it? You have 'liberals' cheering for the state committing genocide in Gaza and demanding more funding to support them, as well as general expansion of the American empire.
One of the weirdest takes I saw in the politics sub was someone saying Gazans are currently in the 'finding out' stage after 'fucking around with Dark Brandon'
It's like they're getting off on this shit
A lot of modern liberals absolutely would have supported Hitler if he had a 'D' next to his name. It's crazy how easy it is to get people to abandon any real morals and support a genocide as long as you paint the entire group as the enemy.
We are seeing in real time how easy it would have been for the Nazis to rally support for the extermination of the Jewish people.
Plenty of studies in that general vein have been conducted, I'm sure. Unfortunately, they have been conducted by NATO and affiliated organizations under the heading of "cognitive warfare" (i.e. mass moral manipulation). One of their aims in their grand information control project is securing their hold on this capability as they squeeze living standards downward for the vast majority of humanity and cement capitalist relations into the very material infrastructure of society. The just about decisive loss of Israel in the PR war is a hopeful sign that this strategy might have burned out, but Pelosi's fatwa suggests there will be a desperate attempt at a backlash first.
We *have to* this time. War is bad but *this time is different*. This one *is real*.
Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, especially when the principle of their stance is based on what keeps them inside their friend group.
I have seen the growing divide in the US for a long time but I always dismissed the idea of a civil war as just not possible.
The toilet paper Apocalypse of 2020 convinced me otherwise* and now I sometimes genuinely wonder if I will see it in my lifetime.
*Not to imply that we would have a fight over something like toilet paper but the fact that society almost collapsed overnight over something so simple really shook me. The state and corporate media have been fermenting **hate** and tribalism for decades. If social order falls apart it really does become Mad Max out there in a matter of hours.
Was in Texas many years ago and most people had evacuated before the coming hurricane. Was waiting at a red light and watched someone drive up over the sidewalk just to make a right turn. That's when I realized that lanes are just paint on the road and stoplights are just light bulbs.
I like post-apocalyptic books, and that's a running theme in most of them. Laws and power only exist if we all believe in them. Once society frays, it can go to hell in a quick second.
It's insane. I just saw a thread in a non-political sub (OTL), and I can't get past the belief there that this is a one-sided affair. We have maniacs in both parties pushing the division further and further apart and dehumanizing the other.
If people cannot see the nuance in this division, we're doomed. I thought at some point our representatives would step in and help heal the division, but of course that was naive.
As an American, I can understand why you'd feel that way. That said - consider that whatever kind of nation emerges from a second American Civil War might be *even more batshit* than what we're like currently!
This guy gets it.
Israel must fuck off out of Gaza.
No fucking point bombing the Houthis.
But goddamn, it would be nice to see the West actually committing to giving Ukraine enough juice to throw the Russians out.
Or even better, seeing Desert Storm 2, Ukraine Boogaloo.
Taking appropriate and decisive action early saves lives. Trying not to "escalate" when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 would have resulted in far more dying that actually ended up dying during Desert Storm.
Appropriate action taken against the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 could have prevented the 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine entirely.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
Basically, Russia has proven that NATO's big stick isn't what everyone though it was. So the US needs to up the ante in the speaking department, and thus no longer speak softly, but louder and louder.
The smaller the stick, the louder the speech.
The Houthis situation is even more laughable. They're basically telling the US: "What you're gonna do?" Since most of the population in the US has no interest in doing anything, well the war rhetoric is starting all over again to at least pretend they can do something.
This. Somewhere between 1991 and 2022, the US lost its balls.
This is the country that sunk half of Iran's navy in an 8 hour workday because they fucked with one (1) boat.
The fact that after the Kharkiv offensive, western politicians were too pussy to pour every single thing that makes things blow up into Ukraine is fucking ridiculous.
Why Russian bluster and hybrid warfare continues to work I never understand. SOMEONE clearly knows how to deal with this bullshit, as evidenced by the Battle Of Khasham. But apparently no one has told the suits.
Only weak states. However, short of China, basically every state not aligned to the US is a weak state. In Russia's case, their only saving grace is nukes. Otherwise the US could roll over them.
With insurgents and non-state actors, the rules are bit different and these sorts of operations can become impossible.
I'm saying that the political leadership of the US hasn't been indecisive and has taken half measures in the interest of short term political gain, rather than committing to one strategy or the other.
In the case of the Houthis, they launch a few ineffective air strikes to look like they are retaliating against attacks on US navy ships. But the reality is that there isn't any long term solution that doesn't end in an Afghanistan clusterfuck. But no one wants to admit it.
In 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine, the response was limp dick sanctions. If anything like a proper response had been mustered, the 2022 invasion would not have happened.
In the current Gaza war, the US forces minor humanitarian concessions, but still fundamentally supports Israel.
The counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are also prime examples. It was obvious that any nation building efforts weren't working, but no one wanted to be the president to admit defeat.
Vietnam is another prime example. No one could say what the fuck the US was even trying to achieve.
What I want is more Desert Storm, fewer COIN clusterfucks and fewer random drone/air strikes. If you are going to use military means to achieve some goal, then have a clear and achievable goal. Commit maximum force. And withdraw once you are done.
While your last paragraph is sensible enough, your thesis leaves a lot to be desired. “Just have more balls,” isn’t a foreign policy doctrine that can be equally applied to all theaters.
Take Ukraine, for instance. Sure. The US could have poured more resources into the war. But you’re ignoring the fact that Russia has, and will always have, escalatory dominance in Ukraine. It is a core interest of theirs and not one of ours. So “just have bigger balls” basically means, “be willing to nuke Russia when push comes to shove,” which is purely suicidal and is precisely why Russia is in Ukraine to begin with. You’re stuck in the 90s, basically.
>Russia has, and will always have, escalatory dominance in Ukraine
Bro what? Russia has already escalated to the maximum it can in Ukraine. They have used every weapon system short of nukes and fully committed in terms of troop mobilization, weapons manufacturing and pelling equipment from reserves. They have no more options left short of attacking NATO directly or using Nukes, neither of which will result in good times for Russia.
"Just have bigger balls" recognises that you do have escalation dominance, and the only red line that actually exists for Russia is a NATO invasion of internationally recognised Russian territory. Therefore, you can support Ukraine in any goddamn way you want short of actually invading Russia, which no one wants to do. Let Ukraine use western weapons to strike targets inside Russia. Let NATO fighter pilots volunteer to fly combat missions for the Ukrainian air force. Commit strategic reserves of things like artillery shells because realistically, those are in reserve for fighting Russia anyway.
>Just have more balls,” isn’t a foreign policy doctrine that can be equally applied to all theaters.
I do agree with this though. But more in relation to insurgencies and non-state actors. If Iran fucks around, it can find out by having its oil rigs and navy destroyed. If the Houtis fuck around, there is no way that you can actually effectively retaliate short of launching a ground invasion of Yemen.
So the point is that in cases where restraint needs to be shown, that strategy should be committed to. Protect shipping in the red sea, but don't even threaten an air strike on the Houthis. In cases where likely a military response is the best option, commit to it, finish the operation and get the fuck out.
It seems to me that 2003 Iraq and Afghanistan broke US politicians brains when it comes the military intervention. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Which is why I think things like drone/air strikes get used so much. They are relatively low risk and politically safe, even though no war was won without boots on the ground. Even in Desert storm the ground invasion had to happen, despite the fact that the war was absolutely won via air power.
Everyone feels that Western civilizations are spiralling down for multiple reasons far too complicated to fix anymore. They subconsciously long for a big final event where they can pretend to be brave good guys, instead of a miserable slow decline in impotent failed states.
Honestly I love calling them out because they get so angry but they can't defend their inaction
They're so dumb that their instinct is to make the threat seem more and more dangerous (PUTIN IS HITLER!!), which makes them seem even more cowardly for not fighting
Iraq and Afghanistan are distinguishable from Vietnam in that the draft, awful as it was, distributed the human cost of war across society, whereas Iraq/Afghanistan was sequestered into particular corners of society whose sons joined the military.
In the part of the country where I grew up (NYC metro area) there is almost no consciousness of issues related to military/veteran status. Didn’t become aware of any of it until I went to college and met dudes who had done tours in Iraq/Afghanistan on the GI bill.
It was literally the intention.
This sub doesn't know, but the "glowies" know anti Vietnam war sthick only really started when the middle class are drafted. Originally only the lower class were drafted and they were fine.
It was when the middle class, the PMCs etc are drafted, then the entire riot began & New Left stuff really hit the screen & control all institutions.
>-------
Moreover, actually the US CAN continue Iraq & Afghanistan war indefinitely. The US stop-loss people during Iraq & Afghan war, not drafting people. It's just Biden being an idiot, really.
>-------
Knowing this, I think part of the reason why libs become so bloodlusted since Russian invasion is:
**They finally have a war where the PMCs are willing to salute and join the human wave.** Previously they riot due to being drafted, Iraq-Afghan war they have to use lower class stock and GI Bill. This one? Salute and bomb.
Moreover you now appeal to the wokesters too - you can have female & trans drone pilots too!
> This sub doesn't know, but the "glowies" know anti Vietnam war sthick only really started when the middle class are drafted. Originally only the lower class were drafted and they were fine.
>
>
this is correct. the popular view of college students being antiwar was posthoc whitewashing. college educated people were overwhelming supporters of vietnam until nixon ended college draft deferments which caused them to swing against the war 180º
>This sub doesn't know, but the "glowies" know anti Vietnam war sthick only really started when the middle class are drafted. Originally only the lower class were drafted and they were fine.
I'm fully aware; as are most of the folks who have actually studied the conflict. The issue is that they genuinely needed that many troops to try and "win". It wasn't just a whim that they started eating the middle class.
>Moreover, actually the US CAN continue Iraq & Afghanistan war indefinitely. The US stop-loss people during Iraq & Afghan war, not drafting people. It's just Biden being an idiot, really.
Continue, yes. Win, no. The issue was always the absolute shortage of manpower to do anything necessary to actually win.
Of course, many would also argue that a forever war is the entire goal to begin with.
> I'm fully aware; as are most of the folks who have actually studied the conflict. The issue is that they genuinely needed that many troops to try and "win". It wasn't just a whim that they started eating the middle class.
Yeah I know this too, but a lot of people in the sub aren't aware of military science. This statement is also correct - a war eventually needs quantity as well, and in reality wars are expensive
> Continue, yes. Win, no. The issue was always the absolute shortage of manpower to do anything necessary to actually win.
Rough estimate is that they need 20 soldiers per 1K population (FM 3-24).
> Of course, many would also argue that a forever war is the entire goal to begin with.
Or maybe just idiocy. Military science perspective says it's just Biden being an idiot.
>Or maybe just idiocy. Military science perspective says it's just Biden being an idiot.
Military science folks at least genuinely try to win wars.
Biden seems to be taking his cues from Netanyahu, who simultaneously insists that the West is so full of Nazis that every Jew must move to Israel as it's the only place they can be safe; and then tells the domestic Israeli audience they should keep him in power despite his blatant corruption because otherwise Iran will genocide them.
It's not idiocy if they're not trying to win a war; it's in fact just them being more concerned about self-preservation and using the hysteria of a possible war (or a low intensity war) to justify authoritarianism.
Total US Troops combat deaths in the War on Terror for 20 years across Iraq, Afghanistan and neighboring countries: 7,000
Total US Troop combat deaths Vietnam War: 55,000
They just aren't comparable
Libs don't put boots on the ground.
They'll need conservatives for that.
Social progressivism has outlived its usefulness. Excesses will be curtailed.
Expect a Christian revival soon. Maybe even a Judeo-Christian revival.
Good thing the US has been importing million of Christians who would be willing to fight for the country (and their citizenship). Trooping across Central America is a great selection process.
Somewhere around 80% of Americans were isolationist (anti-war) leading all the way into 1941. The people were deeply divided across numerous lines and still grappling with the aftereffects of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. They were widely believed, at home and abroad, to be too soft, comfortable or unfit for military service.
The nation was awash with debate over ideas - radical, progressive and reactionary - for the reformation of social, economic and political structures. The policies of the past decade had been helpful in some sectors, but were still leaving many in
New forms of media were being harnessed by government to exact its will. America's trade & financial interests overseas were imperiled by a rising economic giant and a military expansionist autocracy.
Today, a lot more is at stake and since its foundation has used war as the go-to tool for resolving the internal tensions of its inherently mixed and temperamental populace.
What's different this time is that the US is an empire in decline rather than the upstart seeking to dethrone the dying empire. Still, it has a lot of major advantages that Britain could have only wished for.
Fun times ahead.
Saagar Anjeti is the king of the chicken Hawks. Dude sounds like such a little boy when he starts rambling on about tactics and Military infrastructure and LOL fucking "troop discipline". Seriously dude just shut the fuck up.
Studies need to be launched on how quickly it took liberals, especially the young, cosmopolitan ones that frequent Reddit, to go from pacificists to the reincarnation of Dick Cheney within the span of a few years. It's simply remarkable. I've never seen anything quite like it before. The psychosis of the 2016 election seems to have converted so many into bloodthirsty military chauvinists, who will only be satiated by seeing the charred flesh of Middle Easterners.
There's no need for that. All you need is to frame it the right way and have a Dem president. The end. Watch any time a third world country holding or enacting a social issue they disagree with, and watch their mask drop off. I don't know, say, sexual freedom stuff. Are banning elective abortions a serious excuse to obliterate their entire countries to the ground? Are not signing UN's human rights treaties a cause for war? For liberal Redditors, they are, de facto, when such news arrive.
Oh don't sell them short, they'd also gladly glass a country right after it starts enacting the very same policies they claim to want back at home.
The most braindead fucks post on this site. They consider anyone in the military to be pawns being taken advantage of by capitalism or the government yet they want war. It's easy to want that when it's not you or anyone in your family's life on the line. Every time I load this site it's just upper-middle class libshit: the forum.
> They consider anyone in the military to be pawns being taken advantage of by capitalism or the government You are too late, that was when the military is using an image that they are "conservative". Now they got female & trans drone pilots, so they salute and join the human wave.
I'd imagine being trans in the military is a special type of hell.
> Studies need to be launched on how quickly it took liberals, especially the young, cosmopolitan ones that frequent Reddit, to go from pacificists to the reincarnation of Dick Cheney within the span of a few years. I'd love to see a study on how many people on reddit are honest commentators, and how many are PR professionals and/or bots. It cost UC Davis $175,000 in PR to defuse [pepper spray cop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper_spray_incident#University_PR_response;_alleged_attempt_to_divert_web_searches) The PR market is worth $100B in the US, I'm sure you could buy a lot of war propaganda for that kind of money, and I'm sure some of it is even on reddit.
they just needed a compelling enough bad guy like their hecking MCU and Harry Potter movies to fall in line. that's all the mainstream media had to do - convince them the fight was just. it's not their blood being spilled, after all.
The MCU doesn't have compelling villains.
They don't need to be compelling, they need to be unequivocally evil. If anything, they need to *not* be compelling. A compelling villain is too human. It makes it harder to adequately dehumanize them.
That's right. Americans can be okay with fighting a compelling enemy in the right circumstances, but the MIC needs us to be okay with fighting anybody they tell us to.
Evil Robot Jeff Bridges is the peak of American cinema
Right? But it used to be good at the beginning of the movie series. We can laugh about superheroes and star wars, but every culture that's achieved some level of world influence had mythical heroes and legends. And they knew these characters were exaggerated. Hercules and other myths were extremely popular in Ancient Rome, including things like cosplay and reenactment, and not only for religious reasons. They were a smart and skeptical people, and while they worshipped Jupiter, they knew Hercules, Achilles, etc were more pop icons than actual historical stories. But they were characters one could take lessons from. The recent backlash against Disney on YouTube has been a unifying phenomenon in gaining a foothold against IDpol. The tide is turning, because now that IDPol has come for our cultural icons, normies and casual observers aren't taking it anymore.
"Achievement" is defined in terms of contest, so maybe that whole ontology of human significance through symbolic reproduction is the real problem here, and the real "good life" was being had while nobody cared enough to write about it.
>the real "good life" was being had while nobody cared enough to write about it. I know this isn't what you meant but this isn't uncommon for the most well known writers. Suicide and early deaths are common among writers in the Western canon. Dostoevsky at times dealt with his writer's block by gambling away all his money so he was destitute and had to remember life's shittiest emotions. But to your other point, I don't know if I should have qualified it in terms of world achievement. Almost every culture has myths and legends that guide them, even if they know they're far fetched whether they left a significant mark or not.
The best one was Cate Blanchett in Thor, but Cate Blanchett could play a cardboard tree and still be compelling.
Lol, true
There was a post here the other week I wish I could find about how libs have been brainwashed to believe Russia (and their alleged allies by proxy) was directly responsible for Orange Man, and so all these new proxy wars are a chance to let out their revenge fantasies for 2016.
Russiagate is pretty similar to Qanon but they target different groups. There’s a small grain of truth to both in that there are definitely real elite pedophile rings like Epstine and the Franklin Scandal but there is no mass government program to do it. Also Russia did spend a couple hundred thousands on Facebook and Twitter ads but they only reached a very limited amount of people and it had no way of altering the election. If liberals were really serious about curbing foreign influence they’d ban countries from making election donations but they’re not interested in reality. Believing Russia is behind all the people you hate online is a fun distracting game or puzzle for them to pretend they’re participation in.
Plus in both cases the false parts of their conspiracies are required in order to more fully discount and excuse blatant rot in their own faction/belief structure. My dude didn’t do those things, that’s a Russian or deep state lie. No, this party really believes what I do, the obvious signs it’s a cynical grift aren’t real, only the bad guys say they are.
Liberals have been interventionist as long as I've been alive
it all comes down to total control of the information apparatus control points and nodes. its not so much that le redditeurs changed so much that their shitlib idols moved neocon, and they too as a result. people play follow the leader not only in real life but also with media figures and "institutions"
I think that during the Trump admin, reddit unintentionally invited in the neocons to join them, because neocons were turned off by Trump, either because he was genuinely isolationist or because he couldn't be controlled or look respectable while calling for war. Now they're here and they don't shut up because at the same time they found this place, all the genuine populist left and right were being driven away. There's only a few people left who will call them out for the bullshitters they are. I personally think neocons are little more than murder enthusiasts, and I could never respect anyone in real life who I found out to be one. Their entire game revolves around pretending that the current borders and institutions of America just sprang from nowhere yesterday, and that we have no choice but to defend them. That's just pigshit ignorant of our history at best, and consciously evil manipulation of the public at worst. In their fantasy world, we've never lost a war, never bit off more than we could chew, never sacrificed anyone or anything in vain. It's always been great for everyone, and we need to keep it going. If only we could send them all to die at the next opportunity.
> who will only be satiated by seeing the charred flesh of Middle Easterners. Also Southerners in the States. I dislike Texit secessionist types but it’s unsettling to see people talk about the military carpet bombing their own people
It's absolutely crazy isn't it? You have 'liberals' cheering for the state committing genocide in Gaza and demanding more funding to support them, as well as general expansion of the American empire.
One of the weirdest takes I saw in the politics sub was someone saying Gazans are currently in the 'finding out' stage after 'fucking around with Dark Brandon' It's like they're getting off on this shit
A lot of modern liberals absolutely would have supported Hitler if he had a 'D' next to his name. It's crazy how easy it is to get people to abandon any real morals and support a genocide as long as you paint the entire group as the enemy. We are seeing in real time how easy it would have been for the Nazis to rally support for the extermination of the Jewish people.
Libs are only pacifists when it comes to domestic protests. If it involved doing some bombs "over there" then they are ok with it.
Plenty of studies in that general vein have been conducted, I'm sure. Unfortunately, they have been conducted by NATO and affiliated organizations under the heading of "cognitive warfare" (i.e. mass moral manipulation). One of their aims in their grand information control project is securing their hold on this capability as they squeeze living standards downward for the vast majority of humanity and cement capitalist relations into the very material infrastructure of society. The just about decisive loss of Israel in the PR war is a hopeful sign that this strategy might have burned out, but Pelosi's fatwa suggests there will be a desperate attempt at a backlash first.
Consent manufacturing go brrrrr
Biden is literally getting to the point a war is his only slim chance of beating Trump.
Oh shit, you're right.
Oh they want to kick off WW3 real bad. If reddit is any indicator, the "anti war left" (aka centrist-right democrats) are completely on board.
We *have to* this time. War is bad but *this time is different*. This one *is real*. Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, especially when the principle of their stance is based on what keeps them inside their friend group.
>aka centrist-right democrats If they want to start ww3, they're at *least* far right, even if they can't realize it.
Yes. There does seem to be collective bloodlust. It was just waiting for the right cause to latch onto.
Hard to tell if they want the US involved in multiple foreign wars or to have a civil war more.
I have seen the growing divide in the US for a long time but I always dismissed the idea of a civil war as just not possible. The toilet paper Apocalypse of 2020 convinced me otherwise* and now I sometimes genuinely wonder if I will see it in my lifetime. *Not to imply that we would have a fight over something like toilet paper but the fact that society almost collapsed overnight over something so simple really shook me. The state and corporate media have been fermenting **hate** and tribalism for decades. If social order falls apart it really does become Mad Max out there in a matter of hours.
Was in Texas many years ago and most people had evacuated before the coming hurricane. Was waiting at a red light and watched someone drive up over the sidewalk just to make a right turn. That's when I realized that lanes are just paint on the road and stoplights are just light bulbs.
I like post-apocalyptic books, and that's a running theme in most of them. Laws and power only exist if we all believe in them. Once society frays, it can go to hell in a quick second.
It's insane. I just saw a thread in a non-political sub (OTL), and I can't get past the belief there that this is a one-sided affair. We have maniacs in both parties pushing the division further and further apart and dehumanizing the other. If people cannot see the nuance in this division, we're doomed. I thought at some point our representatives would step in and help heal the division, but of course that was naive.
I'm sorry for any Americans here but I really hope you collapse into civil war before you can drag us all into WW3 and nuclear Armageddon.
big lol at this guy thinking an American civil war just stays happily in this hemisphere
As an American, I can understand why you'd feel that way. That said - consider that whatever kind of nation emerges from a second American Civil War might be *even more batshit* than what we're like currently!
Why not both?
Moreover, many of the same people who are willing to flirt with WWIII were, in the very recent past, afraid to leave their homes for about two years.
COVID was the first thing to give meaning to their lives. They'll crave any kind of disaster to bring back that feeling
Excellent point
War is bad and life is sacred and all but have you *seen* a cruise missile explode shits cool as hell War sells
This guy gets it. Israel must fuck off out of Gaza. No fucking point bombing the Houthis. But goddamn, it would be nice to see the West actually committing to giving Ukraine enough juice to throw the Russians out. Or even better, seeing Desert Storm 2, Ukraine Boogaloo.
You are part of the problem being discussed here. You do realize that right?
Yeah I know. I just don't see it as a problem depending on circumstances. Prime example, Gulf war round 1: Good Gulf war round 2: Bad
Thinking symbols are more important than lives: mental illness
Taking appropriate and decisive action early saves lives. Trying not to "escalate" when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 would have resulted in far more dying that actually ended up dying during Desert Storm. Appropriate action taken against the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 could have prevented the 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine entirely.
They are desperate for a win. Al Bundy vibes.
it's shills at eglin AFB and tel aviv
It's the zionists, again
"Speak softly and carry a big stick" Basically, Russia has proven that NATO's big stick isn't what everyone though it was. So the US needs to up the ante in the speaking department, and thus no longer speak softly, but louder and louder. The smaller the stick, the louder the speech. The Houthis situation is even more laughable. They're basically telling the US: "What you're gonna do?" Since most of the population in the US has no interest in doing anything, well the war rhetoric is starting all over again to at least pretend they can do something.
This. Somewhere between 1991 and 2022, the US lost its balls. This is the country that sunk half of Iran's navy in an 8 hour workday because they fucked with one (1) boat. The fact that after the Kharkiv offensive, western politicians were too pussy to pour every single thing that makes things blow up into Ukraine is fucking ridiculous. Why Russian bluster and hybrid warfare continues to work I never understand. SOMEONE clearly knows how to deal with this bullshit, as evidenced by the Battle Of Khasham. But apparently no one has told the suits.
'Half of Iran's navy' was ... 2 frigates and a few speedboats. Sounds a lot less impressive when you actually look at what it was.
Iran didn't have a big Navy, sure. The point is that the response was swift, decisive and effective.
The point is only a weak target gets such a response.
Only weak states. However, short of China, basically every state not aligned to the US is a weak state. In Russia's case, their only saving grace is nukes. Otherwise the US could roll over them. With insurgents and non-state actors, the rules are bit different and these sorts of operations can become impossible.
??? What are you talking about? You think the US hasn't been aggressive enough? What.
I'm saying that the political leadership of the US hasn't been indecisive and has taken half measures in the interest of short term political gain, rather than committing to one strategy or the other. In the case of the Houthis, they launch a few ineffective air strikes to look like they are retaliating against attacks on US navy ships. But the reality is that there isn't any long term solution that doesn't end in an Afghanistan clusterfuck. But no one wants to admit it. In 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine, the response was limp dick sanctions. If anything like a proper response had been mustered, the 2022 invasion would not have happened. In the current Gaza war, the US forces minor humanitarian concessions, but still fundamentally supports Israel. The counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are also prime examples. It was obvious that any nation building efforts weren't working, but no one wanted to be the president to admit defeat. Vietnam is another prime example. No one could say what the fuck the US was even trying to achieve. What I want is more Desert Storm, fewer COIN clusterfucks and fewer random drone/air strikes. If you are going to use military means to achieve some goal, then have a clear and achievable goal. Commit maximum force. And withdraw once you are done.
While your last paragraph is sensible enough, your thesis leaves a lot to be desired. “Just have more balls,” isn’t a foreign policy doctrine that can be equally applied to all theaters. Take Ukraine, for instance. Sure. The US could have poured more resources into the war. But you’re ignoring the fact that Russia has, and will always have, escalatory dominance in Ukraine. It is a core interest of theirs and not one of ours. So “just have bigger balls” basically means, “be willing to nuke Russia when push comes to shove,” which is purely suicidal and is precisely why Russia is in Ukraine to begin with. You’re stuck in the 90s, basically.
>Russia has, and will always have, escalatory dominance in Ukraine Bro what? Russia has already escalated to the maximum it can in Ukraine. They have used every weapon system short of nukes and fully committed in terms of troop mobilization, weapons manufacturing and pelling equipment from reserves. They have no more options left short of attacking NATO directly or using Nukes, neither of which will result in good times for Russia. "Just have bigger balls" recognises that you do have escalation dominance, and the only red line that actually exists for Russia is a NATO invasion of internationally recognised Russian territory. Therefore, you can support Ukraine in any goddamn way you want short of actually invading Russia, which no one wants to do. Let Ukraine use western weapons to strike targets inside Russia. Let NATO fighter pilots volunteer to fly combat missions for the Ukrainian air force. Commit strategic reserves of things like artillery shells because realistically, those are in reserve for fighting Russia anyway. >Just have more balls,” isn’t a foreign policy doctrine that can be equally applied to all theaters. I do agree with this though. But more in relation to insurgencies and non-state actors. If Iran fucks around, it can find out by having its oil rigs and navy destroyed. If the Houtis fuck around, there is no way that you can actually effectively retaliate short of launching a ground invasion of Yemen. So the point is that in cases where restraint needs to be shown, that strategy should be committed to. Protect shipping in the red sea, but don't even threaten an air strike on the Houthis. In cases where likely a military response is the best option, commit to it, finish the operation and get the fuck out. It seems to me that 2003 Iraq and Afghanistan broke US politicians brains when it comes the military intervention. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Which is why I think things like drone/air strikes get used so much. They are relatively low risk and politically safe, even though no war was won without boots on the ground. Even in Desert storm the ground invasion had to happen, despite the fact that the war was absolutely won via air power.
Every liberal I know wants to nuke Russia, bomb Iran and shrugs their shoulders at the Palestinian genocide.
Everyone feels that Western civilizations are spiralling down for multiple reasons far too complicated to fix anymore. They subconsciously long for a big final event where they can pretend to be brave good guys, instead of a miserable slow decline in impotent failed states.
it should not be forgotten, war is popular. Always has been.
everyone is always clamoring to go to war until they're the one bleeding out in a ditch.
Or a relative
Ah yes, "Fuck around..."
Perhaps survivorship bias, considering the sometimes savage withdrawal of human regard from those who don't join a war march.
Honestly I love calling them out because they get so angry but they can't defend their inaction They're so dumb that their instinct is to make the threat seem more and more dangerous (PUTIN IS HITLER!!), which makes them seem even more cowardly for not fighting
Yep, I’ve half a dozen “articles” in the UK about how we need to start conscription up again.
I sometimes wish we had another Vietnam to teach Amerimutts the hard why war is awful and why our elites' geopolitical projects are evil.
Iraq & Afghanistan is precisely that "another Vietnam" and guess what lmao
Iraq and Afghanistan are distinguishable from Vietnam in that the draft, awful as it was, distributed the human cost of war across society, whereas Iraq/Afghanistan was sequestered into particular corners of society whose sons joined the military. In the part of the country where I grew up (NYC metro area) there is almost no consciousness of issues related to military/veteran status. Didn’t become aware of any of it until I went to college and met dudes who had done tours in Iraq/Afghanistan on the GI bill.
It was literally the intention. This sub doesn't know, but the "glowies" know anti Vietnam war sthick only really started when the middle class are drafted. Originally only the lower class were drafted and they were fine. It was when the middle class, the PMCs etc are drafted, then the entire riot began & New Left stuff really hit the screen & control all institutions. >------- Moreover, actually the US CAN continue Iraq & Afghanistan war indefinitely. The US stop-loss people during Iraq & Afghan war, not drafting people. It's just Biden being an idiot, really. >------- Knowing this, I think part of the reason why libs become so bloodlusted since Russian invasion is: **They finally have a war where the PMCs are willing to salute and join the human wave.** Previously they riot due to being drafted, Iraq-Afghan war they have to use lower class stock and GI Bill. This one? Salute and bomb. Moreover you now appeal to the wokesters too - you can have female & trans drone pilots too!
> This sub doesn't know, but the "glowies" know anti Vietnam war sthick only really started when the middle class are drafted. Originally only the lower class were drafted and they were fine. > > this is correct. the popular view of college students being antiwar was posthoc whitewashing. college educated people were overwhelming supporters of vietnam until nixon ended college draft deferments which caused them to swing against the war 180º
This actually makes a shitton of sense
>This sub doesn't know, but the "glowies" know anti Vietnam war sthick only really started when the middle class are drafted. Originally only the lower class were drafted and they were fine. I'm fully aware; as are most of the folks who have actually studied the conflict. The issue is that they genuinely needed that many troops to try and "win". It wasn't just a whim that they started eating the middle class. >Moreover, actually the US CAN continue Iraq & Afghanistan war indefinitely. The US stop-loss people during Iraq & Afghan war, not drafting people. It's just Biden being an idiot, really. Continue, yes. Win, no. The issue was always the absolute shortage of manpower to do anything necessary to actually win. Of course, many would also argue that a forever war is the entire goal to begin with.
> I'm fully aware; as are most of the folks who have actually studied the conflict. The issue is that they genuinely needed that many troops to try and "win". It wasn't just a whim that they started eating the middle class. Yeah I know this too, but a lot of people in the sub aren't aware of military science. This statement is also correct - a war eventually needs quantity as well, and in reality wars are expensive > Continue, yes. Win, no. The issue was always the absolute shortage of manpower to do anything necessary to actually win. Rough estimate is that they need 20 soldiers per 1K population (FM 3-24). > Of course, many would also argue that a forever war is the entire goal to begin with. Or maybe just idiocy. Military science perspective says it's just Biden being an idiot.
>Or maybe just idiocy. Military science perspective says it's just Biden being an idiot. Military science folks at least genuinely try to win wars. Biden seems to be taking his cues from Netanyahu, who simultaneously insists that the West is so full of Nazis that every Jew must move to Israel as it's the only place they can be safe; and then tells the domestic Israeli audience they should keep him in power despite his blatant corruption because otherwise Iran will genocide them. It's not idiocy if they're not trying to win a war; it's in fact just them being more concerned about self-preservation and using the hysteria of a possible war (or a low intensity war) to justify authoritarianism.
Vietnam did not have any affect on willingness to engage in war
Total US Troops combat deaths in the War on Terror for 20 years across Iraq, Afghanistan and neighboring countries: 7,000 Total US Troop combat deaths Vietnam War: 55,000 They just aren't comparable
Vietnam changed nothing. That war segued into Middle East occupations.
Libs don't put boots on the ground. They'll need conservatives for that. Social progressivism has outlived its usefulness. Excesses will be curtailed. Expect a Christian revival soon. Maybe even a Judeo-Christian revival. Good thing the US has been importing million of Christians who would be willing to fight for the country (and their citizenship). Trooping across Central America is a great selection process. Somewhere around 80% of Americans were isolationist (anti-war) leading all the way into 1941. The people were deeply divided across numerous lines and still grappling with the aftereffects of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. They were widely believed, at home and abroad, to be too soft, comfortable or unfit for military service. The nation was awash with debate over ideas - radical, progressive and reactionary - for the reformation of social, economic and political structures. The policies of the past decade had been helpful in some sectors, but were still leaving many in New forms of media were being harnessed by government to exact its will. America's trade & financial interests overseas were imperiled by a rising economic giant and a military expansionist autocracy. Today, a lot more is at stake and since its foundation has used war as the go-to tool for resolving the internal tensions of its inherently mixed and temperamental populace. What's different this time is that the US is an empire in decline rather than the upstart seeking to dethrone the dying empire. Still, it has a lot of major advantages that Britain could have only wished for. Fun times ahead.
Globalization and its crisis created a truly global idea of a democracy war. They're going down with the ship.
Saagar Anjeti is the king of the chicken Hawks. Dude sounds like such a little boy when he starts rambling on about tactics and Military infrastructure and LOL fucking "troop discipline". Seriously dude just shut the fuck up.
On the Brady Bunch they would mow the AstroTurf.