220
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
220 points (96.2% liked)
World News
32326 readers
510 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You do realize there's like 80,000 troops already there in europe? We have bases around the world. I'm not sure how these 3,000 national guard make a difference in your mind, but okay.
This is just the start. It's the exact same way the "weapons assistance" went. First small, then billions of dollars worth of weapons being sent on the regular. It's to get us used to the idea of even more troops being sent over. The fact that there's 80k US troops on a foreign continent already doesn't make it any better. If anything, it provides the context for why Russia is acting irrationally as it is being surrounded by an adversaries military
No offense but you sound like a teenager
No offense but you sound blue-eyed and idealistic when history has shown this to be a typical outcome.
Actually the typical outcome was letting hitler take the sudatenland while doing nothing.
This is us stopping the typical outcome.
that's not what they mean
they mean "America sending troops over to a foreign country to 'save them', and then sending more, and OOPS now we've started a war there and we're already racking up those war crimes, and now the civilians there literally see us as goddamn evil and they're not even wrong to think that way because it turns out that we were basically there mainly doing heinous shit so that the nation was in a position where they kinda had to let us have a share of their resources so rich old white men back home can add an extra 3 zeroes to their bank accounts" was something we literally did for the last 2 decades
it is very much the one of the likely historical outcomes of "now the US gets militarily involved"
There are only 2 possibilities here:
Russia retains any level of reason and sanity and they back down immediately out of utter and complete pants-shitting terror. They're getting worked by ukraine, the US is roughly 100 years further ahead in military technology than either Russia or Ukraine.
They're insane, in which case nothing matters, gear up.
In either case, si vis pacem, Para bellum.
It feels like you're treating the US as a force of nature here, rather than like a nation who is acting in this way because it's convenient and in their interests
like the US could just like go "hey, please do peace talks, a lot of people are dying", but they're not doing that
and if the US really is that more powerful than Russia as you say, then they could rather easily start facilitating the above but once again they are not doing that
Russia can talk peace at any time, they just have to leave ukraine.
Also, we are not a force of nature.
We are the storm.
what an embarrassing comment
this isn't a fucking action movie, people are literally being killed and our military presence will make that so much worse; this isn't the time for us to boost our egos
This isn't a movie.
This is Manchuria circa 1935.
We are saving lives, many, many lives, like I'm sure the Chinese would have wished we'd done back then.
We are buying peace at the cost of Russian dead, because that is the only price that can be paid for it.
like I'm not actually communist in any meaningful sense, but they have a point about how brainwashed us Americans are pertaining the military and foreign interventions
like again, it's not an action movie; we're not fucking heroes in a Saturday morning cartoon; we're a country sending human beings to kill other human beings for almost certainly selfish reasons
War's not a fucking game, and the US isn't "the savior of the world" either; it's a country that has interests and does things to obtain or sustain those interests, and some of those things include invading other countries (like we did with Vietnam and Korea and Laos and especially the Middle East) and subverting the governments of other countries ( pick a South American country )
like if you can't understand that nations mainly work in their own interests and that the US has a very old pattern of invading and subverting other countries for that interest as opposed to the countries' own interests for itself, then you basically won't actually be able to understand any kind of foreign policy, especially that of the US's
it's just baffling that you can genuinely think that the US is a hero in any military situation, after what we've done for decades
I care about absolutely none of this.
Russia invaded another country and broke the peace of Europe without any provocation.
I have good Ukrainian friends.
Invaders must die.
We need to make sure every Russian and Chinese soldier knows breaking the peace is suicide, and the choice between going to war and Gaddafi-ing your own leader isn't a choice, you shove that bayonet in till they look like they're wearing a picklehaube.
We will have peace when soldiers are too terrified to dare kill.
Putin dared break the peace of Europe, for that he MUST be tortured to death on twitch.
okay, there's no getting to you then
also I didn't mention China
Btw, at no point did I ever say the US was great or good.
I said we are absolutely omnipotent-level terrifying.
I don't want the US to give Ukraine F-16s.
I want them to give F-15Es with full strike loadout, F-35s, F-22s, stealth reapers, tactical tomahawks.
I want to see the Ukrainian army march on Moscow in full parade formation.
I want to watch the Russian people set Putin on fire, slowly, for days, as payback for what he brought upon them.
The people of a country need to stop their country from doing evil, so Russia making an example of Putin could well bring peace for decades.
No offense but you sound like an idiot.
I have just as much a right not to die fighting a foreign war as a Ukrainian has to die fighting for their country.
Advocating for an increase in US military involvement in a foreign war sounds like someone hasn't studied the great 20th century conflicts. If you'd like, I am a practicing historian and I can give you a reading list at your literacy level to give you some context for current world events.
So "I have the right to safety and the Ukranians have the right to die" sums up your position?
If you want the conflict to end then why aren't you advocating for Russia to cease their hostility and invasion of a sovereign nation? You seem to only be concerned with people opposing this Russian aggression and the war that they started.
Ukraine is more than capable of defending itself. The US has no obligation whatsoever to that country. I would love if Russia just decided to stop, but I don't think that's a likely scenario. What does seem likely is if the us directly commits troops this will escalate the current situation dramatically. Any US involvement will trigger a declaration of war by Russia on the us. That will trigger article 5 of NATO brining all members of the alliance into war. Both side have nuclear weapons which will be used barring some sort of miracle rendering plutonium inert or something.
I have just as much a right not to die over some territory on the other side of the world as the Ukrainians do defending their land. Didn't know that was controversial. Hope you're ready to die for Ukraine then
The US did make an agreement with Ukraine (the Budapest Agreement), Russia, and the UK that stated if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, we'd guarantee their security. Russia violated that agreement with their invasion and now we're holding up our end of the bargain by offering security.
I highly doubt Russia would declare war on the US (and by extension NATO) as there is no way for them to win such a war when they're already struggling to capture former USSR nations. You stating that nuclear war is inevitable is just sewing FUD and has little basis in reality. Putin might be unhinged but I doubt his military leaders are willing to make the entire planet unlivable just to further his agenda.
You wanting to sit on the sidelines is no guarantee of safety. Russia isn't going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?
The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.
And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity. You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say
It's incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn't declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.
It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they're not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we've both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.
Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don't want to get anywhere close to that. While you seem to be yeehawing like Major Kong
So the only situation where a Russian bomb falls on my house is when it's an ICBM launched because the US escalated themselves into full on war over Ukraine.
You stated the US has no obligation to help Ukraine, which is proven wrong with said agreement stating we would offer protection. You never stated anything about "legal obligations," nor did I argue we have a legal obligation but I suppose it's easier to move the goalposts than admit to being proven wrong.
What I stated was that they're struggling with Ukraine and could not win a war against NATO currently. I also stated that if they were to capture Ukraine they would have a whole nation of conscripts to do their bidding. They would be more powerful combined and would likely continue their attempts to conquer their neighboring sovereign nations and build influence if not stopped.
I meant Russia attacking the US is just as likely as Russia launching nuclear weapons. You seem to think once they've conquered Ukraine that'll be the end of things which is laughably absurd. Why would they stop with Ukraine if the rest of the world just allows it to happen unchecked?
Who said they wouldn't? This is a strawman argument. I stated that they wouldn't drop nukes.
What historical factuality? The only country to ever use a nuke is the US at the end of WWII. Please enlighten us on how you've determined Russia is willing to use nukes when they've never in history used them.
As I tried to allude to in my previous comment, what guarantee is there that allowing Russia to conquer Europe unchecked won't also lead to nuclear conflict? You seem willing to roll the dice with that, so why not here too? Why not stamp out their aggression just as it's getting started rather than waiting until they have nations full of cannon fodder to throw at the rest of the world in addition to their nuclear arsenal?
I'm not arguing with someone who keeps contradicting themselves in their own comment and lacks any basic historical awareness of the cold war or 20th century at large. Let me make my point crystal clear:
Nuclear war and world war should be avoided at all costsThe US committing troops to the ground to fight for Ukrainian sovereignty will trigger WW3A third world war between NATO and Russia will involve the use of nuclear warheadsIf you'd like to refute any of these points please be prepared to bring something to back up your words. I am a historian so I'll take any primary source or peer reviewed secondary sources. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air for the purpose of stoking hate. Something I won't take any more part in.
Lol you're a historian and a fortune teller now? That's quite the combination.
but I mean, we did basically that already
like relatively recently
in the middle east
In the middle east, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, Russia is the invader. The two situations aren't comparable.
To me, the issue is that it increased. Whether by a small amount or not is rather meaningless if your complaint is that troops are being committed at all. It could have increased by 30 troops and (although it wouldn't have made news) it would bother me.
Okay I just realized what instance I'm on. Time to unsubscribe.
"I'm happy that Russia invaded Ukraine and I want nothing to do with it, I'm sure they'll be fine".
Not happy about Russia invading Ukraine but also not happy about the US potentially escalating to WW3. Ukraine is not worth a nuclear Holocaust
LMFAO Like this is a valid excuse. Only 2 people in this comments section is from Lemmy.ml. Everyone else is commenting here from different servers.
What a truly stupid take.
For real, I had to do a double take when I read that. Buddy probably thinks this is lemmygrad
lemmy.ml is federated with lemmygrad.ml, and both are old instances (also run by the same people but that's less relevant here). Point being is that all the people on tankie central are subscribed to !worldnews@lemmy.ml for their worldnews community and thus you get a certain voting pattern you don't see in other worldnews communities even if you don't see any lemmygrad.ml users commenting.
Maybe take some time to inspect the votes? They're not coming from lemmygrad. It's all public info
For values of "public info" that involve running an instance and inspecting the database. Also lemmy.ml itself has quite a high proportion of tankies as it's the instance that tankies tend to use to interact with instances defederating lemmygrad.ml.
You know that the lemmygrad users could make an account on another instance like yours to interact with the wider fediverse
This only further proves the point that up/down votes are useless here. I can have an account on each federated instance (just one, so not to possibly run afoul any local server rules) and have a script to just run through all of them to downvote something. Could easily be a hundred votes at my singular whim.
If the names of the accounts are not particularly linked... you wouldn't really be able to tell that there was much vote manipulation either.
Votes/karma mean absolutely nothing.
Bullshit. They have very precise meaning: How many people up- and downvote things.
So what value does the up/downvote on this platform have? Enlighten the rest of us.
Their value lies in their meaning which is telling everyone how much something got upvoted or downvoted.
Really, it's a simple concept.
So no value at all then...
In the same sense that a smile and a frown have no value, possibly. But that's rather nihilist.
When smiles and frowns can be manipulated via bots ... I'll agree... but until then, especially on instances that believe communism works, they're beyond useless. Hell many instances disable downvotes so those people can't downvote anyway.