What an utter piece of shit.

  • mob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anyone considering striking US likely realizes the fallout from that strategy though

          • Tony Smehrik@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a big maybe. It depends heavily on the type of warfare. We weren’t very successful in Vietnam, Iraq Part II, and Afghanistan. Gulf War was a pretty convincing trouncing, WWII was pretty solid too.

    • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      During the cold war, there were plenty of instances of fighting between us and soviet forces, not to mention the huge amount of proxy fighting done. Personally, I’m not interested in drawing up a sequel to the cold war.

        • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why though? There’s been plenty of hot and cold wars, plenty of proxy wars.

          This isn’t special in that regard, except now using the propaganda talking points of view a fascist enemy is done without a hint of shame from the stooges who do it.

        • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          As I see it, we’re at a turning point. Either we continue a path of escalation, or we back down, either would be feasible given our current position, but that said current position isn’t somewhere we can stay. We either need to accept that sacrificing some global influence is necessary to avoid foreign wars, or that maintaining our current global influence inevitably requires putting soldiers behind our words.

          • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is a weird take… The war in Ukraine is largely being fought because Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine. We’re protecting our allies in Europe, and looking to prevent further escalation, not simply exerting influence on a far-away foreign war.

            The escalating party is 100% the aggressing party that’s invading a sovereign nation. That’s Russia, not the United States.

            I mean, unless you’re speaking as a Russian citizen? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point of view here.

            • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is the exact attitude I was trying to call out. We are absolutely escalating our participation in this conflict. Trying to strattle the line of participation, where nothing we do is our own fault, and neither are any of the consequences we face. Because I’m not sure how well you did in middle school geography, but the US is, in fact, not a part of Europe. This war has no direct impact on the US beyond the extent we choose to be involved.

              Now if you view the benefits of involvement as greater than the risks, fine. That’s a perfectly coherent position. One I don’t agree with, but a rational position nonetheless. But to pretend our involvement is just a force of nature we have no control over? That’s just a bunch of excuses to support involvement without having to openly commit to a position of involvement.

              • habahnow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lol, we tried your strategy, it just just emboldened Russia. Remember their attach on Georgia? How about their first invasion of Ukraine? Obviously, Russia wants to do what they want to do, especially if there’s no consequences. Let’s try this different approach and see if they feel being violent still helps them secure their goals.

                • jj4211@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Also, “appeasement” in this context should be awfully familiar to anyone vaguely familiar with history. It worked soooo well last time…

                  • habahnow@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Give an actual reason we shouldn’t care about Russia’s history of attacks, that show you’re not ignorant of the topic, and I’ll actually provide you an answer. Your reply appears extremely ignorant.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    16
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    That sure sounds like you care. Not liking something doesn’t mean you don’t care about it.

                    So again, I think you need to make up your mind.

                    EDIT: Wow. They went through my post history and downvoted every post. Hilarious.