Imagine being so fucking dumb that you actually believe that shit

So stupid you’re familiar with US history prior to 1991?

If you think the Saddam story is unbelievable, wait till you learn about Noriega.

It’s so fucking sad, man… can’t you see it?

Why do folks who want to sound incredulous just sound like they’re high as fuck?

They posted a picture of Obama and Clinton. They aren’t Republicans

If that’s true, then aren’t they victims of the lottery of birth who deserve our compassion and pity?

Did I say they don’t deserve compassion or pity? Deserving of it they may be, that alone might be even more insulting to them than what I said. One thing that didn’t change from Soviet era is that everyone must follow the political platform with a figurative gun to their head. It’s ok to say that the Russian invasion is wrong, and the US’s missiles and tanks will be blasting servicemen to bits who do not deserve to be blown to bits, but they will be violently killed, as it is a war.

Asking them nicely to stop invading isn’t going to work.

There’s definitely instances of Russian political dissidents being thrown in jail. And from there, they’d get sucked up into the jail-to-combat pipeline.

This isn’t strictly unusual for government agencies. The California state fire patrol is composed largely of prison labor. But training dissidents and vagrants in the art of war carries its own basket of problems. It only works if you do the Iran-Iraq War trick and have your dissidents-turned-soldiers in the worst possible conditions (in that case, Iranian Revolution student protesters were turned into shock troops expected to run across Iraqi mine fields).

In the current state of the Ukraine-Russia War, its the Russians hiding behind the mine fields and the Ukrainians charging across them. But I’m more than confident that there’s some other low-skill high-lethality job for them to do. Maybe playing “The Most Dangerous Game” against Ukrainian drones, so Russian anti-drone units can target and shoot them down.

The USA stopped using conscription because Vietnam was unpopular with everyone

The US stopped using conscription in January of 1973, two months before the last helicopters exited Vietnam. The major protests against Vietnam had largely fizzled out by the late 60s, as the war was primarily an air war focused on bombing and gassing Vietnamese dissidents into submission. And, if you’re truly familiar with your US history, you’ll know that this is when the popularization of the POW/MIA came to fruition thanks to the John Birch Society and Ross Perot.

But Nixon’s decision in '71 to end conscription was more to do with the success of the Civil Rights Movement in galvanizing former WW2, Korea, and Vietnam Veterans to its cause, when Nixon’s goal was to recast these dissidents as criminals and drug addicts. As the economy stalled out under his presidency, military enlistment was actually on the rise and conscription served no real purpose.

Conscription is still a thing in the USA, it just hasn’t been used since Vietnam.

Registration is still a thing, although even then there’s been a number of big fights over how one’s gender and sexual orientation would affect enlistment.

But conscription, as a policy, has been abandoned as the military has relied increasingly on its officer’s corpse and private contractor base to manage military operations. The political gains to an expanded MIC plus the liabilities of an armed and organized working class mean it no longer has a place in the model we use for conducting invasions and occupations.

“First, it is imperative that we support Ukraine’s valiant effort to defend itself against Putin’s invasion. If Ukraine falls, it will be a signal to Putin that he can continue to expand his authoritarian aggression against democratic nations” -Bernie Sanders

I’ll keep hand waving it unless you point to a real instance of a propaganda bot program on this laughably small slice of the Fediverse. A few comments are not fucking AI driven. The entire concept is ridiculous. Nobody’s building auto-reply bots to respond to many articles when we’ve only got a handful of people, like @[email protected] , who even bother to post the fucking articles.

I guess thats fair. I guess personally I dont take the term Russian Bot too literally, as it also works as an insult that undermines anyone dumb enough to repeat russian talking points. So I read Tankie and Russian Bot interchangably

Russia can be smart… in some ways, sometimes (while also simultaneously dumb in others, as aren’t we all?:-P). e.g. wasn’t it 2025 that Germany was scheduled to eliminate its dependence upon Russian oil (or was it rather all?) for energy. Knowing this does seem likely to have influenced the timeline of events somewhat, seeing how in that regard at least (and some others) it was the perfect time to strike - i.e. if they had waited longer it would have become far more difficult?

And let’s be blunt: if they had managed to take over what they wanted in that “three-day” timetable as initially planned, wouldn’t Europe have simply let them have it? As we consider that, let us not kid ourselves here b/c this invasion has gone on for a decade at this point - Georgia, Crimea, the area west of Crimea, etc. - each time citing “no, I swear, this was all that I wanted, I won’t do this ever again, I promise”. So if EU nations are somehow shocked, Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED, that those leopards would not one day turn and eat THEIR faces off, then I don’t know what to tell them…

However, I was pleased to note how e.g. Germany quickly turned its economy upside down and started mass-producing weapons. They tend to be a very smart and technically-minded people, so I for one have no problems believing that it at least could have been a strategic move on their part to “not have weapons”, when they were not immediately needed, yet also be ready to start producing them at a moment’s notice when the need for such became apparent - as you pointed out.

Likewise but with very different factors involved, those nations physically closest to Russia may have wanted weapons yet been afraid of enraging the bear by having them? So what I am trying, probably ineptly, to say is that it may not “purely” be due to willful ignorance on behalf of every EU nation, to lay down those older-style weapons that cost a lot yet haven’t been necessary for literally decades. A better cost-to-benefit ratio may have been to invest in something like energy independence, so long as the military factor was covered at some very minimal level.

Plus technology changes so fast… as we are seeing live in Ukraine, “tanks” were not the big thing, especially as Russia heavily misused them at first, compared to drones, right? So EU nations were “not prepared”, in the specific sense, but by investing into robotics and batteries and such, the converse does not seem quite true either i.e. we cannot say that those same nations were not entirely “unprepared” either?

That is why it is so amazing that Ukraine is holding off Russia, essentially acting as the shield for the entire fucking world, making Russia expend all of its military might & resources upon it, which could otherwise be put to use elsewhere, into saving up and preparing for the next target, which they ofc according to Russa “we have no plans for, b/c Ukraine is all that we want, we promise”!

Ukraine really does deserve aid then - they’ve earned that. But… there are >100 Republicans who seem to believe rather that Russia has “earned” the right to take whatever they want. And that should worry us all, around the world.

I mean… that depends on what metric you are going by, I suppose.

Not by personal happiness, or by health outcomes, or “freedom”, or safety, or education, or (non-military) technology, or … well the list gets rather extensive.

To be fair, the USA did used to lead the world, e.g. being first if not to space then to the moon, and we sequenced the human genome, and computers were invented here, and there’s Hollywood serving up movies and culture all over the world, etc., so I am not knocking any of the past achievements. Notably, after WWII we did get a bit of an “uneven” start compared to countries like the UK that were bombed by Germany whereas the USA emerged fairly unscathed, and yet we took that headstart and really went for it! We indeed were the most successful country in the world - unquestioned by almost anyone.

However, lately… well, “the economy” is still booming, but most average people are going to die significantly sooner than their parents generation did, possibly by a terrorist event such as a school shooting that we have nothing whatsoever to try to stop, health outcomes are abysmal, and many millennials and especially Gen-Zers strongly doubt that they will ever be able to afford a home, seeing how homes have become “investments” rather than places to live in, colleges costs have quintupled, most jobs today for younger people are “temporary” positions in the gig economy, etc. etc. etc.

You do bring up a good point: compared to the rest of the world we still do have it pretty good, in some ways. It is just that compared to how we ourselves used to have it e.g. 50 years ago, we are doing significantly worse, relatively speaking.

Look at almost any list, e.g. the top 10 scientific discoveries, or engineering accomplishments, and America barely makes those lists anymore. Other nations with drive & heart like India or China are sacrificing so that they can outpace us. That’s fine I guess, they needed their turn:-). But at some point we should ourselves: what exactly makes us “successful”… these days?

You might think that I am one of those that hates America, but I do not think of myself that way, it is just that I am questioning our place and how it has changed over the years. Though perhaps I am simply paying attention to the wrong sources, so if you want to send me something to read or watch that answers that, I would like to learn. So far though, everything that I have learned lately ends up just depressing me b/c it at least appears to be a decay, and not just morally.