Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down?
The birth defect line actually narrows it down pretty well, depleted uranium concerns are basically bullshit so that largely narrows it down to Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
Everyone else either just got bombed to shit or just got done killing 25 million Chinese, Filipino, and Korean people.
Fallujah wants a word.
Eh, I mean, I’d rather not have DU dust everywhere. It is still all alpha emitter, after all. Plus, it’s a heavy metal.
DU concerns with tank rounds are bullshit. With autocannon rounds, the dispersion and amount may actually be harmful.
To people that inhale dust particles from fragmented rounds possibly, but that’s simply not a generational concern.
I think one day we’ll find out any problems largely come from all the horrificly nasty chemicals that just so happen to be included by requirement in modern propellents and explosives as they inevitably make their way into the water supply and soil. While DU might not make that problem better, it’s going to be a fraction of the contamination from a modern bombing campaign.
And a fraction of a fraction of the damage done by the kind of bombing Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos suffered.
deleted by creator
You got this backward. The UK and US announced they would send depleted uranium rounds to Ukraine, and Russia lost its shit (Reuters, NPR, NBC, Al Jazeera). Why do you think Russia lost its shit? I think it’s pretty apparent it’s because they don’t want the West supporting Ukraine and will latch onto any issue that could weaken that support.
Western media lost its shit because media profits from sensational news no matter how stupid it’s inferences are.
Western government media outlets lost it’s shit because deplete uranium is far more effective in penetrating tank armor, and they had the tiny radioactive footprint as a focal point to cause a bit of fear based mischief, as governments do.
Someone bought the propaganda, I see. You’re right, DU is harmless to coat a country in, and all the cleanup efforts are only to clean away all non-DU contaminated soil. It’s straight up humanitarian work they’re doing!
“For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me? It was Tuesday.”
It was a Thursday, you monster!
Wednesday
Eh, it was a shitty village anyway. I’m sure Miss Addams had her reasons 🤷
They didn’t like her silly dance.
Also, yes, fuck all military. Color me brave, but all military sucks very bad and is cancer on the body of Earth, not just American.
No war but class war.
We wouldn’t even need a military if nobody became a soldier.
They are literally the solution to the problem they cause themselves.
Exactly.
“We protect you”…from guys like you on the other side? Cool, thanks.
That stance is pure idealism. Yeah sure, it’d be great not to spend the money or emit CO2 just to make sure we don’t get invaded*, but since that is a risk, and you can’t just kumbaya it away.
Then, since having a military is at minima a defensive imperative, how is wanting to be a defender anything close to bad? Granted, some armies are pure ideological cancer, but that does not define what an army is, and it’s not a global issue.
To get straight to the moral dichotomy of our time, how can you say that the English army who defended itself against the Wehrmacht were the same as the Wehrmacht? I’m not trying to corner you or being disingenuous, I don’t get how you can say that all armies are somewhat the same
- (this doesn’t apply to the US military which is pure bloat)
Hot take: Wehrmacht fought a defensive war. Everyone fights a defensive war.
Wehrmacht tried to defend and secure the future of Arian race, they defended themselves against a perceived threat of Jews overrunning them.
English, while fighting fiercely against Germans, still militarily held their colony in India, protecting the interests of the crown.
Israeli army is now committing genocide, repeatedly and casually doing war crimes - in the name of protection, of course.
Every army, given the chance, will claim defensive interest in the war that’s to come. That’s why biggest war aggressor countries have Ministries of Defence, not Ministries of Offence.
There are all kinds of institutions out there that can help mediate demilitarization. Yet leaders of many countries don’t want that, and we should force them to do so - primarily through the inside democratic pressure, whenever possible.
To add to this, we renamed our department of war to the department of defense.
American military is significantly worse though. Most militarys aren’t invading other countries.
American military just has enough power to project, while the government enjoys almost no backlash for committing war crimes, because what, are you going to sanction or sour relarionships with the biggest economy in the world?
It’s not just army, it’s an entire system built on imperialism and carte blanche to do anything. Military is just an instrument, and it will do the same in any other country under similar circumstances.
Russia bullies Ukraine. China bullies fleets in South China sea. Pre-WW2 Japan was going mad in a quest to conquer Asia, before being roughly downed by the bigger US - for its own interest, of course. Pretty much any big economy, given a chance, will do this. That’s how politics works, and military is an easy way to project power onto other countries, and bully the hell out of them.
Which is why it has to be abolished.
vietnam war? sounds patriotic 🇱🇷🇱🇷🦅🦅🦅 who won? 🦅
Nobody ever wins, but someone always profits.
War is good for business.
Peace decidedly is not. Either a rare Ferengi L or humans are literally more evil than the Ferengi.
In some ways, humans are worse. At least Ferengi have a universal code they all adhere to and anyone who doesn’t is treated like a pariah. Imagine if Republicans had to actually be beholden to the law and knew they had to because that’s how society worked.
Surely it’s the patriotic story of how the fort city of Vietnam, Amabama was won from the British. /s
me
Guys, we found them!
American diabolism is such a moronic political philosophy.
America does all sorts of heinous shit - but that doesn’t mean that “communists” biiiig air quotes on that one can’t/don’t do heinous shit.
I think tankies might be worse than Nazis because they act as a foil for socialist policies and positive change today, while being almost as genocidal. Why the hell would anyone want anything resembling communism if it looks like China, the USSR, or the DPRK? None are communist - they’re just different flavours of autocratic state capitalism - no worker enfranchisement, no worker ownership of the means of production, little to no decommodification, shit quality of life.
Ah yes, both sides are equally bad in a conflict unilaterally started by the one side.
I mentioned 4 countries in response to someone known for talking about a fifth. There’s comfortably a dozen conflicts you could be referring to - but if I had to guess, you’re volunteering as a case study proving that the only thing sloshing around in the empty heads of tankies is American diabolism.
You’re enemies of communism - you’re too busy licking the arsehole of your autocrat leaders to satiate your hate boner for the US to see that you’re defending the elimination of worker enfranchisement, the advancement of genocide, and the centralisation of resources into a system that no sane person wants, and sure as shit isn’t communism. You tarnish the name of communism, and turn people that would otherwise advocate for it against the concept - and with dipshits like you peddling your Nazi-tier brain worms, I can’t blame them.
Anarchy79… China - anarchist? USSR - anarchist? DPRK - anarchist? Vietnam anarchist after what - fucking 1930? Fuuuuck you.
…please tell me I’ve missed and that you’re not a goddamned tankie.
It’s reductionist to think of socialism/communism as oppositional to markets/capitalism. It’s much more freeing to think of it as a societal transition. As society grows disappointed with markets, society will transition to social control of production. There are many degrees between capitalism and communism. From highly regulated markets to state control of production. State control doesn’t have to be authoritarian. It could just have an administrative function. The reason the USSR and China seem authoritarian is because they are still in what Marxists call Siege Socialism. To maintain socialistic characteristics, socialist countries have to compete with capitalist countries, so to maintain control they have to limit markets, not to mention the military aspects.
Even if one is a proponent of a reformed capitalism, which many are, it cannot survive the consequences of climate change. Capitalism requires growth. A quasi- planned economy is coming, whether we want it or not. Better to get ahead of the transition, to avoid loss of life and suffering.
3 questions:
What definition of communism do you use that has no regard for worker enfranchisement, worker control of the means of production, or decommodification?
Why would anyone want socialism if it looks like the USSR, China, or DPRK? The socialistic characteristics of those countries are weaker than what you’d find in the US, let alone a social democracy.
Why is an active move away from communist principles required to transition to communism, and how many decades should workers expect to live under those comparatively (or absolutely) shitty conditions before actual communism is achieved.
This is why tankies are the enemy of actual communists - you defend fascist regimes, with worse conditions and fewer rights than we have, then hold them up as a glorious example of what we can achieve under communism, then when issues are pointed out, you invariably blame the US. The CIA has pulled some bullshit, but they’re not responsible for the state of China, the USSR, or the DPRK.
You need to read and understand the the position of Marxist theory before dismissing it. I’m not a Marxist-Leninist, but I understand how they have arrived at the need for state socialism. Depending on circumstances, they may be right.
You dodged all three of my questions. Surely for a worthwhile ideology, you’d be able to do better than “go read” - I’ve read theory - you haven’t made a point.
They bang on about material conditions then defend the state of places like the DPRK. I’m not unsympathetic to state socialism as a transitionary phase, but don’t like it because it centralised power to decentralise power, and somehow never seems to reach step 2 - China, DPRK, USSR…
It’s dumb because it’s a 1 dimensional, reactionary ideology with no meaningful principles, that makes the world and the countries that adopt it worse, and tends to result in genocide. Did I mention it harms actual communism? Why should I take it seriously?
With such erudite analysis, you should start a sub stack or write books to share your knowledge.
The better question would be, ‘which one?’
“We were stopping communism, you ungrateful slanteye! And you’re welcome!”
Kissinger, is that you?
Kissinger is no longer available for comment.
I don’t know what year the Colonial Marines invaded Vietnam, but color me impressed…
“Because I could. Because you fell for it.” - Pong Krell
Just a little tomfoolery
Damn bro, I didn’t realize Henry Pissinger had a body double.
