Be rule do warcrimes
Be rule do warcrimes
Picture shows a pride parade. A group of people are carrying a banner that says "LOCKHEED MARTIN" over a rainbow graphic.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Ah yes because the US is going to be invaded by... Canada? Mexico? Uzbekistan? Seriously what the hell are you talking about? If you actually think that upholding the American empire has benefitted Americans then you're just a liberal.
The US isn't about to be invaded by anyone. We have a very powerful military. So there is no threat in the world we live in, aside from the threat from internal extremists and asymmetrical warfare (ie terrorism). If the world were quite different, and we had no military power, we'd be at risk from a number of adversaries. Possibility the greatest threat would be foreign-backed "separatism" as occurred in Ukraine in 2014 (which is simply a covert invasion that is disguised as a civil war).
There's literally nothing wrong with being a liberal. It's really quite preferable to a number of the alternatives. It must kill you that the majority of people don't remotely support your political views.
Ah yes, if you're the biggest and most violent bully in the school yard, you don't have to worry about being beat up. Just say "they hate us for our freedom" in the mirror 3 times while ignoring any sort of actions we do as a country that might make other people or countries want to attack us. I swear, your exact message could've been said by the average republican in 2008.
Funny, when I opposed the Iraq invasion in 2001 (and 2008 and beyond) I was called a bleeding heart liberal, but now I'm accused of supporting the Iraq war, "enhanced interrogation," "extraordinary rendition," "indefinite detention," Guantanamo Bay, etc for saying there's nothing wrong with being a liberal.
I really wish the world would pick one definition of liberalism rather than just labeling whatever they don't like "liberalism."
I seem to recall that the apex of Republicanism in 2008 was the Tea Party, which I never identified with in the slightest. No, that was 2009. 2008 was when Mitt Romney was campaigning on the idea of strapping the family dog to the roof of the car. Is that what you think liberalism is? A Mitt Romney republican?
How about, instead of arguing definitions of words that are constantly misused by people who want liberalism to mean anything stretching from neoliberalism to communism (which is weird how you'd take conservative's definition of liberal at face value), you talk about how much your individual ideas have ratcheted to the right instead? I'm also not the original person who blamed your position on your liberalism.
Insular, America-centric, "we must have the most firepower to protect us from the evil people", is absolutely the rhetoric used by republicans in 2008. Maybe if you traveled back in time, you'd be voting for Mitt Romney regardless of how safe his dog was. It's entirely a fear-based position to have, and that's been the republican MO for a while. Our military industrial complex makes us less safe because it constantly creates situations that guarantees its own existence. Protecting your comfort through global threat of violence is a cowardly position to uphold.
Perhaps you should talk about how your beliefs have ratcheted towards the right, if that's what you identify with. Or left. I'm not going to tell you how your beliefs evolved over the past few years or decades. I don't pretend to know you.
I don't know what your definition for liberalism is. So far, on Lemmy, "liberalism" seems to be anything to the right of tankie/Stalinist/Maoist. It seems to be just as broad as the right's definition of it.
America is the arsenal of democracy. That's as true now as it was when Franklin D Roosevelt said it.
I'd love to see NATO take over that role, or the EU take on a bigger share of it. Especially if they ensured the weapons were solely used in a defensive capacity. That would be great. But someone in "the west" needs to have a major military industrial complex.
And sure, other countries make some weapons. After all, everyone donates weapons to Ukraine. But we all know the majority is coming from the US. Nobody else has the arsenal to stand up to Russia's USSR stockpile (though diminished) and China's stockpile. Both Russia and China are hungry for more territory. Russia annexed Georgia, Ukraine, crushed the independence of Chechnya, and is right now trying to conquer enough of Ukraine to make a land bridge so they can go annex parts of Moldova. After that, they're highly likely to try taking land from one of the Baltics, probably Latvia or Lithuania.
China has invasion in its past (have you already forgotten about Tibet? The Tibetans haven't forgotten, although forced sterilization, mass famine, and insanely high rates of suicide have decreased the number of them, part of China's campaign of Han supremacy and cultural genocide) and invasion in its future (started with Taiwan, but they are also eying Vietnam, Kazakhstan, and someday perhaps even Russia).
The world isn't a safe place. It's full of conflict.
If you want to see what life is like without the US military industrial complex at your back, keep your eye on Armenia. They're working as fast as they can to build ties to the US, but I don't think it'll come together fast enough to save them from Russian-backed Azerbaijan.
If the whole world disarmed, then disarmament would be a great thing. But preaching disarmament while the "global threat of violence" actually exists is carrying water for the very real authoritarian dictators who currently wish to build an empire at the expense of other people's freedom and sovereignty.