You must log in or # to comment.
So what is nato then?
Everyone keep asking what is NATO.
But nobody is asking how is NATO.
Why is nato?
Whomst is NATO?
It’s a list of words for each letter in the English alphabet so they they can be spelled unambiguously over the radio.
On your phone, you have an app called Safari/Chrome/Firefox. Try opening it and then typing the 4 letters “nato” into the text box at the top. Once you’ve finished, hit enter.
There you will find the answer.
My mind is blown. Slay.
That was a rethorical question, but thank you!
I figured it was and wanted to play along with the joke. Seems like others didn’t take kindly to my attempt.
Have a great day 😎
Folks don’t take kindly to people takin’ kindly around here…
lol seriously. What the fuck.
This place…. It is something.
Gave you some upvotes to hopefully brighten your mood. It can be rough, have a great day.
Lol. Thank you. Votes don’t really matter and I enjoyed writing that comment, so who care!
Have a nice day yourself!
Real answer or NCD answer?
I’ve literally never heard of the word “real”, NCD it is.
Lmao of course this place is ran by hardcore war crime apologist PugJesus who advocates for jailing Edward Snowden and Julian Assagne.
Tell me more about how October 7 was Legitimate Resistance™. God knows you can’t get it up unless civilians are getting murdered.
Link?
Sorry, but nothing in there even mentions jail, Assagne, or war crimes.
Why obama wont pardon edward snowden
What do you think it means to not pardon someone? It means jail.
In Snowden’s case not really. Him not getting pardoned just means he remains in exile. And I’m not even seeing anything in explicit support of that.
You wanna post a screenshot where they say those people should be jailed?
Apparently thinking that Ed Snowden has better PR than intentions is a violation of dogma.
Maybe people who hold power are all conniving bastards to some degree, and all of them should have their dirty laundry aired.
Makes me think lemmy tankies can’t admit even their saints are flawed humans, too, because that’d mean they could never become perfect and can’t bear ever being wrong.
Please don’t air my dirty laundry 🥺
Joking aside, I have two primary problems with Snowden.
-
His leaks were not just of the moral variety, but also exposed US spycraft. That’s… not great.
-
I would have been much more convinced of his idealism, even as a change of heart from his prior opinions, had he gone somewhere other than fucking Russia. You expect me to believe you’re too moral to stand by while the US spies on its own people, and then go and settle quietly under Putin’s regime? Moron, hypocrite, or actual authoritarian scumbag, it doesn’t matter to me at this point. I have no desire to see him jailed at this point, but he’s no hero to my eyes.
I’m pretty sure Snowden is very opposed to Putin and everything the Kremlin does. He knew he’d be safe there. It was a smart move, evidenced by the fact that over a decade later, the world’s richest government hasn’t arrested him. Do you agree with the politics of your country’s leaders? I certainly don’t, but that doesn’t make me immoral for living here.
-
Look, NATO is bad, that’s why it’s absolutely necessary for anti-imperialism purposes that Russia invades its neighbors before they can get into NATO!
This is logic amped up to 11 right here, folks.
Which works about as good as rhe war on terror
“Bro just one more invasion bro I swear this time it’ll really solve
terrorismWestern Imperialism™ for good!”Problem is, Russia is technically in the west.
Something something, Eurasian realignment BRICS Imperial Core Global South Anti-Colonial Axis of Resistance.
I think I’m ready to start my career as a professional tankie!
I am still amazed at the 12 dimensional chess thought process of invading a country that didn’t join NATO to discourage joining NATO. All that socialized vodka in the maternity ward must be getting out of hand.
So, I blocked the instance about a week ago, I don’t feel like I’m missing anything.
I only wonder how the people/government of Mali feel about them using their country’s top-level domain for… Whatever it is they’re using it for.
I dunno enough about Mali to really say, but I’m pretty sure that Lemmy.ml has nothing to do with that country… For them the ML means… Something else entirely.
It stands for Marxism-Lenininism I aasume.
My understanding is that .ml was cheap (maybe free?) and the Marxist-Leninist thing was a happy coincidence/backronym.
Oh I thought it was machine learning all this time
Reminds me of the story of people’s .mil emails going to the .ml top level domain and the Malian government asking the US to fix their shit
Well, yeah. Kinda like how most .tv domains don’t really have anything to do with Tuvalu, or .io with the British Indian Ocean Territory, etc.
youtu.be is not a Belgian website.
Yep. It happens a lot. Most of the time it’s benign, fairly neutral websites.
As the other commenter mentioned, youtu.be is another example.
I don’t have a problem with people using TLDs for other countries or anything, my curiosity is whether Mali cares that it’s essentially a site glorifying Marxism–Leninism owned and operated by people who don’t live there, and apart from their glorified ideologies sharing an innitialism with the country code, the two don’t necessarily have any overlap…
Just seems like a PR problem if people take to using your country code TLD to spread propaganda that you disagree with, because your country will be regularly mentioned when discussing the site.
I don’t think anyone here will conflate Lemmy.ml with the people, beliefs or properties of the people of Mali, but all it takes is for one extremist tied to that site, to do something horrible, have a spotlight shined on lemmy.ml, and one over-enthusiastic journalist to mention that .ml is the country specific domain for Mali, and all of a sudden, otherwise ignorant common folk are associating acts of terrorism and violence with your country.
The government of Mali and specifically the department that runs the TLD, has the power to revoke their domain registration… I’m just saying.
even one of the mods is a commie
Everyone’s just throwing away their masks left and right. Left is becoming full-blown marxist/leninist, right is becoming actual nazis.
Please be sure to draw a clear distinction between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism.
Like, MLs are doing literally what Marx saw in 1848 and spent the rest of his life firmly against - you can’t just will a revolution into existence. Even if the world would be better if you could. You can make a good go of it, you can die nobly in the attempt, you can even maybe overthrow the current elite - but what comes next is not going to be socialist, it’s not going to be a worker’s state, and very likely it’s not going to last. No matter how hard you believe in the virtue and intellect of your vanguard party.
Anarchists: Are we a joke to you? Yes? Fair enough. We’ll be over listening to folk punk and reminiscing about Dr. King being right in his Letter from Birmingham Jail.
The extremists in the anarchist movement are the ones who pretend everyone would just work together fine and self-organize if there was no government at all, aren’t they? Or am I thinking of a different group.
I’d say that those “extremists” are more likely people who are young (either biologically or in exposure to anarchic philosophy) and a bit naïve. They may have their heart in the right place from the perspective of those of us who have been about for a while but, likely are lacking in real-world experience with anarchic social circles and challenges that they have (wreckers, narcissists, cliques, etc).
What you’re mentioning is more of the shallow view of anarchism that’s most frequently portrayed as the alternative to the other popular Mad Max view that right-of-center groups like to use to portray “anarchy”. Neither are great at showing the full gamut of anarchic philosophy nor particularly accurate portrayals of extant or historical approaches to non-hierarchical societies.
Those aren’t extremists, they’re children. I’m not saying that as an insult, I mean it literally.
Actual, practicing anarchists are extremely bureaucratic. Ironically, anarchy in practice produces large, democratic governments that change slowly. Hilariously, a small republican government is best suited for making rapid progress. Note the lower case (d) and (r) - I’m referring to ideology, and not political parties.
Anarchists create institutions that reflect democratic values, and when everyone must be given a chance to have a say, meetings are huge and take for-fucking-ever (speaking from lived commune experience here). Cliques and factions form and work together to shut down proposals they don’t like. Its actually a very conservative ideology - nothing changes quickly.
Very fair points and thanks for the acknowledgement that those who think that abolishing political structures will solve everything are not really ideological extremists but, at best, extremely naïve and in need of personal growth.
There are so many flavors but, without some form of non-democratic structure (or, I don’t know, high-speed telepathy?), rapid change is indeed not readily possible in most anarchic systems, without a unifying external force like a disaster. I don’t think that that’s necessarily a bad thing though. In current social structures, the populace has been forced to go faster and be more productive so that the ultra-wealthy and others high in the socioeconomic hierarchy can enjoy their leisure. A lot of people suffering from mental health problems rooted in stress and anxiety would be greatly benefited by this changing.
Big up to the Anarchists. I’d love to be one but the best I could do is some evenings and every other weekend. I’ve become a decadent westerner in the last couple of decades. Sad face.
To me, the most important role of anarchism is as a “North Star”. My ideal society (something like anarcho-syndicalism) is not going to happen in my life. Easier to accept as a full adult. However, that doesn’t mean abandoning the ideals. It means examining them and the pre-conditions necessary to achieve them. Things like cultivating community and encouraging pro-social behaviors that are necessary to change culture for the better over time.
Maybe when xers, millennials, zoomers, and alphas are and to finally take the reins and have some semblance of control over their own lives we will be able to see more change but for now, building and support is needed so that we don’t repeat things like the failed revolution in Iran that led to a theocracy.
Thank you for your inspirational pep talk. I hear what you say. I especially like that you have hope in the coming generations. I’m gonna go away and reflect on my cynicism now.
Hey, as a non-authoritarian leftist, I can assure that MLs are just a subset that really wants to pretend they’re spearheading the Left to fulfill their bloodbath fantasies. There’s lots of us that don’t like them and aren’t like them at all.
fulfill their bloodbath fantasies.
as if there’s not enough killing all over the world and in our very schools, these fucks always want some kind of civil war.
sick fucks.
You are a brainwashed propagandist with that comment. Good for them. Can you explain to me why the US and NATO did not intervene with the genocide in Georgia? Make that TWO genocides. Who did? How much territory did they take? You know that counts in your inaccurate figure just as an example.
Americans are too stupid for the Internet.
Goddamn it thank you for reminding me why I stay off of Lemmy. 😡
I’d be glad if NATO didn’t exist.
It would mean countries wouldn’t feel threatened by their neighbors, and no invasions would happen.
But until that is the case, NATO is necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_massacre#False_leads
NATO isn’t there to defend you, it’s there to serve the interests of a bunch of rulers and elites
That might be hard to grasp but sometimes the interests or rulers and elites do align to some degree with the average person in their country. Most rich and powerful people have a lot of investments that are worth significantly less when unpredictable things such as invasions happen that disrupt trade.
Humanity is literally on the verge of extinction due to global warming and you still believe rulers gives a single shit to anything that isn’t money or power? War is a business.
Extinction would kind of interfere with the whole power and money thing.
Go explain that to the biggest 10 companies in the world. I doubt you have enough money to sit at their table. Stop giving a fuck about everything around you and focus on money and wealth alone and perhaps you will get a chance to talk with their executives.
I was just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. There are no simple answers to complex questions.
I think it’s simple to see how greedy people try to take as much as they can without thinking of the consequences. Money and power are a drug
Believe it or not, both things can be true
Did you even read any of the link posted?
“Only your side can be evil and not mine!”
Stuff can be two things!
true dat
I can’t hear you with that imperialist cock brushing against your tonsils.
I mean the rulers and elites live in the same countries as many of us do and they sure as shit don’t want war where they live. It might not be here to defend us, but it’s here to defend the countries we live in.
War is a business and a tool to get more power. Rulers and elites cares about money and wealth they don’t give a fuck about the planet or peasants. Just look around yourself
That’s true. But then, if you’re a ruler, the best war is one that your own country isn’t fighting, but you can profit off of. Which is why they’re still incentivized to keep peace in their own countries, but not so much half a planet away.
That’s true. But then, if you’re a ruler, the best war is one that your own country isn’t fighting
If you are a ruler you probably don’t give a fuck about anything that isn’t money and power.
What good is money and power when you have to live in a bunker?
Idk ask them. Billionares or authoritarian rulers are basically addicts who don’t make rational choices. Their “bunker” is probably a palace with servants
I would much prefer every country in the planet being in NATO.
Any country attacks any other country? Literally the whole world goes to defend it. So no invasions are possible.
It wouldn’t work though. Wouldn’t take much time for alliances to form that agree to not follow NATO’S rules.
Nah, I want war. I want the rest of the world to go to war with the US. They’ve got a Nazi problem. We beat the Nazis in 1945 and we might need to beat them again in 2045.
Lmfao who’s the warmonger now?
My brother in freedom, we first need to make sure the US and all of our big shiny weapons are on the side against the Nazis. I think we have a good shot at it, but it’s not a guarantee.
My brother in freedom, we first need to make sure the US and all of our big shiny weapons are on the side against the Nazis. I think we have a good shot at it, but it’s not a guarantee.
Nato already does not enforce their mission against the US and US backed vassel states
Nato already does not enforce their mission against the US and US backed vassel states
When did the US invade a member of NATO, again?
Sorry, their presumed mission of ensuring peace in Europe through collective defense.
It’s built and structured around Russia being the main antagonist but it’s mostly been the US who’s activities have been destabilizing the security of Europe.
But you’re right, the explicit mission is to protect their members and noone else, so I guess everything is working as intended
It’s built and structured around Russia being the main antagonist but it’s mostly been the US who’s activities have been destabilizing the security of Europe.
lol
Tell me more about how America’s aggression turned the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake.
Fascists like you just can’t help yourselves when it comes to Russia, can you?
I have no problem acknowledging Russia’s aggression and imperialist activities, but NATO fanboys pretend as if NATO members are the ‘good guys’ and cannot themselves be seen as the instigators of European conflict.
NATO ends up categorizing conflict in Europe into two sides and ignores all conflict originating on the member side. An alliance that includes all members would at least in-theory be more equitable, but we already know that even a global supergovernment can selectively enforce their mission and ignore offenses by particular members.
but NATO fanboys pretend as if NATO members are the ‘good guys’ and cannot themselves be seen as the instigators of European conflict.
Hey, want to tell me what the European conflict going on right now is and who instigated it?
Maybe you could also do the last major European conflict too, just for fun?
“NATO is sabotaging European security” is such a braindead talking point that requires not just ignorance, but active denial of reality. It’s unsurprising that fascist shitheads find it so very appealing to parrot.
Are you my hundred year old Jewish great uncle? How’d you get on here?
I’d like your comment more if it said: “I’d be glad if NATO didn’t have to exist”
And I’d like your comment more if it said “Ricky is the bestest person on all of the world” but we can’t all have what we want.
Removed by mod
Every species has weapons embedded into its body, some organisms are specialized members of the species, such as queens and babies, but all species spend a portion of their precious energy budget building weapons.
Given how ruthlessly evolution prunes out anything that doesn’t give an advantage, I think this gives significant information about the nature of existence.
Hostility appears to be as universal as entropy, and just as manageable.
Fun fact. Being the most complex object in the known universe. The human brain is the lowest entropy place we know…
Life feeds on life
https://sh.itjust.works/post/8419342
more than just a few instances it would seem
Read the username wrong at first
Honestly, can’t we defederate from that shithole. I don’t see why we need to get a post every other day just to ruin everyone’s day
dont know why lemm.ee the instance am on is federated with hexbears
Well at least people got educated on left side extremism. I think it puts things in the broader perspective and maybe even someone decided to research these topics some more.
It makes you wonder about communism as a whole. Does it always lead to totalitarianism? Etc
It’s healthy to see all the nut jobs from time to time and reflect on your own steps
It makes you wonder about communism as a whole. Does it always lead to totalitarianism? Etc
considering the answer to democracy is literally “well you can vote one in” as we have recently found out in america.
Yeah probably. If even the most rugged institutions are not impervious to this problem, i think it’s fair to safe that no institution is.
It’s healthy to see all the nut jobs from time to time and reflect on your own steps. If your views align with the nut jobs for example that makes you wonder hmm something is wrong.
my rule of thumb for politics is that if you have an opinion it and you are wrong and you should stop holding that opinion. Politics is vastly too complicated for even a lifelong PHD thesis to be capable of understanding. Let alone some dude who gets all his news from idiots yelling at a camera online.
The best thing we can do is to prevent ourselves from getting to extreme before it starts.
Tankies are totalitarian right winners cosplaying as left wingers. Communism hasn’t been in power in Russia since Gorbachev. It’s been nationalists since then. They swung. They swung hard. They kept the totalitarianism and got rid of the leftness. I’d have made largely the opposite choice.
And as many argue, USSR was state capitalism.
Lenin was actually capitalist libertarian, they won’t tell you that in the history books written by rotten western imperialists but it’s true. You should read The Communist Manifesto.
Moderators please we have a liberal here, I can’t breatheee
Been working my way through Richard Wolfe stuff first, then I’ll work on the classics. If Wolfe says USSR was state capitalism, then he’s a liberal too.
lenin was pretty good in terms of communism, stalinist russia was very totalitarian though.
I think you are wrong about the right/left thing. Ever hear about the horseshoe theory of politics?
Russia embraced capitalism after the fall of the USSR then became an oligarchy where a bunch of super rich run the whole thing. Socialism is dead in Russia and has been for a long time. The only thing that didn’t change is that most people are cripplingly poor. Where have you been for the last 40 years?
People whose views align with nutjobs think that everyone else is being dramatic.
“I’ve never even seen a tankie on here before!” - an infinite number of tankie fellow travellers
Although, to be fair, they’ve become much more rare in .world communities over the past few months. It’s nice, having only a few morons to wander in and make apologia for war crimes and totalitarianism.
This is how it’s supposed to work on the Fediverse. If you don’t like an instance, you defederate. I take no position on people at lemmy.ml, but unless people are rage addicts the best thing to do is ignore instances you find objectionable.
Can’t, it drives engagement.
i was recently banned from like 5 different ML communities, no clue why, hi ML admin or mod if you could tell me why that would be cool.
It was probably something stupid i did, i never read rules. (in my defense, they’re always the same and i’m never going to follow them lmao) But regardless, silent bans are weird.
lol before I realized what ml meant I made a comment that I thought that communism had never happened yet on earth but that it could one day. You wouldn’t believe the rage and attack from dozens of people who were inconsolable.
They also got mad when I said that there are only a few actual leftists in government in the US. Turns out that everyone is one, dontchano
“Read theory and you would know what I’m talking about.”
That is a common thought terminating response to any critique of communism. That being said, I learned to flip the table. Tankies talk about theory, so mention empirical and practical results. They tend to either shut down or ban you.
Your first sentence is not wrong; as I understand Marx’s writing. Essentially it is not possible to go from agrarianism straight to communism without first building an industrial society. That’s how Russia / USSR, China etc don’t “technically” count.
Your first sentence is not wrong; as I understand Marx’s writing. Essentially it is not possible to go from agrarianism straight to communism without first building an industrial society. That’s how Russia / USSR, China etc don’t “technically” count.
Don’t worry, Lenin et co said you could do it if you believed extra super hard and gave all the power to a small clique of intellectuals. Lenin, like Jesus and the Gospels, takes precedence over prior teachings.
That’s a good analogy. The mental gymnastics needed to be Marxist-Leninist is akin to believing both the old and new testaments are - essentially - about the same guy. I’m particularly thinking about New Economic Policy existing in a communist state. Wild.
[Overthrows the SRs for daring to say capitalism must come first to industrialize Russia]
[Implements capitalism to industrialize Russia]
For a minute I thought SRs was a speech-to-text mistake for “Tsars” and was super confused - but then it all made sense. Been a long time since I’ve talked about this stuff.
It’s not a STT mistake of the word Tsar? What is it?
Socialist Revolutionary Party. Two capital letters and one lower case is how it’s written. Go figure. They were in the mix of Russian politics in that era.
It’s like how the Saudi activists who called for women to be allowed to drive remained in prison after it was legalised; it’s not about the policy itself, it’s about defying the ruler.
I’m referring more to the fact that Marx envisioned the populace rising up. What really rose in places like Russia and China was a group of self appointed elites who were really just reactionaries.
Tankies get mad because they believe that their utopia already exists and everyone else is an idiot for not ascribing to the same.
They think their utopia already exists
Yet they refuse to go live there
Good observation!
What really rose in places like Russia and China was a group of self appointed elites who were really just reactionaries.
Are you suggesting the Red Guard didn’t exist and the Long March didn’t happen?
self appointed
What does that mean?
I’ll start over:
Me: self appointed elites did this
You: oh so you’re saying that none of it happened?
It’s a non sequitur, it has nothing to do with the conversation.
Me: self appointed elites did this
Again, you really need to go back and read the history of the Chinese Revolution of you believe this. I might - at a bare minimum - crack open a copy of Fanshen or Life and Death in Shanghai. The idea that the Chinese Civil War and Cultural Revolution were waged by “elites” in any conceivable sense is flatly wrong. It is ahistorical to the point of being the opposite of truth. Like insisting George Washington was a First Nations native person or asserting the French Revolution was orchestrated by the Hapsburgs.
At its ugliest, Chinese revolutionaries were arresting, beating, and executing anyone who might vaguely be defined as “elite”. You were having people fight over whether parents should be executed for being landlords over their children. The opening scene of the Netflix “3 Body Problem” wasn’t all that far from the truth - college professors were, in fact, getting hauled out in front of student committees for adhering to the texts of English and German physicists. The very idea of “elitism” was what was on trial during the hottest years of the revolution.
It’s a non sequitur
You don’t know your history. You’re saying things that are flatly, broadly, and totally incoherent.
Marx thought that the revolution would need leaders, and so the self-appointed elites aren’t totally out of keeping. It’s just that they were then supposed to step down and let the people govern themselves.
That, again, is another reason why they are not really communist. “Workers of the world unite”
Exactly. My point at that time was to say that it can happen but had not yet.
From my (very limited) understanding of Marx and Engels I suggest your point is correct. I don’t understand how a full-fat, red flag waving comrade could come to any other conclusion… but then I have no dog in this fight and no emotional need to be correct.
I think that’s why you and I aren’t tankies, militant vegans, hard evangelicals, etc. It’s not important enough to worry about.
sadly there are many stalinists and moaists. the Russian revolution ended when stallin took power.
That’s how Russia / USSR, China etc don’t “technically” count.
The Lenin government did experiment with a direct transition to full communism, but found - as Marx predicted - that they didn’t enjoy the industrial surplus needed for a post scarcity society. So he rolled back to the New Economic Plan, which Stalin inherited. Stalin went full tilt on industrialization, which upset a lot of agricultural workers and ended with him putting down a revolt in his native Georgia and tendering his resignation as a result.
The party wouldn’t accept the resignation, so Stalin had to come back and win WW2 as a result. Russia avoided the fate of many of the Eastern Bloc states thanks to that rapid industrialization.
After the war standards of living surged, in large part thanks to the Communist model. The kind of communal lifestyle possible under pre-WW conditions wasn’t attractive anymore, so Russians kept industrializing over the next 40 years. And when they couldn’t match the US + Japan speed of development, they fell over in the attempt.
But to say they weren’t “doing Communism”… The quality of life in the Eastern Block improved remarkably quick and access to resources was broad based and egalitarian. The economy was centralized and planned. The proletariat dictated the political agenda.
Certainly, at the time, American economists could tell the difference between the US and Soviet systems, even if they doggedly insisted central banks making private loans was freedom while central committees allocating jobs and resources was tyranny.
It’s only after the USSR collapsed that we got an earful about “Not Real Communism”.
Thanks. I have no reason to doubt any of that. Just to clarify that by “technically” I meant that, as far as I could see, they were not necessarily dialectically-created(?) as per Karl (&Fred’s) original theories. It was more a view about the processes they used rather the outcomes they achieved.
they were not necessarily dialectically-created(?) as per Karl (&Fred’s) original theories
That’s where you can argue that Lenin and Marx ultimately diverged. Trotsky was more of a Marxist hardliner, who insisted Russia simply wasn’t ready for a Soviet state. Stalin felt differently and went so far as to have a bunch of his detractors exiled/killed to prove his point.
The Maoist Revolution in China took a substantially more Trotskyist approach, slow rolling reforms at a speed the majority of the public was willing to accept. Deng proved to be more long termist than Krushchev in his planning.
And I guess history has proven which method was wiser.
…what does the ml stand for?
Area code for Mali… and I assume shorthand for Marxist Leninist.
I see, thanks
Marxism Leninism
They are the original Lemmy devs which is why I joined there. Horrible mistake, reactionary idiots who project their insecurity on others while thinking that they are the only ones who figured out the secret sauce. Pretty much exactly sovereign citizen level quackery.
look up the word “tankies” to get an idea
Ah, I see
To be fair, how do westerners not treat capitalism and democracy with exactly the same weight? I think both sides would have good reason to argue that neither side has figured out the secret sauce as you say.
Not a huge stretch to think both the US and Russia treat their citizens poorly, and neither is a model for the rest of the world.
Because while both are shit, under capitalism I can at least say it’s shit without fear of incarceration or reeducation.
Unless you’re a whistleblower
What has capitalism got to do with freedom of speech?
You know the answer to this question. The person you are replying to mentions the system of government of countries doing capitalism. No need to be so pedantic.
I think the pedantry is warranted. A lot of people like to conflate capitalism and democracy.
What does Stalin have to do with freedom of speech, because tankies support authocrats and dictators worldwide, but especially are fans of Stalin.
What you talking about bossman?
Russia is also capitalist, and I think you meant to say “democracy” instead of “capitalism” there since authoritarian capitalism is definitely a thing (see Russia and China).
inconsolable
i like the idea of using inconsolable to refer to grown ass adults. Pure comedic value.
Cheers!
What happened in Libya according to them?
One air campaign in Libya (permitted by UNSCR 1973) > fourteen Russian invasions
Checkmate, Westoids
Poor Gaddafi was attacked by the corrupt NATO, to the disgust of the rest of the world (except that it was resolution by the UN security council).
Except there is strong evidence that Western powers (predominantly France, the UK and US) created the fiction of Gaddafi being a global supervillain and then used NATO forces to enact regime change in Libya, under the pretext of “preventing civilian casualties”. The real goal, of course, was to secure Libyan oil reserves and open the country up to western markets.
NATO is often used an extension of Western foreign policy. To pretend it is solely a benevolent peace keeper is just as simplistic and naïve as saying that everything the West / NATO does is pure evil.
You people seriously hate history and facts, don’t you.
And what is dropping this wikipedia link supposed to prove?
Does it contradict the scholarly article I cited which supports everything I said?
P.S. who is “you people”?
The article was supposed to educate you on what type of person and leader Kadaffi was but something tells me education is not your strongest suit.
“You people” are teenage armchair communists with zero life experience and disdain for history books.
Gaddafi was a supervillian. Almost literally:
.It also wasn’t NATO who directly killed him. His own citizens did, and they weren’t kind about how they did it.
NATO also wants stable oil reserves. Both these things can be true.
He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado. He wasn’t seen as a genuine threat by Western intelligence agencies.
Also, NATO didn’t have to kill Gaddafi directly in order to be instrumental to his deposition. You only have to look at the history of US intervention in Latin America for many examples of how regime change can be carried out via proxies and rebel groups.
He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado.
My dude, this ignores like 40 years of him being the most unhinged leader in North Africa. He’s always been a wild card on the global political stage, swinging wildly from befriending revolutionary leftist, and then immediately dumping them for right winged dictators.
The man literally tried to sell surface-to-air missiles to a street gang in Chicago… No one had to make him seem crazy, he was crazy.
Now that doesn’t mean I think the US should have intervened, but I don’t think anyone had to really do any work to make him seem like an insane supervillain.
That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.
In 2007, the UK’s Tony Blair visited Libya to strike up energy deals, and France’s Sarkozy met with Gaddafi for military and economic agreements.
Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?
That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn’t mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.
That was my point about him swapping out friends sporadically. Gaddafi had massive swings in political alignment throughout his time as leader of Libya. The reason nato/un could actually make a move on his government without greater political ramifications is because he’s burned every bridge across the political spectrum.
Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?
Literally yes… Is it that surprising the west would work with a crazy despot that has a bunch of oil?
US involvement in South America has been brutal- we are responsible for terrorism, murdering innocent people to spread fear, creating civil wars…Societies were torn apart in ways they may never recover from. How can you consider this an option and publicly advocate for it? That’s fucked up
Cause it’s whataboutism, not cause it’s wrong.
Yey USA tankies!
calling something whataboutism is such a cop-out. what has the user said that distracts from the greater debate?
Gaddafi was so popular among Libyans that in the end they dragged him to the street and raped him with a sword. Allegedly.
You think that couldn’t happen with Biden?
No. He might get assassinated by an individual or a small group of conspirators. He won’t get paraded through the streets while being raped with a sword until he dies. But nice try.
It’s weird that some random German thinks they know what American hillbillies are capable of or actively talk about doing when their memory doesn’t even go back more than three years and they have literally zero knowledge of history or the nature of angry mobs.
Oh, no, wait, that’s not weird, I always forget some people are just average.
Interesting, thanks
During Arab Spring, the West was (naively) hoping that Libyans would rise against Gaddafi and create a democraty. When he saw what was happening, he threatened to a) flood Europe with migrants and b) expose Sarkozy’s illegal campaign funds.
a) made him a political adversary, b) made them launch a military campaign to topple him
there is strong
evidencepropaganda.
Thanks for the reminder, happy cake day
All the happy cake days to you! What will you do with your time without them? ;) EDIT: i.e., without lemmy.ml
except that it was resolution by the UN security council
You mean the Security Council over which Russia has veto power? That UN Security Council?
Russia’s decision to abstain in that vote happened under the notoriously “liberal” Medvedev and was a point of heated disagreement between him and Putin. It was arguably the breaking point for Putin deciding he needed to hold onto power indefinitely or else (in his view) a liberal president would let NATO do whatever they want, with Russia presumably being next on the chopping block
Is that why Medvedev is constantly on X threatening to nuke NATO like every 5 minutes?
