Sure seems like things got worse under Trump, but that's none of my business.
Things keep getting worse and the presidents keep changing
Incidentally... Hillary Clinton boasts more deportations under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama than Trump
The Obama drone strikes alone were horrific for civilian death tallies, and set a terrifying precedent that allowed for future presidents to allow more and more civilian deaths from drone strikes to be seen as acceptable.
So you would be fine with illegal drone strikes killing innocent people as long as the number was a bit lower?
Why can’t you be on the side of the innocent people being murdered.
That is absolutely a valid philosophy; utilitarianism. Minimize the amount of suffering or conversely maximize happiness. Killing less innocent people will produce less suffering and is therefore the preferred option. If you are given three options: Increase suffering (guaranteed), Reduce suffering partially (probable), and reduce suffering greatly (highly improbable) it is logical to choose the scenario that has the highest chance of doing good. Of course we should strive for zero suffering, but we need to understand that making incremental improvements is better than choosing to do nothing.
You’re not minimising it, you’re continuing it. The only ethical answer is to destroy the state (reduce suffering greatly).
The only ethical answer is to destroy the state (reduce suffering greatly).
Source?
Also, weird that destroying the state is also the right's alleged goal.
Source: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Uses anarchist instance, posts in anarchist memes comm, confused about abolition of the state being a core anarchist principle. Go figure.
I'm all for it ending the power of the state. Destroying it is a different argument, power vacuums don't end well and have never resulted in no state.
I don't want these things because I think it's going to reduce suffering. For me it's entirely about consent.
Any idea that it will lead to some reduction or gain in anything in particular except personal freedom is conjecture.
Also, I don't base my ideas on the writings of long dead men nor suggest others do. If it's not possible for one to travel their own path and make their own arguments based on first principles derived from their own experiences, then how can one argue anarchism is feasible.
The only path forward I see is to forward use the mechanisms of the state to make the state impotent; irreversibly neutered.
I have no interest in destabilizing things such that some power hungry asshole can come in and exploit the progress to is make things worse, which historical what has occurred each time.
The state will never wither away, the masters tool will not destroy the masters house. It can only stop existing through revolutionary conflict. Power hungry arseholes already have come in and have been in for hundreds and thousands of years.
If you believe that then what allows you to believe the masters will allow us to destroy it?
What is your mechanism for tricking them or forcing them to give up power and never try again?
I don’t expect them to allow us to, I expect it will take violent revolution and many deaths to gain it.
Violent revolution will temporarily increase suffering.
How to you intend to maintain it? What do you intend to put in place so they don't violently take it control and how does that differ from what I have proposed?
I feel like I don't know the details and we won't ever. If there is a real threat of attack against the US with a big risk of mass civilian casualties from some foreign operatives, and we have a way to take them out even with putting civilians at risk, there could be a case where it's the right thing to do. Really tough call, of course. And I'm very glad that I don't have to make such calls.
Such things need oversite and actual (US) illegal actions need to be remedied. But a lot of the information regarding it is very sensitive and we likely wont ever be privy to it. So it comes down to trust. You are very right not to trust the government, and I certainly don't trust the current U.S. administration; but ai'm still willing to give Obama the benefit of doubt.
I feel like you watched way too much "24". These strikes are not about thwarting immediate terror threats, they are about serving US (corporate) "interests"
Actually I found "24" too stressful and disturbing to watch.
What were the corporate interests in the strikes that Obama ordered?
It always comes back to natural resources, generally oil. That's not necessarily the reason for specific strikes, but they are always in service to developing or maintaining "cooperative" local governments.
What might really blow your mind is how culturally liberal much of the middle east used to be. Then came the global oil rush and the decision that reactionary theocratic governments were easier to control. Western intelligence agencies are largely responsible for the level of religious extremism and violence we see today. In fact, it worked so well that they decided to try it at home in America. That's the short version of how we got exactly where we are today.
Yes, but you're speaking in generalities, mostly historic. I don't think that's fair to lump that all on Obama without specific examples.
We can't accuse Obama of doing the normal thing that America has always done without examples, but we can exonerate him of doing so on the basis that he was thwarting unidentified terror plots? You don't think your showing a little bias?
Has Obama even made claims that any such terror plots existed? It's also kind of funny that, with all these terror plots getting foiled on a nearly daily basis, we were still willing to leave Afghanistan. And then, miraculously, no terror plots happened despite us not sending in drones to stop them.
I m so sick of the us power giving it the depraved privilege to justify destruction and murder. Fuck you and your disgusting country of coward killers, child molesters and nazis.
Agreed. But I can see that sometimes one has to be a bad guy to protect themselves from bad guys. The U.S. definitely overreaches with that a lot, way way too much. And child molestors and Nazis should not be tolerated; which the U.S. is also failing at rn.
I really see very little difference between this "you have to be a bad guy to protect yourself against bad guys"and the shit stephen miller is pulling out today. If you start goose stepping there is a point where the rest of the world will think of you as a nazi. And there is only one "good type" of nazi.
We have Trump in large part thanks to Clinton and the Democratic establishment following Reagan's lead and embracing neoliberalism and market fundamentalism. Obama continued this trend, with ACA being a literal Heritage Foundation plan and Wall Street being a big early ally. And then with Biden, they ensured nothing "fundamentally changed" after Trump's first term.
With no left/socialist alternative in this country, Trump appealed to both reactionaries and working class electorates looking for someone to shake things up and "drain the swamp", even if misguided.
Democrats are losers and have been my entire adult life. They answer to capital and fight for capital, and thus, will never tackle the root causes of our slide into oligarchy and fascism.
Yes. But Trump is worse. Unfortunately, it's quite simple really.
Things have gotten worse under every single president since I’ve been alive. This isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Sure, but how is a puppet drinking tea and not getting soaked?
Trump is a shock machine a la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine, allowing the real ruling class to constantly consolidate power at an unheard of rate
From whose perspective? That's certainly true from the perspective of Americans and other Western countries but if you're from a nation from the Global South there absolutely is truth in their perception of same shit, different day.
That shouldn't dissuade Americans from voting responsibly though. The American imperial machine is going to do what it does. You should still aspire to mobilize a majority that prefers a competent non-pedophile in your highest office.
Who is saying Democrats have any hope of being in power again?
All the people refusing to take action against the concentration camps because the midterms are coming up.
I feel like that is almost nobody. There may be certain actions that are inadvisable while the Republicans control everything, but that doesn't prevent other actions from being so taken. People taking no action now won't act any differently next year.
The solution to the Nazis wasn’t to vote them out. You need to engage in violence.
I disagree. These aren't Nazis, they are cosplay Nazis. Nazis actually believed in a cause and we're willing to put their balls on the table in service to that cause. What we have now are grifters who have been made to back down repeatedly.
The time for violence might come but so far civil disobedience has been the smarter move. If elections start being cancelled, that's a whole new situation though.
Predator drones don't have internal munitions bays
Got ‘em.
Don't worry, Democrats send drones. Republicans destabilize the global peace system so you don't know who is attacking.
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
