You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context

two sentences is hardly a rant and there are plenty of quotes from american officials and armchair generals about how this war is great because it’s degrading “our enemy” without costing american lives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I believe that degrading the army of one of the US greatest geopolitical world rivals at the cost of roughly 3% of the DoD budget is money well spent. In that there is no US blood is an added advantage. The Ukrainians are fighting this war for their own purpose, to reject tyrannical rule. That’s something that’s happened for a millennium, including the American revolution.

The US didn’t impose this war, 100,000 Russians invading did. As France helped the US during the revolution, the US helps Ukraine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
62 points
*

I believe that degrading the army of one of the US greatest geopolitical world rivals at the cost of roughly 3% of the DoD budget is money well spent.

They’re not gonna let you into the club just because you lick the boot leather. I believe the 100.000s of dead ukrainians are more important than some vague US geopolitical goal.

The Ukrainians are fighting this war for their own purpose, to reject tyrannical rule.

The ukrainians are forcibly conscripted and banned from leaving their country. They do not want to fight.

The US didn’t impose this war, 100,000 Russians invading did

Yeah one day putler just woke up and felt like invading, that’s what happened.

If you think this is such a good war, go volunteer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The Ukrainians could stop this war anytime they want, as could Putin.

Reality is the Russians invaded. They rejected world order.

permalink
report
parent
reply
57 points
*

”This is a US proxy war.”

”That’s an uninformed rant!”

”This is a US proxy war, and that’s a good thing.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Proxy War…

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.

You are saying that the US had a role in instigating this war? What was it? Sounds like Putin’s language to justify his stupidity

permalink
report
parent
reply

The Ukrainians are fighting this war for their own purpose, to reject tyrannical rule.

Yes good thing their escaping tyrannical rule for totally wholesome democratic rule… That bans all opposition parties and bombs their own country for nearly a decade

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The Russians have flattened whole cities.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I believe that degrading the army of one of the US greatest geopolitical world rivals at the cost of roughly 3% of the DoD budget is money well spent.

Which is why so many nations are smelling the blood in the water and casting off their western neocolonial overlords in Africa right now.

Lmao.

In that there is no US blood is an added advantage.

permalink
report
parent
reply

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Yes, Niger is a harbinger of the future…right

permalink
report
parent
reply

oh look we found the intern at Langley

permalink
report
parent
reply

Department of Naval Intelligence

American revolution was a counterrevolution you dolt. Now go ahead, tell me I “support the British empire” bc you can only think exactly one step ahead.

permalink
report
parent
reply

“US Blood”

permalink
report
parent
reply

You’re a monster lmao gtfo

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

to reject tyrannical rule. That’s something that’s happened for a millennium, including the American revolution.

https://readsettlers.org/ch2.html

long extract from Settlers about the nature of the 1776 revolution

We need to see the dialectical unity of democracy and oppression in developing settler Amerika. The winning of citizenship rights by poorer settlers or non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans is democratic in form. The enrollment of the white masses into new, mass instruments of repression-such as the formation of the infamous Slave Patrols in Virginia in 1727 — is obviously anti-democratic and reactionary. Yet these opposites in form are, in their essence, united as aspects of creating the new citizenry of Babylon. This is why our relationship to “democratic” struggles among the settlers has not been one of simple unity.

This was fully proven in practice once again by the 1776 War of Independence, a war in which most of the Indian and Afrikan peoples opposed settler nationhood and the consolidation of Amerika. In fact, the majority of oppressed people gladly allied themselves to the British forces in hopes of crushing the settlers.

This clash, between an Old European empire and the emerging Euro-Amerikan empire, was inevitable decades before actual fighting came. The decisive point came when British capitalism decided to clip the wings of the new Euro-Amerikan bourgeoisie — they restricted emigration, hampered industry and trade, and pursued a long-range plan to confine the settler population to a controllable strip of territory along the Atlantic seacoast. They proposed, for their own imperial needs, that the infant Amerika be permanently stunted. After all, the European conquest of just the Eastern shores of North America had already produced, by the time of Independence, a population almost one-third as large as that of England and Ireland. They feared that unchecked, the Colonial tail might someday wag the imperial dog (as indeed it has).

Like Bacon’s Rebellion, the “liberty” that the Amerikan Revolutionists of the 1770’s fought for was in large part the freedom to conquer new Indian lands and profit from the commerce of the slave trade, without any restrictions or limitations. In other words, the bourgeois “freedom” to oppress and exploit others. The successful future of the settler capitalists demanded the scope of independent nationhood.

But as the first flush of settler enthusiasm faded into the unhappy realization of how grim and bloody this war would be, the settler “sunshine soldiers” faded from the ranks to go home and stay home. Almost one-third of the Continental Army deserted at Valley Forge. So enlistment bribes were widely offered to get recruits. New York State offered new enlistments 400 acres each of Indian land. Virginia offered an enlistment bonus of an Afrikan slave (guaranteed to be not younger than age ten) and 100 acres of Indian land. In South Carolina, Gen. Sumter used a share-the-loot scheme, whereby each settler volunteer would get an Afrikan captured from Tory estates. Even these extraordinarily generous offers failed to spark any sacrificial enthusiasm among the settler masses. (14)

It was Afrikans who greeted the war with great enthusiasm. But while the settler slavemasters sought “democracy” through wresting their nationhood away from England, their slaves sought liberation by overthrowing Amerika or escaping from it. Far from being either patriotic Amerikan subjects or passively enslaved neutrals, the Afrikan masses threw themselves daringly and passionately into the jaws of war on an unprecedented scale — that is, into their own war, against slave Amerika and for freedom.

The British, short of troops and laborers, decided to use both the Indian nations and the Afrikan slaves to help bring down the settler rebels. This was nothing unique; the French had extensively used Indian military alliances and the British extensively used Afrikan slave recruits in their 1756-63 war over North America (called “The French & Indian War” in settler history books). But the Euro-Amerikan settlers, sitting on the dynamite of a restive, nationally oppressed Afrikan population, were terrified — and outraged.

This was the final proof to many settlers of King George III’s evil tyranny. An English gentlewoman traveling in the Colonies wrote that popular settler indignation was so great that it stood to unite rebels and Tories again. (15) Tom Paine, in his revolutionary pamphlet Common Sense, raged against “…that barbarous and hellish power which hath stirred up Indians and Negroes to destroy us.” (16) But oppressed peoples saw this war as a wonderful contradiction to be exploited in the ranks of the European capitalists.

Lord Dunmore was Royal Governor of Virginia in name, but ruler over so little that he had to reside aboard a British warship anchored offshore. Urgently needing reinforcements for his outnumbered command, on Nov. 5, 1775 he issued a proclamation that any slaves enlisting in his forces would be freed. Sir Henry Clinton, commander of British forces in North America, later issued an even broader offer:

I do most strictly forbid any Person to sell or claim Right over any Negroe, the property of a Rebel, who may claim refuge in any part of this Army; And I do promise to every Negroe who shall desert the Rebel Standard, full security to follow within these Lines, any Occupation which he shall think proper. (17)

Could any horn have called more clearly? By the thousands upon thousands, Afrikans struggled to reach British lines. One historian of the Exodus has said: “The British move was countered by the Americans, who exercised closer vigilance over their slaves, removed the able-bodied to interior places far from the scene of the war, and threatened with dire punishment all who sought to join the enemy. To Negroes attempting to flee to the British the alternatives ‘Liberty or Death’ took on an almost literal meaning. Nevertheless, by land and sea they made their way to the British forces.” (18)

The war was a disruption to Slave Amerika, a chaotic gap in the European capitalist ranks to be hit hard. Afrikans seized the time — not by the tens or hundreds, but by the many thousands. Amerika shook with the tremors of their movement. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were bitter about their personal losses: Thomas Jefferson lost many of his slaves; Virginia’s Governor Benjamin Harrison lost thirty of “my finest slaves”; William Lee lost sixty-five slaves, and said two of his neighbors “lost every slave they had in the world”; South Carolina’s Arthur Middleton lost fifty slaves. (19)

Afrikans were writing their own “Declaration of Independence” by escaping. Many settler patriots tried to appeal to the British forces to exercise European solidarity and expel the Rebel slaves. George Washington had to denounce his own brother for bringing food to the British troops, in a vain effort to coax them into returning the Washington family slaves. (20) Yes, the settler patriots were definitely upset to see some real freedom get loosed upon the land.

To this day no one really knows how many slaves freed themselves during the war. Georgia settlers were said to have lost over 10,000 slaves, while the number of Afrikan escaped prisoners in South Carolina and Virginia was thought to total well over 50,000. Many, in the disruption of war, passed themselves off as freemen and relocated in other territories, fled to British Florida and Canada, or took refuge in Maroon communities or with the Indian nations. It has been estimated that 100,000 Afrikan prisoners — some 20% of the slave population — freed themselves during the war.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Mao like prepubesent little girls.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Who gives a fuck about the money? Hundreds of thousands are dead, and we are close to nuclear annihilation.

You are enthralled to a demon. Wake up and imagine you were marched to the frontlines.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Bazinga

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

there is no US blood

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 4.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 126K

    Comments