https://twitter.com/lanadelraytheon/status/916365374307786752
https://twitter.com/marvel/status/916317209017937920
https://twitter.com/motherboard/status/916408081591959552
https://twitter.com/kingimpulse/status/916374274428035073
https://twitter.com/lanadelraytheon/status/916469947919769601
https://twitter.com/rossadillon/status/916531847781285888
https://twitter.com/marvel/status/916522128811413504
Americans are finally beginning to push back on militarism.
âonly one thing will workâ ⌠oh, FFS.
Thread on the impact of war, spoilered for disturbing imagery:
It became necessary to destroy the world to save it.
The wonderful thing about wild unfounded paranoia is there is no cutoff date for being wrong.
America has a war problem. An addiction. It canât get off the stuff. The other countries of the world would stage an intervention, but thatâd just get them bombed.
Maybe you could sort of⌠reduce it a bit? Managed? Maybe just one senseless, brutal, murderous war at a time?
Why are you asking an Australian?
Maybe I dont understand the situation, but I read those arms deals as just very big bribes. The recent Russian arms deal I take for a much smaller bribe. No one is trying to get the Saudis to attack anyone. The Saudis have enough trouble mass-murdering Yemeni civilians and Saudi Shiites in the Eastern provinces - which reminds me, if we are so against Assad murdering Syrians, why are we so pro Saudi murdering Yemenis and Shiites?
But the Saudis are afraid of the Iranians - if they could they would have invaded already. Instead they are trying to get the US to do it instead. Hence the bribes.
Maybe if they won one they would be less keen to start new ones?
The Saudis and the Iranians have waging a Sunni-vs-Shiite proxy war over the past seven years or so to become the pre-eminent power in the region. The U.S. is locked into supporting its longstanding and ever-dysfunctional and repressive ally the House of Saud, and Russia has mostly been supporting Iran in response. However, Russia has come to the conflict relatively recently, so thereâs nothing preventing them from hedging their bets, working both sides, and making some extra money from their arms industry in the process.
And yes, the U.S. isnât trying to get the Saudis to attack Iran directly â the responsible people in the military-industrial complex are already worried enough that Israel might do an airstrike on Iranâs nuclear facilities without permission. Fortunately, the House of Saud doesnât have the stomach to interrupt its sweet ride with a direct war, although when theyâre finally overthrown by their religious nuts that will likely change.
The problem is that some time in the latter quarter of the previous century, âwinning warâ got redefined to include âwinning peaceâ as part of the ends/ways/means/risk calculus. But thats all part of the over quoted Kausewitz line âwar is an extension of politicsâ. However I dare to say heâd probably be appalled at what war has become.
This of course is part of why Iâve offered the wager in this thread repeatedly. Theres simply no more room in the supply chain to have to start any more war on the USâs part. If you read War on the Rocks, look for an article called âLong Wars and Industrial Mobilizationâ for more on that.
I am not sure. Sometimes I think the profit motive is the best way to analyse which wars the US is willing to undertake. This would explain why we are elevating the third world (or second world) nuclear powers to boogieman status - if we stick to Islamic terrorist enemies how can we justify really big spend military projects like F35 etc? In that respect I am a big fan of Kim ârocketmanâ Jong Un. As soon as he threatens the West Coast we can stop throwing stones at Bears.
