"Defend our nation" by starting wars to keep rich people rich?
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
962 points (97.5% liked)
People Twitter
7400 readers
1957 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a false dichotomy, as though you can either be productive or learn to march. Obviously you could do both.
It's very important for soldiers to focus on doing "important work to defend our nation" (murdering brown kids) and that they're "productive at their jobs" (bombing hospitals)
I came here for this but found people already pointing it out.
DeFeNdInG as seen by everyone else: going to places 5k km away and murdering every living thing there.
VeTeRaNs as seen by everyone else: steroid micro-penis assholes murdering women & children
When has the US military defended the nation? I got the impression that they're mostly used for invading foreign countries for financial gain, cf Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Panama, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Guatemala, Korea.
Invasion is the defense.
Yeah. That's kind of America's whole thing. Making money. Exploiting everything. Americans are the Ferengi.
Defending America = defending capitalism = doing whatever they can to make American, capitalist companies more profitable.
I don't hate capitalism. Don't get me wrong, but I generally don't like capitalists.
Capitalists are what makes capitalism capitalism. How can you hate one without the other?
This is what Americans call "defending the nation"; making war in other countries than their own, believing themselves to be the world police.
I think America has only ever been attacked... Twice... In all of history (Pearl Harbour and 9/11), and both times the defense was pretty piss poor.
America was attacked hundreds of times. The native people lost.
I'm not sure either of these events can even be counted as an attack. Pearl Harbour is roughly 3800km from the mainland. It's basically an overseas territory. An attack there is like saying the Falkland War was an attack on the UK.
And 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a war. While it was a big attack, it was still only carried out by a handful of non-state-actors. That's quite a different thing than an actual military attack by a country.
Afaik, the last war on US soil was the civil war.
Hawaii was not a state for almost 2 decades after pearl harbor, so yeah.
The original white house was burned to the ground by British/Canadian troops in 1814.
Not to mention about 100 different American Indian Wars, though some of those were more slaughter than war.
I think it was probably in protest. However they can, I guess.
“A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine.”
– Soviet observation during the Cold War
Russians be like "they can't march, maybe they can't even clean a toilet bowl with their fork or fuck and tortue a child, we totally win"
On a fucking Saturday too. They wanted to be with their loved one probably.
I woulda filed a chit for gastro or something.
These soldiers spend their days doing important work to defend our nation.
The U.S. military has done nothing to defend their "nation" for over 100 years. They ONLY defend the corporate oligarchs' ability to steal resources and use slave labor in third world countries.
Lmao yet Ukraine still stands thanks to American intelligence and military apparatus.
I'm not even an American but this kindergarten sentiment on Lemmy is so exhausting.
Are you suggesting that kindergarten political thought is somehow less valid? You must hate children!
Lmao yet Ukraine still stands thanks to American intelligence and military apparatus.
Which they provide exactly as long as they profit exponentially from it. Dont pretend like the US would provide foreign aid out of generosity.
I am of the mindset that a good thing done for selfish reasons is still ultimately a good thing done.
And then promptly fucked right out of peace negotiations immediately after signing the resources deal. Fits perfectly well with
They ONLY defend the corporate oligarchs’ ability to steal resources and use slave labor in third world countries.
Yeah you get a lot of these 'moral purity absolutists' with all the nuance of an edgy teen. Some of them, or course, are edgy teens, but 100 years is a super odd choice even so. You'd think by the time they were 13 they'd have heard of at least one war that came pretty close to defense against a malign hegemonic power with ambitions of global domination....
It really reminds me how I felt when I was an edgy 16-year old but luckily for me social media wasn't really a thing yet so it didn't bother anyone.
It's possible that you're overestimating the US contribution
Looking at the conflicts they have been explictly or covertly involved in, it does seem like they are attempting to create a hegemony. That's not to say that some good doesn't get done along the way but it is more of a byproduct than the intent.
But... Ukraine falling to Russia would strengthen the US's military (and cultural) hegemony over the western world. If this truly was the rationale behind the US's involvement in Ukraine, everything we've done thus far would make absolutely zero sense. Strengthening Ukraine and spurring investment into the home-grown EU defense industry only serves to weaken our position as the lynchpin of NATO. A better justification for US involvement in Ukraine is that this is a great opportunity to starve Russia's economy by forcing them into conflicts they cannot economically support (which was much the same strategy that lead to the collapse of the soviet union).
It's also a great opportunity for Russia to starve the US economy by getting them involved in conflicts it cannot economically support. And the US is far more overextended due to other conflicts.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The band played "Fortunate Son". They all knew exactly what they were doing.
If shit ever does hit the fan full send (I very much doubt it) he doesn't have the army.
Imperial March would have been dope
load more comments
(3 replies)
gotta stroke shitler's ego.
From what I'm hearing from coordinators and people inside its not that they can't march. It's that nobody wanted to. They had to be there. So they phoned it in. Malicious compliance.
Like the squeaky tanks. That was a choice made in the motor pool. They could have greased them up and tested to make sure they were smooth. But they made a different call.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but i do find it hard to believe. I think most people that take pride in their jobs won't half ass it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›