• wick@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    What a weird arbitrary number. I wonder where they got that idea from.

  • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I understand that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man. But it sucks that support from his opposition is what helped push this. They’re not bad because they are Shia; they are simply the worst of the people that opposed Hussein. This is what happens when you prop up puppet governments. The rights of the people aren’t important to the puppeteer.

    Tl:dr: Even with Saddam Hussein’s death, Iraq never got its freedom.

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      12 hours ago

      At the time when we launched the aggressive and illegal invasion of a sovereign county, we were doing it for Democracy™ and Human Rights™

      At the time, you would have been called a traitor, shill, or insane to suggest otherwise.

      After some years, it becomes absolutely clear none of it was true. It was all for imperialist motives. It seems that the propaganda is strong, but it has a short half life. Today you’ll have trouble finding someone defending the US invasion of Iraq.

      I think we are seeing the same thing with Ukraine war. In 10, 15 years people will see the war for what it is- a progressive destabilization of Eastern Europe and intentional proxy war.

      But right now- it’s Sovereignty™, International Law™, and Democracy™

      We destroyed Iraq. We doomed millions of people for generations. And we are participating right now in the destruction of another country.

      It’s just that we do. We destroy.

      • chuymatt@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Ok. That is until the Ukraine bit. Russia chose to invade. It was made very clear in the press that the US knew what was happening on the border and gave Putin every chance to stop it Ukraine is a sovereign country and did not want more Russian influence and was courting EU membership.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Ukraine is getting destroyed because they happen to be a small country in between two great powers having a proxy war. Russia is the invader, the aggressor, the one who broke international law.

          But US is not naive here. This was expected and planned for a long time before 2022 and a long time before 2014. Proxy war takes two sides to tango. We’re not supporting Ukraine because of democracy and sovereignty and human rights, we’re doing it for geopolitical motives. A sort of modern Spanish Civil War. Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.

          Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don’t necessarily align with their interests. Like Chomsky says “we will fight them to the last Ukrainian”

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            14 minutes ago

            We’re not supporting Ukraine because of democracy and sovereignty and human rights, we’re doing it for geopolitical motives.

            You should be supporting Ukraine because of democracy, sovereignty, and the security guarantees you gave them by signing the Budapest memorandum, remember, when Ukraine gave up its nukes. You are supporting them not because you care about any of that including your promises, agreed, you’re too fickle for that, but because you don’t want to lose Europe as an ally, a geopolitical motive, because boy can I tell you Europe cares about all four points, more than everything Europe cares about Ukrainians caring, about supporting a rightful struggle by a people dreaming of a better future, and Russia re-igniting imperialist BS. And you’ll continue to support Ukraine even if you don’t care about Europe because you care about Ukraine not nuking up.

            All this, ultimately, just amounts to a French win. They wanted strategic autonomy for Europe for a long while, they considered NATO braindead for a long while, getting the US out of the equation, having everyone see how fickle, unreliable, and of course self-absorbed and self-righteous or self-hating (depending on how that exceptionalism swings) you are, is just what’s needed to for the rest of Europe to fully buy into French doctrine. The US is driving nail after nail into the coffin of Atlanticism and the French are loving it.

            …and that’s another reason why you won’t be dropping Ukraine: Because then your military-industrial complex would lose a very affluent customer. Currently European states get shouted at by the French when they buy US instead of European, that voice would fall completely silent because noone would be buying US, any more. Who’d have thunk in the face of Trump greed might just save your geopolitical standing.

          • Laser@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 hours ago

            The fact that this wasn’t a three day operation is in large part sure to the US. But your portrayal of the facts makes no sense. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to ask the US for help (except Russia). The US obliges because it does align with their interest. But in the end, all international help at scale is motivated by national interest.

            Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.

            Should a nation only fight with pre-agreed equipment that is at least of a certain age?

            Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don’t necessarily align with their interests.

            Well, they for sure don’t align with Russia’s.

            Like Chomsky says “we will fight them to the last Ukrainian”

            Or was it North Korean?

      • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I think we are seeing the same thing with Ukraine war. In 10, 15 years people will see the war for what it is- a progressive destabilization of Eastern Europe and intentional proxy war.

        I was wondering what you meant by this but now I think I get it. We created a puppet state in Iraq to get a “buffer” against Iran. The same way Putin wants Ukraine to be its buffer against the rest of Europe. Did I get that right?

        I agree with the rest of what you said.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          we’ve been pumping money into regime change in Ukraine since the early 90s. NED (National Endowment for Democracy) used to show the dollar figures and specific organizations on their website but deleted that information a while back. You can still find it with Wayback Machine

          Essentially we’ve been funding and supporting organizations in Ukraine under the guise of “pro-Democracy™” “pro-Liberty™” with the goal of supporting any potential chances for regime change. Some of those organizations just happen to be associated with the far-right groups that were part of the initial government that was unconstitutionally appointed In 2014 after Euromaidan- a series of violent protests that forced the pro-Russian president to flee the country.

          tldr: we’ve been destabilizing Ukraine for a long time. the idea was to peel off Ukraine from Russia’s orbit and throw it into the US orbit. And it worked. Which is why Russia invaded in 2014

          Note before I get the inevitable Russian shill comments - I’m not justifying any aggressive invasion by Russia. I’m saying this is a proxy war - a game of tug of war between two larger powers. Neither care in the slightest about what actually happens to the Ukrainians.

          They will not recover from this war for a hundred years. But Lockheed Martin stock will perform nicely

          edit: and remember this comment in 15 years. people will be talking as if what I’m saying is obvious. but right now the propaganda is strong- just like in 2003 with invasion of Iraq

          • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            That’s pretty sad. I don’t understand why we play with so many millions of lives as if it’s all one just big game. Thank you for the through reply.

          • Laser@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            How was Ukraine “destabilized” compared to other comparable ex-USSR states until 2014?

            And it worked. Which is why Russia invaded in 2014

            If a country being in US orbit is a reason for Russia to attack it, why didn’t they attack Finland? Or the US directly in Alaska? What’s the significance with Ukraine?

            There’s none other that Russia thought it was an easy target, breaking the Budapest Memorandum (and later other agreements). The same memorandum btw granted Ukraine non-military aid from the US and France, so the argument that this was somehow a dirty play makes no sense.

  • wick@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    What a weird and arbitrary number. I wonder where they got it from.

  • ColdWater@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    As if women in these countries have the right to consent or not in the first place

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      If they can consent to extra sprinkles on their ice cream, they can be child sex slaves.

      (Edit: I just wanna say I’m so glad I didn’t need the /s for people to… Wait, I hope people aren’t actually agreeing with this)

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    So does that align with Mohammad 's second wife?

    All religion is just a framework to be shitty.

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      126
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I dont know why you’d be downvoted, people should be reminded of this often.

      The prophet Muhammad married his wife Aisha when she was 6 years old. According to the history he waited until she was 9 to start raping her.

      Edit: he was 53 when he started raping his 9 year old wife. Fucking gross.

      • hihi24522@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        I would assume the downvotes are more for the “religion is a framework to be shitty” part. I’m also going to get downvoted for a similar reason.

        Religion is justification for one’s moral compass / desires.

        You see people who think it’s morally okay to rape kids or take away women’s rights or the rights of trans people or the rights of gay people etc. These people can’t justify morals (or lack thereof) logically so they use religion to give them a false sense of rationality. Hence you think religion is a framework for being shitty.

        However, there are other people who use religion to justify “good” behavior like compassion and acceptance. These people are still reliant on fallacious beliefs, but their actions are not “shitty” so they get offended. Furthermore, others—who know people in this second category—may also think the remark about religion being shitty is not correct and is rude. That’s why it’s getting downvoted.

        Fun sidenote, we can actually formally prove that religion or at least absolute morality doesn’t matter, and that people will just do what they want no matter what:


        Proof. We seek to prove that people do whatever they want regardless of the existence of a god or absolute morality. We have three natural cases:

        Case 1: Assume neither god nor an absolute purpose/morality exists. Then a person will default to their own morals. Hence, if neither exists, people will do whatever they want.

        Case 2: Assume a god or purpose/morality exists that does not align with a person’s current morals. (For example a god that required you to strangle six puppies every year or required human sacrifice, or raping kids, or blowing up hospitals, or working in finance, etc.). Then this person will not follow that god/purpose because they are a bad god/purpose. Hence, a person will do whatever they feel is right regardless even with the existence of a true deity/purpose when that god/purpose does not share their morals.

        Case 3: Assume a true god or purpose does exist and that it aligns with the morality of a person. Then that person will be living that way anyway, so the existence of the god or purpose has no effect on them doing whatever they want.

        In each case a person will do whatever they want regardless of the existence or non existence of a god or a true purpose/morality. Q.E.D.


        I should note that while I did come up with this proof myself several years ago, I learned later that Marcus Aurelius and other philosophers beat me to the punch by several centuries. But hey philosophy is the study of understanding existence, if we both exist in the same existence we can and should be able to discover the same facts about reality.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Edit, phrasing.

        I hate Abrahamic origin religious systems en masse, especially when states use them to justify bullshit. Goes for western countries too.

        Some folks probably think I’m targeting

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Abrahamic origin

          It’s not like other systems have a much better track record. Shintoism was responsible for the rape of nanking, the ongoing Rohingya genocide is being done in the name of Buddhism, and take your pick of at least 2/3rds of everything the Roman empire ever did

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Sure but that’s not the system being discussed, I figured I’d limit my scope a bit lol.

            I agree with you, and my original comment spoke to that

        • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I hate Abrahamic origin religious systems en masse

          Right there with you in agreement 100%. This iron age mythology superstitious nonsense needs to be eradicated completely, and only studied academically from a sociological perspective for what it really is, myth, as well as all the pain, suffering, death and horror it has caused human beings, and still is causing. Fuck religion.

          • BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Bronze Age 😋 #Ackchyually. Root narratives of Judaism and so the Abrahamic tradition from roughly 2000-1200 BCE

            Ignore me.

            • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              13 hours ago

              Do you have a source for that? I would think the oldest passages of the old testament go back to the 900s at best. That’s why the oldest historical figure the bible has is Pharaoh Shoshank. I’d be surprised to see if anything from before the Bronze Age Collapse made it in (besides being vaguely Semetic).

              • wick@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 hours ago

                Yea I think you’re more right, Judaism didn’t kick off until the early iron age, and changed over time. But also the roots in late bronze age semetic culture are, if not significant, at least relevant depending on the conversation.

                Source: theologians dunking on evangelicals on YouTube, and Wikipedia.

                • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  That makes sense. I also hear that the laws of the Old Testament take considerable amount of inspiration from the Laws of Hammurabi; which was developed earlier in the Bronze Age.

              • BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 hours ago

                Right. Keref Hinnom is 600BCE, so a wee bit earlier than the actual reference to ol’ King Shawshank redemption. But there’s oral tradition _probably_ running as early as 1200BCE. - I was talking Abrahamic tradition (as per the dude I was replying to, so not explicitly Christianity… in which case you’re completely correct)

                https://dokumen.pub/the-abrahamic-religions-a-very-short-introduction-very-short-introductions-627-1stnbsped-9780190654368-0190654341-9780190654344.html - Cohen, Charles L., ‘The Jewish matrix (1200 bce–70 ce)’, The Abrahamic Religions: A Very Short Introduction”

                • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  probably running as early as 1200BCE

                  I could agree there was something “related” by 1200BCE at the EARLIEST. After all, Judahites, Edomites, and Qederites do not even show up till 900 BC; a few hundred years after the Amorite civilization begins its downward spiral (where some of their last traces are seen in the mixed ethnic group of Palmyra which has elements of Amorites, Arameans, and Arabs mixed together – even though they are virtually identical cultures).