5 ms·
> Nobody wants World War 3. Small point but this isn't exactly true, especially among US policymakers and media people. All you need to do here is read the cho
by maybelsyrup 5y ago
> Nobody wants World War 3.
Small point but this isn't exactly true, especially among US policymakers and media people. All you need to do here is read the chorus of people in official / corporate media going "nuclear war would be bad, but [...]". You can also rewind to the enormous shit-fit Washington types threw last summer when Biden pulled out of Afghanistan, or go even further back to the Iraq war.
Washington is full of chickenhawk warmongers dying to send other people's children into battle, consequences be damned. It's the rare thing that is really bipartisan, too. A lot of people's careers depend on support for World War III, so they find a way to be okay with it.
- foxfluff 5y agoThere's also people who see it this way: world war 2 ended Hitler, world war 3 may be needed to end Putler. A war might be the only way to take out a genocidal dictator-terrorist who threatens the entire world with nukes.
- maybelsyrup 5y agoYes right, this is what I mean by "they find a way to be okay with it." Well-meaning and high-minded establishment types like Tom Friedman or Jeffrey Goldberg or David Frum wouldn't let themselves indulge in outright bloodlust; that would be too crass, too icky, and too honest. So they concoct little children's tales like "WW3 may be needed to end Putler" to rationalize it. This is an ego defense: a mechanism to protect against the anxiety of seeing yourself as something horrible (seeing yourself honestly, in this case).
- selfhoster11 5y agoIndependently of whether it's a rationalisation or not, it might be the actual reality of the situation. Maybe WW3 actually _is_ needed to unseat him (though I hope it's not).
- wilkommen 5y agoWell if that’s true then we just shouldn’t try to unseat him.
- pstuart 5y agoLet's not forget the Rapture seekers who look forward to Armageddon. The previous US Secretary of State (Mike Pompeo) being one of them: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/politics/pompeo-christian-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/politics/pompeo-christ... One of many terrifying elements of our times.
- cjbgkagh 5y agoI’m keeping an eye out for future headlines “No-fly zones will mean WWIII and why that’s a good thing”
- artificial 5y agoLots of NGOs and bad actors. Speaking of which looks at this post by Edward Norton! [0] as far as strategies scope this paper by the Rand Corporation from 2019 discussing what looks like a lot of policies already in place. Banning Russia from international institutions, strategies such as providing lethal aid to Ukraine, destabilizing neighboring country Belarus, PysOps to damage internal credibility. [1] [0] https://twitter.com/edwardnorton/status/1498025965875875844?s=21 https://twitter.com/edwardnorton/status/1498025965875875844?... [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
- jacquesm 5y ago> Speaking of which looks at this post by Edward Norton! Specifically which parts of that post do you take issue with?
- maybelsyrup 5y agoI'd seen some of the Rand stuff but the Edward Norton shit is terrifying/hilarious. I haven't seen liberals this frothy for other people to kill on their behalf since right after 9/11. Lmao "please CIA FBI"! War makes fascists of us all.
- artificial 5y agoKinda weird that most media outlets don’t have foreign correspondents, local news rooms, or even reliable sources on the ground. Look at what talking points are used and who they interview. I suppose something encouraging is despite the massive effort people don’t want the war.
- 14u2c 5y agoThe kind of people you describe thrive on the looming threat of world war, but I highly doubt they actually want it to occur. They can get perfectly fat of government money during peace time as they saber rattle.