10 ms·

It really sucks that "Saddam has WMDs" broke an entire generation of Americans into knee-jerk contrarianism regarding any global conflict US is involved in. Wha

It really sucks that "Saddam has WMDs" broke an entire generation of Americans into knee-jerk contrarianism regarding any global conflict US is involved in. What's the "WMD" equivalent here - what do you think the media is lying to you about? That there's an ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine is something all involved parties acknowledge.

kamaal 2y ago
once bitten, twice shy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%20twice%20shy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%...
kelipso 2y ago
There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world. Let the Ukrainians and Russians deal with their mess. There are plenty of other regional conflicts we ignore.
- smac__ 2y ago
  The USA was part of the Budapest Memorandum. This is a pretty strong reason for the USA to provide support for Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
  - kelipso 2y ago
    It's a reason but it's not a strong reason. Back then Ukraine was indistinguishable from Russia, basically a small breakaway country from the USSR. So the intent was more likely that the US wouldn't attack Ukraine. Besides which, the nukes in Ukraine were never under Ukraine's control or possession, so the agreement looks to be more for optics than anything.
    - libertine 2y ago
      It's just the US word signed in an agreement. Meaning the US word is now of the same value of Russia. Saying Ukraine is a "small breakaway country from the USSR", while being the largest country in Europe is one of the most detached takes I've seen on this subject lmao You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
      - kelipso 2y ago
        [flagged]
        foldr 2y ago
        Four years ago was seven years after Putin annexed part of Ukraine. This was considered a news story at the time. So it's not as if Ukraine has only been in the news since 2022.
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Did you even know the difference between Ukraine and Russia four years ago? Yes, ~7 years into the current war, I think a lot of people did. > Much less 30 years ago. Yes, I knew the difference, then -- when the breakup of the USSR was relatively recent and the issues in and between post-Soviet states were frequent news items. Again, I think a lot of people did. Heck, I knew the difference when I was in grade school and both were part of the USSR. There's probably a fair number of people outside the US who have some understanding of the differences between Texas and California, too. > They were considered basically the same country. Were considered...by whom?
        kelipso 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dmos62 2y ago
        You called defending against an invasion with maximalist, genocidal goals nonsense.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    The Budapest Memorandum says the US wont invade Ukraine. It is easy to do that from home.
    - sethammons 2y ago
      from the wiki, 4th point in the agreement: > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression from Russia. Pretty obvious that the US gave its word it would protect them.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        How do you get that. The US sought security council action within days of the war starting. Nowhere does it say us has to guarantee safety or go to war. Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later.
        Aeolun 2y ago
        > Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later. The threats of nuclear aggression were there from the start. What other thing do you think prevents the EU from raining death on the Russians from above.
- foldr 2y ago
  You really think that this conflict has no repercussions or implications for US interests?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    “Repercussions or implications for US interests” is layering attenuation upon attenuation. That can’t be the standard.
    - foldr 2y ago
      You’re misapprehending the logic of the discussion. OP suggests that this is a regional conflict without implications for US interests (see their response to my comment if you think my interpretation is off). I said, “Really?” My questioning that claim doesn’t imply any commitment to the claim that the US must intervene in all conflicts that have implications for US interests.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    No, if the US considers it be a regional conflict, then that's all it will be in terms of repercussions or interests. Maybe in terms of vague geopolitical concerns that might be relevant decades from now, though even that is unclear, but the US is too powerful to have repercussions from not being involved in this conflict.
    - foldr 2y ago
      China and other countries don’t see it that way. They are looking for signals as to what they might be able to get away with, now that the US has decided that it chose the wrong team during the Cold War.
      - DidYaWipe 2y ago
        If China seizes Taiwan, we're going to do exactly squat about it. The best thing the USA can do in regard to that situation is stay quiet, and let the status remain unchanged without goading China into doing something to save face. And that means no more moronic field trips by grandstanding senators.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world It is not a requirement, it's the implementation. There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman".
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman". And Europeans and leftist shit talked the US for it for decades. They called for the US to close military bases around the world, shit talked the amount the US spends on defense, etc. Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.
    - justin66 2y ago
      > Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle. On the contrary, Russian tanks rolling into Eastern Europe is something many people on the left and right in the United States have always taken seriously, and judged to be worthy of the US's intervention, even if they judged some of our other interventions to be bullshit. The strange part - the real change - is that there are people now who do not.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      Right, the leftists are idiots. Now everyone is going to start a nuclear program and the world will become much less safe.
    - throw919232156 2y ago
      The US provoked the war, the US can finish the war. It is that simple. Don't dump your wars and middle eastern refugees on the EU. What if the EU started a war in Mexico, drove 40 million refugees to the US, then left and let the US clean up the mess?
      - 2y ago
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  The US didn't end up in this position by fluke. It was a deliberate policy reaction to the nuclear weapons age. If you don't want everyone from Croatia to Canada equipping themselves with nuclear weapons and starting border skirmishes over water rights, the states that maintain a nuclear arsenal and international network of military bases have to step up and enforce the rules. And yes, the invasion of Iraq on a paper thin pretext arguably was the beginning of the collapse of this equilibrium, and it's no surprise that North Korea reacted by doubling down on their nuclear program. With great power comes great responsibility. For generations, Americans preferred having a monopoly on geopolitical power. The USA can certainly give up its great responsibility, but beware the consequences, because the global calculus changes accordingly.
- honkycat 2y ago
  The Russians are stealing their rare and valuable resources so they can gouge our long term allies. Trillions of dollars in essential rare earth materials and natural gas isn't worth fighting for? Then why EVER go to war?
- jopsen 2y ago
  True, but rarely do you get an opportunity to wear down a principal enemy by donating equipment to a democratic nation defending itself. Without any requirements that the US puts boots on the ground. It's in the interest of most countries that borders are immutable and that aggressors are made to pay.
riehwvfbk 2y ago
[flagged]
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine. I think the idea that the Budapest memorandum is a US security guarantee here's another comparable lie.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Unlike the wmd lie which was generated completely by the USA, all of Europe seems pretty concerned to the point they just approved another 650 billion in debt TODAY, something Europe REFUSED to do for what 40 years? Because X happened in the past does not mean that Y is X. Only people reaching hard to push an agenda would claim any similarity.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think both are similar in that they obfuscate real discussion on the purpose of war and tradeoffs. If the goal is to be global police, that is a conversation worth having. Same if the goal is to show solidarity with our EU allies for its own sake. I think these other topics are manufactured consent.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      This you? "I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine." Because now all of the sudden you are saying something totally different and nebulous 'world police' BS. Why are your trying to equate Europe dramatically and instantly shifting their spending and EU policy to some nebulous 'global police' comment instead of addressing your original point, that you state no one actually believes 'Russia moving on Europe' is a real thing, and trying to equate it to the WMD lie? You original point is BS, Europe believes to the tune of 650 billion just committed and breaking all of their long standing norms when it comes to defense that it is a real issue. Hense you having to move to some nebulous 'world police' nonsense.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
potato3732842 2y ago
All the WMDs did was disgrace the media It was the half dozen other adventures in the sandbox with nothing to show for it that made people put down their foot and say no more and stick to it even when it's a cause they may support (Ukraine for some, Israel for others). That's how fed up with it the American public is.
- DidYaWipe 2y ago
  But wait... you don't dare suggest that we stop propping up Israel's apartheid regime and occupation of other people's land!
thomassmith65 2y ago
The best explanation for people who obsess over 'Saddam has WMDs' is that they were gullible enough, at the time, to believe it. On a related note, a lot of the morons who gave GWB a second term seem to be populists now. They would be more helpful to America if they stopped trying to understand the world around them, and instead just voluntarily stopped voting.

kamaal 2y ago

once bitten, twice shy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%20twice%20shy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%...

kelipso 2y ago

There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world. Let the Ukrainians and Russians deal with their mess. There are plenty of other regional conflicts we ignore.

smac__ 2y ago
The USA was part of the Budapest Memorandum. This is a pretty strong reason for the USA to provide support for Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
- kelipso 2y ago
  It's a reason but it's not a strong reason. Back then Ukraine was indistinguishable from Russia, basically a small breakaway country from the USSR. So the intent was more likely that the US wouldn't attack Ukraine. Besides which, the nukes in Ukraine were never under Ukraine's control or possession, so the agreement looks to be more for optics than anything.
  - libertine 2y ago
    It's just the US word signed in an agreement. Meaning the US word is now of the same value of Russia. Saying Ukraine is a "small breakaway country from the USSR", while being the largest country in Europe is one of the most detached takes I've seen on this subject lmao You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - foldr 2y ago
        Four years ago was seven years after Putin annexed part of Ukraine. This was considered a news story at the time. So it's not as if Ukraine has only been in the news since 2022.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Did you even know the difference between Ukraine and Russia four years ago? Yes, ~7 years into the current war, I think a lot of people did. > Much less 30 years ago. Yes, I knew the difference, then -- when the breakup of the USSR was relatively recent and the issues in and between post-Soviet states were frequent news items. Again, I think a lot of people did. Heck, I knew the difference when I was in grade school and both were part of the USSR. There's probably a fair number of people outside the US who have some understanding of the differences between Texas and California, too. > They were considered basically the same country. Were considered...by whom?
        kelipso 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dmos62 2y ago
        You called defending against an invasion with maximalist, genocidal goals nonsense.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The Budapest Memorandum says the US wont invade Ukraine. It is easy to do that from home.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    from the wiki, 4th point in the agreement: > Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression from Russia. Pretty obvious that the US gave its word it would protect them.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      How do you get that. The US sought security council action within days of the war starting. Nowhere does it say us has to guarantee safety or go to war. Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later.
      - Aeolun 2y ago
        > Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later. The threats of nuclear aggression were there from the start. What other thing do you think prevents the EU from raining death on the Russians from above.
foldr 2y ago
You really think that this conflict has no repercussions or implications for US interests?
- rayiner 2y ago
  “Repercussions or implications for US interests” is layering attenuation upon attenuation. That can’t be the standard.
  - foldr 2y ago
    You’re misapprehending the logic of the discussion. OP suggests that this is a regional conflict without implications for US interests (see their response to my comment if you think my interpretation is off). I said, “Really?” My questioning that claim doesn’t imply any commitment to the claim that the US must intervene in all conflicts that have implications for US interests.
- kelipso 2y ago
  No, if the US considers it be a regional conflict, then that's all it will be in terms of repercussions or interests. Maybe in terms of vague geopolitical concerns that might be relevant decades from now, though even that is unclear, but the US is too powerful to have repercussions from not being involved in this conflict.
  - foldr 2y ago
    China and other countries don’t see it that way. They are looking for signals as to what they might be able to get away with, now that the US has decided that it chose the wrong team during the Cold War.
    - DidYaWipe 2y ago
      If China seizes Taiwan, we're going to do exactly squat about it. The best thing the USA can do in regard to that situation is stay quiet, and let the status remain unchanged without goading China into doing something to save face. And that means no more moronic field trips by grandstanding senators.
hulitu 2y ago
> There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world It is not a requirement, it's the implementation. There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman".
- anonfordays 2y ago
  >There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman". And Europeans and leftist shit talked the US for it for decades. They called for the US to close military bases around the world, shit talked the amount the US spends on defense, etc. Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.
  - justin66 2y ago
    > Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle. On the contrary, Russian tanks rolling into Eastern Europe is something many people on the left and right in the United States have always taken seriously, and judged to be worthy of the US's intervention, even if they judged some of our other interventions to be bullshit. The strange part - the real change - is that there are people now who do not.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    Right, the leftists are idiots. Now everyone is going to start a nuclear program and the world will become much less safe.
  - throw919232156 2y ago
    The US provoked the war, the US can finish the war. It is that simple. Don't dump your wars and middle eastern refugees on the EU. What if the EU started a war in Mexico, drove 40 million refugees to the US, then left and let the US clean up the mess?
    - 2y ago
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
The US didn't end up in this position by fluke. It was a deliberate policy reaction to the nuclear weapons age. If you don't want everyone from Croatia to Canada equipping themselves with nuclear weapons and starting border skirmishes over water rights, the states that maintain a nuclear arsenal and international network of military bases have to step up and enforce the rules. And yes, the invasion of Iraq on a paper thin pretext arguably was the beginning of the collapse of this equilibrium, and it's no surprise that North Korea reacted by doubling down on their nuclear program. With great power comes great responsibility. For generations, Americans preferred having a monopoly on geopolitical power. The USA can certainly give up its great responsibility, but beware the consequences, because the global calculus changes accordingly.
honkycat 2y ago
The Russians are stealing their rare and valuable resources so they can gouge our long term allies. Trillions of dollars in essential rare earth materials and natural gas isn't worth fighting for? Then why EVER go to war?
jopsen 2y ago
True, but rarely do you get an opportunity to wear down a principal enemy by donating equipment to a democratic nation defending itself. Without any requirements that the US puts boots on the ground. It's in the interest of most countries that borders are immutable and that aggressors are made to pay.

riehwvfbk 2y ago

[flagged]

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine. I think the idea that the Budapest memorandum is a US security guarantee here's another comparable lie.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Unlike the wmd lie which was generated completely by the USA, all of Europe seems pretty concerned to the point they just approved another 650 billion in debt TODAY, something Europe REFUSED to do for what 40 years? Because X happened in the past does not mean that Y is X. Only people reaching hard to push an agenda would claim any similarity.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think both are similar in that they obfuscate real discussion on the purpose of war and tradeoffs. If the goal is to be global police, that is a conversation worth having. Same if the goal is to show solidarity with our EU allies for its own sake. I think these other topics are manufactured consent.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    This you? "I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine." Because now all of the sudden you are saying something totally different and nebulous 'world police' BS. Why are your trying to equate Europe dramatically and instantly shifting their spending and EU policy to some nebulous 'global police' comment instead of addressing your original point, that you state no one actually believes 'Russia moving on Europe' is a real thing, and trying to equate it to the WMD lie? You original point is BS, Europe believes to the tune of 650 billion just committed and breaking all of their long standing norms when it comes to defense that it is a real issue. Hense you having to move to some nebulous 'world police' nonsense.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago

potato3732842 2y ago

All the WMDs did was disgrace the media It was the half dozen other adventures in the sandbox with nothing to show for it that made people put down their foot and say no more and stick to it even when it's a cause they may support (Ukraine for some, Israel for others). That's how fed up with it the American public is.

DidYaWipe 2y ago
But wait... you don't dare suggest that we stop propping up Israel's apartheid regime and occupation of other people's land!

thomassmith65 2y ago

The best explanation for people who obsess over 'Saddam has WMDs' is that they were gullible enough, at the time, to believe it. On a related note, a lot of the morons who gave GWB a second term seem to be populists now. They would be more helpful to America if they stopped trying to understand the world around them, and instead just voluntarily stopped voting.