7 ms·
So if Americans don't like Trump then, say, Italy can unilaterally bomb San Francisco? Or should this only be a one way street? Is dropping bombs to disapprove
by kristopolous 10mo ago
So if Americans don't like Trump then, say, Italy can unilaterally bomb San Francisco?
Or should this only be a one way street? Is dropping bombs to disapprove of elections how we're being adults in 2026?
- _vertigo 10mo agoI’m American and I don’t like Trump. If Italy did bomb San Francisco and you asked me what I thought of that, I’d say I disapproved. If China invaded overnight and absconded with Trump, I’d say I disapproved even though I don’t like him.
- bmacho 10mo agoYou say you'd disapprove a violent action. But when it actually happens? I've seen explicit support for Luigi from many otherwise apolitical and non-violent people.
- kristopolous 10mo agoThat's quite different. Luigi killed the banker. You're thinking of Thomas Crooks. I don't think I've seen too many Crooks fanboys. And even then, there's a difference between that and say if it was a sniper squadron working for say, let's pick the Azerbaijan military or any other organized state force.
- nilamo 10mo agoInteresting comparison. Did Luigi do anything wrong?
- christophilus 10mo agoMurder.
- edoceo 10mo agoSuspected of doing wrong.
- tt24 10mo agoYes, he’s accused of murder, which is wrong.
- nilamo 10mo ago[flagged]
- ang_cire 10mo agoBecause they see what the insurance exec was doing through his job as itself being violence, as it resulted in many deaths. They view Luigi's alleged actions as self-defense/ defense of others, i.e. morally justified. I wouldn't personally morally disagree with someone Luigi'ing Maduro or the other guy mentioned according to that same standard, but in this situation and the knock-on hypotheticals of government intervention, this is not an individual using personal force according to their beliefs, these are governments (which have no moral rights, just the assertion/ imposition of authority by violence) expropriating them for political purposes. So not defense of others.
- johnbellone 10mo agoI’d be upset and disapprove, but I wouldn’t ask them to bring him back.
- lynndotpy 10mo agoAnyone can already bomb the United States, and I think most people here in the US just don't imagine it happening here, no matter how much we invite a military response.
- tyre 10mo agoThe only country I could imagine doing this is North Korea, because, while we would carpet bomb them, they can delete Seoul from the map with traditional artillery that we can’t stop. But I don’t think that their leaders are actually suicidal. They’ve played their hand pretty well over the years, for their own survival and enrichment (no pun intended.)
- matheusmoreira 10mo agoThere is no such thing as a military response to the USA.
- jacquesm 10mo agoYour way of life got destroyed by a guy in a cave half the world away, and then a dictator of a small country finished the job with some propaganda and some cash to grease the right palms. A response can be quite effective even if it isn't by men in uniform.
- matheusmoreira 10mo agoIt's not "my" way of life. I'm not american. I'm just saying that it's a basic geopolitical fact that anyone who's actually foolish enough to declare war on the USA is going to get killed. Military response means men in uniform battling for their country. Terrorism is not a military response, it's one of several ways to cope with the enemy's superior military forces. They can't overtly bomb america back to the stone age, so they resort to tradecraft and clandestine operations. It actually works, which is why governments pull all the stops when it comes to fighting terrorists. Even this plays into their ideological objective of forcing america to compromise on its founding principles, thereby corrupting it from within.
- tyre 10mo agoI don’t know how many Americans actually approve of this. The left will hate it. Trump’s base has largely been isolationist. Obviously if someone like Italy bombed us we would invade and beat the shit out of them. We did a two decade, trillions of dollars revenge tour for like 2700 people dying. (I’m not advocating for any of this but US policy is pretty consistent. Part of the value of a US passport is knowing (and everyone else knowing) that the government will go to incredible lengths to get you back.)
- kristopolous 10mo agoThe point is we say "well some people don't think much of their elected leader in X, so that justifies us destroying their cities, overthrowing their government and killing hundreds of thousands of people there!" Alright, is this the global rule now? Where's the cutoff? Trump is getting 41%, is that low enough? Who gets to overthrow Washington? My vote is the Swedes, they seem pretty nice.
- delichon 10mo ago> We did a two decade, trillions of dollars revenge tour for like 2700 people dying. Then what is the expected scale of a revenge tour for 48,422 fentanyl overdose deaths in 2024 and 76,282 in 2023? https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/releases/20250514.html https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/releases/20250514.html
- tyre 10mo agoThe US isn’t too progressive about addiction. The culture tends to blame it on the individual vs. the environmental causes (including over prescription of opioids) that lead to it. We’ve pressured China to crack down on fentanyl and its precursors, which they have to some extent, but there isn’t someone to invade, really, to stop it.
- mrwrong 10mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago
- xvector 10mo agoSure, they can certainly try. Sovereignty is an illusion until it is tested.
- sejje 10mo agoAmericans can delete Italy. Venezuelans can't delete America. Yes, a bit of a one way street.
- hermanzegerman 10mo agoIf Americans delete Italy they will be the Pariah of the world for a very long time
- sejje 10mo agoMaybe, but it's still the reason Italy can't bomb America. The rest of the world wouldn't do anything about it either, IMO. Just like they're doing for Ukraine now.
- hermanzegerman 10mo agoHundreds of billions in support, massively increased defense spending, and hefty sanctions are obviously nothing.. Also much more people have been to Italy,or at least know the country and it's culture compared to Ukraine. So the Fallout in Public Opinion would be way worse. China would also be salivating at an Opportunity to isolate the US, and that would be one presented on a silver platter
- stoneforger 10mo agoPublic opinion is dead, what matters is policy makers opinion on controlling financial interests in the West, and what the CCP politbureau thinks. One is a mongrel divisive semi-hereditary plutocracy, the other is a reimagined empire that clearly has a long game going. I don't think anyone cares for the public at large, at least to the extent the public doesn't get any wild ideas like having an opinion and expressing it with a pitchfork.
- sejje 10mo agoIf America decided to wipe Italy off the map, you would be happy for the UK to send some money? That would be enough? I don't think you can impose enough diplomatic sanctions on America to make us care, and certainly not enough to make up for deleting Italy.
- ericmay 10mo agoIt’s not a one-way street on principle. Italy could go do whatever it wanted. It’s a one-way street in capabilities to take action. There isn’t anything stopping Italy, the sovereign state, from doing anything it thinks it could do. What is stopping it from bombing San Francisco (besides it not making sense whatsoever) would be that the US would physically stop the Italian Air Force and navy.
- kristopolous 10mo agoThe point is we should be adult enough in 2026 to have an international order that we can draw a line between our modern behavior and what we did in the bronze age. If you think this kind of caveman-era diplomacy is the future And want humans to be a multi-planetary species then lol, good luck.
- PhilipRoman 10mo ago>should This word is doing a lot of lifting here. You are essentially saying "the world should be better" without even a hint of suggestion of what a minority of countries could do to achieve it (in the presence of adversarial, nuclear states)
- kristopolous 10mo agoRight. Let's say someone is sick and they want to roll around in dog shit to cure themselves. I can say that's a bad idea and not be a doctor with a clinical diagnosis. That's a valid position. Unilaterally bombing a country, overthrowing its government and installing a puppet leader to capture its oil reserves can be called a bad idea. I don't need to have a fellowship at Georgetown or some sophisticated alternative. Some things are obvious: stabbing your eye is a bad idea. no ophthalmology degree required.
- johanvts 10mo agoThe US spend years building the UN and the system of international law and it benefits a lot from it. The US is like 4% of the world population and 2% of the area, but dominates pretty much anything you care to measure. It is really not in US interest to overthrow the current system. Its wild that the main threat to international order is coming from the US. Not just this latests development, but the talk of annexing Canada and Greenland, the undermining WTO and WHO etc. Read Hobbes, even the strong do not benefit from “jungle law”.
- bmacho 10mo agoIf you have some hard numbers supporting how much Americans don't like Trump and how shit is their life under Trump, then ..maybe? (Also, why the USA, why not start with North Korea, Venezuela etc first.) We kinda have the obligation to ensure that Earth is not a practical hell for many people. "Bomb San Francisco" can mean many things, and it is ultimately a Trolley Problem[0], but the answer is not a simple no. [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
- wseqyrku 10mo ago"Bomb San Francisco" Where does that come from? I've seen this verbatim in a few places. Let me guess, the s o c i a l m e d i a?
- unmole 10mo ago> Italy can unilaterally bomb San Francisco? They can try.
- aglavine 10mo agoI am not an expert but "Don't like" doesn't sound the same of multinational cartel organization overtaking countries, making 8 million people exilees.
- 6P58r3MXJSLi 10mo agoTo put this in perspective, Ukraine before Russian invasion had already lost 11 million people, that left the country because it was ruled by oligarchs and mobsters. 11 millions over 52 millions makes it a gran total of 21% of the population. Making it the fourth worse demographic decline in the world. Does it mean Russia was right?
- tejohnso 10mo agoMoral authority through physical superiority. On the world stage I see everything on display that we try to teach our children to avoid. Lying, bullying, law breaking, it's all in our faces. And the real problem is that it is supported and even celebrated on television, in print, and socia media.