Something that i find prettyd disgusting these days is how certain people put their political ideologies / viewpoints over human lives, for example, celebrating the russian invasion of ukraine because it is “a blow against US / NATO imperialism” completely ignoring all the warcrimes, the deaths, and the suffering generated by that war, the same happening with the palestinian genocide because “Israel is the only working democracy on the middle east”, acting like their ideoligies are going to bring back to life all the dead people somehow

  • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    The same thing that lead to the decolonization of almost all countries that were once occupied - it’s neither possible nor profitable to rule over a populace that hates you and doesn’t identify themselves as subjects to your rule in the long term.

    • jobby@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      And next up on the Disney Channel: The fall of the bad man because teh peepo don’t like him.

    • GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      it’s neither possible nor profitable to rule over a populace that hates you and doesn’t identify themselves as subjects to your rule in the long term.

      Slavery in the USA South disagrees with that. It was very possible and profitable. It would have continued but armed conflict ended that.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ah, so we should just let them attack countries until the internal problems get too big and the empire falls from within? And those countries should just suck it up in the meantime?

      • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Look, I have no good solution for this. No one has, the currently accepted solution is killing millions until the problem disappears behind the problems caused by the war.
        I’m not telling anyone or any country what to do. I’m just saying, I won’t ever support or participate in any war, defensive or otherwise.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Look, I have no good solution for this. No one has, the currently accepted solution is killing millions until the problem disappears behind the problems caused by the war.

          No, the currently accepted solution is defending yourself against an invading force. Ukraine isn’t killing people to solve the problem, they are killing them to stop themselves from being killed.

          And what if your solution doesn’t work? What if Russia just expands and the current regime stays in power? You’ll take away the sovereignty of possibly generations of people, and continually condemning more and more to the same fate, until maybe things collapse. And even then you have no guarantee that whatever comes after the collapse is, in any way, better.

          There’s a quote on this topic that puts this into words better than I can:

          You think you’re better than everyone else, but there you stand: the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs and your rigid pacifism crumbles into bloodstained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.

          • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Name one example from the past 110 years where war actually achieved the goal the “good guys” had before it started.

              • theangryseal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Hitler would have been perfectly fine erasing people and cultures from existence too. I mean, the Jews weren’t the only people who were going in the camps to die. Once he was finished there, nothing would have stopped him from erasing the next group of people from the planet.

                I would imagine that some of the very people who ran the camps were next in line even.

                  • theangryseal@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    My point was that the Jews wouldn’t have been the final target of the Nazis. They wouldn’t have stopped and held Arian hands in a circle dancing around a fire celebrating peace.

                    Like the point you made earlier about ruling over people who hate you and how hard that would be. It wouldn’t have been a struggle for the Nazis because they wouldn’t have just ruled over them. They would have executed and replaced them.

                    The goal in India wasn’t to eradicate the population, it was to subjugate the population. That’s brutal too, but not killing on an industrial scale bad.

                    I, like you, would not fight in a war. I will defend my little space with my little family with violence if I have to, but I won’t be violent on behalf of anyone else.

                    I wish everyone on the planet would think like you do, but they don’t, unfortunately.

              • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                World War 2 didn’t prevent the eradication of the Jews in Europe, though.
                Only a few thousand who didn’t manage to flee survived.
                It also didn’t prevent the destruction of an entire generation of men in the Soviet Union.
                It didn’t bring about lasting peace, nor democracy. At its end, the next dictatorship was already on the rise.
                Oh, and it killed 85 million people, 3% of the global population.

                Any alternative result of non-intervention would have to be really fucking awful to be worse than that.

                Desert Storm

                So the goal of the coalition was that Kuwait is ruled by a dictator the US liked instead of one they didn’t like, the Kurds were massacred and millions of them displaced, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait and a budding popular freedom movement in Iraq crushed by Saddam Hussein?

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The goal of World War 2 was to expel an invading army from occupied countries. The goal of Desert Storm was the same. Desert Storm didn’t overthrow Saddam, that was years later in the Iraq war

                  • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    If that was truly the goal, then 85 million people died over which man is in charge, and nothing else.
                    No, expelling an army is always just a means to reach your goal, cause the army stands between you and control over the people.