This socialist is much wiser than you are

[Antiwar]

Obviously you have no substantive response.

You responded to the excellent list of reasons in #1 with #11.

I'll still add a high-quality reply.

And apparently supporting Ukraine in its resistance to an invading fascist force is the straw that will break the camel's back and collapse the world into climate catastrophe. Yeah yeah, we get it.

The current US war might or might not "break the camel's back."

Your position fully supports adding many more bales of straw to the camel's back. How so? The US war and Earth's ecosystems destruction machine (gulps down fossil fuels; has no emissions regulations) is also military policing China. So, your position supports the momentum of US militarism for the foreseeable future, with that future being very bleak.

And your position lights the two humps camel's tail-fuse ablaze. The two humps are Russia's and the US's nuclear arsenals.

"**** the camel, I'm pissed at P****!" is very unwise.

And now to address the coming binary illogic. Implementing progressive policies internationally, decades ago, could've prevented this. And if they wouldn't have prevented this, they would be able to resolve this using much better ways.

It amazes me that "leftists" aren't aware of or don't believe in progressive principles and actions.

 

[Antiwar]

OK. So why dont you head on over and "help" them then? What are you waiting for?

If you're saying the US military should go "help them", I disagree. Thats none of my business. Or the USAs. The "fascist" USA starts more phony "wars" than anyone else.

This is where I need to explain my positions' differences, again.

I'm not saying "Let Ukraine be attacked."

I do agree that the US shouldn't have anything to do with the international justice system for at least 20 years because the US has been the international injustice system for at least 20 years. The US is the Derek Chauvin of world policing, to put it mildly.

 

[Geoist]

The current US war might or might not "break the camel's back."

Your position fully supports adding many more bales of straw to the camel's back. How so? The US war and Earth's ecosystems destruction machine (gulps down fossil fuels; has no emissions regulations) is also military policing China. So, your position supports the momentum of US militarism for the foreseeable future, with that future being very bleak.

And your position lights the two humps camel's tail-fuse ablaze. The two humps are Russia's and the US's nuclear arsenals.

Other authoritarians are watching this war to see how the West responds. If the West shrugged its shoulders then China would be more apt to invade Taiwan. As we saw with WWII, appeasement only leads to more authoritarian aggression.

Implementing progressive policies internationally, decades ago, could've prevented this. And if they wouldn't have prevented this, they would be able to resolve this using much better ways.

Aren't you the one who complained about me talking about the past?

Btw, I believe you still haven't answered the question: alliance with Stalin during WWII or no?

It amazes me that "leftists" aren't aware of or don't believe in progressive principles and actions.

What progressive principles are you referring to? Are progressives environmentalist hypocrites for supporting infrastructure, knowing that it requires carbon emissions to do this? Are progressive hypocrites for supporting unions knowing that the workers prop up the corporations that are spewing those emissions? Your environmental puritanism is exhausting.

 

[Geoist]

@Antiwar I edited the post, btw.

 

[Antiwar]

Aren't you the one who complained about me talking about the past?

You think that I'm bringing up the past? US militarism is the present, the recent past, the less-recent past, and the very likely y future.

 

[Geoist]

You think that I'm bringing up the past? US militarism is the present, the recent past, the less-recent past, and the very likely y future.

You were talking about what we should've done policy-wise for the environment. I agree, a lot more should've been done. But that is neither here nor there.

 

[Antiwar]

Other authoritarians are watching this war to see how the West responds. If the West shrugged its shoulders then China would be more apt to invade Taiwan. As we saw with WWII, appeasement only leads to more authoritarian aggression.

You're still ignoring the issues and solely focusing on the wrong and ineffective solution that just makes the issues you're ignoring magnitudes worse.

And you're using an outdated operating system. This is 2022, not 1941.

These aren't insults; this is strong discussion. We could possibly progress to debating.

 

[Antiwar]

You were talking about what we should've done policy-wise for the environment. I agree, a lot more should've been done. But that is neither here nor there.

How and why is it not relevant? There's nothing more relevant than trying to solve environmental issues and stopping all outdated militarism.

 

[Antiwar]

What progressive principles are you referring to?

All kinds of progressive principles. But mostly they can be summarized as "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

1. Treat everyone and everything well, period, including "bad guys." The biggest thing this means is that the Global North should stop exploiting the Global South. That's a "bourgeois-proletariat" relationship, to put it in socialist terms.

2. Justice systems should be restorative, not destructive. The US international injustice system should've been replaced with an effective international justice system with an effective enforcement mechanism, when needed. All we have is a co-opted UN and brutal US enforcement.

 

[Geoist]

You're still ignoring the issues and solely focusing on the wrong and ineffective solution that just makes the issues you're ignoring magnitudes worse.

I am not ignoring the issues. I acknowledge that even in a 'righteous' war there are terrible consequences. The Allies, who were clearly in the right during WWII (I think you and I can agree on that, right) also took actions that had horrible impacts whether it be to innocent civilians, the environment, historical/architectural pieces, etc. And practically no one would say they didn't. But almost no one says we shouldn't have faced off with Hitler militarily. It was absolutely necessary to stop him from enacting a fascist regime on the entirety of western Europe, if not most of the world.

And you're using an outdated operating system. This is 2022, not 1941.

Considering how Putin wants to revive the Soviet Union, I don't see how he's much different from the Nazis and their geopolitical aspirations.

How and why is it not relevant? There's nothing more relevant than trying to solve environmental issues and stopping all outdated militarism.

The fact that we failed to implement proper environmental policies in the 70s is irrelevant because we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can do more now and for the future.

What do you think of this proposal: Have a team of statisticians and scientists research and determine the potential environmental impact of present and future conflicts the US may get involved in. Then pass legislation that requires the US to fund environmental causes at 2x the amount of the financial environmental impact we put into our military, including the conflicts we fund. Does that seem like a good start?

 

[Geoist]

I'll try to respond to more later. Gotta go.

 

[Questerr]

This is where I need to explain my positions' differences, again.

I'm not saying "Let Ukraine be attacked."

I do agree that the US shouldn't have anything to do with the international justice system for at least 20 years because the US has been the international injustice system for at least 20 years. The US is the Derek Chauvin of world policing, to put it mildly.

So what should be done with Ukraine? What IN PRACTICAL REALITY THAT EXISTS TODAY, not some alternate fantasy world, should be done regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine that will actually do anything?

 

[multivita-man]

I don't support the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a left-libertarian, I have no problem helping the left-libertarian region of Rojava fight for their autonomy against the fascist Assad.

Many of the dictators we end up fighting or attempting to depose were either supported by us at one time or are the result of unintended consequences of our foreign policing.

 

[Questerr]

All kinds of progressive principles. But mostly they can be summarized as "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

1. Treat everyone and everything well, period, including "bad guys." The biggest thing this means is that the Global North should stop exploiting the Global South. That's a "bourgeois-proletariat" relationship, to put it in socialist terms.

2. Justice systems should be restorative, not destructive. The US international injustice system should've been replaced with an effective international justice system with an effective enforcement mechanism, when needed. All we have is a co-opted UN and brutal US enforcement.

What does “restorative justice” in regards to Ukraine look like? And how do we force Russia to abide by it?

 

[Antiwar]

The fact that we failed to implement proper environmental policies in the 70s is irrelevant because we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can do more now and for the future.

Look at the title of this person's article.

What do you think of this proposal: Have a team of statisticians and scientists research and determine the potential environmental impact of present and future conflicts the US may get involved in. Then pass legislation that requires the US to fund environmental causes at 2x the amount of the financial environmental impact we put into our military, including the conflicts we fund. Does that seem like a good start?

I don't understand why you want to keep a horrible system going by trying to remediate it. It's like saying, "Let's keep chattel slavery and give twice the amount of investment to free people (which includes slave owners)." Why are you afraid to abolish US militarism? Will the former slaves get revenge?

 

[Tigerace117]

Or protecting sea lanes to ensure global trade continues, acting as a deterrent to foreign aggression, providing emergency relief - just to list a few.

Invading Iraq did nothing to deter foreign aggression.

 

[Antiwar]

Invading Iraq did nothing to deter foreign aggression.

Are you going to participate in a ping pong tournament in this thread?

 

[Bullseye]

Invading Iraq did nothing to deter foreign aggression.

Like that's the only thing the military has done?

 

[Tigerace117]

Like that's the only thing the military has done?

When was the last time we “deterred” any aggression?

 

[Bullseye]

When was the last time we “deterred” any aggression?

Every friggin' day. We have ships and submarines at sea, troops stationed all over the world. We operate satellites to keep an eye our enemies, and much more.

 

[Tigerace117]

Every friggin' day. We have ships and submarines at sea, troops stationed all over the world. We operate satellites to keep an eye our enemies, and much more.

In other words, you have no evidence that we deterred anything. All those troops certainly didn’t stop Russia from taking the Crimea, or fighting an on and off border war for years before they formally invaded

 

[Bullseye]

In other words, you have no evidence that we deterred anything. All those troops certainly didn’t stop Russia from taking the Crimea, or fighting an on and off border war for years before they formally invaded

We have no troops IN Ukraine; the weapons and training we supplied have done pretty well DETERRING Putin. Oh, has China annexed Taiwan yet? Does Israel still exist?

 

[Tigerace117]

We have no troops IN Ukraine; the weapons and training we supplied have done pretty well DETERRING Putin. Oh, has China annexed Taiwan yet? Does Israel still exist?

Oh really? Did they stop him from invading?

No?

Therefore, they didn’t deter him.

Arguing American troops are what keeps Israel existing is pretty damn funny. Israel hasn’t been in existential danger for decades.

 

[Razoo]

"The U.S. Military Is Driving Environmental Collapse Across the Planet

1: Keeping Imperialism Running

2: Supporting Oil

3: Harming Indigenous Communities

4: Producing Hazardous Waste

5: Deprioritizing Worthwhile Projects

=> Defund the Pentagon"

The U.S. Military Is Driving Environmental Collapse Across the Planet - Left Voice

The U.S. military emits more carbon than 140 countries, fueling climate change and environmental degradation. Below we examine five ways in which the Pentagon is destroying the environment.

www.leftvoice.org

Defunding the war machine as it stands makes dollars and sense aka fiscally sound decision.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

"The U.S. Military Is Driving Environmental Collapse Across the Planet

1: Keeping Imperialism Running

2: Supporting Oil

3: Harming Indigenous Communities

4: Producing Hazardous Waste

5: Deprioritizing Worthwhile Projects

=> Defund the Pentagon"

The U.S. Military Is Driving Environmental Collapse Across the Planet - Left Voice

The U.S. military emits more carbon than 140 countries, fueling climate change and environmental degradation. Below we examine five ways in which the Pentagon is destroying the environment.

www.leftvoice.org

You are perpetuating a lie reported by far left, socialist Sam Carliner.

“Is the U.S. military one of the world leaders in air pollution? That’s a claim we’ve seen popping up online following the world climate talks in the United Kingdom.

Where do U.S. armed forces rank in carbon emissions?

A Twitter video went viral during the recent COP26 conference in Glasgow, Scotland, getting more than 700,000 views. In the video, a reporter tells U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, “The Pentagon is a larger polluter than 140 countries combined.” We're breaking down why that's misleading.

THE QUESTION​

Is the U.S. military a bigger CO2 polluter than 140 countries combined?

OUR SOURCES​

• Neta Crawford, Chair of Political Science at Boston University
• The World Resources Institute
• 2019 paper on the Carbon Boot-print of the US Military, co-authored by Oliver Belcher.

THE ANSWER​

No, the U.S. military doesn’t have a carbon footprint larger than 140 countries combined. However, it does rank higher than about 140 countries for global carbon footprint.

WHAT WE FOUND​

“No, that's not true,” Neta Crawford put it plainly.

She has been researching and writing a book on military carbon emissions.
She was joined by Oliver Belcher with the same response. No, the military isn’t a bigger polluter than 140 countries combined—but the key word changing the truth here is "combined."

If you look at where it ranks on the list, the US military is a bigger polluter than about 140 countries. So the claim added one word, ‘COMBINED’ which makes it false.
What are the real numbers:

Crawford said in 2020 the US military totaled more than 51,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent.

Based on The World Resources Institute’s 2018 data, the US military ranks approximately in the top 60 of carbon emitters. It releases similar CO2 levels as countries like Portugal and Finland.

“It is also about the same size as Denmark's emissions in any one year,” Crawford said. “So, US military emissions are rather large, they are certainly the largest portion of US government emissions.”

One word makes this claim about US military pollution false | Verify

A viral tweet claims the US military sends out as much CO2 as 140 countries combined. It's that one final word that makes the claim false.

www.wusa9.com