this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
49 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3814 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

"Concerned" is pretty much the most mild-mannered diplo speak there is. Personally, I am not concerned about statements of concern.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I remember when America would swing their dick around and go out of their way to give Russia the middle finger.
Now they want to do this mean girls high school bullshit and pretend to be civil first?
Fuck that.
The United States needs to grow some fucking balls and tell Putin to his face that his radar is disappearing because they wanted to fuck around in Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The US would also like to not get nuked by Putin, which is why they haven't directly entered the war.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If the state of Russia's nuclear arsenal is anything like the rest of their military the US really doesn't have much to worry about.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

So if MOST of their nuclear weapons don't work, how many nukes hitting the US would you say is okay? Because while it's pretty safe to assume some, maybe even many of their nukes don't function properly, it's a bit much to assume none of them work, and it's a bit much to gamble a few million lives on the idea that none of the ones that do work will actually get through.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

eat that fear sandwich. it's nothing but good for you!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Or that the world would be hurt even if all of them fail before reaching their targets, or even failing in the silos (best case).

We have enough cancerous shit in our environment as it is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is such a weird restriction. Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and the Soviets, and both had boots on the ground. Nobody was particularly concerned this would cause WW3. Why is Ukraine different? Of course, I am not advocating a fully armed confrontation, but Western elite troops that can mark targets, take out key operatives, and direct troops? I don’t see the issue.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

US weapons weren't landing on strategic Russian assets inside territory that Russia claimed as it's own. That's why no one was overly concerned about nuclear escalation or WW III.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Here I am talking about Western troops that would be active in Ukraine, not Russia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Condemnation seems to be very mild too. Maybe by the 8th or 9tn round of sanctions some may feel offended