The “drive off the cliff” party vs the “drive off the cliff, but ever so slightly slower and also we’ll wave some rainbow flags I guess” party. I know who I’m voting for!

If you read closely there’s a second line in the picture saying “just kidding, that’s in the US today”. No claim is made about the USSR under Stalin.

And when the world police no longer polices we get emboldened actions like bombing Iran for no good reason.

I think you have a mistaken idea of what the policing has looked like in the past 78 years. The US bombed Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, and they’ve armed plenty of regimes doing the bombing for them (Saddam Hussein, for example). America has been destabilizing the globe for decades, and there is a lot of blood on their hands (on the order of 12 million, if we count direct casualties).

You think there was a good reason for invading Iraq?

Could you help me out with that? Between this, the Laken Riley act, the support of the bombing of Iran, the support of the genocide, and the opposition to Zohran, the dems look like they quite like Trump, so I guess I just don’t understand. Or should we buckle up for more performative whine ins like Corey Booker did?

So just ignore what’s going on right now? That’s like saying I should vote republican if I care about black rights because they abolished slavery.

Which party do I vote for to get him impeached? Democrats just overwhelmingly struck down a motion to impeach.

But still, even when you go to more politically aware places (like lemmy), you’ll get mocked for suggesting America is rules by a uniparty when it comes to American inperialism. It’s unbelievably fucking stupid.

Reaching obvious conclusions based on observations in reality is tankie shit, please refrain from doing so.

I don’t know for certain, but I think you might be mixing up Kosovo and Bosnia. Because I know he illegally (by international law) bombed Yugoslavia for the Kossovar Albanians (which some argue hastened and exacerbated the ethnic cleansing of the Albanians, which aligns quite well with the timeline, especially considering there was a concrete diplomatic alternatice proposed by both sides), but he got approval for this. Famously, Bernie Sanders voted in favor. So while it should earn him a trip to the Hague, he didn’t violate any domestic laws that I’m aware of.

But again, Yugoslavia in the 90s is crazy complicated, and there’s so much I don’t know, so maybe I’m just completely wrong here.

So, I like this idea, and the recent expose indicates that the stroke has essentially rendered him non compis mentis, but do you really think the brain damage turned him conservative? Were there no red flags before? I genuinely don’t know enough about the guy.

• woke bad
• progressives good
• religion bad
• billionaires bad
• bombing the middle east good

You’re enigmatic.

They could have impeached Clinton for Bosnia

Why? Forgive my ignorance, balkan history is hard.

Every accusation is an admission

Low bar. Disgusting, pasty war criminal.

https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/iraq06.htm

With much love and respect I ask you to please read the remainder of my comments in this thread.

It’s sarcasm yes. I figured dropping a phrase like dicatorship of the proletariat would give up the game (honestly I thought my very first comment in the thread was already laying it on thick), but Poe’s law in action I guess. I do really appreciate you, keep up the good work.

Look, it’s like the scientific method, right? You start with a theory, and then you gather a bunch of data, and the stuff that agrees with your theory you keep, and the stuff that doesn’t you either dismiss outright, or you rationalize. I feel like I really can’t make my position any more obvious than that.

I appreciate your patience and your continued efforts to educate folks on this website, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

See now there you’ve made a crucial error. You’re recommending a book which, while it has some criticism of the specifics of how the USSR implemented socialism, on the whole it’s quite positive about the idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Obviously that disagrees with my preconceived notion that humans are greedy, and that therefore capitalism is good, so I would never read a source that contradicts this, because I would have to dismiss most of it outright. And that’s just a hassle.

It’s suspicious because it disagrees with my preconceived notions about communism.

I think this is a good rule of thumb in general. When statistics agree with my preconceived notions, I consider them trustworthy, and if not, I assume that reality lines up with what I expect. For example, the referendum in held in the Baltics about leaving the USSR ended in favor of leaving, which I think is a good example of a trustworthy statistic. But the subsequent referendum in the remaining members ended in favor of staying in the USSR, and I think that’s a little suspicious, don’t you?