this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
170 points (89.7% liked)

Political Memes

11222 readers
3180 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Applies to Lemmy too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 37 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I feel the same way I do about the invasion of Iraq.

A tyrant's death (and, in Iran, the possibility of) the overthrow of his regime cause me no tears. But I also recognize how immensely fucked things are going to get, how this wasn't the only course of action available for the USA, what effects this will have on OTHER matters of international relations, and what immense cost the ordinary people of the country are going to end up paying.

Not unlike the little girls killed in the opening salvo of the Iranian war

[–] humanamerican@lemmy.zip 21 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

this wasn't the only course of action available for the USA

This presumes the USA needed to take any action at all.

The average American citizen does not benefit from US hegemony. Neither do the citizens of the countries we "liberate".

The US government clearly doesn't care about freedom or human rights. Look at how it currently treats its own citizens. Look at how its treated marginalized people on its territory, including minority citizens, for its entire existence. Look at all its authoritarian allies. Heck, its favorite West Asian partner is an Apartheid state.

We Americans need to stop buying the propaganda we've been fed that we are somehow duty bound to be the world's police force. That only serves the ~~boogereaters~~ bourgeoisie.

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago

This presumes the USA needed to take any action at all.

THIS. 1000x this.

Recent events and events over the past few years indicated that the Iranian people were likely on the path of regime change anyways. Certainly not bloodlessly, but at least it would have followed the self-determination of the Iranian people. Now we just get to have another puppet government propped up by the US for oil.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 5 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Inaction itself is a course of action, but I would argue that continuing negotiations with Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation would have been a positive action to take under a sane administration.

[–] Mantzy81@aussie.zone 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

You mean the deal that was in place, was working fine but torn up by Trump 1.0 simply because "it was an Obama deal" and a certain orange racist can't cope with anything a black man may have been involved in.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 6 points 20 hours ago

Yeah. Like I said, under a sane administration.

[–] humanamerican@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The US had an agreement with Iran that was working. Trump 1.0 unilaterally pulled out of it. Biden then put ridiculous conditions on Iran to reinstate it. I'd argue that the US has lost all legitimacy in negotiations with Iran.

If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they'd have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.

Anyway, saying inaction is a course of action is rhetorical nonsense. There are an infinite number of things that any person or entity could choose to do. Not doing them isn't an "action". For example, I didn't take an "action" last week by not getting cosmetic surgery, or by not going to Aruba, or by not becoming a real estate agent.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they’d have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.

The point of preventing nuclear proliferation is, by definition, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states precisely because of how difficult it is to convince a country to denuclearize.

[–] humanamerican@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn't proliferation?

Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn't prove your point.

Anyway, recent history tells anyone who's paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.

The US is not a force for peace or progress, regardless of who is in charge here. Dems are better than Reps at masking our Imperial ambitions, but either way we make things worse. We should stop meddling in foreign affairs and fix our problems at home.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn’t proliferation?

Literally, it is not.

Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries, particularly those not recognized as nuclear-weapon states by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. Nuclear proliferation occurs through the spread of fissile material, and the technology and capabilities needed to produce it and to design and manufacture nuclear weapons. In a modern context, it also includes the spread of nuclear weapons to non-state actors. Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, as governments fear that more countries with nuclear weapons will increase the possibility of nuclear warfare (including the so-called countervalue targeting of civilians), de-stabilize international relations, or infringe upon the principle of state sovereignty.

Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn’t prove your point.

Apparently it didn't emphasis them enough, considering you still failed to understand.

Anyway, recent history tells anyone who’s paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.

Yes, I'm sure that if Iraq had only kept producing chemical weapons the 2003 invasion would never have happened, and if only Gadaffi had kept his 40-year-failure going another ten years, then his people definitely wouldn't have rose up against him, and there would be no way that any country could use air power against im!

That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.

[–] humanamerican@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Literally, it is not.

I was unaware of the technical definition. Point conceded.

That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.

What does it tell you, exactly? I didn't praise North Korea. I used them as an example of a country the US would love to wipe out but can't easily because they have leverage, including nuclear weapons.

And as for Iraq and Libya, both countries had been pursing nuclear weapons. Libya gave up their program. Iraq attacked Kuwait before finishing theirs. It didn't turn out well for either of them.

Regardless, my point this whole time has been that the US doesn't need to be involved in every place in the world. To the extent that some of these places are threats to its people, that's because we have been antagonizing them for decades.

And to the extent that some of these places lack freedom and democracy, we should try getting those concepts right in our own country before exporting them.

But you and I both know that's not why the US does what it does. Its all about hegemony and ensuring Western capital's unhindered access to markets.

EDIT: Removed some unnecessary snark

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Just imagine, your head of state being targeted by a missile just because they crossed the wrong dude. That's where we're heading, and it's terrifying... Good thing Khamenei died, but the flagrant violation of international law and propaganda surrounding it is maddening...

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

This has always been the case for the third world.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 2 points 23 hours ago

Fair, international law only exists to protect the Global West