Of course not. If the first move on a chess board was to simply take your opponent’s king, that would always be the first move in every game.
Having the midterm vote suppressed is just one sacrificial pawn in the direction of what needs to be done to eradicate fascism.
Knowing what to do isn’t that valuable if you don’t time it correctly. It’s not just one person or party. It is systemic and requires a critical mass of history to be successful.
Variation on the theme: would you ever tell your child “You weren’t worth it.”
OP assuming you are asking for a reason, my view after some time is that when a parent make a statement like that it reflects more about the parent than the child.
Don't you mean the people with gun saving the country from fascism? Or do you really except the guns to do it on their own?
Currently there are a few people without guns trying to stand up to fascism without violence. Most if not all are getting arrested/killed. There is also a large portion of the population that refuses to commit to violence. You see it over and over "don't take the bait," "don't give them the excuse," or "they want you to get violent."
In order to cross over and have those against the current administration with guns put everything on the line, it either needs to get so bad that those individuals have no other choice OR jury nullification needs to occur in a high profile matter.
Put another way, has enough happened that YOU are personally willing to sacrifice your life to stand up against what is going on? If yes, do something. If no, continue building local community networks and support structures so if/when that occurs you have the capacity to effect change through violence.
Saying that guns (the tool currently used by the facists) somehow will not be effective to combat them makes little sense. It's not a gun issue. It's a will issue.
I agree that it is absurd to think that the US military would ever march into European capitals unless it was at the end of an extremely long engagement similar to what is being done to Ukraine.
Also, I sincerely hope none of this ever happens (or if it does that the left [economic NOT US political left] is victorious and I can use my fediverse comment history to be welcomed into the the post US post capitalist world)
[example of a source](Source: European Council on Foreign Relations https://share.google/8lhLm73boOSh0Nf7c) supporting my opinion. It’s simple to search for more.
My personal experience while stationed in Europe was participating is training exercises regarding attacks on bases by local terrorist groups. This was in an exercise format. These exercises lasted several days and occurred on a regular basis. I was in the room the simulation occurred in. I was able to see first had the decision making process of the people involved.
In my opinion, having observed the declassified US response to an attack, the thought that these bases and equipment would simply be taken over by local forces is not likely. The bases will likely be destroyed and used a a pretext for a larger component of US forces to engage. That being the case, would local EU leaders risk attacking US bases? Legitimate question that gets to the heart of the issue raised by the original comment.
I am not sure why you are talking about fighting European armies. I have nodes idea who wins. I am talking about g about the specific comment that these bases would be taken over and equipment acquired by local forces.
In short, in that scenario the bases are not meant to survive. Their purpose is to get hit to justify hitting back harder.
Edit: better than simply saying that’s your opinion, explain your understanding of the US response following direct attacks on its military bases.
Uhm, no. Those bases and equipment would be taken over by the local militaries.
I was genuinely curious what this point was based on, as in my first hand experience being stationed at US Navy bases in Europe did not support that conclusion.
First hand experience is a source. For example, someone says “the sky is purple.” You are skeptical based on your personal experience. You ask for a source supporting that claim. You even go as far as to say, I have seen the sky before and it is not purple. In a normal rational dialogue the other party might respond, here is why I think the sky is purple
I am not promoting American exceptionalism. I observed the level of tech and financial investment the US Navy has in its European bases. I also observed those levels compared to local forces. I do not believe that local forces would take over bases and equipment. Destroy them, yes very possible. This is actually part of a strategy called tripwire troops. In the event of a conflict, US bases would be prepared to hold out until larger assets arrived to support them. Attacking these bases gives the US a reason escalate the level of engagement.
That’s all I was asking about. You can search for basic information about US defense expenditure related to European defense expenditure to find support for my observations. I searched for anything supporting the conclusion that if the US invaded Greenland local European military forces would seize local bases and equipment and found nothing.
So this started with me asking what you based your comment on. Please share the knowledge you are basing this on by linking to a source.
My comments are all said begrudgingly. I served in the military. I am anti what America is currently doing. My comments are based on numbers of weapons systems and years of strategy where the US purposely let the EU underspend on defense.
Given that you want to reduce this to personal attacks, I will exit now, and let trolls troll.
Navy not air force here, are those result flights bringing in commissary items or weapon systems?
I’m not saying the US has an easy time or saves all bases. But thinking that the US would fight to occupy if its bases were attacked is a bold assumption.
The EU can close its airspace. The trick is enforcing that.
What is any of this based on? You believe that if the US went into any European country with military force they would not move support forces into the area beforehand? This is exactly what happened in Venezuela.
Look, I hope this doesn’t happen. I am not a fan of my country.
My question was what are your conclusions based on. So far that seems like nothing.
You said those bases and equipment would be taken over by local militaries. Other than vibes, what are you basing that on? I’m 100% certain those troops won’t see your only option. They will fight until they die or US air and naval forces arrive. I have no idea who would win. Wondering how you know.
Source: was stationed in Europe.
Search top 5 largest air forces in the world. A quick search gives the following numbers for active military aircraft:
The United States (14,423)
Russia (4,036)
China (3,284)
India (1,850)
Egypt (1,122)
Turkey (1,055)
South Korea (890)
Pakistan (818)
Japan (779)
France (697)
Any US (not a joint or UN) base will be able to hold out long enough for those aircraft to get in the fight. When that happens the number of troops on the ground won’t matter.
If EU countries attack (justified or otherwise US bases) why do you assume the goal will be taking over a capital?
But seriously Dad stopped talking to me and I followed suit. That was about 2 years ago. I missed him at first and worried about missing out on what little time he had left.
I eventually realized that I was missing something that no longer existed. My Dad either never was what I thought or became something I didn’t want in my life.
So I buried him. This way I can preserve what good memories I had and learn to live life without that relationship.
I had a funeral for the one that went MAGA in my mind. I gave a great eulogy. All my favorite food was served at the meal following the wake. Easily in my top 10 funerals.
Of course not. If the first move on a chess board was to simply take your opponent’s king, that would always be the first move in every game.
Having the midterm vote suppressed is just one sacrificial pawn in the direction of what needs to be done to eradicate fascism.
Knowing what to do isn’t that valuable if you don’t time it correctly. It’s not just one person or party. It is systemic and requires a critical mass of history to be successful.
Variation on the theme: would you ever tell your child “You weren’t worth it.”
OP assuming you are asking for a reason, my view after some time is that when a parent make a statement like that it reflects more about the parent than the child.
Unauthorized Immigrants by Country/Region, Top States and Counties of Residence, 2023
To be fair this was buried one click under the “data” tab on the main menu of the website listed on the image.
Don't you mean the people with gun saving the country from fascism? Or do you really except the guns to do it on their own?
Currently there are a few people without guns trying to stand up to fascism without violence. Most if not all are getting arrested/killed. There is also a large portion of the population that refuses to commit to violence. You see it over and over "don't take the bait," "don't give them the excuse," or "they want you to get violent."
In order to cross over and have those against the current administration with guns put everything on the line, it either needs to get so bad that those individuals have no other choice OR jury nullification needs to occur in a high profile matter.
Put another way, has enough happened that YOU are personally willing to sacrifice your life to stand up against what is going on? If yes, do something. If no, continue building local community networks and support structures so if/when that occurs you have the capacity to effect change through violence.
Saying that guns (the tool currently used by the facists) somehow will not be effective to combat them makes little sense. It's not a gun issue. It's a will issue.
Be the change you want to see in the world!
I agree that it is absurd to think that the US military would ever march into European capitals unless it was at the end of an extremely long engagement similar to what is being done to Ukraine.
Also, I sincerely hope none of this ever happens (or if it does that the left [economic NOT US political left] is victorious and I can use my fediverse comment history to be welcomed into the the post US post capitalist world)
[example of a source](Source: European Council on Foreign Relations https://share.google/8lhLm73boOSh0Nf7c) supporting my opinion. It’s simple to search for more.
My personal experience while stationed in Europe was participating is training exercises regarding attacks on bases by local terrorist groups. This was in an exercise format. These exercises lasted several days and occurred on a regular basis. I was in the room the simulation occurred in. I was able to see first had the decision making process of the people involved.
In my opinion, having observed the declassified US response to an attack, the thought that these bases and equipment would simply be taken over by local forces is not likely. The bases will likely be destroyed and used a a pretext for a larger component of US forces to engage. That being the case, would local EU leaders risk attacking US bases? Legitimate question that gets to the heart of the issue raised by the original comment.
I am not sure why you are talking about fighting European armies. I have nodes idea who wins. I am talking about g about the specific comment that these bases would be taken over and equipment acquired by local forces.
In short, in that scenario the bases are not meant to survive. Their purpose is to get hit to justify hitting back harder.
Edit: better than simply saying that’s your opinion, explain your understanding of the US response following direct attacks on its military bases.
What are we talking about about:
(Comment I responded to)
I was genuinely curious what this point was based on, as in my first hand experience being stationed at US Navy bases in Europe did not support that conclusion.
First hand experience is a source. For example, someone says “the sky is purple.” You are skeptical based on your personal experience. You ask for a source supporting that claim. You even go as far as to say, I have seen the sky before and it is not purple. In a normal rational dialogue the other party might respond, here is why I think the sky is purple
I am not promoting American exceptionalism. I observed the level of tech and financial investment the US Navy has in its European bases. I also observed those levels compared to local forces. I do not believe that local forces would take over bases and equipment. Destroy them, yes very possible. This is actually part of a strategy called tripwire troops. In the event of a conflict, US bases would be prepared to hold out until larger assets arrived to support them. Attacking these bases gives the US a reason escalate the level of engagement.
That’s all I was asking about. You can search for basic information about US defense expenditure related to European defense expenditure to find support for my observations. I searched for anything supporting the conclusion that if the US invaded Greenland local European military forces would seize local bases and equipment and found nothing.
So this started with me asking what you based your comment on. Please share the knowledge you are basing this on by linking to a source.
My comments are all said begrudgingly. I served in the military. I am anti what America is currently doing. My comments are based on numbers of weapons systems and years of strategy where the US purposely let the EU underspend on defense.
Given that you want to reduce this to personal attacks, I will exit now, and let trolls troll.
Navy not air force here, are those result flights bringing in commissary items or weapon systems?
I’m not saying the US has an easy time or saves all bases. But thinking that the US would fight to occupy if its bases were attacked is a bold assumption.
The EU can close its airspace. The trick is enforcing that.
What is any of this based on? You believe that if the US went into any European country with military force they would not move support forces into the area beforehand? This is exactly what happened in Venezuela.
Look, I hope this doesn’t happen. I am not a fan of my country.
My question was what are your conclusions based on. So far that seems like nothing.
You said those bases and equipment would be taken over by local militaries. Other than vibes, what are you basing that on? I’m 100% certain those troops won’t see your only option. They will fight until they die or US air and naval forces arrive. I have no idea who would win. Wondering how you know.
Source: was stationed in Europe.
Search top 5 largest air forces in the world. A quick search gives the following numbers for active military aircraft:
The United States (14,423) Russia (4,036) China (3,284) India (1,850) Egypt (1,122) Turkey (1,055) South Korea (890) Pakistan (818) Japan (779) France (697)
Any US (not a joint or UN) base will be able to hold out long enough for those aircraft to get in the fight. When that happens the number of troops on the ground won’t matter.
If EU countries attack (justified or otherwise US bases) why do you assume the goal will be taking over a capital?
What are you basing this on? Personal experience tells me this is not the case with European US Navy bases.
Reads like you are telling on yourself…
Ah yes... Terror high... My go to way to unwind after a week in the wage mines
But seriously Dad stopped talking to me and I followed suit. That was about 2 years ago. I missed him at first and worried about missing out on what little time he had left.
I eventually realized that I was missing something that no longer existed. My Dad either never was what I thought or became something I didn’t want in my life.
So I buried him. This way I can preserve what good memories I had and learn to live life without that relationship.
Make Thanksgiving seance themed!
I had a funeral for the one that went MAGA in my mind. I gave a great eulogy. All my favorite food was served at the meal following the wake. Easily in my top 10 funerals.
Is a wealth tax actually possible
how to convince your friends to back wealth taxes
Agree that’s the tactic being used now and that was used then.
Disagree with the quote attribution, which in context of the post seems important enough to mention.
Snopes