• P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    35 minutes ago

    Good job to all of the fucks who stayed home because of Gaza, thinking that not voting and letting the GOP rise to power would actually help the situation.

    Yeah, because Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing policy was a problem with the US’s left-wing party, right?

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 minutes ago

      My argument is what did the democrats have to lose for supporting Gaza/Palestinians? It’s obvious not running a fully left facing candidate and campaign was a mistake.

      We are mad at the wrong people. The reality of the situation is that the democrats can’t win without the far left of the party. So why won’t we extend an olive branch? If we get a next time, what are we going to do differently?! This is the reality. Either we wake up to that or keep losing. Pick one.

      • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 minutes ago

        Fuck the people who didnt vote based on gaza. They are even dumber than Maga hats. They help the candidate that is even worse for gaza win . No one should offer these people any branches. Fuck them. Treat them like the idiots they are just like we do with MAGA.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 minutes ago

      Tbh, there’s a very dark part of me that makes me just want sit back, watch Gaza and the West Bank get fully reduced to rubble, and all the Palestinians getting put into woodchippers, and just smirk while saying “wow, good thing we dodged a Harris administration. Who knows what that would have meant for Palestine.”

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I mean if Europe wants to increase their military funding and move items in house I think that would be a wonderful idea. Because America is not a reliable partner in this at all in the past two decades.

    • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      3 hours ago

      If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help. But the same can’t really be said if the US gets into a war. The rest of NATO needs to be able to hold the fort if the US were to get suddenly …distracted in the Pacific

      • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 minutes ago

        Are you fucking stupid? Which is the only country to ever invoke article 5? How many other countries listened to the call for this injust war?

      • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help.

        How sure are you of that? Sure, if Russia marches towards the Atlantic Ocean, but if Russia decides to create a security buffer zone in Finland? Or the Baltic countries?

        NATO has only survived for as long because of the commitment of the US. Come January NATO is dead as well as a sovereign Ukraine.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    The biggest thing will be all those nato countries who can’t do anything with their US weapons if the US says so.

    • ziggurat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      55 minutes ago

      That is only if they want to continue to buy new weapons, not if they intend to male weapons in Europe

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        48 minutes ago

        No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.

      • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        26 minutes ago

        Expecting the US to not maintain its monopoly on the demonym “American” is the same thing as expecting dogs not to bark at the mailman. Other western hemisphere countries shouldn’t have dragged ass becoming independent.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Don’t you dare call us American! Next thing you know we’ll stop apologizing for everything and actually build a military with jets instead of snowmobiles!

  • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It seems like a very real possibility. A new, EU followup seems like a natural next step to protect the borders and peace.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Sorta, but not really tbh. The US was always intrinsically backstopping the security side of things. Without us in it - and I mean this very seriously - it’s not really a credible threat to Russia or anyone else anymore.

  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It isn’t credible now. It likely won’t exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.