this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
276 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24405 readers
2027 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Only a matter of time til they exclude the US with moves like this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

I support America, their right to sovereignty, and its right to veto this proposal.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And I support the rest of the G7's right to form a "G6" and tell the USA to go fuck itself. And I say that as an American.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

And I support America’s right to form a G3 with Russia and China. Maybe G4 with India. Because they are the only countries who matter.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

That’s a pretty stupid idea, the rest of the world is not toothless.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And you think China and India will want to make a new club and obey everything the US says?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

No and not really.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

By that logic we should have California, New York, and New England handle all the decision making for America, since that's where all the GDP comes from and thus are the only regions that matter.

Ya know, you may be onto something there.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, it is their right.

But, please explain if and why you would actually support it happening.

Explain how and who it would benefit.

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

Sure, this would not only perhaps prevent the rise in tensions but also partially benefit Russia’s economy which would only benefit the world especially with US, China, and India cooperating with each other.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

How would it 'benefit the world'?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well yes that’s the nature of the agreement, it’s our right, but it doesn’t mean we should, especially against the will of the rest of the G7.

What’s even the ostensible excuse?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

Bad for business. Russia has a lot of resources and in my opinion, the sanctions aren't warranted. They will be a great ally for the US against China.

Edit: The Quuuuill made a good point in that saying "they did nothing wrong" is wrong itself because Russia does do a lot wrong.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

To be clear, you think Russia would ally with the US, and side against China in some kind of conflict?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

In relations to a Russia allying against China, I am merely referring to Aleksandr Dugin‘s work, “Foundations of Geopolitics” that people like to mention here.

I suppose in reality, possibly not. I mean China and Russia are planning to start construction of a lunar base next year so relations can’t be that bad between the two.

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

You are being downvoted, but you have a point. Not sure what the book said, but theoretically it would be advantageous to "gang up" on China and balance them out, instead of Russia increasingly becoming more dependent on China.

Theoretically, there’s a ton of mutually beneficial economic aid. Even better if the three powers get along.

That’s not the nature of authoritarian regimes though (and I am referring to all three countries now). There are just too many opportunities to take advantage of the other, even when it’s not rational, and there’s a long history from all three countries proving that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Russia famously only cooperates with friends when it comes to space exploration.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

@NimdaQA An asinine suggestion.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Russia has a lot of resources and they did nothing wrong

Well other than genocide. But hey. What's a little ethnic cleansing between friends, I guess

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

The Russian Armed Forces have committed mass crimes such as Bucha and pulled an Operation Babylift.

The sanctions against them is for the 2022 invasion which overall isn’t really worst than say America’s invasion of Iraq, in fact less so if you compare civilian casualties in both. Russia and its predecessor employed the same tactics in Chechnya (filtration camps), Syria and Afghanistan as Russia now does in Ukraine but the regime did not have the intent to exterminate the Chechens, Syrians, or Afghanis. Compare this to actions of say Sudan, whose regime explictly wanted to exterminate the Darfuri people leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands in massacres.

Should US have been sanctioned because of Abu Ghraib? No? So why should Russia be sanctioned?

Despite this, Russia is treated as the kicking bag of the world. Look at 2014 annexation of Crimea where Russia took over Crimea without any shots fired, was welcomed with roses, and even the local military units decided to almost unanimously defect to the Russian side. But despite being rather bloodless compared to say western interventions, Russia's membership in G8 was suspended and America's membership was left untouched despite Iraq.

As to the genocide accusations, Biden said “yes,” but his administration, said “no,” or at least, “we are looking into it" per Rich Lowry of Politco. At least, as a conflict as a whole, I'd say no but definitions vary so outcomes of this question varies.

William Schabas states that, because killings of civilians were more common at the start of the conflict, that weighs against a finding of genocide.

Edit: sorry for the constant edits and re edits, I was quite known for that back in Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Should US have been sanctioned because of Abu Ghraib?

yes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

If that is what you believe, than I suppose I concede.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why haven't you been hit in the head with a baseball bat yet?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Given the nonsense they are spouting, I'm beginning to think they HAVE been hit in the head with a baseball bat

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We expected no less. Funny you don't respect anyone else's sovereignty.

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

I don’t really see what’s stopping the others from setting up their own task forces without America.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There's a difference between voting against something and vetoing it.

A veto prevents the other countries from doing it.

That's overstepping its sovereignty, and the outer countries should tell the US to go fuck itself.

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

Then why have the veto power at all?

I mean, is something really stopping them from setting up their own task forces without America?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

They shouldn't have a veto power. They should only be able to control their own choices.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fuck you.

-a fellow American.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

right? constantly posting, only about same things... you kinda want to ask it to "ignore previous statements" and give as a cupcake recipe 🤣