this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
1123 points (97.9% liked)

memes

10677 readers
2600 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (3 children)

My parents said the same thing about air pollution and carbon emissions

[–] socsa@piefed.social 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose the difference is that a country doesn't just get conquered by force if it stops polluting.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Even if the US suddenly lost all its fighter jets, naval force, missiles and bombs. How likely would an invasion be in the next 10 to 50 years?

It is quite a big country with a big population, with a practically uninhabited and difficult to cross country in the north, and a poor drug war ridden country with significant amount of jungle in the south. To the west and east are oceans with some thousands of kilometres until the next sizable and properly inhabitated landmass.

So purely in geographics terms, invading and conquering the US is a huge pain.

Now add to it all the issues of the US dominance in global trade and the ramifications such an invasion would have.

The US doesnt need that army or MIC for defense. It is offense focused and it needs to keep murdering people all over the world to keep its wheels turning.

[–] osugi_sakae@midwest.social 1 points 39 minutes ago

I don't disagree with you, especially in the short term, but Noah Smith (economist at https://www.noahpinion.blog/) does have some eye-opening opinions on the industrial might of China, and what that could mean for USA influence if China wanted to push things. (All this assumes no one uses nukes, of course.)

I'm going from memory, so errors are probably mine, not Mr. Smith's. But, basically, wrt manufacturing, China is already where the USA was during / near the end of WWII. Even if we had the tech and raw materials, the USA would not be able to up with China's factories if it came to war. They could basically just keep throwing drones and bombs at the USA until we literally ran out of anything to defend ourselves with, much less fight back with. Even if much of the rest of the world's factories were on our side.

CHIPS act is one way the Biden admin was trying to restart strategic manufacturing in the USA. We'll see how that goes.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Almost all pollution is by industries and not your parents, so...

If anything you could criticize them if they voted to keep the pollution going.

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Buying a big SUV, shopping at h&m, eating red meat multiple times a week, and flying to the other side of the world during summer, are all worse than voting for climate change. Companies don't pollute for the sake of it.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Check out the EPA's stats on ghg emissions at this LINK. 28% of emissions total are from non-agriculture/shipping transportation, and if you break that down then 57% of the 28% are light duty vehicles, all larger road vehicles are 23%, and aircraft are 9%.

Since 2005 emissions carbon-equivalent total of the USA has fallen about a billion metric tons thanks to awareness and federal programs to reduce and eliminate emissions, almost exclusively in the Electrical Power sector.

So even if you cut out all consumer non-business transport you're left with 72% of emissions. A person who votes to curttail polution does more good than a person who drives a hybrid.

[–] PetteriSkaffari@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Hybrids don't reduce CO2 emissions that much anyway. Better to go all electric and vote for climate protection.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

yeah this is a really stupid argument

"It's not like Israël is gonna stop killing Palestinians if I refuse to kill Palestinians"

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

I mean

That's true tho, pretty much nobody else murders Palestiniains but Israel still does.

Change on all of these scales has to come from societies around the world, not from individuals.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

pretty much nobody else murders Palestiniains but Israel still does.

https://afsc.org/gaza-genocide-companies

Shortly after Oct. 7, the U.S. government started transferring massive amounts of weapons to Israel. By Dec. 25, Israel received more than 10,000 tons of weapons in 244 cargo planes and 20 ships from the U.S. These transfers included more than 15,000 bombs and 50,000 artillery shells within just the first month and a half. These transfers have been deliberately shrouded in secrecy to avoid public scrutiny and prevent Congress from exercising any meaningful oversight. Between October and the beginning of March, the U.S. approved more than 100 military sales to Israel, but publicly disclosed only two sales. A list of known U.S. arms transfers is maintained by the Forum on the Arms Trade.

Much of these weapons were purchased using U.S. taxpayers’ money through the Foreign Military Sales program, while some were direct commercial sales purchased through Israel’s own budget. An undisclosed amount of weapons was also transferred from U.S. military stockpiles already stored in Israel, known as War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I). The use of WRSA-I to provide Israel with weapons serves to further obfuscate the full picture of U.S. arms transfers, as there is no public record of these stockpiles' inventory.

...

This is a form of corporate welfare not only for the largest weapons manufacturers, like Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, and General Dynamics, which have seen their stock prices skyrocket, but also for companies that are not typically seen as part of the weapons industry, such as Caterpillar, Ford, and Toyota (see below).

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not saying the US government and US citizens aren't contributing, but almost nobody, and I did specify that earlier, is going to get out of their chair, fly to Israel, and pull the trigger. At the end of the day, Israelis are the ones killing people no matter where the weapons come from. Whether or not each individual american decides to fly to palestine to commit a war crime doesn't have any impact on the war crimes being committed: votes do.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

almost nobody, and I did specify that earlier, is going to get out of their chair, fly to Israel, and pull the trigger

Why would you need to fly to Israel when you can pilot a drone bomber from Langley?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

The USA has admitted to using their own surveillance drones over Gaza, do you have a source on the USA troops or remotely operated equipment firing into Gaza?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

do you have a source on the USA troops or remotely operated equipment firing into Gaza?

Not without a security clearance.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 22 hours ago

yes but I'm saying that doesn't mean you should just start killing Palestinians as well