• teslekova@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s interesting to think about how many millions of deaths the people here are personally responsible for. It’s definitely above a dozen. The Clintons alone killed two to three million, not to mention the reintroduction of slave markets in Libya.

    Dubya and his dad, though… Considering the role Bush Snr and his generation of evil bastards played in the Iran-Iraq war and many South American wars… They probably have fifteen million sewn up between them.

    • Eldritch@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      I literally had someone arguing at me the other day. That without unmanageable pedophile bullies with a monopoly on violence. Who would keep the smaller more managable bullies without a monopoly in line.

  • Kindness is Punk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Now that’s an old picture, can someone explain why Hillary Clinton is on this I can understand why Dick Cheney is.

        • Wobble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          The Secretary of State is the ‘outside’ representative of the US. It heads the diplomatic arm of the state and is an architect of their authority globally. The role holds considerable sway over their military and quasi-military positioning. Next to that she was also a senator and on the ‘armed forces committee’ before that role. She supported the “Afghanistan surge” of the military, and NATO in Libya in 2011. She is recognised as being a war hawk which means favoring military intervention. She is a warlord but not in the “beret and uniform” kind.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          very notably not a warlord

          Are you talking about the Hillary Clinton of THIS reality? Hillary Rodham “we came, we saw, he died” Clinton?

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            Warlord, noun: a military commander who exercises absolute political, social, and economic control over a region.

            Personally I’d call her a moderately inept neoliberal bureaucrat who’s never ever broken a nail in anger much less commanded troops but hey maybe you think she’s more impressive.

            At least Bubba was commander in chief, jeez.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              maybe you think she’s more impressive.

              In what way is “being a warlord” impressive??

              There’s very little difference between a warlord and a pencil pusher, if the right pencil is being pushed. The average democratic politician might as well be screaming “Blood for the blood god and skulls for the skull throne!” in terms of the actual effects of their policies. The only difference is aesthetics and demeanor. You don’t get to act like you’re not a bloodthirsty psychopath just because you’ve beurocratized the orphan-crushing machine to the point that all you have to do to crush orphans is to sign a piece of paper.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                2 days ago

                The average democratic politician might as well be screaming “Blood for the blood god and skulls for the skull throne!” in terms of the actual effects of their policies.

                And it would frankly be less detestable if they were that honest about it, in stead of hiding their blood thirst behind a veneer of civility so thick they make it the bulk of their public fucking persona!

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yeeepppp…it’s the paradox.

    I believe anarchism in the most ideal state (no pun intended) can only be achieved on a global scale if humanity as a whole share the same value and culture; developing both mutual understanding and trust that everyone trust each other not to attack one another. But that can’t be achieved in the current global human culture where tribalism still exist, because it is a residue of evolution, and majority of humans don’t realise they are slaves to it.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Perhaps after the global population experiences The Bad Times™ in this century, while the ecosystem literally melts around us, and we are all fairly uniformly traumatized by it, it will be the catalyzing event for a transition to a peaceful world for the 13 people left alive.