Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]

Going to note that you are still not answering the question - what should states do in the face of aggression by the empire?

Ukraine is not the US, and not even a part of Nato.

Only de jure. If the US tells them they want a Klitschko brother as a politician - Ukraine makes them a politician. If the US wants Ukraine to invade Syria - Ukraine invades Syria. If the US wants Ukraine to bomb Nordstream, Ukraine bombs Nordstream.

Pissrael is also de jure not a part of NATO, and yet, it’s all the same polities that control it, and supply it with weapons.

Furthermore, even if you want to ignore the fact that Ukraine is thoroughly subjugated by NATO and maintain the illusion that it is sovereign, there is also the fact that the Ukrainian state has sided with the most malicious polity on the planet.

I’d love the empire to fall.

And yet, your proposition is literally to give it more resources for no reason.

A land grab against Russia’s neighbor isn’t some benevolent fight against imperialism

Let’s get this straight - you care more about imaginary lines in the sand shifting around than about the aggression from the genocidal empire that is currently doing such things as the Lebensraum in Palestine? And your argument is currently that the Russian state isn’t doing it for benevolent reasons?

Going to note again that you are still avoiding the question of what should be done against the empire’s aggression by the rest of the world.
Going to ask again - what should states do in such situations?

You understand the concept of mutually assured destruction right?

Which isn’t exactly a law of nature and doesn’t actually mean that NATO will definitely not attack you. Like we literally see it doing so against Russia. Hell, NATO did take hostile action against the USSR (and its allies like Cuba), a state that was much better-prepared than Russia.

Not sure why you are even bringing this up.

And what’s crazy about all those countries you’ve listed is none of them have nuclear arms.

The DPRK does have nukes, and NATO still carried out a small-scale attack against it recently.

Sure, having nukes makes NATO less capable of attacking head-on, but that is an irrelevant argument when we actually already have the knowledge that it has taken hostile action against a country, deliberately so.

You also seem to be overestimating the willingness of nuclear-armed states to use those weapons.

Firstly, going to note that you still have not produced a serious alternative (your previous suggestion is simply to give more advantages to the most prolific invader in the world) and are still avoiding the question of how a state should approach described aggression.

So, you think America is going to invade Russia

NATO has already admitted to have started the war with Russia on purpose, and NATO has been striking Russian civilians, and has done a failed invasion in the Kursk oblast.

two nuclear armed nations?

So, if a state has nukes, you consider it okay for NATO to attack them?

Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first?

This is a bizarre question, considering that Ukraine isn’t the sole de facto part of NATO, and isn’t even sovereign. It is wholly subjugated by NATO since 2014, and does not make its own decisions.
Ukraine is also obviously not limited to the resources it would be limited to if it wasn’t a glorified NATO military base.

Why would Ukraine NATO invade exactly?

For the same reason NATO has been invading everywhere else, like in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Palestine, Korea, etc. - colonial subjugation of the rest of the world.

whataboutism

People who use the word ‘whataboutism’ unironically (i.e. when their hypocrisy is called out) are silly, should be disregarded, and should not be politically empowered.
This is especially silly after you tried to claim that the enslaver of Libya was good.

All you can do is whataboutism and distraction.

What am I distracting anybody from in this case? From the ‘strategy’ that your empire has convinced you of being fruitful, despite it yielding no results beneficial to the oppressed?

You can point out every failure in shortcoming of the so-called left of the US government and it doesn’t fucking matter. They’re still to the left of the right.

This is like saying that if one doesn’t support, say, Ernst Röhm, they are somehow bad, and that it doesn’t matter that he has “shortcomings”.

They are not to the left of the right. They are on the right. They have the same policies, and you can’t even claim that they are in opposition to the other part of your uniparty, as they literally fund their election candidates.
The only difference is aesthetics.

There’s still a discernible difference.

Which is what, exactly?

Some things improve sometimes when one party gets into office

The negotiation for the removal of NATO’s troops from Afghanistan was negotiated under Trump, which is more than what I can say about the blue fascists.
Meanwhile, the other party’s administration undid the legal precedent for abortions that they promised to put in the constitution.

and most things get worse when the other gets in power.

You mean how the ICE usage got worse under Obomber to the point where each of his individual terms saw the most prolific usage of them? Or how his state enslaved Libya?

In the meantime, voting is still better than not.

You are so insistent, but are yet to provide proof of that in the context of the US.

My serious alternative is defend against invasion, don’t invade other countries.

That wouldn’t help the opposition to the most prolific invader in the world in any way, and it would allow the aggressor to do whatever they want for longer.
Your suggestion doesn’t even help in the best-case scenario where the aggressor loses, as the invaded state still has to go through a counter-offensive over all the same areas, except the aggressor now has more resources to fight with.

So, this is not a serious alternative.

Pre-empting invasion with your own invasion is some Israel in 1969 logic

This is an extremely silly comparison, considering that Pissrael is literally a genocidal settler-colony and is on the side of/is part of the most prolific invader in the world, and is not opposed to it in any way.

Firstly, if you cannot suggest a serious alternative, you do not have an argument against the actions of such a state in this regard.

Secondly, the most prolific invader in the world attempting to attack a country is what starts a war, rather than the retaliation and preventative measures of the other state.

Thirdly, it is public knowledge that NATO was trying to start a war with Russia, but miscalculated.

Oh, so Russia should just exterminate the entire population and take that entire landmass

Why do you keep pretending that that is what has been happening?

An irridentist invasion and war is not based actually, for everyone involved.

What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers personnel and weapons on that state’s borders, especially after said most prolific invader completes a coup against a neighbouring neutral state?

What do you disagree with here?

deleted by creator

This isn’t bragging, because imo, what ICE does and what the Chinese military does with ethnic clensing is pretty 1-1.

It’s quite silly how you believe Zenz’ every word about your empire’s designated enemies and expect to be taken seriously.

It’s pretty obvious at this point that all of the accusations of the PRC conducting ethnic cleansings have no basis in reality, so this already disqualifies their military’s actions from being equatable with ICE’.

I am going to accuse everybody who doesn’t believe my empire’s propaganda of being on the empire’s designated enemies’ payroll!

Wait, why are they mean to me?

I point out who’s better on an issue today, you find a different issue to complain about, or dig into the historical record when there wasn’t yet differentiation on a question

You claimed that one of the parties is better on LGBT rights. I pointed out that the blue fascists only pay lip service to it, and that relevant rights were won by other people. Decidedly not by voting.
You claimed that one of the parties is better on economic policy. I pointed out that the economic policies of both are geared towards subjugation, torture and killing of the rest of the world, as well as its own domestic working class.
You claimed that one of the parties gave you better healthcare when all you’ve been fed are scraps. At best, this is a ‘bad cop - good cop’ routine. Also, remind me, which administration cancelled the RvW?
You claimed that the party that built the war crime pier, has been enthusiastically supporting the escalation of the genocide with weapon supplies, defunded UNRWA to contribute to the genocide escalation, cracked down on protestors against the genocide, etc. is somehow not a steadfast supporter of Pissrael.

Your point about Pissrael is especially silly, I’ve got to add.

As a Cuban whether he’s worse off under Obama or Trump.

Ask a Libyan if they are better off after Obama turned their country into an open-air slave market.
Ask a person in Afghanistan if they were worse off while Obama was bombing their hospitals.

Ask a woman trying to get an abortion in Florida.

Oh, hey, let’s actually do that. Let’s also ask which administration repealed the RvW precedent, despite the presidents of the relevant party explicitly promising to enshrine it in the USian constitution for decades.

Ask the Israel lobby if they’re nervous about MI and KS still.

Oh? Were they nervous about Biden that was sending them military supplies to conduct a genocide and that built the war crime pier for them?

I’m not saying that one can vote in revolutionary change, but voting absolutely matters

Voting in the US has produced approximately zero good results over its history.

That’s why they try to restrict it. That’s why ungodly piles of cash get burned to influence it. That’s why removed copy your rhetoric.

‘They’ have been convincing you all this time that voting matters.
If you actually think that it matters, then why are you unable to point to the good results?

EDIT: Also, this:
https://mander.xyz/post/55288596?scrollToComments=true

some peoples livelihoods

The vast majority.

I’m sure the Uighurs aren’t feeling the benefit.

Ah. I have Saddam’s WMD to sell you.
You uncritically believe your empire’s propaganda, even after years of failing to produce evidence for its accusations.

Other people are not obligated to believe Zenz on his word the way you do.

And what empire are we talking here? 😅

The one you are spreading propaganda for, the most prolific invader in the world - NATO.

Should anyone rule for 15 years?

Why not? What’s the difference?

Objectively speaking, in your personal utopian vision for a perfect government, checks, balances, etc and so forth?

Have these ‘checks and balances’ been helpful in reining in the most malicious polity in the world? Or have they only served to preserve the status quo?

It’s pretty great in terms of improving its people’s livelihoods and not invading anybody. Unlike your empire.

I mean, what’s a social issue you might care about? Trans rights? Sure, let’s go with that. Which party issued guidance for including gender identity under Title IX protections? And which party is in charge in the states with bathroom bills?

Which party did Stonewall and other such things - the actual things that improved LGBT rights, rather than politicians doing lip service after the fact?
Both parties are similarly awful in this regard.

What about economic and industrial policy?

Both parties want to use the economy to subjugate, torture, and kill people outside of NATO. That includes me, as well as a bunch of other people from this site, by the way.
Both parties are also interested in keeping your domestic working class in awful conditions.
So, for the vast majority of humanity, there is no difference here.

Which party’s NLRB overruled Specialty Healthcare, and which one restored it?

Notably, neither party has given you good healthcare despite their ability to.

Which party is cracking around the question of enternal military support for Israel, and which party still steadfastly supports them?

Both parties support Pissrael. Stop memory holing the recent Dem administration’s full support for the genocide after its escalation (remember, the genocide started about a century ago at least), even doing things like the war crime pier.
Not even sure why you even think that the blue fascists have been in any way reconsidering support for their asset. This is, frankly, just your fan fiction.

Decorum my ass

You haven’t pointed to any differences between the parties other than that.

Build anything, literally anything, that’s nearly as effective as a fucking vote and I’ll spare you a thought

That’s a very low bar. Lying in bed and reading - especially educational stuff - would be more effective than voting in the US.

It doesn’t educate workers about about what to do, and it’s actually fucking incorrect

If it was as incorrect as you claim it to be, you would have been able to show results. And yet, it’s just a couple of centuries of failures, colonialism, and genocides.

Ah yes I see absolutely no difference between these two puppets. I have seen absolutely no difference between the leadership and policies of these two organizations. None whatsoever.

You are saying this as if there is a difference between them other than decorum.

Ah yes, the hyper capitalist, right wing, oligarchy of Russia is such a wonderful alternative to liberalism

Firstly, you quite literally support NATO (including Ukraine), which the description of ‘hyper capitalist, right wing, oligarchy’ fits even more (you can even just look at Ukraine - the epitome of what you decry in Russia).

They are both horrible garbage. Have fun being a campist.

You quite literally are a campist yourself, and you support an even worse USian vassal in Ukraine.

Generally, accusations of ‘campism’ are just revealing of a person’s white supremacist views, as the accusations are invariably flung only whenever somebody opposes colonialism.

Because their comment was in a whataboutism in defense of of propaganda

You don’t get to complain about propaganda while invoking ‘whataboutism’ (i.e. calling out your hypocrisy) - a very obvious sign of you being heavily propagandised.

If you accept state propaganda just because it is not “western” flavor

Weirdly enough, you don’t make such protestations against your empire’s propaganda.

Enjoy your hard right wing, capitalist, oligarchical slop

Quick question - do you support NATO (including Ukraine) in the war in Ukraine?