How do y’all cope with this

  • trailing9@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Have you ignored the part about drones in my comment?

    Look up why South Vietnam failed. Watch the training videos of the Afghan army. There was no will to win, for whatever reason.

    If you have overwhelming numerical superiority, you don’t need war, you can vote.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you ignored the part about drones in my comment?

      No - because it was posted after my comment in a different thread - I’m not reviewing your entire post history before responding, let alone travelling through time to do so. If you’re going to be snide, be less stupid about it please.

      The Viet Cong and Taliban tied up the US army for decades, costing them trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. You don’t need military superiority to pose a mortal or financial threat to billionaires.

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, my fault. I thought you were replying there. I will try to be less stupid.

        JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.

        The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.

        Now add the drones that can do a JFK on every rebellion leader.

        I think it is easier to use votes to solve problems.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          JFK and the other politicians are no billionaires.

          Correct, but JFK didn’t have a paltry security detail - he had the protection of the entire US defence and intelligence apparatus, and how effective was that against one man and his rifle? The others are variations in the same theme, some more relevant than others.

          The Viet Cong and Taliban made billionaires. The tax payers had to pay.

          They also used their meagre resources to cause massive problems and expense for the US.

          The point of all this is that all the money in the world only grants these people limited protections.

          I strongly favour democratic solutions where they’re available (revolution without sustainable preparation is where communist regimes turn autocratic almost every time), but understand the democracy-breaking political influence billionaires are able to buy. If a couple of your Kochs and Murdochs start meeting grisly ends, the rest of their ilk might get the message, stand aside and let democracy run its course for once.

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Gated communities. Politicians die because they have to meet their voters.

            Since the US has global influence, politicians and voters are influenced globally. Koch and Murdoch are just standing out.

            Voters have to wise up. I don’t believe that a random group of assassins can solve the problem.

            Rome ended in tyranny because even the educated elite wasn’t wise enough. It’s difficult but we have to be better. Assassinations are a distraction from that problem that needs to be solved.

            • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you honestly think I’m suggesting that a couple of dead billionaires solves the problem?

              If this is still your impression after pre-reading my last paragraph, I’m not sure what to say.

              If it’s not, why the strawman? These are actual problems we all face - how are we to solve them if we’re lying to dismiss solutions we don’t like?

              • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I focused on

                where they’re available

                Which paragraph? I am sorry but I had the impression that you see assassinations as solution. I am also not sure what the strawman is to you.

                Let’s step back. What’s your approach?

                • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  To answer both questions…

                  I strongly favour democratic solutions where they’re available (revolution without sustainable preparation is where communist regimes turn autocratic almost every time), but understand the democracy-breaking political influence billionaires are able to buy. If a couple of your Kochs and Murdochs start meeting grisly ends, the rest of their ilk might get the message, stand aside and let democracy run its course for once.

                  It’s not how the real progress happens, but it’s certainly likely to help things along.

                  • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    All I read is ‘kill some billionaires and the others will treat us nicely’.

                    There is a hint at a communist revolution with a democratic foundation.

                    If you want that, why not have cooperatives and such within the current political framework?

                    What do you really want and how do you want to get there?

    • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did we have drones in afghanistan? Because the US sure did have trouble there. How many people are in Afghanistan? How many are in the US?

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Afghanistan was pre-chatGPT. We are not there yet but soon, drones will operate automatically. Numbers won’t matter.