this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025

180 points (93.7% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

1671 readers

96 users here now

"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"

Welcome to MoG!

Meanwhile On Grad

Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!

What is a Tankie?

Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.

(caution of biased source)

Basic Rules:

Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.

Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.

Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.

Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.

Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.

Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.

You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

180

They're just so wonderfully full of "The ends justify the means" aren't they? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Who cares about all the people he'll hurt along the way amiright? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What’s Russian imperialism’s death toll in the last two decades?

Literal millions. Holy fucking shit, do you not remember the Chechnyan wars? Syria? The war in fucking Ukraine?

How many people live under Russian-supported dictatorships?

Sudan, Syria until a few months ago, the Donbass, Belarus, Venezuela, CAR, Mali, Burkino Faso, parts of Chad...

How many genocides has Russia funded?

Let's see, we've got Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine. So that's three at minimum.

How many has the US funded in the past 30 years? Israel's?

As shown by Russia, significantly weaker imperialist powers cause significantly less harm, just as I said.

"An imperialist country a third of the size and much poorer does less harm than an imperialist country three times its size and significantly wealthier"

Wow, very insightful.

The US’s vast diplomatic and economic power helps gain global buy-in and coerce support for those objectionable things about your foreign policy.

Yes, of course, that's why we roped in Europe to support our invasion of Iraq.

They’d have been a lot less unilateral if Europe had raised a stink about yet another refugee crisis happening in their backyard.

... really?

You fucking think that in the post-9/11 fury we would have given two shits if Europe (checks notes) objected slightly louder than they already did? And now you're looking at a fascist regime which explicitly opposes outside economic influence and saying "Wow! Now those other democratic states will have so much more leverage against US imperialist policy!"

Fuck's sake.

The diplomatic power you’re talking about is exactly why America can trash the world and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it.

"and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it."

Jesus fucking Christ.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Literal millions. Holy fucking shit, do you not remember the Chechnyan wars? Syria? The war in fucking Ukraine?

Yeah that's a few hundred thousand tops, not at all millions. Also, since you brought up Ukraine: Russia has been in post-2014 Ukraine (so excluding territory they occupied in 2014) for three years and counting, while America steamrolled the Iraqi government in less than three weeks. It's actually possible to resist weaker imperialist countries, but there's nothing a country can do when the US knocks on their door except acquiesce or perish.

Let's see, we've got Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine. So that's three at minimum. How many has the US funded in the past 30 years? Israel's?

Fair enough.

You fucking think that in the post-9/11 fury we would have given two shits if Europe (checks notes) objected slightly louder than they already did?

Given Europe's reaction to refugee crises in the Middle East (including, you know, calling them crises) I'd expect a bit more than objecting slightly louder. As MAGAt are about to find out, the relationship between Europe and America goes both ways. If Europe had threatened to impose economic punishments on America, or hell even just stop buying US weapons like they're doing right now, even Bush would've had to think twice.

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

Yeah that’s a few hundred thousand tops, not at all millions.

Estimates of the total number of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, by various war monitors, range between 580,000 as of May 2021,[1] and approximately 656,493 as of March 2025.

The Chechen separatist sources in 2003 cited figures of some 250,000 civilians, and up to 50,000 Russian servicemen, killed during the 1994-2003 period. The rebel side also acknowledged about 5,000 separatist combatants killed as of 1999–2004, mostly in the initial phases of the war.

According to a report published by Le Monde in November 2024, the war may have killed over 150,000 civilians through the combined tolls of bombardments, massacres, starvation and disease.[247] A November 2024 report from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine estimated more than 61,000 deaths in Khartoum State alone, for the period between April 2023 and June 2024.[265]

Russia in the still-ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War:

198,000 killed, 550,000+ wounded

Ukraine:

50,000 killed,[135] 380,000 wounded

And that's only for the ones they've been directly involved in, as mentioned, there are plenty of brutal civil wars and dictatorships Russia maintains support for a la the US and Israel.

Also, since you brought up Ukraine: Russia has been in post-2014 Ukraine (so excluding territory they occupied in 2014) for three years and counting, while America steamrolled the Iraqi government in less than three weeks. It’s actually possible to resist weaker imperialist countries, but there’s nothing a country can do when the US knocks on their door except acquiesce or perish.

Okay, so now that we've cut ties with Europe, how would that reduction in diplomatic power, which we have established as the only meaningful reduction in 'imperial' capabilities resulting from going full fascist, have reduced our war-waging capabilities in Iraq?

Go ahead. I'm very interested in seeing this analysis of how a hollowed-out pariah state up against the foremost military power in the world is comparable to a rotted military a third of its size up against a country materially backed by the entirety of the West.

Given Europe’s reaction to refugee crises in the Middle East (including, you know, calling them crises) I’d expect a bit more than objecting slightly louder. As MAGAt are about to find out, the relationship between Europe and America goes both ways. If Europe had threatened to impose economic punishments on America, or hell even just stop buying US weapons like they’re doing right now, even Bush would’ve had to think twice.

Bush would've had to think twice because, despite being an imperialist fuckwad, he wasn't an out and out fascist with total control over his own party, likewise compromised of fascists.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And that's only for the ones they've been directly involved in, as mentioned, there are plenty of brutal civil wars and dictatorships Russia maintains support for a la the US and Israel.

You're going beyond the 20 year cutoff but either way that's still less than half the US total in the same time period.

Go ahead. I'm very interested in seeing this analysis of how a hollowed-out pariah state up against the foremost military power in the world is comparable to a rotted military a third of its size up against a country materially backed by the entirety of the West.

Iraq was a hollowed out pariah state in part because of Europe following the American position. Also like I said, a strong European response would've lowered the scale of the war, if not outright avoided it. And since we're talking about Iraq,

During the 1990s and 2000s, many surveys and studies found child mortality more than doubled during the sanctions,[8][9][10] with estimates ranging from 227,000[11] to 500,000[12] excess deaths among children under the age of 5.

-Wikipedia

That's a quarter to half a million deaths in one country caused solely by American diplomatic and economic clout.

Bush would've had to think twice because, despite being an imperialist fuckwad, he wasn't an out and out fascist with total control over his own party, likewise compromised of fascists.

Trump has total control over his party, but he still has people he needs to appease—including the military-industrial complex. I can't tell you what will result from the inevitable conflict between Trump and the oligarchy, but it's not going to be good for Trump's regime.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You’re going beyond the 20 year cutoff but either way that’s still less than half the US total in the same time period.

... how the fuck so

Casualties for the entirety of the 'War On Terror', including seriously wounded (and including part of the period, likewise, 'beyond the 20 year cutoff'), usually hover around 1.5 million.

If we're counting indirect deaths, then we have a lot of 'fun' things we can add to Russia's list.

Iraq was a hollowed out pariah state in part because of Europe following the American position.

... yes, because Iraq definitely wasn't a hollowed-out pariah state following the Iran-Iraq War, and certainly not following their widely condemned invasion which led to the First Gulf War. If it wasn't for America, Iraq would've been enjoying the full fruits of international cooperation just like it did before.

Also like I said, a strong European response would’ve lowered the scale of the war, if not outright avoided it.

How the fuck so? By your own admission, it was over in three weeks. If Europe had completely embargo'd the US, it still wouldn't have changed opinions inside of three weeks.

That’s a quarter to half a million deaths in one country caused solely by American diplomatic and economic clout.

First you're in support of sanctions on aggressive hypermilitarized genocidal states, now in opposition because of the human cost of sanctions.

Great. Glad we're dealing with such a principled and consistent stance.

Trump has total control over his party, but he still has people he needs to appease—including the military-industrial complex.

Fucking lol.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Casualties for the entirety of the 'War On Terror', including seriously wounded (and including part of the period, likewise, 'beyond the 20 year cutoff'), usually hover around 1.5 million.

4.5–4.6 million+ people killed[note 3][a] (937,000+ direct deaths including 387,000+ civilians, 3.6–3.7 million indirect deaths)[note 4][b] At least 38 million people displaced[c] -Wikipedia

If it wasn't for America, Iraq would've been enjoying the full fruits of international cooperation just like it did before.

Absolutely not, but the sanctions were excessively brutal considering that "The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction (WMD)".

The only mention in the article of hunger as a goal comes from the US ("Those in the U.S. who supported sanctions believed that low agricultural production in Iraq (coupled with sanctions) would lead to "a hungry population", and "a hungry population was an unruly one"), who is also the Western country that cares the most about the Middle East in the first place. Now that I think about it "solely due to US diplomatic and economic clout" was an exaggeration, but America still bears a lot of responsibility for the humanitarian effects of these sanctions.

How the fuck so? By your own admission, it was over in three weeks. If Europe had completely embargo'd the US, it still wouldn't have changed opinions inside of three weeks.

Public opinion wouldn't have needed to change, because just the threat of sanctions would've been enough to prevent Bush from lying to start the war in the first place.

First you're in support of sanctions on aggressive hypermilitarized genocidal states, now in opposition because of the human cost of sanctions.

I support sanctions only to the extent they can achieve the desired effect without causing large amounts of harm to unrelated people. The Iraq sanctions had multiple UN officials resigning specifically because they weren't that. There was no need to kill half a million children to prevent Iraq from rearming itself. This isn't exactly a controversial position.

In a 2015 article in the journal International Affairs, Francesco Giumelli noted that the UNSC had largely abandoned comprehensive sanctions in favor of targeted sanctions since the mid-1990s, with the controversy over the efficacy and civilian harms attributed to the Iraq sanctions playing a significant role in the change:

Fucking lol.

I mean he literally backed down today (or was it yesterday in America?), so clearly he's not unafraid of the economic effects of his policies. Or this is all just a front for insider trading. Probably the latter.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Casualties for the entirety of the ‘War On Terror’, including seriously wounded (and including part of the period, likewise, ‘beyond the 20 year cutoff’), usually hover around 1.5 million.

Your own fucking source:

937,000+ direct deaths including 387,000+ civilians,

Would you like to remind me what 937,000 is lower than? Perhaps a number like... 1.5 million?

As I said, if you want to discuss indirect deaths, that's going to lead to significantly increased numbers for Russia as well.

Absolutely not, but the sanctions were excessively brutal considering that “The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”.

Again, from your own fucking cited source:

There is a general consensus that the sanctions achieved the express goals of limiting Iraqi arms. For example, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith says that the sanctions diminished Iraq militarily.[25] According to scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright: "Sanctions compelled Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring and won concessions from Baghdad on political issues such as the border dispute with Kuwait. They also drastically reduced the revenue available to Saddam, prevented the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War, and blocked the import of vital materials and technologies for producing WMD."[26][27][28] Saddam told his Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) interrogator[29] that Iraq's armaments "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions."[30]

Some commentators blame Saddam Hussein for the excess deaths reported during this period. For example, Rubin argued that the Kurdish and the Iraqi governments handled OFFP aid differently, and that therefore the Iraqi government policy, rather than the sanctions themselves, should be held responsible for any negative effects.[58][59] Likewise, Cortright claimed: "The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort."[27] In the run-up to the Iraq War, some[60] disputed the idea that excess mortality exceeded 500,000, because the Iraqi government had interfered with objective collection of statistics (independent experts were barred).[61]

The Iraq Inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot examined a February 2003 statement by then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "today, 135 out of every 1,000 Iraqi children die before the age of five". The inquiry found that the figure in question was provided to Blair by Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) based on the 1999 ICMMS study, but an internal caveat from the FCO and the Department for International Development (DFID) to the effect that the ICMMS was of questionable reliability because it had been "conducted with the Iraqi regime's 'help' and relied on some Iraqi figures" was not communicated to Blair by a 10 Downing Street official. The inquiry noted "The level of child mortality in Iraq estimated by the ICMMS was significantly higher than that estimated by later surveys," citing "estimates that the under‑five mortality rate in Iraq was 55 per 1,000 in 1989, 46 per 1,000 in 1999, 42 per 1,000 in 2003, and 37 per 1,000 in 2010 (when Mr Blair gave his evidence to the Inquiry)."[73]

I support sanctions only to the extent they can achieve the desired effect without causing large amounts of harm to unrelated people. The Iraq sanctions had multiple UN officials resigning specifically because they weren’t that. There was no need to kill half a million children to prevent Iraq from rearming itself. This isn’t exactly a controversial position.

Clearly it is, as your own fucking source notes that it's controversial, both in terms of child mortality and in terms of efficacy.

I mean he literally backed down today (or was it yesterday in America?), so clearly he’s not unafraid of the economic effects of his policies. Or this is all just a front for insider trading. Probably the latter.

The latter. If Trump was 'afraid' of the economic effects of his policies, the entire tariff conversation would look nothing like... well, what it does.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

As I said, if you want to discuss indirect deaths, that's going to lead to significantly increased numbers for Russia as well.

By how much?

Clearly it is, as your own fucking source notes that it's controversial, both in terms of child mortality and in terms of efficacy.

Wait what? Nobody's arguing that they weren't effective, but that they were too much. Also while there's controversy about the scale of child mortality specifically, there's none about the idea that widespread civilian harm was caused. I mean more than half the country lost access to clean drinking water because of that shit.

In 1993, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that the sanctions "have virtually paralyzed the whole economy and generated persistent deprivation, chronic hunger, endemic undernutrition, massive unemployment and widespread human suffering."

Also again, the UNSC mostly doesn't do general sanctions anymore specifically because the Iraq sanctions were such a shitshow. If they were only controversial you'd see more like them, but you don't because they were too much for what they were ostensibly trying to do.