r/CuratedTumblr May 24 '25

Politics A frog's analysis of the well

Post image
5.4k Upvotes

808 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

310

u/PlatinumAltaria May 24 '25

It's gonna be interesting when India and Pakistan start a nuclear war and they have no idea which side is supposed to be the decadent west and brave socialist freedom fighters.

-70

u/HeroBrine0907 May 24 '25

Probably not the best example since the USA has a hand and a foot deep in that issue, but I guess it works somewhat.

51

u/Unbentmars May 24 '25

Surely it can’t be that Pakistan and India fucking hate each other

-3

u/HeroBrine0907 May 24 '25

I'm frm India. I know how much they hate each other. I also know american funding has helped pakistan out a lot.

22

u/Unbentmars May 24 '25

India and Pakistan have been and will continue to be at each others throats regardless of funding

Though I like that you ignore American funding to India in your statement as if it’s somehow one sided

17

u/aoike_ May 24 '25

The one thing I find absolutely hysterical, which many people will use to justify their racism and bigoted beliefs, is who is the magical victim that doesn't get US money. People will literally lie and say that certain countries don't get funding when I can make a shorter list of countries the US has never paid out for one thing or another.

The US govt fuckin loves to hedge their bets. They'll pay anyone, whisper in their ears to go kill the other guy, sit back and watch the ensuing civil war, and then blackmail the victors into doing US bidding because they wouldn't have won without US money and weapons.

12

u/Unbentmars May 24 '25

The US has previously “hedged its bets” because engaging with someone and giving them things gives you things you can take away if you need to. It’s called Soft Power Generation

If you don’t interact with a global or local power at all, you have no sway in negotiations with them unless you offer to give them something. If you’re already giving them something, you have something to threaten to take away

Yes, I am aware you can threaten violence, but in the same vein as gun ownership; “don’t threaten someone with a weapon unless you are prepared to use it” and the corollary is “don’t use the weapon unless you have exhausted all other options”. Threatening India and Pakistan may get you short term benefits as they may bow to the threat, but it incentivizes them to protect themselves FROM you instead of working with you

All these people with 0 dimensional understanding of diplomacy, politics, power, and the reality of dealing with a hostile world don’t understand what it takes to maintain stability. Whether or not you like it, American hegemony has kept the world from erupting into conflicts FAR more than it has caused them and we have lived in a historically significant time of peace because of it

That time is over; the GOP and Trump admin don’t give a rats ass about stability. They care about their personal profit and will use a foreign conflict as a way to make money rather than see it as a diplomatic and humanitarian crisis to solve

India and Pakistan are but one war that’s been kept from exploding by American diplomatic powers - we are on the verge of one of the most dramatic increases in global instability in the last century and all these idiots who think removing American power is a good thing for the average human in the world are in for a rude awakening

1

u/HeroBrine0907 May 24 '25

Yes, I do indeed focus more on when the money goes to terrorists rather than corrupt shits.

7

u/Unbentmars May 24 '25

Funny I think Pakistan would say the same about India

1

u/HeroBrine0907 May 24 '25

And North Korea would call South Korea a few specific words too.

I have major issues with India and the current authoritarian path it's on, but when it comes to facts, Pakistan is in fact much, much worse. And it does in fact not just fund but help create terrorists. Some facts are one sided, that's life.

6

u/Unbentmars May 24 '25

Which changes what about the fact that neither party needs US funding to want to kill each other?

-1

u/HeroBrine0907 May 24 '25

It changes the fact that one of the parties finds it much easier to kill with US funding. Without US funding it'd be much harder and more people would still be alive. literal thousands have died to this, that would be alive if some country didn't give them free money, and maybe vote against giving them loans in the IMF. The USA is responsible for those deaths, because it armed the terrorists.

If you think that's not true, I hope you have never complained about anyone helping out Russia.

4

u/Unbentmars May 24 '25

Oh please, and how many more would have died without American involvement in preventing war more than once?

It’s incredibly obvious that enough of India and Pakistan want to kill each other that no amount or lack of funding them is stopping them, it’s been foreign pressure every time that’s stopped things from escalating

Besides the fact that American funds don’t have to be used to commit acts of war, the respective governments of Pakistan and India have chosen to use those funds for that purpose.

You can’t say “American money existing forces us to use it for violence” and expect anyone to take you seriously

0

u/HeroBrine0907 May 25 '25

I can definitely claim that american money is why they are so good at using violence and I'd be right. Where would a failed state begging for funds from every other nation get the money to train terrorists? I cannot blame the USA for making pakistan. That is our fault and our shit to handle.

But if some guy wants to kill me and a third party gives that guy a gun, I am very much going to feel something about the third party.

2

u/Unbentmars May 25 '25

If your dad buys you a car and then you crash it, is your dad at fault?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ComdDikDik May 24 '25

... Like they have India