mekka okereke Mar 2

šŸ¤”I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to follow the logic:

If Iran's nuclear capability was "completely obliterated" a few months ago, and needed to be obliterated again today, either:

1) It wasn't obliterated a few months ago

2) It was obliterated, but they rebuilt from scratch *in only months*.

Show threadmekka okereke Mar 2

I'm just trying to understand why we urgently needed to kill hundreds of elementary school girls, rush into a drone war with the most prolific war drone manufacturer the world has ever seen, and take out Iran's opposition leaders.

I'm trying to be a good little patriot! Knowing the why will help me.

Show threadmekka okereke 

I'm trying not to listen to those cynical little BlueSky (and Mastodon!) people, that suggest that the war is for a different, illegitimate reason.

Or the ones that complain about the fact that one unstable individual in the United States can make the unilateral decision to pull the whole world into a war.

Or the ones that complain that eliminating leadership from the official state of Iraq, created the space for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria to be formed. That name is too long! Let's call it ISIS for short.

Or the ones that complain that war kills more civilians than troops. Mostly children.

BlueSky (and Mastodon!) are full of these anti-war little twerps, that get in the way of my very important patriotism! I don't even think they like eagles, to be honest. They probably drink pasteurized milk, and get vaccinated too.

Me on the other hand? I am very patriotic. Seriously! All snark aside! šŸ¦…šŸ‡ŗšŸ‡ø

Mar 2 at 3:18pmWeb
Show threadmekka okereke Mar 2

I am very pro-veteran, and pro-active duty service member, even though killing people is not a skill that I respect. At all.

Because "armed service" contains two words, "armed" and "service." And I very much respect the service part.

Service as in "Deliver food aid" and "Build a primary school."

So help me justify my patriotism!

Help me understand why my friends that serve are now in harms way. Convince me that they aren't there just to harm innocent brown kids.

Otherwise, this thread might accidentally turn into one of those anti-war threads, and I'll be just like all those other twerps on BlueSky (and Mastodon!)!

Show threadQueen of AnxietyMar 2

@mekkaokereke Join us in our twerpitude!

*bangs head on desk for the umpteenth time*

Show threadCatherine SchmidtMar 2
@mekkaokereke we arenā€™t twerps. We care about our armed service members too. This is about distraction and money. Oil companies must be thrilled as area arms dealers, Eisenhower warned us. There is a reason this is called by ā€œtwerpsā€ Operation Epstein Fury
Show threadTindraMar 2

@mekkaokereke at the individual level, most service members are not explicitly out to kill brown kids (Iā€™m not gonna say they donā€™t existā€¦ during peak GWOT many young recruits had a certain fervor, but lots were just ā€œI need a jobā€)

At the ā€œpeople at the top issuing ordersā€ levelā€¦ I got nothing. I retired about 2.5 years ago and am sooooo glad Iā€™m not involved in this conflict.

Show threadCoach Sankhavaram Ā®Mar 2

@mekkaokereke

If you are still coming across these cynical voices in your feed, one of us has done a much better job of curation.

#BlockRuthlessly #LiveJoyfully

Show threadPlay Ball and Fight FascistsMar 2

@mekkaokereke

I think being anti-war and pro-veteran go hand in hand, myself.

Show threadLinus GasserMar 2

@mekkaokereke

> Or the ones that complain about the fact that one unstable individual in the United States can make the unilateral decision to pull the whole world into a war.

Citation needed: "ONE unstable individual" - Where did you get that number from? Last time I counted, it was more than one...

Show threadmk30Mar 2

@mekkaokereke my question is: what is the objective and is bombing people the best way to achieve that objective? So far, I don't even know if our president has made the objective clear, let alone explained why this is the right strategy to achieve it.

The other question is whether this is actually in the country's interest, or whether we jumped on the bandwagon because one netanyahu said he was going to bomb with or without us.... (I apologize, I can't find the article where I read this. If I find it, I'll update this post)

Show threadmekka okereke Mar 2

@mk30

Even if the goals are:

* Grow the US influence as a superpower
* Secure natural resources from smaller, weaker countries
* Grow the US economy

Are war and tariffs the best ways to accomplish those goals in 2026? That's the approach that the waning superpowers are taking. How's that working out for Russia and the USA? The US has bombed 7 countries this year. Seven! We've threatened many more. It's barely March. How's that war fighting and tough talk working out for us? Are we winning yet?

Meanwhile, China is moving in the opposite direction, and progressing without firing a single shot. They're reducing tariffs.
šŸ™‚šŸ™ƒ

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-implement-zero-tariffs-imports-53-african-countries-2026-02-14/

Shout out to all the people that will read my thread that is clearly about not bombing elementary girls' schools, and not starting endless wars to nowhere, and not increasing tariffs for no reason, and will take away from it "So you love China?!šŸ¤”"