When is the admin going to run out of excuses?
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
815 points (98.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6672 readers
680 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Russia supports Iran while the US supports the paragons of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Kind of like the US was leaning Pakistan while Russia leans India. Now China finds more value with Pakistan than we do though (which will eventually make us do something stupid to "support our interests").
Yeah, I still don't understand the Pakistan thing. Pakistan:
Whereas India:
Yet we keep them at arm's length.
I could say the same for Israel and Saudi Arabia. Why are we so intent on picking the worst possible countries in a given region? The only explanation is that we want war...
Sunk-cost fallacy stemming from Cold War-era choices.
Yeah, my guess is that since they have nukes, we feel obligated to keep them close so those nukes don't end up in the wrong hands.
More like India remembers our position in the cold war and doesn't have any desire to be beholden to us. Doesn't matter if it's the Hindutva or INC, neither are friendly to US hegemony. I'd hold the same position if I was them of course. I mean we still embargo Cuba for fucks sake.
This the same India that's been spending the past 20 years cozying up to us? And vice-versa, of course, we've been very interested in India as well.
Pakistan is the major stumbling block remaining, not the policy of half a century ago.
I think they've gone beyond somewhat friendly with China. They've got PLA troops in Pakistan now doing anti terrorism work. The chances of the Chinese establishing a naval base in Pakistan is far from remote at this point, though I think it would be a back channel red line from the Americans regarding further military funding.
India is a contender for becoming a major power in a multipolar world, where the US is not the hegemon anymore.
So it makes perfect sense to help Pakistan and stir the conflict so, India is slowed in its advances to become a major power.
I guess. But on the other hand, a closer union between the US and India should give the US a chunk of that growth, as well as allow the US to shape how India develops.
religion and oil are the basic reasons, aren't they?
Pakistan doesn't export any oil, and while they have discovered oil reserves, western companies aren't interested due to security concerns. So it's not oil.
I just don't see it.
50 years ago during the Cold War the economic trajectory of the two wasn’t so different, and pakistan also included what would become Bangladesh. Nixon was opening relations with China after the sino Soviet split, and India probably wouldn’t agree to ally with someone who was in the process of economically integrating with a country that they were actively fighting a border war with (sino Indian border war 1962-present). Pre Iranian revolution Iran was also a major ally and shares a significant land border with Pakistan, and probably most importantly, Pakistan was an ideal country to serve as a funnel for military assistance to the mujahideen to help fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which would arguably lead to the economic drain and political quagmire that was a primary factor in its collapse.
Of course the mujahideen would then evolve to become Al Qaeda which Pakistan would harbor, Iran would have its revolution, Bangladesh would gain independence, and the Pakistani military dictatorship would squander the potential of their country on a nuclear program and trying to maintain an army of equal strength to a country 10x their population. But the choice had a lot more geopolitical merit way back then, and once it had been made it is not so easy as forgive and forget or to counter the logistical inertia just because the circumstances change.
Yeah, it's not easy to change direction, but I think it's long past time to do so. I don't see much point in a US/Pakistan alliance these days...
I think Pakistan had important oil pipelines, but am not at all sure
I think you mean pariahs not paragons. Paragon means perfect.
I was being quite sarcastic.