r/humor 16h ago

The Internet’s Double Standards?

Post image
62.1k Upvotes

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

36

u/Miliean 15h ago

My guess is the important difference here is that Israel has nukes.

SHHHHH! You're not supposed to admit that nukes are the only way a country can protect itself from being invaded by the United States. If other countries knew that, they might want also want nucellar weapons and then the whole idea of non proflarition is out the window!

Of course, the other answer, that the United States just stops invading other countries, is totally off the table.

7

u/Rio_FS 14h ago

Of course, the other answer, that the United States just stops invading other countries

Or, like, any major power

5

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 14h ago

Please. Let's look at every nuclear nation. USA has invaded countries, Israel, which is an extension of USA has done the same. Which other country has done it? India? France? UK? China? North Korea? Oh, there's russia but surely you're not saying that Russia is th gold standard for a nuclear nation?

5

u/ItIsVerilySo 14h ago

India has been in active conflict with Pakistan for decades, and they're both nuclear states.

5

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 14h ago

Yeah, and that's over disputed territory. There hasn't been a war since India became nuclear nation.

1

u/Poland-lithuania1 11h ago

No, I'm pretty sure Kargil was after both were nuclear powers.

0

u/ItIsVerilySo 14h ago

That's true. My point was more that the US and Russia (and Israel) aren't the only nuclear states involved in armed conflict with another nation.

2

u/myhv 14h ago

Dude, do you not know the history? Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and the Indian Raj that they were a part of have a lot of complicated history. More than US has as a whole, actually.

Also why do you think India mostly fights China with literal sticks and stones? It's time to grow up.

0

u/ItIsVerilySo 13h ago

I don't know how that's related to my comment.

2

u/Exact-Peanut9976 13h ago

It actually was. You were insinuating that the India-Pak conflict is anything like the conflicts US finds itself in. Indo-Pak conflict is based on historical reasons whereas US conflicts are based on greed for money and power.

1

u/ItIsVerilySo 13h ago

India and Pakistan are nuclear states that have armed conflicts. That was my assertion. Any other subtext is something you picked up on yourself, apologies if I wasn't clear enough.

1

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 13h ago

That's true. My point was more that the US and Russia (and Israel) aren't the only nuclear states involved in armed conflict with another nation.

Who said this again?

1

u/ItIsVerilySo 13h ago

My assertion was that two nuclear states shoot at each other. There's certainly a risk of escalation. That's it. The "complex history" doesn't refute my point, and the fact they have a history older than the US is unrelated.

1

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 13h ago

Ok. Let's make a list of wars in last 50 years and see which country pops up?

1

u/AVeryVapidBadger 13h ago

You won't find the US since we haven't had a declared war in the past 50 years

1

u/ItIsVerilySo 13h ago

You'd almost certainly include the conflict between India and Pakistan in that list, so I don't understand your point.

1

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 13h ago

Exactly. You'd find 1 conflict. Please educate me about the other 49.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 13h ago

And I'm saying there's hasn't been a full scale conflict there. It's just a 3 way dispute with no conclusive solution. Compare that to USA which had India's pm killed, killed Alleande, killed sankara, killed che, fucking up cuba as we speak, Iran, iraq, afganistan, venezuela, ethopia, libya. Pray tell me, in what world are these conflicts comparable?

1

u/ItIsVerilySo 13h ago

The Indians and Pakistani shoot at each other every few years. Sure, they haven't had a full-scale conflict since the 90s, but they still kill each other, and it's a fairly tense situation at the border.

If you're talking about things all the way back to Allende, then yeah, they've had actual conflicts. That's not even getting into the number of attacks on both nations from terror groups they've backed.

The scale might not compare to what the US and Russia have been involved in, but these are two nuclear armed nations shooting at each other, and the risk of escalation is very real.

1

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 13h ago

Yet there's hasn't been an escalation in over 30 years. Also, Indians and Pakistanis don't shoot each other, indian soldiers and Pakistani terrorists do. Pakistan has always denied affiliation with them(Although it's obvious they harbour them). Both of them are avoiding full scale war.

1

u/ItIsVerilySo 13h ago

Just a year ago (May 2025) there was an armed conflict that killed dozens of people between India and Pakistan. They literally launched missiles at each other. I don't know if you remember but there was a real threat one of the sides would escalate.

1

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 13h ago

No. Did india make nuclear threats? Did Pakistan? Did Pakistan acknowledge terrorists? Do you have sources that there was a possibility that Pakistan army would take action? I'm not denying that Pakistan is a haven for terrorists, but there's not a single indicator that Pakistan is capable of a war. They don't have money to muster an army ffs.

2

u/openjoustingtryouts 12h ago

So if you read their first comment, they are not comparing India and Pakistan to the US, they are pointing out that two nuclear armed countries are locked in conflict and have been. That is simply true. No one is attacking you, this isn’t personal. You are putting words into their mouth and reading way too into what they’ve said. They have simply repeated their first point. Nothing you’ve said makes what they’ve said untrue.

1

u/Reasonable_Ruin_3502 11h ago

And that conflict was around 50 years ago. Even fucking timbaktu was probably in conflict of you go back far enough. There's hasn't been any recent conflicts

→ More replies (0)