4 Likes
What I find particularly frustrating about this is that the Democratic Party seems intent on using arguments that appeal only to existing Dem voters to win over voters generally. It seems hugely self defeating to me. We just saw how well ideas like āwhen they go low we go highā and āgo to my website to read the policy pointsā works against Trumps baseless appeals to emotion and hate mongering. They risk losing again so they can smugly say they took the high road. Turning the other cheek in a knife fight to the death is a bad strategy.
1 Like
3 Likes
He could have not sent 30000 more troops to Afghanistan, continued the use of private military, partnered with Al Queda affiliates in Syria, deported millions of people, sold record numbers of weapons to Saudi Arabia, approved more fossil fuel extraction, or persecuted whistleblowers.
5 Likes
Ok but we were talking about his negotiating with republicans.
Riverman can get into what he meant. As far as not placating Republicans goes, Obama could have started out by not keeping George Bushās Secretary of Defense.
He could have also stayed out of Scotlandās Independence voteā¦
I have no idea, but maybe the military realizes that the USA is going left in the future. Added to that is the debt from Covid-19. Military budgets are going to be slashedā¦unless the USA gets scared into ramping up spending.
WTF? We canāt afford anything nice in this country for itās citizens because we spend all the money on the military, and the military still sucks?
8 Likes
Pretty well sums up the country donāt ya think?
8 Likes
When Business Insider says our military is too weak it needs to be taken with a galaxy sized portion of salt.
I remember when we were no match for the Elite Battle-hardened Iraqi Republican Guard. (Iām talking 1991 kids)
3 Likes
All seems a bit coordinating with the op-eds about China taking advantage of the Rona.
Weāve always been at war with Eastasia.
4 Likes
Yeah, I mean I just posted about the US military decline, but that article seems designed to increase the budget for expensive white elephants.
1 Like
I didnāt see the post about decline. Would be interested. But, being able to destroy the world 100 times over, conduct war perpetually on multiple fronts, and with bases all over the world could well use some decline.
Well, I was mostly saying the decline was in knowing what to use it for and how to use it, leading to ongoing disasters like Iraq, Afghanistan etc. So I agree a decline in the US military sounds good in theory, but in practice this decline isnāt great. (Not that success was too good for the world either, obvs)
Iām big on the āif you build it, they will comeā theory of things. There is no knowing how to use it. If itās there, itāll get used whether thereās a good use or not. Itās too easy and there are too many people who profit from it. We donāt have to turn our society upside down to put 100000 troops somewhere and keep them supplied with bombs. So, once in a while thatās just going to happen. Sure, France and Germany can sell a lot of weapons around the world, but they couldnāt pull off a major action half way around the world without the people really feeling it and thatās a good thing. (not arguing with you obv - I suspect you fully agree)
Yeah, my post about decline was just saying that thereās no contradiction between the US being near the height of its raw military ādominanceā (in terms of budget, amount of equipment and bases etc.) and it also being in military decline. But thatās just a different analysis from what would be the best US military for the world, and for that āmuch less of itā does seem like the best simple hypothesis to try (and not just the US military).