5 ms·

If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military)

by nkozyra 10y ago

If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense. If you're hanging your hat on the idea that he'll be less interventionist, I'd ask you to consider the evidence mounting to the contrary.

mirimir 10y ago
Damn, if he doesn't trigger WWIII, I'll be happy.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  That's a very different bar than you set just a post up.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Different in degree, yes. But part of a continuum.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      Right, and we've already established it's one we'll likely breach in a Trump admin. The margin is just wiggle room.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        So do you think that he'll intervene more than Clinton would have done?
        nkozyra 10y ago
        It would be purely speculative. I'm not sure what that has to do with this specific discussion.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
DaUR 10y ago
He said since the beginning of the primaries that he believe in "Peace through Strength", and repeated it many times. If you believe he wants to invade the world, you may be a low-information voter, with all due respect. (note: I don't like military spending).
- davidgay 10y ago
  The idea that the US is weak and needs to increase its military budget to achieve "Peace through Strength" is laughable. The US's military budget is already nearly 3x higher than the next highest country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...).
  - DaUR 10y ago
    > The idea that the US is weak and needs to increase its military budget to achieve "Peace through Strength" is laughable. Who are you arguing with? You haven't read my comment, clearly.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  Ad hominem, strawman and passive aggressiveness in a single sentence. Impressive. We have - by any objective measure but ground troops and total warheads - the largest on the planet. "Peace through Strength" is nothing but a platitude. If it means anything, it's "Biggest Military." We didn't need Donald Trump for that. The notion that we must "rebuild" what is already a gigantic military is perplexing. Our military challenges are not coming to us from nations who are emboldened that our massive military is not 10% more massive. I'm not going to call you a low-information voter, but I'm going to ask that you be a little more critical and analytical if this is as deep as you're going at present.
  - DaUR 10y ago
    Where did I argue we have to rebuild the military? Are you even replying to the right comment? Is your first sentence projection?
dragonwriter 10y ago
> If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense. If you take some of his false statements as statements of future intent, it makes perfect sense. For instance, the description of deportation efforts as "a military operation".

by nkozyra 10y ago

mirimir 10y ago

Damn, if he doesn't trigger WWIII, I'll be happy.

nkozyra 10y ago
That's a very different bar than you set just a post up.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Different in degree, yes. But part of a continuum.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    Right, and we've already established it's one we'll likely breach in a Trump admin. The margin is just wiggle room.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      So do you think that he'll intervene more than Clinton would have done?
      - nkozyra 10y ago
        It would be purely speculative. I'm not sure what that has to do with this specific discussion.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]

DaUR 10y ago

He said since the beginning of the primaries that he believe in "Peace through Strength", and repeated it many times. If you believe he wants to invade the world, you may be a low-information voter, with all due respect. (note: I don't like military spending).

davidgay 10y ago
The idea that the US is weak and needs to increase its military budget to achieve "Peace through Strength" is laughable. The US's military budget is already nearly 3x higher than the next highest country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...).
- DaUR 10y ago
  > The idea that the US is weak and needs to increase its military budget to achieve "Peace through Strength" is laughable. Who are you arguing with? You haven't read my comment, clearly.
nkozyra 10y ago
Ad hominem, strawman and passive aggressiveness in a single sentence. Impressive. We have - by any objective measure but ground troops and total warheads - the largest on the planet. "Peace through Strength" is nothing but a platitude. If it means anything, it's "Biggest Military." We didn't need Donald Trump for that. The notion that we must "rebuild" what is already a gigantic military is perplexing. Our military challenges are not coming to us from nations who are emboldened that our massive military is not 10% more massive. I'm not going to call you a low-information voter, but I'm going to ask that you be a little more critical and analytical if this is as deep as you're going at present.
- DaUR 10y ago
  Where did I argue we have to rebuild the military? Are you even replying to the right comment? Is your first sentence projection?

dragonwriter 10y ago

> If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense. If you take some of his false statements as statements of future intent, it makes perfect sense. For instance, the description of deportation efforts as "a military operation".