4 ms·

It's interesting you bring up warmongering when it looks like some in the opposition party are concerned about the US receding from interventionism and seeking

It's interesting you bring up warmongering when it looks like some in the opposition party are concerned about the US receding from interventionism and seeking more effort from the other NATO countries. That the US is becoming more isolationist --which would seem to contradict the US becoming more interventionist.

mcphage 10y ago
> That the US is becoming more isolationist --which would seem to contradict the US becoming more interventionist. Trump wants to beef up our military spending—what do you think he's going to do with all that extra hardware?
- pizzetta 10y ago
  Modernization? Do you think it's likely he'll be more interventionist than the Obama years? It's hard to imagine that, but of course it's possible, the question is is it likely?
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    Obama was actually very restrained in foreign policy - far moreso than Hillary Clinton would've been, for example, and also moreso than Bush Jr., Reagan, or even Bill Clinton. He's relied largely on drone strikes and covert assistance, while the other presidents mentioned actually invaded other countries. Obama's own national security staff criticized him heavily for this. Anyway, I didn't mention political parties in my original post, and AFAIC trying to make this partisan is just projection. There are hawks on both sides of the aisle: the Democrats are milking Russophobia for all it's worth and seem to want to start a new Cold War, the Trumpists see the world as a clash of civilizations between the Judeochristian West and Islam, and old-line Republicans like McCain and Graham are very skeptical of Iran and China.
    - pizzetta 10y ago
      I don't mean to take it into the ideological realm. I can't disagree with what you said, except the money spent on foreign wars/intervention was pretty ramped up during Bush II and Obama.
- sanguine234 10y ago
  It is called, peace through strength. When you have strong military, others do not try to pull punches on you. And when you intervene for others, they also listen to you. That is how US has been, always.

mcphage 10y ago

> That the US is becoming more isolationist --which would seem to contradict the US becoming more interventionist. Trump wants to beef up our military spending—what do you think he's going to do with all that extra hardware?

pizzetta 10y ago
Modernization? Do you think it's likely he'll be more interventionist than the Obama years? It's hard to imagine that, but of course it's possible, the question is is it likely?
- nostrademons 10y ago
  Obama was actually very restrained in foreign policy - far moreso than Hillary Clinton would've been, for example, and also moreso than Bush Jr., Reagan, or even Bill Clinton. He's relied largely on drone strikes and covert assistance, while the other presidents mentioned actually invaded other countries. Obama's own national security staff criticized him heavily for this. Anyway, I didn't mention political parties in my original post, and AFAIC trying to make this partisan is just projection. There are hawks on both sides of the aisle: the Democrats are milking Russophobia for all it's worth and seem to want to start a new Cold War, the Trumpists see the world as a clash of civilizations between the Judeochristian West and Islam, and old-line Republicans like McCain and Graham are very skeptical of Iran and China.
  - pizzetta 10y ago
    I don't mean to take it into the ideological realm. I can't disagree with what you said, except the money spent on foreign wars/intervention was pretty ramped up during Bush II and Obama.
sanguine234 10y ago
It is called, peace through strength. When you have strong military, others do not try to pull punches on you. And when you intervene for others, they also listen to you. That is how US has been, always.