4 ms·

The fact that "military" is a "divisive" issue proves the point of how we got to this point in the first place.

addicted 6y ago
Where did you get that the military is divisive? People are divided on the amount of funding the military should receive and whether or not it needs to continue growing.
ethanbond 6y ago
People are divided on what the US military‘s role in the world should be and how much money it should take to uphold that role. Sitting atop the longest stretch of global stability (largely enforced/maintained by the US military), it’s very hard to think clearly about what variables we can or should fiddle with.
- bjlorenzen 6y ago
  The globe might feel stable while sitting inside the US and reading domestic media sources, but it sure hasn’t been easy for the dozens of countries we’ve been invading/occupying for the past decades.
  - Covzire 6y ago
    If we're making sweeping generalizations, then countries with stable benevolent governments who don't threaten their neighbors / the US and fund terrorism don't get invaded or occupied either. To be clear, I'm not saying every foreign policy action the US has undertaken in the last few decades has been superb.
    - pinkfoot 6y ago
      If we're making sweeping generalizations, then countries that don't project military power to prop up dodgy regimes and enforce their currency on major commodities don't get targetted by terrorist action. To be clear, I'm not saying every action that resistance organisations and foreign governments have taken in the last few decades has been superb. :) :)
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    I think the reverse. The globe is relatively stable, and there are pockets of instability, some of which are the fault of the US. Of course this is all a challenging exercise (which is my only real point) since we don’t have counterfactuals for any of these scenarios.
- glitchc 6y ago
  > Sitting atop the longest stretch of global stability (largely enforced/maintained by the US military), it’s very hard to think clearly about what variables we can or should fiddle with. Yes, if you only count the 20th century. Apparently the human race is only 100 years old. It’s time you read some history.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    I mean... here’s Europe alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe?wp... I’d be very keen to learn about a particular period, or multiple, of an earth without large scale armed conflict (obviously controlling for difference in scale over time). Could you point me to a few?
mam2 6y ago
That's a though one to argue. 90% of people in a peaceful country take peace for granted, so their opinion on what should the military do is honestly nonsense. Anticipating the downvotes: if you think peace is "easy" and are no aware of how much a strong military power is required to hold it you are delusional.

Where did you get that the military is divisive? People are divided on the amount of funding the military should receive and whether or not it needs to continue growing.

ethanbond 6y ago

People are divided on what the US military‘s role in the world should be and how much money it should take to uphold that role. Sitting atop the longest stretch of global stability (largely enforced/maintained by the US military), it’s very hard to think clearly about what variables we can or should fiddle with.

bjlorenzen 6y ago
The globe might feel stable while sitting inside the US and reading domestic media sources, but it sure hasn’t been easy for the dozens of countries we’ve been invading/occupying for the past decades.
- Covzire 6y ago
  If we're making sweeping generalizations, then countries with stable benevolent governments who don't threaten their neighbors / the US and fund terrorism don't get invaded or occupied either. To be clear, I'm not saying every foreign policy action the US has undertaken in the last few decades has been superb.
  - pinkfoot 6y ago
    If we're making sweeping generalizations, then countries that don't project military power to prop up dodgy regimes and enforce their currency on major commodities don't get targetted by terrorist action. To be clear, I'm not saying every action that resistance organisations and foreign governments have taken in the last few decades has been superb. :) :)
- ethanbond 6y ago
  I think the reverse. The globe is relatively stable, and there are pockets of instability, some of which are the fault of the US. Of course this is all a challenging exercise (which is my only real point) since we don’t have counterfactuals for any of these scenarios.
glitchc 6y ago
> Sitting atop the longest stretch of global stability (largely enforced/maintained by the US military), it’s very hard to think clearly about what variables we can or should fiddle with. Yes, if you only count the 20th century. Apparently the human race is only 100 years old. It’s time you read some history.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  I mean... here’s Europe alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe?wp... I’d be very keen to learn about a particular period, or multiple, of an earth without large scale armed conflict (obviously controlling for difference in scale over time). Could you point me to a few?

mam2 6y ago

That's a though one to argue. 90% of people in a peaceful country take peace for granted, so their opinion on what should the military do is honestly nonsense. Anticipating the downvotes: if you think peace is "easy" and are no aware of how much a strong military power is required to hold it you are delusional.