4 ms·

That's ridiculous. No dictator has walked all over the US in the last 4 years or ever. Anytime we failed diplomatically it occurred with the knowledge that our

That's ridiculous. No dictator has walked all over the US in the last 4 years or ever. Anytime we failed diplomatically it occurred with the knowledge that our military dominance was insurmountable and complete, but that it's use indiscriminately would not serve our overall diplomatic strategic policy of caring about human rights, and self-imposed limits on how we use our military. Any of our failures in war against dictators etc directly stems from self-imposed limits on how we use our military power. We could literally glass them but we don't. Thank goodness.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Military dominance is only insurmountable and complete when it's a credible threat, and ours hasn't actually won a war of note in over half a century. The best we've ever done in that timeframe has been to supplement military leadership that was already in place, and we've failed to even accomplish that half the time. The US military is a money pit.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  Our military is absolutely a credible threat. We did not win those wars because we restrained ourselves. Iraq could have easily been turned into a wasteland of death and destruction, for example. We could have done like the Romans, implemented complete tyranny, and lined their streets with staked bodies as a reminder to not rebel. Harbor terrorists among civilians? Leveling the whole city would send a message that harboring our enemies is a death wish. But we are not willing to conduct such indiscriminate brutality. We tried to fight ethical anti-insurgent wars with our hands tied behind our back in order to preserve life and cling to our values. But pushed too far, that restraint could drop. So it IS a credible threat.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    That's all really cute but it doesn't address the issue. People who are living in their homelands are more willing to fight and more entrenched than foreign invaders, especially when they've been at war long enough that you can't simply target a couple of places to bring them to their knees. The US military is not a credible threat. They're simply another invader who will get tired of the conflict and go away. We're not going to war with Russia or China. We didn't do it when Russia annexed Crimea, or when they targeted US troops in Syria, and we aren't going to do it when China puts its boot on the neck of Taiwan. It's a stupid political game to pretend otherwise. Like I said, the military is a money pit.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > The US military is a money pit. Yes, but it's a very visible money pit. Its purpose is to discourage any other country from throwing their own money into a similar pit by competing.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    We could have spent a quarter of the money we did and had the same outcome. There's absolutely no reason for the US to subsidize peace for the rest of the planet to the degree that it does. Every other liberal democracy on Earth gets to enjoy affordable housing, subsidized healthcare, affordable or free college educations, pensions, and a nice fat bank of vacation hours every year. We get a bunch of morons in blue who barely got out of high school using military grade gear on our own citizens because the armed forces has too much of it.
    - mcphage 5y ago
      I agree.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Military dominance is only insurmountable and complete when it's a credible threat, and ours hasn't actually won a war of note in over half a century. The best we've ever done in that timeframe has been to supplement military leadership that was already in place, and we've failed to even accomplish that half the time. The US military is a money pit.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
Our military is absolutely a credible threat. We did not win those wars because we restrained ourselves. Iraq could have easily been turned into a wasteland of death and destruction, for example. We could have done like the Romans, implemented complete tyranny, and lined their streets with staked bodies as a reminder to not rebel. Harbor terrorists among civilians? Leveling the whole city would send a message that harboring our enemies is a death wish. But we are not willing to conduct such indiscriminate brutality. We tried to fight ethical anti-insurgent wars with our hands tied behind our back in order to preserve life and cling to our values. But pushed too far, that restraint could drop. So it IS a credible threat.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  That's all really cute but it doesn't address the issue. People who are living in their homelands are more willing to fight and more entrenched than foreign invaders, especially when they've been at war long enough that you can't simply target a couple of places to bring them to their knees. The US military is not a credible threat. They're simply another invader who will get tired of the conflict and go away. We're not going to war with Russia or China. We didn't do it when Russia annexed Crimea, or when they targeted US troops in Syria, and we aren't going to do it when China puts its boot on the neck of Taiwan. It's a stupid political game to pretend otherwise. Like I said, the military is a money pit.
mcphage 5y ago
> The US military is a money pit. Yes, but it's a very visible money pit. Its purpose is to discourage any other country from throwing their own money into a similar pit by competing.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  We could have spent a quarter of the money we did and had the same outcome. There's absolutely no reason for the US to subsidize peace for the rest of the planet to the degree that it does. Every other liberal democracy on Earth gets to enjoy affordable housing, subsidized healthcare, affordable or free college educations, pensions, and a nice fat bank of vacation hours every year. We get a bunch of morons in blue who barely got out of high school using military grade gear on our own citizens because the armed forces has too much of it.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    I agree.