4 ms·
Except that this description of war seems to paint every US military intervention post WWII extremely well. There's also no point in positing counter-factual s
by it_does_follow 5y ago
Except that this description of war seems to paint every US military intervention post WWII extremely well.
There's also no point in positing counter-factual scenarios regarding WWII. If you want to imagine a world where the US rushed in and "saved" Europe early and prevents Pearl Harbor, you also have to imagine a world where US domestic support for Germany ultimately wins out and we end up supporting them.
- jopsen 5y agoTrue, that said I think it's viable to argue that just defending America at coastline in WWII would likely have led to an undesirable outcome. But yes, colonial conflict before after WWII is probably more of a racket. That said, the cold war didn't stayed cold -- which was nice. Credit NATO (maybe), to be fair NATO is probably also a racket for the military industrial complex (by making countries buy more F35s for example).
- CyanBird 5y agoI mean, there is certainly a reason why US has been upset for so long that EU countries haven't been spending enough money on military equipment, these Raytheon ceo and stock bonuses are not gonna appear out of thin air!
- baud147258 5y ago> Except that this description of war seems to paint every US military intervention post WWII extremely well. Maybe except the intervention in Korea
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoThere was also the pesky business with Milosevic exterminating people while the EU just sat on their thumbs.