4 ms·

I mean I consider not being ruled by Nazis or Communists as at least somewhat valuable.

by vanattab 4y ago

mmmpop 4y ago
Ironically, isn't that just MAGA vs Antifa? Nationalists vs commies, they both suck tremendously.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  Nationalism isn’t the same as Nazism.
  - RajT88 4y ago
    And Socialism is not Communism.
    - mmmpop 4y ago
      > And Socialism is not Communism. A lot of that crew would call themselves Marxists, no doubt. Maybe not "commies" if you mean they're not shipping people off to gulags, ok. > Nationalism isn’t the same as Nazism. I agree, but I think you could ask you average college Democrat and they'd equate the two.
      - RajT88 4y ago
        Shipping people off to the gulags is not a feature of Marxism. My point here is that these terms get attached to political movements and then people mistake how the movement is practiced with the original thing. Lenin was influenced by Marx. He considered himself a Marxist for certain. What he practiced was Totalitarianism. The Nazi party's formal name was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party". You could argue they were influenced by Socialism, but you are being disingenuous if you make the leap to Socialism means exterminating the Jews. Now, there are people that say that! They are wingnuts. > I agree, but I think you could ask you average college Democrat and they'd equate the two. I doubt that very much.
pydry 4y ago
You didnt need much military spending for that. Being the world's preeminent neoliberal empire, on the other hand....
UnpossibleJim 4y ago
You know we didn't really want to enter into WWII until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? and there wasn't huge support for it, either. Until we went to war with Japan, the Nazi's hadn't actually declared war on the U.S. We had stayed isolationists post WWI and decided to let Europe and Asia "just kind of deal with it, themselves". We weren't the world's police pre-1941 and had to be pulled into WWII kicking and screaming, not by some moral obligation. https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941#:~:text=The%20Japanese%20attack%20on%20the,II%20against%20the%20Axis%20powers https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us....
- landemva 4y ago
  USA put embargo on Japan to restrict fuel imports. A response by Japan was expected after Japan economy was strangled. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-%E2%80%9Cnoose-around-japans-neck%E2%80%9D https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-%E2%80%9Cnoo... USA doing embargo now, though on an energy rich country. Germany still eager to take that energy, though.
snarfy 4y ago
I'm not saying we shouldn't have military spending, but we don't get much for what we pay for, similar to healthcare.
- zamalek 4y ago
  A single Javelin missile costs $170M. It's impossible to disagree with you. However, given that Russia is using chips from laundry machines and microwaves (the type of information that makes me seriously question their hypermissile claims), I do think that we are getting great results if you ignore bang for buck.
  - crispyambulance 4y ago
    I think you're getting it mixed up with something else. The javelin is a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon. According to wikipedia it has a unit cost >$200K (just for the missile). Not sure sure what the launcher pricing is, nor the amortized development cost. Yes, it's still high, but it is enough to shift balance of power in Ukraine (for example).
  - kristjansson 4y ago
    You're actually bang-on, if you intended 'M' to denote thousands[0]. Otherwise the Peacekeeper[1] is the closest I could find to a per-unit cost of $170mm, and that offers ... quite a bit more bang. [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/how-this-us-made-176000-anti-tank-weapon-could-change-the-war-in-ukraine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/how-this-us-made-176000-anti... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper
    - zamalek 4y ago
      I did intend a 'K', thanks for the correction :)

I mean I consider not being ruled by Nazis or Communists as at least somewhat valuable.

mmmpop 4y ago

Ironically, isn't that just MAGA vs Antifa? Nationalists vs commies, they both suck tremendously.

epicureanideal 4y ago
Nationalism isn’t the same as Nazism.
- RajT88 4y ago
  And Socialism is not Communism.
  - mmmpop 4y ago
    > And Socialism is not Communism. A lot of that crew would call themselves Marxists, no doubt. Maybe not "commies" if you mean they're not shipping people off to gulags, ok. > Nationalism isn’t the same as Nazism. I agree, but I think you could ask you average college Democrat and they'd equate the two.
    - RajT88 4y ago
      Shipping people off to the gulags is not a feature of Marxism. My point here is that these terms get attached to political movements and then people mistake how the movement is practiced with the original thing. Lenin was influenced by Marx. He considered himself a Marxist for certain. What he practiced was Totalitarianism. The Nazi party's formal name was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party". You could argue they were influenced by Socialism, but you are being disingenuous if you make the leap to Socialism means exterminating the Jews. Now, there are people that say that! They are wingnuts. > I agree, but I think you could ask you average college Democrat and they'd equate the two. I doubt that very much.

pydry 4y ago

You didnt need much military spending for that. Being the world's preeminent neoliberal empire, on the other hand....

UnpossibleJim 4y ago

You know we didn't really want to enter into WWII until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? and there wasn't huge support for it, either. Until we went to war with Japan, the Nazi's hadn't actually declared war on the U.S. We had stayed isolationists post WWI and decided to let Europe and Asia "just kind of deal with it, themselves". We weren't the world's police pre-1941 and had to be pulled into WWII kicking and screaming, not by some moral obligation. https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941#:~:text=The%20Japanese%20attack%20on%20the,II%20against%20the%20Axis%20powers https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us....

landemva 4y ago
USA put embargo on Japan to restrict fuel imports. A response by Japan was expected after Japan economy was strangled. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-%E2%80%9Cnoose-around-japans-neck%E2%80%9D https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-%E2%80%9Cnoo... USA doing embargo now, though on an energy rich country. Germany still eager to take that energy, though.

snarfy 4y ago

I'm not saying we shouldn't have military spending, but we don't get much for what we pay for, similar to healthcare.

zamalek 4y ago
A single Javelin missile costs $170M. It's impossible to disagree with you. However, given that Russia is using chips from laundry machines and microwaves (the type of information that makes me seriously question their hypermissile claims), I do think that we are getting great results if you ignore bang for buck.
- crispyambulance 4y ago
  I think you're getting it mixed up with something else. The javelin is a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon. According to wikipedia it has a unit cost >$200K (just for the missile). Not sure sure what the launcher pricing is, nor the amortized development cost. Yes, it's still high, but it is enough to shift balance of power in Ukraine (for example).
- kristjansson 4y ago
  You're actually bang-on, if you intended 'M' to denote thousands[0]. Otherwise the Peacekeeper[1] is the closest I could find to a per-unit cost of $170mm, and that offers ... quite a bit more bang. [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/how-this-us-made-176000-anti-tank-weapon-could-change-the-war-in-ukraine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/29/how-this-us-made-176000-anti... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper
  - zamalek 4y ago
    I did intend a 'K', thanks for the correction :)