5 ms·

We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars. Other democracatic countr

by nojvek 3y ago

We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars. Other democracatic countries that want to buy US weapons can do so, but we shouldn’t be spending billions of our own money supporting them if we are continually raising debt ceiling. With high inflation, low wage growth, increasingly expensive housing, healthcare, education, we gain little from other wars.

verdverm 3y ago
The whataboutism in this line of thinking is not helpful. Have you considered what happens if the US doesn't engage? This was the same stance before WW2, which the US eventually entered late, and cost more in the long run. If America is to be great again, what would the previously great America have done in this situation? Condoleezza Rice on Russia, China, and Great Power Conflict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA (2 parts) > We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars. When was the last time a US president did not have a war going on during their time in office?
- xtian 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - verdverm 3y ago
    wow, some serious whataboutism there, go back and read the HN rules ...and inaccuracy, the secretary of state does not oversee wars Condi is president of the Hoover Institute, she's a good person with good ideas. Maybe try listening before going off on baseless whataboutism
    - xtian 3y ago
      [flagged]
zolbrek 3y ago
As someone who lives in Europe I would prefer to remain a subject of the Great American Empire than get swallowed up by the Russians or the Chinese, and I doubt Europe alone will ever have the military might necessary to defend its sovereignty against a possible Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis. Even if the US decides to give up its role as the world's judge, jury, and executioner, how long would a absolute insular existence last, and what would life for Americans under those conditions be like?
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  > and I doubt Europe alone will ever have the military might necessary to defend its sovereignty against a possible Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis. That's mostly a political/budget choice. US: what, a bit over 300M people? EU: some ~550M? Both advanced economies. US military might is a result of budget, raw manufacturing capability, and a glut of defense-related industry. Which (obviously) also sells their warez abroad. No fundamental reason the EU couldn't obtain similar capabilities. But EU countries simply chose to outsource much defense design & manufacturing, apply a smaller budget, and rely on the US in several ways. I'm sure some of this was regretted since Russia-Ukraine war started. Not sure if (given time) that's enough to bring EU up to military self-sufficiency.
  - zolbrek 3y ago
    I agree, and I don't think the EU will be able to militarize to the degree required in the coming years. The language differences and the individual militaries of the various EU countries make coherency on the field more complicated than it is for the US, and only a fraction of European soldiers participate in NATO exercises.
- polski-g 3y ago
  Both France and the UK have nuclear weapons. You'll be fine.
  - zolbrek 3y ago
    I'm assuming a purely conventional conflict since there's no telling how bad the shitshow will get if nukes start being exchanged.
maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> With high inflation, low wage growth, increasingly expensive housing, healthcare, education, we gain little from other wars. This is a very naive take on the US economy (and borderline Russian propaganda). The western (and US economy in particular) relies on certain global security guarantees which for the time being are being held together by Team World Police™ to make sure shipping lanes are safe and open, underwater cables aren't being cut, rogue/terrorist states don't have too much of a say in the global economy, etc.. Like it or not, it's the world we live in. The USA cannot be isolationist and cannot abandon other democracies just like that, because it's 'someone else’s war'. It's just what happens when you're the de facto global power and your (and other) economy is based on this assumption. You know who were paying for 'someone else’s wars' propaganda in the US during WW2? Take a guess.

by nojvek 3y ago

verdverm 3y ago

The whataboutism in this line of thinking is not helpful. Have you considered what happens if the US doesn't engage? This was the same stance before WW2, which the US eventually entered late, and cost more in the long run. If America is to be great again, what would the previously great America have done in this situation? Condoleezza Rice on Russia, China, and Great Power Conflict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF7uuxRliBU | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhMX2AB8mjA (2 parts) > We could do with a president that actually cares about making life better for US citizens than being involved in someone else’s wars. When was the last time a US president did not have a war going on during their time in office?

xtian 3y ago
[flagged]
- verdverm 3y ago
  wow, some serious whataboutism there, go back and read the HN rules ...and inaccuracy, the secretary of state does not oversee wars Condi is president of the Hoover Institute, she's a good person with good ideas. Maybe try listening before going off on baseless whataboutism
  - xtian 3y ago
    [flagged]

zolbrek 3y ago

As someone who lives in Europe I would prefer to remain a subject of the Great American Empire than get swallowed up by the Russians or the Chinese, and I doubt Europe alone will ever have the military might necessary to defend its sovereignty against a possible Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis. Even if the US decides to give up its role as the world's judge, jury, and executioner, how long would a absolute insular existence last, and what would life for Americans under those conditions be like?

RetroTechie 3y ago
> and I doubt Europe alone will ever have the military might necessary to defend its sovereignty against a possible Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis. That's mostly a political/budget choice. US: what, a bit over 300M people? EU: some ~550M? Both advanced economies. US military might is a result of budget, raw manufacturing capability, and a glut of defense-related industry. Which (obviously) also sells their warez abroad. No fundamental reason the EU couldn't obtain similar capabilities. But EU countries simply chose to outsource much defense design & manufacturing, apply a smaller budget, and rely on the US in several ways. I'm sure some of this was regretted since Russia-Ukraine war started. Not sure if (given time) that's enough to bring EU up to military self-sufficiency.
- zolbrek 3y ago
  I agree, and I don't think the EU will be able to militarize to the degree required in the coming years. The language differences and the individual militaries of the various EU countries make coherency on the field more complicated than it is for the US, and only a fraction of European soldiers participate in NATO exercises.
polski-g 3y ago
Both France and the UK have nuclear weapons. You'll be fine.
- zolbrek 3y ago
  I'm assuming a purely conventional conflict since there's no telling how bad the shitshow will get if nukes start being exchanged.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago

> With high inflation, low wage growth, increasingly expensive housing, healthcare, education, we gain little from other wars. This is a very naive take on the US economy (and borderline Russian propaganda). The western (and US economy in particular) relies on certain global security guarantees which for the time being are being held together by Team World Police™ to make sure shipping lanes are safe and open, underwater cables aren't being cut, rogue/terrorist states don't have too much of a say in the global economy, etc.. Like it or not, it's the world we live in. The USA cannot be isolationist and cannot abandon other democracies just like that, because it's 'someone else’s war'. It's just what happens when you're the de facto global power and your (and other) economy is based on this assumption. You know who were paying for 'someone else’s wars' propaganda in the US during WW2? Take a guess.