4 ms·

The conclusion here is that American military might is definitely, definitely, definitely not on the wane, or engaged in asymmetric warfare the narrative class

The conclusion here is that American military might is definitely, definitely, definitely not on the wane, or engaged in asymmetric warfare the narrative class tricked us into believing to be backwards religious zealots with no hope of ever playing on the global stage, and that this new multipolar world is fake Russian news.

aprilthird2021 3y ago
It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. And given that our might is high and our strategy has been a bit poor, it's not insane for people to want to spend less money and time on the former and more on the latter...
- CRConrad 3y ago
  > It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. Frankly, it's really not that hard at all. The GP is (pretty clearly, IMO) trying to say that all those things they are on the surface on it saying are in fact not necessarily true. They do that by formulating them in an exaggerated, IMO rather clearly sarcastic, manner, to say, in effect, that "The conclusion here" is the conclusion that the reader is at least intended to come to. > I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. AFAICS, the GP does. > The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... AFAICT, the GP thinks it still is. > But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. The GP is probably thanking you right now, for spelling out his point for the sarcasm-impaired.
  - aprilthird2021 3y ago
    I genuinely didn't realize GP is being sarcastic. Thanks for helping me understand

aprilthird2021 3y ago

It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. And given that our might is high and our strategy has been a bit poor, it's not insane for people to want to spend less money and time on the former and more on the latter...

CRConrad 3y ago
> It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. Frankly, it's really not that hard at all. The GP is (pretty clearly, IMO) trying to say that all those things they are on the surface on it saying are in fact not necessarily true. They do that by formulating them in an exaggerated, IMO rather clearly sarcastic, manner, to say, in effect, that "The conclusion here" is the conclusion that the reader is at least intended to come to. > I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. AFAICS, the GP does. > The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... AFAICT, the GP thinks it still is. > But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. The GP is probably thanking you right now, for spelling out his point for the sarcasm-impaired.
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
  I genuinely didn't realize GP is being sarcastic. Thanks for helping me understand