5 ms·

A severely weakened or dismantled US Military would encourage aggression by China against Taiwan, by North Korea against South Korea, (continued) aggression by

A severely weakened or dismantled US Military would encourage aggression by China against Taiwan, by North Korea against South Korea, (continued) aggression by Russia against their former Soviet states, and Iran against Israel and Saudi Arabia, leading the planet into a 3rd World War.

refurb 2y ago
[flagged]
- sympil 2y ago
  No rational, reasonable person is always pro war or always anti-war. You ought to understand that nuance is involved. Lots of liberals were opposed to the Iraq war that started in 2003 and now support fighting against Russian aggression in Ukraine. Your view is simplistic.
- threeseed 2y ago
  There is a difference between being pro-war and anti-invasion. Most people including the left don't want another repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan where the US chose to regime change a country. But are happy with supporting a democratic country to defend itself against unwanted aggression.
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    I agree there are distinctions worth making. The above poster's comment was concise. I'm not sure they intended to conflate the two ideas. It is easy to observe how under Obama, the allegedly anti-war candidate pivoted to supporting invasions. He forgive his predecessor's use of torture. He said incoming administrations shouldn't prosecute the previous. The only gift he didn't grant was the wish to invade Iran. There is a sense that the defense, foreign policy and intelligence establishment will have their way regardless of electoral outcomes. Trump's first term was unique in that he did not start any new wars. Permanent Washington sought to actively sabotage his administration. Many infer a correlation between the two observations. As for the assertion that, "If we don't spend x amount of dollars or intervene, the world will devolve into WWIII", I'm not sold on this doom. We might equally ask, If the US continues to misallocate resources via uncontrolled spending, will we have a functional economy capable of fielding a meaningful military response?
    - YZF 2y ago
      Obama let Syria devolve into a civil war with something like half a million dead and many millions of refugees because he was afraid to use the power of the USA to stabilize it. The consequences of which still impact us today. In general he messed up the Arab Spring completely. https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/29/obama-never-understood-how-history-works/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/29/obama-never-understood-... He's super smart, had great intentions, and messed things up completely.
      - vkou 2y ago
        > the power of the USA to stabilize it. The power of the USA is what destabilized it, by creating a breeding ground for all sorts of fun militias in Iraq.
        palmfacehn 2y ago
        Here's an interesting take. Not my favorite source ideologically, nor are some of the citations. However, citing the WaPo (again, strong dislike) which has been favorable to the Neocons is something. https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-us-supports-the-islamic-state-isis-one-accidental-airdrop-vs-billions-in-covert-military-aid/5409449 https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-us-supports-the-islami... >Ultimately, whether one pallet drifted into ISIS hands by accident in a recent airdrop is a moot point. Billions in cash, weapons, equipment, and vehicles have already been intentionally supplied to the many groups that ISIS represents, as planned as early as 2007. ISIS is the purposeful creation of the United States in its pursuit of regional hegemony in the Middle East, and ISIS’ atrocities were predicted long before the first shots were fired in 2011 in the Syrian conflict, long before the term “Islamic State” went mainstream.
      - skellington 2y ago
        He didn't "let it devolve into a civil war." He authorized the CIA to fund rebel groups which maintained and expanded the civil war. What exactly do you suggest Obama should have done with "the power of the USA to stabilize it?" Invade? How would trying to 'fix' Syria be any different than trying to fix Iraq or Afghanistan?
  - YZF 2y ago
    You're basically saying the US should have let Iraq take Kuwait. Or let China take Taiwan? Any weaker democratic country can be taken by a stronger non-democratic country? "Invasion" is part of war. If you go to war against a country this may often involve invading. Wars are hard to win if you're not there. If there is no threat of going to war you are essentially yielding the world to Russia and China and the likes. This is not to say the US hasn't made a lot of mistakes but I'll take a US world order with mistakes over a Chinese or Russian world order.
    - skellington 2y ago
      There is no conventional war with China the US can win. Therefore, it's a big fucking waste of money to pretend we can with aircraft carriers and tanks. Nuclear weapons are relatively cheap. What the US military is good at is dropping bombs that cost the equivalent of houses onto primitive people living in tents. The US invaded at least 2 countries and killed 2 million plus people in the last 25 years. Where were you then to stop the "invasion?"
- YZF 2y ago
  It's an interconnected world. All conflicts involve you. Pretty much all the current crop of wars are a direct result of the US getting "less involved". Putin's goals in Europe and the middle east. China's goals in Taiwan. All of these are a direct opposite of the "western world order". The thinking that the US can just withdraw from the world and it would become a peaceful free place is obviously failed. It's not restricted to one side in US politics either. I think the US left is still generally anti-war. They hesitated to support Ukraine. They're locked into "why can't we all just get along" thinking. The right doesn't think we can get along but also doesn't want the US involved.
  - vkou 2y ago
    > Pretty much all the current crop of wars are a direct result of the US getting "less involved" Whereas the previous crop of wars was a direct result of the US getting "more involved". Afghanistan, Iraq II, ISIS in Syria, Libyan civil war...
- auntienomen 2y ago
  Wars with our trading partners and military allies involved us, duh.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  How'd that attitude work out when your grandpa believed the same thing in the 1930s?
  - refurb 2y ago
    In the 1930’s? Pretty well? How has it worked out since then? I count a 100% failure rate.
- quickslowdown 2y ago
  No you don't find it interesting. You view your complete lack of understanding of reality as a cudgel you can use to move the goalposts again. The nebulous "left" isn't for war. Anyone with a shred of morality wants to keep bigger nations from invading & occupying their smaller neighbors, especially when they're trade partners.
TaurenHunter 2y ago
A severely senile and incompetent leadership would encourage aggression even more. When did you think the Russian aggression was initiated?
- hackyhacky 2y ago
  Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. Are you saying Obama was senile? Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Are you saying GWB was senile? Fact is, Russian aggression towards its neighbors has never really stopped. I'm not sure it matters to them who is president in the US.
  - TaurenHunter 2y ago
    Don't be disingenuous. I said "senile and incompetent".
    - hackyhacky 2y ago
      > Don't be disingenuous. I am completely sincere. > I said "senile and incompetent". Okay, so answer the question: are all us presidents in the last 20 years, in your opinion, senile and incompetent? If so, what is the point of your comment in saying "When did you think the Russian aggression was initiated?"
- ianhawes 2y ago
  Russian aggression technically started with the Annexation of Crimea in 2014 during President Obama's 2nd term. While I do think Biden was fairly incompetent as a leader, the strategy adopted was probably the best option given the poor circumstances: wait and see if Ukraine could repel the initial invasion, then fund the resistance to draw Russia into a stalemate.

refurb 2y ago

[flagged]

sympil 2y ago
No rational, reasonable person is always pro war or always anti-war. You ought to understand that nuance is involved. Lots of liberals were opposed to the Iraq war that started in 2003 and now support fighting against Russian aggression in Ukraine. Your view is simplistic.
threeseed 2y ago
There is a difference between being pro-war and anti-invasion. Most people including the left don't want another repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan where the US chose to regime change a country. But are happy with supporting a democratic country to defend itself against unwanted aggression.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  I agree there are distinctions worth making. The above poster's comment was concise. I'm not sure they intended to conflate the two ideas. It is easy to observe how under Obama, the allegedly anti-war candidate pivoted to supporting invasions. He forgive his predecessor's use of torture. He said incoming administrations shouldn't prosecute the previous. The only gift he didn't grant was the wish to invade Iran. There is a sense that the defense, foreign policy and intelligence establishment will have their way regardless of electoral outcomes. Trump's first term was unique in that he did not start any new wars. Permanent Washington sought to actively sabotage his administration. Many infer a correlation between the two observations. As for the assertion that, "If we don't spend x amount of dollars or intervene, the world will devolve into WWIII", I'm not sold on this doom. We might equally ask, If the US continues to misallocate resources via uncontrolled spending, will we have a functional economy capable of fielding a meaningful military response?
  - YZF 2y ago
    Obama let Syria devolve into a civil war with something like half a million dead and many millions of refugees because he was afraid to use the power of the USA to stabilize it. The consequences of which still impact us today. In general he messed up the Arab Spring completely. https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/29/obama-never-understood-how-history-works/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/29/obama-never-understood-... He's super smart, had great intentions, and messed things up completely.
    - vkou 2y ago
      > the power of the USA to stabilize it. The power of the USA is what destabilized it, by creating a breeding ground for all sorts of fun militias in Iraq.
      - palmfacehn 2y ago
        Here's an interesting take. Not my favorite source ideologically, nor are some of the citations. However, citing the WaPo (again, strong dislike) which has been favorable to the Neocons is something. https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-us-supports-the-islamic-state-isis-one-accidental-airdrop-vs-billions-in-covert-military-aid/5409449 https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-us-supports-the-islami... >Ultimately, whether one pallet drifted into ISIS hands by accident in a recent airdrop is a moot point. Billions in cash, weapons, equipment, and vehicles have already been intentionally supplied to the many groups that ISIS represents, as planned as early as 2007. ISIS is the purposeful creation of the United States in its pursuit of regional hegemony in the Middle East, and ISIS’ atrocities were predicted long before the first shots were fired in 2011 in the Syrian conflict, long before the term “Islamic State” went mainstream.
    - skellington 2y ago
      He didn't "let it devolve into a civil war." He authorized the CIA to fund rebel groups which maintained and expanded the civil war. What exactly do you suggest Obama should have done with "the power of the USA to stabilize it?" Invade? How would trying to 'fix' Syria be any different than trying to fix Iraq or Afghanistan?
- YZF 2y ago
  You're basically saying the US should have let Iraq take Kuwait. Or let China take Taiwan? Any weaker democratic country can be taken by a stronger non-democratic country? "Invasion" is part of war. If you go to war against a country this may often involve invading. Wars are hard to win if you're not there. If there is no threat of going to war you are essentially yielding the world to Russia and China and the likes. This is not to say the US hasn't made a lot of mistakes but I'll take a US world order with mistakes over a Chinese or Russian world order.
  - skellington 2y ago
    There is no conventional war with China the US can win. Therefore, it's a big fucking waste of money to pretend we can with aircraft carriers and tanks. Nuclear weapons are relatively cheap. What the US military is good at is dropping bombs that cost the equivalent of houses onto primitive people living in tents. The US invaded at least 2 countries and killed 2 million plus people in the last 25 years. Where were you then to stop the "invasion?"
YZF 2y ago
It's an interconnected world. All conflicts involve you. Pretty much all the current crop of wars are a direct result of the US getting "less involved". Putin's goals in Europe and the middle east. China's goals in Taiwan. All of these are a direct opposite of the "western world order". The thinking that the US can just withdraw from the world and it would become a peaceful free place is obviously failed. It's not restricted to one side in US politics either. I think the US left is still generally anti-war. They hesitated to support Ukraine. They're locked into "why can't we all just get along" thinking. The right doesn't think we can get along but also doesn't want the US involved.
- vkou 2y ago
  > Pretty much all the current crop of wars are a direct result of the US getting "less involved" Whereas the previous crop of wars was a direct result of the US getting "more involved". Afghanistan, Iraq II, ISIS in Syria, Libyan civil war...
auntienomen 2y ago
Wars with our trading partners and military allies involved us, duh.
CamperBob2 2y ago
How'd that attitude work out when your grandpa believed the same thing in the 1930s?
- refurb 2y ago
  In the 1930’s? Pretty well? How has it worked out since then? I count a 100% failure rate.
quickslowdown 2y ago
No you don't find it interesting. You view your complete lack of understanding of reality as a cudgel you can use to move the goalposts again. The nebulous "left" isn't for war. Anyone with a shred of morality wants to keep bigger nations from invading & occupying their smaller neighbors, especially when they're trade partners.

TaurenHunter 2y ago

A severely senile and incompetent leadership would encourage aggression even more. When did you think the Russian aggression was initiated?

hackyhacky 2y ago
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. Are you saying Obama was senile? Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Are you saying GWB was senile? Fact is, Russian aggression towards its neighbors has never really stopped. I'm not sure it matters to them who is president in the US.
- TaurenHunter 2y ago
  Don't be disingenuous. I said "senile and incompetent".
  - hackyhacky 2y ago
    > Don't be disingenuous. I am completely sincere. > I said "senile and incompetent". Okay, so answer the question: are all us presidents in the last 20 years, in your opinion, senile and incompetent? If so, what is the point of your comment in saying "When did you think the Russian aggression was initiated?"
ianhawes 2y ago
Russian aggression technically started with the Annexation of Crimea in 2014 during President Obama's 2nd term. While I do think Biden was fairly incompetent as a leader, the strategy adopted was probably the best option given the poor circumstances: wait and see if Ukraine could repel the initial invasion, then fund the resistance to draw Russia into a stalemate.