3 ms·

> ll due to one orange man being voted by >50% americans to do exactly this. Why I don't get and probably never will... Not agreeing is one thing, but it is a

by roenxi 2y ago

> ll due to one orange man being voted by >50% americans to do exactly this. Why I don't get and probably never will... Not agreeing is one thing, but it is a remarkably easy decision to understand - people go to WWII because every single war since then has been a disaster for US interests and outcomes (I think every single, certainly most). The last time the US had an unambiguous win by fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a fight very late. Since then all the warmongering has made America poorer, they don't achieve anything good and generally make the US worse off. They made a call that they don't trust the military industrial propaganda and they want to see some peace happening for once. Pretty solid decision too; if we can all have normalised relations with the US after Iraq then we can stomach Russia misbehaving in Ukraine. Escalating a land war in Europe is stupid and its been a mistake every other time the Europeans tried it; even in WWII where they claim to be justified. The blood-lust left everyone closely involved broken and it'd have been better if they found a more peaceful route to ending the violence. The fact that they failed to negotiate something doesn't mean it was impossible.

actionfromafar 2y ago
Even in WW2? You would rather have seen Hitler win?
- LAC-Tech 2y ago
  Wouldn't have happened. A series of impressive military victories early in WWII looms large in peoples heads, but there's no getting away from the raw numbers of how outclassed Germany was wrt material and manpower against the USSR. Barbarossa was launched on very limited, low quality intelligence, and even when more accurate numbers came in regarding Soviet division numbers in 1942, the top brass refused to believe it.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Who can tell what would have happened? It sure would not have been easy without US support: "... Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars. Trucks were also vital; by 1945, nearly a third of the trucks used by the Red Army were US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical."
Swenrekcah 2y ago
This is simply not the case. There US has very successfully used it’s military to enjoy the position of absolute top dog in the world, but a major part of why they could do that was that the US has made very strong allies in the whole rest of the western world who have never, until now, seen any reason to try to compete with the US in this regard. A well placed network of foreign aid has also generated influence in other parts of the world. The United States has now irrevocably destroyed this position. There will be enough time for the Trump Family and Elon to make out like the bandits they are, but the US position long term is diminished.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Can any of those things be traced back to a specific positive outcome for anyone outside the US weapons industry? Like, say the US hadn't invaded Afghanistan back in '01 and the trillion dollars in budget had been put towards handing out how dinners for the poor instead - what would the negative part of that trade off have been?
  - KPGv2 2y ago
    > Can any of those things be traced back to a specific positive outcome for anyone outside the US weapons industry Yes, you have a ton of money to buy stuff that is much cheaper for you than for anyone else in the world because of the global reserve currency being in dollars, not to mention smooth trade guaranteed by the existence of the US navy. Every thing you do is positively benefited by America's ability to project its military might across the globe.
mopsi 2y ago
The last time the US had an unambiguous win by fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a fight very late. No, it was in 1999. A short aerial bombing campaign that lasted less than 3 months and cost less than 600 lives ended a decade of wars in former Yugoslavia that had killed 140 000 people and made millions refugees. What an incredibly small price to pay for peace. Ukraine needs the same kind of support, but instead, they got misguided "de-escalation" that only boxed Ukraine in and gave the initiative to Russia. By knowing that the US would force Ukraine to throttle back every time the Russians made a large misstep, Russia was encouraged to keep escalating without the fear of triggering an overwhelming response.
- naasking 2y ago
  If you think a short aerial bombing of Russia would have swiftly ended this war, I have a bridge to sell you.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    At the very least, protecting Ukraine's skies when Russia started targeting its cities with missiles would have been exactly the right move, an appropriate international response to warfare against the civilian population. A huge missed opportunity.
    - naasking 2y ago
      "Protecting the skies" is an act of war. Literally. That would mean declaring war on Russia.
      - mopsi 2y ago
        Shooting down incoming missiles is not considered an act of war under international law. It falls under self defense. Japan has shot down a number of North Korean missiles and nobody has accused them of declaring war on North Korea.
        2y ago
arathis 2y ago
[flagged]
xorcist 2y ago
American hegemony happened by chance, and the dollar just won the reserve currency lottery? Granted, not every war was a net win but that war machine is uniquely expensive and it may be sacrifice the public is willing to pay. But it probably wouldn't hurt to see how contemporary books on history differs from propaganda.

by roenxi 2y ago

actionfromafar 2y ago

Even in WW2? You would rather have seen Hitler win?

LAC-Tech 2y ago
Wouldn't have happened. A series of impressive military victories early in WWII looms large in peoples heads, but there's no getting away from the raw numbers of how outclassed Germany was wrt material and manpower against the USSR. Barbarossa was launched on very limited, low quality intelligence, and even when more accurate numbers came in regarding Soviet division numbers in 1942, the top brass refused to believe it.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Who can tell what would have happened? It sure would not have been easy without US support: "... Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars. Trucks were also vital; by 1945, nearly a third of the trucks used by the Red Army were US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical."

Swenrekcah 2y ago

This is simply not the case. There US has very successfully used it’s military to enjoy the position of absolute top dog in the world, but a major part of why they could do that was that the US has made very strong allies in the whole rest of the western world who have never, until now, seen any reason to try to compete with the US in this regard. A well placed network of foreign aid has also generated influence in other parts of the world. The United States has now irrevocably destroyed this position. There will be enough time for the Trump Family and Elon to make out like the bandits they are, but the US position long term is diminished.

roenxi 2y ago
Can any of those things be traced back to a specific positive outcome for anyone outside the US weapons industry? Like, say the US hadn't invaded Afghanistan back in '01 and the trillion dollars in budget had been put towards handing out how dinners for the poor instead - what would the negative part of that trade off have been?
- KPGv2 2y ago
  > Can any of those things be traced back to a specific positive outcome for anyone outside the US weapons industry Yes, you have a ton of money to buy stuff that is much cheaper for you than for anyone else in the world because of the global reserve currency being in dollars, not to mention smooth trade guaranteed by the existence of the US navy. Every thing you do is positively benefited by America's ability to project its military might across the globe.

mopsi 2y ago

The last time the US had an unambiguous win by fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a fight very late. No, it was in 1999. A short aerial bombing campaign that lasted less than 3 months and cost less than 600 lives ended a decade of wars in former Yugoslavia that had killed 140 000 people and made millions refugees. What an incredibly small price to pay for peace. Ukraine needs the same kind of support, but instead, they got misguided "de-escalation" that only boxed Ukraine in and gave the initiative to Russia. By knowing that the US would force Ukraine to throttle back every time the Russians made a large misstep, Russia was encouraged to keep escalating without the fear of triggering an overwhelming response.

naasking 2y ago
If you think a short aerial bombing of Russia would have swiftly ended this war, I have a bridge to sell you.
- mopsi 2y ago
  At the very least, protecting Ukraine's skies when Russia started targeting its cities with missiles would have been exactly the right move, an appropriate international response to warfare against the civilian population. A huge missed opportunity.
  - naasking 2y ago
    "Protecting the skies" is an act of war. Literally. That would mean declaring war on Russia.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      Shooting down incoming missiles is not considered an act of war under international law. It falls under self defense. Japan has shot down a number of North Korean missiles and nobody has accused them of declaring war on North Korea.
      - 2y ago

arathis 2y ago

[flagged]

xorcist 2y ago

American hegemony happened by chance, and the dollar just won the reserve currency lottery? Granted, not every war was a net win but that war machine is uniquely expensive and it may be sacrifice the public is willing to pay. But it probably wouldn't hurt to see how contemporary books on history differs from propaganda.