5 ms·

> Hegseth is telling top brass to prepare for war... Hegseth said, "To ensure peace, we must prepare for war. From this moment forward, the only mission of the

> Hegseth is telling top brass to prepare for war... Hegseth said, "To ensure peace, we must prepare for war. From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is war fighting. Preparing for war and preparing to win." Clausewitz said the same thing, and the Romans were saying "Si vis pacem, para bellum" about 2500 years ago. Is what Hegseth saying so different to JFK saying, "'Pursue peace,' the Bible tells us, and we shall pursue it with every effort and every energy that we possess. But it is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war."? Or so very different to Gerald Ford saying, "America's first goal is and always will be peace with honor. America must remain first in keeping peace in the world. We can remain first in peace only if we are never second in defense."? Whatever the criticisms of the current US administration, someone expressing the idea that securing peace means preparing for war doesn't seem all that remarkable.

ThrownOffGame 1y ago
[flagged]
- dannersy 1y ago
  You have clearly never been to the cities that the right is claiming to be rioting and looting, because if you had, you'd know that your claim is objectively false.
  - ThrownOffGame 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - piva00 1y ago
      Gosh, your kind of people really needs a hobby where you can de-stress and take your aggressiveness out. Try jiu-jitsu or some other martial arts, might help to vent a little that weird energy.
      - ThrownOffGame 1y ago
        [flagged]
        piva00 1y ago
        Because, supposedly, you are better than that, no? Or perhaps not, from the discourse being spewed the past year even here on HN I feel like the USA is definitely on a long, winding, dark path, you guys are firmly sitting on two opposing camps, escalating the aggressive and violent rhetoric at every turn, and there's no off-ramp. It's unfortunate, and scary, to watch but there doesn't seem to be a way out, you will keep brewing this hatred until it explodes... I will need a lot of popcorn for that moment.
        johnnyanmac 1y ago
        To emphasize, one side that has all governmental control is escalating aggressive and violent rhetoric. I can find a dozen quotes a week of GOP threats, I'm not sure I can find more than 1 or 2 a year from Dems. The actual violent actions also suggest the same. This isn't really a "both sides" thing. One sides dragging the other down into the darkness.
- jbm 1y ago
  If this is a real person, please touch grass.
dannersy 1y ago
The difference is Hegseth is an uncouth, unqualified stooge who renamed the Department of Defence to the Department of War. And if you're going to sit here and try to justify war when they are adversarial to our allies and claiming we have "enemies within" in reference to a nonexistent radical left, then it is very different. The war in this context matters, or have we lost nuance? I don't agree with JFK's continuation of war in Vietnam, so fuck him, too. It also seems like you're twisting yourself a bit to equate Gerald Ford's sentiment, but hey, that's just my opinion, man.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- cudgy 1y ago
  So, the Democrats would be different as it relates to the current wars? Democratic Party cheered on the Ukraine war. Democratic Party voted for Iraq along with Republicans after 911. I think a single Democrat (who later voted for the Ukraine war ironically) voted against it. Both parties are devout backers of the current Middle East scheme. When it comes to war, the parties are practically indistinguishable.
  - dannersy 1y ago
    If you're still thinking both sides are the same, then maybe the conversation isn't worth it. I think status quo Democrats are a real problem that, unfortunately, helped get us here. That said, I'm not going to have the both sides conversation for the millionth time because I cannot help but think you are arguing in bad faith. I'll say it again. Context matters. They are adversarial to our allies and the "enemy within" is in reference to a nonexistent radical left. Edit: also, "voted for the Ukraine war"? Excuse me? Do you think Russia should go unchecked? After WW2, Europe more or less, conceded to the American hegemony and military power in exchange for trade overreach. For better or for worse, Europe's success is important to American success and vice versa. Russia knows this and considers Ukraine a check on western power.
    - 1y ago
pqtyw 1y ago
> Clausewitz You do know what eventually happened to Prussia? It was erased from existence... Long-term it didn't work out that well for the Romans either.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  >Long-term it didn't work out that well for the Romans either deeply unserious thing to say about history.
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    They spent a significant proportion of the 600 years between ~100BC and 500 AD fighting pointless and often very brutal civil wars. ~3/4ths or all Roman emperors died by various violent means. The Romans spent unsustainable amounts of money (resulting in veryhigh levels of taxation) to fund a massive army often the main purpose of which was fighting other Romans. Until it was too late... by the end not that many actual Romans were even willing to fight and die to save the empire. Sure it's spectacular that they not only managed to survive but often even thrive despite that, still. Not sure if its the best example to follow.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      600 years is long term. Add in the Republic and Monarchy years and the Romans were extremely long lived.
      - pqtyw 1y ago
        You really love cherry picking don't you?

ThrownOffGame 1y ago

[flagged]

dannersy 1y ago
You have clearly never been to the cities that the right is claiming to be rioting and looting, because if you had, you'd know that your claim is objectively false.
- ThrownOffGame 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - piva00 1y ago
    Gosh, your kind of people really needs a hobby where you can de-stress and take your aggressiveness out. Try jiu-jitsu or some other martial arts, might help to vent a little that weird energy.
    - ThrownOffGame 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - piva00 1y ago
        Because, supposedly, you are better than that, no? Or perhaps not, from the discourse being spewed the past year even here on HN I feel like the USA is definitely on a long, winding, dark path, you guys are firmly sitting on two opposing camps, escalating the aggressive and violent rhetoric at every turn, and there's no off-ramp. It's unfortunate, and scary, to watch but there doesn't seem to be a way out, you will keep brewing this hatred until it explodes... I will need a lot of popcorn for that moment.
        johnnyanmac 1y ago
        To emphasize, one side that has all governmental control is escalating aggressive and violent rhetoric. I can find a dozen quotes a week of GOP threats, I'm not sure I can find more than 1 or 2 a year from Dems. The actual violent actions also suggest the same. This isn't really a "both sides" thing. One sides dragging the other down into the darkness.
jbm 1y ago
If this is a real person, please touch grass.

dannersy 1y ago

The difference is Hegseth is an uncouth, unqualified stooge who renamed the Department of Defence to the Department of War. And if you're going to sit here and try to justify war when they are adversarial to our allies and claiming we have "enemies within" in reference to a nonexistent radical left, then it is very different. The war in this context matters, or have we lost nuance? I don't agree with JFK's continuation of war in Vietnam, so fuck him, too. It also seems like you're twisting yourself a bit to equate Gerald Ford's sentiment, but hey, that's just my opinion, man.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
cudgy 1y ago
So, the Democrats would be different as it relates to the current wars? Democratic Party cheered on the Ukraine war. Democratic Party voted for Iraq along with Republicans after 911. I think a single Democrat (who later voted for the Ukraine war ironically) voted against it. Both parties are devout backers of the current Middle East scheme. When it comes to war, the parties are practically indistinguishable.
- dannersy 1y ago
  If you're still thinking both sides are the same, then maybe the conversation isn't worth it. I think status quo Democrats are a real problem that, unfortunately, helped get us here. That said, I'm not going to have the both sides conversation for the millionth time because I cannot help but think you are arguing in bad faith. I'll say it again. Context matters. They are adversarial to our allies and the "enemy within" is in reference to a nonexistent radical left. Edit: also, "voted for the Ukraine war"? Excuse me? Do you think Russia should go unchecked? After WW2, Europe more or less, conceded to the American hegemony and military power in exchange for trade overreach. For better or for worse, Europe's success is important to American success and vice versa. Russia knows this and considers Ukraine a check on western power.
  - 1y ago

pqtyw 1y ago

> Clausewitz You do know what eventually happened to Prussia? It was erased from existence... Long-term it didn't work out that well for the Romans either.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
>Long-term it didn't work out that well for the Romans either deeply unserious thing to say about history.
- pqtyw 1y ago
  They spent a significant proportion of the 600 years between ~100BC and 500 AD fighting pointless and often very brutal civil wars. ~3/4ths or all Roman emperors died by various violent means. The Romans spent unsustainable amounts of money (resulting in veryhigh levels of taxation) to fund a massive army often the main purpose of which was fighting other Romans. Until it was too late... by the end not that many actual Romans were even willing to fight and die to save the empire. Sure it's spectacular that they not only managed to survive but often even thrive despite that, still. Not sure if its the best example to follow.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    600 years is long term. Add in the Republic and Monarchy years and the Romans were extremely long lived.
    - pqtyw 1y ago
      You really love cherry picking don't you?