3 ms·

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

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.
  - cudgy 1y ago
    You have zero clue about my faith. The days of the peaceful anti-war Democratic party are gone, buddy. The sooner that the Democrats realize it and start to reverse course to where they once were, the sooner the Democratic Party can return to being a viable alternative to the Republican Party, particularly as it relates to foreign policy and war decisions.
    - pqtyw 1y ago
      > peaceful anti-war Democratic party are gone, buddy Do tell when this party has ever existed, besides your imagination? Few years during Carter's admin maybe... Can you name any conflict since (and including) the Mexican–American War that the Democrats opposed? (besides the Civil War of course).
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        Go further back. Try Nixon's administration.
        pqtyw 1y ago
        Further back than the 1840s? Nixon was actually the anti-war candidate? That didn't quite workout that well but that's what he ran on... Vietnam mostly started under Kennedy, Johnson massively escalated it and Humphrey still supported continuing it. Then you had somebody like Eisenhower who wanted who both opposed prolonging Korea and was generally reticent about involving US in the Indochina War (not that he didn't misjudge the situation anyway)
      - cudgy 1y ago
        Maybe a small time period during the hippie era near the end of the Vietnam war? My main point is that I get tired of people from both sides of the aisle democrat/republican making comments about how the other side does or doesn’t do stuff that their own party does as well? It results in virtually no decent discussion and everybody pointing at each other, even though they basically want the same things. It is very cultish and unproductive.
- tastyface 1y ago
  What? The Democrats did not start the Ukraine war, nor is the US even an active participant in that war (regardless of Russian propaganda).
  - cudgy 1y ago
    Whose weapons are Ukraine using? Who trained Ukraine how to use these weapons? Where did Ukraine get the majority of the money that it’s using to blow up buildings in Russia and kill Russian soldiers? Where is the intelligence that Ukraine uses to determine its targets come from? Do you seriously think Ukraine has satellites in space monitoring? The answer to every one of those questions is the United States.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >Democrats would be different as it relates to the current wars? Threateninv a civil war isn't a partisan issue. I believe we need to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to think about a time where a president is openly threatening it's own US cities. The Civil War under Lincoln was provoked first under the confederate states. I legitimately can't think of anything more recent than that, no matter the alignment. We can talk about warmongering, but you just don't threaten your own people. At least not until they threaten the government. Because provoking and. attacking the people you lead is just profoundly stupid. There's no rebellion to quell, no land to annex. It's just a man pretending to be a dictator in the stupidest way possible.
  - cudgy 1y ago
    What does this have to do with which party has more of a proclivity to go to war? Why does everything have to devolve back to Trump? By the way, I think Trump‘s stupid comment about training the troops in cities was absolutely stupid and deserves to be called out. However, you would be foolish to think that other leaders prior to him haven’t thought similar thoughts, but just haven’t said it out loud.
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
[flagged]
- pqtyw 1y ago
  So you don't think a person who literally had to promise to stop drinking excessively during his confirmation hearing is capable of sound judgement?
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Why do you think you're qualified to even understand what makes a good Secretary of War? Have you accomplished anything? Do you understand warfighting?
    - pqtyw 1y ago
      So you are saying you think I'm at the very least as "qualified" as Hegseth? Bit of a double-edged compliment but thanks I guess...

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.
- cudgy 1y ago
  You have zero clue about my faith. The days of the peaceful anti-war Democratic party are gone, buddy. The sooner that the Democrats realize it and start to reverse course to where they once were, the sooner the Democratic Party can return to being a viable alternative to the Republican Party, particularly as it relates to foreign policy and war decisions.
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    > peaceful anti-war Democratic party are gone, buddy Do tell when this party has ever existed, besides your imagination? Few years during Carter's admin maybe... Can you name any conflict since (and including) the Mexican–American War that the Democrats opposed? (besides the Civil War of course).
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      Go further back. Try Nixon's administration.
      - pqtyw 1y ago
        Further back than the 1840s? Nixon was actually the anti-war candidate? That didn't quite workout that well but that's what he ran on... Vietnam mostly started under Kennedy, Johnson massively escalated it and Humphrey still supported continuing it. Then you had somebody like Eisenhower who wanted who both opposed prolonging Korea and was generally reticent about involving US in the Indochina War (not that he didn't misjudge the situation anyway)
    - cudgy 1y ago
      Maybe a small time period during the hippie era near the end of the Vietnam war? My main point is that I get tired of people from both sides of the aisle democrat/republican making comments about how the other side does or doesn’t do stuff that their own party does as well? It results in virtually no decent discussion and everybody pointing at each other, even though they basically want the same things. It is very cultish and unproductive.
tastyface 1y ago
What? The Democrats did not start the Ukraine war, nor is the US even an active participant in that war (regardless of Russian propaganda).
- cudgy 1y ago
  Whose weapons are Ukraine using? Who trained Ukraine how to use these weapons? Where did Ukraine get the majority of the money that it’s using to blow up buildings in Russia and kill Russian soldiers? Where is the intelligence that Ukraine uses to determine its targets come from? Do you seriously think Ukraine has satellites in space monitoring? The answer to every one of those questions is the United States.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
>Democrats would be different as it relates to the current wars? Threateninv a civil war isn't a partisan issue. I believe we need to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to think about a time where a president is openly threatening it's own US cities. The Civil War under Lincoln was provoked first under the confederate states. I legitimately can't think of anything more recent than that, no matter the alignment. We can talk about warmongering, but you just don't threaten your own people. At least not until they threaten the government. Because provoking and. attacking the people you lead is just profoundly stupid. There's no rebellion to quell, no land to annex. It's just a man pretending to be a dictator in the stupidest way possible.
- cudgy 1y ago
  What does this have to do with which party has more of a proclivity to go to war? Why does everything have to devolve back to Trump? By the way, I think Trump‘s stupid comment about training the troops in cities was absolutely stupid and deserves to be called out. However, you would be foolish to think that other leaders prior to him haven’t thought similar thoughts, but just haven’t said it out loud.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

[flagged]

pqtyw 1y ago
So you don't think a person who literally had to promise to stop drinking excessively during his confirmation hearing is capable of sound judgement?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Why do you think you're qualified to even understand what makes a good Secretary of War? Have you accomplished anything? Do you understand warfighting?
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    So you are saying you think I'm at the very least as "qualified" as Hegseth? Bit of a double-edged compliment but thanks I guess...