5 ms·

It is entirely too clear absolutely no one on this god forsaken website understands the government. Trump doesn't wage war. This is a DoD action, owned by the D

by stuffn 9mo ago

It is entirely too clear absolutely no one on this god forsaken website understands the government. Trump doesn't wage war. This is a DoD action, owned by the DoD, developed by the DoD, for the purpose the DoD cares about. What would the DoD care about? 1. Resources in Venezuela coming under control of Russia and/or China 2. Controlling a completely unstable country to build influence in latin America 3. Styming a port of entry for drugs like Fentanyl that, in reality, are coming from China 4. Preventing China/Russia from dropping mid-range missiles and military installations remotely close to the US The mass media has absolutely lobotomized people.

bigyabai 9mo ago
Why would an America First administration invest in this kind of transient interventionism? What if it turns into 1953 Iran all over again?
- stuffn 9mo ago
  I don't think realistically isolationism implies inaction. Let's suppose that it's the most "honest" cause. That is, attempting to prevent a Cuban Missile Crisis event by putting boots on the ground early. Then this doesn't contradict isolationism. In fact, I'd argue it's probably entirely within the bounds of "America First". However, your point stands. Venezuela stands to benefit from an invasion because the country is unstable and teetering on collapse. It's essentially being sold to the highest bidder. If Russia/China want to put their boots there they will need to defend it and rebuild it. If the US wants to prevent Russia/China from doing that they will need to defend it and rebuild it. The US has far better global power projection and will likely spend considerable resources to ensure it's success as it's also, in some sense, a survival concern for the CONUS itself. I would think it could look a lot 1953 Iran, with the exception that power projection "down the street" (so to speak) is much easier to maintain than across the ocean.
tim333 9mo ago
Trump probably has some influence on the DoD, including stopping it being the DoD. It is now the department of war apparently.

by stuffn 9mo ago

bigyabai 9mo ago

Why would an America First administration invest in this kind of transient interventionism? What if it turns into 1953 Iran all over again?

stuffn 9mo ago
I don't think realistically isolationism implies inaction. Let's suppose that it's the most "honest" cause. That is, attempting to prevent a Cuban Missile Crisis event by putting boots on the ground early. Then this doesn't contradict isolationism. In fact, I'd argue it's probably entirely within the bounds of "America First". However, your point stands. Venezuela stands to benefit from an invasion because the country is unstable and teetering on collapse. It's essentially being sold to the highest bidder. If Russia/China want to put their boots there they will need to defend it and rebuild it. If the US wants to prevent Russia/China from doing that they will need to defend it and rebuild it. The US has far better global power projection and will likely spend considerable resources to ensure it's success as it's also, in some sense, a survival concern for the CONUS itself. I would think it could look a lot 1953 Iran, with the exception that power projection "down the street" (so to speak) is much easier to maintain than across the ocean.

tim333 9mo ago

Trump probably has some influence on the DoD, including stopping it being the DoD. It is now the department of war apparently.