4 ms·

A big part of undermining opposition is to encourage your opposition to operate in ways that are ineffective. Regardless of who won the 2024 we would have gotte

A big part of undermining opposition is to encourage your opposition to operate in ways that are ineffective. Regardless of who won the 2024 we would have gotten the war with Iran, the US has a long history of electing peace candidates and getting war. We live in a managed democracy, part of that management is ensuring the opposition are grifters, Trump was not viable for 2024 until democrats came after him legally, I am confident the decision makers there knew that going after him would make him more popular. They would rather have run against Trump a third time than against a likely more effective candidate like Ron DeSantos. There are things people can do, I left the US for a small country where politics are so boring I don’t even know who the president is and don’t care to.

ericmay 6mo ago
> Regardless of who won the 2024 we would have gotten the war with Iran That’s because of the geopolitical and geostrategic necessity. Can’t have another North Korea and definitely can’t have one sitting on top of 20% of the world’s oil supply. Though I don’t disagree with your broader point regarding so-called “peace presidents”. I find your perspective about managed democracy to be a bit disheartening, but if you do believe that it’s a good argument against structures such as the EU, who is probably the best example of what you’re talking about. > There are things people can do, I left the US for a small country where politics are so boring I don’t even know who the president is and don’t care to. Most countries someone would want to live in aren’t open to immigration unless you’re pretty well off or specialized. I’m glad it worked out for you. We are stuck in the US (and Ohio though day to day is just fine) because friends and family but it would be a breath of fresh air to not have to care. Also most countries aren’t relevant on the global stage and so there isn’t really much for them to decide, they’re for the most part passive recipients of whatever America decides and to some growing extent China or perhaps the EU. Russia as an example and starting wars sort of an outlier.
- cjbgkagh 6mo ago
  > That’s because of the geopolitical and geostrategic necessity. Says who, clearly the US is trying to have that say but failing at it. > Can’t have another North Korea and definitely can’t have one sitting on top of 20% of the world’s oil supply. Turns out you can. I have known our missile defense strategy wouldn’t last into the cheap missile / drone age for over 22 years. Before high tech I was military adjacent. The real reason the US can’t afford to lose in Iran is what that would say about Taiwan and would mean for its position as world hegemony. My main fear was that the US would start a conflict with China believing it could win and having it lose. Ironically Trumps bungling may have saved us from an even worse fate.
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    > Says who, clearly the US is trying to have that say but failing at it. In what way has the US failed? People keep saying the US failed but I’m still confused as to what failure has occurred. > Turns out you can. Well the rest of the world could let it happen, and let other countries control maritime shipping lanes and exact tolls, but I think your statement is actually objectively false given the US bombed Iran and stopped whatever nuclear program they have, even if that turns out to be sort of temporary. > I have known our missile defense strategy wouldn’t last into the cheap missile / drone age for over 22 years. Before high tech The Pentagon knows this too, but you fight a war with the weapons you have while you work on new ones. > I was military adjacent. The real reason the US can’t afford to lose in Iran is what that would say about Taiwan and would mean for its position as world hegemony. My main fear was that the US would start a conflict with China believing it could win and having it lose. I was in the army on active duty including deploying to Iraq. The US isn’t/wasn’t going to start a war with China. Doesn’t make any sense. So no worries there. I think you’ve actually got it backwards. The worry was that China would start a war to seize Taiwan and, frankly, Putin saved us all by failing so hard at Ukraine. The US easily bypassing or destroying any Chinese and Russian air defense assets in countries like Venezuela or Iran has given the Chinese pause too. China has immense manufacturing capability. Probably #1 in the world. But their weakness is they have not fought a serious war or even a minor war in quite some time. The kinks you’re talking about, lessons learned, &c. Are things that the US has learned or is learning more about via conflicts in Ukraine and Iran and elsewhere. China has trained and tested but has not demonstrated any operational effectiveness when it comes to combined arms, and their equipment on paper is impressive but has yet to see meaningful action. Of course the Chinese know this too, but “how will the PLA perform” is a serious concern for the Commies.
    - cjbgkagh 6mo ago
      Ahhh US army, that explains it. You know of the two main factions in US foreign policy, the primacists and the restrainers both seek conflict with China. The only difference being that the primacists wanted to win a war in Iran first to set up Israel as regional hegemony. We have a different read on objective reality, using the simple proxy of 'success has many fathers and failure is an orphan', not many people are taking credit for the war with Iran - so I take that as a sign of failure. The Pentagon is many years late on drone warfare and the whole incentive structure is set up for gold plated drones with the fat margins needed to buy lobbyists. Also I see much of the US Army as a make work program / pseudo welfare system still carrying on the great traditions of McNamara's morons. As the US declines it is in China's interest to wait and it is in the US interest to initiate the conflict while it can still potentially win. Taiwan is simply a way of getting the US to act in the ways China wants them to, there is no need for them to actually invade Taiwan to make that happen, but they do have to convincingly pretend like they will by constantly harassing them.

ericmay 6mo ago

> Regardless of who won the 2024 we would have gotten the war with Iran That’s because of the geopolitical and geostrategic necessity. Can’t have another North Korea and definitely can’t have one sitting on top of 20% of the world’s oil supply. Though I don’t disagree with your broader point regarding so-called “peace presidents”. I find your perspective about managed democracy to be a bit disheartening, but if you do believe that it’s a good argument against structures such as the EU, who is probably the best example of what you’re talking about. > There are things people can do, I left the US for a small country where politics are so boring I don’t even know who the president is and don’t care to. Most countries someone would want to live in aren’t open to immigration unless you’re pretty well off or specialized. I’m glad it worked out for you. We are stuck in the US (and Ohio though day to day is just fine) because friends and family but it would be a breath of fresh air to not have to care. Also most countries aren’t relevant on the global stage and so there isn’t really much for them to decide, they’re for the most part passive recipients of whatever America decides and to some growing extent China or perhaps the EU. Russia as an example and starting wars sort of an outlier.

cjbgkagh 6mo ago
> That’s because of the geopolitical and geostrategic necessity. Says who, clearly the US is trying to have that say but failing at it. > Can’t have another North Korea and definitely can’t have one sitting on top of 20% of the world’s oil supply. Turns out you can. I have known our missile defense strategy wouldn’t last into the cheap missile / drone age for over 22 years. Before high tech I was military adjacent. The real reason the US can’t afford to lose in Iran is what that would say about Taiwan and would mean for its position as world hegemony. My main fear was that the US would start a conflict with China believing it could win and having it lose. Ironically Trumps bungling may have saved us from an even worse fate.
- ericmay 6mo ago
  > Says who, clearly the US is trying to have that say but failing at it. In what way has the US failed? People keep saying the US failed but I’m still confused as to what failure has occurred. > Turns out you can. Well the rest of the world could let it happen, and let other countries control maritime shipping lanes and exact tolls, but I think your statement is actually objectively false given the US bombed Iran and stopped whatever nuclear program they have, even if that turns out to be sort of temporary. > I have known our missile defense strategy wouldn’t last into the cheap missile / drone age for over 22 years. Before high tech The Pentagon knows this too, but you fight a war with the weapons you have while you work on new ones. > I was military adjacent. The real reason the US can’t afford to lose in Iran is what that would say about Taiwan and would mean for its position as world hegemony. My main fear was that the US would start a conflict with China believing it could win and having it lose. I was in the army on active duty including deploying to Iraq. The US isn’t/wasn’t going to start a war with China. Doesn’t make any sense. So no worries there. I think you’ve actually got it backwards. The worry was that China would start a war to seize Taiwan and, frankly, Putin saved us all by failing so hard at Ukraine. The US easily bypassing or destroying any Chinese and Russian air defense assets in countries like Venezuela or Iran has given the Chinese pause too. China has immense manufacturing capability. Probably #1 in the world. But their weakness is they have not fought a serious war or even a minor war in quite some time. The kinks you’re talking about, lessons learned, &c. Are things that the US has learned or is learning more about via conflicts in Ukraine and Iran and elsewhere. China has trained and tested but has not demonstrated any operational effectiveness when it comes to combined arms, and their equipment on paper is impressive but has yet to see meaningful action. Of course the Chinese know this too, but “how will the PLA perform” is a serious concern for the Commies.
  - cjbgkagh 6mo ago
    Ahhh US army, that explains it. You know of the two main factions in US foreign policy, the primacists and the restrainers both seek conflict with China. The only difference being that the primacists wanted to win a war in Iran first to set up Israel as regional hegemony. We have a different read on objective reality, using the simple proxy of 'success has many fathers and failure is an orphan', not many people are taking credit for the war with Iran - so I take that as a sign of failure. The Pentagon is many years late on drone warfare and the whole incentive structure is set up for gold plated drones with the fat margins needed to buy lobbyists. Also I see much of the US Army as a make work program / pseudo welfare system still carrying on the great traditions of McNamara's morons. As the US declines it is in China's interest to wait and it is in the US interest to initiate the conflict while it can still potentially win. Taiwan is simply a way of getting the US to act in the ways China wants them to, there is no need for them to actually invade Taiwan to make that happen, but they do have to convincingly pretend like they will by constantly harassing them.