3 ms·

Every time you comment on here you show a little bit more of how little you understand of how the world works. It is not 1945 anymore, indeed. But that's not w

Every time you comment on here you show a little bit more of how little you understand of how the world works. It is not 1945 anymore, indeed. But that's not why the US has bases in Germany. It has bases in Germany to serve as 'stationary aircraft carriers' on friendly foreign soil, which is a privilege and as part of NATO a mutual benefit and which were there on account of Russia and the Middle-East, not because Germany was still perceived as a threat or a country that needed occupation, that particular need ended well before the Unification and the withdrawal of Russians from Eastern Europe. Tossing all of that into the grinder isn't 'making America great' it is making America smaller, much smaller. The EU has spent an absolute fortune on US military hardware in return in the past. That will end now, and this is being said out loud. EU military spending has been on the rise, but the US fraction of that spending is diminishing, and is expected to diminish further. This will hurt the US much more than that it will help. So these are - like most MAGA inspired actions - at best own goals, at worse active aid to Putin. You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense outside of the context of being ostensibly as pay-back for Merz stating that the US has been humiliated by Iran - which they have, there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so. But instead, the use of one particular word that your king is a bit sensitive to because it hits home is what set this off.

rayiner 6mo ago
> You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense … there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Not to mention Somalia, Kosovo, and Libya, and countless minor skirmishes. We’ve been throwing kids into the meat grinder for 75 years, and lighting dollars on fire, for no good reason. There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us. I’d also point out that “MAGA” is not united on this. A third of Republicans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Iran war: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/05/01/americans-remain-critical-of-trump-administrations-approach-to-iran https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/05/01/americans.... Traditional republicans have long wanted to attack Iran so they’re pleased. But the America First people have been vocal in their opposition: https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/04/28/iran-war-trump-coalition-maga-america-first/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/04/28/iran-war-trump-coalitio...
- doggers246 6mo ago
  [dead]
- dctoedt 6mo ago
  > If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea YGBFShM. (As to most of the others you do have a point, but hindsight is always 20-20 — and the Dem decisionmakers about Vietnam had to contend with a revanchist, Red-baiting GOP that had attacked the Dems for having "lost" China.)
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- jacquesm 6mo ago
  > There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us. Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks. And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were not shared equally is not the fault of the clients, but an internal affair. A diminished United States has a non-zero risk of collapsing much like the former USSR. Meanwhile, you're lighting money on fire in Iran right now, and lots of it (though, according to Mike you are not at war and if you were it is over, a 'special military operation' of sorts). If only there was some kind of lesson to be learned from starting wars. Meanwhile, the oil people are making out like bandits, Israel is happy, what's not to like? And who cares about the price of eggs, gas, the Epstein files or immigrants. That's so yesterday.
  - rayiner 6mo ago
    > Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it. Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II. If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities. America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards. We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.

rayiner 6mo ago

> You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense … there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Not to mention Somalia, Kosovo, and Libya, and countless minor skirmishes. We’ve been throwing kids into the meat grinder for 75 years, and lighting dollars on fire, for no good reason. There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us. I’d also point out that “MAGA” is not united on this. A third of Republicans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Iran war: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/05/01/americans-remain-critical-of-trump-administrations-approach-to-iran https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/05/01/americans.... Traditional republicans have long wanted to attack Iran so they’re pleased. But the America First people have been vocal in their opposition: https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/04/28/iran-war-trump-coalition-maga-america-first/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/04/28/iran-war-trump-coalitio...

doggers246 6mo ago
[dead]
dctoedt 6mo ago
> If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea YGBFShM. (As to most of the others you do have a point, but hindsight is always 20-20 — and the Dem decisionmakers about Vietnam had to contend with a revanchist, Red-baiting GOP that had attacked the Dems for having "lost" China.)
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
jacquesm 6mo ago
> There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us. Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks. And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were not shared equally is not the fault of the clients, but an internal affair. A diminished United States has a non-zero risk of collapsing much like the former USSR. Meanwhile, you're lighting money on fire in Iran right now, and lots of it (though, according to Mike you are not at war and if you were it is over, a 'special military operation' of sorts). If only there was some kind of lesson to be learned from starting wars. Meanwhile, the oil people are making out like bandits, Israel is happy, what's not to like? And who cares about the price of eggs, gas, the Epstein files or immigrants. That's so yesterday.
- rayiner 6mo ago
  > Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it. Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II. If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities. America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards. We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.