4 ms·

> 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 Ame

by 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.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - jacquesm 6mo ago
    > The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. So, if I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'. It also seems as though you fail to see how the rest of the developed world perceived the USA roughly up to 2002, whereas of course some other countries had a markedly different view. You're a lawyer, that means you should have at least basic evidentiary research skills, especially for something so well documented. I suggest you use those skills and try to steelman the argument that Pax Americana was a massive net benefit for the United States in terms of world wide power (both soft and hard), income, prestige and less directly visible benefits, and helped to make it the most wealthy nation in the world (but not on a per-capita basis, however, that's an internal affair). But I'm not going to do your work for you, it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make a request that can only stem from something close to willful ignorance. > America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II. So? > 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. You do know when the US joined WWII don't you? And you do know what the Germans were up to at the time? And you do know that it wasn't exactly the US doing this by its lonesome? > America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards. America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause (and what led directly to the cold war). And it didn't take long for the Russians to get theirs which caused Europe to live under the threat of nuclear war and total annihilation once again. > We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point. You don't really have a point. The USA is not larger than the rest of the world, not in the number of people and not in the economic, military or industrial power that it has. Yes, it - for now - is a superpower. But that power is rapidly diminishing and other countries - most notably China - are ascendant. Just like Ukraine has shown Russia to not deserve its super power status any more Iran just showed that beyond all doubt about the United States. All that is happening right now is that one empire is dying and another will take its place. WWII ended 80 years ago, America came out of it with absolutely massive credit and goodwill all over the developed world. That credit and that goodwill is now spent and/or destroyed on purpose and you are presenting this as a 'good thing'?

by rayiner 6mo ago

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.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 6mo ago
  > The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. So, if I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'. It also seems as though you fail to see how the rest of the developed world perceived the USA roughly up to 2002, whereas of course some other countries had a markedly different view. You're a lawyer, that means you should have at least basic evidentiary research skills, especially for something so well documented. I suggest you use those skills and try to steelman the argument that Pax Americana was a massive net benefit for the United States in terms of world wide power (both soft and hard), income, prestige and less directly visible benefits, and helped to make it the most wealthy nation in the world (but not on a per-capita basis, however, that's an internal affair). But I'm not going to do your work for you, it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make a request that can only stem from something close to willful ignorance. > America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II. So? > 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. You do know when the US joined WWII don't you? And you do know what the Germans were up to at the time? And you do know that it wasn't exactly the US doing this by its lonesome? > America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards. America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause (and what led directly to the cold war). And it didn't take long for the Russians to get theirs which caused Europe to live under the threat of nuclear war and total annihilation once again. > We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point. You don't really have a point. The USA is not larger than the rest of the world, not in the number of people and not in the economic, military or industrial power that it has. Yes, it - for now - is a superpower. But that power is rapidly diminishing and other countries - most notably China - are ascendant. Just like Ukraine has shown Russia to not deserve its super power status any more Iran just showed that beyond all doubt about the United States. All that is happening right now is that one empire is dying and another will take its place. WWII ended 80 years ago, America came out of it with absolutely massive credit and goodwill all over the developed world. That credit and that goodwill is now spent and/or destroyed on purpose and you are presenting this as a 'good thing'?