3 ms·

> Pretending they’ll go to war over Taiwan and not doing it is an effective strategy for undermining the US. The bait is for the buildup that promotes the grif

> Pretending they’ll go to war over Taiwan and not doing it is an effective strategy for undermining the US. The bait is for the buildup that promotes the grifters. > An actual war would fix a lot of the grifting in the US as it would align interests We are in agreement. I made these points earlier in this chain. The Iran war doesn't count as the alignment of interest requires an actual threat of being defeated.

lmm 5mo ago
> The Iran war doesn't count as the alignment of interest requires an actual threat of being defeated. That's starting to sound a bit no-true-scotsman. If we need an existential threat to the US, that's not going to happen - realistically China conquering Taiwan or even building an empire around the Pacific would still not be felt as such a threat.
- cjbgkagh 5mo ago
  To align the interests there has to be a substantial negative consequence that would be felt by the grifters if the endeavor fails. The US is already close to losing world hegemony status and it kinda needs it in order to print money / export inflation. A multipolar world is one where the US is greatly diminished and this will happen with or without losing a war.
  - lmm 5mo ago
    > To align the interests there has to be a substantial negative consequence that would be felt by the grifters if the endeavor fails. Like what though? The failure in Iran has had pretty substantial consequences that are being felt. If that's not good enough, what is? You were talking like you thought there was a realistic path to a better military, but consequences for the US aren't going to come much bigger than this.
    - cjbgkagh 5mo ago
      You're conflating the grifters with the US in general, the grivers are able to continue grifting even at the expense of the US. This is requiring too much hand-holding from me so I'm done with this conversation.

lmm 5mo ago

> The Iran war doesn't count as the alignment of interest requires an actual threat of being defeated. That's starting to sound a bit no-true-scotsman. If we need an existential threat to the US, that's not going to happen - realistically China conquering Taiwan or even building an empire around the Pacific would still not be felt as such a threat.

cjbgkagh 5mo ago
To align the interests there has to be a substantial negative consequence that would be felt by the grifters if the endeavor fails. The US is already close to losing world hegemony status and it kinda needs it in order to print money / export inflation. A multipolar world is one where the US is greatly diminished and this will happen with or without losing a war.
- lmm 5mo ago
  > To align the interests there has to be a substantial negative consequence that would be felt by the grifters if the endeavor fails. Like what though? The failure in Iran has had pretty substantial consequences that are being felt. If that's not good enough, what is? You were talking like you thought there was a realistic path to a better military, but consequences for the US aren't going to come much bigger than this.
  - cjbgkagh 5mo ago
    You're conflating the grifters with the US in general, the grivers are able to continue grifting even at the expense of the US. This is requiring too much hand-holding from me so I'm done with this conversation.