Largely, we’ve not been defending ourselves, but rather, maintaining our interests and investments. Who wants to stand behind that other than the misinformed?
People who want to do raping and murdering and be praised for it? Though they could just be cops for that.
There are still those that believe they’re fulfilling some patriotic duty, but that only feeds back into my original statement. The “bad apples” only serve to highlight part of the problem. Culling and replanting the “orchard” is a magnitude of order more difficult.
I will stand behind US Military maintenance to the degree that NATO remains the top world power, but I will also stand behind any global demilitarization such as the many past treaties to dismantle nuclear weapons. It’s okay for nuance to exist.
Peacekeeping is neat.
You can refuse to serve and then they institute the draft. Then you dodge the draft and get elected President.
Only if you’re parents are wealthy…
Removed by mod
That’s an… incredibly naive view of reality.
Yeah, everyone knows you can only prevent war by fighting in wars. War is peace.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.
Ah yes, the famous quote from fourth century Rome. How did that work out for them? I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century. It also inspired the name of the Parabellum pistol (AKA Lugar) manufactured in Germany for both worlds wars. The quote doesn’t have the best track record.
I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.
One can find the application to this quote pretty much everywhere, everywhen, even in small personal situations, so once it spread it stuck and outlived the Rome itself because it does correspond to what we sometimes think and do. In soviet times (another dead empire) there were a couple of the same-meaning proverbs, like ‘alarmed, thus got armed (in time)’ I used when I prepared for things like exams, job interviews, long camping trips and stuff, and I’m pretty sure your culture has them too.
I believe that Einstein was very optimistic and said that too early, or dreamed of the future when wars over beliefs, ego or profits aren’t a usual occurence. But we as humanity haven’t arrived there yet. One of the ways this can occur is if we would see the war not worth it for a long time, to get used to it, and Europe mostly got this by now within itself, but not against external threats. As, so it happens, there are still rogue actors who can start their shitty crusade on their border. And if we won’t be so europocentric, the Middle East and Africa and Asia has a lot of war axes dug out for their peers, there are hot and cold conflicts going on even if they aren’t covered in what news sources we can read.
Star Trek: TNG’s first season has a little mention of how we humans came here, through unimaginable wars and atrocities, before we aknowledged that our ways are wrong. I hope, we would be better and won’t see WW3 (or WW4 with sticks and stones as Albert said) play out before we reach something akin to their fantastic future. We may need to come to the parity and agree to tone it all down, and have a century of peace, before we even get into the mentality characters have in this show.
You need to learn how it collapsed and see how your plan would not have changed that.
I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century.
Wars they were utterly unprepared for, yes.
I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.
Cool. You’re prepared for peace. You get into a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor is prepared for war. How does this end?
Wars they were utterly unprepared for, yes.
Rome had the largest army ever assembled at the time. They did more military preparation than any nation in Europe. They had 56 legions of professional soldiers. How many more do you think they would have needed to be considered prepared?
Cool. You’re prepared for peace. You get into a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor is prepared for war. How does this end?
I’ve never had an issue with my neighbors that could be solved with war. Once I lived next to a guy who was pretty militant, but we got along alright. I hired his son to help mow my lawn. Maybe I’m just not good at getting into disputes.
In a geopolitical sense, it seems to be more about alliances than independent preparation. Nations can prepare for war and still get steamrolled, or prepare for peace and put up a solid resistance. I think a constant paranoia of war is more likely to do harm than conjure safety.
Rome had the largest army ever assembled at the time. They did more military preparation than any nation in Europe. They had 56 legions of professional soldiers. How many more do you think they would have needed to be considered prepared?
Jesus. If you’re not informed about the state of the Late Empire, don’t use it as a point of comparison.
I’ve never had an issue with my neighbors that could be solved with war. Once I lived next to a guy who was pretty militant, but we got along alright. I hired his son to help mow my lawn. Maybe I’m just not good at getting into disputes.
Or maybe you live in a society with a massive apparatus for the resolution of conflicts that relies on the threat of force in case of non-cooperation?
No, that’s silly.
In a geopolitical sense, it seems to be more about alliances than independent preparation.
What the fuck do you think an alliance is if not preparing for war
Nations can prepare for war and still get steamrolled, or prepare for peace and put up a solid resistance.
I can’t think of many. Got any examples?
Got any examples?
Britain was absolutely not prepared for WW2 but put up a successful resistance. They had spent the decade prior, focusing on disarmament and the League of Nations. The US was not prepared for WW2 either, the attack on Pearl Harbor damaged nearly the entire battle fleet. For a more contemporary example, Ukraine was unprepared for the Russian invasion, but has been putting up more of a fight than anyone expected.
Or maybe you live in a society with a massive apparatus for the resolution of conflicts that relies on the threat of force in case of non-cooperation?
Then what was the point of your hypothetical?
I’ve never had an issue
Do you understand how hypotheticals work?
Hypothetically, I’m your neighbor. I feel like killing you. I have a gun. I have no sense of morality. What stops me?
My point is that I’ve lived next to people preparing for war, and it was never an issue. I don’t see why people can’t coexist.
Hypothetically, I’m your neighbor. I feel like killing you. I have a gun. I have no sense of morality. What stops me?
My evasion, guile, and misdirection.
What’s your response to the hypothetical? Shoot first?
*oops now there’s a cold war and thousands of nukes*
Like come on, if there’s one person who didn’t like to make things simple it was Einstein. The guy was a fan of the Soviet Union, which was established through a revolution. This is just a catchy one-liner about pointless wars and militarism, not a deep and detailed political analysis.
Soviet Union, which was established on anti-war. WW1, anyone remembers that?
You can discredit Einstein as much as you like.
That doesn’t change a thing about the truth of the quote.
Especially for a Holocaust survivor.
Einstein emigrated in 1933, years before the Holocaust.
Technically yes, but he left when Nazi persecution of Jews became official government policy. It was the beginning of the buildup to the Holocaust. He survived the Holocaust in the sense that he was a Jew who lived in the Nazi occupied state and survived.
Einstein, Tucholsky, Gandhi and Jesus all seem to be very naive blokes indeed.
Jesus was crucified and spawned one of the most vile institutions in human history.
Gandhi thought Britain should surrender to the Nazis.
Very naive blokes indeed.
You’re so wise!
Just wise enough to not advocate surrender to Nazis.
Unlike yours - euclidean and nonrelativistic.
If only it was that easy.
Bone spurs
What if we found a bunch of really fit women, who took their babylons out for peace?
Drat! My plans foiled again by those woman warriors and their stupid Nebuchadnezzars!
Matrix reference! It must be!
Maybe Ashurbanipal would have been more appropriate for my joke.
I’m not your Ashurbanipal, Ashurbanibuddy.
deleted by creator
It is that easy.
It would have to be global otherwise someone realizes “hey I’m the only one with an army” and marches it into whatever they claim as theirs.
You have discovered the essential flaw in the plan yes
Engineering a world without war sounds like a great idea. Just disarming and hoping everyone else will do the same isn’t it.
I’ve talked before about how nuclear disarmament, like total nuclear disarmament, is going to happen suddenly.
Not because the missiles launch or because someone cracks the diplomatic code to get North Korea, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel, France, the UK, and the US all on the same page, but because countermeasures developed enough that someone is able to make a complete decapitation play to try and get an early lead on the post nuclear game for primacy.
It will go down in history as the war of 30 seconds, because that’s how long the mass strike on all the nuclear capabilities of the aggressed and their potential nuclear allies will likely be cut down to.
As for what the ultimate nuke killer in question will ultimately be. I would bet heavily on high speed long operation time drone tech. Build enough drones that can stay in the air for days or weeks or even months, make them fast enough, and all you would need is enough intelligence gathering to identify all the targets.
Ever seen Slaughterbots?
Well thanks for this, not like I was having enough trouble sleeping dealing with food poisoning lol
Enjoy thinking “hey why hasn’t that horrifying short film happened yet, there’s nothing to stop it” every now and then for a few years, until it happens
I think you’re misinterpreting the quote. It’s saying that the pioneers of a warless world (global context) will be the ones who refuse service in current wars. It’s about how a refusal of war is integral to the mindset of a peaceful world. He isn’t advocating for asymmetrical disarmament, but for a global movement for peace lead by conscientious objectors.
I think you’re misinterpreting the quote. It’s saying that the pioneers of a warless world (global context) will be the ones who refuse service in current wars.
Oh, cool, if only more citizens of the Allies during WW2 had refused military service, what shining examples of morality they would be to lead the world into an era of peace.
There were many brave and accomplished citizens of allied nations who refused military service and who were integral to victory over the axis.
Alan Turing broke the German cyphers and was staunchly antiwar. Howard Florey won the nobel prize for the mass production of penicillin and rejected military rank. Einstein himself was an outspoken pacifist, but it was his research that made the atomic bomb possible.
If the allies had been as interested in forcing everyone into military service as the axis, it’s likely the war would have been even more bloody and prolonged.
There were many brave and accomplished citizens of allied nations who refused military service and who were integral to victory over the axis.
Alan Turing
… didn’t refuse wartime service. The exact opposite, in fact. You… you do realize not all military service is shooting guns, right? Turing’s work was directly related to discovering German movements, and then, killing them. The Brits weren’t codebreaking to find out the Nazis’ favorite color for a Valentine’s day card.
Howard Florey won the nobel prize for the mass production of penicillin and rejected military rank.
… okay?
Einstein himself was an outspoken pacifist, but it was his research that made the atomic bomb possible.
If the allies had been as interested in forcing everyone into military service as the axis, it’s likely the war would have been even more bloody and prolonged.
Well, I am glad you agree that the atomic bombs saved many lives, at least.
Alan Turing didn’t refuse wartime service.
He was part of the anti-war movement while attending Cambridge. By your reasoning Gandhi was part of the military because he volunteered as a medic. Turing was not a soldier.
Alan Turing broke the German cyphers and was staunchly antiwar.
Are you confusing correlation with causation?
He was part of the anti-war student movement at Cambridge in 1933.
I think you’re thinking about it at a very basic level. In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also. Likely leading to the same overall result, but with a far lower death toll.
In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also.
If you’re making up the world, for sure. But stating it doesn’t guarantee it’s true for this world. The logic simply doesn’t hold, unfortunately. Remember, the biggest single common attribute of conservatives and fascists is the loyalty they demand – and that includes military service so they have a willing stream of bodies to waste.
Sad? Yeah. True? Yeah. Moving us to a better society still requires a decent standing army through a slow and steady evolution until we’re sure we’re safe. Also sad, also true.
If you’re making up the world, for sure
I thought that was the point of a hypothetical.
I think you’re thinking about it at a very basic level. In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also.
Oh, right, I had forgotten, cultural movements in one culture automatically take root simultaneously in others regardless of geographical or ideological distance. This is why circumcision is mandatory all across the world. Definitely, the fascists would have followed suit if the Allies proclaimed, over and over again, “Peace in our time!”
Likely leading to the same overall result, but with a far lower death toll.
What
Oh, right, I had forgotten, cultural movements in one culture automatically take root simultaneously in others regardless of geographical or ideological distance
That’s actually a good point.
What
Simple maths. Less people fighting is less people killing and dieing.
Yes if there were move more conscious objectors in the world, there would be less wars.
If more citizens of the Allies AND the Axis during WW2 had refused military service, the war wouldn’t have been so bloody and wouldn’t have taken that long.
You need soldiers to wage war, if every soldier refuses, you can’t have one.
I would suggest that just people in just a handful of countries doing it would be enough. Unfortunately, those handful are the ones causing all the trouble in the world right now.
I think you would have to couple the pacifist attitude with physical destruction of the majority of weapons to see results. So long as the weapons exist someone is going to plot to use them.
Honestly, even that wouldn’t work. The genie’s out of the bottle so to speak. You could destroy all weapons today and they’d be rebuilt tomorrow.
Or earlier
+
=
Genie was out of the bottle the moment one human being picked up a stone and bashed another with it. Fuck, look at other primates - genie was out of the bottle before even that.
People resort to war less as there becomes less incentive to participate in war. The idea that the increased capability to wage war through technology and institutions (like military service) is the driving factor of war is just… fanciful.
Agreed – the right bunch of countries under-going a sea change would definitely precipitate a huge jump in our evolution toward a non-violent society.
But that’s a really dear dream to hold, and the odds are NOT with us today.
Not if you’re from Ukraine
Ahhh, that sounds nice to hear, if only it was that easy.
Yeah, Until some Ork shoots you for fun while you pass them on your bike, in an occupied zone that was once your hometown. Sometimes you HAVE to make a stand to stop wars of aggression.
I see no problem here: I refused to serve in the military and did my service in a hospital instead. The Ukraine war did make me reconsider my attitude towards the necessity of a draft army.
Conclusion 1: I would emigrate and work against my country of origin in a heartbeat if they started a war of aggression (hello Russians) - unchanged from before
Conclusion 2: I would support with my medical and other skills those defending a non-aggressive country I live in
Conclusion 3: I might fight, given no other choice. But I would try everything else first, and I would probably not be good at it (fighting) at all.
There was a conscientious objector from WW2 that became a medic and eventually won the medal of honour.
Soldiers need medics and no one can say they are cowards or anything negative.
Removed by mod
Fucking Putin. Divides closest nations. Goose says “Hauge”.
Okay, that’s fair. I would also never fight in a war of aggression. My Point was more about defensive wars. Maybe I need to clarify this.
Removed by mod
Uff that’s hard. When the side that people count you to is the aggressor and clearly responsible for so much harm, it’s hard to make people clear that you are not one of them, you are not one of these orks coming to kill them. So all I can say is thank you for not fighting for Russia in this war. I hope one day Russia will be free and can join the rest of the world in peace.
Removed by mod
the world doesn’t seem to be peaceful anymore
One day they will be. I still have some hope left.
My advice? Stay of of Mordor then.
Imagine if the World stopped fighting at the end of WWII and the U.S. stopped making any other atomic weapons. Imagine a global “Peace Treaty”.
Imagine if each country spent their military $$ on water, food, housing, and free medical care for their citizens.
Fuck them all!!
The World could’ve been an amazing village of humans living together as friends and have the freedom to roam the globe without the need for a passport.
One World!
Fuck every military leader and/or political leader that has screwed over the people of the World.
Then one day, putins russia could roll down over the whole of Europe in one big swing.
Someone said “Every country has an army. Their own or someone elses”.
Could be better for sure, but it could also be worse.
I mean, we’re discussing a hypothetical utopia. In this hypothetical, Russia wouldn’t have an army to “roll down over the whole of Europe”.
Yeah but… That is kind of the problem.
Imagine that the US goes full hippie and dismantles its entire military, sending all the money to schools and hospitals and infrastructure and its economy. Fixes poverty, free healthcare, yay!
Pardon my French, but China and Russia would ass duck it into oblivion within a week. THAT is why we can’t have nice things. As long as there are dictators out there, we will continue to need armies, unfortunately.
Russia has shown that depending on each other with economies doesn’t work to keep the peace, all you need is a greedy bastard who is happy to throw hundreds of thousands of innocent lives into the meat grinder, happy to ruin his countries economy, all so he can play the next tzar.
So like it or no, we NEED armies and given the choice of being ruled by the US or China or Russia, I’ll choose the US a hundred times over, as idnlike to stay out of punishment camps for the rest of my life.
I’m very aware the World won’t play nice. That’s why my scenario was dependent on an impossible situation. That sucks!
Humans suck.
Of course there are countless nice people that love others, wish kindness, and happiness.
Unfortunately, the masses have not been able to control the powers that have driven the World in a combative and globally destructive feedback loop. The combination of violence and climate disaster will mean the extinction of humanity much, much sooner than most believe.
We’ve been in these situations before, albeit in smaller scale, the formula still works the same. And it never ends up well for the “ruling class”. It’ll probably take a lot of fuckery before the world unites in the class struggle, but when that happens we’ll know what to do. Just look at what human nature does in natural disasters - we collaborate, cooperate, and rebuild. We will do the same in the future.
No. Sorry. Bubble burst. You’re in true denial if you think humanity will save itself. We’re finished within a few years. Not decades, plus…
Just a few years.
Oh yeah, I do believe that humanity will go extinct within the next 100 years or so. At the very least there will be a huge downfall. India registered 52.9 degrees this week, but climate change is a hoax! What can you do.
Funny how China and Russia combined spend a tiny fraction of what the US does on the military if the US only has it for defense.
You either know that these dumb over simplifications are disingenuous at Nestor you should really go to school.
Yes, yes, yeah yeah, military industrial complex is a thing, but you should.also count your blessings that the US does spend what it does. As bad as the US is, as fucked up the shit is that it regularly pulls with its armies, it’s all child’s play with what, say, China or Russia would do.
Before you start with how loving and caring Russia and China are, maybe you should ask the Uyghurs and Ukrainians about that.
I have no interest in your bloodthirsty jingoism.
Great way of missing or ignoring the point
The point that I should lick the boots of the murderous monsters who killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan and are actively arming an ongoing genocide, all so they can protect their precious quarterly profits and buy off more senators? That point?
I hope you someday find yourself on the receiving end of what you support, imperialist warmongerer.
No, the point is that you apparently like licking boots? So you prefer China’s rule or Russia’s?
Understanding reality is not licking boots
I wonder how well you’d fare under chinas or Russia’s rule. But that is the point you’re missing. I never claimed that the US plays nice, a lot of US politicians belong in jail for life.
However.
If China was in power (or Russia for that matter) you wouldn’t even be able to vent your frustrations, lest you are far away from high windows you can fall out off. Or maybe you just need to spend 20 years in a Chinese rededication camp?
As bad as the US is (and yeah it’s bad, nobody denies that) the alternatives are way WAY worse
Nothing funny about it. USA has a lot more money to spend, and spends a lot of money on overseas defence - basically bases across NATO and beyond - along with maintaining a huge technological advantage against any of its adversaries.
If you look at Russia, it spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on its military than the US - it just happens to be a relatively poorer country (so probably should focus on economic growth than aggressive foreign policy…) - since its invasion of its sovereign neighbour it has only gone on to spend an even higher share of its budget on war machines, further stunting its economic growth and long term prospects. Things the US doesn’t need to worry about as much.
China’s spending per GDP is difficult to know given their self reported figures are largely regarded as under-reported. Some estimates put their spending at a higher % of GDP than the US as well.
Don’t be fooled into thinking Russia and China wouldn’t be just as bad, if not worse, than the US if they were able to achieve military dominance. Make no mistake that Russia would have invaded many more of its neighbours by now, and China would have at least invaded Taiwan and likely subjugated many of its other neighbours along with taking control of a huge swathe of international and foreign territorial waters by force.
Personally I am better off with the US having the dominion it does, and I worry for those who will start to fall into the dominion of those other fascist and totalitarian states. But I can also see the evils that the US has perpetrated in order to gain and maintain and dominion.
None of the players have clean hands - don’t think for a second any of them wouldn’t do the same shit if it could.
Nothing funny about it. USA has a lot more money to spend, and spends a lot of money on overseas defence - basically bases across NATO and beyond - along with maintaining a huge technological advantage against any of its adversaries.
Yes, that is what I’m criticizing, thanks for spelling it out.
If you look at Russia, it spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on its military than the US
Comparing military spending by GDP is such a funny metric. It makes literally no sense whatsoever. Do you think countries should just keep spending more and more on their militaries as they develop, even if there is no practical strategic reason to? Do you think that countries with powerful rivals, whose continued survival depends on meeting certain level of military strength, should ignore genuine threats to security if it would mean spending a higher percentage of GDP than other countries? Complete insanity.
The only reason to compare military spending as percentage of GDP instead of absolute numbers is because the numbers are more convenient to your argument. The country with the biggest military is the most militaristic and the biggest threat to the world. Anything else is nonsense.
Things the US doesn’t need to worry about as much.
Really? Because US infrastructure is falling apart. Medical debt and student loans are soaring out of control. Rents are skyrocketing. I could go on, if you like. There’s a lot of really important domestic priorities that are getting ignored so that the US can maintain hegemony in every corner of the globe.
I think you missed this part: “Imagine if each country spent their military $$ on water, food, housing, and free medical care for their citizens.” I know it unfortunately isn’t even remotely realistic but that’s the comment you answered to :)
Well yeah but that is the point. If all countries were democracies, if all countries worked together economically, if all countries made sure that wealth was nicely distributed amongst the world population with a top 1:5 difference between the poorest and richest, then we wouldn’t need armies, we wouldn’t need borders even…
Borders and armies exists because we have dictators and an again rapidly growing wealth inequality
And you want people to vote for the guy currently supplying and giving cover to a genocidal regime…
Where did you see him asking people to vote for anyone? I’m tired of this no need to bring this shit into every conversation, lots of people on here don’t even live in the U.S. Fuck off
Oh? It’s almost like I was talking directly to him about something he knows about. Like that time he decided to call me a moron because I want Biden to stop supporting weapons to Israel. Then he posts… This.
Oh sorry I didn’t realize it was personal. Don’t mind me then
Removed by mod
Nah don’t think I will.
No we want people to vote for the guy who’s not going to make it worse.
Do you think everyone on this godforsaken website is American? Fuck your American politics and fuck you.
No. But this guy came at me for protesting Israel’s genocide. So this is pretty hypocritical of him.
open separately: jpeg
I’m saving this
Did I forget to post vatnk?
Easy to say when you’re American, Russian, or Chinese.
Not so easy when you’re Palestinian, Ukrainian, or Taiwanese.
Honestly not sure how easy it is to actually stay out of the military when there’s compelled service in any country. Draft evasion often carries significant risk.
I appreciate the sentiment, but results will vary.
Honestly not sure how easy it is to actually stay out of the military when there’s compelled service in any country.
Don’t know about other countries, but in Apartheid-South Africa it was a very difficult thing if you were male, white and not rich. When I was a kid in small-town South Africa there was a conscientious objector living on our street. He was disabled - they had beaten him to such an extent that he was brain-damaged.
For the rich it was pretty easy - just ask Elon.
Russian
Palestine doesn’t have a mandatory draft tho?
I think it’s more the idea that nonviolence isn’t saving them. You can swear off violence, Israel will kill you and your family anyways.
I mean, comparing the west bank which is (relatively) less violent to Gaza, and have a much better quality of life - doesn’t make a good case of proving violence is the answer in that conflict.
Send my ass to prison. Fuck going to the military
Canadia is like, right there.
Also true. Very practical
If there is a draft for some oil resource war then I’m out of the US… We have all the tools to replace it I’m not fighting for some mega corp’s right to exploit the environment
If only enviroment…
Einstein… sounds like a Hamas name, right?
People dont have as much agency as he thinks. And game theory(a relatively new concept for his era) dictates that the one who convinces/forces more of their people to fight, is the one who wins.
Let’s say that your entire country, every single person, refuses to go to war. And the country next door has a mere 100 people who are willing(or otherwise) to go to war. Now your country is part of their country and those 100 people are in charge.
In a world where noone wants to fight, those who are willing(or forced) to fight, rule everyone else.
And to bring this concept into the modern era, it is near impossible to post antiwar posts in Russia, because of state control of the internet and the cultivated perception that everyone who is antiwar, is antirussian and a traitor. This is literally the law there.
Yet in the liberal western states, you are free to do that. So what is the result of this difference? People in the West are less willing to go to war. Now you might think that is a good thing but ultimately this benefits Russia, who is then free to take over their smaller neighbours. This is just interference, marketing for Russia’s war machine, even if it doesnt feel like that.
People in the West are less willing to go to war.
The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.
The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.
How about we talk about the last 30 years then. What wars have europeans participated recently? Yugoslav wars? Afghanistan? Iraq?
Yugoslav wars were about ethnic cleansing between different ethnic groups who wanted to go their own ways. Afghanistan was because of 9/11, the taliban refusing to offer Bin Laden and the american thirst for revenge. Iraq was extremely controversial in Europe, pretty much every state opposed it, even if some european governments supported it, the majority of their people opposed it(huge protests).
Even the US, the imperium, which is usually doing imperial things, havent been doing much imperialism recently, after Afghanistan. And because of Afghanistan and Iraq, meaningless and immoral wars for most people, the US has trouble recruiting military personnel nowadays. Thats how democracies work, eventually the truth rises to the top.
The Ukraine war is one of the most clear cut wars since the Iraq invasion. And the West has the opportunity to be on the right side for once. Let me remind you that historically neutral countries like Sweden, joined NATO and countries like Germany are quickly re-arming for the first time in almost 100 years.
Because till recently, Europe was “let’s all hold hands together”, living in their own dream bubble about how war is not only bad but also insane. Putin reminded them that “sanity” is not a requirement for governance.
If the West is so war mongering, why did the West not spend more on military in the last 20 years? Why did the West wait till the Ukraine invasion to start pumping untoled trillions into the military industrial complex?
The only event with bigger impact on military spending was the collapse of USSR. For decades, Europe(and even the US) was taking advantage of the peace dividend. That doesnt sound too war mongery to me. And suddently, with just 1 Ukraine invasion, the West doubled and trippled its military budget.
So is the West war mongering or is Russia that caused an insane re-armament because of the Ukraine invasion?
And in before “nato expansion”, blah blah. Sovereign countries have the right to join any alliance they want. Nato didnt invade those countries and force them to join, those countries literally “blackmailed” to join. Poland threatened to get nukes if they werent allowed into NATO.
If Mexico joins an alliance with China, would you approve an invasion of Mexico by the US? I wouldnt.
Even the US, the imperium, which is usually doing imperial things, havent been doing much imperialism recently, after Afghanistan.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
I am not trying to defend american imperialism, i am trying to rank it on a curve. And the curve is wild but relatively to its past, the US is chilling atm. Maybe because of China, maybe because military recruitment has fallen off a cliff or maybe because it is less cool to do “stuff” anymore.
20+ years ago, Yemen would have been invaded. Nowadays, noone wants to do that, they just dont want the Houthis to fuck with shipping. Thats why only the US and UK bombed the Houthis and even that was very limited, not the usual “shock and awe” kind of bombing.
Even China has had enough of this bullshit
I am pretty sure Iran and Russia feel the same. Fucking with trade hurts everyone.
US military spending is at an all time high, higher than the next 10 countries combined. After ending decades long occupations of multiple countries on the other side of the world, military spending is still increasing. The US is starting to face enough blowback that it’s somewhat more limited in what it can get away with, but it’s still pretty bad.
US military spending is at an all time high, higher than the next 10 countries combined.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
The difference is even smaller if you use PPP.
In order to understand this better, imagine how much a chinese soldier is paid and how much an american one is. And then do the same for literally everything. How much a chinese ship builder is paid vs how much an american one. How much a chinese engineer is paid vs how much an american.
In almost every category, the american worker will be A LOT more expensive. So a chinese ship that needs 100 people would be a lot cheaper than the american equivalent one. Obviously some of the cost doesnt differ, ie raw materials cost around the same in both countries. But wages and other factors make running a western military a lot more expensive than a chinese one.
And thats how you ended up with China having 370 warships while the US has 280. Now this number is extremely misleading, since american ships are heavier and are mostly blue water navy(while a lot of the chinese ones are green water ones) but still.
Not true.
Next 9 countries, my mistake.
Your arguments are fucking laughable - if I wanted to deal with rotting offal like this, I would have become a garbage collector.
How about we talk about the last 30 years then.
Yes. Lets.
US shitfuckery in Afghanistan.
More US shitfuckery in Somalia.
US shitfuckery in the Red Sea.
These are only off the top of my head - I’m sure there’s a few I’ve left out. These also don’t include the wars the west wages through it’s colonialist proxies and client states.
why did the West not spend more on military in the last 20 years?
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
If you’re going to post bullcrap, I’d advise you not to post so much of it in one go - all you’re achieving is to make the stink reach further.
-
I was talking about Europe in case you missed it.
-
Half your examples are older than 30 years old. The other half are literally fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS, on behalf and request of the local governments and population. In fact, in many west african countries, the West was “kicked out” and now Russia is literally doing the same(or promised to). Is Russia going after jihadists in Africa imperialism?
Regarding the Red Sea, Is your argument that the West should allow people/nations/groups to attack commercial vessels? Is that morally ok with you? Is trying to stop them, imperialism? Should the West start hitting iranian vessels? Iran absolutely needs ships to be safe to travel in order to sell their oil. In fact, the Houthis hit a ship that was going to Iran.
https://www.reuters.com/world/ambrey-says-bulker-was-targeted-by-missiles-bab-al-mandab-2024-02-12/
Even China has publicly opposed this shit.
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
You need to understand what ppp is. And you need to break down the cost to see what each country is paying for. France and Germany have limited but highly paid military personnel. Countries like China have an huge military+paramilitary, that work for low wages while they are spending a lot of money on new equipment(at higher ppp, thus cheaper per identical thing).
Remember when Trump was complaining about Nato allies not spending 2% of their gdp on defense? Literally every country in Europe has almost doubled their defense spending after the invasion of Ukraine. Why is that?
Russia is spending 7.1% of their gdp on defense, 35% of total government spending. Are they doing it because they are imperialistic or because they are afraid the West will invade them? And if you say “obviously they are doing it in self defense”, let me remind you that
-
They started it by invading a sovereign country.
-
They have nukes, noone is invading them.
I was talking about Europe in case you missed it.
Which part of…
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
…didn’t you get the first time around?
Half your examples are older than 30 years old.
Really? Go count them and get back to us. Don’t be long now!
The other half are literally fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS,
Are you talking about those Wahhabist groups that only exists because of the US’s shitfuckery? Those ones?
Go on… fling your bullcrap at the wall in the hopes that something sticks - let’s see if anyone falls for this clever and sophisticated strategy of yours.
-
Iirc we used to have some kind of deal to cut down nuclear weapons but that those numbers have climbed up.
And now I’m hearing people say there’s no risk in the West attacking Russia because “their nukes haven’t been maintained.”
Manhattan Project.
make your mind up guys
Obviously, Americans and Ukranians should refuse military service. Russians and Chinese are okay to keep fighting, because reasons.
Reasons:
