Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You lack fundamental knowledge of how the world functions
Waves hands even more vigorously
Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
71–80 of 92 posts
Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#72They will cut the DoD budget now but just bring it back in 6months due to some incident.
Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia invading a country that was legitimately starting a new chapter in becoming more democratic is what changed my mind on military budgets. However you want to frame globalism, nationalism, etc. I think it’s a perfectly rational reason to think, “huh, maybe it doesn’t just have to be pork barrel spending and to invade countries with oil…”
I agree. American misadventures in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have eroded the American peoples appetite for intervention. But there is somethings to be said for being the arsenal of democracy and defenders of a liberal world order. If we don't defend a LWO, we will sit and watch as illiberal dictators carve up the world and subjugate its people. Maybe thats okay if we save money and don't risk becoming the bad gu…
All of those disasterous mistakes were justified in terms of defending “a liberal world order.” Look in the mirror—you’ve become a Reagan Republican now. You’ve embraced the same disasterous ideology of liberal universalism.
Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s what a multipolar world is. It allows Russia and China to do in their back yards what America has always done in its back yard.
Actually what Russia is doing is already much worse. What's the US equivalent of the first and second Chechen wars? China and the US are probably the closest analogs right now.
> What's the US equivalent of the first and second Chechen wars
Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc? We’ve killed millions of civilians in proxy wars over the last 70 years. And while we didn’t capture that territory, according to the sibling comments the justification was to maintain our status as the world’s reserve currency so I don’t see how that’s better.
Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia invading a country that was legitimately starting a new chapter in becoming more democratic is what changed my mind on military budgets. However you want to frame globalism, nationalism, etc. I think it’s a perfectly rational reason to think, “huh, maybe it doesn’t just have to be pork barrel spending and to invade countries with oil…”
The agreement was that we would not put rockets in their back yard. The response was therefore entirely predictable which means we should now consider if it was worth putting rockets in their back yard. What was gained by it? Weakening Europe was of course good for the US economy. Blowing up our gas pipe was also good for the US economy. But if you want to follow the official narrative: How democratic is Ukraine now…
Which rockets and where?
Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#76It is kind of funny to me that the lede is about Palontir instead of the absolutely stunning call by a Republican for the DoD to reduce budget by 8%.
At least among voters, there’s been a realignment over the last decade along the globalism/nationalism dividing line. The factions that favor globalism seem to also favor American military empire (to keep the trade routes safe or whatever, I don’t know). I don’t trust republicans in Congress to actually do it. But it could be a historic opportunity for democrats to call their bluff and support the cuts. A once in a c…
> to keep the trade routes safe or whatever, I don’t know
During the Cold War, Washington used free trade as a bribe to get countries to consult with the Pentagon on security issues. It was able to do that because although it was mostly decoupled from international trade, the American economy was so large that what little international trade it did engage in (as a percentage of total US GDP) was quite valuable to smaller economies.
I guess governance quality in the US could have declined so much since the end of the Cold War that narrow business interests have gotten control of US trade policy, but for many decades Washington cared more about preventing the rise of a competitor (in the Soviet Union) that could eventually challenge it militarily than about using international trade to improve American economic performance -- because the US economy ran well without international trade.
The main reason the US had a dominant navy is that it is the most efficient way for the US to prevent the most potent military threat against it: namely, some other country's navy showing up on American shores and bombarding things or interfering with coastal shipping from one US port to another US port. The fact that this same navy has been useful for keeping the world's sea lanes free from piracy and privateering has been just a nice secondary effect. (Similarly, Britain's global empire was a secondary effect of centuries of British efforts to prevent Dutch, French, Spanish and North African fleets from raiding the British coast and raiding British ships operating near the British coast).
Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#77Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#78Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
The agreement was that we would not put rockets in their back yard. The response was therefore entirely predictable which means we should now consider if it was worth putting rockets in their back yard. What was gained by it? Weakening Europe was of course good for the US economy. Blowing up our gas pipe was also good for the US economy. But if you want to follow the official narrative: How democratic is Ukraine now…
Which rockets and where?
NATO’s rockets. The U.S. would never stand for Mexico to join the Soviet Union. Of course it’s completely insane to expect Russia to stand for Ukraine joining NATO.
Re: Palantir Drops 10% on Report of Pentagon Slashing Budget
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which rockets and where?
NATO’s rockets. The U.S. would never stand for Mexico to join the Soviet Union. Of course it’s completely insane to expect Russia to stand for Ukraine joining NATO.
NATO already bordered Russia. There were already NATO rockets in their back yard.
You're falling for Russian propaganda. This is the usual Russian land grab. They've done it many times before and they will continue to do it.