*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Obama's looks like they're watching Two Girls One Cup. Trump's looks like he's put cardboard cutouts of pretend officials there. The gormless black haired dude looks real, but the others look fake.

2x lol

In Trump's photo, the guy on the left looks like he's been caught mid-fart. Pence knows.

Clinton's all, "Try to look shocked. Hand on mouth. Yeah. No one will notice my eyes."
Biden's like, "not bad. I give it an 8."

[MadMojoMonkey]

Trump's doing that squinty-eyes thing that always reminds me of the movie Get Shorty.

Skip the first minute for the exact dialogue I'm referring to.




It's like Trump thinks that squinting his eyes makes him look thoughtful or serious, but it really doesn't.
EDIT: his frown makes him look serious, but not the squint.

[wufwugy]

You make some great points.

[Poopadoop]

So the rules of the impeachment proceedings laid out by Pelosi allow Trump to both testity and ask questions at his own hearings. I know he won't go, but God it's fun to imagine the potenital shitshow that would be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings. Still, the Congressional R's are crying foul play. Turns out they're upset because the Clinton case was blown open as a part of a much wider investigation, so the Clinton impeachment proceedings started with a ton more general knowledge of the facts by both parties. Whereas in the Nixon case and the current case, the closed door investigations have whatever info they have that is not on the public record at this point in the process.

There's no real precedent for impeachment proceedings, though*.. so if the R's argue that the availability of information in the Clinton case was good for everyone, then I'm open to changing the rules. They just have to swallow that pill the next time a Dem POTUS is on the hot seat. Which I'm fine with.

It wont change the fact that closed door investigations nearly always precede any open, formal investigations, and if the R's are crying that this is foul play, then that's nonsense. We definitely want to quietly weed out false and spurious claims from getting undue attention and this is done via closed door investigations.


* I mean, yes, there is the legal framework and there are a few instances where it's happened, but I don't think the current political climate puts too much weight on that. As I mentioned before, Trump got elected for things that Andrew Johnson got impeached for, so using the Johnson impeachment as a standard wont be a clean fit.
Nixon had lost his party's support by the time it got that far, whereas Trump still has his party's and his base's support.
Clinton lied about sex in public in America. While under oath! Yeah. That was juicy, right? It's nothing like this case, though, so treating it like a precedent is again, not a clean fit.

[Poopadoop]

Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings.

My understanding is Pelosi's proceedings are more 'generous' in that Nixon wasn't invited to testify/cross-examine at his, which I'm sure he could have done better than Trump had it come to that.

And yeah, if you can impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob you can impeach another guy for holding up foreign aid in return for getting dirt on a political opponent. Even Watergate looks tame compared to that. Both were shady election shit, but Trump's has serious consequences for foreign policy whereas Nixon's didn't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And yeah, if you can impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob you can impeach another guy for holding up foreign aid in return for getting dirt on a political opponent. Even Watergate looks tame compared to that.

I don't think you can directly link those 2 things. While on paper the Clinton scandal was an impeachment proceeding, I don't think it's really the best comparison for what's going on today. The Ukraine scandal is much more like Nixon's watergate than an inconsequential lie under oath.
We'll see, at any rate.

Americans are screeching harpys when it comes to a couple of things. 1) Americans are shady AF when it comes to talking about sex. Even couples who've been having sex for years probably don't talk about it much if at all. 2) Catching someone in a personal lie that shows they have some insecurity is blood in the water.

Clinton got caught in a lie, and that lie was about sex. America was frothing at the mouth. The fact that he did so while under oath was just pouring gas on the flame.
He was cheating on his wife. Lol obv. he lies about that. BUT he did so while under oath. It just ticked all the boxes for Americans to put on our holier-than-thou hats and riot.
Most people didn't actually care, but were entertained by the noise. Most people didn't even know at the time that he was impeached. I'd wager that most people today don't think Clinton was impeached, since he never left office, and that's the one thing Americans know about impeachment: It's how you de-president someone.

When it comes to Trump... keep in mind that the Congressional R's and his Rep base are still in support of Trump. Clinton's supporters were not defending him that hard when it came to his lie. He was caught on tape, in a court of law. The meaning of the word "is" got brought into question. How is it not great fun to mock that? Dems were mocking Clinton, but not really turning against him politically. No one on the D side really was ever planning on kicking him out of office, AFAIK. It was just a glorious shit show that everyone could cash in on for some press time and so it went.


Looking back, it's hard to see the Clinton impeachment as anything other than a huge publicity stunt, though none of the people that gained from the publicity really had any hand in creating the stunt... but they sure had a hand in prolonging the attention it got. It didn't even really hurt Bill long-term and Hillary remained a political powerhouse after the humiliation of the cheating scandal subsided.

[oskar]

Trump update:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...153261568?s=20

[MadMojoMonkey]

That, "... or something," is a weird moment.

I'd actually enjoy it if more politicians ended their sentences that way.

It adds a little credibility for them to openly state they have no credibility.
Oh god, I'm part of the problem.

[Poopadoop]

Damn, maybe Trump does hire the best people. Or at least ones that aren't willing to go to jail for him.

[oskar]

Let's say this is an accurate representation of a conversation that happened. How amazing would that be!

Sondland: What do you want Mr President, what do you want? What do you want from Ukraine? What do you want? I hear all these theories, what do you want?
Trump: I want nothing! That's what I want from Ukraine. I want nothing!
Sondland: What do you want? I keep hearing all these things. What do you want?
Trump: I want nothing! I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo! Tell Salinsky to do the right thing! I want nothing! I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo!
Sondland: This is the final word from the president of the united states: "I want nothing."

[oskar]

He is incomprehensibly stupid.

I'm just now catching up on the hearings. Coming from Mueller doing his cute little dance, it's comforting to see no-bullshit testimonies from pre-geriatric government officials.

[Poopadoop]

He is incomprehensibly stupid.

I'm just now catching up on the hearings. Coming from Mueller doing his cute little dance, it's comforting to see no-bullshit testimonies from pre-geriatric government officials.

But Sondland, Vindman, and Pence's hireling are all "never Trumpers" lol.

Man, this ship is sinking. Fast. Even the Dems can't fuck this up.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the Senate.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"I want nothing! Just tell them that they'll get the money when they 'investigate corruption.' But no quid pro quo. Do make sure they do the thing and they'll get the money. BUT I don't want that! I want nothing! Just make sure they know if they do the thing they'll get the money, alright. But no quid pro quo. I want nothing!"

[oskar]

David Zucker and Jim Abrams need to come back to do a movie about the Trump presidency. They're the only ones who can do it!

[Poopadoop]

David Zucker and Jim Abrams need to come back to do a movie about the Trump presidency. They're the only ones who can do it!

I think Scorcese should do it. Joe Pesci can play Don Jr.

[Poopadoop]

That convo seems plausible.

[oskar]

Tim and Eric would be a solid 2nd choice for me.

[Poopadoop]

I'm really going to miss him. Are they going to let him tweet from prison I wonder?

[oskar]

Mani from Florida with one of the greatest CSPAN calls ever:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...313200640?s=20

[oskar]

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's not often Twitter gets a reaction out of me, but that made me laugh.

[oskar]

The state of the maga cult right now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...8/trump_tweet/

[Poopadoop]

UN already saying what Trump did was "probably" illegal.

[Poopadoop]

Haha, that Trump. You never know what he's going to do next. Good thing he's in charge of the world's most powerful military and has the nuclear launch codes and doesn't feel the need to ask congress if the US can go to war.

[oskar]

I'm surprised how long it took. You don't put John Bolton in your cabinet and get out of the Iran Nuclear Deal in order not to go to war with Iran. I guess he got cold feet at least once that we know of, but it's election year so I guess he has to.

[Poopadoop]

I'm surprised how long it took.

That's cause you dont play 3D chess. What looks like dangerous incompetence to us is just Trump disguising how he's like, really smart. I mean who else can see how killing one of a hostile country's top leaders is de-escalating things.

Even Tucker doesn't get it, that's how advanced this move is.




Still waiting to hear the evidence of an imminent threat. But, I'm sure the WH will be releasing a picture of Sulemani with a sword drawn in his hands with a sharpie pretty soon.

[OngBonga]

Still waiting to hear the evidence of an imminent threat.

You won't. The words "imminent threat" were carefully chosen to refer to the Bethlehem Doctrine (named after a person, not the place). This is a document that "justifies" extrajudicial state assassinations on the basis of self defence. In this document, the meaning of "imminent threat" is not what normal people who speak English would imagine, in that "imminent" does not mean "soon" or "inevitable". In fact, if there is any evidence that someone might have been planning an attack at any time in the past or the present, then they will use the phrase "imminent threat". It's like playing chess and killing you opponent after one move because he might checkmate you. This document was created by a guy who worked as a legal advisor first for Netanyahu and then for Blair, and it only seems to hold weight with the governments of UK, USA and Israel.

With that said, I'm not sure why people are so fucking outraged by this. Sure its legality is extremely tenuous, but USA have hardly cared about "legality" for decades, and taking out a general seems like a more civilised method of warfare than regime change, enforced by relentless air strikes and drone attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure like airports and hospitals. Or even funding the opposition, no matter how brutal and criminal they are.

I couldn't give a fuck about an Iranian general, especially one allegedly responsible for the killing of many Iranian protesters. The Iranian people are a great culture compared to places like Saudi Arabia, but their leaders, political and military, can go fuck themselves for all I care.

[Poopadoop]

USA have hardly cared about "legality" for decades, and taking out a general seems like a more civilised method of warfare than regime change, enforced by relentless air strikes and drone attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure like airports and hospitals. Or even funding the opposition, no matter how brutal and criminal they are.

Or, they could just get the fuck out of the whole continent.

The one thing Trump had going for him was he wasn't a warmonger. So much for that.

[OngBonga]

I haven't heard of anyone suggesting this was bad because they have intimate feelings about Soleimani. This is bad because at best this ends with an exchange of airstrikes and a couple hundred civilian casualties, and at worst it's all-out war with Iran and hundreds of thousand civilian casualties.

Reading up on the Bethlehem Doctrine... interesting stuff. When did lying become this complicated?

Best case scenario is Iran shit themselves and do not further antogonise a very unpredictable and powerful enemy. When generals get droned, that's a game changer. Suddenly the Mullahs themselves are thinking they could be next. Worst case scenario, yeah all out war. The Mullahs themselves are unpredictable, and they do have powerful allies.

Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice.

It's amusing you have enough insight to recognise the potential problems Trump's aggression might cause, yet you sit here and say that you'd be glad if he got assassinated, completely oblivious to the shitstorm that would create, ie civil war. On the one hand, you're anti-war when it comes to the Middle East, and on the other you're pro-war when it comes to internal USA politics. Do you really hate USA that much?

[OngBonga]

Or, they could just get the fuck out of the whole continent.

The one thing Trump had going for him was he wasn't a warmonger. So much for that.

If he's droning generals instead of civilians, he's doing better than Obama. Here's the thing... none of us here know what's really going on. I have no idea if Iran are a genuine enemy or not. It seems odd to me that we're having a go at Shiites, when it's Sunnis that have caused us problems and foster global terrorism, but I long ago gave up hope of understanding Middle Eastern geopolitics.

I'd definitely prefer it if USA, UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia didn't have this insane alliance that opposes Iran. It would be nice if war didn't happen. But it does. The next best thing after no war is being on the winning side. I'd rather be on USA's side than anyone else's, that's for sure.

[Poopadoop]

If he's droning generals instead of civilians, he's doing better than Obama.

Imma gonna go out on a limb here and guess that he didn't put the order out to stop droning civilians, has been doing it the whole time and then got bored one day and decided to turn it up to 11 and who knows why the fuck he does anything...pretty sure though the guy who says you should kill terrorists' families wouldn't lose any sleep over some collateral dead brown people.

[oskar]

I haven't heard of anyone suggesting this was bad because they have intimate feelings about Soleimani. This is bad because at best this ends with an exchange of airstrikes and a couple hundred civilian casualties, and at worst it's all-out war with Iran and hundreds of thousand civilian casualties.

Reading up on the Bethlehem Doctrine... interesting stuff. When did lying become this complicated?

[oskar]

Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice.

[Poopadoop]

Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice.

If he does get assassinated, my money is on it being an inside job.

[oskar]

If he does get assassinated, my money is on it being an inside job.

Baron Trump!
Calling it now.

On the one hand, you're anti-war when it comes to the Middle East, and on the other you're pro-war when it comes to internal USA politics. Do you really hate USA that much?

What I would like to see for my personal entertainment is not necessarily what I would wish on world history.

[oskar]

Video footage of Spoon and Wuf new year's eve 2020: https://twitter.com/Stop_Trump20/sta...854704640?s=20

[Poopadoop]

What I wonder about the Trump-assassinating-Iranian-General defenders is how much they would shit their pants if the top US general in Iraq got picked off, and the next day the Ayatollah tweeted an Iranian flag.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The next best thing after no war is being on the winning side. I'd rather be on USA's side than anyone else's, that's for sure.

[Poopadoop]

Can anyone name a war America has won since WWII?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Can anyone name a war America has won since WWII?

Trick question. Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.

[oskar]

Trick question. Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.

Hahaaaaaa! Banana republic.

[oskar]

War On Christmas

[OngBonga]

Can anyone name a war America has won since WWII?

Depends what you mean by "won". I think think of a fair few countries that have been fucked up by USA, but can't think of any that have caused any problems for USA on their own soil, or that of their allies. So... in that context, I can think of lots.

[Poopadoop]

Depends what you mean by "won". I think think of a fair few countries that have been fucked up by USA, but can't think of any that have caused any problems for USA on their own soil, or that of their allies. So... in that context, I can think of lots.

I'm going with a non-zero sum definition of win. So, you don't "win" by making the other country suffer more death and destruction from the war than you do. By that definition, the US "won" against N. Vietnam. By any other definition though, it lost. You only win if your country is better off after the war than before it, either economically, in terms of prestige, or in terms of security.

The US has been dumping trillions into wars in Asia since 1950 and has nothing to show for it afaict.

[OngBonga]

Ok I have one suggestions that I think everyone can rally behind: Iran should retaliate by striking Trump properties and Congress needs to halt any military action against Iran. Iran wipes out what is left of his business and he can't use the US military to strike back because emoluments.

Iran should retaliate by not hanging gays.

[OngBonga]

Sorry that was an oskar quote, not poop. I can't even edit/delete posts due to unknown errors.

[oskar]

Ok I have one suggestions that I think everyone can rally behind: Iran should retaliate by striking Trump properties and Congress needs to halt any military action against Iran. Iran wipes out what is left of his business and he can't use the US military to strike back because emoluments.

[oskar]

[OngBonga]

Well then America won every war it engaged in, because it continues to be the world's dominant economy, and that dominance is underpinned by their military aggression, securing global resources and maintaining the dollar as the prime petrocurrency.

From my pov, I'm on the winning side if I don't see war happening in the UK, or if I don't see disasterous economic consequences, despite us being involved. Not that I'm happy for us to be involved, just that if we're going to be, I'd rather be on Team America (fuck yeah).

[Poopadoop]

Well then America won every war it engaged in, because it continues to be the world's dominant economy, and that dominance is underpinned by their military aggression, securing global resources and maintaining the dollar as the prime petrocurrency.

Are you familiar with the term "guns or butter?" History is full of examples of countries that tried to use guns to acquire more butter when they should have been making butter themselves.

If that's too abstract for you, here's a more direct way of saying it: Spending money on aggressive wars almost never benefits a country economically compared to putting the same money back into its economy. If you took those trillions the US spent on projecting its power around the world (in places where it was never directly threatened mind you) in the last sixty years and instead used it to build trillions of dollars worth of roads, schools, technology, and whatnot in the US with it, there's no doubt they'd have more wealth and be more powerful today than they are now.

In fifty years when China takes over first place in the world it will be because they kept investing in their country, not investing in an oversized military they used to wave their dicks around the world.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Vietnam was a proxy war against the Soviets during the cold war. The soviet union no longer exists and the US does, so in that respect, at least, the US won the cold war.

I'd argue the Vietnam conflict wasn't really won by either side, the US or the Soviets. While the US took heavy losses and had to leave in a hurry, US culture has remained, not the soviet culture. There's McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi, I mean. In the sense that a war is a cultural takeover, this is a US win.

Though I dislike even talking about a "winner" in a war. Going to war means both sides have already lost. War is mostly just the violence that follows national failures.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Congress can't really stop POTUS from using the military however he pleases unless they remove him from office. He is the commander in chief of all the armed forces, after all.

POTUS can do whatever he wants with the US military for up to 90 days without any Congressional approval or oversight. Technically, Congress has to declare war for the use of military forces in armed conflict that lasts more than 90 days, but the reality is that just doesn't happen anymore. Congress just authorizes the use of military force without calling it an official policy of war.


Topically, the argument that Congress controls the purse ends up being moot in these cases. While Congress can pull the plug on the POTUS's military funding, the reality is that puts the soldiers in the field in danger, not POTUS. This is a powerful ethos in America that has been used to the same effect for decades. Once the troops are in the field, the idea of not supporting them is just not being heard by American citizens, regardless of party lines.

[OngBonga]

Spending money on aggressive wars almost never benefits a country economically compared to putting the same money back into its economy.

This kind of ignores the fact that war is huge business.

In fifty years when China takes over first place in the world it will be because they kept investing in their country, not investing in an oversized military they used to wave their dicks around the world.

And this assumes China's growth is sustainable. Spoiler - it's not. I mean, I'm no expert, but there's only so many ghost cities a country can build before the bust.

[Poopadoop]

This kind of ignores the fact that war is huge business.

You're making it more complicated than it is. A million dollars worth of bombs that are dropped on some foreign countries is not the same as a million dollars worth of road improvements or schools or tech investment. There's no return on the bombs, they don't make your country richer. There's return on the other investments.

And this assumes China's growth is sustainable. Spoiler - it's not. I mean, I'm no expert, but there's only so many ghost cities a country can build before the bust.

I'm not an expert either but I know enough about history that countries' relative power is not a static thing. I think that's pretty obvious. Its also a historical pattern that the most powerful country overspends and overextends itself militarily until it's no longer the most powerful country. That's going to happen to the US eventually (at least the way it's going now). And the most likely country that's on a trajectory to replace it at the top is China.

[OngBonga]

You're making it more complicated than it is. A million dollars worth of bombs that are dropped on some foreign countries is not the same as a million dollars worth of road improvements or schools or tech investment. There's no return on the bombs, they don't make your country richer. There's return on the other investments.

USA already has adequate roads and world class schools, they already lead the world when it comes to innovation.

I don't think I'm making it complicated enough, Geopolitics is complex as fuck. What I can say with reasonable confidence is that those in power in the USA, and I'm not talking about presidents, are not stupid. They are intelligent sociopaths or maybe even psychopaths that understand the complexities a great deal better than I do. With that said, why do they prefer to invest in war than roads and tech? Corruption and personal greed? Maybe. Or economic self preservation? Also maybe. What I do know is that lots of countries have large reserves of dollars, which means that if the dollar crashes, so do lots of economies around the world. That's no accident. USA have created this situation to ensure that any attack on the dollar is mutually disadvantageous.

I'm not an expert either but I know enough about history that countries' relative power is not a static thing. I think that's pretty obvious. Its also a historical pattern that the most powerful country overspends and overextends itself militarily until it's no longer the most powerful country. That's going to happen to the US eventually (at least the way it's going now). And the most likely country that's on a trajectory to replace it at the top is China.

I'm probably in agreement with most of this. I just don't see China replacing them, not the way they're going. Their ambitions seem very short term. Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit, maybe these ghost cities are a well considered plan for the future, but it seems to me that it's just creating growth for the sake of it.

[Poopadoop]

With that said, why do they prefer to invest in war than roads and tech? Corruption and personal greed? Maybe. Or economic self preservation? Also maybe.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that contractors and interest groups who make profits selling arms to the government are pulling a lot of the strings here. It's not because the US needs to overspend on military to protect itself. There's no country even within spitting distance of being able to hurt America. What, is Canada going to invade Montana?

Eisenhower warned about the growing military-industrial complex and how it was becoming too influential back in 1960. That was 60 years ago. All you have to do is look at a graph showing how the US spends more on military than the next ten biggest spenders combined to get an idea of how out of control it's gotten.

What I do know is that lots of countries have large reserves of dollars, which means that if the dollar crashes, so do lots of economies around the world. That's no accident. USA have created this situation to ensure that any attack on the dollar is mutually disadvantageous.

Not sure what this has to do with the conversation. No country is anywhere near capable of sinking the dollar, and military spending is not what's keeping it up.

I'm probably in agreement with most of this. I just don't see China replacing them, not the way they're going. Their ambitions seem very short term. Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit, maybe these ghost cities are a well considered plan for the future, but it seems to me that it's just creating growth for the sake of it.

I've read historians on this topic. According to them, military power comes from economic power, not the other way around. This year China will overtake the US in GDP. By 2030 India will overtake them too. That's doesn't mean they'll automatically be able to kick the US' ass in a war, but it does mean they'll be getting relatively more powerful as the decades go on.

Historically, there is a pattern of being the strongest country on the planet and the response to the inevitability of losing that status (someday) is to spend more and more on military to try to protect that status with the effect being that the status gets lost faster than it naturally would.

The UK, France, and Spain have all been in the US' position in the last few centuries. They've all overspent and overextended themselves militarily on wars in far off places they didn't need to be involved in, and this hastened their losing their status as superpowers (so the argument goes). For the US, this problem is multiplied by the corruption that leads it to not just overspend, but overspend to an absurd degree.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Adequate" is not really a worthy standard for a nation leading in innovation, IMO.

The fed only pays for interstate roads (highways), though, and those are pretty good (so long as you're not comparing them to German roads, lol). Most of the shitty roads are owned and maintained on state or local levels and they're quite often shit.
I am biased. StL has some of the worst maintained roads in the country, according to various surveys.

I'd say our colleges and universities are world class, but the lower education system is extremely hit and miss. Public schools vary wildly in quality, and even charter schools and other less public options can be average at best.

***
The economics of war is hard to wrap my head around.
I think of the Apollo missions and I want to say John Glen once retorted to criticism over the cost of the program by saying something to the effect of, "We didn't leave any bags of money on the moon. All that cost went to American scientists and businesses and went back into the American economy."

I know it's not a direct correlation to war costs. It's just not directly clear that spending money on bombs is a direct negative. Those people who got paid to make the bombs presumably spend their money on other American enterprises, enriching them and enabling them to innovate.

I think both Poopy and ong are making good points about this. The cost of the bombs could have gone into any research and had the same trickle-down effect on the rest of the economy. But the stability of the dollar is buoyed by our military strength. We use military strength to encourage other nations to buy into our dollar so they have a stake in keeping it stable.

[OngBonga]

It's not because the US needs to overspend on military to protect itself.

I was thinking more along the lines of securing resources to maintain economic dominance. Oil. Geopolitics seems to me to revolve around the petrocurrency. It's not about protecting themselves from military threats, it's about protecting themselves from someone else controlling global resources and shutting USA out. That would hurt America a lot more than a bomb in New York.

All you have to do is look at a graph showing how the US spends more on military than the next ten biggest spenders combined to get an idea of how out of control it's gotten.

Even the Russians can't compete with this level of corruption. Obviously the interests of arms dealers and lobbyists are an important factor.

Not sure what this has to do with the conversation. No country is anywhere near capable of sinking the dollar, and military spending is not what's keeping it up.

I agree that no country can sink the dollar. Those who have tried have been destroyed. We're moving into conspiracy theories here, but there were suggestions that Saddam Hussein was trying to sell his oil in Euros while others were looking to dump their dollar reserves and boost their alternative currency reserves, ie take contingency measures predicting the collapse of the dollar. America nipped it in the bud. Whether this is true or not, idk, but it makes some degree of sense on the surface.

Military spending is what's keeping the dollar propped up, at least to a degree. America need a powerful deterrent against their enemies.

According to them, military power comes from economic power, not the other way around.

This may be true, but military power may be necessary to maintain economic power, at least in today's world.

Historically, there is a pattern of being the strongest country on the planet and the response to the inevitability of losing that status (someday) is to spend more and more on military to try to protect that status with the effect being that the status gets lost faster than it naturally would.

History doesn't take into account technology. For example, the first nation to create a viable army of nanobots will be very powerful and might never lose their status as top dog. How do you dislodge them from their economic dominance? They can take what they want, they can defeat who they want, they can infiltrate and control anyone they want.

The UK, France, and Spain have all been in the US' position in the last few centuries.

This was before toasters existed, let alone thermonuclear weapons.

USA might not maintain their status as the world's most powerful nation, but history isn't a consistent and reliable indicator of what happens in the future. Eventually, someone will remain at the top and be impossible to dislodge. That might be USA.Or it could be someone else.

For the US, this problem is multiplied by the corruption that leads it to not just overspend, but overspend to an absurd degree.

This will probably be their downfall.

[Poopadoop]

I was thinking more along the lines of securing resources to maintain economic dominance. Oil. Geopolitics seems to me to revolve around the petrocurrency. It's not about protecting themselves from military threats, it's about protecting themselves from someone else controlling global resources and shutting USA out. That would hurt America a lot more than a bomb in New York.

Right, but the US doesn't need middle east oil anymore. I suspect their interest in that region is largely fuelled by the Israeli lobby and the military-industrial complex.

Even the Russians can't compete with this level of corruption. Obviously the interests of arms dealers and lobbyists are an important factor.

It does seem rather hard to justify that the most powerful country in the world, which leads a coalition of many of the other most powerful countries, spends so much.

Military spending is what's keeping the dollar propped up, at least to a degree. America need a powerful deterrent against their enemies.

Which enemies are threatening America again? If you say Russia I will lol.

The enemies the US has been cultivating would have no chance against 1/100th of America's strength in a conventional war. That's why they fight guerrila wars that emphasise different objectives. Rather than fighting for territory or to destroy the other side's army, they use ambush tactics to sap morale. This is a serious problem when you invade a country where the population hates you, and regular people are willing to die just to get you out of their country. These kinds of wars are practically unwinnable. You can't beat this kind of warfare by just pouring money into your military. You should just save your money.

This may be true, but military power may be necessary to maintain economic power, at least in today's world.

It always has been. But, it's a question of ROI. If you spend trillions on a war that gains you billions (or nothing, which is more common) in economic gain, you're weakening your economic strength which in turn will weaken your military strength. You want to spend your resources effectively, by fighting wars where you're either directly threatened or where you can expect the economic benefits to outweigh the costs. Granted, there are other reasons to fight, but the idea that any of the wars the US has been involved in since WWII have benefitted it seems pretty unlikely to me.

So why fight them? I'm not sure, but certainly the military-industrial complex likes war, so there's that force pushing. Also, the populace tends to get behind the leader when wars happen, so there's another incentive in an election year. These seem to be more likely reasons than that those wars are good for the country.

History doesn't take into account technology. For example, the first nation to create a viable army of nanobots will be very powerful and might never lose their status as top dog. How do you dislodge them from their economic dominance? They can take what they want, they can defeat who they want, they can infiltrate and control anyone they want.

Military spending on research is definitely worthwhile. You don't want to be caught using a musket when the other side is using AK47s. Not sure what % of total US spending is on research, but I'm guessing it's much less than 50%.

One problem though is high-tech weapons are expensive. It takes $100k to train and equip a single US soldier, never mind what tanks and planes and ships cost. $100k is a lot to spend on a guy that can get killed by a bomb some peasant made using fertilizer and spare clock parts.

USA might not maintain their status as the world's most powerful nation, but history isn't a consistent and reliable indicator of what happens in the future. Eventually, someone will remain at the top and be impossible to dislodge. That might be USA.Or it could be someone else.

Anything's possible.

[OngBonga]

The shareholders are still spending that money in the US, presumably...

Well, at least some of it for sure.

Saudi Arabia was "this close" to being another Vietnam, as I understand it. They had the oil and both the US and the Soviets wanted access to it. I'm not sure of the details as to how diplomacy prevailed over war in that case. The Saudi's ended up siding with us for whatever reasons, and we them.

At any rate, Saudi oil is running out in our lifetimes (source is my roommate, a Saudi engineer working in the oil industry). So this issue might have a shorter fuse than we think.

I'm not sure why we (the West) are allied to Saudi Arabia instead of just taking their oil. We could've taken control during WWII. But we didn't. But yeah, their oil will run out, and when it does they become an irrelevance. That's when Venezuela becomes a major player, one way or another.

[OngBonga]

Those people who got paid to make the bombs presumably spend their money on other American enterprises, enriching them and enabling them to innovate.

I suspect it's a great deal more corrupt than this. I would wager that the shareholders of bomb makers are those who have policy influence. If you will get a multi-million dollar dividend in the event of war, and you're in a position of power, you'll probably want war. There's a huge conflict of interest at play. I think the benefit to the US economy is not in the context of trickle down economics, it's due to the securing of resources essential for US economic interests.

I can't see any reason why we're allied to Sunnis and enemies with Shiites other than Saudi oil. Maybe I'm missing something though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Of course it's more corrupt than my naive mind can imagine.
The shareholders are still spending that money in the US, presumably... whether toward corrupt purposes or not. It's probably not a good point I'm making... just that the cost of the bombs goes to Americans who make bombs. Those Americans (not just the shareholders) use the money to raise their families and pay their bills and all the whatnot that is their lives.


Saudi Arabia was "this close" to being another Vietnam, as I understand it. They had the oil and both the US and the Soviets wanted access to it. I'm not sure of the details as to how diplomacy prevailed over war in that case. The Saudi's ended up siding with us for whatever reasons, and we them.

At any rate, Saudi oil is running out in our lifetimes (source is my roommate, a Saudi engineer working in the oil industry). So this issue might have a shorter fuse than we think.

[Poopadoop]

Of course it's more corrupt than my naive mind can imagine.
The shareholders are still spending that money in the US, presumably... whether toward corrupt purposes or not. It's probably not a good point I'm making... just that the cost of the bombs goes to Americans who make bombs. Those Americans (not just the shareholders) use the money to raise their families and pay their bills and all the whatnot that is their lives.

Sure, but if instead of paying that guy to work in a bomb factory you pay him to be an educator or health care professional, he's still going to spend his income on all those things. So it all balances out. The difference is the product of his labor (the bomb itself) doesn't generate wealth or well-being in the country the way education and health care do.

[OngBonga]

Right, but the US doesn't need middle east oil anymore. I suspect their interest in that region is largely fuelled by the Israeli lobby and the military-industrial complex.

Well, certainly Israel's interests are important, but I'm sure USA do need Saudi oil. Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps they do have access to sufficient resources outside of the ME, but American oil alone surely isn't going to cut it.

Which enemies are threatening America again? If you say Russia I will lol.

Yeah I think you should know by now that I don't consider Russia to be an actual threat. USA and Russia have a mutually beneficial "rivalry" that ensures both of them can spend large amounts of money on the military without raising too many eyebrows at home.

But America does indeed have enemies who would love to see the end of USA's status as the world's leading superpower. Iran are one, and Iran are allied to Russia, which does complicate matters. I don't think Russia will risk war with America to support the Mullahs, but if America were weaker, maybe they would. Perhaps America doesn't have any serious enemies because nobody is actually capable of winning an all-out-war against them.

These kinds of wars are practically unwinnable.

It depends on your goal. If the aim of the war is to cause economic hardship, without doing so to USA, then they are most certainly winning them. Iran should be a great deal more economically successful, they have fantastic universities and a large population of motivated people. USA have done their best to keep Iran economically stagnant, and have succeeded.

America's military power provides a deterrent against anyone who considers attacking them.

But, it's a question of ROI. If you spend trillions on a war that gains you billions (or nothing, which is more common) in economic gain, you're weakening your economic strength which in turn will weaken your military strength.

I think neither of us are well placed to assess the economic gain from warfare. It's not just about what USA gains, it's about what other nations lose. And we have no idea if the trillions spent by USA is only worth billions in economic gain. The people pulling the strings in USA are much better placed to make those judgments. But perhaps you're right, maybe they are overspending and it will all come crashing down. Maybe those in control are too greedy or too stupid to crunch the numbers. Greedy is much more likely.

but the idea that any of the wars the US has been involved in since WWII have benefitted it seems pretty unlikely to me.

They remain the prime global superpower, the leading global economy, and nobody would dare attack them. Sure they've benefited.

So why fight them? I'm not sure, but certainly the military-industrial complex likes war, so there's that force pushing. Also, the populace tends to get behind the leader when wars happen, so there's another incentive in an election year. These seem to be more likely reasons than that those wars are good for the country.

Internal political reasons are certainly a factor. And the war hawks like war because it makes them money, I think that's really all there is to it from their pov. I don't think they are literally bloodthirsty, but I can even begin to put myself in their shoes so idk.

One problem though is high-tech weapons are expensive.

They will get cheaper.

$100k is a lot to spend on a guy that can get killed by a bomb some peasant made using fertilizer and spare clock parts.

It's peanuts to a government, especially USA. Look at it this way... it costs a million to train ten soldiers, and if two die, then they spent a million on eight soldiers. Still peanuts.

[Poopadoop]

It depends on your goal. If the aim of the war is to cause economic hardship, without doing so to USA, then they are most certainly winning them. Iran should be a great deal more economically successful, they have fantastic universities and a large population of motivated people. USA have done their best to keep Iran economically stagnant, and have succeeded.

I'm talking about military expenditures and military conflicts. You're talkng here about economic war, which is not the same thing.

The goal with the sanctions is to make the Iranian people so miserable they overthrow their government, presumably to replace it with some version of a democracy that is pliable to the US. As long as the sanctions are all we do, we can win the long game with that strategy. Getting into a hot war isn't going to help achieve that aim it's going to hurt it.

When Trump killed Sulemani, millions of Iranians instantly forgot how much they hate their own government and remembered how much they hate America. This only strengthens their regime, and that alone makes it a dumb move. But, he also made his own people forget about impeachment for a few days and he made the military happy, so in that sense it was probably a good move, assuming the propaganda machine can convince them Iran actually poses some kind of serious threat to the US (lol).

America's military power provides a deterrent against anyone who considers attacking them .

I agree, but like I said there's no-one who can threaten them anyways. Even if their military budget were cut by 50%, they'd still be spending twice as much as the next biggest spender.

And we have no idea if the trillions spent by USA is only worth billions in economic gain.

You would have a hard time convincing me that the US benefitted at all economically from Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. Otoh, the costs of those wars are certainly much easier to estimate and they run into the trillions.

The people pulling the strings in USA are much better placed to make those judgments.

Arguably they're worse-placed because even if they have all the information their strings are being pulled by someone else.

I also wouldn't put too much faith in the wisdom of our dear leaders. There's plenty of occasions in the past when leaders have done things that clearly weren't in their country's best interests.

But perhaps you're right, maybe they are overspending and it will all come crashing down. Maybe those in control are too greedy or too stupid to crunch the numbers. Greedy is much more likely.

They can get away with it for a while, but eventually it will catch up to them, if historical patterns continue to hold.

They remain the prime global superpower, the leading global economy, and nobody would dare attack them. Sure they've benefited.

Control condition needed.

They will get cheaper.

The drone the Iranians shot down a few months ago cost $123 million.

It's peanuts to a government, especially USA. Look at it this way... it costs a million to train ten soldiers, and if two die, then they spent a million on eight soldiers. Still peanuts.

Obviously you can't fight a war with 8 soldiers. To train an army of a million men, the US would have to spend $100 billion. That's $300 for every single person in the country being spent on guns and not butter. Maybe not too much though right? Well, that's before you move them around the world and start feeding and supplying them with ammo and medicine and other logistics and supporting them with tanks (a hundred costs $1bn) and planes (12 for $1bn) and drones (8 for $1bn) and ships (average warship costs more than $1bn), and train people to use them, and buy the fuel and spare parts and so on and so forth. It adds up pretty quick.

The best thing that technology has done for us is to make major wars too expensive for first world countries to fight. If the US got into a hot war with Iran it would be ridiculously expensive and their economy would definitely suffer. Iran is not a pushover the way Iraq was, and the terrain is more like Afganistan than Iraq.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Iranians love western culture. They wear blue jeans and have garage punk bands.

Iran is a terrible country to go to war with. We could win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people so easy.

We have a fair number of Iranian physics graduate students here at Wash U. So many that they hold a Nowruz festival every year and throw a traditional Persian new years party for us.
The party has an open invite to the whole campus. It's a great event.
I've heard it's one of the biggest inter-depertmental celebrations on campus.


***
Vietnam has McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi. Hard to say America lost a culture war against the Soviets, which is exactly what the Vietnam conflict was about.

Korea more of a mixed bag. S. Korea, at least, is another example of a place that is a very strong ally with the US. As far as cultural victories go, S. Korea goes to the US.
Hard to argue that N. Korea went to the Soviets, too. N. Korea isn't really supported by the Russians so much as the Russians don't want to deal with the fallout of refugees that is expected to happen if/when N. Korea joins the international communities.
Besides, Korean war gave us M*A*S*H, which put Alan Alda in the spotlight which 100% made the world a better place.

[Poopadoop]

Vietnam has McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi. Hard to say America lost a culture war against the Soviets, which is exactly what the Vietnam conflict was about.

I think ideology was the key issue in that war. Don't think you won that aspect since the whole country went commie. But for that matter, so what? The concern at the time was that communism would spread throughout SE Asia. Didn't happen.

Yeah, and not sure any Vietnam vet would appreciate someone saying you won the culture war, thus implying it was worth their sacrifice. Was the war itself a necessary condition leading to BR and MacDs getting franchises in Hanoi? Kinda doubt that.

Besides, Korean war gave us M*A*S*H, which put Alan Alda in the spotlight which 100% made the world a better place.

Totally worth it just for Hawkeye

That war was a draw. But, it was partly predicated on the same 'domino effect' idea as Vietnam, like communism was this virus that was going to spread all over the world. Not an outlandish idea in the 1950s, but didn't really turn out to be true.

[Jack Sawyer]

Iranians love western culture. They wear blue jeans and have garage punk bands.

Iran is a terrible country to go to war with. We could win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people so easy.

We have a fair number of Iranian physics graduate students here at Wash U. So many that they hold a Nowruz festival every year and throw a traditional Persian new years party for us.
The party has an open invite to the whole campus. It's a great event.
I've heard it's one of the biggest inter-depertmental celebrations on campus.


***
Vietnam has McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi. Hard to say America lost a culture war against the Soviets, which is exactly what the Vietnam conflict was about.

Korea more of a mixed bag. S. Korea, at least, is another example of a place that is a very strong ally with the US. As far as cultural victories go, S. Korea goes to the US.
Hard to argue that N. Korea went to the Soviets, too. N. Korea isn't really supported by the Russians so much as the Russians don't want to deal with the fallout of refugees that is expected to happen if/when N. Korea joins the international communities.
Besides, Korean war gave us M*A*S*H, which put Alan Alda in the spotlight which 100% made the world a better place.

The war in Vietnam nowadays is about coffee, with Starbucks losing to Highlands mainly due to price and not assessing the local market properly

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about military expenditures and military conflicts. You're talkng here about economic war, which is not the same thing.

They are not mutually exclusive. Ok, the economic war against Iran has not, until now, been fought with weapons, but most wars that American military have engaged in since WWII have been, at least to some degree, economic wars.

The goal with the sanctions is to make the Iranian people so miserable they overthrow their government,

I think this is way too simplistic. I think the goal of sanctions against Iran is to hurt their economy, which in turn impacts on their military capabilities. If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

When Trump killed Sulemani, millions of Iranians instantly forgot how much they hate their own government and remembered how much they hate America.

I suspect you think Solemani is actually revered amongst these people. I don't think that's true. I think the opposite is true. Solemani was responsible for crushing uprisings in Iran, he was hated by a lot of people and there were celebrations when news broke. Those celebrations were somewhat muted when they remembered they still have to worry about those in power who remain alive and well. The people on the streets "mourning" are probably doing so under duress. I do not know this, it's what I suspect. I find it hard to believe that Iranian people could actually celebrate this guy. I suspect a lot of people feel this guy got what he deserved and hope his successor is less brutal.

I don't think Trump gives a fuck about impeachment. He's not going to be removed from power, we all know it. Impeachment is only something to worry about if your own party supports it. Otherwise it's just theatre.

I agree, but like I said there's no-one who can threaten them anyways. Even if their military budget were cut by 50%, they'd still be spending twice as much as the next biggest spender.

I'm in no doubt they're spending more than they need to in order to maintain their dominance, but I have no idea if their spending is unsustainable.

You would have a hard time convincing me that the US benefitted at all economically from Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. Otoh, the costs of those wars are certainly much easier to estimate and they run into the trillions.

idk about Korea and Vietnam, but Iraq, USA certainly did benefit economically, assuming Saddam Hussein was actually trying to sell his oil in Euros. That sent a message out to every world leader that if you try to replace the dollar as the world's petrocurrency, then assassination is a serious risk.

How much is the dollar petrocurrency worth to the American economy? I'd wager it's in the trillions.

I also wouldn't put too much faith in the wisdom of our dear leaders. There's plenty of occasions in the past when leaders have done things that clearly weren't in their country's best interests.

True, but it's another matter to argue they made a mistake. Perhaps they have been bought off. People in these positions are a lot smarter than I am, and a lot more psychopathic. I can't get into their heads.

The drone the Iranians shot down a few months ago cost $123 million.

Yeah, because of corruption. They could likely make it for a couple of million, but that benefits the taxpayer, not the shareholder.

Obviously you can't fight a war with 8 soldiers.

I wasn't suggesting you can. I'm just saying that the money lost in training a soldier who dies is peanuts to a government, even if as many as 20% are being lost, which is a huge number. Ok so it's $100b to train a million soldiers. So if 20% were killed in action, then it cost $100b to train 800k soldiers.

Meanwhile, the average hurricane costs $20b. Seriously, we're talking peanuts here in the context of military and government spending.

Iran is not a pushover the way Iraq was, and the terrain is more like Afganistan than Iraq.

I'm sure with the right tactics, we could defeat them without too much economic hardship on our end.

[Poopadoop]

I think this is way too simplistic. I think the goal of sanctions against Iran is to hurt their economy, which in turn impacts on their military capabilities. If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

They have shortages of medicines in Iran, people are dying because they can't import meds. Explain to me how that is keeping them from being a military power. It's punishing the people so they'll turn against their gov't.

If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

Who says they aren't? They've done it before in Iran, you think they've stopped now?

[MadMojoMonkey]

You think bombing and invading Vietnam made them more amenable to US companies than not bombing and invading them would have? I dont see how this can be, but I guess we'll never know.

First of all, that's kinda a scandalous quote to leave off this part.

Maybe it was necessary to get those things on this time-scale, I guess.

I'm pretty sure the answer to your above question is stated here as a resounding, "dunno."

But whatever.
You seem to be talking like the US went to war against Vietnam. That's not a very clear representation of the conflict. The US was fighting alongside some Vietnamese, and the Soviets were supplying munitions and logistics to other Vietnamese. There was a civil war in Vietnam, perhaps a rebel uprising, and 2 OP neighbors decided to back opposing sides.

(As I understand it. Admittedly, I am not an expert on this.)

The US was overrun in the end when financial support was cut by Congress. This is the seed that has put the US in the position I described earlier. Once the troops are in the field, the notion of cutting the funding on them gives us cultural flashbacks to Vietnam. (obv. hyperbole, but still apt, I think)


Geez, I'm just talking out my ass mostly. I only know my cultural understanding of the conflict. I've never really researched it beyond watching a few documentaries, none recently, and a few Hollywood movies.
If you like a good semi-fictional Vietnam movie, Hamburger Hill (1987) was a solid film. Like all war movies, it was hard to watch in parts, but I was totally sucked into it. I'd rate it up there with Full Metal Jacket, though FMJ still top Vietnam movie, IMO. With FMJ, you get 2 for 1. Great bargain, and both excellent films.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think ideology was the key issue in that war. Don't think you won that aspect since the whole country went commie. But for that matter, so what? The concern at the time was that communism would spread throughout SE Asia. Didn't happen.

That's fair.
It did take 20 years before the US re-opened formal relations with Vietnam. While the relationship has only gotten stronger since Clinton, it's missing the point to connect the dots without the 20-years in between.

Yeah, and not sure any Vietnam vet would appreciate someone saying you won the culture war, thus implying it was worth their sacrifice. Was the war itself a necessary condition leading to BR and MacDs getting franchises in Hanoi? Kinda doubt that.

Those vets are not political or economic experts, so their opinions or hurt feelings over the reality of the outcome isn't relevant to this discussion, right?

Don't get me wrong. America pretty much shit on the Vietnam vets, and that was appalling.
I'm not arguing that we should have sent them to Vietnam.
I'm not trivializing the effect the deployments had on those vets.
It's just a different discussion than what we're talking about.


IDK exactly what you mean by "necessary" in the above. It certainly accelerated the presence of US interests in the region, and cemented them.
Maybe it was necessary to get those things on this time-scale, I guess.

***

That war was a draw. But, it was partly predicated on the same 'domino effect' idea as Vietnam, like communism was this virus that was going to spread all over the world. Not an outlandish idea in the 1950s, but didn't really turn out to be true.

'Cause GI Joe was there, obv.

The fall of the Soviet Union didn't happen in a vacuum. It wasn't all US maneuvering, but Korea, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, others... all proxy conflicts in the cold war.

Ong makes a good point that sometimes war isn't about making a profit. It's about outspending your opponent and crushing their economic viability. This happens all the time in US legal cases. They're called SLAPP cases. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. In effect, it's when a large, wealthy entity files frivolous lawsuits against smaller, less wealthy competition. This ties up the smaller entity's funds, forcing them out of the public sphere, whether as a business competitor or a news agency reporting unfavorably against them.

If this happens on smaller scales, it would be naive to say it doesn't happen on bigger scales.

[Poopadoop]

IDK exactly what you mean by "necessary" in the above. It certainly accelerated the presence of US interests in the region, and cemented them.

You think bombing and invading Vietnam made them more amenable to US companies than not bombing and invading them would have? I dont see how this can be, but I guess we'll never know.

The fall of the Soviet Union didn't happen in a vacuum. It wasn't all US maneuvering, but Korea, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, others... all proxy conflicts in the cold war.

On that topic, the Soviets were definitely overspending on their military, something like 15% of their gdp. US currently spends about 3% for comparison. That was definitely a contributing factor to their collapse.

[MadMojoMonkey]

re: $123 million dollar drone cost

Yeah, because of corruption. They could likely make it for a couple of million, but that benefits the taxpayer, not the shareholder.

I'm guessing the R&D costs are wrapped up in that figure.
Perhaps also more rigorous quality controls on items where the intended use has greater consequences than your typical consumer good.