*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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.