- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/14/22 at 8:22 am to GeauxxxTigers23
As a pilot I think the Myira is a modern marvel but in wartime it’s foolish to dump that much into one plane that can be taken out with just one of those Iranian drones. After the war I say great rebuild it if money allows but that money is needed more for tanks, AA, artillery and ammunition.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 6:30 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 9:09 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
So, a globalist in Bush, favored committing American $$$ to protect the world? I'm shocked. What benefit does that enhanced "political economy" impart to the American citizen? Sounds like a nebulous reason to justify shipping American resources elsewhere.
Quite a bit. Firstly the people who pushed this are also American citizens. That 'average' American citizens might benefit asymmetrically isn't really a concern to them. Secondly the political economy situation is self-evident. We live in a globalized world, and there is no going back. The free movement of goods is guaranteed by the US, and since the US has taken over the sole hegemonic position, the GDP of the country has grown by 4 times, the crime index in 2019 was the lowest it has been since before the Civil Rights era, and even with the increase in crime in 2020, the violent crime rate was lower than the entirety of the 2000s, while property crimes were lower than even 2019, according to the FBI's data.
Indeed, many of Fukuyama's arguments in The End of History have proved fruitful, including the propensity of people to make up things to be angry about, including the perception of crime, where there is a large disconnect to reality.
The other thing is that geopolitics is anarchic. There is no magical utopia where suddenly nations would not interfere with each other's affairs. It is either you dominate other countries or you are subject to domination. There is no other way. The US can dictate things to other countries in ways that no other country could do to the US. Why would any American citizen want to live in some other world? Indeed, I'd argue that much of the annoyance for 'paying for Europe's defense' is all based on a notion of the Federal deficit that makes no sense.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 9:16 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Personally I think this line of thinking is outdated. And even if it weren’t, it’s just simply not true anymore, or at best it’s waning. Europe as a whole has completely recovered from the two world wars and is more than capable of protecting the continent from Russia. China is a legit superpower now that can project economic and increasing military might across the globe. The US is simply not the global hegemony it was 30 years ago.
I don't think that line of thinking is outdated. Indeed, if we take a historical view, the only way to ensure non-interference in your own affairs is to dominate others. It is fundamental to geopolitics. We don't live in a world where there is order. If a nation acts badly, there is no institution which could rein them in or serve to be a check on what extraterritorial desires it may have. In other words, the world is anarchic, and has always been anarchic. The US has consistently attempted to build a version of the 'liberal' world order, but it is one in which the US is not subject to the rules it creates. In that sense, there is domination and there is being dominated. This is ultimately an extremely conservative argument, and I'm constantly surprised that a right-leaning board seems to constantly misunderstand geopolitics. The US withdrawal from world affairs is seemingly based on a utopian view of human affairs. I can't help but call that version utterly naïve, because it is.
The fact that you could consider China a borderline superpower that is able to project power is again an argument for NATO. That makes it even less likely that the US would leave an organization it built from the ground-up.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 9:26 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
The other thing is that geopolitics is anarchic. There is no magical utopia where suddenly nations would not interfere with each other's affairs. It is either you dominate other countries or you are subject to domination. There is no other way. The US can dictate things to other countries in ways that no other country could do to the US. Why would any American citizen want to live in some other world?
And what's ironic is that the main alternative to the ideology that brigand states are inevitably bound to endlessly try to dominate each other is the idea that the development of strong multinational institutions to check national aggression, the very type of institutions that the nativist types tend to eschew as "globalist". So they don't want to pay to allow their own country to dominate and don't want to build and maintain institutions to check geopolitical domination.
So what's left seems to be being... dominated.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 9:46 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
This is ultimately an extremely conservative argument, and I'm constantly surprised that a right-leaning board seems to constantly misunderstand geopolitics. The US withdrawal from world affairs is seemingly based on a utopian view of human affairs. I can't help but call that version utterly naïve, because it is.
Oh I understand the argument for it. I just disagree with it and I question the US’ ability to dominate the world like it has since wwii. The entire planet was basically destroyed during the two world wars. Us and the Soviets were the only games in town. Europe was fricked up. Most of Asia was fricked up. It made sense that the United States rebuild the world and benefit from it economically and culturally. The rest of the world has caught up or is at least well on their way. Hell man, even the poorest parts of the world have functioning communication systems and high speed wifi. Healthcare has lowered infant mortality rates to almost 1st world standards even in the poorest parts of Africa.
quote:There isn’t a NATO like organization for the Far East though. Unless China directly attacks the United States then no NATO country is obligated to oppose China with us. And even if they wanted to they don’t have the capability to even move their militaries to the other side of the globe in any meaningful capacity without our help. What they can do however is oppose Russia without our help.
The fact that you could consider China a borderline superpower that is able to project power is again an argument for NATO. That makes it even less likely that the US would leave an organization it built from the ground-up.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 9:47 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
I don't think that line of thinking is outdated.
Here is something posters like this dude will understand.
UNDERPANTS GNOMES, PHASE 1 AND PHASE 3
Posted on 11/14/22 at 9:52 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
It made sense that the United States rebuild the world and benefit from it economically and culturally. The rest of the world has caught up or is at least well on their way. Hell man, even the poorest parts of the world have functioning communication systems and high speed wifi. Healthcare has lowered infant mortality rates to almost 1st world standards even in the poorest parts of Africa.
But much of this has been driven by US investment. This amounts to giving up on the possible fruits of an initial investment for no real reason.
quote:
There isn’t a NATO like organization for the Far East though. Unless China directly attacks the United States then no NATO country is obligated to oppose China with us. And even if they wanted to they don’t have the capability to even move their militaries to the other side of the globe in any meaningful capacity without our help. What they can do however is oppose Russia without our help.
But China has the ability to project power in every direction, and thus, it makes little sense to give up one region where your position is already secured, as the ultimate aim of the Chinese has been to reorient trade around China, as it was for much of human history. That reorientation includes Europe, as China has been looking for a way into the continent, specifically through the Balkans, for some time now.
Ultimately, I don't see an argument for receding from international affairs, especially by the conditions you've stated. The benefit is obscure, and the ultimate impetus of the argument seems to be out of preference rather than reality.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 10:00 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
I'm constantly surprised that a right-leaning board seems to constantly misunderstand geopolitics.
IMO... (and yes I know this is a bit of an oversimplification..)
Libertarianism suffers from the same fundamental flaw of the extreme liberalism we see in our politics today.. And that flaw is an erroneous view of human nature and how that plays out on the world stage in geopolitics..
Posted on 11/14/22 at 10:19 am to crazy4lsu
quote:it highlights that we need to pivot our attention. i have no problem with taking a back seat in europe, not abandoning or leaving NATO but simply letting europeans take the lead and handle their own issues, while we focus our efforts on building institutions like the quad and aukus to keep china pinned down in the first island chain
The fact that you could consider China a borderline superpower that is able to project power is again an argument for NATO. That makes it even less likely that the US would leave an organization it built from the ground-up.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 10:20 am
Posted on 11/14/22 at 10:28 am to WestCoastAg
In de facto terms, those potential Pacific organizations can fit in nicely with already existing organizations which the US also built.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:08 am to Obtuse1
Solovyov:
Still with the nuclear intimidation of OML.
quote:
There are two options: Either we win this war or the whole world is reduced to ashes.
Still with the nuclear intimidation of OML.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:09 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Quite a bit. Firstly the people who pushed this are also American citizens. That 'average' American citizens might benefit asymmetrically isn't really a concern to them. Secondly the political economy situation is self-evident. We live in a globalized world, and there is no going back. The free movement of goods is guaranteed by the US, and since the US has taken over the sole hegemonic position, the GDP of the country has grown by 4 times, the crime index in 2019 was the lowest it has been since before the Civil Rights era, and even with the increase in crime in 2020, the violent crime rate was lower than the entirety of the 2000s, while property crimes were lower than even 2019, according to the FBI's data.
Is it actually your position that if we weren't in NATO that world trade would come crashing down? That other countries would ignore the largest and most affluent consumer economy because we expect West Germany and the Netherlands to pony up for their own defense? That's ludicrous on its face.
Are you confused about NATO's mission? It is not to play world police. It is for the defense of Western Europe against the (now defunct) USSR. Justifying our continued involvement because of China or "political economy" is broadening the scope of NATO's purpose.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:16 am to LSUPilot07
quote:
As a pilot I think the Myira is a modern marvel but in wartime it’s foolish to dump that much into one plane that can be take out again with just one of those Iranian drones. After the war I say great rebuild it if money slows but that money is needed more for tanks, AA, artillery and ammunition
In a discussion with Denys Davydov on Telegram, he says that the Ukes have decided to stabilize the plane’s condition, put it in wraps and tend to it after the war is over and reconstruction of the country has been completed.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:21 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Are you confused about NATO's mission? It is not to play world police. It is for the defense of Western Europe against the (now defunct) USSR. Justifying our continued involvement because of China or "political economy" is broadening the scope of NATO's purpose.
Would you agree NATO's purpose was broadened already? It invoked Article V and sent token forces into Afghanistan after 9/11
NATO was foundamentally founded to fight off USSR aggression. But if you boil it down further, it was formed to fight off RUSSIAN agression. The bear may go by a different name today but it is still a bear and we must take measures to safeguard our interests against it.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:23 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Is it actually your position that if we weren't in NATO that world trade would come crashing down? That other countries would ignore the largest and most affluent consumer economy because we expect West Germany and the Netherlands to pony up for their own defense? That's ludicrous on its face.
No. My position is that the US would risk losing its place as the main benefactor of trade. Not only that, integrating European defenses along American lines benefits everyone, including US companies. Under US protection, Europe has enjoyed one of its longer, peaceful eras, in direct contrast to most of its history. At this point, I'm not sure you are considering the externalities of your argument, given that you are so 'hellbent' on who is paying for what. There is no arrangement in geopolitics where countries are getting something for free. This also applies to NATO.
quote:
Are you confused about NATO's mission? It is not to play world police. It is for the defense of Western Europe against the (now defunct) USSR. Justifying our continued involvement because of China or "political economy" is broadening the scope of NATO's purpose.
Do you understand geopolitics? Because there is a distinct difference between a stated purpose and a real purpose.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:48 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
NATO was foundamentally founded to fight off USSR aggression. But if you boil it down further, it was formed to fight off RUSSIAN agression. The bear may go by a different name today but it is still a bear and we must take measures to safeguard our interests against it.
If/when Trump gets reelected, you can bet your life that the US will withdraw from NATO.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:49 am to SneezyBeltranIsHere
i pray that hes not that stupid
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:54 am to SneezyBeltranIsHere
I hate to disappoint you, but even if Trump runs again he won’t be elected.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:55 am to crazy4lsu
China is a ticking debt bomb
This war is tragic for china food-fertilizer
The fact you think China can project fire power is just wrong. Thirty percent of their houses have no toilet.
Read or you tube Peter Ziehan --its not good for China
They based their military hardware on Russia....good luck
This war is tragic for china food-fertilizer
The fact you think China can project fire power is just wrong. Thirty percent of their houses have no toilet.
Read or you tube Peter Ziehan --its not good for China
quote:
But China has the ability to project power in every direction,
They based their military hardware on Russia....good luck
Page 2154 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News