Zone1 military spending on longlasting/endless wars while people suffer cripplingly high food and gas prices : should we just vote no to all that?

[peacefan]

China will never renounce the right to use force over Taiwan, President Xi Jinping has declared at the opening of a major party meeting. China views democratically ruled Taiwan as its own territory, but the island’s government has strong objections and believes sovereignty should be claimed by its people. Speaking at the opening of the ruling Communist Party’s 20th congress, the country’s biggest political event, Mr Xi said China always “respected, cared for and benefited” Taiwan’s people. He added that he was committed to promoting economic and cultural exchanges across the Taiwan Strait. “Resolving the Taiwan issue is the Chinese people’s own business, and it’s up to the Chinese people to decide,” Mr Xi said. “We insist on striving for the prospect of peaceful reunification with the greatest sincerity and best efforts, but we will never promise to give up the use of force, and reserve the option to take all necessary measures.” To a long round of applause, he concluded: “The historical wheels of national reunification and national rejuvenation are rolling forward, and the complete reunification of the motherland must be achieved.” During Mr Xi’s speech, which mentioned “safety” and “security” 73 times, he explained that China will also accelerate the building of a world-class military and strengthen its ability to build a strategic deterrent. Beijing has offered Taiwan a “one country, two systems” model of autonomy – the same formula it uses for Hong Kong -but all mainstream Taiwanese political parties have rejected that proposal. ‘Meeting on the battlefield is not an option’ Tensions between Beijing and Taipei have risen since August after China staged military drills near Taiwan following a visit to the island by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her trip infuriated the Chinese government, which views visits to Taiwan by foreign officials as recognising its sovereignty. Since then, military activities have continued near Taiwan but at a reduced pace. In retaliation to Mr Xi’s comments, Taiwan’s presidential office said it would not back down on its sovereignty or compromise on freedom and democracy. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player 3:27 War with China ‘not an option’ Maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and in the region is the common responsibility of both sides, and meeting on the battlefield is not an option, Taiwan’s presidential office said. Read more: How much disruption are China’s military drills causing? Why is Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan so controversial? It also reiterated its continued stance that the island’s people clearly oppose Beijing’s idea of “one country, two systems” management. At the end of the Communist Party’s week-long congress, Mr Xi, 69, is widely expected to win a third leadership term, cementing his place as the country’s most powerful ruler since Mao Zedong. The event will be attended by around 2,300 delegates from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), including political leaders of all ranks as well as delegates from the private sector, doctors, farmers, “model workers”, and even China’s first female astronaut. Checkout latest world news below links : World News || Latest News || U.S. News Source link The post China will never renounce right to use force over Taiwan, President Xi Jinping declares appeared first on WorldNewsEra.

Local : 2022-10-16(Sunday) 09 : 10 : 17
Remote : 2022-10-16(Sunday) 09 : 10 : 17
Found via nicer.app web apps framework

first Ukraine, and soon Taiwan too..?

trillions spent on destruction and reconstruction far away (and that's just Ukraine, after 1 year[1]), while people here (in the EU *and* in the US) need a lot better local economy.
don't top politicians have something better to do than to play with the lives of their voters *and* those living in far-away countries in such a "drunken" way??

[1] Russia’s War in Ukraine to Cost Global Economy $2.8 Trillion, OECD Says

 

[rightwinger]

It is a case of priorities

Global military power is a priority over domestic investment
The US spends 40 cents of every military dollar spent in the world
It comes at the cost of a crumbling infrastructure and healthcare and education being unaffordable for working families

 

[peacefan]

It is a case of priorities

Global military power is a priority over domestic investment
The US spends 40 cents of every military dollar spent in the world
It comes at the cost of a crumbling infrastructure and healthcare and education being unaffordable for working families

call me an out of touch philosopher or something of your choice, but *why* does military power weigh more heavily than domestic investment?
why could we not have just handed the Russians their victory in Ukraine, huh?

 

[pknopp]

Some have been condemning this for a long time. Unfortunately far too many are afraid to vote against it.

 

[candycorn]

first Ukraine, and soon Taiwan too..?

trillions spent on destruction and reconstruction far away (and that's just Ukraine, after 1 year[1]), while people here (in the EU *and* in the US) need a lot better local economy.
don't top politicians have something better to do than to play with the lives of their voters *and* those living in far-away countries in such a "drunken" way??

[1] Russia’s War in Ukraine to Cost Global Economy $2.8 Trillion, OECD Says

Its a valid concern.

What it would require is a President who essentially just ignores the political fallout from just calling it quits, bringing the troops home and deciding that the upside of maintaining the status quo is not worth the costs. There is a reason why these wars last for multiple administrations...there is no "good way" out of it politically.

 

[rightwinger]

call me an out of touch philosopher or something of your choice, but *why* does military power weigh more heavily than domestic investment?

Fear

The US hasn’t had a foreign invasion in over 200 years.
We are surrounded by vast oceans and peaceful neighbors.
Yet, the people have been convinced that unless we spend $1 trillion a year on our military, their “freedom“ will be in jeopardy

 

[Harpy Eagle]

call me an out of touch philosopher or something of your choice, but *why* does military power weigh more heavily than domestic investment?
why could we not have just handed the Russians their victory in Ukraine, huh?

One cannot try and control the world by domestic spending.

Some people think we have bases in the EU/Japan/Korea to protect them, when in reality it is for us to try and control them

 

[peacefan]

without clear justification by our own politicians for us (NATO + EU + UK) supporting wars fought by others, i think we should not engage in that at all.
it's one thing to be living as democratic capitalists, it's entirely another to be selling that to the world as the best way of living and then having these hard long wars to support that thinking.
i don't think we should go beyond ruling ourselves at all, even if it does cost us territory.
these countries that want to be in NATO or the EU, they're poor. and looking to tap our wealth.
but somehow our own top politicians (left, center *and* right) can be bribed (by people from these westerner-wannabe countries) to support this "vision" for our people?
a vision that in reality is just a frail expansion of territories, huge rises in alliance maintenance costs, and a significant increase in corruption.
we need to retreat, to a much more solid core, that provides a lot more of it's own needs.
all this unipolar world-order thinking is outdated, replaced by a multi-polar world reality.

 

[rightwinger]

One cannot try and control the world by domestic spending.

Some people think we have bases in the EU/Japan/Korea to protect them, when in reality it is for us to try and control them

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has shown that Russia is not the threat to Europe that we have made them out to be. There is no reason that Europe cannot defend itself against Russia.

 

[Mr Natural]

Fear

The US hasn’t had a foreign invasion in over 200 years.
We are surrounded by vast oceans and peaceful neighbors.
Yet, the people have been convinced that unless we spend $1 trillion a year on our military, their “freedom“ will be in jeopardy

But isn't the entire world out to get us?

 

[peacefan]

Its a valid concern.

What it would require is a President who essentially just ignores the political fallout from just calling it quits, bringing the troops home and deciding that the upside of maintaining the status quo is not worth the costs. There is a reason why these wars last for multiple administrations...there is no "good way" out of it politically.

anything can be done if one gets enough media attention for their different vision.
you'd be competing against other visions (that unipolarism for instance), but by pointing out your own vision's strengths and the others' weaknesses and lack of short-term or even mid-term rewards, one can get elected, for sure.

 

[peacefan]

But isn't the entire world out to get us?

even if that were the case (and for almost the entire world, it's not), then with a more actual-defense oriented approach, one could spend a whole lot less on the military.
bombs in storage are cheap, bombs getting used is an enormous waste of money and lives.

 

[rightwinger]

But isn't the entire world out to get us?

Commies!
No, Muslim Terrorists
No, No….Commies again

Send money!

 

[peacefan]

Commies!
No, Muslim Terrorists
No, No….Commies again

Send money!

a large part of it is 'new corruption chances', but another large part of it is 'culture'.
it's become the norm for westerners to think in a unipolar way.
regardless of how that came to be, i believe we must acknowledge that Earth is never going to be a unipolar world.
it'll consist of countries that are each member of several alliances of countries.
and we really ought to let others be ruled according to nearby local standards, or we'll end up like the Roman Empire and so many other Empires throughout history : small & prosperous at first, then bloated (in territory size), and then dead.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Some have been condemning this for a long time. Unfortunately far too many are afraid to vote against it.

And wouldn't know who to vote for. The Twoparties don't offer any candidates who are willing to stand up to the Military Industrial Complex.

 

[peacefan]

we can of course also choose to let those country-wide and alliance-wide legal systems run for a while, until we find reason to unify in a world government with the primary purposes of preventing real war between countries or alliances, and ensuring a fair distribution of global wealth and net income.

 

[DGS49]

For the most part, military spending IS domestic spending. Where do you think that money goes? Soldiers' pay, boats, weapons, planes, other equipment, basically ALL made in the U.S.A. (by law). When we give Ukraine and others money, it usually must be spent buying weapons and shit from the U.S.

As for voting "to end all that," I'm not sure the Republicans would be spending any differently.

 

[pknopp]

And wouldn't know who to vote for. The Twoparties don't offer any candidates who are willing to stand up to the Military Industrial Complex.

They lie to us. It happens. I understand someone voting for what a candidate promises. What I do not understand is voting to re-elect them after they do not do what they promised.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They lie to us. It happens. I understand someone voting for what a candidate promises. What I do not understand is voting to re-elect them after they do not do what they promised.

Who ran or is running on a promise of getting us out of the business of policing the world, and not growing the behemoth military?

 

[Anathema]

Defense is a specified power and legitimate spending point for the US Government. Though in a FAR more limited scope than what we do currently. The vast majority of Domestic spending, and ALL social welfare spending are totally illegitimate and unconstitutional.