US Military's Knee on the Throat of the World

OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,086
Reaction score
2,454
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
I don't think Russia and China can be viewed together. Russia seems to be about Putin's Russia reacquiring its territories of the Czarist era. That includes Ukriaine. Geogia and the Baltics. Putin's already reacquired Belarus. At the heart, I just don't think Russian's view personal autonomy as being as central to the reason of being as Westerners do.
I think it's guaranteed rich Russians have little regard for personal autonomy, but many Russians remember how rich Americans looted their country in the 1990s:

Dollar Recycling | Michael Hudson

"The ideal the United States would like China to do is to let U.S. investors do to it what they did to Russia after 1991.

"They told Russia that it needed to back its domestic Ruble issues by holding an equivalent amount of U.S. dollars, in the form of private dollar loans or dollar-denominated U.S. Treasury securities.

"This involved borrowing dollars from the United States instead of simply issuing domestic rubles.

"Russia paid 100 percent interest a year to U.S. investors in 1993-1994.

"Yet Russia did not need foreign exchange to pay domestic ruble-wages or to pay for domestic goods and services.

"But neoliberal advisors convinced Russia to back all Ruble money or domestic currency credit it created by backing it with U.S. dollars. Obtaining these dollars involved paying enormous interest to the United States for this needless backing.

"There was no need for such backing.

"At the end of this road the United States convinced Russia to sell off its raw materials, its nickel mines, its electric utilities, its oil reserves, and ultimately tried to pry Crimea away from Russia.":eek:
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,086
Reaction score
2,454
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
rump was right at least as far as the US being the world's chump in making sure China had access to western markets.
It is looking more and more likely to me that neoliberal capitalism was made for a single-party authoritarian state like China. They spend a fraction of what the US spends on "defense", so their resources go into building infrastructure instead of blowing it up. The Chinese people believe the 21st Century belongs to them, and there doesn't seem like America has any non-violent counter-argument?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,086
Reaction score
2,454
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
I notice you only call out the US when they kill people, and ignore that in war it takes two to tango.
I have noticed there is only one country on this planet consistently killing millions of human beings on the opposite side of the world; what's blinding you to that particular historical reality:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...merican-wars/2011/12/05/gIQALCO4eP_story.html

"While estimates of Korean War deaths are mainly guesswork, the three-year conflict is widely believed to have taken 3 million lives, about half of them civilians.

"The sizable civilian toll was partly due to the fact that the country’s population is among the world’s densest and the war’s front lines were often moving.

"The war in Vietnam and the spillover conflicts in Laos and Cambodia were even more lethal.

"These numbers are also hard to pin down, although by several scholarly estimates, Vietnamese military and civilian deaths ranged from 1.5 million to 3.8 million, with the U.S.-led campaign in Cambodia resulting in 600,000 to 800,000 deaths, and Laotian war mortality estimated at about 1 million."

Perhaps you noticed how the Cambodian deaths contributed to the rise of Pol Pot?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,086
Reaction score
2,454
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Does anyone else think it is a problem that Nato Countries are energy dependent on Russia? Do you think the EU would even try to stand up to Putin?
NATA would appear to have a significant military advantage over Russia even without US support:

Military Spending: Russia Vs. NATO

Europe is much more committed to ending its dependency on fossil fuels than the US; that will end any addiction to Russian gas.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,937
Reaction score
4,568
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Which country poses the greatest threat to global peace?
Who gets rich from that?


"JULY 3, 2020
The US Military Has Its Knee on the Throat of the World
by ELLEN TAYLOR"

"As Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed, 'The character of war is changing frequency'.

"The messy, scrappy, unsatisfying, asymmetrical wars in the devastated Middle East have lost the interest of our warriors, as two worthier adversaries, China and Russia, have been conjured up, and now grip their attention.

"Although our budget comprises over 40% of the world’s military spending, and China and Russia spend respectively one-sixth and one-tenth of ours, the Pentagon refers to them generously as “near-peers”.;)

"China and Russia are not eager for these roles.

"We have had to torment them, like reluctant bulls in a bullfight.

"We sail our warships within twelve miles of their shores, conducting vast military exercises in the South China Sea, the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Japan Sea.

"Thousands of US troops marched across Europe this spring to perform military exercises along Russia’s borders.

"Arleigh-Burke class guided missile destroyers, with aerial escort, performed maneuvers this May, close to the Russian coast in the Barents Sea, to enforce 'freedom of navigation'".

Time to defund the Pentagon?
So why does the US spend more than anyone else? There are a couple of reasons.

1. The US had the leading technology and equipment in the world.

Screenshot_2020-07-06 value drop on cars - Google Search.png


Look at this chart about Automobile costs. Cars lose 24% of their value the first year. The older the product the cheaper it costs.

The same is true absolutely of absolutely everything. Everything that exists is super expensive on the bleeding edge of tech, and rather cheap for older tech.

This is why an F-35 costs $93 Million per unit, an F-16 costs $35 Million per unit, and an A-10 costs $16 Million per unit.

It all has to do with how new the tech is.

Additionally, when you look at most of the rest of the world, they don't design their own weapons. They buy from other countries. It's much cheaper to buy a product someone else deigned and built, than it is to design and build your own.

The reason is because the country that builds the products, typically eats the Research and Design costs. Which again, is why our military is more expensive than the rest of the world, because we lead the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your post, bull crap.
We have had to torment them, like reluctant bulls in a bullfight

No, we didn't. If anything we have hindered their aggressive nature.

If not for the US keeping China in check, they would be claiming half of Japan as their own. And the Japanese know this, which is why they are ramping up and expanding their military themselves.

If not for the US keeping Russia in Check, they would own all of the Ukraine right now. And we already know that they have made aggressive moves toward Finland and Sweden.

So much so, that Finland has put in place their own plans to protect themselves from Russian aggression.

So... no your link is full of opinions that are crap.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,937
Reaction score
4,568
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
FUCK YOU, filthy Eurotrash, evil Fuck. Go directly to hell and take your entire country with you!
Traitor

Get out of my country, Comrade.
Get out of my country, Comrade.

Indeed. Stalin himself, couldn't have said it better. So when to the show trials start, so you can execute those you don't like?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
52,532
Reaction score
9,621
Points
2,040
I notice you only call out the US when they kill people, and ignore that in war it takes two to tango.
I have noticed there is only one country on this planet consistently killing millions of human beings on the opposite side of the world; what's blinding you to that particular historical reality:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...merican-wars/2011/12/05/gIQALCO4eP_story.html

"While estimates of Korean War deaths are mainly guesswork, the three-year conflict is widely believed to have taken 3 million lives, about half of them civilians.

"The sizable civilian toll was partly due to the fact that the country’s population is among the world’s densest and the war’s front lines were often moving.

"The war in Vietnam and the spillover conflicts in Laos and Cambodia were even more lethal.

"These numbers are also hard to pin down, although by several scholarly estimates, Vietnamese military and civilian deaths ranged from 1.5 million to 3.8 million, with the U.S.-led campaign in Cambodia resulting in 600,000 to 800,000 deaths, and Laotian war mortality estimated at about 1 million."

Perhaps you noticed how the Cambodian deaths contributed to the rise of Pol Pot?
Always the fault of the US, never of the Communist countries we were fighting and their USSR/ChiCom backers.

North Korea is some innocent little country? They invaded first.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
52,532
Reaction score
9,621
Points
2,040
Which country poses the greatest threat to global peace?
Who gets rich from that?


"JULY 3, 2020
The US Military Has Its Knee on the Throat of the World
by ELLEN TAYLOR"

"As Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed, 'The character of war is changing frequency'.

"The messy, scrappy, unsatisfying, asymmetrical wars in the devastated Middle East have lost the interest of our warriors, as two worthier adversaries, China and Russia, have been conjured up, and now grip their attention.

"Although our budget comprises over 40% of the world’s military spending, and China and Russia spend respectively one-sixth and one-tenth of ours, the Pentagon refers to them generously as “near-peers”.;)

"China and Russia are not eager for these roles.

"We have had to torment them, like reluctant bulls in a bullfight.

"We sail our warships within twelve miles of their shores, conducting vast military exercises in the South China Sea, the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Japan Sea.

"Thousands of US troops marched across Europe this spring to perform military exercises along Russia’s borders.

"Arleigh-Burke class guided missile destroyers, with aerial escort, performed maneuvers this May, close to the Russian coast in the Barents Sea, to enforce 'freedom of navigation'".

Time to defund the Pentagon?
So why does the US spend more than anyone else? There are a couple of reasons.

1. The US had the leading technology and equipment in the world.

View attachment 360226

Look at this chart about Automobile costs. Cars lose 24% of their value the first year. The older the product the cheaper it costs.

The same is true absolutely of absolutely everything. Everything that exists is super expensive on the bleeding edge of tech, and rather cheap for older tech.

This is why an F-35 costs $93 Million per unit, an F-16 costs $35 Million per unit, and an A-10 costs $16 Million per unit.

It all has to do with how new the tech is.

Additionally, when you look at most of the rest of the world, they don't design their own weapons. They buy from other countries. It's much cheaper to buy a product someone else deigned and built, than it is to design and build your own.

The reason is because the country that builds the products, typically eats the Research and Design costs. Which again, is why our military is more expensive than the rest of the world, because we lead the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your post, bull crap.
We have had to torment them, like reluctant bulls in a bullfight

No, we didn't. If anything we have hindered their aggressive nature.

If not for the US keeping China in check, they would be claiming half of Japan as their own. And the Japanese know this, which is why they are ramping up and expanding their military themselves.

If not for the US keeping Russia in Check, they would own all of the Ukraine right now. And we already know that they have made aggressive moves toward Finland and Sweden.

So much so, that Finland has put in place their own plans to protect themselves from Russian aggression.

So... no your link is full of opinions that are crap.
One also has to remember that all of our soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen and their officers are volunteers, which tend to be paid and provided with benefits far greater than that given to conscripts.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
66,856
Reaction score
11,057
Points
2,070
Trump ran on reducing tensions with Russia and reducing interventions, and you people dogpiled him and got him to back off on those policies.
Democrats criticized Trump for the policies you mention, and I give him credit for not resorting to starting another war (yet).

Initially, I was hoping for a better relationship with Russia, but as it turned out, the gangsters running that state can't agree with US gangsters on how to divide the global spoils.

We each meddle in the politics and elections of the other, and I strongly suspect decades of doing business with rich Russian gangsters have compromised Trump in ways we won't see until his financials become part of the public record.


So, you hoped for it, but were you willing to support any efforts made in that direction?

Answer: no, not if it meant giving support to Trump.


So, you thanks for your "support". Meanwhile, any chance at peace was strangled while you watched.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
66,856
Reaction score
11,057
Points
2,070
Where were you when your side (and many from my side) were beating the war drums against Putin?
Putin came of age politically speaking during the 90s, when the US determined the outcome of a Russian presidential election

Neither side is likely to stop interfering in the other side's elections, but with Putin in office until 2036, it will be difficult to reduce tensions.

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

"There has indeed been lots of speculation that dirty tricks were used that year to push Yeltsin past the post.

"The powerful oligarchs in Yeltsin's circle have said on the record before that their goal was to get Yeltsin a second term by any means necessary. By 1996, Russia's transition to capitalism had impoverished millions of people.

"The economic reforms known as "shock therapy" had caused hyperinflation, and Yeltsin had gotten himself entangled in a highly unpopular war with the separatist region of Chechnya.

"Meanwhile, the Communist Party candidate, Gennadi Zyuganov, was promising the people a return to the stability of the U.S.S.R.

"In the first round of voting, the two were neck and neck, with Yeltsin getting 35% against 32% for Zyuganov. Yeltsin narrowly won in a runoff vote with 53.8%."
You want to defund the military now, even though President Trump hasn’t started any new wars, as he promised
He has increased "defense" spending to post WWII record levels, and his drone strikes are killing more civilians than Obama's:

Trump wants to cut $54 billion in spending from domestic agencies — that's enough to wipe several of them out
Where were you when your side (and many from my side) were beating the war drums against Putin?
Putin came of age politically speaking during the 90s, when the US determined the outcome of a Russian presidential election

Neither side is likely to stop interfering in the other side's elections, but with Putin in office until 2036, it will be difficult to reduce tensions.

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

"There has indeed been lots of speculation that dirty tricks were used that year to push Yeltsin past the post.

"The powerful oligarchs in Yeltsin's circle have said on the record before that their goal was to get Yeltsin a second term by any means necessary. By 1996, Russia's transition to capitalism had impoverished millions of people.

"The economic reforms known as "shock therapy" had caused hyperinflation, and Yeltsin had gotten himself entangled in a highly unpopular war with the separatist region of Chechnya.

"Meanwhile, the Communist Party candidate, Gennadi Zyuganov, was promising the people a return to the stability of the U.S.S.R.

"In the first round of voting, the two were neck and neck, with Yeltsin getting 35% against 32% for Zyuganov. Yeltsin narrowly won in a runoff vote with 53.8%."
You want to defund the military now, even though President Trump hasn’t started any new wars, as he promised
He has increased "defense" spending to post WWII record levels, and his drone strikes are killing more civilians than Obama's:

Trump wants to cut $54 billion in spending from domestic agencies — that's enough to wipe several of them out

1. Not an answer to my question, where were you when they were beating the War Drums?

2. 54 billion is peanuts.

3. If you want to cut military spending, we need to cut commitments. Leave Nato. End our alliance with South Korean. And/or Japan.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,086
Reaction score
2,454
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California

Kondor3

Cafeteria Centrist
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
26,229
Reaction score
4,266
Points
290
Location
Illinois, USA
...Time to defund the Pentagon?
Why not, eh... you'd like that, wouldn't you? You Kommie Kokksukkers can be damned funny sometimes. Thanks for the morning laugh.

There's not a snowball's chance in Hell that the American People are going to let you actually pull that off... we'd much rather stand you against a wall.

The US military protects our interests and those of our friends and allies and we have zero incentive to listen to the likes of you and your fellow travelers.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
11,693
Reaction score
2,304
Points
275
Which country poses the greatest threat to global peace?
Who gets rich from that?


"JULY 3, 2020
The US Military Has Its Knee on the Throat of the World
by ELLEN TAYLOR"

"As Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed, 'The character of war is changing frequency'.

"The messy, scrappy, unsatisfying, asymmetrical wars in the devastated Middle East have lost the interest of our warriors, as two worthier adversaries, China and Russia, have been conjured up, and now grip their attention.

"Although our budget comprises over 40% of the world’s military spending, and China and Russia spend respectively one-sixth and one-tenth of ours, the Pentagon refers to them generously as “near-peers”.;)

"China and Russia are not eager for these roles.

"We have had to torment them, like reluctant bulls in a bullfight.

"We sail our warships within twelve miles of their shores, conducting vast military exercises in the South China Sea, the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Japan Sea.

"Thousands of US troops marched across Europe this spring to perform military exercises along Russia’s borders.

"Arleigh-Burke class guided missile destroyers, with aerial escort, performed maneuvers this May, close to the Russian coast in the Barents Sea, to enforce 'freedom of navigation'".

Time to defund the Pentagon?
Well, thanks to Trump and McConnell we may have to choose between the Navy and soc sec/medicare. But that may be a different issue than your thread.

I don't think Russia and China can be viewed together. Russia seems to be about Putin's Russia reacquiring its territories of the Czarist era. That includes Ukriaine. Geogia and the Baltics. Putin's already reacquired Belarus. At the heart, I just don't think Russian's view personal autonomy as being as central to the reason of being as Westerners do. Bruno, Galileo and the holocaust just don't have the same meaning to them and westerners. It's grip on its WWII pacific acquisitions was never challenged. Putin also views the US as a personal existential threat based upon Carter and Reagan toppling the Soviet Empire in Afghanistan.


China is imo a much bigger issue. The question imo is that without the US Navy, would China treat Japan, SK, the Philippines, Vietnam and their neighbors to the West differnently than Hong Kong? Taiwan's future is probably already sealed, and Gulags are planned. Trump was right at least as far as the US being the world's chump in making sure China had access to western markets.
Your agendas over the years has made everything we do, expensive. China is not Russia. They have slave labor capitalism with a willing and greedy United States taking all their products and building up their military that is far cheaper to do.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,086
Reaction score
2,454
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top