2020 US Election (Part One)

[Arwon]

Well, for one, we are the single largest contributor when it comes to international aid with 200 countries receiving and from the US, which is pretty much the entire world.

If you're going to claim fantastical nonsense, why not go whole hog and just claim 500 countries

 

[Lexicus]

I mean I'm one the first socialist types to defend american hegemony on the over all vs its potential substitutes, but this is an extreme take. Where is @Lexicus us to hammer at this premise already?

I'm not needed, it is literally fascist nonsense to claim the US military budget is actually international aid. It is like the Nazis saying they were helping the people of the USSR by invading it. It is so utterly ridiculous even liberals can see it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes. The entire defense budget goes, in some way, towards maintaining the military infrastructure that allows us to provide global security. Whether it be money to research new weapons, maintain or launch satellites, or money for incentives to draw new recruits to keep troop levels where they need to be.



Sure, but I never said anything about government aid. I have only been talking about international aid, which can take many forms. It was AmazonQueen that was attempting to limit it to government aid in an attempt to make the US look bad. Even though it still doesn't make us look bad because contributing only 0.17% of our GDP still allows us to contribute more than anyone else. Complaining about that is just as ridiculous as a billionaire giving you a million dollars and you call him a jerk because he could technically afford to give you ten million.

Never heard of the widow's mite?

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not needed, it is literally fascist nonsense to claim the US military budget is actually international aid. It is like the Nazis saying they were helping the people of the USSR by invading it. It is so utterly ridiculous even liberals can see it.

Why do you vote for Nazis?

 

[Tristan_C]

Your entire defense budget? Are you for real? Based on the notion that you could theoretically deploy armed forces anywhere within the world to ostensibly help?

I mean I'm one the first socialist types to defend american hegemony on the over all vs its potential substitutes, but this is an extreme take.

I'm not needed, it is literally fascist nonsense to claim the US military budget is actually international aid. It is like the Nazis saying they were helping the people of the USSR by invading it. It is so utterly ridiculous even liberals can see it.

The US does 40 percent of the world's military spending. It sells hardware and sends military aid. If you direct your memories back through the mists of time into earlier this afternoon, you guys have been [up in arms in a grossly undignified, disingenuous, depraved and hate-driven frenzy which prompts clinical questions about your group-level intelligence and aberrant behavior patterns]*** because you thought the US might not have sent a country military aid. (protip: it did)

The US doesn't maintain its military for the sake of other nations, and it does not appear to me that @Commodore said or meant that, either. What he means is that this huge imbalance of power has the effect of preventing conflagrations from breaking out. That's a lot of lives and property saved, around the world, on a yearly basis. Even if it is not exactly the point, it has been an effect noticed and utilized by people outside the US.

Europe for instance may be moving against the dollar, but what they are not doing is creating a vast anti-US military alliance and engaging it in an arms race. Instead, they are just sitting tight with the UN's hand in our back pocket, and redirecting their own budgets to health & pensions. A post facto indication, through peoples' deeds, that the US military deters war and has a certain trust capital. It's good to have a president for once that isn't overly violent, too.


*** edited to eliminate terse language

 

[Estebonrober]

The US does 40 percent of the world's military spending. It sells hardware and sends military aid. If you direct your memories back through the mists of time into earlier this afternoon, you guys have been sperging out because you thought the US might not have sent a country military aid. (protip: it did)

The US doesn't maintain its military for the sake of other nations, and it does not appear to me that @Commodore said or meant that, either. What he means is that this huge imbalance of power has the effect of preventing conflagrations from breaking out. That's a lot of lives and property saved, around the world, on a yearly basis. Even if it is not exactly the point, it has been an effect noticed and utilized by people outside the US.

Europe for instance may be moving against the dollar, but what they are not doing is creating a vast anti-US military alliance and engaging it in an arms race. Instead, they are just sitting tight with the UN's hand in our back pocket, and redirecting their own budgets to health & pensions. A post facto indication, through peoples' deeds, that the US military deters war and has a certain trust capital. It's good to have a president for once that isn't overly violent, too.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one of the three quoted in your reply that supports US hegemony so I'm not sure what the point is here other than blowing right past the obvious point that our defense budget is obviously not altruistic in nature.

 

[Commodore]

Well, I thought you were talking about government aid, because if you start talking about a country's contribution to anything, naturally I expect you to mean its government, its sport team or so on, not anybody who happens to live or work in said country.

So you argued based on an assumption you made, rather than seeking clarification before proceeding? That's not a very good way to go about communicating with other humans.

If you're going to claim fantastical nonsense, why not go whole hog and just claim 500 countries

Except a quick Google search will tell you it's not fantastical nonsense. Granted, the aid we provide to most countries is very small with the Lion's share of our aid only going to five countries, but that doesn't make the claim untrue.

And if it's the number of countries you take issue with, I would advise you not to only go by the number of countries recognized by the UN. There are 241 countries in the world, but only 196 are recognized by the UN. And since the UN is a toothless and generally worthless international body, I'd say it's safe to ignore their stance on just about everything.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one of the three quoted in your reply that supports US hegemony so I'm not sure what the point is here other than blowing right past the obvious point that our defense budget is obviously not altruistic in nature.

You may be the only one on this thread, but let's not forget there is another thread on this forum literally titled "holy hell that Ukraine stuff" where most of the people who usually rail against US military spending and hegemony are up in arms about the idea of the US withholding military aid from the Ukraine

 

[Arwon]

I subsequently realised you were claiming US military spending as foreign aid so yeah, lol. Go off I guess.

Lol I see what's happened here. I found the USAid website and looked up aid by country and there's some listed for Australia. Turns out USAid administers a bunch of non aid transfers between countries like US contributions to international ocean monitoring, nuclear waste management and intelligence joint training and conferences.

But yeah cheers for the one million dollars

 

[Takhisis]

Well, for one, we are the single largest contributor when it comes to international aid with 200 countries receiving and from the US, which is pretty much the entire world.

I am interested that you mention that, since the US also is the largest debtor in the world, and someone must be buying all that debt.

 

[Imaus]

I am interested that you mention that, since the US also is the largest debtor in the world, and someone must be buying all that debt.

Mostly private Americans, then the Chinese, and a few others. It's money on a IOU basis. It's churned around, given off, and mostly hoarded and sometimes spent.

 

[Takhisis]

…so basically the US is being bought by its own moneyed classes? Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Estebonrober]

…so basically the US is being bought by its own moneyed classes? Am I understanding this correctly?

That is accurate.

 

[Lexicus]

You may be the only one on this thread, but let's not forget there is another thread on this forum literally titled "holy hell that Ukraine stuff" where most of the people who usually rail against US military spending and hegemony are up in arms about the idea of the US withholding military aid from the Ukraine

Oh, for god's sake, since you're both on about this, let me just correct the record and point out that the problem is with Trump subverting the law and the Constitution to solicit a bribe to help his re-election, not military aid to Ukraine per se.

 

[Berzerker]

Asking Ukraine to investigate their interference in our election is not soliciting a bribe

 

[Sommerswerd]

Asking Ukraine to investigate their own interference in our election is not soliciting a bribe is absurd

FTFY.
What you're describing is manifestly preposterous and obviously didn't happen. What happened is Trump extorted Ukraine to announce a investigation, a nonexistent investigation, to damage Biden politically. Ukraine then bribed Trump to release the military aid that was appropriated to them, by promising to investigate Biden as payment for the aid. Trump got caught in his bribery-extortion scheme, and gave it up to deflect culpability.

 

[Arakhor]

So you argued based on an assumption you made, rather than seeking clarification before proceeding? That's not a very good way to go about communicating with other humans.

Using implicit terms of engagement that most people would not agree with is also not a very good way to go about communicating, but there we are.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not needed, it is literally fascist nonsense to claim the US military budget is actually international aid. It is like the Nazis saying they were helping the people of the USSR by invading it. It is so utterly ridiculous even liberals can see it.

You're confusing the military's existence with its use. Even if we assume that every use of the military after WWII was wrong or made things worse, the world has benefited far more from its existence.

 

[Gorbles]

You're confusing the military's existence with its use. Even if we assume that every use of the military after WWII was wrong or made things worse, the world has benefited far more from its existence.

Uh. How have we benefited from said military's existence, in the event we agree that every single use of said military made things worse? Are you defending the US military's current existence on its historic involvement in WWII?

 

[JPetroski]

Uh. How have we benefited from said military's existence, in the event we agree that every single use of said military made things worse? Are you defending the US military's current existence on its historic involvement in WWII?

Well, I keep being told that the reason I need to help pay to keep such a large force in Europe, for example, is to defend Europe from a Russian invasion. I don't know how likely that is or ever was, just that I keep paying for it.

 

[Mouthwash]

Uh. How have we benefited from said military's existence, in the event we agree that every single use of said military made things worse?

Well, we don't live in a world where every country violently competes with its neighbors for land and resources. Or a world where the Soviets brutally conquered Western Europe and the Middle East and prop up communist regimes across the world.

Are you defending the US military's current existence on its historic involvement in WWII?

Its current existence isn't an act of altruism on the part of the US, but the stability it creates has probably saved billions of lives.