[RD] Surrender Summit

[metalhead]

Also, the U.S. spending less on our military requires neither our allies spending more, nor us conceding our dominance when it comes to raw military power.

 

[red_elk]

I know a few people who thought spending money on new IPhone doesn't have connection to their vacation, food and clothes expenses. They ended up owing a lot of money.
Not 20 trillion dollars, but still a lot.

 

[Berzerker]

In both cases we fought those wars because we believed that fighting them was in our own best interests. We weren't "dragged into" Vietnam or Korea, we entered both of our own accord. Neither were "someone else's war." They were fully ours.

Sure, you could argue we should have left Vietnam alone and let the insurgents take over South Vietnam. But having the option to intervene is strictly better strategically than not having that option. Korea was a UN engagement, but we got them to go along because we had the bulk of the fighting force and equipment ready to go. Again - we got to dictate the terms of engagement because we supplied the military might.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

France was losing and asked for our help so we got stuck while they ran away from the mess they helped create. Oh but we had leverage over France, thank God for that. Read the link, what happened in Vietnam was disgusting. We were allied with those insurgents and then we threw them under the bus because of the French. Hell, the French even installed the same puppet dictator the Japanese used to terrorize the country.

There is no connection whatsoever between military spending and health care and infrastructure spending. None. It's a false choice you're offering.

So if we spent $100 bn less a year on the military that would have no effect at all on how much we can spend on health care? I thought many people were in favor of reducing the Pentagon's budget to support domestic programs.

Yes I did. I think that making US allies spend more on their armed forces is likely to weaken the US by giving us less leverage over allies and making countries less likely to want to be allies in the first place.

So you answered my question before I asked it? Cuz:

I think that US allies are US allies in large part because being a US ally means not having to spend so much on your military.

did not answer my question... All you did was explain why it helps our allies to spend less on their military when we spend more. Now if you want to argue our allies wont be our allies if they have to spend more, who will they call if Russia or China moves in on their territory? The USA... No, Ghostbusters!

None of those allies uses its military might to maintain an empire which allows its citizens consume five times their fair share of global production.

We got stuck in Vietnam because France was too weak to maintain its empire.

"The first American death in Vietnam occurs, during the unrest in Saigon, as OSS officer Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey is killed by Viet Minh guerrillas who mistook him for a French officer. Before his death, Dewey had filed a report on the deepening crisis in Vietnam, stating his opinion that the U.S. "ought to clear out of Southeast Asia."

Too bad he was ignored, looks like the French had more leverage on us...

 

[AmazonQueen]

I would spend more on military, more on infrastructure, lower, raise, and shift taxes, encourage Germany to modernize and repair but keep small its military, invite France to keep its large military and Britain to maintain its as well.

By and large it’s better if we’re the ones with the guns and the ones deciding the wars even if our track record was pretty poor in recent years.

American hegemony has coincided with a peaceful age.

(And an age so prosperous we give the whitehouse to the kleptocrat party every second go around and still do ok).

Peaceful age? Well no wars in western Europe is unusual but elsewhere its been conflict as usual.

 

[Hygro]

A few civil wars in a few places and every major power is desperate for admission.

 

[Farm Boy]

Peaceful age? Well no wars in western Europe is unusual but elsewhere its been conflict as usual.

As the knowledge of of the means and the ability to produce the tools of late 20th and early 21st century violence have exploded, as the total population of the globe has exploded - overall mass application of maximum technological slaughter has been napping. For the most part. So far. It's not particularly normal. So what has been different for about the span of a human life? The nature of mankind? The internet? Cheap calories? An alliance of nations? If it is an alliance, in whole or in part, how would we propose to extend the peace if conflict as usual is undesirable? How would we enforce it? Harmony seems to always be enforced somehow, or it isn't harmony.

 

[Lexicus]

American hegemony has coincided with a peaceful age.

"British hegemony has coincided with a peaceful age"
-some guy in 1910

 

[sophie]

A few civil wars in a few places and every major power is desperate for admission.

"A few Civil Wars in a few places...?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Congo_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean–Ethiopian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian–Vietnamese_War

 

[BenitoChavez]

So what has been different for about the span of a human life?

Not a chance.

The internet?

Eh. The internet exposes people to different viewpoints & ideas but also create bubbles of like mindedness. It's a wash in my opinion.

Cheap calories?

That helps. Bringing the the quality of life up for everyone helps dissuade those violent tendencies. Why fight if you have what you need for a good life?

An alliance of nations?

In part. A group of nations who treat each other with respect, openly communicate, and see themselves as a part of a group tend to work together instead of fight. NATO & the UN help in this regard.

If it is an alliance, in whole or in part, how would we propose to extend the peace if conflict as usual is undesirable? How would we enforce it?

As above, continued inclusiveness and raising the quality of life. For the entire world, not just westerners. There isn't any guarantee that will do it though. I don't think there is any safeguard we can put in place that will prevent some crazy dude getting too big for their britches and doing something foolish.

Also American economic/military might will eventually wain. It would be a good thing if we didn't desperately grasp in vain at the last vestiges of power in a futile attempt to keep the status quo.

 

[Farm Boy]

Would you take issue with the takeaways at 14:20 Owen? Should we have tried more 'nam? Less? Those don't look like conflicts the alliance went whole hog on jumping into, for the most part.

Also American economic/military might will eventually wain. It would be a good thing if we didn't desperately grasp in vain at the last vestiges of power in a futile attempt to keep the status quo.

It's relative might is eroding now. The Brazilians and the Indians and the Iranians will be very strong soon. The Chinese are very strong now, and getting stronger fast. They'll be hungry for influence as their power increases. It's the name of the game. The North Koreans can end East Asian order as we know it.

The status quo for the West has been a lack of large scale conflict within the West's sphere of influence. There have been some violent eff ups, and violently stupid efforts to broaden that sphere. But I wouldn't anticipate violence to fall as that sphere erodes.

 

[Gori the Grey]

He's taking credit as being tough on Russia citing sanctions while claiming he gets along better with Russia than other US presidents.

Trump's single biggest trick is refusing to be bound by the principle of non-contradiction.

 

[metalhead]

France was losing and asked for our help so we got stuck while they ran away from the mess they helped create. Oh but we had leverage over France, thank God for that. Read the link, what happened in Vietnam was disgusting. We were allied with those insurgents and then we threw them under the bus because of the French. Hell, the French even installed the same puppet dictator the Japanese used to terrorize the country.

You're not engaging with the point I'm making. My point is that from a strategic standpoint, it is always better to have more options as opposed to fewer. Therefore, having the option to intervene is of great strategic value to the United States on the global stage.

So if we spent $100 bn less a year on the military that would have no effect at all on how much we can spend on health care? I thought many people were in favor of reducing the Pentagon's budget to support domestic programs.

Nope, it would have no effect. We could spend $100bn more on health care tomorrow if we wanted to. We wouldn't have to cut the military budget one cent to do so.

 

[Lexicus]

The status quo for the West has been a lack of large scale conflict within the West's sphere of influence. There have been some violent eff ups, and violently stupid efforts to broaden that sphere. But I wouldn't anticipate violence to fall as that sphere erodes.

Right - the difference is that there will be violence inside the sphere. The problem is that some people apparently believe violence outside the sphere is not worth talking about.

 

[Bootstoots]

"A few Civil Wars in a few places...?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Congo_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean–Ethiopian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian–Vietnamese_War

Let me know your response to the following statement, if you would:

"As a proportion of world population, the death rate from armed conflict has been at an unusually low level since the Cold War ended c. 1990. It is possible that the 30-year period 1988-2017 has featured the lowest such death rate in recorded history."

Granted, conflict deaths have still been well above zero. The Second Congo War was the deadliest conflict since at least the Chinese Civil War, and it was tied up with a host of conflicts including the other Congo Wars and the Rwandan and Burundian civil wars and genocides. The Syrian Civil War, the Iraq and Afghan Wars, the Yugoslav Wars, and a bunch of others have happened. But taken as a population average, conflict-related deaths have become rare.

Now the $1 quadrillion question is whether this lasts, or whether it was a temporary anomaly and World War III (2031-33, continuing as a variety of spinoff conflicts until the last one ends in 2065) kills 2.2 billion people, mostly from the nuclear exchange of Black November, 2032 and the associated collapse of services across the developed world. But for now, roughly corresponding to my lifetime so far, we've done pretty well on conflict-related deaths.

edit: Removed a stray word in the last sentence of the statement in quotation marks.

 

[Zkribbler]

France was losing and asked for our help so we got stuck while they ran away from the mess they helped create. .

We didn't help the French.

After the conflict, when it became obvious Ho Chi Minh was going to walk away with the election, we unlawfully divided Vietnam in half and installed a Catholic "President" in the southern half in a nation which was 90% Buddhist.

 

[Berzerker]

We didn't help the French.

Did you read the link?

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

July 1945 - Following the defeat of Nazi Germany, World War II Allies including the U.S., Britain, and Soviet Union, hold the Potsdam Conference in Germany to plan the post-war world. Vietnam is considered a minor item on the agenda.

In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.

During the conference, representatives from France request the return of all French pre-war colonies in Southeast Asia (Indochina). Their request is granted. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia will once again become French colonies following the removal of the Japanese.

Ho declares himself president of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and pursues American recognition but is repeatedly ignored by President Harry Truman.

February 1950 - The United States and Britain recognize Bao Dai's French-controlled South Vietnam government.

July 26, 1950 - United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French.

American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam. Over the next four years, the U.S. will spend $3 Billion on the French war and by 1954 will provide 80 percent of all war supplies used by the French.

September 27, 1950 - The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.

September 1951 - Gen. De Lattre travels to Washington seeking more aid from the Pentagon.

January 20, 1953 - Dwight D. Eisenhower, former five-star Army general and Allied commander in Europe during World War II, is inaugurated as the 34th U.S. President.

During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America's financial commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another like a "falling row of dominoes." The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

 

[Zelig]

So if we spent $100 bn less a year on the military that would have no effect at all on how much we can spend on health care?

The problem with American healthcare isn't that there isn't enough spending, it's that there are several million jobs that shouldn't exist.

They'd do better by cutting spending and moving all those administrative jobs over to the military.

 

[Zkribbler]

France was losing and asked for our help so we got stuck while they ran away from the mess they helped create.

We sent aid to the French, but we didn't help them militarily. We took no part in the fighting.
The French learned their war was unwinnable, and pulled out. How did that "stick" us with their mess?

We voluntarily got involved as part of the Truman Doctrine of containment, which took place worldwide.

We are so far off topic here, I'm ending my part of this folderol.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The problem with American healthcare isn't that there isn't enough spending, it's that there are several million jobs that shouldn't exist.

They'd do better by cutting spending and moving all those administrative jobs over to the military.

The (one) problem with American healthcare is that is a for profit industry. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year on excessive executive salaries and shareholders that could go to reducing costs.

 

[AmazonQueen]

A few civil wars in a few places and every major power is desperate for admission.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union when the US became the only superpower theres been Iraq and Afghanistan, major conflicts the US has been embroiled in, as well as numerous smaller conflicts like Kosovo and Libya where its forces have been involved. Russia has been involved in Chechnia, Georgia and Ukraine.This is the Pax Americana you were boasting of?