this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025

135 points (89.0% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world

1,688 readers

212 active

25 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

Self posts preferred.
Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
No spam or self promotion.
Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
Stay on topic.
Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
Provide credible sources whenever possible.
Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

founded 2 years ago

moderators

laverabe@lemmy.world

laverabe@lemmy.zip

90s were good because Russia was down (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 year ago by vga@sopuli.xyz to c/politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 point 11 months ago (15 children)

I did not, in fact, “forget the rest of your sentence,” I spent that entire paragraph addressing how you’re full of shit.

And yet you're still talking about absolute costs, not relative costs.

Let me ask you this: is your stance that any country should be gradually decreasing its military spending as it grows richer?

Because Russia was the only force supporting Trump, right? Of course, the domestic bourgeoisie had no influence over that election. Right.

It used to be that the domestic bourgeoisie wouldn't be caught spitting in the general direction of people like Trump. It used to be that a president lying about a sexual "adventure" was immediately impeached. Of course the rich wanted Trump in power (seeing as how stupid and gullible he is, they wanted to control him), but the russian psy-ops is what made him electable in the first place.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

It kinda sounds like you'd just rather not believe that US citizens are dumb enough to elect a reality television host on their own.

Like, Occam's Razor this: which is more likely?

a carefully coordinated operation carried out with near perfect competency and seemingly no setbacks or mistakes, over the course of two governments and half a century

or

US education sucks and in the face of declining living standards more and more people resent their leaders

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 11 months ago (4 children)

a carefully coordinated operation carried out with near perfect competency and seemingly no setbacks or mistakes, over the course of two governments and half a century

Why do you think it never had any setbacks?

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Hyperbole, mostly. Everything has setbacks

The point is, you are describing a level of long term planning and continuity that's frankly inhuman. Yes, Russia has ops. But the kind of power you assign to them belongs to comic books. Overstating the competency of a scary Other on the other side of the planet, while downplaying the actions of the local people and institutions that, you know, actually govern and have a much more direct influence on the trajectory of this country.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

If cyrillic keyboards are so goddamn effective, then its only because the last 50+ years of our policy choices have given them such fertile ground.

You really wanna combat Russian ops? Take the trillions of dollars the Pentagon cannot account for every year, and put it in the fucking public school budgets. Make elementary school teachers better payed than football coaches.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago

You really wanna combat Russian ops? Take the trillions of dollars the Pentagon cannot account for every year, and put it in the fucking public school budgets. Make elementary school teachers better payed than football coaches.

Agree 100%.

parent

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 11 months ago

That's because you think of it as a singular action, instead of a massive, massive domino effect.

The op isn't "let's put Trump in the White House".

The op is "let's slowly erode the fundamentals of democracy and kindness, so that extreme views become normal, causing a growth in the divide between various political options, making even more extreme views seem natural".

parent

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (8 children)

And yet you’re still talking about absolute costs, not relative costs.

Yes, for reasons I already explained:

Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.

Let me ask you this: is your stance that any country should be gradually decreasing its military spending as it grows richer?

No, my stance is what I already explained, that military spending should be (at most) what is necessary to maintain military parity with specific threats, as I already explained:

Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 point 11 months ago (7 children)

No, my stance is what I already explained, that military spending should be (at most) what is necessary to maintain military parity with specific threats

The US military doctrine was: to always have enough force and force projection to be capable of fighting against two superpowers at the same time, without the fight ever reaching the US soil.

That's why all the forward bases in Europe and the Pacific are a thing, that's why the US has more aircraft carriers than the five next nations combined, and that's why the "top 4 strongest air forces of the world" are "US Air Force", "US Army", "US Marines", "China" (used to be russia, but then Ukraine happened).

Considering the doctrine, their spending (less than 4% of GDP) was never ludicrous.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Yes, and that doctrine is bad and wrong, and a big part of why I don't have fucking healthcare.

Why the fuck do I care about "fighting two superpowers at once" (by which you presumably mean, fighting nine superpowers at once)? Do you think I'm more likely to die as an American because the entire rest of the world attacks us at once, or because I can't afford to go to the doctor if I get sick?

The spending is absolutely ludicrous and forces everyone else to spend more to achieve anything resembling parity.

Fuck off with this far-right jingoism nonsense about how "reasonable" it is to try to dominate the entire world through military force.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

Yes, and that doctrine is bad and wrong

Why?

and a big part of why I don’t have fucking healthcare.

You're AGAIN confusing absolute spending with relative spending.

US spending on military: around 4% of the federal budget.

US spending on healthcare: around 15% of the federal budget.

The US has the most expensive and the least effective healthcare system on the planet, and chucking more money down that drain won't fix it. Policies and regulations would, but Americans are fucking allergic do both these words, so that won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Why the fuck do I care about “fighting two superpowers at once” (by which you presumably mean, fighting nine superpowers at once)?

No, why would it mean something it doesn't mean? It means fighting both russia and China at the same time. How is it a difficult concept to grasp?

Do you think I’m more likely to die as an American because the entire rest of the world attacks us at once, or because I can’t afford to go to the doctor if I get sick?

See my response above.

The spending is absolutely ludicrous and forces everyone else to spend more to achieve anything resembling parity.

It only forces potential foes to spend more, which is - coincidentally - also the goal. Unfortunately for the world, the US has elected a russian plant as president so the status quo is going to shit - now it's Europe that must increase spending while China can relax.

Fuck off with this far-right jingoism nonsense about how “reasonable”

As soon as you finally understand the difference between absolute and relative spending, you'll see how ridiculous this sentence sounds.

it is to try to dominate the entire world through military force.

NOW it might be, thanks to Trump and the Republicans.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

Why?

I literally just explained it.

You’re AGAIN confusing absolute spending with relative spending.

No, I am NOT "confusing" the two, I am EXPLICITLY REJECTING the standard of relative spending, as percent GDP, as I explicitly said and clearly explained my reasons for rejecting many times now. Read this fucking paragraph already:

Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.

No, why would it mean something it doesn’t mean? It means fighting both russia and China at the same time. How is it a difficult concept to grasp?

Because they are not only outspending Russia and China combined, but also the next seven countries added on top of that! How is that a difficult concept to grasp?

NOW it might be, thanks to Trump and the Republicans.

Right, because things like Vietnam never happened.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

I literally just explained it.

You didn't explain why the doctrine is wrong, you explained why you think better healthcare would help you more than military spending - with which I agree, btw, your healthcare systems is hilariously fucked.

I am EXPLICITLY REJECTING the standard of relative spending

Ah.... So, you don't understand basic maths? Is that it?

Make it make sense, mate. In what world is relative spending not important?

It's like saying "everybody should pay $2000 in tax a month", and then you have some people who don't even notice the tax, and others who starve to death because of it. ONLY relative spending makes any sense in this discussion.

Read this fucking paragraph already

You posted it four times already. It didn't make any sense the first time around and it doesn't make any sense now - because of your fundamental ignorance on how budgets work.

Because they are not only outspending Russia and China combined, but also the next seven countries added on top of that! How is that a difficult concept to grasp?

We're back to the question I asked you before - do you think that the richer the country is, the less money (relative to its GDP) should it spend on military?

You said "no", but now it seems like you're saying "yes".

It's like with the taxes: if the tax is 10%, then someone earning $1000 will pay $100, but someone earning $100 will only pay $10.

Russia and China are poorer countries, so they spend less (in absolute numbers). But russia is spending over two times more in terms of %GDP (7.1 vs 3.4).

Right, because things like Vietnam never happened.

You can't be naive enough to believe that the Viet Cong wasn't supported by russia and China, which begs the question: why do you consider Vietnam an "imperialist attack" by the US, and not a "response to the imperialist attack by russia and China"?

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It’s like with the taxes: if the tax is 10%, then someone earning $1000 will pay $100, but someone earning $100 will only pay $10.

Bruh, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you fucking high?

I need a certain amount of food to live. If I made ten times as much money, I would still need the exact same amount of food to live. It would be insane to argue that I ought to be spending 10 times as much on food if I make 10 times as much money - you see that, right?

What I'm saying is that military spending should be based on how much needs to be spent, based on (at most) how much is necessary to achieve parity with foreign threats. Whether that's 1% or 10% or 30% of GDP doesn't fucking matter, any more than my income determines how many calories I need to live. How the fuck do you not understand this extremely simple concept?

You can’t be naive enough to believe that the Viet Cong wasn’t supported by russia and China, which begs the question: why do you consider Vietnam an “imperialist attack” by the US, and not a “response to the imperialist attack by russia and China”?

Of course a fascist like you would support massacring the Vietnamese. Why am I even bothering with this conversation? I have no interest in your extremist right-wing views.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

I need a certain amount of food to live. If I made ten times as much money, I would still need the exact same amount of food to live. It would be insane to argue that I ought to be spending 10 times as much on food if I make 10 times as much money - you see that, right?

Oh boy... Are you under the impression that military spending is "let's buy 1000 tanks, job done, we're good"?

Like, there's no maintenance, no research, no development, no improvements, no intelligence, no ally support, no soft power projection, just a static blob of "defence capabilities" that is a constant no matter what? Or that $1000 spent in the US gives you the exact same capabilities as $1000 spent in russia or China, like there are no differences in labour costs?

Are you twelve?

What I’m saying is that military spending should be based on how much needs to be spent

The needs are defined by the military doctrine.

Could the US be spending less, with less money ending up in budgetary "black holes"? Sure. Would it make a massive difference in the overall military budget? No, it it wouldn't.

How the fuck do you not understand this extremely simple concept?

Oh, you're in for a ride, my boy. Try this:

[spending should be] (at most) how much is necessary to achieve parity with foreign threats.

Define "parity with russia".

Of course a fascist like you would support massacring the Vietnamese

You know what? Fuck off. This discussion makes no sense. You have imagined some things about me and constantly react to things I never said.

I have no interest in your extremist right-wing views.

Jesus, if you only had the capacity to pull your head out of your arse for three seconds you'd see how insanely hilarious this sentence is! :D Like, I'm actually laughing out loud here! :D

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 months ago

Fuck off, fascist.

parent