The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They would lose one way or the other.

This is what I'm asking specificity on, your definition of "lose one way or the other". The way I see it, there are 4 basic outcomes

1) Ukraine falls, Russia takes over most if not all of Ukraine
2) Stalemate. Ukraine loses the new territory that Russia has claimed in 2022 and there is a new border lines
3) Ukraine wins by retaking all/most the territory lost in 2022
4) Ukraine really wins by retaking all/most of the territory lost including Crimea

Your original quote below that led to my question

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ukraine was never winning this war no matter what CNN (brought to you by Gunthrop Norman) was telling you. Russia is far too big, technologically advanced, and has too many soldiers they can throw into battle. All our money does is delay the inevitable.

If your definition of "Ukraine was never winning this war ..." is #3 or #4, I can see some truth in it. But I actually consider Ukraine "wins" by surviving as an independent country, acting as a buffer country, allied with (if not in) NATO as the most likely scenario.

Or in other words, #1 won't happen.

It won't happen because of US ($60B + $60B) & NATO ($100B). And for the US, that's less than what Joe has already forgiven in student debt.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He would be obliterated if he touched a NATO ally. He's not going to do that.

How do you know this? Are you in contact with him personally? I mean, I guess that would explain your willingness to explain away his actions....

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you think Putin is Hitler ready to advance on the continent, why are you not calling for us to declare war? Can't play it both ways.

He's either a threat to our safety and needs to be stopped or he's not.

You're either for us or against us, eh Mr. Bush? Who's the neocon now?

[RainMaker]

We're back to the days where a bunch of chickenhawks call for a war they are too pussy to fight in themselves. Just the most cowardly people.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

How do you know this? Are you in contact with him personally? I mean, I guess that would explain your willingness to explain away his actions....

Because NATO countries have been very clear on what would happen if a member was attacked. It's the red line.

That's what terrifies Putin. It's why he wants a buffer between Russia and NATO countries. It's why the NATO talk is so contentious.

You don't have to support Putin to understand his thinking and why he wants that buffer. Just look at his family history. Look at the history of Russia/USSR. As an American, you should be uniquely familiar with the strategy of his because it's our own.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If your definition of "Ukraine was never winning this war ..." is #3 or #4, I can see some truth in it. But I actually consider Ukraine "wins" by surviving as an independent country, acting as a buffer country, allied with (if not in) NATO as the most likely scenario.

The goalposts have shifted a lot as the war has gone on. Victory was defined early on as kicking the Russians out and keeping control of their country with an alliance with the West (possibly NATO membership). That doesn't seem possible anymore.

Victory for Ukraine at this point likely means survival as an independent country. Keeping as much land as possible and avoiding a puppet leader being installed. Them losing that land out East sucks but it also makes it easier to survive as a country that is friendly to the West (the East is far more pro-Russian in elections). That is if they choose to go back to a democracy.

I don't know if there is a victory scenario for the United States at all in this. The war has almost no impact on Americans. Ukraine has never really been an ally and up until around 10 years ago was just a Russian puppet state. They're not going to suddenly become a huge trade partner and would likely rely on massive amounts of aid to just survive. I guess maybe if the war led to Putin being ousted, but it's not like Russia has a group of pro-West leaders waiting in the wings.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The goalposts have shifted a lot as the war has gone on. Victory was defined early on as kicking the Russians out and keeping control of their country with an alliance with the West (possibly NATO membership). That doesn't seem possible anymore.

From what I recall in the early days, the goal then was to survive the Russian invasion. Heck, the US expected Ukraine to fall within X weeks/months and after they survived the initial attack, the US and allies started sending substantial stuff.

Victory for Ukraine at this point likely means survival as an independent country.

Yes, this is the most likely scenario if Joe is not able to send more stuff or Trump wins. An unsatisfactory battleground stalemate.

I don't know if there is a victory scenario for the United States at all in this. The war has almost no impact on Americans.

I think many here have told you why US is involved. We just have different definitions of "victory". There are different grades/degrees for sure but Ukraine surviving as a country and allied with NATO is decent outcome all things considered vs the predicted Month 1-2 outcome.

And +2 to NATO is good.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think many here have told you why US is involved. We just have different definitions of "victory"..

Tell me again why the US is involved and what we gain from it. All I've heard is some weird mumbo jumbo about testing old weapons in the most expensive sove way possible.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Tell me again why the US is involved and what we gain from it. All I've heard is some weird mumbo jumbo about testing old weapons in the most expensive sove way possible.

Sure...

Originally Posted by Edward64

Nah, proxy war against Russia, no US military fighting (officially), testing a ton of weapon systems, getting intel on a bunch of Russian weapon systems, reducing Russian threat for 5-10+ (?) years, getting rid of and replacing old ammo, NATO expansion, NATO put on notice they need to spend their 2% of GDP etc.

What’s not to like?

Maybe the $60b spent + another future $60b? That’s less than Joe’s student loan forgiveness so far. A bargain!

Originally Posted by Edward64

If your definition of "Ukraine was never winning this war ..." is #3 or #4, I can see some truth in it. But I actually consider Ukraine "wins" by surviving as an independent country, acting as a buffer country, allied with (if not in) NATO as the most likely scenario.

In reading the past 2 pages, I've seen 3 others say/allude to reducing the Russian threat. In the Ukraine thread, similar.

So just speaking for me and not others, I'll sum it to:

1. Reduce the Russian threat. Essentially, bog Putin down if not outright beat him back so he'll think twice if there is a next time
2. Help Ukraine survive as a country so they will be allies and a buffer

Bonus includes:

1. Test and/or see how NATO & Russian weapon systems work or not
2. NATO expansion by +2, a more united & focused NATO (for now at least)

All for about $60B + $60B, no US boots on the ground (officially). Not a bad price for the US to pay.

Now that I've answered your question directly (and you'll counterpoint), let me ask you the same question

Why don't you think the US should be involved"?

I know you've answered the question in various posts, but I suspect some of your points are more important than others, so let's documented your and my key points.

[RainMaker]

1) I think it's incredibly dangerous to start a proxy war on a nuclear country's border. Similar to how we reacted when the Soviets tried to setup shop in Cuba. Our involvement increases the chances of a war with Russia which is not good for anyone. Ukraine joining NATO will cause war.

2) Ukraine offers no geopolitical advantage to us. They will constantly shift between Russian puppet and pseudo-democracy due to their population breakdown and geographic situation. They are not a trade partner to us (outside of I guess white babies for evangelicals) or a reliable defense ally. If Ukraine goes back to being a Russian puppet state, nothing will change in this country at all.

3) I don't want Ukraine in NATO because I don't think we should put our lives on the line for them. If you are willing to risk your life for Ukraine, they are accepting pretty much anyone with a pulse willing to fight. From the lack of takers, I assume that no one here (or pretty much anywhere in America) is willing to actually die for Ukraine. I don't blame them.

4) This policy of intervention we've had for 80 years has led to countless negative consequences and always leads to blowback. Do you remember the last time we armed an extremely far-right group against the Russians/Soviets?

5) This plan is not working. Russia is winning, their economy is thriving, and Putin is as strong as he's ever been. At some point you have to realize your plan failed and try something different.

6) I'd rather allocate the $120 billion plus whatever else we plan on sending to ourselves. I think you could do a lot of good with that money and dramatically improve the lives of Americans.

That about sums it up. I don't view Russia as a threat to America under normal circumstances. They're a large petrol state with almost no influence outside their immediate region. They suck of course, but that's not our problem. We do far worse and have no business being the world police.

[RainMaker]

Also if you want my answer on how to actually stop Russia, it would be an economic siege. Placing sanctions that actually have some teeth. Cutting the country off from the rest of the world. That leads to internal turmoil and likely the best opportunity to rid the world of Putin and put in a leader that is friendly to the West.

But we won't do that because it'll hurt real estate prices in Miami or whatever. And Europe won't do it because they built their energy policy around Russia.

It's why these scare tactics over Russia are laughable. If we truly thought they were a threat to our safety, we'd engage them directly. We'd actually place real sanctions on them. The fact that we don't shows we don't view them as much of a threat, just an opportunity to line the pockets of some defense companies.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also if you want my answer on how to actually stop Russia, it would be an economic siege. Placing sanctions that actually have some teeth. Cutting the country off from the rest of the world. That leads to internal turmoil and likely the best opportunity to rid the world of Putin and put in a leader that is friendly to the West.

But we won't do that because it'll hurt real estate prices in Miami or whatever. And Europe won't do it because they built their energy policy around Russia.

It's why these scare tactics over Russia are laughable. If we truly thought they were a threat to our safety, we'd engage them directly. We'd actually place real sanctions on them. The fact that we don't shows we don't view them as much of a threat, just an opportunity to line the pockets of some defense companies.

We've sanctioned them pretty heavily and it's having a significant impact. It's just not being felt economically in the short term because they've spent years isolating themselves from the global market. They've had nearly a million people flee the country, and many were educated. On top of that they've boosted the economy by spending on the war machine. Their defense spending is projected to be 40% of their budget in 2024 and that's not something that's sustainable.

The military spending and the fact that India is buying up all of their gas and justifying it by saying it keeps world energy prices stable are the only things propping their economy up. They're essentially going back to the old Soviet Union approach to the economy and that ended in disaster. Household consumption is down 2%, they're sitting at 15% interest rates, and foreign investment is down massively.

So yeah, if you just look at the superficial number it looks like the sanctions aren't doing anything, but they've abandoned all long-term economical investment to try to get them through this war with Ukraine and they've lost a significant number of their educated population in doing so.

[RainMaker]

Nah, the sanctions are weak. We still allow American companies to export goods into the country and they're forkig over billions into the Kremlin's pockets. There's been almost no attempt to stop their laundering of money through commercial real estate or fine the banks allowing it. And our "allies" in the Middle East are working with Russia to cut oil production to juice the price per barrel. Heck, our NATO partners are still buying billions in gas from them.

The sanctions were weak because they would slightly hurt some businesses. That's more important to politicians than this war you think is vital to our security.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

1) I think it's incredibly dangerous to start a proxy war on a nuclear country's border. Similar to how we reacted when the Soviets tried to setup shop in Cuba. Our involvement increases the chances of a war with Russia which is not good for anyone. Ukraine joining NATO will cause war.

The chance of real war with the west has definitely increased. But it increased because of the initial invasion. Let's just use the example of +50%. The real question is has the chance of war with Russia increased with western intervention, let's say another +20% or has chance decreased, let say -20%, because Russia has been stalemated, equipment used up etc.

My quote is below. So I do believe it's been reduced.

... reducing Russian threat for 5-10+ (?) years

2) Ukraine offers no geopolitical advantage to us. They will constantly shift between Russian puppet and pseudo-democracy due to their population breakdown and geographic situation. They are not a trade partner to us (outside of I guess white babies for evangelicals) or a reliable defense ally. If Ukraine goes back to being a Russian puppet state, nothing will change in this country at all.

Sure it does. Ukraine is a buffer to western allies. That's pretty strategic geopolitically. Plus Ukraine, with Russia, were the 1-2 world producer of wheat, that's a lot of leverage for countries that need wheat (China was #1). Also big on corn and seed oil.

The most recent exports are led by Corn ($6.02B), Seed Oils ($5.54B), Wheat ($3.27B), Iron Ore ($2.97B), and Rapeseed ($1.55B). The most common destination for the exports of Ukraine are Poland ($6.7B), Romania ($3.94B), Turkey ($3.02B), China ($2.6B), and Germany ($2.43B).

3) I don't want Ukraine in NATO because I don't think we should put our lives on the line for them. If you are willing to risk your life for Ukraine, they are accepting pretty much anyone with a pulse willing to fight. From the lack of takers, I assume that no one here (or pretty much anywhere in America) is willing to actually die for Ukraine. I don't blame them.

I really don't know if I want Ukraine in NATO. But I definitely want them as an ally.

If your point is US is not willing to commit boots on the ground to fight for Ukraine. That is true and I support not having boots on the ground right now.

The real point is there is not yet need for western countries to commit boots on the ground. There is a need to supply Ukraine with money, weapons, logistics, intel etc.

4) This policy of intervention we've had for 80 years has led to countless negative consequences and always leads to blowback. Do you remember the last time we armed an extremely far-right group against the Russians/Soviets?

Sure, the Soviet-Afghan war. That worked out great, and some say was an input into the fall of Soviet Union. It was a good thing.

Bad things happened 11+ years after in Afghanistan after. Who could have predicted that? Fair chance that Bin Laden and 9/11 could have happened regardless. Getting back to examples of pretty good proxy war outcomes, I presented to you Taiwan and Philippines. Two thriving countries (Taiwan more so) that are aligned to the US. Taiwan has certainly turned out to be a good bet with her technologies/foundries.

5) This plan is not working. Russia is winning, their economy is thriving, and Putin is as strong as he's ever been. At some point you have to realize your plan failed and try something different.

Ukraine was effective Year 1. Ukraine was not as effective Year 2 (they did take back some land though). Ukraine is not going to be effective Year 3 because US support is very limited now.

Depends on what you think the "plan" was. If it was to stop Russia, it was working. If the plan was to take back all the territory from 2022, stalemate. If the plan was to take back all territory + Crimea, then yeah, plan is not working.

So we'll agree to disagree here on what the "plan" was.

6) I'd rather allocate the $120 billion plus whatever else we plan on sending to ourselves. I think you could do a lot of good with that money and dramatically improve the lives of Americans.

$120B is big enough of a sum to take notice for sure. But $120B to forgive student loans vs buying time for western allies to bulk up and keep Ukraine independent? I'll take the latter.

All companies have to create a budget for the year. They make choices. From my experience and IMO, they are never optimal (give me a bigger raise). But they have to look at the bigger picture. e.g. fire a bunch of people, reallocate their total comp for investment into AI? Sure. Right now, the bigger picture is making sure the Russian threat is reduced.

That about sums it up. I don't view Russia as a threat to America under normal circumstances. They're a large petrol state with almost no influence outside their immediate region. They suck of course, but that's not our problem. We do far worse and have no business being the world police.

Appreciate it.

From my perspective, it comes down to I believe Russia is a bigger threat to US strategic interests and you don't.

Question to you: how is this different from WW2 ...

1. Why should the US have cared if Hitler took over Europe?
2. Japan attacked US because she saw US as a threat in limiting their assets, oil etc. Should the US have told Japan do what you will in Asia, so there was no need for a Pearl Harbor?

[PilotMan]

Changing the subject a little:

I wonder what the isolationist take on Haiti is?

Leave it alone to become a failed narco state on the doorstep of the country, filled with American guns, and a threat to destabilize the entire gulf?

Or use big weapons and essentially colonize it for the safety of the region?

The current path over my lifetime at least has been to give enough help to keep it stable, but enough of a rope for it to run it how it sees fit. The country has been on the border of being a failed state for the last 20 years, but now it looks to be beyond the tipping point.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nah, the sanctions are weak. We still allow American companies to export goods into the country and they're forkig over billions into the Kremlin's pockets. There's been almost no attempt to stop their laundering of money through commercial real estate or fine the banks allowing it. And our "allies" in the Middle East are working with Russia to cut oil production to juice the price per barrel. Heck, our NATO partners are still buying billions in gas from them.

The sanctions were weak because they would slightly hurt some businesses. That's more important to politicians than this war you think is vital to our security.

You may feel that way for those reasons, but the vast majority of economists I've read disagree. The long term outlook for the Russian economy isn't good. As I said, they've had to resort to the Soviet approach to prop up their economy in the short term to fund Putin's failed "military operation:. The Kremlin may still be doing ok, but what they're doing isn't sustainable and overall household consumption and the population is dropping.

Outside of a few limited examples, any tougher sanctions would require a global effort, which we can't force countries to comply with.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

NATO countries have been very clear on what would happen if a member was attacked. It's the red line.

That's what terrifies Putin. It's why he wants a buffer between Russia and NATO countries. It's why the NATO talk is so contentious.

I think this part is very worth discussing. I question whether this is what would actually happen. I don't think anyone knows because it hasn't been tested in recent decades, but I don't buy that if there was an attack on, say, Bulgaria, that NATO just jumps in with both feet, boots on the ground, etc. I think the response to not just Ukraine but other conflicts in recent decades indicates an actual bent much closer to pacifism. People and nations say all kinds of things, but I don't think Europe actually goes all-in for such a scenario just like I don't think the US actually would do so in the case of China using their military to annex Taiwan. I think in both cases there's a lot of bluster and sanctions and ultimately everyone takes the action they think is most likely to benefit their economic prosperity, mostly in the short term. I expect that, at some point, another major conflict that's at least a lot closer to a world war than anything we've seen in the lifetime of most people currently alive will happen at some point because a bully is going to figure this out and be willing to test it.

[bhlloy]

I agree it’s a fascinating question. For European countries I think there would have to be boots on the ground really and an all in situation… the biggest economy in Europe isn’t going to have Russia on their doorstep again, which is what the likely outcome is going to be Russia goes into Poland. Finland joining again only makes that more likely. These are countries who have relatively recent experience of being at war with Russia or being the other side of the wall.

The real question then is what role the US plays, and obviously that’s a totally different question if it’s Trump or Biden. I would imagine that millions of US troops on the ground is unlikely just due to the political situation and popularity, but in reasonably large numbers as advisors, technicians, pilots etc… it’s probably unavoidable. At least if it’s Biden. If it’s Trump, it’s going to get interesting real real fast.

And then the nuclear topic if that line does get crossed is even more of a shitshow… is the US going to risk a retaliatory strike on its soil if nukes get used against NATO forces in Poland? What if it’s Warsaw and millions of civilian dead etc… Let’s hope none of these questions ever need to be answered.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think this part is very worth discussing. I question whether this is what would actually happen. I don't think anyone knows because it hasn't been tested in recent decades, but I don't buy that if there was an attack on, say, Bulgaria, that NATO just jumps in with both feet, boots on the ground, etc. I think the response to not just Ukraine but other conflicts in recent decades indicates an actual bent much closer to pacifism. People and nations say all kinds of things, but I don't think Europe actually goes all-in for such a scenario just like I don't think the US actually would do so in the case of China using their military to annex Taiwan. I think in both cases there's a lot of bluster and sanctions and ultimately everyone takes the action they think is most likely to benefit their economic prosperity, mostly in the short term. I expect that, at some point, another major conflict that's at least a lot closer to a world war than anything we've seen in the lifetime of most people currently alive will happen at some point because a bully is going to figure this out and be willing to test it.

If you don't start a war over a NATO country being attacked, it sort of defeats the purpose of NATO. It's why you have to be very careful with who you admit.

Agree that words aren't actions so we'd have to see what would happen if Finland was attacked for instance. But not responding would be the end to NATO.

[RainMaker]

Democratic senators have privately warned White House that votes aren’t there to confirm Biden’s Muslim judicial nominee | CNN Politics

[Swaggs]

I know we are living in some type of crazy timeline, but what is with the GOPers doing the "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" line? I get that it has been a clever and effective line in the past and they want to give contrast with Biden, but this seems like particularly poor timing given that March 2020 was literally one of the worst months in most folks' lifetimes.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I wish a Dem PAC would start running ads pointing out how shitty things were four years ago.

[GrantDawg]

It really is dumb, but it is an easy fix. "Are you better off than you were 5 years ago?" I think the Dems love hanging how bad the response to the pandemic was on Trump, and rightfully so. So the Republicans should take it back before the pandemic. There are many people on the lower end of the economy that aren't better off then they were 5 year ago. There was low unemployment then too, but housing and food costs were much, much lower. You could buy a car with zero interest, used cars were much cheaper than new cars, mortgage rates were at 3-4%, etc. etc.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It really is dumb, but it is an easy fix. "Are you better off than you were 5 years ago?" I think the Dems love hanging how bad the response to the pandemic was on Trump, and rightfully so. So the Republicans should take it back before the pandemic. There are many people on the lower end of the economy that aren't better off then they were 5 year ago. There was low unemployment then too, but housing and food costs were much, much lower. You could buy a car with zero interest, used cars were much cheaper than new cars, mortgage rates were at 3-4%, etc. etc.

This potentially works to the GOP's advantage in two ways. One, as you point out, things were better in terms of interest rates and prices for every day items. Two, the GOP can basically attempt to whitewash the Pandemic response by arguing "Trump had the very worst of it, Biden got the easy part of coming out of it, so let's call it a wash" and just focus on the economy before and after the Pandemic. It allows them to both take advantage of a more favorable economic situation and blow off Trump's handling of the Pandemic.

I don't know if they would try to lean into the Pandemic response like DeSantis did. So pretend like it didn't happen and convince people that if you compare apples to apples, Biden has screwed everything up post-Pandemic.

[GrantDawg]

"I don't know if they would try to lean into the Pandemic response like DeSantis did. So pretend like it didn't happen and convince people that if you compare apples to apples, Biden has screwed everything up post-Pandemic."
Agreed. That takes a good bit of revisionist history. It is much easier to just as you said "whitewash" the pandemic as a bad break that happened to Trump more than was caused by him.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Right or wrong, the Pandemic is long gone from the American psyche.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

"I don't know if they would try to lean into the Pandemic response like DeSantis did. So pretend like it didn't happen and convince people that if you compare apples to apples, Biden has screwed everything up post-Pandemic."
Agreed. That takes a good bit of revisionist history. It is much easier to just as you said "whitewash" the pandemic as a bad break that happened to Trump more than was caused by him.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

GOP tried it in KY during the 2023 election cycle. Didn't seem to make much difference. Beshear coasted to a win as the poster child of KY's response as compared to GOP-led states, and some of the candidates who made this their primary issue didn't make a dent on the ballot.

[RainMaker]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-palestinians/

This should be completely disqualifying for any President. Administration lied about having intelligence about Hamas using the hospital as a base to green light the destruction of a hospital. Bush administration vibes. Incredibly sick people.

On Nov. 14, the White House decided to publicly back Israel on the matter. “We have information that confirms that Hamas is using that particular hospital for a command-and-control mode,” Kirby told reporters aboard Air Force One, citing declassified intelligence. “That is a war crime.”

Kirby added that the White House did not “want to see a firefight in the hospital where innocent people, helpless people, sick people are simply trying to get the medical care that they deserve.”

Hours later, the IDF began its raid of al-Shifa, drawing condemnation from the World Health Organization and human rights groups. The hospital’s operations collapsed, resulting in the death of least 40 patients, including four premature babies, according to the United Nations.

Van Hollen, who had received a classified briefing about the U.S. intelligence on al-Shifa, said there were “important and subtle differences” between what Biden officials were saying publicly and what the intelligence actually showed. “I did find there to be some disconnect between the administration’s public statements and the classified findings,” the senator said.

[Atocep]

I'm sure allowing cops to make arrests on the border will go fine. No issues there.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'm sure allowing cops to make arrests on the border will go fine. No issues there.

The law is insane. They can arrest you just for looking illegal. Then they can force you to walk back to Mexico even if you are legally allowed to be in the United States.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure it does. Ukraine is a buffer to western allies. That's pretty strategic geopolitically. Plus Ukraine, with Russia, were the 1-2 world producer of wheat, that's a lot of leverage for countries that need wheat (China was #1). Also big on corn and seed oil.

Buffer to who? You do know where we are on the map in relation to Russia, right?

And we barely trade with Ukraine. It would take hundreds of years to recover the amount of money we've given them to be made up with through trade.

Bad things happened 11+ years after in Afghanistan after. Who could have predicted that?

Our own government. We coined a term for the unintended consequences of these interventions back in the 50's. There were people who thought giving billions of weapons to Islamic extremists was a bad idea. They were right.

Originally Posted by Edward64

$120B is big enough of a sum to take notice for sure. But $120B to forgive student loans vs buying time for western allies to bulk up and keep Ukraine independent? I'll take the latter.

This deserves a longer discussion but this mindset has led to one of the greatest missed opportunities in human civilization. This country had an opportunity after the Cold War to shift funding inward and build an incredible country. World class infrastructure, elite education, proper safety net, and an incredible medical system where we outlive any other country.

Instead we kept wasting it on dumb shit like this to satisfy some shareholders at Raytheon while the rest of the world passed us by in just about everything. We pay more, get less, and now have a life expectancy below Algeria. 3rd world country in 1st world clothes.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The law is insane. They can arrest you just for looking illegal. Then they can force you to walk back to Mexico even if you are legally allowed to be in the United States.

They also have to take them back to a port of entry for Mexico, regardless of where they're from. Mexico isn't under any obligation to take non-Mexican migrants and says they will not accept non-Mexican migrants from Texas.

This is going to be a shitshow.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Buffer to who? You do know where we are on the map in relation to Russia, right?

And we barely trade with Ukraine. It would take hundreds of years to recover the amount of money we've given them to be made up with through trade.

Huh? Re-read what I wrote and look at the map

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure it does. Ukraine is a buffer to western allies. That's pretty strategic geopolitically.

Our own government. We coined a term for the unintended consequences of these interventions back in the 50's. There were people who thought giving billions of weapons to Islamic extremists was a bad idea. They were right.

There's unintended consequences in anything of any significant action. I asked previously and ask again ...

Question to you: how is this different from WW2 ...

1. Why should the US have cared if Hitler took over Europe?
2. Japan attacked US because she saw US as a threat in limiting their assets, oil etc. Should the US have told Japan do what you will in Asia, so there was no need for a Pearl Harbor?

This deserves a longer discussion but this mindset has led to one of the greatest missed opportunities in human civilization. This country had an opportunity after the Cold War to shift funding inward and build an incredible country. World class infrastructure, elite education, proper safety net, and an incredible medical system where we outlive any other country.

Instead we kept wasting it on dumb shit like this to satisfy some shareholders at Raytheon while the rest of the world passed us by in just about everything. We pay more, get less, and now have a life expectancy below Algeria. 3rd world country in 1st world clothes.

We live in different worlds.

Question - what country passes the RM litmus test?

And if you think Algeria is a good litmus, go immigrate there? But you won't, because we know the US good outweighs the Algeria good.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Huh? Re-read what I wrote and look at the map

I see a map where we are incredibly far away from where all this is taking place.

Originally Posted by Edward64

There's unintended consequences in anything of any significant action. I asked previously and ask again ...

1) Putin isn't Hitler. It's an absurd comparison. And we're the one's funding the genocides now.


2) This has nothing to do with Russia. Japan attacked us and we retaliated with war. Russia has not attacked us, have no intentions of attacking us, and our defense budget is so high that it should be damn near impossible for them to attack us. But yes, if they do attack us, we should go to war with Russia.

Originally Posted by Edward64

And if you think Algeria is a good litmus, go immigrate there? But you won't, because we know the US good outweighs the Algeria good.

I'm just pointing out areas that the United States is inferior to other countries. It should be discouraging to see the richest nation on the planet can't get their citizens to outlive the average Sri Lankan. Just pathetic stuff.

[Danny]

Plenty to complain about and be critical of in the US, but comparing it a 3rd world country is not existing in reality.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I see a map where we are incredibly far away from where all this is taking place.

That's what the WW2 isolationists said.

1) Putin isn't Hitler. It's an absurd comparison. And we're the one's funding the genocides now.

I wasn't comparing the Hitler atrocities (let's say 10/10) to the Putin atrocities (let's say 7/10).

2) This has nothing to do with Russia. Japan attacked us and we retaliated with war. Russia has not attacked us, have no intentions of attacking us, and our defense budget is so high that it should be damn near impossible for them to attack us. But yes, if they do attack us, we should go to war with Russia.

You are not answering my 2 questions.

From what I'm understanding on your POV, unless it impacts the US directly, don't get involved.

My 2 questions above, which I would appreciate a direct response, are 2 real examples of where Germany nor Japan impacted us directly, but we got "involved" before officially. In Germany, it was convoys, lend lease. In Japan, we were restricting her oil supply.

So to ask my questions more directly:

1. Should the US have helped UK prior to officially joining the war?
2. Should the US have restricted oil to Japan, which would have allowed Japan to continue her asian wars?

I'm just pointing out areas that the United States is inferior to other countries. It should be discouraging to see the richest nation on the planet can't get their citizens to outlive the average Sri Lankan. Just pathetic stuff.

You can pick and choose things to focus on. But it comes down to looking at the big picture. So what if Sri Lankans or Algerians outlive US? What's their quality of life. Go live there is life expectancy is your biggest concern.

And I'll ask again.

Question - what country passes the RM litmus test?

[RainMaker]

In terms of life expectancy, homicide rate, and incarceration rates, we are right there with other 3rd world countries.

But there is a lot of disparity in America. For instance, the state of Mississippi has the same maternal mortality rate as Mongolia, a country that more than half the people don't have access to clean drinking water.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I wasn't comparing the Hitler atrocities (let's say 10/10) to the Putin atrocities (let's say 7/10).

An insane statement. Please read some books man. Hitler killed tens of millions of people in a relatively short span of time. He focused extensively on innocent civilians.

Originally Posted by Edward64

From what I'm understanding on your POV, unless it impacts the US directly, don't get involved.

For the most part, yes. I pay my tax dollars to the United States and feel that's where it should be used. Lord knows we could use it. In the event of emergency or national security, that can change.

Originally Posted by Edward64

My 2 questions above, which I would appreciate a direct response, are 2 real examples of where Germany nor Japan impacted us directly, but we got "involved" before officially. In Germany, it was convoys, lend lease. In Japan, we were restricting her oil supply.

So to ask my questions more directly:

1. Should the US have helped UK prior to officially joining the war?
2. Should the US have restricted oil to Japan, which would have allowed Japan to continue her asian wars?

Yes, I would have supported lend-lease back then. Nazi Germany was a unique threat to the United States and the world. Something that Russia is not.

And yes, I believe the United States should have restricted oil to Japan. I think sanctions like that are incredibly powerful. It would have been nice if we could have sanctioned Russia tougher.

Both scenarios completely different from today and the current standing of our allies in Europe.

Originally Posted by Edward64

You can pick and choose things to focus on. But it comes down to looking at the big picture. So what if Sri Lankans or Algerians outlive US? What's their quality of life. Go live there is life expectancy is your biggest concern.

Yeah, the big picture is that most of the advanced world lives 5-10 years longer than us. Truly embarrassing stuff.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I pay my tax dollars to the United States and feel that's where it should be used. Lord knows we could use it.

I think we have a moral obligation to spend a lot more in foreign aid than we are doing. Best case is that it shouldn't be for wars like in Ukraine, but focusing more inward is the worst thing we could do IMO given the fact that that most people in the world are far worse off.

I already said my piece on isolationism, but as a more general point we've decades past the time when it was possible even if we wanted it to be. Globalization, the world has gotten smaller in practical terms, call it whatever you want but everything a major developed nation does affects every other such nation substantially. Climate change is among the more obvious examples of this, trade in many resources is another, space exploration and development a third ...

There was a time when the oceans mostly protected the United States from the consequences of things happening elsewhere in the world. That time has been over at least since most of us were very young if not even born yet, and arguably much earlier than that.

[RainMaker]

We are actively spending billions to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Sort of makes the talk of aid to help those worse off ring hollow. Not to mention the damage we've caused in Central/South America, the Middle East, and Asia over the past 80 years.

I get what you're saying but if you want people to be better off, history tells us that us staying away is the best course if action.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

An insane statement. Please read some books man. Hitler killed tens of millions of people in a relatively short span of time. He focused extensively on innocent civilians.

Fine, I don't disagree on the death counts. Call it 3/10 or 4/10 then, using an exponential scale.

Yes, I would have supported lend-lease back then. Nazi Germany was a unique threat to the United States and the world. Something that Russia is not.

And yes, I believe the United States should have restricted oil to Japan. I think sanctions like that are incredibly powerful. It would have been nice if we could have sanctioned Russia tougher.

Why was Nazi Germany (and Japan) a unique threat to the US pre-Pearl Harbor? Let's get into specifics. There was no way they were going to cross the Atlantic/Pacific ocean to attack us. Hitler were attacking our "allies" back then, Japan was attacking countries western forces had bases in but not US.

So the question is - you see differences in scale of deaths, the US did not know about concentration camps pre-war (or at least not the extent). You support the US intervention then because of "unique threat". Define it in the context of pre-1941 Pearl Harbor.

Both scenarios completely different from today and the current standing of our allies in Europe.

In the context of pre-1941 Pearl Harbor, sure there are differences, but the thrust of it was Hitler was an obvious threat to western countries. And Japan didn't threaten US directly.

Yeah, the big picture is that most of the advanced world lives 5-10 years longer than us. Truly embarrassing stuff.

The point is putting everything in context as best as possible. Comparing US to Sri Lanka or Algeria with one data point is pretty meaningless. All countries have faults, its whether the pros/cons for X outweigh the pros/cons for Y.

And I'll ask for the third time

Question - what country passes the RM litmus test?

What is your ideal country, with minimal faults, high longevity, good healthcare etc. the Shangri-La that you would immigrate to? Name one and give me a chance to review/critique your choice as you've done with the US.

[Edward64]

As a followup, since we've not talked about Taiwan, I'm going to assume Taiwan was a pretty good outcome of a "proxy war".

FWIW, here are just released happiest countries in Asia

The top 10 happiness rankings in Asia:

1. Singapore
2. Taiwan
3. Japan
4. South Korea
5. Philippines
6. Vietnam
7. Thailand
8. Malaysia
9. China
10. Mongolia

[Brian Swartz]

I just don't think 'we've intervened badly in the past/are doing so now' is a good argument for not intervening at all as a general policy. I do think it's a good argument for making better decisions about who we support and when and in what way. There also have been many examples of having a positive impact, and not everything the US has done overseas has been a war by proxy or otherwhise, and other countries have made international actions that benefited the world, etc.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm just pointing out areas that the United States is inferior to other countries. It should be discouraging to see the richest nation on the planet can't get their citizens to outlive the average Sri Lankan. Just pathetic stuff.

Regarding "citizen to outlive the average Sri Lankan (or Algerian)", I think you are mistaken. See below list on longevity/life expectancy.

Life Expectancy by Country and in the World (2024) - Worldometer

US is #47
Algeria is #69
Sri Lanka is #78

If you have another source, please post it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I just don't think 'we've intervened badly in the past/are doing so now' is a good argument for not intervening at all as a general policy. I do think it's a good argument for making better decisions about who we support and when and in what way.

I do agree with you. But it is clear there's been some bad proxy wars, intervention ... and there's been some good also.

Contrary to the below statement

Originally Posted by RainMaker View Post
I am saying that the past 80 years of interventionist policy and proxy wars have been a failure. The fact that no one can really point out instances of success in that regard tells the story.

[RainMaker]

You have to nominate better people for the courts to not get owned this hard by Josh Hawley of all fucking people.

Just an evisceration of Biden judicial nominee and ex-hedge fund lawyer Sparkle Sooknanan. Wow. @HawleyMO asks why she repped vulture funds impoverishing Puerto Rico, Sooknanan said every client deserves 'vigorous representation.' Then she lied abt resigning from Jones Day over… pic.twitter.com/cFMogEkoOQ

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) March 20, 2024

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Regarding "citizen to outlive the average Sri Lankan (or Algerian)", I think you are mistaken. See below list on longevity/life expectancy.

Life Expectancy by Country and in the World (2024) - Worldometer

If you have another source, please post it.

This is from the UN. Maybe Worldometer.info has better sources though, I don't know.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN

Even if we're going off yours, the richest nation can't compete with Costa Rica or Chile? Also still like half a decade behind the rest of the advanced world. Truly embarrassing stuff.

Still, a lot of it is state based too. Like Mississippi has a life expectancy similar to countries like Bangladesh and Syria. Some day with lots of prayers they might be able to compete with North Korea.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Why was Nazi Germany (and Japan) a unique threat to the US pre-Pearl Harbor? Let's get into specifics. There was no way they were going to cross the Atlantic/Pacific ocean to attack us. Hitler were attacking our "allies" back then, Japan was attacking countries western forces had bases in but not US.

So the question is - you see differences in scale of deaths, the US did not know about concentration camps pre-war (or at least not the extent). You support the US intervention then because of "unique threat". Define it in the context of pre-1941 Pearl Harbor.

In the context of pre-1941 Pearl Harbor, sure there are differences, but the thrust of it was Hitler was an obvious threat to western countries. And Japan didn't threaten US directly.

Germany was actively attacking American ships. Their takeover of the continent would have dramatically hurt our economy and put us at risk of fascist takeover (back when we cared about democracy in our foreign policy). We also received compensation for a good chunk of our help, which is not the case with Ukraine.

None of that is relevant to what is happening today. Ukraine has only been independent for around 10 or so years. If they go back to being a Russian puppet state or engulfed by Russia, nothing will change for us. They are certainly no threat at expanding into mainland Europe. It's a preposterous comparison.

Originally Posted by Edward64

What is your ideal country, with minimal faults, high longevity, good healthcare etc. the Shangri-La that you would immigrate to? Name one and give me a chance to review/critique your choice as you've done with the US.

I don't think there is an ideal country. Just countries that do things better than us. I would like America to do better and be competitive with those countries.

I can only speak for the countries I've been to, but Germany, Sweden and Norway just embarrass us infrastructure wise. I thought Sydney was incredible but didn't get outside the city to see more. I'd take the health care from just about any advanced country as they pay considerably less and live considerably longer. And toss me in on their social safety nets too (or just basic rights as a worker/citizen).

If I had to pick one country, it'd be Sweden. Dated a girl there for a couple years and spent a decent amount of time there. Just an incredible country if you can handle the cold and don't mind the lack of sun in the winter.

On a positive note, America has the best food of any country I've ever been to. Can't be topped in quality and selection. We have that shit on lockdown.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is from the UN. Maybe Worldometer.info has better sources though, I don't know.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN

Yup, I downloaded the xls and sorted BN and see what you are talking about.

My guess is the worldmeter is based on 2023 and post-pandemic. Your's was as of 2021, during the height of the pandemic.

Even if we're going off yours, the richest nation can't compete with Costa Rica or Chile? Also still like half a decade behind the rest of the advanced world. Truly embarrassing stuff.

Still, a lot of it is state based too. Like Mississippi has a life expectancy similar to countries like Bangladesh and Syria. Some day with lots of prayers they might be able to compete with North Korea.

Heart disease & cancer. I'm blaming it on process & fried foods, and too much money to eat out all the time.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Germany was actively attacking American ships. Their takeover of the continent would have dramatically hurt our economy and put us at risk of fascist takeover (back when we cared about democracy in our foreign policy). We also received compensation for a good chunk of our help, which is not the case with Ukraine.

Germany was attacking US ships because the US ships were doing the convoy, lend lease etc. (in other words, actively supporting Germany's enemies) before official Pearl Harbor. Or in other words, Germany would not have attacked US ships if we were isolationist and didn't try to supply the Brits.

Here's the list I could find. Pre-U.S. Entry Into WWII

None of that is relevant to what is happening today. Ukraine has only been independent for around 10 or so years. If they go back to being a Russian puppet state or engulfed by Russia, nothing will change for us. They are certainly no threat at expanding into mainland Europe. It's a preposterous comparison.

You may have a point if you say mainland Europe, and militarily by force. But Finland and Sweden sure look juicy. And often, intimidation gets things done.

On the other had, the Fulda Gap concern was real back in the 80s. If there was concern the USSR could have attacked then, I don't see why it still isn't of concern from 2022-2023. I will say that based on what Ukraine + the allied forces have done, the Russian threat of invading the Fulda Gap (as an example) is much, much lower than back in 2022. They've lost a lot of men and equipment with NATO's assistance. If Kyiv had fallen in Month 1-2, it would be a different field of play today.

I don't think there is an ideal country. Just countries that do things better than us. I would like America to do better and be competitive with those countries.

I can only speak for the countries I've been to, but Germany, Sweden and Norway just embarrass us infrastructure wise. I thought Sydney was incredible but didn't get outside the city to see more. I'd take the health care from just about any advanced country as they pay considerably less and live considerably longer. And toss me in on their social safety nets too (or just basic rights as a worker/citizen).

If I had to pick one country, it'd be Sweden. Dated a girl there for a couple years and spent a decent amount of time there. Just an incredible country if you can handle the cold and don't mind the lack of sun in the winter.

Thanks, let me do some research on Sweden. I think its fair to move any future discussion out of this thread as it's pretty tangential.

On a positive note, America has the best food of any country I've ever been to. Can't be topped in quality and selection. We have that shit on lockdown.

Agree, and hence our high death rates from cancer and heart disease.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't think it's at all foregone that Russia would not be a threat to mainland Europe. I think it's inevitable that if nobody defends nations like Ukraine, it could very well eventually be one, and even if it's not Russia and mainland Europe, it will happen elsewhere in the world. At some point you either decide to oppose wars of aggression/annexation, or you decide not to do that.

I don't want to quibble over dates, but saying they've only been independent for 10 years or so when in fact it's been 32 years is a rather large difference. The Crimean situation in 2014 is complex; you can make an argument that self-determination ultimately happened there, but Russia deposing the government and occupying it militarily prior to a rushed referendum is not exactly what you'd call and free and fair expression of the will of the people.

There's nothing so muddled about this war, and let's say Ukraine got no support, gave Russia some black eyes early, and ultimately were overrun eventually. Why would they stop there? Barring a much different government in Russia, I see no compelling reason to think they wouldn't keep grabbing as much as they think they can get. Not immediately, but when they thought the time was right. The more territory and resources they control, the more leverage they'd have in the region.