Cal88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

And who subsides the UK? The UK can't even laugh its own missiles successfully.

---

I know the UK used to be reined in and subsided by the EU, but I'm not sure what's happening in that regard since Brexit.

Is it important that the UK laugh at its own missiles? Can they start out by giggling and work their way up to guffaws? Baby steps.

---

The UK was not subsidized by the EU, it was one of the largest net donators to the EU after Germany and along with France. Brexit was a net benefit for them, save for some job losses from banking and finance in London.

---

Subside is not the same as subsidize. Spelling is fundamental.

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I have little doubt that Boris Johnson made his opinions known. I don't buy that he was the biggest reason the deal fell through.

---

U.S. aid is the entire economy of Ukraine, in addition to the vast majority of the military support.

Follow the money. Zelenskyy was in no position to disobey Johnson & Nuland (UK & US).

---

If they made a peace deal with Russia, why would they need military aid?

Also, last I checked Boris Johnson is not in the US government.

---

No, but the UK is the closest ally of the U.S. (other than Israel) from the standpoint of geostrategy. Despite the origin of the U.S. as a colony of the British Empire, the U.S. NeoCons have always modeled the American Empire after the aggressive Brits, disregarding the sovereignty of their client states, and imposing whatever government and/or economic system is deemed "best" for the oligarchs.

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I have little doubt that Boris Johnson made his opinions known. I don't buy that he was the biggest reason the deal fell through.

---

U.S. aid is the entire economy of Ukraine, in addition to the vast majority of the military support.

Follow the money. Zelenskyy was in no position to disobey Johnson & Nuland (UK & US).

---

If they made a peace deal with Russia, why would they need military aid?

Also, last I checked Boris Johnson is not in the US government.

---

No, but the UK is the closest ally of the U.S. (other than Israel) from the standpoint of geostrategy. Despite the origin of the U.S. as a colony of the British Empire, the U.S. NeoCons have always modeled the American Empire after the aggressive Brits, disregarding the sovereignty of their client states, and imposing whatever government and/or economic system is deemed "best" for the oligarchs.

---

If you think that's bad, let me tell you about Russia . . .

cbbass1 said:

---

When Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote his book on world geostrategy, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives" in 1998, it wasn't a grand fantasy of his own. He was essentially compiling a consensus of U.S. war hawks and militant Neo-Conservaties who saw the collapse of the Soviet Union & Russia as the perfect opportunity for the U.S. to solidify its position as the sole, undisputed world superpower, and to thwart the ambitions of any potential rival superpower by any means necessary.

Zbigniew Brzezinski , The Grand Chessboard : American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1998)

The link above will take you to a free, archived copy of Brzezinski's book. Here's a quote from p 61:

Quote:

---

Most important, however, is Ukraine. As the EU and NATO expand, Ukraine will eventually be in the position to choose whether it wishes to be part of either organization. It is likely that, in order to reinforce its separate status, Ukraine will wish to join both, once they border upon it and once its own internal transformation begins to qualify it for membership. Although that will take time, it is not too early for the West while further enhancing its economic and security ties with Kiev to begin pointing to the decade 2005 - 2015 as a reasonable time frame for the initiation of Ukraine's progressive inclusion [in EU/NATO], thereby reducing the risk that the Ukrainians may fear that Europe's expansion will halt on the Polish-Ukrainian border.

---

It's as if the plan was set before the book was written.

2004-2005: The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and NGOs like the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation start investing & hiring to influence Ukrainians to want EU & NATO membership. This is the beginning of the "Orange Revolution."

2008: The U.S. declares, at the NATO Bucharest Summit -- with Putin present -- that Ukraine and Georgia WILL BE NATO members.

2014: Victoria Nuland's coup.

---

Brzezinski also called for the dismemberment of Russia into 4 parts, publishing this map in The Grand Chessboard:



Brzezinski also called for the destabilisation of Russia through propping up islamic rebels in the Caucasus (see Chechnya) and Banderite nationalism in Ukraine, which happened in the decades after the publication of his book. He also called for the expulsion of the Russian fleet from Crimea and the control of its Baltic access through the Baltic states joining NATO. The Russians pre-empted this by annexing Crimea in 2014.

What we have today is basically Russia pushing back against this Grand Chessboard plan, which was set up at a time when the US was the only global hegemon. We are now in a period of political turbulence as the world is shifting to a multipolar power structure, with emerging powers like Russia and China reestablishing their regional influence.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

Most important, however, is Ukraine. As the EU and NATO expand, Ukraine will eventually be in the position to choose whether it wishes to be part of either organization. It is likely that, in order to reinforce its separate status, Ukraine will wish to join both, once they border upon it and once its own internal transformation begins to qualify it for membership. Although that will take time, it is not too early for the West while further enhancing its economic and security ties with Kiev to begin pointing to the decade 2005 - 2015 as a reasonable time frame for the initiation of Ukraine's progressive inclusion [in EU/NATO], thereby reducing the risk that the Ukrainians may fear that Europe's expansion will halt on the Polish-Ukrainian border.

---

I've highlighted the part that Putin could never stomach.

---

Bingo. The difference is that the West offered Ukraine a choice. Russia offers a "choice" between doing what they want or military invasion.

Cal88 said:

---

^ Russia has already targeted French soldiers in recent attacks on Kharkov and Odessa, killing over 100 French and Foreign Legion troops.

---

Truly out of curiosity knowing that you will forever be against our support of Ukraine, do you assign any blame to Russia for escalating and killing French soldiers in a country not belonging to Russia or is Russia a poor puppet being coerced to do these acts and therefore completely free from blame? If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

^ Russia has already targeted French soldiers in recent attacks on Kharkov and Odessa, killing over 100 French and Foreign Legion troops.

---

Truly out of curiosity knowing that you will forever be against our support of Ukraine, do you assign any blame to Russia for escalating and killing French soldiers in a country not belonging to Russia or is Russia a poor puppet being coerced to do these acts and therefore completely free from blame? If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

These soldiers were there to operate French equipment like the Cesar artillery pieces, SCALP cruise missiles etc as well as special forces that were overseeing Ukrainian military operations. They were not tourists in Ukraine.

The blame lies entirely on the Macron government, and the Hollande government before him, for having cynically broken the Minsk Agreements. There is no way previous French leaders like Chirac (or German ones like Kohl or Schmidt) would have allowed this war to happen.

This war was entirely predictable, most serious observers like George Kennan, john Mearsheimer or William Burns, current US intel chief and former US Ambassador to Russia were clearly aware of the Russian red lines:




Pushing Ukraine towards a war with Russia is not being in support of Ukraine, it's the worst thing you could do to Ukraine.

Quote:

---

If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

Russia wanted Minsk to work out, it was broken. All 3 western parties concerned stated flat out that they had no intention to abide by Minsk.

The Russians also negotiated the Istanbul peace treaty one month into the war. As Williams Burns predicted above, they entered this war reluctantly.

Back in the Cold War era, when the Soviet regime was far worse than the current Russian government, we had a certain level of diplomatic maturity and rational restraint that prevented those types of direct conflicts from breaking out.

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

^ Russia has already targeted French soldiers in recent attacks on Kharkov and Odessa, killing over 100 French and Foreign Legion troops.

---

Truly out of curiosity knowing that you will forever be against our support of Ukraine, do you assign any blame to Russia for escalating and killing French soldiers in a country not belonging to Russia or is Russia a poor puppet being coerced to do these acts and therefore completely free from blame? If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

These soldiers were there to operate French equipment like the Cesar artillery pieces, SCALP cruise missiles etc as well as special forces that were overseeing Ukrainian military operations. They were not tourists in Ukraine.

The blame lies entirely on the Macron government, and the Hollande government before him, for having cynically broken the Minsk Agreements. There is no way previous French leaders like Chirac (or German ones like Kohl or Schmidt) would have allowed this war to happen.

This war was entirely predictable, most serious observers like George Kennan, john Mearsheimer or William Burns, current US intel chief and former US Ambassador to Russia were clearly aware of the Russian red lines:




Pushing Ukraine towards a war with Russia is not being in support of Ukraine, it's the worst thing you could do to Ukraine.

Quote:

---

If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

Russia wanted Minsk to work out, it was broken. All 3 western parties concerned stated flat out that they had no intention to abide by Minsk.

The Russians also negotiated the Istanbul peace treaty one month into the war. As Williams Burns predicted above, they entered this war reluctantly.

Back in the Cold War era, when the Soviet regime was far worse than the current Russian government, we had a certain level of diplomatic maturity and rational restraint that prevented those types of direct conflicts from breaking out.

---

So no blame to Russia for killing French soldiers while within an ally's border and no need for invading Russia to do more for peace. I mean if you tried just as hard to understand US and EU's interest as you do for Russia's interest, is it possible to understand our involvement in the same manner as you understand why Russia decided to bomb civilian buildings on a sovereign neighbor? Any interest in understanding what EU may gain or want to protect or is Russia the only one whose interest matters?

calbear93 said:

---

or is Russia the only one whose interest matters?

---

I think we know the answer to that.

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

^ Russia has already targeted French soldiers in recent attacks on Kharkov and Odessa, killing over 100 French and Foreign Legion troops.

---

Truly out of curiosity knowing that you will forever be against our support of Ukraine, do you assign any blame to Russia for escalating and killing French soldiers in a country not belonging to Russia or is Russia a poor puppet being coerced to do these acts and therefore completely free from blame? If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

These soldiers were there to operate French equipment like the Cesar artillery pieces, SCALP cruise missiles etc as well as special forces that were overseeing Ukrainian military operations. They were not tourists in Ukraine.

The blame lies entirely on the Macron government, and the Hollande government before him, for having cynically broken the Minsk Agreements. There is no way previous French leaders like Chirac (or German ones like Kohl or Schmidt) would have allowed this war to happen.

This war was entirely predictable, most serious observers like George Kennan, john Mearsheimer or William Burns, current US intel chief and former US Ambassador to Russia were clearly aware of the Russian red lines:




Pushing Ukraine towards a war with Russia is not being in support of Ukraine, it's the worst thing you could do to Ukraine.

Quote:

---

If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

Russia wanted Minsk to work out, it was broken. All 3 western parties concerned stated flat out that they had no intention to abide by Minsk.

The Russians also negotiated the Istanbul peace treaty one month into the war. As Williams Burns predicted above, they entered this war reluctantly.

Back in the Cold War era, when the Soviet regime was far worse than the current Russian government, we had a certain level of diplomatic maturity and rational restraint that prevented those types of direct conflicts from breaking out.

---

So no blame to Russia for killing French soldiers while within an ally's border and no need for invading Russia to do more for peace. I mean if you tried just as hard to understand US and EU's interest as you do for Russia's interest, is it possible to understand our involvement in the same manner as you understand why Russia decided to bomb civilian buildings on a sovereign neighbor? Any interest in understanding what EU may gain or want to protect or is Russia the only one whose interest matters?

---

The EU would gain from having better relations with Russia, which is a big market for car makers like Renault or VW, and which provides cheap gas that has been a key component of European industry.

Near my old family place in Paris, we had a bakery that has been there for many generations that had to shut down last year because they could no longer afford the huge spike in their utility bill. That is a result of the US blowing up Nordstream.

As well I don't believe the Russians have been targeting civilians, they have shown a lot of restraint in their military operations. They did not want to invade Ukraine or annex territories, they would have preferred having Ukraine as a buffer state. The Russians are rational players, they are not evil people who yearn to invade and overrun their neighbors, they have more territory and resources than any other country and a relatively small population.

Ukraine as well would have benefitted from having good relations with Russia, in order to maintain their older industrial base and to keep having access to cheap resources, while at the same time building up economic ties with Europe. But being hostile to their large Russian minority and to their Russian neighbor was the worst possible policy they could have had.

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

^ Russia has already targeted French soldiers in recent attacks on Kharkov and Odessa, killing over 100 French and Foreign Legion troops.

---

Truly out of curiosity knowing that you will forever be against our support of Ukraine, do you assign any blame to Russia for escalating and killing French soldiers in a country not belonging to Russia or is Russia a poor puppet being coerced to do these acts and therefore completely free from blame? If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

These soldiers were there to operate French equipment like the Cesar artillery pieces, SCALP cruise missiles etc as well as special forces that were overseeing Ukrainian military operations. They were not tourists in Ukraine.

The blame lies entirely on the Macron government, and the Hollande government before him, for having cynically broken the Minsk Agreements. There is no way previous French leaders like Chirac (or German ones like Kohl or Schmidt) would have allowed this war to happen.

This war was entirely predictable, most serious observers like George Kennan, john Mearsheimer or William Burns, current US intel chief and former US Ambassador to Russia were clearly aware of the Russian red lines:




Pushing Ukraine towards a war with Russia is not being in support of Ukraine, it's the worst thing you could do to Ukraine.

Quote:

---

If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

Russia wanted Minsk to work out, it was broken. All 3 western parties concerned stated flat out that they had no intention to abide by Minsk.

The Russians also negotiated the Istanbul peace treaty one month into the war. As Williams Burns predicted above, they entered this war reluctantly.

Back in the Cold War era, when the Soviet regime was far worse than the current Russian government, we had a certain level of diplomatic maturity and rational restraint that prevented those types of direct conflicts from breaking out.

---

So no blame to Russia for killing French soldiers while within an ally's border and no need for invading Russia to do more for peace. I mean if you tried just as hard to understand US and EU's interest as you do for Russia's interest, is it possible to understand our involvement in the same manner as you understand why Russia decided to bomb civilian buildings on a sovereign neighbor? Any interest in understanding what EU may gain or want to protect or is Russia the only one whose interest matters?

---

The EU would gain from having better relations with Russia, which is a big market for car makers like Renault or VW, and which provides cheap gas that has been a key component of European industry.

Near my old family place in Paris, we had a bakery that has been there for many generations that had to shut down last year because they could no longer afford the huge spike in their utility bill. That is a result of the US blowing up Nordstream.

As well I don't believe the Russians have been targeting civilians, they have shown a lot of restraint in their military operations. They did not want to invade Ukraine or annex territories, they would have preferred having Ukraine as a buffer state. The Russians are rational players, they are not evil people who yearn to invade and overrun their neighbors, they have more territory and resources than any other country and a relatively small population.

Ukraine as well would have benefitted from having good relations with Russia, in order to maintain their older industrial base and to keep having access to cheap resources, while at the same time building up economic ties with Europe. But being hostile to their large Russian minority and to their Russian neighbor was the worst possible policy they could have had.

---

Couple of points and I will let this lie.

1. Not up to you to decide what is the better interest of Europe. Europe has always been concerned about overreach by Russia, going all the way back to how parts of Europe were split up after WWII. I am sure you don't expect Russia to give weight to someone in the US saying Russia would be better off just following US.

2. They have been bombing residential buildings. This isn't like Gaza where Ukraine soldiers are hiding in a tunnel below apartment buildings. They are sending bombs to residential area. Glad they are being so kind.

You make Russia sound like the mob. Pay for protection against aggression from them. Don't know why you cannot see Europe not wanting Russia at its doorstep without some protection when they see what Russia does to Georgia and Ukraine.

Also, I never said Russians were bad people. I think they show great courage, seeing what any protest results in, including killing of Nalvany by Putin and his goons. Russian citizens are not choosing to invade Ukraine. In fact, they were lied to by Putin. It's Putin who chose to invade Ukraine, it's Putin who chose to prop himself up as a dictator and kill his opposition. It's Putin's decisions you are defending.

At the end of the day, you seem singularly focused on interest of Russia, twisting yourself in a pretzel to defend every action while ignoring the interest of US and Europe. It seems like your isolationist, nationalist and deglobalization views are creating bias against anything US does outside of US and makes you defend the indefensible.

I always cautioned my IR students: Do not hate your opponents, it produces poor analysis!
- As I read the ridiculous/cartoonish media coverage of the Russian election, I get the feeling of our own downfall. Unable to live in reality and unable to place ourselves in the shoes of… pic.twitter.com/kDw3zZnZ7y

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) March 18, 2024

Glenn Eric Andre Diesen (born 1979) is a Norwegian political scientist who is known as a regular commentator on the Russian state-controlled international news television network RT. Academics as well as Scandinavian media have criticized him for promoting Russian propaganda.

Source:

March 10, 2019). "Waking from the Eurasian Dream". Hungarian Review. X (2). Retrieved March 22, 2022

Bogen, ystein (5 February 2021). "Professor beskyldes for drive russisk propaganda fra norsk universitet: P Norges fjerde strste universitet sitter en professor og taler Russlands sak" [Professor accused of spreading Russian propaganda from Norwegian university: At Norway's fourth largest university, a professor is speaking for Russia.]. TV 2 (in Norwegian). Retrieved 10 March 2022.

yvind Moen, Tore. "Kritiserer USN-professor som skriver for russernes propagandakanal" [USN professor who writes for Russian propaganda channel faces criticism]. Varden (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 10 March 2022.

Bugge Hjorth, Christian (11 February 2021). "Sier og skriver det Russland helst vil hre" [He says and writes what Russia wants to hear] (in Norwegian). Norges Forsvarsforening. Retrieved 10 March 2022.

Christensen, Lina (4 March 2022). "I fjor skrev den norske professoren over femti artikler for den statlige, russiske nyhetskanalen RT" [Last year this Norwegian professor wrote over fifty articles for the Russian RT channel]. Forskerforum (in Norwegian). Forskerforbundet. Retrieved 10 March 2022.

Vartdal, Ragnhild (6 March 2022). "Kritiseres for skrive i statlige, russiske RT" [Professor faces criticism for articles in Russia's RT]. Khrono (in Norwegian). Oslo Metropolitan University. Retrieved 10 March 2022.

Dragnes, Kjell (6 January 2020). "Russland med front mot Norge" [Russia is an active threat against Norway]. Aftenposten (in Norwegian). Retrieved 10 March 2022.

Have you considered the possibility that you just proved his point?

Zippergate said:

---

Have you considered the possibility that you just proved his point?

---

If you think criticizing and mocking the election that Putin just "won" should be off the table, you have finally gone into orbit.

Zippergate said:

---

Have you considered the possibility that you just proved his point?

---

Maybe next time find a source who doesn't work for RT.

Putin and Biden have quite a bit in common...except Putin is popular and doesn't have dementia.

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

^ Russia has already targeted French soldiers in recent attacks on Kharkov and Odessa, killing over 100 French and Foreign Legion troops.

---

Truly out of curiosity knowing that you will forever be against our support of Ukraine, do you assign any blame to Russia for escalating and killing French soldiers in a country not belonging to Russia or is Russia a poor puppet being coerced to do these acts and therefore completely free from blame? If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

These soldiers were there to operate French equipment like the Cesar artillery pieces, SCALP cruise missiles etc as well as special forces that were overseeing Ukrainian military operations. They were not tourists in Ukraine.

The blame lies entirely on the Macron government, and the Hollande government before him, for having cynically broken the Minsk Agreements. There is no way previous French leaders like Chirac (or German ones like Kohl or Schmidt) would have allowed this war to happen.

This war was entirely predictable, most serious observers like George Kennan, john Mearsheimer or William Burns, current US intel chief and former US Ambassador to Russia were clearly aware of the Russian red lines:




Pushing Ukraine towards a war with Russia is not being in support of Ukraine, it's the worst thing you could do to Ukraine.

Quote:

---

If US should do more for peace, should Russia do more?

---

Russia wanted Minsk to work out, it was broken. All 3 western parties concerned stated flat out that they had no intention to abide by Minsk.

The Russians also negotiated the Istanbul peace treaty one month into the war. As Williams Burns predicted above, they entered this war reluctantly.

Back in the Cold War era, when the Soviet regime was far worse than the current Russian government, we had a certain level of diplomatic maturity and rational restraint that prevented those types of direct conflicts from breaking out.

---

So no blame to Russia for killing French soldiers while within an ally's border and no need for invading Russia to do more for peace. I mean if you tried just as hard to understand US and EU's interest as you do for Russia's interest, is it possible to understand our involvement in the same manner as you understand why Russia decided to bomb civilian buildings on a sovereign neighbor? Any interest in understanding what EU may gain or want to protect or is Russia the only one whose interest matters?

---

$64 question: What, exactly, are "U.S. Interests" in Ukraine?

The NeoCons who run U.S. foreign policy believed that it's in U.S. interests to bring Ukraine & Georgia into NATO,& the EU, isolate Russia, and deny Russia access to the Black Sea.

I would agree that oil / LNG companies & "defense" contractors would be in favor of that.

But what about the people who favor Peace, rather than endless regime change wars? Here we are, collectively paying $1 TRILLION each year for a hyperactive "defense" sector with over 800 foreign bases, but brings no tangible benefit to the American taxpayers who fund it -- and who are kept in the dark about its operations.


I get along pretty well with my neighbors. They're pretty nice people, and we respect each other.

However, if I set our family upon a goal of Full Spectrum Dominance on our street, and demanded that everyone accept my opinions on their day-to-day decisions, I would be resented and resisted.

IF I then accumulated an arsenal of armaments so that I could threaten anyone who resisted my efforts to control their lives, I would be feared as well.

I don't care for this Full Spectrum Dominance, though, because I just want to live in peace, do my thing, and let my neighbors to their thing. Besides, it's WAY cheaper this way, and I don't have to fear my neighbors accumulating even greater arsenals in response to mine.

And I'm sure that my lovely wife would resent being kept on a very limited budget due to my own irrational & excessive spending on armaments. She would've left by now.

IF we'd put 1/10th of what we spend on our military into our own education and infrastructure, we'd be an amazing country.

As it is, we have to engage our potential rivals (China, Russia) in proxy wars to keep them from surpassing us economically.

Sad.

You know that a number of those countries asked for the US to keep a military presence there precisely BECAUSE they were concerned about Russian aggression, right?

cbbass1 said:

---

However, if I set our family upon a goal of Full Spectrum Dominance on our street, and demanded that everyone accept my opinions on their day-to-day decisions, I would be resented and resisted.

IF I then accumulated an arsenal of armaments so that I could threaten anyone who resisted my efforts to control their lives, I would be feared as well.

I don't care for this Full Spectrum Dominance, though, because I just want to live in peace, do my thing, and let my neighbors to their thing. Besides, it's WAY cheaper this way, and I don't have to fear my neighbors accumulating even greater arsenals in response to mine.

And I'm sure that my lovely wife would resent being kept on a very limited budget due to my own irrational & excessive spending on armaments. She would've left by now.

IF we'd put 1/10th of what we spend on our military into our own education and infrastructure, we'd be an amazing country.

---

You're describing Russia, not the US. Russia has spent $200B+ destroying Ukraine. Do you think Putin cares about the negative impact on the Russian people? There are numerous stories of Russia stiffing families of dead and wounded soldiers. Not to mention the more than $1T in lost economic activity from this war.

Meanwhile, the US economy has recovered from the pandemic stronger than any other large economy in the world.

cbbass1 said:

---

But what about the people who favor Peace, rather than endless regime change wars? Here we are, collectively paying $1 TRILLION each year for a hyperactive "defense" sector with over 800 foreign bases, but brings no tangible benefit to the American taxpayers who fund it -- and who are kept in the dark about its operations.

---

Also, look: we can have a conversation about the US military budget. I would agree that it's probably too high.

But if you don't think Americans gain any tangible benefits from being the most powerful military force in the world . . . well, I don't know what to tell you. This take seems divorced from reality.

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

But what about the people who favor Peace, rather than endless regime change wars? Here we are, collectively paying $1 TRILLION each year for a hyperactive "defense" sector with over 800 foreign bases, but brings no tangible benefit to the American taxpayers who fund it -- and who are kept in the dark about its operations.

---

Also, look: we can have a conversation about the US military budget. I would agree that it's probably too high.

But if you don't think Americans gain any tangible benefits from being the most powerful military force in the world . . . well, I don't know what to tell you. This take seems divorced from reality.

---

What are the tangible benefits of having spent $8 trillion on mideast wars in the last two decades?

https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

But what about the people who favor Peace, rather than endless regime change wars? Here we are, collectively paying $1 TRILLION each year for a hyperactive "defense" sector with over 800 foreign bases, but brings no tangible benefit to the American taxpayers who fund it -- and who are kept in the dark about its operations.

---

Also, look: we can have a conversation about the US military budget. I would agree that it's probably too high.

But if you don't think Americans gain any tangible benefits from being the most powerful military force in the world . . . well, I don't know what to tell you. This take seems divorced from reality.

---

What are the tangible benefits of having spent $8 trillion on mideast wars in the last two decades?

https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar

---

The Iraq War was a huge mistake.

Just having a presence in countries that have invited us to be there is not.