Show me one area of the government, whether the military or social welfare, that is not inefficient.Cal88 said:Unit2Sucks said:There is a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.sycasey said:Also, look: we can have a conversation about the US military budget. I would agree that it's probably too high.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.
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.
Let's just take the purely domestic economic benefits. People complain about the MIC but then ignore that the MIC primarily benefits Americans. It's a different form of deficit spending - I would rather we help lift children out of poverty, the way that Biden did coming out of the pandemic, but there are obvious financial benefits to funding the defense sector. Not to mention the percentage of the cost that comes back in the form of taxes, spend multipliers, etc. There are quite a few communities in America that benefit greatly from our massive defense spending.
Where it's hilarious is that Putin's shills do talk about how Russian military spend is so great for their economy, but then mysteriously they are unable to connect the dots here.
This, of course, is without getting into national security and all of the other benefits from having a powerful military.
The US military procurement system has been broken for a long time now, by design, as there has been regulatory capture and corruption of the military and political class through the revolving door system.
The MIC has been great at sourcing $2 billion a piece stealth bombers that will never see combat, but can't produce in large quantities 155mm shells or smart $20k loitering drones that can take out an $8 million tank.
The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread
871,762 Views |
9916 Replies |
Last: 22 hrs ago by bear2034
calbear93 said:Show me one area of the government, whether the military or social welfare, that is not inefficient.Cal88 said:Unit2Sucks said:There is a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.sycasey said:Also, look: we can have a conversation about the US military budget. I would agree that it's probably too high.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.
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.
Let's just take the purely domestic economic benefits. People complain about the MIC but then ignore that the MIC primarily benefits Americans. It's a different form of deficit spending - I would rather we help lift children out of poverty, the way that Biden did coming out of the pandemic, but there are obvious financial benefits to funding the defense sector. Not to mention the percentage of the cost that comes back in the form of taxes, spend multipliers, etc. There are quite a few communities in America that benefit greatly from our massive defense spending.
Where it's hilarious is that Putin's shills do talk about how Russian military spend is so great for their economy, but then mysteriously they are unable to connect the dots here.
This, of course, is without getting into national security and all of the other benefits from having a powerful military.
The US military procurement system has been broken for a long time now, by design, as there has been regulatory capture and corruption of the military and political class through the revolving door system.
The MIC has been great at sourcing $2 billion a piece stealth bombers that will never see combat, but can't produce in large quantities 155mm shells or smart $20k loitering drones that can take out an $8 million tank.
The level of inefficiency in the MIC is far and above normal governmental norms. Countries like France or Sweden get much more bang for their buck in military procurement. The Rafale or Gripen are about as good as the F-35 for a small fraction of that program's cost.
This is yet another reason why the US' scorched earth proxy war with Russia has been such a disaster. Russia had ever-growing, deep ties with Europe. Our policy should have been to draw Russia closer to the West and use our influence and incentives to reduce Russia's movements in the Africa, the ME and discourage its ties with China. By cornering Russia, we have forced them to find allies where they can, our real natural enemies and rivals and the cause of great misery around the globe, China, Iran etc.
No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
When the U.S. sabotaged the Nordstream pipeline, Germany & neighbors were forced to buy LNG from U.S. suppliers to get through the winter. But the additional cost is killing their economies, and forcing them to accelerate their de-industrialization.
Europe's leaders, off the record, complain about U.S. foreign policy all the time. But they're coerced to remain silent. They depend on U.S. propagandists to stoke fear of Russia/Putin, and distract European voters from their massive economic problems.
The U.S. is relying on NATO & the EU to maintain their hegemony, and even trying to expand NATO to include Japan & nations around China. This is simply a repeat of the now-failed Ukraine strategy:
+ Expand NATO Eastward;
+ Pull Ukraine into EU/NATO (failed) in order to isolate Russia
+ Keep Russia from limiting or resisting U.S. hegemony
This effort has failed, and its chief architect, Victoria Nuland, is gone, leaving others to apologize & pick up the pieces.
Similarly, the U.S. is attempting to weaken China -- its biggest trading partner -- by engaging in a proxy war via Taiwan. And similar to Ukraine, it's also trying to organize a trading bloc in Asia that excludes China. This was the original intent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that went down in flames when Trump won the election in 2016.
The other proxy war in-the-making is against Iran, using Israel as the proxy.
These are the death throes of the U.S. Empire.
I just have one question: "How are ya gonna pay for that?"
Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
I don't think it started off as scorched earth.Zippergate said:
This is yet another reason why the US' scorched earth proxy war with Russia has been such a disaster. Russia had ever-growing, deep ties with Europe. Our policy should have been to draw Russia closer to the West and use our influence and incentives to reduce Russia's movements in the Africa, the ME and discourage its ties with China. By cornering Russia, we have forced them to find allies where they can, our real natural enemies and rivals and the cause of great misery around the globe, China, Iran etc.
There was a point during Clinton's presidency when Russia was trying to determine its place in the world where they viewed United States as a potential ally. That all when to the ****ter when NATO bombed Yugoslavia. It is questionable whether it was NATO's role to take military action even if the actions taken by Yogoslavia were tantamount to ethnic cleansing. That turned Putin into a more belligerent foe believing that the new world order allowed NATO to attack unilaterally another country over domestic issues. Then the Iraq war blew the whole thing wide open. It is arguable whether US should continue to take action over violence a country undertakes against its own people, but that made Russia view NATO as a threat as opposed to a potential ally or even an organization they may join.
So, yes, those were the pivot points. However, if anyone is now taking a scorched earth proxy war mentality, it's Russia and China, and it started before Ukraine and even before Crimea.
At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
It's all accounting. The understanding is that the price will reflect not just cost plus slim margin but the R&D expenses incurred by the private party.Cal88 said:calbear93 said:Show me one area of the government, whether the military or social welfare, that is not inefficient.Cal88 said:Unit2Sucks said:There is a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.sycasey said:Also, look: we can have a conversation about the US military budget. I would agree that it's probably too high.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.
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.
Let's just take the purely domestic economic benefits. People complain about the MIC but then ignore that the MIC primarily benefits Americans. It's a different form of deficit spending - I would rather we help lift children out of poverty, the way that Biden did coming out of the pandemic, but there are obvious financial benefits to funding the defense sector. Not to mention the percentage of the cost that comes back in the form of taxes, spend multipliers, etc. There are quite a few communities in America that benefit greatly from our massive defense spending.
Where it's hilarious is that Putin's shills do talk about how Russian military spend is so great for their economy, but then mysteriously they are unable to connect the dots here.
This, of course, is without getting into national security and all of the other benefits from having a powerful military.
The US military procurement system has been broken for a long time now, by design, as there has been regulatory capture and corruption of the military and political class through the revolving door system.
The MIC has been great at sourcing $2 billion a piece stealth bombers that will never see combat, but can't produce in large quantities 155mm shells or smart $20k loitering drones that can take out an $8 million tank.
The level of inefficiency in the MIC is far and above normal governmental norms. Countries like France or Sweden get much more bang for their buck in military procurement. The Rafale or Gripen are about as good as the F-35 for a small fraction of that program's cost.
Not at all.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Trace back everything that you've read & heard about Putin & his intentions, and trace it back to its source.
Quick question: In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 21 years ago, were you convinced that Saddam Hussein was "evil"? Were you convinced that he had WMDs? Were you convinced that we had to stop him?
Or did you see through all that, recognize the propaganda, and recognize that invading Iraq was a massively stupid thing to do -- possibly the greatest foreign policy blunder of all time? (Well... since VietNam, at least...)
Please keep in mind that the NeoCons who mobilized the entire nation, plus our client states (the "Coalition of the Willing"), were never held accountable. In fact, they were promoted, and have risen to the highest positions in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
Similarly, the same corporate media propagandists: NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NPR, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, Time, Economist, etc., etc -- were unanimous in relaying whatever propaganda the NeoCons wanted to put out.
Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us."???
Don't you see that all the same people, companies, and institutions that were lying to us then are lying to us now? Why would you even take them seriously?
"Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me... twice... uh... We won't get fooled again!"
-- President George W Bush
Russia: invades country in Europe.cbbass1 said:Not at all.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Trace back everything that you've read & heard about Putin & his intentions, and trace it back to its source.
Quick question: In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 21 years ago, were you convinced that Saddam Hussein was "evil"? Were you convinced that he had WMDs? Were you convinced that we had to stop him?
Or did you see through all that, recognize the propaganda, and recognize that invading Iraq was a massively stupid thing to do -- possibly the greatest foreign policy blunder of all time? (Well... since VietNam, at least...)
Please keep in mind that the NeoCons who mobilized the entire nation, plus our client states (the "Coalition of the Willing"), were never held accountable. In fact, they were promoted, and have risen to the highest positions in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
Similarly, the same corporate media propagandists: NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NPR, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, Time, Economist, etc., etc -- were unanimous in relaying whatever propaganda the NeoCons wanted to put out.
Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us."???
Don't you see that all the same people, companies, and institutions that were lying to us then are lying to us now? Why would you even take them seriously?
"Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me... twice... uh... We won't get fooled again!"
-- President George W Bush
cbbass: "There is no reason for Europe to fear Russian invasion."
I don't think I need to say any more.
Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
America blew up Russia's pipeline to Germany and blamed the Russians even though we called our own shot.
I think far left and far right are ending up in the same place as anti-America. As I mentioned before, the far right is almost the Bernie Sanders of the 80s. MAGA by implication means America is not great. It's those closer to the middle that are more pro-America and more resistant to bend the knee for America's enemies.bear2034 said:sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
calbear93 said:It's all accounting. The understanding is that the price will reflect not just cost plus slim margin but the R&D expenses incurred by the private party.Cal88 said:calbear93 said:Show me one area of the government, whether the military or social welfare, that is not inefficient.Cal88 said:Unit2Sucks said:There is a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.sycasey said:Also, look: we can have a conversation about the US military budget. I would agree that it's probably too high.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.
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.
Let's just take the purely domestic economic benefits. People complain about the MIC but then ignore that the MIC primarily benefits Americans. It's a different form of deficit spending - I would rather we help lift children out of poverty, the way that Biden did coming out of the pandemic, but there are obvious financial benefits to funding the defense sector. Not to mention the percentage of the cost that comes back in the form of taxes, spend multipliers, etc. There are quite a few communities in America that benefit greatly from our massive defense spending.
Where it's hilarious is that Putin's shills do talk about how Russian military spend is so great for their economy, but then mysteriously they are unable to connect the dots here.
This, of course, is without getting into national security and all of the other benefits from having a powerful military.
The US military procurement system has been broken for a long time now, by design, as there has been regulatory capture and corruption of the military and political class through the revolving door system.
The MIC has been great at sourcing $2 billion a piece stealth bombers that will never see combat, but can't produce in large quantities 155mm shells or smart $20k loitering drones that can take out an $8 million tank.
The level of inefficiency in the MIC is far and above normal governmental norms. Countries like France or Sweden get much more bang for their buck in military procurement. The Rafale or Gripen are about as good as the F-35 for a small fraction of that program's cost.
F-35 program development cost: $1,700 billion (1.7 trillion)
Gripen program development cost: $20 billion
Rafale program development cost: $15 billion
And the result:
‼️🚨 The F-35: Biggest Debacle in Pentagon History
— Will Schryver (@imetatronink) March 17, 2024
US General Account Office report on F-35 combat readiness linked below.
TL;DR: About 85% of the US fleet of F-35s (A/B/C) is incapable of conducting combat missions.https://t.co/US324EJQzr pic.twitter.com/uUwdtUwbO6
calbear93 said:I think far left and far right are ending up in the same place as anti-America. As I mentioned before, the far right is almost the Bernie Sanders of the 80s. MAGA by implication means America is not great. It's those closer to the middle that are more pro-America and more resistant to bend the knee for America's enemies.bear2034 said:sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
You identify with the "middle" but can you name a politician, institution, media source, or anyone that you think currently belongs in this category?
calbear93 said:I think far left and far right are ending up in the same place as anti-America. As I mentioned before, the far right is almost the Bernie Sanders of the 80s. MAGA by implication means America is not great. It's those closer to the middle that are more pro-America and more resistant to bend the knee for America's enemies.bear2034 said:sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
The US was doing much better in the 80s. You also had politicians and journalists of a higher quality on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
It has been a slow and steady decline since, decline with which the centrist BI bubble is disconnected.
Saying that we are anti-America is like saying we are anti-Cal because we don't like Knowlton. We don't like the current leadership in both parties and their reckless, disastrous, misguided if not outright evil foreign policy, and their 2020s "current year' ideologies at home.
sycasey said:Russia: invades country in Europe.cbbass1 said:Not at all.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Trace back everything that you've read & heard about Putin & his intentions, and trace it back to its source.
Quick question: In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 21 years ago, were you convinced that Saddam Hussein was "evil"? Were you convinced that he had WMDs? Were you convinced that we had to stop him?
Or did you see through all that, recognize the propaganda, and recognize that invading Iraq was a massively stupid thing to do -- possibly the greatest foreign policy blunder of all time? (Well... since VietNam, at least...)
Please keep in mind that the NeoCons who mobilized the entire nation, plus our client states (the "Coalition of the Willing"), were never held accountable. In fact, they were promoted, and have risen to the highest positions in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
Similarly, the same corporate media propagandists: NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NPR, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, Time, Economist, etc., etc -- were unanimous in relaying whatever propaganda the NeoCons wanted to put out.
Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us."???
Don't you see that all the same people, companies, and institutions that were lying to us then are lying to us now? Why would you even take them seriously?
"Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me... twice... uh... We won't get fooled again!"
-- President George W Bush
cbbass: "There is no reason for Europe to fear Russian invasion."
I don't think I need to say any more.
When I said that, I'd completely missed Putin's ultimatim to NATO in December of 2021. It didn't get much attention here in the U.S. IF I had seen it, I'm sure I would've made a different prediction.sycasey said:Russia: invades country in Europe.cbbass1 said:Not at all.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Trace back everything that you've read & heard about Putin & his intentions, and trace it back to its source.
Quick question: In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 21 years ago, were you convinced that Saddam Hussein was "evil"? Were you convinced that he had WMDs? Were you convinced that we had to stop him?
Or did you see through all that, recognize the propaganda, and recognize that invading Iraq was a massively stupid thing to do -- possibly the greatest foreign policy blunder of all time? (Well... since VietNam, at least...)
Please keep in mind that the NeoCons who mobilized the entire nation, plus our client states (the "Coalition of the Willing"), were never held accountable. In fact, they were promoted, and have risen to the highest positions in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
Similarly, the same corporate media propagandists: NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NPR, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, Time, Economist, etc., etc -- were unanimous in relaying whatever propaganda the NeoCons wanted to put out.
Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us."???
Don't you see that all the same people, companies, and institutions that were lying to us then are lying to us now? Why would you even take them seriously?
"Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me... twice... uh... We won't get fooled again!"
-- President George W Bush
cbbass: "There is no reason for Europe to fear Russian invasion."
I don't think I need to say any more.
Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower tensions in Europe
Cal88 said:calbear93 said:Show me one area of the government, whether the military or social welfare, that is not inefficient.Cal88 said:Unit2Sucks said:There is a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.sycasey said:Also, look: we can have a conversation about the US military budget. I would agree that it's probably too high.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.
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.
Let's just take the purely domestic economic benefits. People complain about the MIC but then ignore that the MIC primarily benefits Americans. It's a different form of deficit spending - I would rather we help lift children out of poverty, the way that Biden did coming out of the pandemic, but there are obvious financial benefits to funding the defense sector. Not to mention the percentage of the cost that comes back in the form of taxes, spend multipliers, etc. There are quite a few communities in America that benefit greatly from our massive defense spending.
Where it's hilarious is that Putin's shills do talk about how Russian military spend is so great for their economy, but then mysteriously they are unable to connect the dots here.
This, of course, is without getting into national security and all of the other benefits from having a powerful military.
The US military procurement system has been broken for a long time now, by design, as there has been regulatory capture and corruption of the military and political class through the revolving door system.
The MIC has been great at sourcing $2 billion a piece stealth bombers that will never see combat, but can't produce in large quantities 155mm shells or smart $20k loitering drones that can take out an $8 million tank.
The level of inefficiency in the MIC is far and above normal governmental norms. Countries like France or Sweden get much more bang for their buck in military procurement. The Rafale or Gripen are about as good as the F-35 for a small fraction of that program's cost.
Sweden had to offer a huge discount on the Gripen because nobody wanted to pay top dollar for a fighter jet named the Gripen. ("General, all the pilots are gripin' about this sh***y new fighter jet we bought!")
cbbass1 said:When I said that, I'd completely missed Putin's ultimatim to NATO in December of 2021. It didn't get much attention here in the U.S. IF I had seen it, I'm sure I would've made a different prediction.sycasey said:Russia: invades country in Europe.cbbass1 said:Not at all.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Trace back everything that you've read & heard about Putin & his intentions, and trace it back to its source.
Quick question: In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq 21 years ago, were you convinced that Saddam Hussein was "evil"? Were you convinced that he had WMDs? Were you convinced that we had to stop him?
Or did you see through all that, recognize the propaganda, and recognize that invading Iraq was a massively stupid thing to do -- possibly the greatest foreign policy blunder of all time? (Well... since VietNam, at least...)
Please keep in mind that the NeoCons who mobilized the entire nation, plus our client states (the "Coalition of the Willing"), were never held accountable. In fact, they were promoted, and have risen to the highest positions in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
Similarly, the same corporate media propagandists: NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NPR, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, Time, Economist, etc., etc -- were unanimous in relaying whatever propaganda the NeoCons wanted to put out.
Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us."???
Don't you see that all the same people, companies, and institutions that were lying to us then are lying to us now? Why would you even take them seriously?
"Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me... twice... uh... We won't get fooled again!"
-- President George W Bush
cbbass: "There is no reason for Europe to fear Russian invasion."
I don't think I need to say any more.
Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower tensions in Europe
Dude, you said that yesterday, after Russia has spent more than a year invading Ukraine. Obviously countries in Europe do need to fear Russian invasion, right?
This. 100%.
LOL. In all seriousness, Gripens are nice multirole fighters, but they haven't ever been engaged in combat (to my knowledge). The closest American comparison would be to the newest F-16. Here's my amateur take on the programs.Big C said:
Sweden had to offer a huge discount on the Gripen because nobody wanted to pay top dollar for a fighter jet named the Gripen. ("General, all the pilots are gripin' about this sh***y new fighter jet we bought!"
One huge difference is that only 300 Gripen have ever been produced, compared to over 4,600 F-16s, which have been extremely successful in combat for decades. There are obvious operational differences as well - F-16s have longer range, larger payloads, higher operating costs, among others.
Ukraine would be happy to have Gripens and Sweden has offered around a dozen but it's just not a big enough program to really make a difference for Ukraine or anyone else (other than Sweden). Ukraine has about 100 fighters but its predominantly ancient Migs and some Su25s and 27s that can't stand up to Russian air defenses and are essentially grounded. Ukraine is hoping to put dozens of donated F-16s into service in 2024 (50-60 IIRC) and there simply is no source for that many Gripens given how few have been built. Gripens/F-16s are far better than what Ukraine has now - they fly higher, have better electronic systems, etc. and stand a far better chance of defeating Russian air defenses.
Gripens and F-16s aren't comparable to the F-35, which is a completely different animal. The F-35 program has been plagued with problems and overruns but it's a phenomenal jet and we have plenty available for combat. Russian air defenses wouldn't ground an F-35. It should be a great system for the next several decades, if not longer. Given where things are going, it could be the last major fighter platform for the foreseeable future. It has incredible sensors and is basically an AWACS + multi-role fighter all in one. Some have VTOL (vertical take off and landing) capabilities - great for naval use or for locations without proper runways, while others have very different roles. The F-35 program itself is extremely comprehensive.
Unlike our allies in the EU, we don't really need fighters to protect our own skies, so I'm not convinced our F-35 spend is the best ROI for our military dollar any more, particularly as we move forward in the drone era. A lot of ink has been spilled about the cost of the F-35 but it's important to note when doing any comparison that the F-35's much bandied about program cost is for the entire 60-year lifespan of the program and budgets for 2,500 aircraft delivered and maintained for that entire period. It did not cost anywhere near that much to develop.
The F-35 costs about 2X or more what the older generation planes would cost (Gripen, F-16s) and more per hour as well. Our allies have been buying F-35s at a fairly high clip (~60 sold to them in 2022) despite the price tag because it's a phenomenal fighter. I think when countries buy F-35s it also frequently includes maintenance which makes it sound more expensive than it is (I recall our most recent procurements have been at $80M or less per plane whereas recent exports are like $150M-$200M including maintenance.
I wish that we were getting a royalty check on F-35 and other American developed weapons because our MIC (like our pharma companies) depend on the American government heavily and then privatize the profits. There is no doubt that our military spend is wasteful and that far too much of the benefit is to defense contractors like Lockheed Martin rather than the US taxpayer. But there also is no doubt that we have the most capable military in the world and that our MIC is a big part in that. Anyone pretending like we don't have air superiority (should we ever need it) is either a shill for Putin, a liar or a dupe.
Should have mentioned (although at this point it should go without saying) that this post is likely to generate a torrent of false and misleading claims. I suggest anyone considering those claims to "do their own research" and I'm confident that you will find my post to be far more accurate than the shills.
Deliberately conflating the issue again.Cal88 said:calbear93 said:I think far left and far right are ending up in the same place as anti-America. As I mentioned before, the far right is almost the Bernie Sanders of the 80s. MAGA by implication means America is not great. It's those closer to the middle that are more pro-America and more resistant to bend the knee for America's enemies.bear2034 said:sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
The US was doing much better in the 80s. You also had politicians and journalists of a higher quality on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
It has been a slow and steady decline since, decline with which the centrist BI bubble is disconnected.
Saying that we are anti-America is like saying we are anti-Cal because we don't like Knowlton. We don't like the current leadership in both parties and their reckless, disastrous, misguided if not outright evil foreign policy, and their 2020s "current year' ideologies at home.
Criticizing American government policy is not anti-America. Blaming the Ukraine War on America while never criticizing Russia or Putin . . . that is anti-America.
sycasey said:Deliberately conflating the issue again.Cal88 said:calbear93 said:I think far left and far right are ending up in the same place as anti-America. As I mentioned before, the far right is almost the Bernie Sanders of the 80s. MAGA by implication means America is not great. It's those closer to the middle that are more pro-America and more resistant to bend the knee for America's enemies.bear2034 said:sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
The US was doing much better in the 80s. You also had politicians and journalists of a higher quality on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
It has been a slow and steady decline since, decline with which the centrist BI bubble is disconnected.
Saying that we are anti-America is like saying we are anti-Cal because we don't like Knowlton. We don't like the current leadership in both parties and their reckless, disastrous, misguided if not outright evil foreign policy, and their 2020s "current year' ideologies at home.
Criticizing American government policy is not anti-America. Blaming the Ukraine War on America while never criticizing Russia or Putin . . . that is anti-America.
Almost all the blame for the Ukraine war, its buildup since 2014, its start in 22 and its continuation lies in US/NATO foreign policy. The evidence for this is overwhelming, explained and corroborated not just by the likes of John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, but also by policy insiders like NATO chief Stoltenberg or US intel chief William Burns.
I rest my case.Cal88 said:sycasey said:Deliberately conflating the issue again.Cal88 said:calbear93 said:I think far left and far right are ending up in the same place as anti-America. As I mentioned before, the far right is almost the Bernie Sanders of the 80s. MAGA by implication means America is not great. It's those closer to the middle that are more pro-America and more resistant to bend the knee for America's enemies.bear2034 said:sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
The US was doing much better in the 80s. You also had politicians and journalists of a higher quality on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
It has been a slow and steady decline since, decline with which the centrist BI bubble is disconnected.
Saying that we are anti-America is like saying we are anti-Cal because we don't like Knowlton. We don't like the current leadership in both parties and their reckless, disastrous, misguided if not outright evil foreign policy, and their 2020s "current year' ideologies at home.
Criticizing American government policy is not anti-America. Blaming the Ukraine War on America while never criticizing Russia or Putin . . . that is anti-America.
Almost all the blame for the Ukraine war, its buildup since 2014, its start in 22 and its continuation lies in US/NATO foreign policy.
Cal88, that is not a great analogy. Not liking Knowlton is like me not liking Trump when he was president. Didn't make me anti-American since I didn't like Trump mainly because I love America.Cal88 said:calbear93 said:I think far left and far right are ending up in the same place as anti-America. As I mentioned before, the far right is almost the Bernie Sanders of the 80s. MAGA by implication means America is not great. It's those closer to the middle that are more pro-America and more resistant to bend the knee for America's enemies.bear2034 said:sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
Saying that we are anti-America is like saying we are anti-Cal because we don't like Knowlton. We don't like the current leadership in both parties and their reckless, disastrous, misguided if not outright evil foreign policy, and their 2020s "current year' ideologies at home.
The way you often view Russia and U.S. would be similar to viewing the time Stanford refused to play Cal in Rugby because they were scared in a manner that is only favorable to Stanford. For example, what you are doing would be similar to you saying Stanford was honorable for refusing to participate and for calling out the criminals on the Cal Rugby team who never gave second thought to tackling the other team's players when such action would be criminal everywhere else if not for the fact that Cal, most likely involved with the mafia, had the protection of the corrupt police who refused to arrest them for committing battery against scholars and gentlemen from Stanford's Rugby team the prior year. By not rewarding the criminal intent of the Cal "thugs," Stanford maintained its honor and built grit for its players and emphasized that, unlike Cal, Stanford views honor and tradition as more important than winning through violence. Oh, by the way, saying those things would make you anti-Cal.
Or by saying Kevin Moen, when he ran into the trombone player, represents all that is wrong in sports with all the corruption and violent training at Cal making him so despise the joy true scholars and gentlemen at Stanford rightfully felt in a game of sportsmanship that he tried to murder someone clearly more elevated who was simply expressing pure and innocent joy of the game. And that is why Cal will always be inferior to Stanford. And any real fan would also admit that Stanford won the game. Saying those things would make you anti-Cal.
sycasey said:I rest my case.Cal88 said:sycasey said:Deliberately conflating the issue again.Cal88 said:calbear93 said:I think far left and far right are ending up in the same place as anti-America. As I mentioned before, the far right is almost the Bernie Sanders of the 80s. MAGA by implication means America is not great. It's those closer to the middle that are more pro-America and more resistant to bend the knee for America's enemies.bear2034 said:sycasey said:Ukraine has been a particularly clarifying event for me, separating those on the left who are actually "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist" from those who are simply anti-America.calbear93 said:At a certain point, you have realize that some come with preconceived bias and hatred for their own country. It's like having a discussion with a Democrat or Republican about the other party. The sentiments and hatred are set, and it's only a matter of exchanging insults and unfounded conspiracy theories as opposed to exchanging ideas.sycasey said:Are you f***ing kidding me?cbbass1 said:No, it's because NATO & the EU are subservient to the U.S., and are committed to do anything the U.S. asks of them. It's more like a crime family. The U.S. needs them to fear invasion from Russia, even if that fear is 100% unfounded.sycasey said:
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?
Same here. The left has become both anti-America and pro-war.
The US was doing much better in the 80s. You also had politicians and journalists of a higher quality on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
It has been a slow and steady decline since, decline with which the centrist BI bubble is disconnected.
Saying that we are anti-America is like saying we are anti-Cal because we don't like Knowlton. We don't like the current leadership in both parties and their reckless, disastrous, misguided if not outright evil foreign policy, and their 2020s "current year' ideologies at home.
Criticizing American government policy is not anti-America. Blaming the Ukraine War on America while never criticizing Russia or Putin . . . that is anti-America.
Almost all the blame for the Ukraine war, its buildup since 2014, its start in 22 and its continuation lies in US/NATO foreign policy.
Almost all the blame for the Ukraine war, its buildup since 2014, its start in 22 and its continuation lies in US/NATO foreign policy.
A wave of Ukrainian drone strikes left a dent in Russia's oil industry a rare success.
But the US is urging Ukraine to stop them, according to The Financial Times.
The US is worried the strikes could drive up oil prices, the report said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-finally-found-a-way-to-make-russia-suffer-the-us-seems-to-want-it-to-stop/ar-BB1klwj2?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=bb347faa4c1646438c6bc3d6e8c17720&ei=41
But the US is urging Ukraine to stop them, according to The Financial Times.
The US is worried the strikes could drive up oil prices, the report said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-finally-found-a-way-to-make-russia-suffer-the-us-seems-to-want-it-to-stop/ar-BB1klwj2?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=bb347faa4c1646438c6bc3d6e8c17720&ei=41
And adversely affect Biden / Obamas re-election.
Hey neocons, yeah Russia=evil blah blah blah but are we sure we have this under control?
Cause it sure doesn't seem like we have this under control.
Blowback is a *itch, especially when WWIII is concerned.
Cause it sure doesn't seem like we have this under control.
Blowback is a *itch, especially when WWIII is concerned.
🚨#UPDATE: At least 40+ people have been killed, with at least over 100 wounded following a reported terrorist attack in Crocus city hall in Moscow pic.twitter.com/fxdWwXjHo6
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) March 22, 2024
#Breaking #Moscow #Terror
— The Breaking Report (@TheBreakingRprt) March 22, 2024
🚨BREAKING🚨
It Seems about Two Weeks ago the US Embassy for Russia Had Knowledge of a very Specific Risk of a Terror Attack Towards “Concerts” and other areas of Large Gatherings. pic.twitter.com/vJM8M9QH7D
2 weeks ago, I predicted terror attacks in Russia
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 22, 2024
Called it Operation Gladio 2.0 https://t.co/LYFHQrjmn9
The Russians would be justified in thinking anything is fair game at this point. Might not be the best time to go to a concert or sporting event. If only they could find a way into the country.
Why are we now responsible for ISIS attacks in Russia?Zippergate said:#Breaking #Moscow #Terror
— The Breaking Report (@TheBreakingRprt) March 22, 2024
🚨BREAKING🚨
It Seems about Two Weeks ago the US Embassy for Russia Had Knowledge of a very Specific Risk of a Terror Attack Towards “Concerts” and other areas of Large Gatherings. pic.twitter.com/vJM8M9QH7D2 weeks ago, I predicted terror attacks in Russia
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 22, 2024
Called it Operation Gladio 2.0 https://t.co/LYFHQrjmn9
The Russians would be justified in thinking anything is fair game at this point. Might not be the best time to go to a concert or sporting event. If only they could find a way into the country.
"We" meaning the CIA?calbear93 said:Why are we now responsible for ISIS attacks in Russia?Zippergate said:
The Russians would be justified in thinking anything is fair game at this point. Might not be the best time to go to a concert or sporting event. If only they could find a way into the country.
I don't think the CIA being responsible for ISIS attacks in Russia makes much sense either, but I expected nothing less from you.bear2034 said:"We" meaning the CIA?calbear93 said:Why are we now responsible for ISIS attacks in Russia?Zippergate said:
The Russians would be justified in thinking anything is fair game at this point. Might not be the best time to go to a concert or sporting event. If only they could find a way into the country.
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Hosts Stanford In 127th Big Game
by Cal Athletics
Cal Wins Thriller Over Auburn
by Cal Athletics
Depleted Bears Hold Off Air Force, 78-69
by Jim McGill
Bears Host Big Group For 127th Big Game
by Jim McGill
Bears Rain 3's on Grambling State, Win 86-63
by Jim McGill