This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well, I think that it's anti-Semitism in the same way that white college professors who are anti-white are racist. I think that the basic playbook for Leftist types is to aggrandize themselves by claiming moral superiority over others. Ok, suppose some tribe in some African sh*thole is massacring another tribe. If Leftists make a fuss about it, the message is "we're morally superior to some barbaric tribe in Africa." Which, at some level, they know isn't saying much. It's much more impressive to say "We're morally superior to the Jews!!"
Generally speaking, I agree, although I think a lot of anti-Semites hide in this group. One thing that gives the game away is they are outraged about US military aid to Israel but don't seem to mind that the US spends a lot of resources (both money and personnel) in South Korea, Germany, Bahrain, etc. They are outraged about dual US/Israel citizens but don't really care about dual US/UK citizens. This selectivity suggests that something besides isolationism is motivating their isolationism.
I find this pretty rational geopolitically.
South Korea: US forces are there because it's the only way to give SK credible confidence that the USA will protect them with their nuclear umbrella. SK is one of the few nuclear-latent states that could spin (hah) up a bomb pretty fast. Fun fact, Samsung is one of the few private companies in the world that could probably do it on its own.
This will be a recurring theme, but the USA has (correctly) determined that a world with less nuclear proliferation is very good for the USA. So, it puts troops in SK so they don't make their own bomb to hedge against NK/China.
Germany: similar story. Latent nuclear state who was facing an existential military threat up until the ~1980s. USA likes being one of the only big dogs with big bombs. So you put troops in Europe to keep the hoes from being scared.
Also, the USA very much likes the EU in the cuck chair. It's much easier to keep them there when you can go "no no babe, you don't need MLRS launchers and fighter jets, why don't you pay the pensioners more money and drink some soup? Daddy's got this."
Bahrain: having bases in the gulf is SO useful given that its a geopolitical flash point and choke point. this is pure upside for the USA.
Israel: unsinkable aircraft carrier near Suez, great! Constantly drags USA into conflicts with basically 0 upside for the USA that require the expenditure of massive amounts of exquisite weapons which are expensive and built in tiny qualities. What is the upside here again?
"Live weapons test zone" is probably considered more of an upside by American MIC types than you would think. In particular systems like Arrow and David's Sling (which are both co-developed by major American arms manufacturers) are helpful to the US as they increase our technology and (at least secondhand) experience with ballistic missile interception, which is very important to maintaining the relevancy of the US military pretty much everywhere, as ballistic missiles are now a pretty widespread technology.
The US buying Iron Dome (which is now also being co-produced by American contractors) to fulfill their point-defense needs is an example of that dynamic running full circle.
Ukraine was already providing that?
The USA is literally redeploying missile defense systems from Asia (remember when we were pivoting over there?).
The USA is depleting it's interceptor stocks at phenomenal rates, and while it is gently increasing production, it's nowhere near enough to replenish them quickly, especially given we'll need quite literally an order of magnitude more to 1v1 China, which is a credible threat that again, we were supposed to be pivoting to!
In my opinion, Trump's potentially crowning accomplishment was almost single handedly moving the Overton window to "fuck China" and made it basically a bi-partisan issue. When before the neoliberal ghouls were more than happy to mortgage our industrial base (and thus our civilization) to the Chinese in their relentless pursuit of "line go up". And now he's throwing that away... Why again?
Yes, it is, but when the Arrow missile program was launched in the 1980s that was not really anticipated.
We also haven't been able to test Standards in Ukraine, and we have in Israel.
Just on the Navy front, on some quick Googling, the reports are that we're looking to increase production of the SM-6 and SM-3 to a combined total of 600/year. At 100 SM-3s annually, that would allow us to replace our stockpile of around 400 in just four years. At 500 SM-6s annually, that would allow us to replace our stockpiles of 1500 in three years.
As I pointed out in my other post to you, we're increasing Patriot production to 2,000 year, which is pretty eye-watering as far as interceptors go.
Yes, one of the first things I said about this war was that that was a likely fail state.
Well, I am kicking around some theories, but I'm saving them for a top-level post I will never write at this rate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a great justification for attacking a country which (1) has leadership which regularly leads chants of "Death to America;" and (2) maintains uranium enrichment facilities in deep underground bunkers. Agreed? (I am aware that for a lot of people, it's hard to agree with this since damage to Iran is a win for Israel, but still, come on.)
So I can understand what you mean by "constantly" and "drags" can you please name the three most recent conflicts into which you believe Israel has dragged the United States?
Yes*
*The load bearing assumption is you can actually finish the job and permanently prevent this.
*Also that other latent nuclear countries don't see this and decide they need nukes asap to prevent this from happening to them.
*Also, there's a very credible argument that Iran was actually quite happy playing the game of "ooooh just you wait were totally gonna make a nuke any second now, ooooh baby it's coming" while never actually doing it. Iran could get 80% of the benefit of nukes (so they thought) for 20% of the cost by always being close but never quite getting there. Or at least that was the most rational move for them, although they're religious fanatics so hard to be 100% certain.
shit the bed so hard on security you get Oct 7th'd, resulting in the USA spending large amounts of money and things that go boom to keep you from getting MRBM'd
decide to 12 day war Iran last year, USA gets involved to sucker punch Iran with a (really cool) stealth bomber strike during negotiations. But this was worth it because we destroyed their nuclear program!...
deicide, again, to blow shit up in Iran, sucking in the USA even harder this time, resulting in the current quagmire.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Once upon a time, yes. Not anymore. Alas.
:(
Your green party might be the stupidest of all the western political parties that call themselves that, and the Canadian one is left by a woman who thinks wifi causes cancer.
The U.S. Green Party would like a word- it swings back and forth between generic retard left and nutty woo woo granola conspiracy theorists.
More options
Context Copy link
While they did manage to doom Germany to economic and demographic destruction in the near-future, I don't think it's fair to blame the party. They just carried out the will of millions of voters. And did so very well. So well in fact that they got what they wanted without even being part of the government at the time!
Blame the Germans. They ruined Germany.
Words cannot describe how much the median western voter pisses me off
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe all these solar panels can be converted into a giant Archimedes' Mirror?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But when was the last time the UK dragged the US into a war? If the Israelis are causing problems and the British aren't, it makes sense to only be outraged at one of them.
If 25 years ago there were dual US/UK citizens who had the ears of Parliament and the Prime Minister and were advocating for the UK to send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, I would not begrudge other UK citizens for being suspicious of them and thinking that their arguments are not based on what's good for the UK.
1917? 1941? Grenada? Arguably some/all of the fallout of the post-WWII drama in the Middle East? The British were involved in putting the Shah in charge in Iran, for example.
ETA: and for your dual-citizens question, Murdoch is a popular target for such conspiracies, owning both US and UK media franchises that were involved in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. There are people that are suspicious of him on both sides of the Atlantic, I suppose.
So, ~100 years ago vs under 30 days ago.
Agreed on the drama tho, the British (and French, to be fair) decided to absolutely shit up the middle east/Africa with their borders during decolonization and we've been paying for it since.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Devil's advocate: Germany is far less likely to result in US forces/materiel being lost. If you assume the "Israeli aggression causes all Middle-east ills" line of thought, which I do not, you can even squeeze Bahrain into the same category as Germany, and I believe Bahrain also provides the US with an important naval port.
At the moment, I agree. Although (1) I note that you didn't mention South Korea; (2) at times during the Cold War, there was much more serious concern about a Soviet invasion of Berlin; (3) there are very few US troops actually stationed in Israel; and (4) the US has formally committed to defending numerous countries if attacked, and this does not include Israel.
But how important is it if you are an isolationist? It seems to me the isolationist position is "just buy oil from whomever is in control and develop our own resources to the point where we don't need foreign oil any more."
I don't find NK to be a threat to the South or the troops stationed there, personally, so I'd put it in a similar category as Germany. The SK relationship is (at this point in time) pretty directly anti-Chinese.
Again, doesn't really fly with the isolationist viewpoint, but I could imagine them saying something like "yes, we should be withdrawing from these countries as well, but our relationship with Israel is the most pressing in terms of harm/cost to personnel/materiel."
I wouldn't say that, mind you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link