No? We just gonna sit around and let Nazi Germany 2.0 happen? Maybe waggle your finger a bit at them? Cool. Yeah. Okay. I love our leaders, they’re so commited to the freedom and wellbeing of their people.
God I wish the Red Army was here to save our asses like last time.
Pre-war third reich wasn’t sitting on enough nukes to end 100 worlds
Shh
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. Anyone who could do such a thing will rather watch the US eat itself and only use whatever resources they have to prepare for a post US world and defend their people during this global transition.
yeah I feel like the #1 obvious strategy for any country seeking the weakening or destruction of the US right now is just
. They’re shooting themselves in the foot again and again, why interrupt that when they’re going to be far worse off in 20 years?You’re assuming the rest of the world has China’s patience
You just keep believing that…Trump is doing what the other politicians didn’t have the courage to do because they knew the US would take hit in the short-term, but in the end, the US will be in a much better position. The way they’ve been doing things over the past 30 years just isn’t sustainable. Something had to be done about it so I’m willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt
Trump is not reviving economic planning or industrial policy with his tariffs. Just because the US needed to re-industrialise, and just because protectionism would have been part of any re-industrialisation policy does not mean that Trump’s policy is not phenomenally short sighted.
The simple fact is that without imposition of
- Maximum import quotas (differentiated by good)
- Capital export controls
- A strong welfare program
- An expansionary fiscal budget
- Nationalisation of key industries
It is practically impossible for the US to re-industrialise. And each of these policies is critical because
- Import quotas can directly limit the quantity of goods coming in unlike tariffs which have huge distortions effects and have a difficult to predict outcome
- Preventing the outflow of dollars prevents people from cheating Import quotas or tariffs. Preventing the outflow of machinery allows that to be invested in your country.
- This is needed to create a workforce that is actually healthy and smart enough to fix the economy.
- This is needed to run your economy to its physical limits rather than artificially created financial ones.
- This is needed because re-industrialisation requires the bourgeois class yo give up on a lot of profits, so you need to take control of industries away from them.
yes, pushing as much of the workforce into unemployment as possible and slapping huge taxes on everything people need to survive is totally the recipe for building bright future. don’t forget to fire all the scientists, because their research doesn’t jive with your ossified religious structures. feudal economics ass brain.
fuckin’ maga losers can’t even keep their story straight.
Holy shit an actual unironic Maga hog. You can be today’s pain piggy until I feel like reenacting old yeller
the US will be in a much better position
the position? on its hands and knees
That’s a pretty good position ngl
HOG IS BACK IN SEASON FOLKS!
That’s wild work to just walk in here. You may want to consider Weenie Hut Jr.
Trump is doing what the other politicians didn’t have the courage to do
Do what, exactly?
the way they’ve been doing things the past 30 years is unsustainable
I mean yeah capitalism is unsustainable
Oh and also
I will agree that I don’t think most American politicians have what it takes to press the Destroy Empire Button
This is the kind of person who thinks it’s us who “DoEsN’t uNdErStAnD bAsIc EcOnOmIcS!”
You’re right that what’s been going on the last 30 years is unsustainable. But what you’ve gotten the last years has been full-on, uncut pure capitalism and Trump is just trying to solve that with even MORE capitalism. Yeah sure that should work…
Here’s how you can tell America is winning:
Oh also
Post hog
Firstly, America is not nazi Germany 2.0, nazi Germany was America 2.0.
Secondly, Who will declare war on America?
China? They already are preparing for WW3 scenarios and Trump’s statements do nothing to change the timeline of preparations
Russia? They are already at (proxy) war with the US
Iran or North korea? They have enough defensive capabilities to have a good chance of defeating a US invasion (which appears to be a matter of when not if). But no real offensive capabilities against the US (discounting US satelites).
India or NATO minus the US? Their ideological conviction would lead them to siding with American fascism rather than against it. Like, why would they invade the heartland of world-historical fascism when they themselves are fascist?
We just gonna sit around and let Nazi Germany 2.0 happen?
Modern america doesn’t a tenth the (relative to the rest of the world) military or economic power that Nazi Germany did. And that’s becauseother countries haven’t been sitting on their asses all this time. They’ve been struggling for decades to create the multipolar world.Modern america doesn’t a tenth the (relative to the rest of the world) military or economic power that Nazi Germany did
That doesn’t seem to be true. What is your source?
deleted by creator
I’m sorry, but it’s a 17-minute video that is obviously not a study and does not seem to cite any relevant studies that support your claim that a state that had recently had a much more disastrous economic situation than the US, did not have the same ability to outsource production as the US, did not have the capability to invade everywhere in the world the way the US does, did not have the coup tools like what the US has, did not have the nukes, ICBMS, etc., did not have control over the world’s reserve currency.
So far, your claim regarding the US somehow not only being weaker than Germany of 1930-1940s, but at least ten times weaker (in some sense) seems very wild and not supported by anything that I’m aware of.
Do you have any sources that are studies on the matter, or which cite relevant studies?
deleted by creator
I said relative to the rest of the world
Yes, and I said that that does not seem to be the case at all. Relative to the rest of the world, Germany seems to have been in a much, much weaker position in 1930-1940s than the US now.
I welcome serious sources to be proven incorrect.Back in the 1930s and 1940s, the only major military and economic powers on earth were France, Britain, Germany, the US and the USSR
And now, it’s just the US (and the vassals that it controls), with no opposition from the USSR or a similar polity. The PRC does not seem to take any military action today the way the USSR and the PRC did last century.
So far, the US seems to be miles ahead of 1930-1940s Germany.On the other hand, the military and economic differential between the US and China is obscenely unfavorable for the US.
Firstly, the PRC hasn’t been taking any action to beat the US and to liberate its colonies so far. It doesn’t matter if the PRC has a better military (this claim seems to be untested, given no recent experience of the PLA fighting), and/or if it has a better economy if it’s not going to be used to fight the US.
Secondly, the PRC and the US seem to have militaries of rather similar sizes, with the US also having the rest of NATO to back it up and with the US also having a military with recent experience.
Thirdly, while the PRC has much greater actual productive capacity, that productive capacity is used in large part to supply the imperial core with the produced goods. The productive capacity of the PRC is thus, effectively, in part, the productive capacity of NATO. Furthermore, I would argue that the USSR also had a saner economy than Germany in 1930-1940s.Maybe if you had watched the video you would have seen the sources cited
I have gone through the slides, looked into the description. I did not find any relevant sources. Can you provide the timestamps and/or write the sources down?
So far, it does not seem like the claim that the US is in a significantly worse position than Germany was in 1930-1940s has any studies to support it.Bizzare requirement
When did it become a bizarre requirement for claims to be sourced and for those sources to actually provide evidence for said claims?
EDIT:
Furthermore, I do not see how you can look at the US be able to dictate most of the world - including the rest of the imperial core - what to do, including blockade and invade countries that try to defy the US, and claim that Germany was in a stronger position in 1930-1940s when it did not have anywhere near the same capabilities.I’m going to be real. Arguing about a hyperbolic statement is not something I have the time or energy to do. I’ll simply retract my statement and disengage. And honestly, I should also be logging off social media for a while.
“They have enough defensive capabilities to have a good chance of defeating a US invasion”
Lol, you really believe that? If the US wanted to, they could go into Iranian airspace and take out whatever they wanted to and leave without Iran even being able to detect them.
deleted by creator
The US couldn’t defeat Afghanistan.
Defeating them wasn’t the problem. The US toppled the Taliban all the way back in 2001. What the US failed at was the rebuilding of the country and turning it over to Afghan government and military.
The US has threatened to invade and destroy Iran for at least the last 30 years. If they actually could invade Iran that easily, don’t you think they already would have?
Fucking armchair general
brainless comment.No, they wouldn’t. The US could wipe out countries all over the globe if they wanted to, but that doesn’t mean their going to do it. There’s a lot of factors that go into deciding something like that. The US has the weaponry to go into Iran undetected and take out their nuclear facilities and leave without ever being spotted. Matter of fact, right now the US has 6 B21 bombers loaded with bunker buster bombs sitting outside of Iran right now just in case the nuclear negotiations do not go as planned, although I suspect they will since Iran has lost so much power lately. One reason we don’t just go in and start bombing though is because we don’t have issue with the Iranian people. It’s just their leadership. Another reason, just like with Putin in Russia, if we were to take their leadership out, we don’t know who will replace them and we don’t want another situation like Syria or Libya.
The US also has bigger fish to fry. Iran is nowhere near the biggest threat to the US, so for now, the smarter move is to negotiate with them and keep the financial pressure on them which should be enough for now.
The US has lost every war it’s started since WW2
I find it really hard to argue that the US lost in Libya or Iraq.
Yeah it just depends on the goal stated, because war is politics. If the political goal in Iraq was overthrowing the government and getting oil, the US won. If it was ending resistance in the middle east, the US failed. If it was to create a chaotic region which can be used for profit and war for the coming centuries, the US won. Libya is almost exactly the same.
The US has several times achieved its material goal while failing its stated goal. They might do that in Iran, too, though I think it’ll be harder than Iraq was because Iran learned from the past decades and I’m unconvinced that the US did
Aren’t stated goals kind of irrelevant? The stated goal of invading Iraq was to rid them of imaginary WMDs. The US invaded to loot, destroy and destabilize. All those goals were achieved.
For sure but that’s my point. To throw it in conservatives faces to make yourself feel better, use the stated goals. But, to really understand the problem of the US in the world, the stated goals isn’t relevant and leads one astray in the analysis.
It’s honestly so disheartening watching people here throw out the Millennium challenge as some kind of end-all gotcha to own the libs.
The Millennium challenge result was only achieved by Red side forces assuming motorcycles could travel cross country at the speed of light unbothered by enemy actions (they can’t), tiny speedboats could carry 4 giant ridiculously heavy anti ship missiles (they can’t), the entire Blue fleet would place themselves on the shoreline (they wouldn’t), and that it is possible to use a world ending amount of chemical and biological weapons to render your entire country’s landmass uninhabitable and therefore impervious to ground invasion.
Like, yes we get it. The US “sucks” at war. However people here are acting like the US military industrial complex is some kind of paper mache figure to blow over when in reality, it produces weapons of unimaginable destructive capability en masse. The same weapons that are killing Palestinians today, right now.
This is the opposite of material analysis and is, frankly, reactionary - a mindset I’ve seen a disturbing number of times here lately.
Nearly every one than
I wouldn’t call it “winning” when your invasion leads to nothing but state collapse, formation of ISIS and US troops getting merced by IEDs. Regional instability may be an outcome the US can live with, but it wasn’t the military goal of the invasion, they wanted to turn Iraq into a regional ally like postwar Germany and they didn’t come anywhere close to that.
What’s the evidence for that being the goal of the invasion? The US invaded Iraq to loot the country and destabilize the region. What’s my evidence for this? It happened. It’s what they did.
I wouldn’t call it “winning” when your invasion leads to nothing but state collapse, formation of ISIS and US troops getting merced by IEDs.
I don’t see how any of these things are bad for the American ruling class.
IMO, they achieved their political goals in Libya (overthrowing Gaddafi, destroying Libya which further destabilized Africa by allowing ISIS a foothold into Africa) while Iraq is a very mixed bag. They overthrew Hussein, but now there’s greater Iranian presence within Iraq. Hussein might have had designs against the petrodollar, but he was also a check against Iranian influence within the region. Post-Hussein, Iraqi militias were launching drones against the Zionist entity while shouting “Labbayk ya Hussain” before the so-called ceasefire in Gaza. This would never happen under Hussein. I’m not sure to what extent a Hussein-led Iraq would agree to be part of the Axis of Resistance since Iran is such a key player. Overall, I would say that Iran probably benefited most from Syria with Assad and Iraq without Hussein.
You should check out the Milennium Challenge
Millennium Challenge
If the US wanted to, they could go into Iranian airspace
The US should learn how to win against geurellas in the third world before trying to fight against actual militaries.
Yanqi devils have learned nothing from not winning a single boots on the ground war since 1945.
To be fair, the Red Army hesitated too. War just fuckin sucks and America is batshit and has nukes.
Never interfere with an enemy while they’re in the process of destroying themselves.
There is no country capable of launching and sustaining an across ocean invasion and occupation of the united states. The us navy is everywhere and controls most shipping lanes.
Ah, our greatest Admirals: Pacific and Atlantic
Okay but what if I were to purchase fast food and disguise it as my own cooking?
… You sneaking mice in there?
NO DONT CHECK
Delightfully devilish
deleted by creator
Dolphins
War sucks, so everyone’s gonna try to kick the can down the road as much as they can.
Very likely the United States destroys itself before it can do further harm to the world; assuming some rogue warlord doesn’t shoot off nukes during the civil war
In the world’s defense, there’s a good chance the USA absolutely collapses into a vastly regressed and impoverished state without any capabilities all on its own. Reviving an empire by military means is very expensive, and exceptionally less easy than it was 50 years ago.
War would be sort of redundant and unnecessarily punitive on people in that instance. So it seems wise to wait and see first.
Maybe DBS USA is going to happen. No need to declare war. Just pariah state the USA while the rest of the world trades with each other. There isn’t much the USA makes that they can’t get from other sources.
Honestly nevermind the nukes, the US is the current hegemonic power, the dollar the current hegemonic currency. Some countries might be starting to break away from the dollar, but basically all the countries powerful enough to act against America still have their economies intertwined with America’s, so they would be tanking their own economies by doing so. Even China would suffer massive economic damage from destroying America currently. Even without the threat of nukes it would be difficult to convince people to make the necessary sacrifices to their quality of life.
I think the rest of the world correctly decided it’s probablly safer to let the naked guy screaming slurs and waving a knife around just tire himself out.
hours who upThis guy gets it
