Forum menu
And as for ‘military superiority’, we’ve seen time and again how the mighty USA gets its arse kicked by far less well-equipped fighters, wherever it decides to create a conflict
I think if the US really wanted to 'win' a war it could do so quite easily against any state which doesn't have a nuclear deterrent. The problem is less about capability and more about willingness. As I said on the Navalny thread, the US and other western states like to throw their weight around and interfere in the affairs of foreign states but rarely have the determination to see it through because their own populations have little appetite for war. The result is countries like Ukraine (and Syria, Iraq etc) being used as proxies with all the death and suffering being borne by those countries rather than western populations.
Invest in energy seems up there to me.
Like properly- not these shell companies.
Rolls-Royce have some nuclear fabrication facilities don't they?
Always remember exports are a true cost to your resources. This gets lost when talking about imports / exports / markets.
I think if the US really wanted to ‘win’ a war it could do so quite easily against any state which doesn’t have a nuclear deterrent. The problem is less about capability and more about willingness.
I heard that nonsense over the Vietnam War. The United States definitely wanted to win the Vietnam War, and they definitely wanted to win the Afghan War, the fact that they couldn't use their nuclear weapons has nothing to do with a lack of "willingness" to win those wars.
If you can't use nuclear weapons it's as good as not having them. And even if you took nuclear weapons out of the US military budget it would still be far greater than any other countries in the world.
I'll stick to my original point - the fact that they can't even win a war against a desperately poor third world country suggests that they are not getting value for money out of their military spending.
I heard that nonsense over the Vietnam War.
The Vietnam war was so long ago it's hardly relevant to today's geopolitical situation. Anyway, I've no real interest in military willy waving discussion (I can go to the Ukraine thread for that), the original point was that the US can afford to spend money because it is the last real superpower. My point was that you don't have to be a superpower to do the same, all you need is power over your currency and the economic base to productively spend the money, which the UK easily has.
It was exactly the same excuse.
"Israel has gone ‘beyond self-defence’ in Gaza, says Labour’s Streeting"
THEGUARDIAN.COM "But we’re not going to be pushed around by protesters"
Sure he isn't!
Wes Streeting is a massive supporter of Israel, and it is precisely because of the relentless campaigns by protesters that he and Starmer now feel unable to any longer totally support the far-right genocidal Israeli government.
Israel is no more brutal now, nor committing any more war crimes, than it was 3 months ago. But continuing support for Netanyahu and his fascist allies is hurting the Labour brand, as Streeting himself admits:
Streeting told Times Radio that Labour had “taken a lot of criticism within the Muslim community certainly, but also more broadly” over its position.
So, are the Labour front bench slowly moving to a “yes, you can defend yourselves… but this isn’t defence…” position on Israel?
One thing’s for sure, they will remain “supporters of Israel” in terms of a two state solution, with Israel still existing as a state.
I’ve been trying not to comment on what’s happening in the region beyond my October position of “Israel shouldn’t go after Hamas, because they cannot do so without huge loss of civilian life”, as I really don’t see why it’s all down to the Labour leader, and why it’s all in this thread.
Here’s what I posted elsewhere a while back, and is still pertinent:
as I really don’t see why it’s all down to the Labour leader, and why it’s all in this thread.
It is clearly not all down to the Labour leader, in fact any outcome will have nothing to do with him (yet) but as future PM it is worth commenting on in a thread about him.
Would have been the right thing to do to have been supportive of an immediate ceasefire just after October 7th as it is only words for him, but the right words.
And yes, we expect more of Labour over the complete ****er tories, why shouldn't we.
Would have been the right thing to do to have been supportive of an immediate ceasefire just after October 7th as it is only words for him, but the right words.
And yes, we expect more of Labour over the complete **** tories, why shouldn’t we.
Agreed on this. It appears Starmer gets away with too much of this kind of stuff with excuses piling up in support of a right-leaning position on many things.
Stand on the correct side of the moral fence FFS.
I absolutely don't get the point of Starmer if he can't offer an alternative, if not clearer more moral viewpoint than the Tories. That's the point of an opposition to oppose the shitty ideals of the Conservatives. Do some opposing.
And why do Labour supporters do terrible verbal gymnastics to support him? Why is it so hard to criticise him?
Here’s what I posted elsewhere a while back, and is still pertinent
Labour have themselves to blame for not pushing back a long time ago.
Any reason at all they couldn't have started proper green investment years ago. No. Same goes for much in your list.
So come the excuses because it's now even harder work to be a progressive. Not that I think Starmer is even bothered about any of these things.
Always hold Labour to a higher standard. Tories are just ****s.
Change the narrative - the millions of good arguments to go with.
Well, because they keep losing General Elections.
(Why didn't they do it under Blair?)
You have to put it out there so people can sodding vote for it!
the fact that they can’t even win a war against a desperately poor third world country suggests that they are not getting value for money out of their military spending
1. US military spending is as much to do with its internal politics as it is to do with external show of force, so for any given state, the Industrial-military complex is probably pretty good value for money. You'd be hard pushed to find one that didn't have multiple military bases, (providing local employment) or major weapons producing or some such other military linked employers.
2. No one can fight a guerrilla war in the way that modern western country's citizens demand that their military forces behave or keep public opinion onside, and hope to win it (including Vietnam). Even Britain in the poxy eighties managed to win a straight-up Military vs Military fight, and the US would be as well. If you want to see how war needs to be conducted against guerrilla forces to win, but with no regard to public opinion, look at the experience of Syria, Iraq or Israel, where they couldn't give two shits about what will be written in the broadsheets.
The US spends close to a trillion dollars in the military budget which last time I checked was the same as the next 10 countries combined. (Although I wonder where that stands now with Russia who as a currency issuer too has managed stack up there recently.)
How much does a squaddie cost them vs the Chinese equivalent?
US military spending is as much to do with its internal politics as it is to do with external show of force, so for any given state, the Industrial-military complex is probably pretty good value for money. You’d be hard pushed to find one that didn’t have multiple military bases, (providing local employment) or major weapons producing or some such other military linked employers.
And yet they are losing even that. As a consequence of flexing their muscles in various parts of the world it has resulted in the US being less influential than previously. Pretty much all their military adventures have failed in their aims and have given even more influence to their opponents.
And all that US huge "industrial-military" complex which is currently so capable of arming Israel and giving it maximum diplomatic support, as it slaughters an indigenous people, is winning the US even less influence.
As the US loses its global moral authority much of the world, especially the Global South, is turning to China and Russia for trade, arms, etc. And countries such as South Africa to take a moral stand in international affairs.
You can’t be a super power unless you have goldie lookin’ trainers!
And your missus is a nutter.
the fact that they can’t even win a war against a desperately poor third world country suggests that they are not getting value for money out of their military spending.
Conflating military capability with political will & strategy is beneath you.
is beneath you.
Thank you for your patronising comment but I will stick to my original comment that the US had the political will to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan but lacked the capability to do so - despite their military might and huge wealth.
Same as Vietnam.
Thank you for your patronising comment but I will stick to my original comment that the US had the political will to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan but lacked the capability to do so – despite their military might and huge wealth.
Same as Vietnam.
Then it's not beneath you, but simply ignorant of you. But you know that.
but I will stick to my original comment that the US had the political will to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan but lacked the capability to do so – despite their military might and huge wealth.
Of course that's what US politicians want, and they're as ignorant as you are about how to achieve it. If you want to see how to defeat guerrilla forces, it looks Like Syria and Gaza, it looks like Mosul. But that sort of warfare is not anything that western citizens would stand for.
But that sort of warfare is not anything that western citizens would stand for.
I don't know what you appear to think that you are arguing against - thanks for making my point!
So to sum up....despite all that money and military might the United States cannot win a war against a poor third world country.
And no, having nuclear weapons did not help the US to win the war in Afghanistan.
Being a 'military-industrial complex' will not guarantee that US power and influence won't wane.
Getting back to the original point - the term 'superpower' is an arbitrary term which simply means great power, not infallibility.
Of course that’s what US politicians want, and they’re as ignorant as you are about how to achieve it. If you want to see how to defeat guerrilla forces, it looks Like Syria and Gaza, it looks like Mosul. But that sort of warfare is not anything that western citizens would stand for.
Remind us how well those conflicts are going? ISIS/ISIL/Daesh still exist, and Hamas will only be strengthened globally by the genocide Israel is unleashing on innocent Palestinians. So those are terrible examples of 'how to defeat guerrilla forces', as that objective has completely failed.
the original point was that the US can afford to spend money because it is the last real superpower
It thinks it is. But that's not how the world works anymore; the USA can't afford to do much about the Gaza genocide, same as it can't really do much more than sabre-rattle about Taiwan. Because those who really hold power, the giant global corporations etc, will not allow anything that interrupts the flow of money. China knows it can't do much about Taiwan yet, because it has far too much money invested in industries there. The West realised that it couldn't take control of the Middle East as planned back in the late 80s/early 90s, so instead went with plan b, which was to ensure the continuation of conflict in order to perpetuate military spending and the sale of arms. Money still flows. Flashy sophisticated weapon systems look great at arms fairs, but in reality most sit about idle for their entire lifespan, which doesn't matter as long as someone made money from their sales. Actual fighting of wars is a hell of a lot more complex than simply having the biggest stick.
Because those who really hold power, the giant global corporations etc
Getting back to the original point
I thought that was Kier! Starmer!
So, Dakuan; how do YOU think the world works then?
I thought that was Kier! Starmer!
Starmer is clearly marketing himself as a friend to global corporate interests, so obviously will not do anything to scare the horses. In that sense, he is a canny politician who realises he needs to play the game. He just lacks any real courage or conviction to see beyond that though, which is why he will most probably be an abject failure as a PM. Our society needs someone with the balls to call out the emperor's nakedness, not some cowardly, snivelling lickspittle. He's a stuffed shirt, puffed up with empty promises and lies.
I don’t know what you appear to think that you are arguing against – thanks for making my point!
That it has nothing to do with a military's capability. The US military is more than capable of levelling a country and killing huge swathes of the citizens in it, they could (and did) do that 80 years ago. Their failures in current conflicts is wholly down to political ignorance.
So to sum up….despite all that money and military might the United States cannot win a war against a poor third world country
In many ways it doesn't need to, despite the outcome in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, if the US parks an aircraft carrier off the coast of any country today, I'll bet your money that they'll sit up, take notice and choose their words carefully. In that respect alone, the US military still gives US politicians reach that few others can match, I'll bet they think it gives pretty good value for money
China knows it can’t do much about Taiwan yet, because it has far too much money invested in industries there.
And its looked at the experience of Russia in Ukraine, and Iraq and Afghanistan, looked carefully at the state of its own military (and found it to be corrupt and toothless) and concluded that sabre-rattling is in fact all it can do.
I have no idea. I'm not convinced it's even possible to understand a system as chaotic as one made of a few billion humans. There's no reason to think it's a conspiracy of shady coporations though 😂
(as it happens the south park clip i linked to was also taking the piss out of myself as I was very much a 'college hippy know it all' back in the day)
In many ways it doesn’t need to, despite the outcome in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, if the US parks an aircraft carrier off the coast of any country today, I’ll bet your money that they’ll sit up, take notice and choose their words carefully.
Really? The Houthis don't seem to be taking much notice.
And its looked at the experience of Russia in Ukraine, and Iraq and Afghanistan, looked carefully at the state of its own military (and found it to be corrupt and toothless) and concluded that sabre-rattling is in fact all it can do.
It's all any of these so-called 'superpowers' can do. The US, with all its military might, had to stand back and watch as Russia invaded Ukraine. The fact is, it stands to profit far more from that conflict continuing for as long as possible. China knows this without having to engage in much in recent years. And it knows the US is just as 'toothless' as itself. The US just shouts a lot louder, that's all.
I have no idea. I’m not convinced it’s even possible to understand a system as chaotic as one made of a few billion humans. There’s no reason to think it’s a conspiracy of shady coporations though
It's hardly a 'conspiracy'; Powerful economic entities have far more influence over global politics than any 'democracy' or otherwise. They act according to what is of optimum benefit to their profits. It's pretty much how the world has always been run, really, from the Pharos, the Aztecs, the Mughals, the Vatican, to the Oligarchs and beyond.
Because those who really hold power, the giant global corporations etc, will not allow anything that interrupts the flow of money.
conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
Well if we don't try and make the arguments they always will hold the power and concentrate the wealth.
But Centrists seem to thrive on making arguments to support the broken status-quo rather than what we on the left might call push back or pragmatism.
Make better arguments for the distribution of stuff. It's not as if there isn't a body of work saying it's better for everyone. (See something like the Spirit level and ignore loopy right+wing criticisms of it.)
We are much further down the hole that when Labour last came to power, so it's critical that the package that should be put forward will need a lot of solid logic. It's all there though for the taking.
The 'nuts' on the right are arguing any old rubbish these days. They've ran out of steam and ideas, and just attack anything at all coming from the left.
Lay the narrative out!
Your water company has jacked the price this year - for what reason? There is absolutely not one reason for it to be in private hands. Pragmatism, competence and ideology have all gone out of the window. All three can be taken out with solid logic.
Start there! Tories aren't scared of offering up tax cuts (like I said during the Truss month - they would just come back to the table to a Government with better resolve.) So Labour shouldn't be scared of offering lower water bills via state ownership of something that is a natural poorly performing monopoly.
"Labour calls for immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza for first time"
BBC.CO.UK Shadow foreign secretary David Lammy said Labour had shifted because the situation in Gaza had "evolved".
It is a shame that Lammy did not explain how the situation had, according to him, "evolved", it would be interesting to know.
Perhaps 12,000 dead children, another 32,800 injured children, and at least 25,000 children who have lost one or both parent, is enough for Lammy?
Or maybe the IDF terrorists have reached the magic figure of 85% of the population being "displaced"?
I suspect that the only thing which has made Starmer actually change his mind is that the US President is now also calling for a ceasefire. Lammy even talks of "mirroring" US government approved language.
Labour foreign policy, identical to Tory foreign policy......both made in the US Whitehouse.
I heard him on R4 at lunchtime, he’s copying a trick from Sunak of repeating the same thing over and over again to every question. Immediate Humanitarian Ceasefire…….Immediate Humanitarian Ceasefire…….Immediate Humanitarian Ceasefire.
Only 3 months too late.
Bookies now have galloway to win Rochdale by-election; FFS, you couldn't make it.
Should have been a Labour shoo-in.
That’s not a surprise given the official Labour stance for the previous 4 months, they deserve it.
What's with disclaimers in front of headline words these days?
Technical recession
Sustainable Ceasefire
Immediate humanitarian ceasefire.
A ceasefire is a ceasefire until its not.
A recession is a recession by its own explicit definition.
Modern media training especially for the likes of Streeting (who burps tightrope political ambiguity) is replacing any semblance of logic - designed to be evasive.
I suspect that the only thing which has made Starmer actually change his mind is that the US President is now also calling for a ceasefire. Lammy even talks of “mirroring” US government approved language.
Labour foreign policy, identical to Tory foreign policy……both made in the US Whitehouse.
Cowardly bastards. Morally bankrupt cowardly bastards.
conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawfulor harmful.
It's hardly a secret that capitalist entities work for their own interests. Ergo, not a 'conspiracy'. Simply fact.