Maybe take a second and explain what job losses have to do with military domination. Separate choices.
then realize you're arguing with someone else, who might have written "It is undoubtedly a good thing for the US to be the 500-lb gorilla".
What I wrote, in contrast is "Taibbi talks like we were suckers in this scenario when we chose the path because there are pros to it. It's not all cons."
If you never want to project power, even when it's projected at you, fine. Maybe Flight 93 didn't upset you and make you want to strike back to remove the ability to train for those kinds of attacks on the US. If so, then having forward bases like our air bases in Germany is not needed.
I'm not even taking a side as to which should have carried the day in US decision-making, those pros or the cons. I see little point in debating it because we can't change the past. Instead, I'm simply a canary in a coal mine that this Taibbi op-ed smells of kool aid. It reeks of the air of a new convert who really really professes his faith in an emotional way, without the balance of the other perspective. I prefer clear, rational, thought to that.
They are all part of the same strategy. If I have to explain this to you, you have a lot of reading up to do. Nixon's subsidizing of China's economy was intended as a geopolitical strategy, not charity. It was directly correlated to military concerns.
Maybe take a second and explain what job losses have to do with military domination. Separate choices.
then realize you're arguing with someone else, who might have written "It is undoubtedly a good thing for the US to be the 500-lb gorilla".
What I wrote, in contrast is "Taibbi talks like we were suckers in this scenario when we chose the path because there are pros to it. It's not all cons."
If you never want to project power, even when it's projected at you, fine. Maybe Flight 93 didn't upset you and make you want to strike back to remove the ability to train for those kinds of attacks on the US. If so, then having forward bases like our air bases in Germany is not needed.
I'm not even taking a side as to which should have carried the day in US decision-making, those pros or the cons. I see little point in debating it because we can't change the past. Instead, I'm simply a canary in a coal mine that this Taibbi op-ed smells of kool aid. It reeks of the air of a new convert who really really professes his faith in an emotional way, without the balance of the other perspective. I prefer clear, rational, thought to that.
This has been a really good discussion. Thanks to all from an interested reader!
I agree, this article felt like something I could have read on ONAN, parroting the President’s talking points with zero skepticism.
I have to ask... did you mean OAN? Because given the "sin of Onan" that's an awesome typo.
They are all part of the same strategy. If I have to explain this to you, you have a lot of reading up to do. Nixon's subsidizing of China's economy was intended as a geopolitical strategy, not charity. It was directly correlated to military concerns.