DankOfAmerica

The Cambodian Genocide

The Cambodian genocide was the systematic persecution and killing of Cambodian citizens by the Khmer Rouge under the leadership of Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea, Pol Pot. It resulted in the deaths of 1.5 to 2 million people from 1975 to 1979, nearly 25% of Cambodia's population in 1975 (c. 7.8 million) reducing the nation's life expectancy to a staggering 12 years in 1975.

But actually a lot of what we’d need is much easier to mass produce and research than you think it is. Like your average artillery, armor, and infantry unit basics.

That's true, so we'd need more details to discuss specific spending and costs.

Also, it doesn’t need to be a two front war. We have an entire ocean protecting us on both sides.

The naval and island hopping campaign battles for the Americans in WWII seemed like they had to happen. I would prefer that the battles take part in the open ocean than in the homeland, though I wouldn't want the battles to take part in islands of allied and neutral countries where the locals have to pay the toll either. Still, it seems like a war with China and Russia at the very least would take part in Europe and the Pacific. Perhaps Africa will be a theater since Russia and China have been developing a lot there. In fact, Wagner Group (the Russian mercenaries that was lead by Prigozhin) has had a presence there for years now. Regardless, that's only China and Russia.

If North Korea joined, then we would include the Korean peninsula, of which North Korea has spend decades preparing for an invasion by digging tunnels and setting up other defenses while their population is brainwashed to fear anything that is not North Korean. If Iran jumps in, then the Middle East including the Persian Gulf which would be an important theater because of energy/oil resources. Basically, a war like that would have the capacity to involve more than two fronts.

It's not an approval rating. It's a rating of what percentage of users find the post and discussion worthy of attention.

I kind of agree, but also think it's important to understand a few things about this:

• The US needs to keep its military-industrial complex active and technologically advanced at all times if it wants to be a military powerhouse. It can't decide to start it up whenever it wants because war machines have gotten too advanced. During WWII, it was easy to get the complex rolling because they just needed to churn out simple prop planes, tanks, rifles, and food. Now, they need stealth planes, laser-guided munitions, and high-tech chips.
• Because of the geography of the US and the geopolitical situation, it would likely fight a two-front war. If the US goes to war with a formidable power, said power would surely ally with another. The US will not just fight China alone. Russia and North Korea would join. Therefore, the US military needs to be large enough to fight knowing that by population, the US is much smaller. China has just over 4 times the population of the US.
• Having an overwhelmingly large and technologically advanced military serves as a deterrent. It's best to never go to war. It saves lives, economies, social institutions, etc. By having a decisively superior military, those that would consider starting a war avoid doing so.
• The Department of Defense and military-industrial complex is a huge jobs program anyway. Service members receive training and all sorts of benefits that support them and their dependents. Military production companies receive reliable government contracts that make their business ventures stable investments while employees receive relatively adequate pay. If the government did not fund those contracts, all those businesses would go out of business and everyone involved would have to find other means of sustenance.
• The US provides military defense and deterrence for more than just itself. It's practically the department of defense for most Pacific islands including Japan and the Philippines. It's also a necessary supporter of the EU and South Korea.

I'm not saying that I agree to the spending or that we shouldn't spend more on social welfare, but the solution is not obviously clear as just spending less on defense in my opinion.

I'm not arguing against you at all. I'm trying to understand your logic because it seems important to understand. Can you provide numbers and sources that show we are at the point of unsustainability? Is government interest about to match revenue so that we are near being unable to pay it? Or is there another reason we're at the point?

As a novice with little training, I've found AI to be helpful with running a server. Other than that, I depend on my own internet searches for info.

exactly. i thought Biden was the shit until Gaza. now, I dont even care about him at all. he's just another politician.

Illinois et Arquensas

I thought the same, but an internet search says it means "late to the party".

Elaine was part of the masturbation episode and lost, which further speaks to the progressiveness of the show because a woman was portrayed as having sexuality that was outside of acceptable limits at the time (for love only, preferably in marriage). They also presented being gay as acceptable, which was quite progressive at the time where people were calling each other "gay" and the f-word as a terrible insult.

Even at the young age of middle school watching that show, I knew George was a shitty person. Yet, I still felt sympathy for him because of his parents. Regardless, my favorite character was Frank Costanza. He was so over the top and emotional. The dude had PTSD from soldiers in Korea not liking his food in the field mess hall 😂