How do we choose a candidate when every one of them wants to go to war?

I can't think of anything to put here because I'm totally baffled.

Like Zelenskyy in Ukraine got a huge majority by running as the peace
candidate and we know how that worked out.

After a politician is elected they can do whatever they want.

 

I know there will be people who will still claim, having heard the lying
speech (which one?) by Biden, but Zelenskyy was president when
the bombardment of Donetsk became heavy on Feb 19 2022, when
Russia stated it would intervene, when Russia did move forces in on
Feb 24 2022.

And yes, Zelenskyy was president for a long time before that during the
much lighter bombardments that went on before the weapons voted
for by the Democrat Congress reached the front lines.

 

But how can we break out of the grip the weapons makers
have on Congress and usually also on our President?

 

The only candidate escalating war with Russia is Biden, and the neocons giving him orders.

So I pick the 'anyone but Biden and the neocons' ticket.

 

I changed from 'only one war' because whatever war we start, years
later we admit it was a mistake, every time.

 

Nothing to worry about. No matter who is chosen we will get an incompetent and corrupt federal government. History is an accurate indicator.

 

We don't start wars. We join them. I agree that joining someone else's war is usually a mistake. We can't seem to help ourselves. Watch the Chinese. They do foreign relations better than we do.

 

Starting a war or not starting a war is not a choice but a response to an event around the world.

A US presidential candidate who answers either way has no idea what he is talking about.

Any American who think USA shouldn’t be involve in any war has n F***ing idea how world works.

 

Really , Chinese has better foreign relationship then USA? Is that why NATO alliance is the most powerful alliance in World History? Sorry I don’t see China in NATO alliance. US Alliance around the world is unmatched.

 

You really think NATO is / would be a more powerful alliance than Russia, China, Iran , and North Korea?

 

USSR was more powerful than this unholy alliance could be. Yet USSR no longer exist because NATO crushed and dissolved USSR without firing a single shot.

 

That's Alt. History. I don't think that's what happened.

BTW I got a tip off that Kucinich might be a good non war candidate.

 

I mean sure, Nato is still here and USSR dissolved, no arguing that.

But I can't imagine how NATO could be a stronger alliance than the 4 powers mentioned previously. One problem with NATO is the close grouping of a bunch of the countries together. One large attack could knock out half of NATO. Additionally, NATO is nearly devoid of natural resources beyond Canada and USA . Shutting off shipments from USA and Canada to the rest of NATO would basically take away their natural resources. The spending differences can make NATO very fragile if someone like, USA , decided to go a different route.

Also, with how NATO resolutions are passed, RCINK can make decisions and go to action much faster. I think the west is resting on its history and isn't taking the alliance serious enough.

 

VS

China - 300 b
Russia 110 b
Irian 11 b
North Koria 4 b?

425 billion.

 

What's the point being made here? We waste more money ? Likely to go broke faster?

 

Little dramatic?!? Which candidate claimed they wanted to go to war?

 

Well , you the one who put out the NATO defense budget. I just compared that with the 4 countries you think so powerful.

 

The point of posting the budget was to show how vulnerable they are having one person account for that much of the budget. That's not a good thing.

 

That is true.

It is also true that NATO alliance spend 1.3 trillion on defense budget while China, Russia , Iran and NK spend $425 billion.

None of these countries will go to war with NATO. Some of their leader might be crazy but they are not stupid. Just like we understand we will never win with China or Russia, they too understand there is no win for them going to war with USA or NATO. We will always have a proxy war with these countries, but I don't believe we will ever go to war directly with them.

 

Why do you think they pay so much more though? Do you think purely because of better weapons, or because they don't manufacture much of anything and have very little natural resources?

Does higher spending correlate to better military, or is it possible that higher spending is can partially be due to inefficiencies, price gouging, corruption, etc??

With out diving too deep, I would imagine the lower budget for countries such as CHINA and RUSSIA is they don't have to pay people as much to build the weapons and possess many of the natural resources needed to fund infrastructure of manufacturing.

 

I work in Information technology industry. We have a saying “ you get what you pay for”. You can buy a computer which cost $1500 USD or you can buy a computer for $4500, believe you me , they don’t work the same.

Remember early days of war in Ukraine ,Russan tank lined up on the street and broke down?

The Western defense manufacturing company goes through lot more research/ testing/ safety protocol to make each weapon more safe, reliable and accurate which takes time and money. this is just one aspect of the cost. labor cost is another.

By the way , price gauging happening in China and Russia too. In Russia they are known as oligarchs and in China they call them “ member of Communist party”

 

I didn't say anything about alliances. I said something about foreign relations.

 

So which foreign relation China is better then USA? Please educate me.

 

I don't have the time or motivation to educate you. Sorry. But tell me what country is not involved in any wars and yet is slowly and steadily influencing virtually every country on the planet. I think you can guess.

 

How sad that you think China has more influence internationally community then USA. You are right, you can't educate me on world politics, your understanding of international affairs is nonexistent.