this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
711 points (98.2% liked)

politics

31129 readers
2364 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Exactly what expeditonary capacity does Qatar have? US based across Europe and Pacific are in compliance with NATO and other defensive treaties. US and Qatar have no such agreements. This entire deal is just Trump and co pocketing a bribe.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Exactly what "epiditionary capacity" does the US have? They don't need permanent bases on foreign soil any more than foreign countries need bases on US soil. US taxpayers certainly don't want to pay for all this armed forces bloat.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean the US is one of the few countries that can put like 30k dudes in country at the drop of a hat with thousands more coming right behind. It's the only reason some countries dealt with us at all.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Those countries can learn to take care of themselves: the US doesn't need to let them freeload by outsourcing armed services to the US instead of investing in their own. While all that US taxpayer spending to bloat the armed services isn't appreciably improving US living standards with better social services (education, healthcare, poverty & work programs) or going to foreign aid, those countries investing less in their armed services from this arrangement get to dedicate more of their spending to improve their living standards with better social services.

Alliances don't require permanent foreign bases: allies can train with & host partners on an as-needed basis when the occasion demands. US taxpayers would prefer to invest in better alternatives that appreciably improve their lives.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Those countries can learn to take care of themselves:

That wasn't the question though

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It answers why the US doesn't need bases on foreign soil & why its taxpayers don't want them either.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

That's not a question that was asked.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, even if we could convince them to cut military spending, they wouldn't use the recaptured funds to improve American life, they'd just give it to the Sociopathic Oligarchs

That goes for both MAGAs and Dems. The Dems are no different than MAGAs, they would much rather smooch the donors than the voters.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

they wouldn’t use the recaptured funds to improve American life

Probably not: voters get the politicians they vote for. At least it's not wasted on armed services & foreign bases US taxpayers don't want or need. The mere fact it could be spent better is enough reason not to spend it there.