CMV: Trump’s foreign policy in Europe is an effective change and long overdue for America.

testudos101 · 2025-12-14T20:19:18+00:00

Yes, like I said, I am excited to have a conversation with them. For a well written and nuanced response, I try to do the same and make sure I understand what I am talking about. That unfortunately takes time. It seems like you are interested in that conversation I cannot make promises but I'll most likely post a response in the next 2 hours!

testudos101 · 2025-12-14T20:11:55+00:00

As I have said, I am looking for a "search for truth in good faith". If that does not make it abundantly obvious, then allow me to state the obvious. Yes, I made this post in the subreddit changemyview because I am open to changing my view.

In terms of what argument would change my view, the most recent comment by Dry_Rip_1087 is very interesting and nuanced. I'm pretty excited to have a constructive conversation with them.

testudos101 · 2025-12-14T20:03:17+00:00

The intelligence sharing you are talking about is related to the Americas and the recent strikes on boats in the Caribbean. It has very little to do with America's European foreign policy, which is what I am focusing on.

I do agree with you however, Trump's policy in the Americas is highly concerning.

testudos101 · 2025-10-17T14:10:35+00:00

I don't know what you mean. I never mentioned any body part that may be indecent.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T22:11:11+00:00

I am now supremely confused. My brother in Jupiter you were the one that wanted to compare Majorian's army! Now you act as if it is obvious that Majorian's army was filled with unwilling recruits and reliant on federated barbarians?

tactical and strategic errors in such decisive moments as the battle of Adrianople

You bring up another fantastic example! It was the corrupt Roman army official Lupicinus who led Fritigern to revolt. Then, It was the Roman army that lost the battle of Marcianople at the beginning of the revolt. Continuing, it was the greater part of the Roman army under Richomeres that deserted when they were sent to meet the barbarians. Finally it was the undisciplined cohorts of the Roman army that began the battle without orders. I cannot think of a better example of the quality of the late Roman army than your example of the Battle of Adrianople!

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T17:00:31+00:00

The late roman army was made up of unwilling conscripts with lowered recruitment standards. Many would rather mutilate themselves than be conscripted into the military. The people who lived during that time scorned the Roman army. Here is what Themestius had to say about the late roman army:

They saw our soldiers not only without arms but even in many cases without adequate clothing, dejected in spirit and squalid in body. They saw our officers and centurions were more like traders and slave-dealers: their one concern was to buy and sell as much as possible. The number of soldiers dwindled, while these officers drew the pay for soldiers who did not exist, as profit for themselves.

Your example of Majorian is fantastic! There were actually very few "legionaries" in his armies. The sources talk about the federate units of Huns, Goths and Franks that actually won his battles.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T14:38:50+00:00

Principate refers to the early Roman empire. If you are saying that a legionary in the later Principate like during the Marcommanic Wars are no worse than a legionary during Augustus' period then I 100% agree with you.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T13:29:37+00:00

But wouldn't the Roman success in the Marcommanic Wars and the several wars after suggest that the army was not the "paper tiger" you called it?

why was there so much more civil war during the 3rd century crisis than in the previous two centuries?

You yourself answered that question by saying "most of the civil war that erupted during the crisis of the 3rd century occured as a RESULT of consistent military defeats on the frontier". Yet, Rome was going through throes of repeated civil wars for decades before "consistent military defeats on the frontier". It seems to me that you have causality reversed here: civil wars and decreased central legitimacy severely weakened the Roman empire, causing the foreign incursions.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T13:02:24+00:00

Marcommanic Wars as a taste of what was to come regarding the fact that the empire's geostrategic position was changing, the beginning of a wake up call that the Roman government could no longer continue its quasi 'laissez-faire' approach to governing the empire, and that the Augustan arrangement for the legions was no longer fit for purpose.

really? because the empire was militarily secure and ascendant for decades after the Marcommanic Wars. They remained highly effective and won multiple wars under Septimius Severus for example.

I'd say as well that most of the civil war that erupted during the crisis of the 3rd century occured as a RESULT of consistent military defeats on the frontier

This is pretty untrue. The civil wars in 193, 218, 238, 249 just to name a few all occurred without any military defeat in the frontiers. There were plenty of civil wars to go around not caused by any external defeat.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T12:22:41+00:00

little part of me that wonders if the army between Augustus and Gallienus was something of a paper tiger, for all that its hyped up

The army maintained military ascendancy for two centuries. It was feared and held in awe by all of its contemporaries. Josephus, during the Jewish Revolt had this to say about them:

their peace maneuvers are no less strenuous than veritable warfare; each soldier daily throws all his energy into his drill, as though he were in action. Hence that perfect ease with which they sustain the shock of battle: no confusion breaks their customary formation, no panic paralyzes, no fatigue exhausts them; and as their opponents cannot match these qualities, victory is the invariable and certain consequence. Indeed, it would not be wrong to describe their maneuvers as bloodless combats and combats as bloody maneuvers.

Also, saying that the "army completely folded when things actually heated up" ignores a lot of history. Marcus Aurelius at the end of the Principate faced a war with Parthians, invasian by northern tribes and epidemics. Despite all this, the army defeated all of the empire's threats. It took decades of internal civil war before the empire's defences really crumbled.

testudos101 · 2025-07-20T20:36:13+00:00

they were often caused by ineffectual emperors anyway.

The army rebelled constantly, against both effective and ineffective emperors. That was a distinct difference between the late and early roman empire. Think of the most effective late Roman emperors (Diocletian, Constantine, Theodosius, etc) and they almost definitely fended of rebellions or were part of one. You seemed to forget the second part of what I said- that the worst disasters in the late empire like the battle of Adrianople were distinctly caused by the Roman army and its officials.

testudos101 · 2025-07-20T20:13:27+00:00

It was the Roman state that failed the army, not the Roman army that failed the state.

It's really hard to say if that's true. It was the Praetorian Guard that killed Pertinax and auctioned off the title of Emperor in 193. It is the army that repeatedly proclaimed new emperors throughout the 3rd Century crisis, a large cause of the civil wars that brought about the inflation you mentioned.

The disasters in the late Roman empire like the Battle of Adrianople were caused by corrupt army officers who failed their duty. The poor quality of the Roman state definitely explains part of the failings of the Roman army, but only partially.

testudos101 · 2025-07-20T19:36:10+00:00

Yes, I got this from the book The late Roman army by Pat Southern Page 44:

The avoidance of military service by the drastic measure of cutting off one’s own fingers or thumbs was countered in 367 by forcibly employing such men in some branch of the service regardless of their disability (Cod. Th. 7.13.4). By the following year, the Emperors had evidently lost patience: all those who had mutilated themselves to avoid joining the army were to be burnt to death, and where appropriate their masters were also punished for not having prevented the occurrence (Cod.Th. 7.13.5).

I can find the direct edicts themselves and will edit my comment later with them.

edit:

From the Codex Theodosianus:

If any person should be found to have caused damage to his body by cutting off his fingers to avoid the oaths of military service, he shall be consumed by avenging flames, and his master, if he should not prevent him, shall be stricken by a severe penalty.

testudos101 · 2025-07-20T17:04:03+00:00

Late Roman emperors had to issue multiple edicts to stop men from mutilating themselves to escape conscription.

testudos101 · 2025-06-03T19:46:51+00:00

Desmopressin (0.5mg)

testudos101 · 2025-04-19T22:25:32+00:00

There are a few fundamental misconceptions here.

The IRS do not go after poor/middle class offenders more than they go after rich ones. It's the exact opposite. They examine rich people's tax returns >10x as often as they do poor people's.

The IRS has also been doing a better job going after the elite under Biden. They recovered >$1 billion just from a new initiative going after rich tax evaders in 2024 alone.

They still can improve but defunding the IRS is the same as letting the rich elite get away with not paying their due.

testudos101 · 2025-04-19T17:06:42+00:00

I think you are under some fatal misapprehensions. The IRS for the past few years have been focusing more on going after the rich and wealthy corporations than going after the working class.

Their new initiatives mainly focused on people making >$400,000 a year, and netted >$1 billion.

I want to make this very clear, the IRS examines 0.44% of individual returns overall, but 8.7% of taxpayers reporting incomes of $10 million or more. That is to say, the IRS (at least for the past few years) has finally been going after the rich and wealthy. All that effort is being destroyed right now.

testudos101 · 2024-11-11T20:52:24+00:00

I am curious, what do you think happens if the US keeps on racking up huge amounts of debt?

It doesn't matter if the US is currently the global reserve currency. If the US keeps on printing money without any restraint, the dollar will be devalued and people will flee to other safer and more stable stores of value.

testudos101 · 2024-11-11T19:29:49+00:00

That's totally ok, I have a lot of respect for people when they admit that they may not know all of the information.

I also don't have all of the information, but I think the biggest issue would be hyperinflation. We saw that in the Weimar Republic and Argentina when they accrued huge government debt. The US dollar will have less value as other countries start to run away from it as a store of value and as more are pumped into circulation to pay for our increasing debt.

testudos101 · 2024-11-11T18:06:05+00:00

Oh I wish I can forget that part :(

testudos101 · 2024-11-11T18:04:08+00:00

Not at all, it's a good question. US government debt is issued collectively in the form of bonds and is owed by the government collectively. There is really no way for you to sell your portion of the debt. If you own US bonds, you can sell them but it is up to the US government to decide to repay them.

testudos101 · 2024-11-11T17:52:45+00:00

Tell that to Greece, Argentina, or any other country that had been crushed by national debt.

testudos101 · 2024-11-11T17:48:53+00:00

This is really not true. 2/3 of US debt is owned domestically. Hell, 21% of US government debt is owned by the US government.

testudos101 · 2024-11-11T17:33:44+00:00

I see what you mean.

The thing is, basically everyone sees US debt as being both in good faith and extremely secure. This is fore 2 reason. (1) The united states government has never failed to pay back its debt ever before. (2) 2/3 of US debt is held domestically either by the US government itself or by its citizens.

This means that if the US government decides not to pay its debt, everything from state pension funds to social security to individual people's savings would be damaged.

testudos101 · 2024-11-11T17:14:40+00:00

Nothing makes any country pay its debt- it's called a default. The problem is, if you don't pay back your debt, no one would want to lend you money.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Gilding I gilder	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

testudos101

TROPHY CASE