Zone1 military spending on longlasting/endless wars while people suffer cripplingly high food and gas prices : should we just vote no to all that?

[peacefan]

History. Learn it. Tell us how many times other countries have undermined our leaders and installed the ones they prefer.

well, the world-power and world-economic-power fights (for dominance aka greed) with Communism and Muslims have led us to do some bad stuff.
but we should not ignore that the Communists (nuclear arms race) and Muslims (1970s OPEC oil price hikes) have done some pretty destabilizing stuff as well to us.

 

[peacefan]

I know,, but I wasnt talking about that,,,

i was

 

[progressive hunter]

i was

OK,,

 

[candycorn]

nah, i don't think so.. not if they'd properly advertise the many advantages that a pullout would have..

I'm sure they would (and I agree with them) that they would have a great argument.

The problem with our politics today is that the best idea doesn't win; the most effective argument does. She/he would be painted as capitulating, conciliatory, and worst of all...weak.

But you may be right...after 20 years in Iraq, anyone who still thinks we have a role to play in their transformation is fooling themselves. Americans (and this is another problem with the politics) have to understand that we are not the masters of the universe...we can't do everything. Voters usually do go for that assessment. Maybe this can be a change. Someone said earlier...we win the wars; we don't win the peace. I agree with that assessment. The winning position is to not have the war in the first place though.

 

[peacefan]

I'm sure they would (and I agree with them) that they would have a great argument.

The problem with our politics today is that the best idea doesn't win; the most effective argument does. She/he would be painted as capitulating, conciliatory, and worst of all...weak.

But you may be right...after 20 years in Iraq, anyone who still thinks we have a role to play in their transformation is fooling themselves. Americans (and this is another problem with the politics) have to understand that we are not the masters of the universe...we can't do everything. Voters usually do go for that assessment. Maybe this can be a change. Someone said earlier...we win the wars; we don't win the peace. I agree with that assessment. The winning position is to not have the war in the first place though.

well, one can advertise a much more stay-at-home foreign military policy without appearing weak. (that would be bad not just in domestic political contests, but on the world stage too).
just maintain enough military force projection strength to deal out punishing blows.
it's another matter entirely though to be projecting trillions of dollars in unnecessary longlasting wars. *that* ought to leave the western politicians' playbook, imho.

 

[Dayton3]

call me an out of touch philosopher or something of your choice, but *why* does military power weigh more heavily than domestic investment?
why could we not have just handed the Russians their victory in Ukraine, huh?

You give the Russians anything and they will never just be satisfied with that.

 

[peacefan]

You give the Russians anything and they will never just be satisfied with that.

You suspect the other side(s) of greed. Did you look at your own side and yourself for the same symptoms? Coz Ivan88 has a point when he criticizes us.
Why did we have to create the nation of Israel and then support it with nuclear arms and an endless supply of conventional arms? That's what got us into the war of terror, people..

 

[Dayton3]

You suspect the other side(s) of greed. Did you look at your own side and yourself for the same symptoms? Coz Ivan88 has a point when he criticizes us.
Why did we have to create the nation of Israel and then support it with nuclear arms and an endless supply of conventional arms? That's what got us into the war of terror, people..

What makes you think the U.S. created Israel?
When Israel was first created, the Soviets were its most enthusiastic supporters.
We never gave Israel nuclear arms.

 

[candycorn]

well, one can advertise a much more stay-at-home foreign military policy without appearing weak. (that would be bad not just in domestic political contests, but on the world stage too).
just maintain enough military force projection strength to deal out punishing blows.
it's another matter entirely though to be projecting trillions of dollars in unnecessary longlasting wars. *that* ought to leave the western politicians' playbook, imho.

I agree with you. However, its less risky to appear strong and put out the boilerplate "We will defend America's interests" language.

 

[peacefan]

I agree with you. However, its less risky to appear strong and put out the boilerplate "We will defend America's interests" language.

well, i still think that that's exactly the kinda thinking that got all those other empires relegated to the history books

 

[Dayton3]

well, i still think that that's exactly the kinda thinking that got all those other empires relegated to the history books

you are wrong

 

[peacefan]

What makes you think the U.S. created Israel?

if you didn't create it, you sure supported it all the way with your military donations.

When Israel was first created, the Soviets were its most enthusiastic supporters.
We never gave Israel nuclear arms.

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

backs that part of your story.

 

[peacefan]

you are wrong

how, when clearly you find 'expand the empire' among those interests?

 

[Dayton3]

how?

Each past empire fell for different reasons. Most are too complex to go into here.

 

[Dayton3]

how, when clearly you find 'expand the empire' among those interests?

1) The U.S. is not and has never been an "empire".
2) The U.S. has not fought wars to expand its territory, wealth or influence.
3) As one former U.S. official pointed out the U.S. only fought for enough territory to bury its dead.

 

[peacefan]

Each past empire fell for different reasons. Most are too complex to go into here.

cultural, economic or territorial greed *often* being the root cause of the downfall.

 

[peacefan]

1) The U.S. is not and has never been an "empire".
2) The U.S. has not fought wars to expand its territory, wealth or influence.
3) As one former U.S. official pointed out the U.S. only fought for enough territory to bury its dead.

the US and their allies definitely form a modern-day empire if you ask me.
the US and their allies have most certainly waged war to expand their territorial influence, wealth and influence, often at the same time. Iraq, Vietnam, the Shah in Iran episode, many of the post-WW2 wars that Earth has seen were in name of US' and allies' strength and influence and wealth.
your point (3) makes no sense at all.

 

[Dayton3]

the US and their allies definitely form a modern-day empire if you ask me.
the US and their allies have most certainly waged war to expand their territorial influence, wealth and influence, often at the same time. Iraq, Vietnam, the Shah in Iran episode, many of the post-WW2 wars that Earth has seen were in name of US' and allies' strength and influence and wealth.
your point (3) makes no sense at all.

How did the U.S. gain strength, influence or territory due to the war in Iraq? or Afghanistan? Or the Balkans?

 

[peacefan]

How did the U.S. gain strength, influence or territory due to the war in Iraq? or Afghanistan? Or the Balkans?

simply by embarking into those wars in the first place.

 

[Dayton3]

simply by embarking into those wars in the first place.

Can you explain your reasoning?