It's the presence of the US military that has allowed other countries to get by with puny militaries. Why should they spend their money on their own militaries when the US will gladly do it for them with the American taxpayer footing the bill? The US not only "underwrites" global trade and global security, by doing so it is practicing global imperialism by another name. The word "underwrites" is one of the best euphamisms I've ever heard for imperialism. There are more roads to imperialism than taking over a country to corner a market. The US has simply found a different and less expensive way to skin a cat, and other countries have realized it's to their advantage to allow the US to do all the dirty work of protecting their market and having us pay for it. Who would pass up a bargain like that? You are kidding yourself if you think that is not outright imperialism by another name, such as "underwriting security."Underwriting global security is not a euphemism for imperialism. The other free nations in the world are not forced to bend to America's will. They are free nations that govern themselves as they please. By "underwrite," I mean that it is the United States that maintains the primary infrastructure for military operations in the free world. When other nations utilize their own militaries, oftentimes they must do so with help from the U.S. (for example France asking us for help to airlift their troops recently) or utilizing the Global Positioning System, or making use of aerial refueling tankers, and so forth.In addition, it is the U.S. military that keeps the sea lanes open. In the early 1990s, the Philippines told the U.S. that they wanted it out of their area. So the U.S. left the area. The result? The Philippines got a taste of some real imperialist-style behavior from the Chinese, and as a result end up asking the U.S. to please come back into the area (the U.S. is re-opening a base there now). America's military also is a great force for good in terms of sending aid in times of crisis, for example aircraft carriers, which can cook up lots of meals for people on shore, use their medical facilities to treat people who need help, use their helicopters to ferry people and supplies back and forth, use their generators to supply electrical power to on-shore facilities, etc... Historically, the U.S. has been busy having to counter imperialist behavior. Throughout the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union (which was an actual empire that was very bent on imperialism). Now it's imperialistic behavior from the Chinese and countering terrorism.
Lol, you'd make a great soldier."Lol, you'd make a great soldier" is not an argument for anything. If you are going to claim the U.S. military is used for "imperialistic purposes," then you need to explain how. If you are willing to make such statements, and excuse many of the atrocities directly and indirectly by our country and its military through recent history, then it's obvious that we have two completely different worldviews and two completely different interpretations of history. I can tell that any further discussion on this matter would be a complete waste of time. Don't worry about it. Forget I said anything. You can now get back to your Kool Aid.
If you are willing to make such statements, and excuse many of the atrocities directly and indirectly by our country and its military through recent history, then it's obvious that we have two completely different worldviews and two completely different interpretations of history. I can tell that any further discussion on this matter would be a complete waste of time. Don't worry about it. Forget I said anything. You can now get back to your Kool Aid.What atrocities do you speak of? To the extent the U.S. has been involved anywhere in recent history (Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...) it has been to deal with evil, not to perpetuate it. One thing I notice with this line of argument is the people making it always accuse those who disagree with them as "drinking the Kool Aid," when from what I can see, it is themselves that have been drinking something odd. And no one is saying America has not made any mistakes through recent history, but global policy is far more complex when dealing with evils like the Soviets and terrorists.
It's the presence of the US military that has allowed other countries to get by with puny militaries. Why should they spend their money on their own militaries when the US will gladly do it for them with the American taxpayer footing the bill? The US not only "underwrites" global trade and global security, by doing so it is practicing global imperialism by another name. The word "underwrites" is one of the best euphamisms I've ever heard for imperialism. There are more roads to imperialism than taking over a country to corner a market. The US has simply found a different and less expensive way to skin a cat, and other countries have realized it's to their advantage to allow the US to do all the dirty work of protecting their market and having us pay for it. Who would pass up a bargain like that? You are kidding yourself if you think that is not outright imperialism by another name, such as "underwriting security."Underwriting global security is not a euphemism for imperialism. The other free nations in the world are not forced to bend to America's will. They are free nations that govern themselves as they please. By "underwrite," I mean that it is the United States that maintains the primary infrastructure for military operations in the free world. When other nations utilize their own militaries, oftentimes they must do so with help from the U.S. (for example France asking us for help to airlift their troops recently) or utilizing the Global Positioning System, or making use of aerial refueling tankers, and so forth.In addition, it is the U.S. military that keeps the sea lanes open. In the early 1990s, the Philippines told the U.S. that they wanted it out of their area. So the U.S. left the area. The result? The Philippines got a taste of some real imperialist-style behavior from the Chinese, and as a result end up asking the U.S. to please come back into the area (the U.S. is re-opening a base there now). America's military also is a great force for good in terms of sending aid in times of crisis, for example aircraft carriers, which can cook up lots of meals for people on shore, use their medical facilities to treat people who need help, use their helicopters to ferry people and supplies back and forth, use their generators to supply electrical power to on-shore facilities, etc... Historically, the U.S. has been busy having to counter imperialist behavior. Throughout the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union (which was an actual empire that was very bent on imperialism). Now it's imperialistic behavior from the Chinese and countering terrorism. Sorry, I disagree. All countries are imperialistic. They do whatever they think is advantageous to themselves. It's human nature. When the US or any other government tries to look as if it is working to counter imperialistic behavior what they are actually doing is countering imperialistic behavior from other countries so they themselves can be the top imperialists. Imperialism is bad only when someone else is engaging in it.
There was no rationality to us starting the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war has gone far beyond any necessity.There are plenty of rationality to invading Iraq, but a major hunk of the foundation the rationale was base on turned out to be wrong.What reasons were there for Iraq?
Afghanistan is a situation where if the U.S. leaves, it will probably turn back into a hotbed for terrorists, but there is not really anything the U.S. can accomplish by staying there either.I mostly agree with you here, but the terrorists are a bigger threat to Afghanistan itself, and it's neighbors, then us.
The Green Berets would not care about my POV, because they lack the empathy to see things from my position. (Sarcasm.)A truly critical thinker would probably not take part in these events, or by extension, enlist in the military. Also, humanists seem to be very sensitive people who have loads of empathy for others; those attracted to military service are generally not like that, IMO.Tell that to the Army Special Forces ("Green Berets"). And that's a rather narrow-minded view of those who join the military.
Why don’t you first ask yourself what is the military?
The CIA’s and NSA’s budget alone is larger than the Army, Navy and Air Force combined.
Who is a solider in the military?
The biggest war we got going today is in Economic Warfare with China.
On the NSA website three years ago the NSA had opening for 8,000 financial analysts and retired bankers.
Our military is not just about the men in uniform. The biologist and scientist may be working for the military just as much and the guy on a ship in the Navy.
It seems like most of the battles our men in uniform have been fighting are in countries that we supplied and built the military forces and supported the leadership.
The men in uniform have to go in when the CIA and NSA, and economic sanctions have become ineffective.
Sorry, I disagree. All countries are imperialistic. They do whatever they think is advantageous to themselves. It's human nature. When the US or any other government tries to look as if it is working to counter imperialistic behavior what they are actually doing is countering imperialistic behavior from other countries so they themselves can be the top imperialists. Imperialism is bad only when someone else is engaging in it.Liberal democracies do not always act imperialistically. There are a few perhaps, such as France, which still has imperial interests in certain areas of the world, but otherwise, for the most part, no liberal democracy maintains any empire. Also, do not mistake a nation acting in its own interests with being imperialistic. That would be like saying that people in general who behave in their own interests are out to oppress others and gain power over others. Many seek this, but it doesn't mean everyone acting in their own interest is. Similarly with countries, a country acting in its own interest is just looking out for its own security and welfare. It doesn't mean it is seeking power over others. And the United States never sought to counter Soviet imperialism so that it could be the top imperialist. If that was the case, the United States would have forcibly conquered other areas, such as Iraq, perhaps Bahrain, and who knows where else.
What reasons were there for Iraq?The major one was WMD, although there were some lesser ones as well (which IMO themselves wouldn't have been enough to justify invading---for example, you could say Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but then so was Kim John Il and now Kim Jong Un). I mostly agree with you here, but the terrorists are a bigger threat to Afghanistan itself, and it's neighbors, then us. I'd suspect that they are more bent on harming the United States than harming Pakistan or the Afghan people.
Why don’t you first ask yourself what is the military? The CIA’s and NSA’s budget alone is larger than the Army, Navy and Air Force combined.Not sure where you're getting that from, but that's incorrect.
Came out a few years back by a congressman he made the statement but could not give any figures because the budgets are secret. Nobody disagreed with the congressman. But most of the work done by the military contractors are done for NSA and CIA projects, sometimes they are done side by side with the military. And the military also works and gets paid by the CIA on projects. NASA does a lot of work for the NSA. When our government completely outfits an army in another country it is by the NSA and CIA.
Some years back I had a company that did theodolite training at major aerospace companies and also did work on satellites. Most the projects I saw are NSA. If the general public ever knew about the waist and mismanagement it would be front page. Our government likes secret budgets. In Los Angeles there is a whole company that is secret. You go to work in a bus with painted windows. No name for the company, it is known by the workers as Secret City. Sort of like Area 51.
I agree, and would add countries that promote and back an agenda that could hurt or be costly to the United States. For example, Syria was backing people and groups that wanted to kill Americans. He stepped over the line and the United States wants him gone. The next guy may not be any better but he knows where the line is.
History has shown that you’re actually better off not directly controlling a country but better off indirectly controlling a country.