• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why does the U.S. bother with playing world policeman to keep "Pax Americana"

glenn1

glenn1

Lifer
Why should the U.S. pay tons of money to defend a spoiled, whiney world who will despise us for it no matter what? Europe, Asia, and other regions have lived under the U.S. umbrella for years, and all we get in return is grief. Why expend our blood and treasure defending others, when we can simply let nature take its course and clean up the mess afterwards. A fixer-up is always cheaper anyway. We've not had much trouble getting resources from Africa despite all its years of civil war, why would it be any different for Continental Europe.
 
How much would you be willing to wager that if we cut off aid to other countries that their attitude would change suddenly? 😉
 
I agree but as always it certainly isnt black and white either.
I'd prefer us to cut back on bases around the world and building defense shields for an entire continent that can afford it themselves.
 
Such an attitude was tried in the 1920 and 1940.

Had we not attempted to do so by drawing a line in the sand after WW2, the picture of the communist world vs non-communist world would be reversed.
 
The average person in these other countries and their opinions of the US is pretty much as worthless as our average citizen's opinion on the same matter. What really concerns me is how never offering any kind of aid might effect trade relations and alliances which are made to fend off certain conflicts.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Such an attitude was tried in the 1920 and 1940.

Had we not attempted to do so by drawing a line in the sand after WW2, the picture of the communist world vs non-communist world would be reversed.
Click to expand...

Communism isn't on the march in 2008. If anything, western Europe might vote in communist government, and if France wants to become a Russian client state, who cares? South Korea isn't about to be overrun by the north. China seems content to wait out Taiwan's peaceful reintegration. Vietnam and the rest of communist Asia is relatively dormant and not in expansionist mode.

Create Fortress America and let the rest of the world fend for themselves.
 
I would love to know how we spend 'tons of money to defent a whiney world'. Do you honestly think Europe needs us to defend it? Is that why you think we have troops in Germany? I'll give you a hint: our troops are in these countries to enforce OUR interests, not as some sort of favor to them.

As far as 'fixer uppers' being cheaper, that's ludicrous. The idea that you would even try to compare the valuable resource exports from Africa with the high tech/financial/etc resources of Europe is crazy too. I see this as a common theme from people in America, that they think we are holding up the world on our shoulders, that we give this vast amount of aid to help everyone else out, that we're protecting everyone. It's a load of shit. Get over it.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I would love to know how we spend 'tons of money to defent a whiney world'. Do you honestly think Europe needs us to defend it? Is that why you think we have troops in Germany? I'll give you a hint: our troops are in these countries to enforce OUR interests, not as some sort of favor to them.

As far as 'fixer uppers' being cheaper, that's ludicrous. The idea that you would even try to compare the valuable resource exports from Africa with the high tech/financial/etc resources of Europe is crazy too. I see this as a common theme from people in America, that they think we are holding up the world on our shoulders, that we give this vast amount of aid to help everyone else out, that we're protecting everyone. It's a load of shit. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of "spheres of influence" ?
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I would love to know how we spend 'tons of money to defent a whiney world'. Do you honestly think Europe needs us to defend it? Is that why you think we have troops in Germany? I'll give you a hint: our troops are in these countries to enforce OUR interests, not as some sort of favor to them.

As far as 'fixer uppers' being cheaper, that's ludicrous. The idea that you would even try to compare the valuable resource exports from Africa with the high tech/financial/etc resources of Europe is crazy too. I see this as a common theme from people in America, that they think we are holding up the world on our shoulders, that we give this vast amount of aid to help everyone else out, that we're protecting everyone. It's a load of shit. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of "spheres of influence" ?
Click to expand...

That should be obvious from what I posted.

What I described were specifically the spheres of influence the US desires to have in various parts of the world. I was simply informing glenn that the reasons we have troops stationed in other countries is to protect our interests, not theirs.
 
How is it that america's only foreign policy choices are outright belligerence or complete isolationism? I'm going to take a guess and posit that these are not the only foreign policy choices but certain historically challenged people like to set up strawmen arguments.

The U.S is not currently playing policeman, they are playing nanny, social worker, parent, and any number of other roles. This is completely new to american foreign policy. It's a stupid idea as well.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I would love to know how we spend 'tons of money to defent a whiney world'. Do you honestly think Europe needs us to defend it? Is that why you think we have troops in Germany? I'll give you a hint: our troops are in these countries to enforce OUR interests, not as some sort of favor to them.

As far as 'fixer uppers' being cheaper, that's ludicrous. The idea that you would even try to compare the valuable resource exports from Africa with the high tech/financial/etc resources of Europe is crazy too. I see this as a common theme from people in America, that they think we are holding up the world on our shoulders, that we give this vast amount of aid to help everyone else out, that we're protecting everyone. It's a load of shit. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of "spheres of influence" ?
Click to expand...

No i certainly dont.... and i couldnt get a word of what eskimospy said.

Those bases were setup during the cold war to fend off a supposedly massive communist aggression against all members of the NATO/G8/OECD.. this was according to the CIA.

These bases then made war efforts possible in vietnam, afghanistan.. covert operations in iran, nicaragua, middle east etc etc.

Just as there is a global supply chain for walmart. There is a global supply chain for the US army. You think that 140,000 troops just magically appeared in the Iraqi dessert.

And then there are your local arms manufacturers. Those bases don't run .. Boeing , Lockheed Martin dont run ........dead simple..


Basically its a bankrupt policy. The US share in world GDP WILL decline especially since India and China are at a take-off point economically. Without heavy debt you cant seriously finance all this.

But hey there might be willing successors(aka suckers) to this way of thinking. The US Navy and the Indian navy jointly patrol many of the sea routes of APAC countries. This form of outsourcing is not very welcome by our politicians who are opposed to any engagement with the USA.
 
Because international conflict is bad for world markets, and the U.S. thrives on international trade. We are merely protecting our interests, and having a bunch of countries "freeloading" off us gives us leverage, though it also breeds a level of resentment in those populations, even though it provides them a net benefit.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree but as always it certainly isnt black and white either.
I'd prefer us to cut back on bases around the world and building defense shields for an entire continent that can afford it themselves.
Click to expand...

Why not just surrender to our enemies right now?

Seriously, do you have any concept of what "National Defense" is all about?
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Because international conflict is bad for world markets, and the U.S. thrives on international trade. We are merely protecting our interests, and having a bunch of countries "freeloading" off us gives us leverage, though it also breeds a level of resentment in those populations, even though it provides them a net benefit.
Click to expand...


And who exactly might DESTABILIZE those international trade routes. RIGHT NOW. Al qaida types??. They do it with impunity anyways with or without organized military presence..... and most of the time anyways people just pick up the peices and move on.

What other candidates you have

IRAN: No navy no airforce ...military that can be taken out by Israel anytime it wants
North Korea: balanced out by South korea with twice the economy and four time their military budget.

Russia: Too busy selling of mineral ore and oil and getting insanely rich due to high commodity prices.
 
Because the military-industrial complex is the largest provider of jobs in the United States.
Because they make weapons which have to be used, to keep supply and demand running.
Because the U.S., despite its propaganda on the contrary, only cares about its own interest.
 
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Because the military-industrial complex is the largest provider of jobs in the United States.
Because they make weapons which have to be used, to keep supply and demand running.
Because the U.S., despite its propaganda on the contrary, only cares about its own interest.
Click to expand...

Not sure what "propaganda" you mean. Personally i'm of the opinion that our interests are in the best interests of other nations as well, in most cases. We're certainly don't keep troops in Germany and a lot of countries to "keep them in line" as their militaries could wipe those troops out in seconds if they wanted to. They're mostly symbolic that if someone wants to invade those countries, they're not just dealing with them they're dealing with us as well. We have no desire to have those countries invaded and neither do they, so despite what "propaganda" you have been hearing, it is a mutually beneficial agreement.
 
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree but as always it certainly isnt black and white either.
I'd prefer us to cut back on bases around the world and building defense shields for an entire continent that can afford it themselves.
Click to expand...

Why not just surrender to our enemies right now?

Seriously, do you have any concept of what "National Defense" is all about?
Click to expand...

Wow, you're a shining example of a mindless moron. What does pissing off other nations have to do with positive national defense strategies? Why don't other countries have to invade and kill to "protect their homeland"? You know why? Because it's bullshit, it has nothing to do with national defence, it's just a way to get more power and profit.

We're not run by the angels you think we are, even if many of the armed forces truly believe they're helping, the people who order them around know better.
 
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Because the military-industrial complex is the largest provider of jobs in the United States.
Because they make weapons which have to be used, to keep supply and demand running.
Because the U.S., despite its propaganda on the contrary, only cares about its own interest.
Click to expand...

Nope, that would be the government (particularly combined fed, state and local which accounts for about half of all jobs in the USA IIRC).

Fern
 
If you lived in paris, rome, london, etc, and your city was infested by poorly dressed, overweight, rude, pretentious americans; you would be resentful too. I'm an american and i hate about 2/3rd of the poeple that live here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top