|
On September 08 2012 17:55 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 17:27 shell wrote:Every $ in the military = one less $ for your citizens! Face it, social wise USA it's the world power it could be and their citizens lack many things that others take for granted! US armed forces - the biggest world polluter & the biggest consumer of carbon based fuel - http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtmlUS did good for the world(even if by their own interest) but after WW2 it became in my point a "empire" fueled by economic interests, by the hand of big companys and military conglomerates! Yes... Because having forces deployed on every corner of the globe can't in any way be used to negotiate favorable trade agreements. If you want to appear so well informed, at least think through the thought. For example, those dollars go back into the economy (aka the citizens) through defense contracts. So no, you are simply wrong in every way when you claim that every dollar on defense is a dollar less. And if the US is an empire, it sure is a nice one, because last I checked my country did pretty well and was never annexed into the US empire like the Eastern half of Europe was. Just look whenever the lines were closest. North/South Korea, East/West Europe, just see the difference between US influence and the influence of another super power.
So now you agree that having troops deployed, that should be to help and protect countrys, can and will be used to force those said countrys into favorable agreements for the USA. That's what a empire does, bullies the weak.
The money you say they inject into the economy wasn't it better spend in train infrastructures? better schools? better heathcare? better energy system, that could make USA not the worse polluter in the world for instance?
Do you feel that spending on more guns, more airplane carriers, gunships, submarines etc.. is what USA needs? I don't really think so.. they have enought weapons allready.
It's a freakin huge lobby that takes away from the citizens to enforce a policy of expansionism for the huge companys that control USA's politics, it doesn't benefit the USA citizen.. never!
|
might get a bit of heat for that..
Yes I would like it if the US military limits it's presence (atleast in my country). The upsides are clear, we gain some employment (infrastructure, services).
The downside for me, I cannot really feel free. It has been 70 years since the war and we still have 50k US soldiers in Germany, who are not held accountable by german law (if they do shit). Additionally we hear stories like "militant islamist caught by FBI in Munich", which is good but wtf does the FBI has to do in Germany.
Additionally there is the nuke question. We have US nukes here which nobody really likes. Some time ago the french government asked if we want to buy some of theirs. Our government said no, why can't they say no to US nukes. My feeling is that the US still has a strong say in german politics and I would like that to end.
Long story broken down, I still feel occupied. I don't have anything against the US, but it would be great to finally gain freedom so long after the war.
|
I do not think the number of people say as much anymore. Modern war is all about the equipment and at the moment it is air-planes of all sorts. I think Rammstein could rationalize some without significant strategic losses, since Germany is pretty safe regardless. Italy, on the other hand has middle east and northern africa in sight and since Al Qaeda is strong in those regions it would seem like a good place to increase presence. Kuwait is a gate-keeper nation for middle east and strategically important. Afghanistan has significant borders with Pakistan and the country is a huge mess still with some Al Qaeda presence to boot. I do not know enough about eastern asia and in particular the chinese and northern korean contesting of it, but I assume that especially the japanese contingent has more important roles than I am aware of since the soldiers stationed there seems to have gone far overboard on abuse of the local culture.
|
50.000 troops in Germany? For what?!
|
|
|
On September 08 2012 18:25 ridethecatbus wrote:
If there is peace, it's not because the world is cooperating in a modern utopia, it's peaceful because there is a dominant military power. Few (if any) civilizations have wielded that kind of power and not used it to conquer the world. That's why it's important for us Americans to elect presidents who are not warmongers.
The US is too smart to simply "conquer the world", they know as well as everyone else that this would not end well for anyone involved. Instead, they use their military power to control, not conquer, other nations. They use it to gain influence wherever they can, and will turn the military influence they have into political and economical one. As someone has said in this thread, they're bullies when they want things to go their way. That's why people outside of the US don't like them.
|
On September 08 2012 13:14 stevarius wrote:
As much as we would like to reduce our military presence around the world, it's necessary for the stability of certain regions and for our current global operations from a logistical standpoint.
I would argue the Middle East as an example to that flawed ideology. That region is decades behind what it use to be pre-invasion and its infastructure is shot. An example of a good goal led by bad interests.
|
I expect we need a certain military presence to secure our shipping lanes, ensure free trade, and that we have advantage of international law, and also in case of emergencies. It's also nice to know that there are US forces around while we are touring the world so that we can get pulled out if there is an insurgency or whatever.
But all those people out there are just to prop up some war hawk's profit margin, so we shouldn't be doing what we ARE with them.
|
On September 08 2012 19:57 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 18:25 ridethecatbus wrote:
If there is peace, it's not because the world is cooperating in a modern utopia, it's peaceful because there is a dominant military power. Few (if any) civilizations have wielded that kind of power and not used it to conquer the world. That's why it's important for us Americans to elect presidents who are not warmongers. The US is too smart to simply "conquer the world", they know as well as everyone else that this would not end well for anyone involved. Instead, they use their military power to control, not conquer, other nations. They use it to gain influence wherever they can, and will turn the military influence they have into political and economical one. As someone has said in this thread, they're bullies when they want things to go their way. That's why people outside of the US don't like them.
I always wonder if the US really wants more Europe to solve this economic crisis since if you would unite Europe it would be a greater power than the US and they can't really influence our politics anymore the way they do now.
|
On September 08 2012 20:06 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 19:57 Conti wrote:On September 08 2012 18:25 ridethecatbus wrote:
If there is peace, it's not because the world is cooperating in a modern utopia, it's peaceful because there is a dominant military power. Few (if any) civilizations have wielded that kind of power and not used it to conquer the world. That's why it's important for us Americans to elect presidents who are not warmongers. The US is too smart to simply "conquer the world", they know as well as everyone else that this would not end well for anyone involved. Instead, they use their military power to control, not conquer, other nations. They use it to gain influence wherever they can, and will turn the military influence they have into political and economical one. As someone has said in this thread, they're bullies when they want things to go their way. That's why people outside of the US don't like them. I always wonder if the US really wants more Europe to solve this economic crisis since if you would unite Europe it would be a greater power than the US and they can't really influence our politics anymore the way they do now.
This crisis started with them and it's still the USA rating agencys that turn the tides of investidors against europe. especially Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy.
The same rating agencys that game AAA+ to Maddoff and the suprime funds! So yeah maybe not just because of that, but a strong € = weaker $ and other things..
We are buddys and we are "rivals", economic atleast..
|
no that is fine, us men always protect the world
|
Here is my take. This world isn't utopia, every nation would do what's good for themselves, if they have the chance.
Most non American see this military presense as something bad, and they're right because it's more beneficial to the US than any other countries.
Americans who see this as something bad, does not see the beneficial side of things.
USA does this, because they can, and because it's beneficial for them. Now, this isn't just the American's thing, China, Russia and other super powers also does the same, but since they aren't the most powerful nation in the world, their presence doesn't take the spot light, but you can't deny the fact that they are trying to expand their influence to do the same.
By pulling away you're simply given the peice of pie to someone else.
|
None of the nations on that record have any issues with balance, not even Kuwait. If anything, these international careers cause lack of balance rather than minimize it.
|
Dude, we need these soldiers over here in Germany. They actually are a form of income and provide work places. If they leave, which has partially happened by the way, that's quite a big hit for the local economy and the barracks are left empty, though they can in some cases be transformed into student housing or something.
|
On September 08 2012 20:55 surfinbird1 wrote:
Dude, we need these soldiers over here in Germany. They actually are a form of income and provide work places. If they leave, which has partially happened by the way, that's quite a big hit for the local economy and the barracks are left empty, though they can in some cases be transformed into student housing or something.
I love this "it provides work places" argument. It can be used in every context. Reduce production of weapons? Would lead to job losses. Reduce production of cigarettes? Job losses. And so on... People always forget that money and people could instead be used for a different purpose. This argument is so one-dimensional, but nevertheless used so often. Regarding this case: Yes, local economy would change and the empty barracks could be transformed into something different.
|
On September 08 2012 19:33 shell wrote:
So now you agree that having troops deployed, that should be to help and protect countrys, can and will be used to force those said countrys into favorable agreements for the USA. That's what a empire does, bullies the weak.
You're arguing from a flawed perception. This isn't some "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse," situation. The US army doesn't roll in like the maffia and tell these countries to sign, or else.
Take a nation like Saudi-Arabia. Now, I'll save myself the hassle of trying to explain to you why exactly they hate Iran (not, it isn't lol-US so evil they pit muslims against each other).
Now, a nation like Saudi-Arabia is going to reach out to a nation like the US out of its own free will. They make trade deals, promise oil, promise cooperation. Why? Because the US is in the region. They don't roll up, point a gun, and demand stuff. They are in the area, they can decide the outcome of any conflict, so nations like Saudi-Arabia will make a deal.
They want to win a conflict, the US wants to have favorable economic terms. Both sides go in wanting something, both sides get what they want.
Is that empire-esque behaviour? You can call it that, but if it is then my local grocery is an empire, abusing my desire to engage in commerce out of my own free will, trading money for goods/services.
The money you say they inject into the economy wasn't it better spend in train infrastructures? better schools? better heathcare? better energy system, that could make USA not the worse polluter in the world for instance?
What good is a train if the enemy bombs it? An army is a simple fact of life. Without it, you can't exist.
Other than that, better energy, less polution. Sounds like that usual beggar-attitude that Europeans seem to have towards the US.
"Hey! Why don't you invent us a better form of energy!"
"Hey! There is a humanitarian crisis, why aren't you fixing it!"
"Hey! The environment is bad, why don't you solve it!"
And all the while we moan and bitch that the US is so big and powerfull. Maybe we should stop demanding that they solve everyone's problems? How about we start there, then we can talk about reducing US-troop levels.
Do you feel that spending on more guns, more airplane carriers, gunships, submarines etc.. is what USA needs? I don't really think so.. they have enought weapons allready.
You could have said the same for nukes. Still, the technology derived from that bomb has saved a good number of people.
Technology isn't like a videogame. There aren't civil-tech trees and military-tech trees. One doesn't cancel out the other, they overlap. Ever notice that rockets both take people into space and take people out on earth?
It's a freakin huge lobby that takes away from the citizens to enforce a policy of expansionism for the huge companys that control USA's politics, it doesn't benefit the USA citizen.. never!
Ooh yes, evil corporations are ruling the world! Twisting their mustaches and cackling as they derive everyone their fair due. Ooh woe to us, the poor and opressed!
Considering the US doesn't seem to ever get invaded, I would argue they are doing pretty well for themselves. Not having artillery rain on your house is something many citizens would consider a "benefit."
|
On September 08 2012 20:55 surfinbird1 wrote:
Dude, we need these soldiers over here in Germany. They actually are a form of income and provide work places. If they leave, which has partially happened by the way, that's quite a big hit for the local economy and the barracks are left empty, though they can in some cases be transformed into student housing or something.
I am aware that the soldiers bring income, I mentioned this point on the "pro soldiers" side of the coin. The argument with the empty space is not good at all. We live in one of the most densily populated countries in the world, unnused space is a ressource here, I would be really surprised if nobody finds a way to use the then empty areas.
The argument with the income: I would see this as structural change, happens in all industries all the time (mining, service sector becomes bigger and slowly displaces manufactoring). I would see this structural change as a chance to create something new in a steadily changing economic system.
|
Die as a hero or live long enough to become the villian.
I am curious what would happen if we pulled our soldiers out from those bases around the world. When I look at a country like Syria, I wonder which nation would step up to help in situations like that.
|
On September 08 2012 21:09 CraZyWayne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 20:55 surfinbird1 wrote:
Dude, we need these soldiers over here in Germany. They actually are a form of income and provide work places. If they leave, which has partially happened by the way, that's quite a big hit for the local economy and the barracks are left empty, though they can in some cases be transformed into student housing or something. I love this "it provides work places" argument. It can be used in every context. Reduce production of weapons? Would lead to job losses. Reduce production of cigarettes? Job losses. And so on... People always forget that money and people could instead be used for a different purpose. This argument is so one-dimensional, but nevertheless used so often. Regarding this case: Yes, local economy would change and the empty barracks could be transformed into something different.
You do realize that those troops are American right? So they are there on American dimes, spending American money.
When they go back home to America, they are rather likely to take that money back home with them.
It is an absolute loss when these people leave, because they leave the country. The country will be down 50.000 wage-earners. Germany isn't going to magically fill that hole with student housing...
You need to be accepting of the fact that the local economy will be garotted, but I'm guessing that isn't a very big objection for you.
|
Keeping troops in peaceful countries - for whatever reason - seems sensible enough. Maybe the numbers are abit excessive in Germany, but it still sounds like a good way to serve. Serving overseas can be exciting. People live abroad for months or even years for whatever reason, and it's a great way to experience new things. The issue arises when soldiers are placed in warzones of wars that the population doesn't really agree with. At some point we simply feel sorry for the troops living in danger every day. This doesn't mean that those stationed in Germany and the UK are having a tough time and should be called home, not at all.
Also, as for "stability" issues. The world is unstable. It wasn't until recently that "we" developed the notion of human rights. And now we think its feasible to impose these rights upon anyone. I'm sure there are alien races who knew and know even better than us how to run society. It doesn't mean we'd be ready for such a change. You can't actually believe you can fix any of this with military presence. Societies and cultures are very different, and we probably shouldn't have butted in in the first place; but we saw it fit to get away with all sorts of resources and so we did. And now the world is what it is. In a way, maybe it's good someone takes "responsibility". But on the other hand: Wtf?? american foreign policies aren't very responsible -_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
