We wouldn't be attacked, but wouldn't this diminish our, ummm, ability to assist allies?
We wouldn't be attacked, but wouldn't this diminish our, ummm, ability to assist allies?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Why should we have allies if our only goal is national security?Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Hope is the denial of reality
Come on, I not one of your students.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
The point stands. The only reason we have allies is because we want to have a global reach. If we were satisfied with sticking to North America, there would be absolutely no need for us to have allies elsewhere (other than perhaps Mexico and Canada).
Hope is the denial of reality
How much of that 'global reach' is tied to our oil consumption, and foreign imports deemed part of our National Security?
And with outallies (as in us helping them), they could eventually be coerced to align against us, leaving us isolated and alone. How long would we stand then? Fortress America?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
The question is why would anyone expand significant resources to have countries align against someone who's not bothering them (how well are we doing with getting countries to change sides?).
Can you also provide an example of an issue that is necessary for US security that this other mythical country would be able to stifle us on with the help of our former friends?
Hope is the denial of reality
Even with half the armed forces it has currently, it's still the most powerful country on earth, it has two vast oceans between it and potential adversaries, plus nukes I'm going with "quite a while" and "long enough to make it worth no ones while".
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
So...you're an isolationist. Okay!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I didn't say that was my position. I said that would be the logical position for anyone who doesn't think the US try to act like a great power.
Hope is the denial of reality
For giggles, does anyone think we would use our nukes if we were attacked with convential forces?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
NATO doesn't have a 'no first strike' policy, so it could happen. At the present time, no one has enough forces to put NATO/the US in enough peril to make them resort to nukes.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
It looks like most everyone agrees US defense spending isn't about defense of the US but about defense of US interests which are worldwide, economic, political, etc etc. No other country does this these days which accounts for the size of the US budget vs. Rest of World's. And it seems US allies, generally, like that we do this. Given this set of premises, to save money:
A. Any thoughts on what would happen if the US backed off somewhat? I'm not suggesting an isolationist policy, but say we didn't have our fingers in every hot spot around the world, maybe had a declared policy of protecting US citizens, physically and economically, wherever they were legally interacting with Rest of World, but that's it. It would be something like "don't mess with us and we won't mess with you."
-My first thought was that the US defense industry makes a LOT of money selling weapons systems around the world and a lot of those sales are subsidized as military aid to allies. Given that, and a host of other concerns I'm sure, this policy would be politically difficult to implement I imagine.
-Second thought is what would happen if the US dropped humans rights pressures on other countries, dropped interest in Iran and N. Korea's nuclear activities, dropped economic isolation of countries like Cuba, Burma, etc... Really. What would N. Korea do if we weren't fucking with them all the time? Keep making nuclear weapons in lieu of feeding its people? Then what? Would war with S. Korea be more likely or less?
B. Thoughts on the US overtly billing our allies? It has cost a huge load of money and lives to "manage" the Persian Gulf region, so what if we billled everyone that uses - and sells - Gulf oil? Do we already, after a fashion, indirectly say through the activities of our oil and related industries? And keeping peace in Europe - during the cold war and after - has been very costly too. Why shouldn't we get compensated so we cana have a decent health care system too?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
It is not "US interests", it is interests of a few albeit those many Americans. If US was worried about Americans, they would have used QE to bailout citizens, not failed banks. They would have started criminal investigations on bankers and they would have allowed bank restructuring instead of bailing them out to preserve economy as a healthy one. The FED has some mandates, but Bernanke knows nothing about economy, or even banking. He only knows about printing money.
They turned a very proud and powerful nation into a third world country that is nowadays near hyperinflation. They turned US economy into 1980's Argentine economy. Shame on them.
Defense spending is just like spending on education or healthcare, but useless, as it is about having a bunch of government employees doing nothing or playing Call of Duty in a battlefield. The need of defense is reduced when you don't create your own enemies.
Power costs money, and probably they thought that since they had the printer they would not be subject to the laws of economics.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
Some believe that what is good for the powerful/ wealthy/ and big corporate America is good for all Americans. That's sort of the idea behind tax cuts = good for everyone. Less tax burden frees up money to invest in the US economy which creates more opportunity for everyone.If the banking system collapsed, lots of 'regular' citizens would have been deeply harmed.If US was worried about Americans, they would have used QE to bailout citizens, not failed banks.Here I agree. Not going after those culpable for the economic crash is in itself criminal.They would have started criminal investigations on bankers
Not even close. Sometimes I think Conservatives would rather have a country that operated like Mexico, but we're far from anything like that.They turned a very proud and powerful nation into a third world countryInflation is very low right now.that is nowadays near hyperinflation.Much that government has done in the last 15 years is shameful, but the US has nothing like the Argentine economy of any era.They turned US economy into 1980's Argentine economy. Shame on them.
Oh it has its uses, and it isn't game playing.Defense spending is just like spending on education or healthcare, but useless, as it is about having a bunch of government employees doing nothing or playing Call of Duty in a battlefield.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
In US, politicians do not understand how jobs are created. Higher taxes create jobs cuts, but tax cuts do not create jobs, only higher profit and bonuses for CEOs.
Jobs flee US because Americans are too expensive. The wage of one american can pay 15 chinese workers. Blame FED's monetary policy that made dollar to be expensive, and that made US workers expensive, hence, FED sent jobs overseas and also it refused to protect credit card holders for a long time. Very expensive dollar making expensive americans also makes costs of operating in US higher, and other cheaper nations become more attractive for companies.
They may lower taxes to 0% and still companies may not come back to US.
US unemployment is shown below 10% but that's because it does not take into account those who gave up looking for a job, or those who flee towards other nations. Independent studies state 22% unemployment, just like Spain.
There have been 28 episodes of hyperinflation in national economies in the 20th century, with 20 occurring after 1980. The tipping point for hyperinflation occurs (according to some economists) when the government's deficit exceeds 40% of its expenditures and is funded by money printing.
I think you are confusing CPI and hyperinflation.
UBS: The Risk Of Hyperinflation Is Largest In The US And The UK
http://www.businessinsider.com/hyper...urrency-2012-7
Ad hominem argument:
1.A provides argument B
2.C thinks A is mentally ill.
3.Therefore argument B is false.
Quite erratic reasoning.
Mentally ill patients use to be erratic and to have problems with logic.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
That kind of "thought" runs a cold chill down neo-conservative military hawk spines: the US is supposed to be a global Super Power, not just economically but militarily. Even when our economy is contracting, our budget is stretched thin, we're deep in deficit spending, and gov't expenditures are to be rationed....they want to INCREASE military spending. All the while reducing taxes, slashing programs that are meant to protect/advance our own nation-building. Good luck convincing the interventionist neo-cons to change their minds on that. (You commie-pinko sssocialist lib'rul.)
Let's ask Cheney and his cronies in congress, especially those on special committees with access to classified info. They profited from Halliburton and Lockheed-Martin (et al) while making policy. Hard to believe it took until this year to put some limits on that. Jury is still out if it'll work.-My first thought was that the US defense industry makes a LOT of money selling weapons systems around the world and a lot of those sales are subsidized as military aid to allies. Given that, and a host of other concerns I'm sure, this policy would be politically difficult to implement I imagine.
That said, congress is great at demanding "subsidies" for military-related industries for their owncampaign donorsindividual states. It's good for employing their constituents, and getting re-elected. The whole DC corridor and Space Coast (and to a degree Silicon Valley) is part of that scheme. Yeah, difficult to implement changes and incentives.
I've wondered about that, too. Our history of defining allies by Oil (and Israel) is quite long. We used to prefer 'installing' certain dictators in exchange for having some power over Oil (and Israel), but it changed. Not sure exactly when technically, but the Oil Embargo, coupled with auto MPG standards and Japanese imports, and the Iranian hostage crisis were the tipping point in my personal life.B. Thoughts on the US overtly billing our allies? It has cost a huge load of money and lives to "manage" the Persian Gulf region, so what if we billled everyone that uses - and sells - Gulf oil? Do we already, after a fashion, indirectly say through the activities of our oil and related industries? And keeping peace in Europe - during the cold war and after - has been very costly too. Why shouldn't we get compensated so we cana have a decent health care system too?
Desert Storm was another wake-up call. Kuwait was dripping in oil and oil wealth, and could have reimbursed us in full. But that would have made us something like a mercenary military, with a nation attached. That might have been the more honest approach, but doubtful US citizens would have gone for it. Historically, Americans are willing to go to War for things like promoting democracy, national sovereignty, or preventing mass killings by crazy dictators or guerilla militias. But that would have us intervening across the globe, active in every tribal war on the African continent and South America.
<Blackhawk down>
Be serious, that money would go straight into corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Isn't more or less everything the government spends that involves private sector contracts a form of corporate welfare? And if you reduce the welfare, as opposed to shifting it around from one recipient to another, then you can reduce taxes/ deficit spending?
In the case of health care, in the employer provided system, the government gives tax breaks for corporations to provide health care in their employment packages. That money, along with corporate and employee contributions, gets paid to private insurance companies. Insurance companies then pass much of it on to various service providers, some goes toward salaries and overhead and the rest gets booked as profit. And on it goes from there.... I guess in Medicare/ Medicaid the government pays the providers directly, skipping the employers and the insurance companies. No wonder they hate Medicare/ Medicaid and/or want to privatize it. Once it is private, the insurance beauracracy gets paid. Huh.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
How much of that money ends up in bonuses and golden parachutes as opposed to new innovations, jobs and actual good for society?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Is that rhetorical?
Anyway don't bonuses = jobs? Same thing, right? And golden parachutes, well that's just bad contract writing. You might ask why a corporation would hire executives with such lavish compensation packages granting reward apparently independant of performance, but consider that corporations did essentially the same thing for decades with the UAW, and those were hostile negotiations. Theoretically anyway.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
kat likely has schizophrenia. What's Alpha's excuse?
Hope is the denial of reality
The use of feigned mental illness to silence dissidents was aborted with the end of the Soviet Union, comrade
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Inflation is very low? (Hint: I can't eat an iPad)
Last edited by Veldan Rath; 10-30-2012 at 08:28 PM. Reason: Vowles are inportant!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Do you mean your costs for food are way up?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
It was a fluid discussion.
Do conversations on these forums regularly reflect the conversations you have with people at gas stations and grocery stores?It was a fluid discussion.
Hope is the denial of reality
How might those that paid for the US operation have affected that operation? The advantage of working in a large coalition is that there are more resources and more political capital to accomplish a given end. The problems associated with a large coalition are the compromises and constraints that must be adhered to so as to maintain that coalition. While there was general agreement that Iraq should be removed from Kuwait, there was less consensus that Iraq should be invaded and the Iraqi government replaced.
A coalition vs 'going it alone' involves more than just money. That was just one tiny part of my post -- the rest questioned how we define our own national interests, international allies, Defense -- and mission creep. You don't have to agree with me, but you could at least answer Choob's post with your own opinions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote