As we could notice in news and as many are experiencing it now, there are many armed conflicts in the world wherein the United States are highly involved. What do you think are the underlying reasons for the intervention of the US?
The United States spends on "defence" as much as the rest of the world combined. That is amazing, half of the bill of the world is paid by the US. Something has to be done to justify the outragous sums being paid the weapons-makers. Congress votes for this because lobbists for the defence industry spend huge sums bribeing Congress.
In other words, interrogator, you mean here that some (I believe it's wrong to generalize) US officials financially benefit from ammunition, guns and other weapons of war? This is just for me to clarify.
Yes. It is a well-recognizeed phenomena in Washington, D.C., known as the "revolving door". Military and naval officer who work in procurment positions, sheparding or advocating weapons and weapon systems eir ethrough the procurment system are very often rewarded for their efforts with well-paying jobs with "defence contractors" after they retire from military service. Then they lobby.
I'm drawing a blank when it comes to figuring out what you mean here. I take "highly involved" (since you mentioned armed conflicts) to mean actual fighting... war. And by golly, I'm living here and I can't for the life of me think of where we may be highly involved in a war at the moment. I feel dumb... seems to be the kind of thing I'd generally be aware of! (I was going to erase this post, but then I saw that the title is "US Wars" so I wasn't misunderstanding?) So anyhow, if you could give me list of wars that you think the US is currently involved in (not counting peace-keeping areas such as Afghanistan of course) maybe I could stop feeling so stupid for not knowing, eh? I suspect that my family members in the military may be interested in knowing about these places, too, because I don't think they've been informed that we're in a war! Thanks, Miguel.
I honestly think after World War II the United States as we all know got established as the most powerful country worldwide, therefore all the wars in some way affect their economy or their safety, The US is like the core of the world, that's why they have to part take on so many battles and conflicts.
I really don't know what to say about the involvement of the US in those wars. Take Iraq for example, was it a matter of weapons of mass destruction? It was not, so what was the matter? Were they in because of the oil? Aren't they better saving the lives of their soldiers and investing in the poverty in the US?
I think that there are too many issues on U.S. soil for them to be involved in so many wars/military operations, but that is just one man's opinion. It is great to have a army/military force ready to go encase something bad does happen that warrants military response, but going out and looking for conflicts that don't directly relate to us isn't necessary.
The U.S military force are spreading their bases all over the Asia Pacific. What is really their ultimate goal? To help or protect other nations or to let the world know how strong the really are? In every war, their presence is always seen. Do they have to meddle every time? Who really benefits from all their activities? I hope one day, this will not be a part of their colonization schemes if there would be such a goal as this. I hop one day, they would respect each nation's identity.
Have you taken a moment to consider what your world would be like if the US, UK, etc. would NOT have a presence seen in the hot spots of the world. Just sitting back like little pacifists and letting dictators and terrorists basically do what they want to do? If you're going to make statements like this, I strongly urge you to consider the alternative before making the statement. Then, if you do that and still feel the same, by all means, make a statement. I have to say that this "U.S. should stay out of things" mentality that certain parts of the world have gets on my nerves because if THEIR country was attacked, invaded, or otherwise compromised, wonder who they'd come to for help first? Food for thought. And why on earth wouldn't a strong country WANT to "let the world know how strong they are?" Of course they would, or they'd be stepped on and kicked around constantly!
What I've seen from watching (and reporting sometimes) news of world events over the years, I've seen that there's always a middle ground. I *do* agree that countries shouldn't get involved in civil disputes sometimes. But the "don't get involved!" people don't budge when it comes to an issue where national or world security is involved... they still think letting other countries self destruct is a good idea. I know everyone has a different bottom line, but I just think that a blind "the U.S. shouldn't get involved in other countries!" mentality isn't realistic because we have to remember what the world would be like if someone *didn't* get involved.
I agree. Some involvement would do well, but we also shouldn't be the only country involved if we are in my opinion. Just us "policing" the world as people call it usually isn't enough. To my knowledge, other countries to help out in some scenarios, so that's okay.
Because the US thinks it's their job to spread "democracy" to the world. There's this big joke about the US being the world police but it's true. It's like we think we are such a powerful and important nation that it's our job to lend a hand to those less fortunate that us, but we just fuck them up worse.
Most of the time when they get involved in things around the world they do so because what goes on in other countries can somehow affect our economy. Also in the U.s. we think we run the world and just like the guy above said they want to be the world police. They care more about other countries than they do their own most of the time. lol
I don't know why we get so involved in world affairs, but we need to stop. It's crazy how much money we spend on policing the world. We try to fight multiple wars in countries around the world while maintaining military bases all over the world. Such a waste of money.
To people who say we should pull back from the rest of the world, I ask them to imagine a world without the threat of America's military might. In my opinion the world would be much worse off and the bad actors and dictators of the world would much more emboldened to cause a lot of trouble. One of the areas in which the government has increased it's spending over the years is on the military and its the one area in which I actually agree with those actions. We have to stay active in the world simply because a lot of countries around the world are unable to protect themselves and their people. We are one of the only countries with the capabilities necessary to stop evil from spreading.
I agree with everything you've said. I've learned that people who don't really understand won't listen to reason so I've stopped trying to explain in most cases (unless someone *really* riles me ). There are just some uber pacifist-minded "let's all kiss and live in la-la land" zombies who simply won't listen. Sad... but true. La-la land doesn't exist. Places in the world that end up being overtaken by dictators and/or terrorists look to America and European allies for help. All the "America should take care of its own problems" statements coming from people who've never stepped foot in the U.S. (and some who have) is almost laughable sometimes. Fact is... open your arms to a terrorist and say "let's hug and get along, buddy!" and you're liable to get your head cut off. Literally. I am soooooo tired of people who are jealous of America and much of Europe's might sticking a horse in the race simply because of the jealousy. /rant
Now, Kate, care to tell us how you *really* feel? I agree that the US needs to keep vigalent regarding our enemies, but there is a considerable difference between vigavence and being so hyper-violent as to create even more enemies. Take the recent case of what happen in Ferguson, MO., as an example. In Ferguson one policeman erred in judgment, and played judge/jury/executioner. People gathered to protest. It got so that the police began to repress the LAWFUL protesters along with a small minority of agent provacateurs. But the police repression had to opposite effect -- it only fueled the righteous indignation of the lawful protesters and swelled their numbers. The situation was spiraling out of control. Finally someone stepped in, told the Ferguson PD to stand down, and the situation de-escalated. Sending American deadly force into foreign land can have a similar escalating effect. Most US soldiers are trained only as killing machines. In most war situations that is good enough. But when one is dealing with a small cadre of dedicated "freedom fighters" (for in their own minds that is what they are) the use of overwhelming deadly force is counter-indicated. It only breeds more patriots and freedom fighters. I wonder if you classify me as a la-la land zombie? That is not what I advocate. But I would rather try some less-violent means at bringing peace to troubled lands rather than shoot first and ask questions of the survivors, a methodology far too often used.
Nah, I'm too genteel and shy for that, @Interrogator#6 . Did you just choke?! We agree on this. Much/most of that could have been avoided. My statement applies to Ferguson only, however. "Standing down" with terrorists is exactly what they want, though... so to hand it over to them is foolish in most cases. (Note I am NOT talking about boots on that soil... I'm probably one of the people here who has the highest family military involvement, both in the past and current and would have a lot to lose in that scenario.) Busted. I guess I was classifying you that way, yes. But your statement here surprises me. I'm *all* for "less-violent" ... always. So my question to you would be... how long does one let "trying to bring peace" escalate when it's just not working? *DO* you have a defined point at which your mindset switches to "this just isn't working, something has to be done"?
