16 ms·

This is idealistic and completely incorrect. You should read a history book. Wars will end when we have limitless energy or evolve beyond greed and the lust fo

This is idealistic and completely incorrect. You should read a history book. Wars will end when we have limitless energy or evolve beyond greed and the lust for power. Here's a situation I'd like you to analyse briefly: The US pulls out of every military installation they have outside of US territory. What happens in global geopolitics over the next year? Hint: the answer is 5 letters long with one space.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
_jal 9y ago
This is a complete red herring. You should read the OP. The poster said nothing about 'ending' war or a superpower instantly disrupting the balance of power. The OP posited that wars can be prevented via internal power struggles between war-mongers and the rest. That is a notion one can certainly argue with, but saying "war is about limited resources", while true in an abstract sense, is not engaging with it in any meaningful way - it is simply non-responsive.
gambiting 9y ago
I don't actually know the answer to this riddle is. And US is present abroad because it wants to be and because it furthers their own interests, in a lot of places their presence is not actually welcome.
- Buttes 9y ago
  A war.
mmjaa 9y ago
What happens: whatever the people, who are now in control of 'whatever superpowers the US left behind', decide. Look, I know its hard for you to not feel right without insulting anyone, but I've actually read a metric fuck-ton of history, know a few words in a few languages, and am generally not an ignorant 'incorrect-oid'. There is no truly correct/incorrect point of view, when it comes to killing humans. Fact: we don't need to do it. We do it because we want to. Here's a thought experiment for you, American. What would happen if, instead of putting your citizens in debt to the tune of $TRILLIONS of dollars, every year, while funding active warfare on multiple fronts around the globe, for the last 80 years, the good ol' folks of the USA had instead built massive super-weaponry that delivered schools, water-filtration, and medical facilities, with awesome overwhelming power, to the people who needed it. Instead of, you know, dropping one bomb every twenty minutes for the last .. umm, lets just say, at least .. decade? Hmm? You think its so easy? Lets see that B1 bomber re-purposed to drop the write kind of supplies that makes war unnecessary, not "invetible", as your formidable culture seems to want the rest of us to think it is ..
- briandear 9y ago
  We did build schools in Afghanistan and the Taliban blew them up. Evil exists; it’s childish to pretend it doesn’t. As long as there are people that think it’s ok to beat women for not wearing a burka, there will be a need for men and women willing to fight. You don’t placate evil, you destroy it. Does anyone out there actually believe that the Taliban could have been defeated with schools and wells? An incredibly naïve viewpoint. Until you actually spend some time in those places, you can have no idea of the evil that thrives in the hearts of men.
  - goldesel 9y ago
    You might want to look up who build the Taliban in the first place...
    - opo 9y ago
      What does Pakistan have to do with the person’s comment? >...The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban during their founding and time in power, and of continuing to support the Taliban during the insurgency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
    - buttcoinslol 9y ago
      The US had nothing to do with creating the Taliban. If you are trying to argue that the US created the Afghan mujahideen rebels in the 1980s, you're still (mostly) wrong. Some Afghans were already rebelling against the Soviet aligned Democratic Republic of Afghanistan when the US decided to throw in with them. You could make the argument that the US had a hand in creating extremists in Afghanistan by aligning with them, but the USSR were the initial aggressors that created a rebel opposition group. We're all aware that funding Osama bin Laden was part of that, that part isn't up for debate. What is up for debate is who built the Taliban and mujahideen.
- buttcoinslol 9y ago
  It would be nice if things worked that way, but a tremendous amount of food aid and cash is diverted by the corrupt leaders of the places that need it the most. I would bet without bothering to look that the US also spends the most on foreign aid, in addition to military spending. A large part of the past decade in Iraq has been helping rebuild. Going into Iraq was a mistake. Probably Afghanistan too. After WWII, the USA was the least affected nation and was tasked with the protection of West Germany and western europe by proxy, and also Japan. The US policy of containment may have been a mistake, and it caused an immense amount of damage and suffering. Hindsight is 20/20 and in the 60s and 70s, no one foresaw the collapse of the USSR in 1989. The US has overstepped its bounds many times since the end of WWII, but the game between the US and the Soviets was serious business. The US has tons of blood on its hands, I'm not blind to that. Interactions between nation-states will always be messy because there isn't a higher authority that can impose its will unless the nation-states are both small enough. Idealism is necessary for coming up with potential outcomes for the future, but realism is necessary to understand the problem. btw: The answer to the above question I posed is either multiple serious regional conflicts (Europe and SEA, probably India v Pakistan) or WW III.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

_jal 9y ago

This is a complete red herring. You should read the OP. The poster said nothing about 'ending' war or a superpower instantly disrupting the balance of power. The OP posited that wars can be prevented via internal power struggles between war-mongers and the rest. That is a notion one can certainly argue with, but saying "war is about limited resources", while true in an abstract sense, is not engaging with it in any meaningful way - it is simply non-responsive.

gambiting 9y ago

I don't actually know the answer to this riddle is. And US is present abroad because it wants to be and because it furthers their own interests, in a lot of places their presence is not actually welcome.

Buttes 9y ago
A war.

mmjaa 9y ago

What happens: whatever the people, who are now in control of 'whatever superpowers the US left behind', decide. Look, I know its hard for you to not feel right without insulting anyone, but I've actually read a metric fuck-ton of history, know a few words in a few languages, and am generally not an ignorant 'incorrect-oid'. There is no truly correct/incorrect point of view, when it comes to killing humans. Fact: we don't need to do it. We do it because we want to. Here's a thought experiment for you, American. What would happen if, instead of putting your citizens in debt to the tune of $TRILLIONS of dollars, every year, while funding active warfare on multiple fronts around the globe, for the last 80 years, the good ol' folks of the USA had instead built massive super-weaponry that delivered schools, water-filtration, and medical facilities, with awesome overwhelming power, to the people who needed it. Instead of, you know, dropping one bomb every twenty minutes for the last .. umm, lets just say, at least .. decade? Hmm? You think its so easy? Lets see that B1 bomber re-purposed to drop the write kind of supplies that makes war unnecessary, not "invetible", as your formidable culture seems to want the rest of us to think it is ..

briandear 9y ago
We did build schools in Afghanistan and the Taliban blew them up. Evil exists; it’s childish to pretend it doesn’t. As long as there are people that think it’s ok to beat women for not wearing a burka, there will be a need for men and women willing to fight. You don’t placate evil, you destroy it. Does anyone out there actually believe that the Taliban could have been defeated with schools and wells? An incredibly naïve viewpoint. Until you actually spend some time in those places, you can have no idea of the evil that thrives in the hearts of men.
- goldesel 9y ago
  You might want to look up who build the Taliban in the first place...
  - opo 9y ago
    What does Pakistan have to do with the person’s comment? >...The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban during their founding and time in power, and of continuing to support the Taliban during the insurgency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
  - buttcoinslol 9y ago
    The US had nothing to do with creating the Taliban. If you are trying to argue that the US created the Afghan mujahideen rebels in the 1980s, you're still (mostly) wrong. Some Afghans were already rebelling against the Soviet aligned Democratic Republic of Afghanistan when the US decided to throw in with them. You could make the argument that the US had a hand in creating extremists in Afghanistan by aligning with them, but the USSR were the initial aggressors that created a rebel opposition group. We're all aware that funding Osama bin Laden was part of that, that part isn't up for debate. What is up for debate is who built the Taliban and mujahideen.
buttcoinslol 9y ago
It would be nice if things worked that way, but a tremendous amount of food aid and cash is diverted by the corrupt leaders of the places that need it the most. I would bet without bothering to look that the US also spends the most on foreign aid, in addition to military spending. A large part of the past decade in Iraq has been helping rebuild. Going into Iraq was a mistake. Probably Afghanistan too. After WWII, the USA was the least affected nation and was tasked with the protection of West Germany and western europe by proxy, and also Japan. The US policy of containment may have been a mistake, and it caused an immense amount of damage and suffering. Hindsight is 20/20 and in the 60s and 70s, no one foresaw the collapse of the USSR in 1989. The US has overstepped its bounds many times since the end of WWII, but the game between the US and the Soviets was serious business. The US has tons of blood on its hands, I'm not blind to that. Interactions between nation-states will always be messy because there isn't a higher authority that can impose its will unless the nation-states are both small enough. Idealism is necessary for coming up with potential outcomes for the future, but realism is necessary to understand the problem. btw: The answer to the above question I posed is either multiple serious regional conflicts (Europe and SEA, probably India v Pakistan) or WW III.