4 ms·

I wouldn’t say the United States provides security when our actions and interventions tend to not be just. We are just a Mafia.

tathougies 8y ago
The Mafia also provides security. Since I've written the same thing to like three different comments. I'll say it again: Arguments that attack the morality of US action do not counter my claim that US action benefits many foreign countries, corporations, and individuals, who do not contribute anything to the funds that allow such action to take place. Depending on your point of view, this makes the rest of the world either calves sucking from the teats of a benevolent, but ignorant cow, or bats sucking blood from an undead vampire. But regardless of how you slice it, the non-American countries are basically sucking from someone.
- munk-a 8y ago
  Perfect! So as a counter to that, and dialing my language back to patton-y style, America is going around stirring up shit that the rest of the world needs to shovel. Why is it that after Syria and ISIS have emerged and created a refugee crisis the US is miraculously missing (on a per-GDP basis) in the aide efforts. While America is fueling economic growth beyond the ability for the earth to sustain it why has it refused to help people fleeing desertification in Africa. Oh, the situation in El Salvador, yea... America never did anything to turn central and south america into a dumpster fire... America is the vampire, trying to suck all the resources and productivity into a machine that feeds itself - with little regard for the rest of the world. Oh wait, that was too reductionist... maybe the US does a lot of good by sending food aide around the world but also causes problems... maybe the rest of the world is the same, being good sometimes and bad others, and no one nation is some beacon of light and purity that all others are constantly sucking[1] the productivity out of. [1] The analogies used above were pretty weird and awkward,
  - tathougies 8y ago
    > Oh wait, that was too reductionist... maybe the US does a lot of good by sending food aide around the world but also causes problems... maybe the rest of the world is the same, being good sometimes and bad others, and no one nation is some beacon of light and purity that all others are constantly sucking[1] the productivity out of. I never claimed America was a beacon of light. I merely claimed that many non-American countries benefit from American global hegemony. That is an observation (which perhaps you think is wrong, but I don't see any generalized counter claim), not a value judgement. > [1] The analogies used above were pretty weird and awkward, Perhaps, but that doesn't take away anything from the main argument.....
    - SantalBlush 8y ago
      And many non-American countries have suffered from American hegemony. The US used concentration camps in the Phillipines and overthrew the Honduran government so we could have cheap fruit. Are you absolutely sure that the US provides a net benefit to other countries via its military?
      - tathougies 8y ago
        > Are you absolutely sure that the US provides a net benefit to other countries via its military? Yes, the issue at hand isn't whether the US provides a net benefit to every country, because 'every country' is rarely used as a metric against which to measure the US. Instead, America is typically measured against western European countries and 'developed' countries (so, ex-colonies, essentially). The article in question in this HN thread compares the US to Europe. Pretty much every 'developed' country benefits from US hegemony. That is one reason why they are considered 'developed'. How many times do I have to say that I am in no way justifying American military action or even saying it's a good and ethical thing. I am just making a very obvious observation that American tax payers pay for the current Pax Americana (evil or not) that many countries often contrasted with the US benefit greatly from.
        SantalBlush 8y ago
        There is a big difference between these statements: >Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. >Pretty much every 'developed' country benefits from US hegemony. The former is outright wrong. I'm not convinced the latter is correct either, but at least we're getting closer.
gwright 8y ago
For all the situations in which you feel like the US was not justified in its actions, have you considered all the ramifications of alternative actions? And what about all the situations where its actions were justified but would not have been possible had the US military not been funded as it has been historically? How would the USSR have evolved without the US security presence in Europe since WWII? How would China have evolved without the US deep-water navel presence in the Pacific? Without the US support for Taiwan? How do you value the success of South Korea in the presence of US troops? What would have happened in the Middle East if the the US hadn't supported Israel or pushed back on Saddam Hussein in Iraq? I'm not trying to justify any or all US actions, just trying to point out that any evaluation of the US military's impact over the last 100 years is going to be more complex than suggested by your comment.

tathougies 8y ago

The Mafia also provides security. Since I've written the same thing to like three different comments. I'll say it again: Arguments that attack the morality of US action do not counter my claim that US action benefits many foreign countries, corporations, and individuals, who do not contribute anything to the funds that allow such action to take place. Depending on your point of view, this makes the rest of the world either calves sucking from the teats of a benevolent, but ignorant cow, or bats sucking blood from an undead vampire. But regardless of how you slice it, the non-American countries are basically sucking from someone.

munk-a 8y ago
Perfect! So as a counter to that, and dialing my language back to patton-y style, America is going around stirring up shit that the rest of the world needs to shovel. Why is it that after Syria and ISIS have emerged and created a refugee crisis the US is miraculously missing (on a per-GDP basis) in the aide efforts. While America is fueling economic growth beyond the ability for the earth to sustain it why has it refused to help people fleeing desertification in Africa. Oh, the situation in El Salvador, yea... America never did anything to turn central and south america into a dumpster fire... America is the vampire, trying to suck all the resources and productivity into a machine that feeds itself - with little regard for the rest of the world. Oh wait, that was too reductionist... maybe the US does a lot of good by sending food aide around the world but also causes problems... maybe the rest of the world is the same, being good sometimes and bad others, and no one nation is some beacon of light and purity that all others are constantly sucking[1] the productivity out of. [1] The analogies used above were pretty weird and awkward,
- tathougies 8y ago
  > Oh wait, that was too reductionist... maybe the US does a lot of good by sending food aide around the world but also causes problems... maybe the rest of the world is the same, being good sometimes and bad others, and no one nation is some beacon of light and purity that all others are constantly sucking[1] the productivity out of. I never claimed America was a beacon of light. I merely claimed that many non-American countries benefit from American global hegemony. That is an observation (which perhaps you think is wrong, but I don't see any generalized counter claim), not a value judgement. > [1] The analogies used above were pretty weird and awkward, Perhaps, but that doesn't take away anything from the main argument.....
  - SantalBlush 8y ago
    And many non-American countries have suffered from American hegemony. The US used concentration camps in the Phillipines and overthrew the Honduran government so we could have cheap fruit. Are you absolutely sure that the US provides a net benefit to other countries via its military?
    - tathougies 8y ago
      > Are you absolutely sure that the US provides a net benefit to other countries via its military? Yes, the issue at hand isn't whether the US provides a net benefit to every country, because 'every country' is rarely used as a metric against which to measure the US. Instead, America is typically measured against western European countries and 'developed' countries (so, ex-colonies, essentially). The article in question in this HN thread compares the US to Europe. Pretty much every 'developed' country benefits from US hegemony. That is one reason why they are considered 'developed'. How many times do I have to say that I am in no way justifying American military action or even saying it's a good and ethical thing. I am just making a very obvious observation that American tax payers pay for the current Pax Americana (evil or not) that many countries often contrasted with the US benefit greatly from.
      - SantalBlush 8y ago
        There is a big difference between these statements: >Individual US tax payers pay for most of the world's security. >Pretty much every 'developed' country benefits from US hegemony. The former is outright wrong. I'm not convinced the latter is correct either, but at least we're getting closer.

gwright 8y ago

For all the situations in which you feel like the US was not justified in its actions, have you considered all the ramifications of alternative actions? And what about all the situations where its actions were justified but would not have been possible had the US military not been funded as it has been historically? How would the USSR have evolved without the US security presence in Europe since WWII? How would China have evolved without the US deep-water navel presence in the Pacific? Without the US support for Taiwan? How do you value the success of South Korea in the presence of US troops? What would have happened in the Middle East if the the US hadn't supported Israel or pushed back on Saddam Hussein in Iraq? I'm not trying to justify any or all US actions, just trying to point out that any evaluation of the US military's impact over the last 100 years is going to be more complex than suggested by your comment.