3 ms·

The US did that to prevent another war, after 2 world wars who would have though Europe was responsible enough for itself? NATO has been the reason why there ha

The US did that to prevent another war, after 2 world wars who would have though Europe was responsible enough for itself? NATO has been the reason why there has been such lasting peace. >This is the modus operandi of a bully, an invader, an exploiter - certainly not that of a protector. So America plundered Japan and Germany? If they actually invaded them and overtook them they'd be part of the US now. The US saved the world from another world war, and they are the bullies? You can make a case out of some but NATO has been good for most of the world.

fit2rule 6y ago
America has plundered those nations by enforcing the use of the US dollar in their trades, and demolishing any sovereign nation that suggests otherwise. That's soft imperialism, yo.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > America has plundered those nations by enforcing the use of the US dollar in their trades... That's really not a thing, economically - though many people seem to be confused about that, so it's understandable that you would be as well. America does benefit when foreigners choose to invest in the US and perhaps hold US assets as collateral, but nobody is forcing anyone to do that. Using the US dollar in trade is simply a matter of convenience.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    >Using the US dollar in trade is simply a matter of convenience Nonsense. The US dollar is the worlds reserve currency, enforced at the tip of the US military spear, and any nations which try to change that promptly get bombed into oblivion.
tomcooks 6y ago
I suggest reading the statements of American generals which in both cases call it an occupation. If it were to protect they'd have gone long time ago, yet drunk American soldiers harrass or kill civilians when they get out of their bases for their weekly partying. Why edulcorate imperialism (again, cultural and economic) with stale heroism, when it's clear that what keeps the US economy running is constant war (for about 93% of the 200+ years since 1776)? If you believe that states occupy foreign land out of anything but need to control land and resources, I believe you've been force-fed a tad too much propaganda. > If they actually invaded them and overtook them they'd be part of the US now. That's not how empires work, and that's why NATO has been created. You have the same contro, but can delegate administrative tasks to the invaded countries. It's how the Mongol, Roman and Großdeutschland empires worked (unlike the colonial imperialism you refer to with "overtooking"). When you have time see if reading about what is called "Pax Americana" can give you a different perspective, possibly that of those that have been invaded. When you claim NATO has been good for the world aren't you forgetting about the political meddling, money showering and laundering, secret illegal perations, and puppet government instantiated throughout the subjugated countries in order to steal control from Russian control during cold war? What about the military bases conveniently placed in Afghanistan to control resources? Or the crypto funding of right and left wing terror groups to instate a police state in Italy? There's a reason why southern Europe is covered with "YANKEES GO HOME" graffiti, and they weren't made in the 50s.
- Waterfall 6y ago
  >If you believe that states occupy foreign land out of anything but need to control land and resources, I believe you've been force-fed a tad too much propaganda. The US occupied Japan and it became a powerhouse. What was the real reason? >When you claim NATO has been good for the world aren't you forgetting about the political meddling, money showering and laundering, secret illegal perations, and puppet government instantiated throughout the subjugated countries in order to steal control from Russian control during cold war? No. I never said NATO was perfect. I said it's good because it caused lasting peace and prevented WW3. It would be stupid for me to say America doesn't meddle. But what was the other outcome? If NATO didn't exist what would the world be like?

fit2rule 6y ago

America has plundered those nations by enforcing the use of the US dollar in their trades, and demolishing any sovereign nation that suggests otherwise. That's soft imperialism, yo.

zozbot234 6y ago
> America has plundered those nations by enforcing the use of the US dollar in their trades... That's really not a thing, economically - though many people seem to be confused about that, so it's understandable that you would be as well. America does benefit when foreigners choose to invest in the US and perhaps hold US assets as collateral, but nobody is forcing anyone to do that. Using the US dollar in trade is simply a matter of convenience.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  >Using the US dollar in trade is simply a matter of convenience Nonsense. The US dollar is the worlds reserve currency, enforced at the tip of the US military spear, and any nations which try to change that promptly get bombed into oblivion.

tomcooks 6y ago

I suggest reading the statements of American generals which in both cases call it an occupation. If it were to protect they'd have gone long time ago, yet drunk American soldiers harrass or kill civilians when they get out of their bases for their weekly partying. Why edulcorate imperialism (again, cultural and economic) with stale heroism, when it's clear that what keeps the US economy running is constant war (for about 93% of the 200+ years since 1776)? If you believe that states occupy foreign land out of anything but need to control land and resources, I believe you've been force-fed a tad too much propaganda. > If they actually invaded them and overtook them they'd be part of the US now. That's not how empires work, and that's why NATO has been created. You have the same contro, but can delegate administrative tasks to the invaded countries. It's how the Mongol, Roman and Großdeutschland empires worked (unlike the colonial imperialism you refer to with "overtooking"). When you have time see if reading about what is called "Pax Americana" can give you a different perspective, possibly that of those that have been invaded. When you claim NATO has been good for the world aren't you forgetting about the political meddling, money showering and laundering, secret illegal perations, and puppet government instantiated throughout the subjugated countries in order to steal control from Russian control during cold war? What about the military bases conveniently placed in Afghanistan to control resources? Or the crypto funding of right and left wing terror groups to instate a police state in Italy? There's a reason why southern Europe is covered with "YANKEES GO HOME" graffiti, and they weren't made in the 50s.

Waterfall 6y ago
>If you believe that states occupy foreign land out of anything but need to control land and resources, I believe you've been force-fed a tad too much propaganda. The US occupied Japan and it became a powerhouse. What was the real reason? >When you claim NATO has been good for the world aren't you forgetting about the political meddling, money showering and laundering, secret illegal perations, and puppet government instantiated throughout the subjugated countries in order to steal control from Russian control during cold war? No. I never said NATO was perfect. I said it's good because it caused lasting peace and prevented WW3. It would be stupid for me to say America doesn't meddle. But what was the other outcome? If NATO didn't exist what would the world be like?