4 ms·

long term probably a lot less than bombing and occupying other countries so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place... we have 330 million people and sp

long term probably a lot less than bombing and occupying other countries so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place... we have 330 million people and spend more than every other country in the world combined on war. A list including china that has 1,440 million people and india which has 1,400 million people. Seems when the question is war the answer is always yes but when the question is can we help our citizens the answer is how can we pay for it? The long term compounding benefits of children not being in poverty is a huge win on a society.

josephcsible 5y ago
We bombed Nazi Germany during World War II, and then occupied much of it for a while afterwards. Did we do that "so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place"? If so, then I think asserting our hegemony is a good thing. If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't?
- likeclockwork 5y ago
  That was almost a century ago. Get over it, US is not a country of warring heroes
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  Ok but what about after uhh 1945
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The criterion for whether a war was asserting hegemony is whether it happened after 1945?
    - Retric 5y ago
      No, the difference between creating and asserting hegemony is meaningful though. Much like how what creates a monopoly is different than what happens after a monopoly is created.
- pydry 5y ago
  >If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? 1) Are they committing genocide? 2) Did they attack you?
  - weaksauce 5y ago
    that's an excellent test.
  - gruez 5y ago
    So you'd be cool with the US sitting out ww2 if japan didn't bomb pearl harbor?
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      I think you are ignoring his first test. "Are they committing genocide?"
      - gruez 5y ago
        Well wasn't clear whether there's a logical AND or OR between the two. In case it's OR, would you say that interventions in china[1], iraq[2], Somalia[3], Kosovo[4], Cambodia[5] would be justified? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Islamic_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Isl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
        wonderwonder 5y ago
        From a purely moral standpoint, we should probably go to war with China as we are very much ignoring genocide there right now. Our response was to sanction a few provincial level officials, but we still participated in the Olympics. Pretty pathetic response on our part overall. With that said, from a real world perspective, I'm not signing up to go to war with China as we are looking at an end of the world scenario if that happens. I don't think China is our match militarily but what else do they have in their biolabs and what would they be willing to unleash if they were losing. An estimated 3% (70–85 million people) of the world population at the time was killed in WWII, how many would die in a war between us and China? Short of armed conflict though we should be doing everything in our power to disconnect ourselves economically from them. We should be prioritizing manufacturing in the US.
- weaksauce 5y ago
  that's a real nice strawman you have erected. > Did we do that "so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place"? no. > If so, then I think asserting our hegemony is a good thing. well that's wrong. > If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? I don't like any war; some are needed like stopping hitler and their ghoulish goals sure. name a "war" we have won since then. hell name the last time we actually were at war since congress hasn't gone to war many times.

josephcsible 5y ago

We bombed Nazi Germany during World War II, and then occupied much of it for a while afterwards. Did we do that "so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place"? If so, then I think asserting our hegemony is a good thing. If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't?

likeclockwork 5y ago
That was almost a century ago. Get over it, US is not a country of warring heroes
tehwebguy 5y ago
Ok but what about after uhh 1945
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The criterion for whether a war was asserting hegemony is whether it happened after 1945?
  - Retric 5y ago
    No, the difference between creating and asserting hegemony is meaningful though. Much like how what creates a monopoly is different than what happens after a monopoly is created.
pydry 5y ago
>If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? 1) Are they committing genocide? 2) Did they attack you?
- weaksauce 5y ago
  that's an excellent test.
- gruez 5y ago
  So you'd be cool with the US sitting out ww2 if japan didn't bomb pearl harbor?
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    I think you are ignoring his first test. "Are they committing genocide?"
    - gruez 5y ago
      Well wasn't clear whether there's a logical AND or OR between the two. In case it's OR, would you say that interventions in china[1], iraq[2], Somalia[3], Kosovo[4], Cambodia[5] would be justified? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Islamic_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Isl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
        From a purely moral standpoint, we should probably go to war with China as we are very much ignoring genocide there right now. Our response was to sanction a few provincial level officials, but we still participated in the Olympics. Pretty pathetic response on our part overall. With that said, from a real world perspective, I'm not signing up to go to war with China as we are looking at an end of the world scenario if that happens. I don't think China is our match militarily but what else do they have in their biolabs and what would they be willing to unleash if they were losing. An estimated 3% (70–85 million people) of the world population at the time was killed in WWII, how many would die in a war between us and China? Short of armed conflict though we should be doing everything in our power to disconnect ourselves economically from them. We should be prioritizing manufacturing in the US.
weaksauce 5y ago
that's a real nice strawman you have erected. > Did we do that "so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place"? no. > If so, then I think asserting our hegemony is a good thing. well that's wrong. > If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? I don't like any war; some are needed like stopping hitler and their ghoulish goals sure. name a "war" we have won since then. hell name the last time we actually were at war since congress hasn't gone to war many times.