4 ms·

Take it from someone who's non US and so isn't caught up in self guilt - the US is a much more passive military superpower than almost any superpower in history

Take it from someone who's non US and so isn't caught up in self guilt - the US is a much more passive military superpower than almost any superpower in history. I really don't think the US is imperialistic TBH. Just because a few countries got bombed for oil doesn't make you imperialistic. Read a bit of history about what empire building countries/kings/tyrants were actually like.

FpUser 4y ago
>"Just because a few countries got bombed for oil doesn't make you imperialistic." If you bomb country for oil it makes you a fucking bandit and war criminal.
- trevorboaconstr 4y ago
  Oh goodness, here we go. What country did the US bomb for oil? We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban harbored the organization that committed 9/11 and refused to turn them over. We went into Iraq primarily because a group of Neoconservatives were drunk on the unipolar moment and believed the US could spread democracy at the barrel of a gun and remake the Middle East. Haliburton definitely made money in Iraq, but we did not go in for oil. The invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that Bush and Cheney were neoconservatives, which means essentially liberal Trotskyites. They believed that human rights were universal and it was legitimate to uphold them by force. So in their logic, Saddam Hussein was a bad a guy and Iraq was a good candidate for showing that the US can start rolling into places and giving the people their freedom, just like that. The basic assumption was that stable democracies grow on their own once you get rid of the dictator. So show up to a country, get the dictator, rinse and repeat. Now you have nice democracies all throughout the world. In that view, not invading is immoral because it means you’re condemning millions of Iraqis to live under Saddam’s dictatorship. The basic lesson from this is that countries don’t act out of material self-interest as much as armchair cynics assume. Instead they’re frequently operated on an emotional or ideological basis.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"We went into Iraq primarily because a group of Neoconservatives were drunk on the unipolar moment and believed the US could spread democracy at the barrel of a gun and remake the Middle East" Ah sorry. All valid and noble reasons. No crime here. Dead, mutilated, starved, displaced and otherwise abused Iraqis salute you. Also message outlining your honorable goals should be directed to the parent to whom I was replying. Was not my claim that the US did it for oil.
    - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
      Uh, mind the quip, I’m actually trying to frame the invasion as more unhinged given the solely ideological bent it was predicated on. At least invading for oil would have made sense.
- pkaye 4y ago
  Most of the oil companies now in Iraq are non US. A bulk of the oil in Iraq goes to asian countries.
gcheong 4y ago
It’s not just direct military action by the US it’s also that we support a lot of the current dictators around the world while claiming to be the beacon of democracy. But the whole point of whether we are passive or aggressive is besides the fact that we don’t care properly for the people who are paying for the military that it’s supposedly defends.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > we don’t care properly for the people who are paying for the military that it’s supposedly defends Close to a century of no war on the homeland, close to two on the mainland; not too shabby. Yes, we have problems. But enemy tanks aren’t one of them.
  - gcheong 4y ago
    How much of a problem would they be if we just spent a bit less?
    - pkaye 4y ago
      if we go that route I think we would have to allow some time for other countries to arm themselves because they rely on US assurances, bases, weapons for their security. Right now a whole bunch of small countries are asking the US to have bases troops, nuclear weapons in their countries because all the conflicts going on.
    - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
      False economy. The problem with letting predators get the impression that they can take you down is that they start trying to do so (as current events illustrate), causing you to have to spend more on defense anyway.
      - gcheong 4y ago
        False assertion. Does deciding to spend less on military on more on social services give these supposed predators the idea they can take you down when your military is still the largest in the world? Seems like we could probably divert a significant chunk before anyone thinks we're an easy target.

FpUser 4y ago

>"Just because a few countries got bombed for oil doesn't make you imperialistic." If you bomb country for oil it makes you a fucking bandit and war criminal.

trevorboaconstr 4y ago
Oh goodness, here we go. What country did the US bomb for oil? We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban harbored the organization that committed 9/11 and refused to turn them over. We went into Iraq primarily because a group of Neoconservatives were drunk on the unipolar moment and believed the US could spread democracy at the barrel of a gun and remake the Middle East. Haliburton definitely made money in Iraq, but we did not go in for oil. The invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that Bush and Cheney were neoconservatives, which means essentially liberal Trotskyites. They believed that human rights were universal and it was legitimate to uphold them by force. So in their logic, Saddam Hussein was a bad a guy and Iraq was a good candidate for showing that the US can start rolling into places and giving the people their freedom, just like that. The basic assumption was that stable democracies grow on their own once you get rid of the dictator. So show up to a country, get the dictator, rinse and repeat. Now you have nice democracies all throughout the world. In that view, not invading is immoral because it means you’re condemning millions of Iraqis to live under Saddam’s dictatorship. The basic lesson from this is that countries don’t act out of material self-interest as much as armchair cynics assume. Instead they’re frequently operated on an emotional or ideological basis.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"We went into Iraq primarily because a group of Neoconservatives were drunk on the unipolar moment and believed the US could spread democracy at the barrel of a gun and remake the Middle East" Ah sorry. All valid and noble reasons. No crime here. Dead, mutilated, starved, displaced and otherwise abused Iraqis salute you. Also message outlining your honorable goals should be directed to the parent to whom I was replying. Was not my claim that the US did it for oil.
  - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
    Uh, mind the quip, I’m actually trying to frame the invasion as more unhinged given the solely ideological bent it was predicated on. At least invading for oil would have made sense.
pkaye 4y ago
Most of the oil companies now in Iraq are non US. A bulk of the oil in Iraq goes to asian countries.

gcheong 4y ago

It’s not just direct military action by the US it’s also that we support a lot of the current dictators around the world while claiming to be the beacon of democracy. But the whole point of whether we are passive or aggressive is besides the fact that we don’t care properly for the people who are paying for the military that it’s supposedly defends.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> we don’t care properly for the people who are paying for the military that it’s supposedly defends Close to a century of no war on the homeland, close to two on the mainland; not too shabby. Yes, we have problems. But enemy tanks aren’t one of them.
- gcheong 4y ago
  How much of a problem would they be if we just spent a bit less?
  - pkaye 4y ago
    if we go that route I think we would have to allow some time for other countries to arm themselves because they rely on US assurances, bases, weapons for their security. Right now a whole bunch of small countries are asking the US to have bases troops, nuclear weapons in their countries because all the conflicts going on.
  - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
    False economy. The problem with letting predators get the impression that they can take you down is that they start trying to do so (as current events illustrate), causing you to have to spend more on defense anyway.
    - gcheong 4y ago
      False assertion. Does deciding to spend less on military on more on social services give these supposed predators the idea they can take you down when your military is still the largest in the world? Seems like we could probably divert a significant chunk before anyone thinks we're an easy target.