3 ms·

Funding Israel’s conflicts is not a fundamental part of our way of life. The ability to load a huge defenceless cargo ship full of billions of dollars worth of

Funding Israel’s conflicts is not a fundamental part of our way of life. The ability to load a huge defenceless cargo ship full of billions of dollars worth of goods and send it anywhere in the world is. The ability to choose how we govern ourselves is. The fact that it’s a reasonable expectation that we will have most of the fundamental needs of life provided to us no matter what is. None of that is backwards, all of it very obviously depends on our defence capability, and regardless of what you think about the quality of western democracies, we have the most democratic and stable societies that have ever existed in the history of our species, as well as the highest quality of life. Most of the negatives you’ve listed here are a result of other countries defence force inadequacies.

mptest 2y ago
>Most of the negatives you’ve listed here are a result of other countries defence force inadequacies. If there are inequalities of wealth, and a delineation of artificial constructs like race, religion or nationality, there will result an inequality of military force. This material inequality is reflected in reality by the negatives I've described. A world where we accept "stronger military = good" naively exacerbates that inequality. >we have the most democratic and stable societies that have ever existed in the history of our species, as well as the highest quality of life. I'm glad you brought this up. One might argue the material wealth of our nations is a direct result of utilizing inequity by building a domineering military presence globally. Of the exploitation of colonialism and slavery. Globalization in capitalism is the will of capital owners seeking more exploitable labor, not some desire to spread an ideology. That material/economic relationships are the oldest dated interactions between continents and societies seems obvious enough demonstration of that fact. We have indeed made a marked change in quality of life, but on societal scales is the lifestyle 'gains' of the comparative 1% worth the toil of the 99? We have to pay heed to this measure when using any analysis on quality of life or the worth of decisions like military strength. I'm not a sociologist, I just wanted to add that there is, to my knowledge, no evidence of an innate correlation between democracy, quality of life, and military strength. If you have literature that suggests otherwise I'd be happy to read it. >Funding Israel’s conflicts is not a fundamental part of our way of life. The specifics may not be, but the purpose of an extensive global military presence is fundamentally about creating or exploiting these inequalities wherever they arise for material aims. This is reflected by the fact that the action we take is directly proportional to the material value intervention would have to our bottom line. SA killing Kashoggi or contributing to direct attacks? Cool, long as they got $/oil. Israel doing war crimes? Cool, long as they keep buying their arms from us and their ire focused on those we don't care for. Country getting worked over by our 'rival' ie taiwan or ukraine? Give them all the money and arms. I'm not even trying to argue the merit of any of these decisions, I just don't agree any analysis is as simple as "stronger military = safer better happier fun time pax romana".
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  Globalization is not at all designed to exploit inequalities, it is in fact the exact opposite. The purpose of globalization is to increase the efficiency of the global economy, and the effect that has is to minimize inequality. Which is how China has ended up with the worlds largest middle class, Mexico has ended up with a very respectable middle class, and the middle class in India is growing at quite an impressive rate, despite all the other problems those countries have. It is also the reason that hunger/malnutrition and deprivation in general have been on a rather steady downwards trend over the past 80 years, "the 99%" are the primary benefactors of the improvements in quality of life that it has brought with it. None of this would be possible without the security provided by the militaries of the western democracies. Strong militaries don't cause this outcome, but they are 100% required if you are trying to create it. The only way to prevent all of those bad things that you have the described western militaries doing from happening where you live is to have the protection of a strong military yourself. This is such a plainly obvious fact, denying it is about on par with the "defund the police" rationale. Sure they can do bad things, and that can be addressed, but society needs the military possibly even more than it needs the police.
  - mptest 2y ago
    >Globalization is not at all designed to exploit inequalities, it is in fact the exact opposite. The purpose of globalization is to increase the efficiency of the global economy That's the way they sell it, we agree about that. >the effect that has is to minimize inequality. So that's why we have worse than gilded age inequality?[0] Seems they haven't done too much of that despite their sales pitch. See trickle down economics. >the 99%" are the primary benefactors of the improvements in quality of life that it has brought with it. Not what the math says. I agree, in general starvation and what not are technically down. But shouldn't we have aspirations a little greater than "less people are starving to death in a world we drop?" I just don't see what evidence you have other than a correlation [0]https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wealth-inequality-billionaires-piketty-report/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wealth-inequality-billionai...
jfengel 2y ago
Israel is a crucial ally in the oil rich and unstable Middle East. If Israel were to fall, or stop cooperating with the US, our foreign policy would be strongly affected. I wouldn't say its importance is on par with defending global shipping, but it really is up there. That's not to say we, or they, are doing it well. But it's not just a whim on our part.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  Israel is ultimately unimportant to every other country in the world, and the argument that they contribute anything to regional stability is rather laughable. What is important is that we contribute to the defence of our allies, but they are an incredibly low quality ally. Regional stability is arguably a lot more important to Saudi Arabia (a country that has never tried to sink any US navy ships I might add).

mptest 2y ago

>Most of the negatives you’ve listed here are a result of other countries defence force inadequacies. If there are inequalities of wealth, and a delineation of artificial constructs like race, religion or nationality, there will result an inequality of military force. This material inequality is reflected in reality by the negatives I've described. A world where we accept "stronger military = good" naively exacerbates that inequality. >we have the most democratic and stable societies that have ever existed in the history of our species, as well as the highest quality of life. I'm glad you brought this up. One might argue the material wealth of our nations is a direct result of utilizing inequity by building a domineering military presence globally. Of the exploitation of colonialism and slavery. Globalization in capitalism is the will of capital owners seeking more exploitable labor, not some desire to spread an ideology. That material/economic relationships are the oldest dated interactions between continents and societies seems obvious enough demonstration of that fact. We have indeed made a marked change in quality of life, but on societal scales is the lifestyle 'gains' of the comparative 1% worth the toil of the 99? We have to pay heed to this measure when using any analysis on quality of life or the worth of decisions like military strength. I'm not a sociologist, I just wanted to add that there is, to my knowledge, no evidence of an innate correlation between democracy, quality of life, and military strength. If you have literature that suggests otherwise I'd be happy to read it. >Funding Israel’s conflicts is not a fundamental part of our way of life. The specifics may not be, but the purpose of an extensive global military presence is fundamentally about creating or exploiting these inequalities wherever they arise for material aims. This is reflected by the fact that the action we take is directly proportional to the material value intervention would have to our bottom line. SA killing Kashoggi or contributing to direct attacks? Cool, long as they got $/oil. Israel doing war crimes? Cool, long as they keep buying their arms from us and their ire focused on those we don't care for. Country getting worked over by our 'rival' ie taiwan or ukraine? Give them all the money and arms. I'm not even trying to argue the merit of any of these decisions, I just don't agree any analysis is as simple as "stronger military = safer better happier fun time pax romana".

AmericanChopper 2y ago
Globalization is not at all designed to exploit inequalities, it is in fact the exact opposite. The purpose of globalization is to increase the efficiency of the global economy, and the effect that has is to minimize inequality. Which is how China has ended up with the worlds largest middle class, Mexico has ended up with a very respectable middle class, and the middle class in India is growing at quite an impressive rate, despite all the other problems those countries have. It is also the reason that hunger/malnutrition and deprivation in general have been on a rather steady downwards trend over the past 80 years, "the 99%" are the primary benefactors of the improvements in quality of life that it has brought with it. None of this would be possible without the security provided by the militaries of the western democracies. Strong militaries don't cause this outcome, but they are 100% required if you are trying to create it. The only way to prevent all of those bad things that you have the described western militaries doing from happening where you live is to have the protection of a strong military yourself. This is such a plainly obvious fact, denying it is about on par with the "defund the police" rationale. Sure they can do bad things, and that can be addressed, but society needs the military possibly even more than it needs the police.
- mptest 2y ago
  >Globalization is not at all designed to exploit inequalities, it is in fact the exact opposite. The purpose of globalization is to increase the efficiency of the global economy That's the way they sell it, we agree about that. >the effect that has is to minimize inequality. So that's why we have worse than gilded age inequality?[0] Seems they haven't done too much of that despite their sales pitch. See trickle down economics. >the 99%" are the primary benefactors of the improvements in quality of life that it has brought with it. Not what the math says. I agree, in general starvation and what not are technically down. But shouldn't we have aspirations a little greater than "less people are starving to death in a world we drop?" I just don't see what evidence you have other than a correlation [0]https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wealth-inequality-billionaires-piketty-report/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wealth-inequality-billionai...

jfengel 2y ago

Israel is a crucial ally in the oil rich and unstable Middle East. If Israel were to fall, or stop cooperating with the US, our foreign policy would be strongly affected. I wouldn't say its importance is on par with defending global shipping, but it really is up there. That's not to say we, or they, are doing it well. But it's not just a whim on our part.

AmericanChopper 2y ago
Israel is ultimately unimportant to every other country in the world, and the argument that they contribute anything to regional stability is rather laughable. What is important is that we contribute to the defence of our allies, but they are an incredibly low quality ally. Regional stability is arguably a lot more important to Saudi Arabia (a country that has never tried to sink any US navy ships I might add).