7 ms·

But why do we need “power projection?” Why do we need bases all over the world?

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
You mean why do we need Greenland and Canada? US power in Europe has been our intentional policy since the end of WW2. I can't do justice in educating you on the geopolitics of it all but there is a plethora of information out there for you. Not sure how an American can get to be an adult without understanding the background and reasoning. We did this to the point of encouraging Germany to include limitations on their own power in their constitution (along with Japan). Anyways it's a long, thought out standing position of our country that has 70 years of thought put into it versus the recent 'but it's not fair to us' MAGA reaction based position.
lostdog 2y ago
You asked this exact question last week and I answered it. If you are just going to ignore the people who reply to you, why bother commenting?
- rayiner 2y ago
  But your answer was handwaving. What’s the evidentiary basis for concluding that maintaining bases all over the world benefits americans? The British Empire was motivated by mercantilism: by requiring colonies to sell raw materials to Britain and buy finished goods from Britain, it ensured Britain remained highest on the supply chain, and redirected capital from the colonies to Britain. We don’t do anything like that. We don’t extract resources from Europe at below market value. We run a trade deficit, so free trade doesn’t even help us. So what’s the concrete explanation that isn’t just recycling liberal internationalist tropes?
  - lostdog 2y ago
    I would like to see the trade deficit evening out, but even then, the deficit is ~0.6% of our GDP. Charitably, the intake of goods we do support keeps our internal economy extremely productive, so even at a deficit maybe it's worth it. That said, it's not very difficult to fix the deficit if there were any will. And once fixed, the US would benefit from open maritime trade more than anyone else. Holding these bases helps us keep the world in order, and in the current order the US winds up on top. (Though the US does need to deal with China's incursions). It's funny to see you use the word "evidentiary" when you do not apply any standard to your own comments. If you do reply, please try to back up your points, since I'd like to understand where you're coming from.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Why would we benefit from more trade when we don’t make anything? I don’t have evidence that american empire is bad for the economy. But the cost of maintaining it are indisputably high and result in a lot of immortality. So I would like evidence that maintaining an empire actually results in benefits that offset the cost. Economic theory certainly doesn’t predict that empires would make you richer than free markets. And if empire makes you richer, why is Europe so content to be under our yoke?
      - lostdog 2y ago
        Well, the US has been the most prosperous country for a long time, so clearly something is working. Maybe the "empire" has nothing to do with it, sure, but I'd like to see you support your position instead of nitpicking other people's.
      - palata 2y ago
        > why is Europe so content to be under our yoke? Sorry to disappoint, but Europe is not particularly content to be under the US yoke. Actually, the US has been actively pressuring Europe to keep it under their yoke. For decades.
      - nradov 2y ago
        We make a lot of stuff. The manufacturing industry contributes >$2T to US GDP. The US doesn't have an empire, but we do have a degree of worldwide hegemony. As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. Will that make US citizens richer?
        rayiner 2y ago
        > As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. That sounds like a very neocon view of how the world works. We have to maintain an empire because if we don’t, someone else will?
        nradov 2y ago
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        [flagged]
kranke155 2y ago
Because the alternative to a US dominated world is a world dominated by someone else. History has shown that lesson again and again and again. There is no “peaceful world without a hegemon” period of history. There is Pax Brittanica, Pax Romana and Pax Americana which is now coming to an end.
thereisnospork 2y ago
So we can extract value value from having the biggest stick. Surely any competent businessman turned president couldn't fail to turn a profit when our military, and only our military, can secure the safe travel of goods anywhere in the world and overthrow any non-nuclear power who acts not in america's interest.
wqaatwt 2y ago
Same reason US needs a huge military. Deterrence and overwhelming force are the only ways to ensure longterm peace and stability.
- rurban 2y ago
  Establishing fascist military regimes all over the Americas, Europe and Asia might have been good for longterm peace and stability, and esp. US companies and global trade, but not so for the oppressed civilians and workers.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    Could you actually explain what fascist regimes did US establish in Europe? Greek Junta perhaps, but it was anything but stable and it collapsed because of a war in Cyprus with another NATO member.. Or are you claiming that Americans put Putin in power in Russia? Slightly far fetched but you might have a point.. Because I can’t think of anything else.
    - rurban 2y ago
      Out of my head all. It started with financing Hitler and Mussolini. Spain and Portugal. Then Turkey, Greece, Italy, Belgium. Belgium didn't last long though.
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        I’m not sure in what way do you think US “financed Hitler and Mussolini” (or whatever’s going on in your head for that matter..) But it’s a weird thing to say when the USSR/Stalin literally bankrolled the Nazi invasions of Norway and France (whatever the financing they got from the US USSR contributed a few magnitudes more). Germany had no oil after Poland and its not far fetched that France/Britain could have just waited it out had the Soviets not bailed them out.

You mean why do we need Greenland and Canada? US power in Europe has been our intentional policy since the end of WW2. I can't do justice in educating you on the geopolitics of it all but there is a plethora of information out there for you. Not sure how an American can get to be an adult without understanding the background and reasoning. We did this to the point of encouraging Germany to include limitations on their own power in their constitution (along with Japan). Anyways it's a long, thought out standing position of our country that has 70 years of thought put into it versus the recent 'but it's not fair to us' MAGA reaction based position.

lostdog 2y ago

You asked this exact question last week and I answered it. If you are just going to ignore the people who reply to you, why bother commenting?

rayiner 2y ago
But your answer was handwaving. What’s the evidentiary basis for concluding that maintaining bases all over the world benefits americans? The British Empire was motivated by mercantilism: by requiring colonies to sell raw materials to Britain and buy finished goods from Britain, it ensured Britain remained highest on the supply chain, and redirected capital from the colonies to Britain. We don’t do anything like that. We don’t extract resources from Europe at below market value. We run a trade deficit, so free trade doesn’t even help us. So what’s the concrete explanation that isn’t just recycling liberal internationalist tropes?
- lostdog 2y ago
  I would like to see the trade deficit evening out, but even then, the deficit is ~0.6% of our GDP. Charitably, the intake of goods we do support keeps our internal economy extremely productive, so even at a deficit maybe it's worth it. That said, it's not very difficult to fix the deficit if there were any will. And once fixed, the US would benefit from open maritime trade more than anyone else. Holding these bases helps us keep the world in order, and in the current order the US winds up on top. (Though the US does need to deal with China's incursions). It's funny to see you use the word "evidentiary" when you do not apply any standard to your own comments. If you do reply, please try to back up your points, since I'd like to understand where you're coming from.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Why would we benefit from more trade when we don’t make anything? I don’t have evidence that american empire is bad for the economy. But the cost of maintaining it are indisputably high and result in a lot of immortality. So I would like evidence that maintaining an empire actually results in benefits that offset the cost. Economic theory certainly doesn’t predict that empires would make you richer than free markets. And if empire makes you richer, why is Europe so content to be under our yoke?
    - lostdog 2y ago
      Well, the US has been the most prosperous country for a long time, so clearly something is working. Maybe the "empire" has nothing to do with it, sure, but I'd like to see you support your position instead of nitpicking other people's.
    - palata 2y ago
      > why is Europe so content to be under our yoke? Sorry to disappoint, but Europe is not particularly content to be under the US yoke. Actually, the US has been actively pressuring Europe to keep it under their yoke. For decades.
    - nradov 2y ago
      We make a lot of stuff. The manufacturing industry contributes >$2T to US GDP. The US doesn't have an empire, but we do have a degree of worldwide hegemony. As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. Will that make US citizens richer?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        > As a practical matter if the US turns isolationist then China will fill that gap. That sounds like a very neocon view of how the world works. We have to maintain an empire because if we don’t, someone else will?
        nradov 2y ago
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      [flagged]

kranke155 2y ago

Because the alternative to a US dominated world is a world dominated by someone else. History has shown that lesson again and again and again. There is no “peaceful world without a hegemon” period of history. There is Pax Brittanica, Pax Romana and Pax Americana which is now coming to an end.

thereisnospork 2y ago

So we can extract value value from having the biggest stick. Surely any competent businessman turned president couldn't fail to turn a profit when our military, and only our military, can secure the safe travel of goods anywhere in the world and overthrow any non-nuclear power who acts not in america's interest.

wqaatwt 2y ago

Same reason US needs a huge military. Deterrence and overwhelming force are the only ways to ensure longterm peace and stability.

rurban 2y ago
Establishing fascist military regimes all over the Americas, Europe and Asia might have been good for longterm peace and stability, and esp. US companies and global trade, but not so for the oppressed civilians and workers.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Could you actually explain what fascist regimes did US establish in Europe? Greek Junta perhaps, but it was anything but stable and it collapsed because of a war in Cyprus with another NATO member.. Or are you claiming that Americans put Putin in power in Russia? Slightly far fetched but you might have a point.. Because I can’t think of anything else.
  - rurban 2y ago
    Out of my head all. It started with financing Hitler and Mussolini. Spain and Portugal. Then Turkey, Greece, Italy, Belgium. Belgium didn't last long though.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      I’m not sure in what way do you think US “financed Hitler and Mussolini” (or whatever’s going on in your head for that matter..) But it’s a weird thing to say when the USSR/Stalin literally bankrolled the Nazi invasions of Norway and France (whatever the financing they got from the US USSR contributed a few magnitudes more). Germany had no oil after Poland and its not far fetched that France/Britain could have just waited it out had the Soviets not bailed them out.