3 ms·

While I agree with you, it's important to note that every government is corrupt to some degree and the US is forced to participate in these wars as, since the e

by deelowe 13y ago

While I agree with you, it's important to note that every government is corrupt to some degree and the US is forced to participate in these wars as, since the end of WWII, it's been looked upon as the de facto police force of the western world. The US can't simply turn a blind eye to the middle east and let oil prices be used to wage an economic war with all western nations(likely a war we'd lose). And I'm sure there are similar concerns with every other conflict in question. Unfortunately, like all this related to politics, the situation is complicated.

scott_karana 13y ago
> since the end of WWII, it's been looked upon as the de facto police force of the western world Are you sure this isn't an American point of view, assuming the POV of others? I've always gotten the impression that Europe generally treats US military actions with disdain. Maybe it's not reasonable for the US to base their foreign policy on how the US may or may not have been perceived circa 1945.
- deelowe 13y ago
  What politicians say publically versus what they actually agree to are two totally different things. It's simply vogue to complain about American led international conflicts right now. It's just a big show to drum up votes. One has to look no further than the recent press surrounding the nsa, echelon and other programs to see just how complicit other western countries are with American imperialism. Heck, even if they didn't want the US involved in the middle east, no one else is going to stand up to China or Russia if the US was to leave. So, everyone maintains status quo.
danenania 13y ago
So in order to avoid losing a hypothetical future trade war, we'll bankrupt ourselves with military spending, kill a couple million people, lose our civil liberties, and create 1000x more new enemies. Sounds logical!
- deelowe 13y ago
  No one's bankrupt(relatively speaking). The USD is still the world currency and western economies are still as a whole better off than China or Russia. The guys running the show know exactly what they are doing and what they are doing is keeping those other two countries out of the middle east.

by deelowe 13y ago

scott_karana 13y ago

> since the end of WWII, it's been looked upon as the de facto police force of the western world Are you sure this isn't an American point of view, assuming the POV of others? I've always gotten the impression that Europe generally treats US military actions with disdain. Maybe it's not reasonable for the US to base their foreign policy on how the US may or may not have been perceived circa 1945.

deelowe 13y ago
What politicians say publically versus what they actually agree to are two totally different things. It's simply vogue to complain about American led international conflicts right now. It's just a big show to drum up votes. One has to look no further than the recent press surrounding the nsa, echelon and other programs to see just how complicit other western countries are with American imperialism. Heck, even if they didn't want the US involved in the middle east, no one else is going to stand up to China or Russia if the US was to leave. So, everyone maintains status quo.

danenania 13y ago

So in order to avoid losing a hypothetical future trade war, we'll bankrupt ourselves with military spending, kill a couple million people, lose our civil liberties, and create 1000x more new enemies. Sounds logical!

deelowe 13y ago
No one's bankrupt(relatively speaking). The USD is still the world currency and western economies are still as a whole better off than China or Russia. The guys running the show know exactly what they are doing and what they are doing is keeping those other two countries out of the middle east.