4 ms·

I don't know if we can speak about their motives, but they certainly contribute to overall stability. Use your head for a second. The US government hands out

I don't know if we can speak about their motives, but they certainly contribute to overall stability. Use your head for a second. The US government hands out millions of dollars in foreign aid to it's "enemies" - governments who are quite happy to parade around talking about standing up the US, and then holding out their hand for handouts from them. It's quite clear what they're doing - they're basically doling out money in the hopes that it'll prevent civil unrest and nations imploding - sure, they might not like these people, and they might even be actively trying to destroy them - but the alternative is to have a messy civil war, and then have to come in to clean it all up. The US is very interested in global stability - you can argue that's also in their own interests as well, but you can't argue they don't bankroll geopolitical stability.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I don't know if we can speak about their motives, but they certainly contribute to overall stability. "For the world" is speaking to motives. America isn't bankrolling "stability for the world", its bankrolling stability where it suits the interest of American decision-makers, and instability where stability doesn't those interests. > The US is very interested in global stability Except for those places where its interested in altering the status quo, in which cases it spends lavishly on doing that. > you can argue that's also in their own interests as well "Their own interests" -- that is, those of American decision-makers -- are the only factor, not an incidental "as well" factor, in the decision of where to bankroll stability and where to bankroll instability.
javajosh 13y ago
That is actually true. Consider Syria: Assad is a horrible person, but the Islamist groups currently fighting him are worse. Much worse. America is the de facto World Police. And frankly I'd be okay with assuming that role if we did a good job with it. One problem with us being World Police is that we pursue our own geopolitical goals, and so it's impossible for a single nation to really be objective about policing the rest of the world - that's why we need institutions like the United Nations and, to a lesser extent, the World Trade Organization. The really interesting thing about the USA, now that I think about it, is how willing we are to bankroll our gigantic military. Historically its clearly momentum from the cold war - culturally we're used to spending this kind of money to deter the Soviets. And now the fear of terrorism (and perhaps a more fundamental fear of change) keeps us spending gigantic sums on force. But we don't really take our responsibilities as World Police very seriously. If we did, we'd have something akin to an Internal Affairs department, at the federal level, that was easily accessible from anywhere in the world. And we'd stop treating foreigners like a different class of people - you can't (and indeed shouldn't) police people you see as fundamentally different, less, than yourself. That's just asking for trouble of a despotic nature.
- basch 13y ago
  brilliant final three lines.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I don't know if we can speak about their motives, but they certainly contribute to overall stability. "For the world" is speaking to motives. America isn't bankrolling "stability for the world", its bankrolling stability where it suits the interest of American decision-makers, and instability where stability doesn't those interests. > The US is very interested in global stability Except for those places where its interested in altering the status quo, in which cases it spends lavishly on doing that. > you can argue that's also in their own interests as well "Their own interests" -- that is, those of American decision-makers -- are the only factor, not an incidental "as well" factor, in the decision of where to bankroll stability and where to bankroll instability.

javajosh 13y ago

That is actually true. Consider Syria: Assad is a horrible person, but the Islamist groups currently fighting him are worse. Much worse. America is the de facto World Police. And frankly I'd be okay with assuming that role if we did a good job with it. One problem with us being World Police is that we pursue our own geopolitical goals, and so it's impossible for a single nation to really be objective about policing the rest of the world - that's why we need institutions like the United Nations and, to a lesser extent, the World Trade Organization. The really interesting thing about the USA, now that I think about it, is how willing we are to bankroll our gigantic military. Historically its clearly momentum from the cold war - culturally we're used to spending this kind of money to deter the Soviets. And now the fear of terrorism (and perhaps a more fundamental fear of change) keeps us spending gigantic sums on force. But we don't really take our responsibilities as World Police very seriously. If we did, we'd have something akin to an Internal Affairs department, at the federal level, that was easily accessible from anywhere in the world. And we'd stop treating foreigners like a different class of people - you can't (and indeed shouldn't) police people you see as fundamentally different, less, than yourself. That's just asking for trouble of a despotic nature.

basch 13y ago
brilliant final three lines.