Dope, if you want a response, please quote a specific example instead of letting me guess which points you are questioning.
Crni
Do not confuse me with the rare Murrica poster here. AGAIN, in Akratus thread, I have admitted that NOBODY does anything out of sheer altruism.
And your Allies know that as well. The reputation of the US is not vey good right now. And that for a reason. The time where nations like Japan or Western Europe required their military and political aid are for the most part over. The public opinion about America is not very great.
Because of the U.S., the PRC has to think twice about what it wants to do to Taiwan. The U.S. has kept Kims regime in check instead of going apeshit on S. Korea. Because of the U.S., Japan can afford to have a smaller military and not fear China moving into and dominating the area.
Another case of supporting a dictatorship. Only since the 1987 is the Republic of China no more a single-party idea. And this is very usual for the US foreign policy and support of regimes. Which also included South Korea under Rhee Sygn man.
And that's pretty much the point I am talking about when it comes to US foreign policy. You can say that they offer protection, that South Korea would be Communistic that they helped Taiwan to keep China at bay. But I am not sure if that is the kind of gratification that the vitims of the regimes the US supported want to hear.
It really reminds me to this popular quote from the Vietnam war, I don't know if it's true, but if it isnt it sure sounds nice.
We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
And that is something which is very exemplary for the US foreign policy. Not just in the past. But even more so today.
NATO has provided a missile shield to many countries that otherwise cannot afford it themselves. I mean the big five have them, why not smaller nations to protect themselves. Putin has been VERY clear about how he feels about ex-soviet states having missile defenses of their own. NATO makes Putin think twice about acting on his Soviet Union speech. Military bases in NATO allow our euro allies to spend LESS on military expenditure and more on social programs. Its a good fucking deal. Let the Americans bear the brunt of the cost of providing defence. Does it limit our ability to take action in the world? Sure. But we are europeans, we have learned to butt out of other peoples affairs and let the rest of the planet do as they fucking please.
Eh I would not be so sure about that part! Here is what Hans-Lothar Domröse a NATO general has to say about the situation:
Putin is a tough-minded, forward-thinking politician who is capable of foreseeing situations, but also regards him as a dangerous "gambler," who "is willing to use nuclear weapons against NATO troops."
(...)
In German newspapers he also cite him that he is calling for more military expenses. Anyway, I do not trust those people more than I trust Putin to say that. And he is not the only nut-job in the NATO ranks. Also NATO member ship was not seen even during the cold war without questions. And not all nations saw a membership in the NATO always as beneficial, from a civilian/political point of view. Of course for military hard liners things look different. Joint operations, exchange of technology, easier access to funding and so on. It sure is easier to get those new fancy Leopard 2 when you're a NATO member. We should not forget that we are talking about multiple interests here. And I am not sure if the interests of the military particularly the NATO are always on the idea of protection. Manipulation was used already in the past, like the
Swedish Submarine Accidents.
Protection by the NATO. I am sometimes curious. From who? In the age of nuclear missiles? Where litealy the push of a button could mean the end to the world as we know it. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, talking about the use of nuclear weapons, be it the so called enemy or us is doing nothing else but spreading unreasonable fear. If the history has teached us one thing, than that no side is willing to actually use them. They are not stupid. Not even during the hight of the Cold War. Almost any of the close to nuclear situations was caused by unreasonable fear. Particularly in the Soviet Union.
Not to mention that the rocket/missile shield was always seen as a defence not against Russia but mainly against the middle east and Africa.
Which is laughable.
"According to the United States government, the missile defense system was intended to protect against future missiles from Iran.[SUP][1][/SUP] Russia strongly opposed the system. As an alternative, Russia proposed sharing the Qabala Radar in Azerbaijan, which Russia leases, but this was not seen as an acceptable substitute by the US"
I would expect more expenses in the future, more money and resources spend on modernisation and a nudge by the US to the east european states like Poland to spend more money on their military.
There is in my opinion no doubt that the actions of the last 10-15 years have been measures against Russia. And the US is using the fear, resentments and hate of the East European states against Russia to build a block against Russia and to extend their reach in to the east. To be fair though, considering Russia and their politics this was not really a difficiult task. While I am not a friend of Putin or the Russian politics it really doesn't take a degree in Russian history and/or rocket science to see that this is a very dangerous path. And there are many former politicans that actually warn against this path as well. People that have lived the Cold War, every day for 24 hours. People like MC Namara or Brzezinski. Because they know that Russia is not Irak, or Syria or Afghanistan.
I don't have fear from a nuclear war. Yet. But I really don't want another Cold War scenario with extensive military expenses.
Thing is, if we ignored all the shit happening in those countries, the 'failures', as you mention, we would be called uncaring and selfish racists. Did we under-estimate the problems that sectarianism can bring? Sure. But revolution is NEVER pretty. Ask the French, the Russians, the Chinese, etc. Sometimes it turns out better, sometimes its worse. The question is, is it worth it to try? In a previous post, someone bragged about all the good shit Ghaddafi did while ignoring how fucking crazy he was the rest of the time. The Libyan-Chad conflict. His numerous problems with Egypt. His universal support for terror groups.
No, I have serious doubts about that. The US was isolationistic in the past, and the world was not crying for their help at evey possible moment - but that was before WW1. For the recent history, Germany hasn't been involved in any invasion for the last 60 years, for obvious reasons. And Germany is one of the nations with excelent Reputation today. Not to mention that it is one of the savest Nations. That's what you get when you don't send your troops in to locations where they don't belong - Afghanistan and Kosovo are a bit of a special case, but at least our presence there is really small and we didn't started those wars. That doesn't mean that Germany isn't doing questionable things. German companie sold components for poison gas to nations like Irak and Syria. They are one of the 5 top weapon dealers in the world. But it shows that you actually can build a positive reputation without military actions.
Not to mention the US could join the peace keeping operations of the United Nations. But that would actually require the US to listen to the World instead of expecting the World to accept their voice. That is what the NATO really is in the end. It is the extension of the Pentagon and in that sense the US military. After all it was the US that called as only nation to this date for the
Casus Foederis - Case for the Alliance, in the History of the NATO.
I am not so naive to believe that Germany was not gaining a lot of protection under the nuclear umbrella of the United States during the Cold War. But we are not in 1961 anymore. We are in 2015. And at least as far as foreign policy goes, things have changed, the people here realize that. More than 70% of the population are not happy with the mass media and what they say about Russia. With the nuclear capability of both Britain and France there is very little to fear from either China or Russia anyway. Not to mention that there is no reason not to trust China in their statemant that they will not use nuclear weapons to attack or threat non-nuclear states - However I would not really put that to the test though. Both China and Russia are trading partners of Europe. That this isn't a very welcome idea for the US is more than obvious. And right now the situation in the Ukraine is a welcome affair for disturbing the relationship between Europe and Russia. The US is building sanctions. And Europe is paying for it. A Win-Win situation. Particularly the relationship between Germany and Russia has been always a problem. The closer those get, the more difficuilt for the US to keep their interests in Europe since Germany is the main pawn for the US inteligence agencies. And US interests are not always in the best interest of the European states -
see TTIP.
One of the major differences between European and US policies is the concept that war and military conflicts are seen here as Ultima Ratio - last resort . While in the US war is seen in general as politic with other means. While Europe is not the place with the better people the divesity and history of Europe makes it's citizens more sensible to military actions and wars. For example the last time Washington DC was raided by a foreign party was in 1814 during the War of 1812 between British Forces and the United States of America. However in Europe there are still conflicts going on and there are still enough people which remember what war on your own soil means. Nations, politicans and civilians will think twice about agressive actions if it puts their own nation at risk.
I think it would really not hurt the US if they actually slowed down a little. Not just for their sake. But actually for the sake of the world. You fear China? Or Russia? Do you think they have the resources to do what the US and Europe did for the last 20 years? Both China and Russia are rather regional powers. And even if they would become global players, I think there is very little that the US and Europe can do. Also we STILL have our nuclear arsenal. That counts for something. However it is very unlikely that we will see a Russian and or Chinese dominance filling the Role of the US if they decide to back down, if just a little.
And we are not talking about doing nothing or falling in to apathy. There is so much that can be done with diplomacy and other means of support. Like humanitarian aid. Peace keeping operations under the United Nations. International Preasure. And alot more.
