4 ms·
Other countries probably focus quite a bit more on the defense aspect. How many times has the US military countered a hostile attacking force? Instead, I can th
by 0cf8612b2e1e 6d ago
Other countries probably focus quite a bit more on the defense aspect. How many times has the US military countered a hostile attacking force? Instead, I can think of significantly more instances where the US was instigating the situation.
- chanakya 6d agoThat may be partly true, but in recent times, most western countries participated in wars like Afganistan and Iraq, and provided logistical or other support during the current Iran war.
- buellerbueller 6d agoIn even more recent times, the US made war on Iran for no apparent reason at all.
- jopsen 6d agoThere are plenty of reasons, some might even be good. But prospects for a positive outcome where probably always slim. IMO, it is particularly dumb when there is a full scale conventional war happening in Ukraine.
- stickfigure 6d agoUS military power does most of its heavy lifting without throwing bombs. We're seeing the end of Pax Americana and it isn't pretty.
- pphysch 6d agoThe two major ongoing wars are due to US foreign policy and could be over tomorrow if US government fully stopped supporting their respective belligerents. A good chunk of the human population has never known a "Pax Americana" and regions such as East Asia are clearly better off due to declining American hegemony.
- lovich 6d agoIf you’re referring to Ukraine as one of the two, we already heavily reduced our support under Trump and there is no chance in hell that removing the leftover support causes Ukraine to capitulate by tomorrows, especially after recent territory gains and destruction of Russian logistical supply lines with Wildberries and their refinery infrastructure. Also if the other is Iran, lol at “stopped supporting respective belligerents” as if the US itself was not one of the major belligerents.
- paimapi 6d agoI think the other example is Israel which seems like the much more obviously belligerent, actively colonial nation state that the US is largely propping up (and wouldn't exist otherwise) also, arguably, the half-century of creating, establishing, funding, and build-up of NATO largely supersedes the point that Trump cut spending there temporarily. that all came from American coffers and the current conflict there is a long hangover from that
- JumpCrisscross 6d ago> colonial nation state that the US is largely propping up (and wouldn't exist otherwise) This is a baseless, American-centric notion I've heard frequently in New York and San Francisco. If America pulled support from Israel, it would find partners in other countries. India and China are at the top of the list–they want Israeli weapons technology and intelligence. Russia would probably play too. And depending on the kind of mess we leave Iran in, some Gulf countries may also find a way to come to a nuclear technology transfer deal with Tel Aviv.
- lovich 6d agoI don’t know why so many people take it as a given that Israel only exists because of America. They used to be aligned with the USSR and we did a lot of work to peel them off into our own domain. They also have their own military industrial complex and are perfectly capable of manufacturing the weapons they need domestically. They also have nukes.
- tsunamifury 6d agoYou dont really understand globalism and pax americana do you? But specifically yes america has been directly attacked 20 times in the last 40 some odd years... so averaging once every other year.
- Manuel_D 6d agoThe US stopped countless wars from starting in the first place due to deterrence. Look at Ukraine to see what happens to a country that isn't part of an alliance like NATO.
- goatlover 6d agoThen look at the Middle East.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 6d agoUkraine seems to be what happens when a country willingly gave up their nukes (with US encouragement). I have no problem if the US navy wants to tool around shipping lanes for the good of global trade. I take issue with everything else. In the past couple of years, the US has implicitly used the strength of its military to threaten the sovereignty of Greenland, Panama, Canada, Mexico, and Cuba. Abducted a foreign head of state. Started a war. Bombed drug runners and fishermen. The death toll for the Iraq war is heavily contested, but the numbers are somewhere in the region of 200k to one million dead. All under the guise of WMDs. Like any large organization, there is a mixture of good and bad outcomes.
- chasd00 6d agoUkraine was storing nukes but did not have the keys to use them. They were useless to ukraine and presented no deterrent.
- AngryData 6d agoUkraine was home to many nuclear and rocket scientists so presumably they could have reverse engineered them if they wanted and got a big head start in it. But yeah thats only if they wanted to try and spend the money to support a nuclear program. As they sat they were unreliable at best case.
- karp773 6d agoThat's false. Please stop spreading Russian propaganda. Not only Ukraine was able to control and maintaining them, in fact, Ukrainian companies manufactured nuke ICBMs, and then serviced them in Russia long after the collapse of the USSR. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_Pivdenne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_Pivdenne