The United States

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
what does that mean to you?
Home of the brave & land of the free? As long as you have your permits of course

An imperialist nation willing to spy on its own citizens w/o due process and willing to wage never ending war while propping up dictators from other nations , feeding U.S citizens takes about fighting terrorism while in reality the goal is to keep the petro dollar alive.

a melting pot of deeply divided party loyalist who are willing to overlook the crimes of those they elect because OMG those in the party they have elected are guilty of the same crimes .


I'll spare you the memes . Offer good today only and since its late expect a meme early in the morning
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
So you create a thread about the United States and the guns mention took all of 22 words.

 
  • Like
Reactions: einmusiker

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
The United States is the greatest country in the history of the world.

We are also an imperfect country, now and in the past. But we have, as part of our political, economic, and social heritage, an almost unique capability to grow and to improve. To learn from the mistakes of the past, to right the wrongs and fix the problems - no matter how great.

The United States, in the words of Barack Hussein Obama, is the one essential nation. When addressing any global issue - from climate change, to ISIL, to Palestine, to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea - nothing of importance happens without the participation, and usually leadership, of the United States. Germany, Japan, China, Britain, France - all are great nations. But the presence or absence of any of them at the bargaining table is rarely a deal breaker.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,988
"Essential" being the codeword for "only empire left".

This exceptionalism BS has got to stop. The bread and circus act will be the fall of this nation, as every empire in history has shown.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,988
We've got the money and the guns, we can't be ignored it's not exceptionalism it's realpolitik. Whether any one likes that or not matters very little.
Let's lose another 2 Trillion in the Pentagon, then you tell me why empire doesn't matter as our roads continue to collapse, our schools continue to be underfunded, our next generation is forced into paying a mortgage payment before they can even get a house (school loans), and we continue to tell anyone who can't afford healthcare (a right in the civilized world) to go **** themselves.

Your right, our adventurism around the world has little to do with conditions here at home :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mousse and jkcerda

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
Let's lose another 2 Trillion in the Pentagon, then you tell me why empire doesn't matter as our roads continue to collapse, our schools continue to be underfunded, our next generation is forced into paying a mortgage payment before they can even get a house (school loans), and we continue to tell anyone who can't afford healthcare (a right in the civilized world) to go **** themselves.

Your right, our adventurism around the world has little to do with conditions here at home :rolleyes:
Has anyone talked about adventurism?
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
I don't know what else to call our military incursions around the world, people seem to shrug off the term empire.
But no one is talking about that. To be essential means being more than a one trick pony, the military is and extension of foreign policy it's a tool, just like money. America has both money and guns we have a seat at every bargaining table whether folks like it or not. When I was a kid it was the US and the Soviet Union in that position, that's not the case anymore. I'd imagine that in the next half dozen or so years it'll move on to being the US and China.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,988
But no one is talking about that. To be essential means being more than a one trick pony, the military is and extension of foreign policy it's a tool, just like money. America has both money and guns we have a seat at every bargaining table whether folks like it or not. When I was a kid it was the US and the Soviet Union in that position, that's not the case anymore. I'd imagine that in the next half dozen or so years it'll move on to being the US and China.
I am hoping we move back towards a multipolar power structure around the world. Us being the sole superpower has been disastrous both internationally and domestically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

b0fh666

macrumors 6502a
Oct 12, 2012
903
647
south
you guys seem to have lost even the capacity to learn from other's mistakes these days... but good luck anyway :)
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
I am hoping we move back towards a multipolar power structure around the world. Us being the sole superpower has been disastrous both internationally and domestically.
I agree, but lets acknowledge the situation as it stands, not how we'd like it to be. The US is badly in need of some domestic spending, it badly needs real manufacturing jobs, it badly needs to export again, it badly needs to correct the education system, it badly needs to continue to revamp the HC system but these things cannot come at the expense of our role on the world stage, we cannot become isolationists.
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
you guys seem to have lost even the capacity to learn from other's mistakes these days... but good luck anyway :)
It occurs to me that not only have we not learned from our past mistakes we won't grab others good ideas and implement them there's always "but we're different" excuse. If we spent half the time figuring out how to implement an idea as we do creating excuses we and the world would be a better place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda and NT1440

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,988
I agree, but lets acknowledge the situation as it stands, not how we'd like it to be. The US is badly in need of some domestic spending, it badly needs real manufacturing jobs, it badly needs to export again, it badly needs to correct the education system, it badly needs to continue to revamp the HC system but these things cannot come at the expense of our role on the world stage, we cannot become isolationists.
There is a wide gap between isolationism, and aggression. Seeing as we have Spec Ops in 150+ countries around the world (arguably occupying the world with over 800 military bases, the next closest country has somewhere around 12...) I cannot fathom how a drawn down of empirical aggression is "isolationism".

It occurs to me that not only have we not learned from our past mistakes we won't grab others good ideas and implement them there's always "but we're different" excuse. If we spent half the time figuring out how to implement an idea as we do creating excuses we and the world would be a better place.
Agreed entirely, your highlighting the exact issue with this "exceptionalism" crap. Americans can be shown all the data in the world about better ways to do something, but we reject it on mass because...well we're clearly better than everyone right? Think healthcare if you want an example of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mojolicious

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,988
<snip>

Sorry Mods, I didn't realize the forum no longer merges posts.
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
There is a wide gap between isolationism, and aggression. Seeing as we have Spec Ops in 150+ countries around the world (arguably occupying the world with over 800 military bases, the next closest country has somewhere around 12...) I cannot fathom how a drawn down of empirical aggression is "isolationism".


Agreed entirely, your highlighting the exact issue with this "exceptionalism" crap. Americans can be shown all the data in the world about better ways to do something, but we reject it on mass because...well we're clearly better than everyone right? Think healthcare if you want an example of this.
Having a base doesn't equal aggression. If the military is an extension of foreign policy it's wise to have access to that tool quickly and those bases allow that.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,988
Having a base doesn't equal aggression. If the military is an extension of foreign policy it's wise to have access to that tool quickly and those bases allow that.
Bases are the point at which power is projected from, I never stated the presence of a base is aggression...unless of course you remove the inhabitants of that land via force with the host country to establish it....but that's another matter entirely.

Overthrowing democracies, aggression. Bombing hospitals, aggression. Supporting dictatorships via diplomatic relations (the Saudis) while condemning other countries for the same exact behavior, aggression. Any honest interpretation of US foreign policy has to admit that we are responsible for far more suffering and death than any corporate news source will tell you.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
these things cannot come at the expense of our role on the world stage, we cannot become isolationists.
Why not? Most of our military interventions since WWII have left the places we went into worse off than they were before. Lets let the rest of the world deal with their own problems. If we weren't choosing sides in conflicts that we have no place in then a lot of the dangers from terrorists wouldn't be as high or there at all. And the odds of Canada or Mexico invading us are at about 0% and any other country would have a very hard time sending a credible force across the Atlantic or Pacific to invade us so we aren't at risk from a foreign country invading us.
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
Bases are the point at which power is projected from, I never stated the presence of a base is aggression...unless of course you remove the inhabitants of that land via force with the host country to establish it....but that's another matter entirely.

Overthrowing democracies, aggression. Bombing hospitals, aggression. Supporting dictatorships via diplomatic relations (the Saudis) while condemning other countries for the same exact behavior, aggression. Any honest interpretation of US foreign policy has to admit that we are responsible for far more suffering and death than any corporate news source will tell you.
Which brings us back to realpolitik. We do bad and we do good no matter what we do though someone will perceive it as bad. Saudi Arabia has a strategic national resource so they will be treated with kid gloves until they don't or we're in no position to say anything. In the past we've understood the was a balance between aggression and benevolence recently we've erred on side of being aggression and that will also change. It's probably time to stop hiring managers to be POTUS and hire a leader. We've caused a s**t storm and now the onus is on us to fix it as quickly as possible followed by ceasing the galavanting and tilting on windmills
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
Why not? Most of our military interventions since WWII have left the places we went into worse off than they were before. Lets let the rest of the world deal with their own problems. If we weren't choosing sides in conflicts that we have no place in then a lot of the dangers from terrorists wouldn't be as high or there at all. And the odds of Canada or Mexico invading us are at about 0% and any other country would have a very hard time sending a credible force across the Atlantic or Pacific to invade us so we aren't at risk from a foreign country invading us.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isolationism

During the 1930s, the combination of the Great Depression and the memory of tragic losses in World War I contributed to pushing American public opinion and policy toward isolationism. Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. Although the United States took measures to avoid political and military conflicts across the oceans, it continued to expand economically and protect its interests in Latin America. The leaders of the isolationist movement drew upon history to bolster their position. In his Farewell Address, President George Washington had advocated non-involvement in European wars and politics. For much of the nineteenth century, the expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans had made it possible for the United States to enjoy a kind of “free security” and remain largely detached from Old World conflicts. During World War I, however, President Woodrow Wilson made a case for U.S. intervention in the conflict and a U.S. interest in maintaining a peaceful world order. Nevertheless, the American experience in that war served to bolster the arguments of isolationists; they argued that marginal U.S. interests in that conflict did not justify the number of U.S. casualties.

President Woodrow Wilson

In the wake of the World War I, a report by Senator Gerald P. Nye, a Republican from North Dakota, fed this belief by claiming that American bankers and arms manufacturers had pushed for U.S. involvement for their own profit. The 1934 publication of the book Merchants of Death by H.C. Engelbrecht and F. C. Hanighen, followed by the 1935 tract “War Is a Racket” by decorated Marine Corps General Smedley D. Butler both served to increase popular suspicions of wartime profiteering and influence public opinion in the direction of neutrality. Many Americans became determined not to be tricked by banks and industries into making such great sacrifices again. The reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to bolster the idea that the United States should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe. During the interwar period, the U.S. Government repeatedly chose non-entanglement over participation or intervention as the appropriate response to international questions. Immediately following the First World War, Congress rejected U.S. membership in the League of Nations. Some members of Congress opposed membership in the League out of concern that it would draw the United States into European conflicts, although ultimately the collective security clause sank the possibility of U.S. participation. During the 1930s, the League proved ineffectual in the face of growing militarism, partly due to the U.S. decision not to participate.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
Well I wouldn't advocate withdrawing from the UN, and the UN is far more effective than the League of Nations was at containing conflicts so they don't turn into world wars.

And even if we had been directly involved in the early stages of WWII during the 1930's it likely wouldn't have stopped the war from happening, but the difference would have been instead of us being united in support of the war effort due to Pearl Harbor we would have had a very divisive war, and I bet we would have still had similar losses after 1941, and before that we would have lost more people than we lost in Pearl Harbor.
 

einmusiker

macrumors 68030
Apr 26, 2010
2,949
271
Location: Location: Location:
what does that mean to you?
Home of the brave & land of the free? As long as you have your permits of course

An imperialist nation willing to spy on its own citizens w/o due process and willing to wage never ending war while propping up dictators from other nations , feeding U.S citizens takes about fighting terrorism while in reality the goal is to keep the petro dollar alive.

a melting pot of deeply divided party loyalist who are willing to overlook the crimes of those they elect because OMG those in the party they have elected are guilty of the same crimes .


I'll spare you the memes . Offer good today only and since its late expect a meme early in the morning
Dude. Seek help. Soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rdowns and 0007776

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
This exceptionalism BS has got to stop. The bread and circus act will be the fall of this nation, as every empire in history has shown.


I'm not a big fan of the "exceptionalism" word. It implies that somehow the laws of both man and physics don't apply to the United States. Which is a dangerous delusion for anybody to have.

That said, leadership is a characteristic of just about every biological system (of which I have to count our world of nation-states) I can think of. And leadership is what the United States is uniquely qualified to provide.

We in the US tend to think of ourselves as a relatively young nation. But from a world-historical perspective, the United States has one of the oldest uninterrupted existences as a democratic republic. France has been through a couple of Empires, several Republics, a Consulship, and a few other other forms. Germany and Italy in their present form didn't exist 200 years ago.

Leadership does not necessarily imply domination. The US has no desire to dominate, for instance Europe or Africa. But we - as a nation - believe it to be in our interests to see that both of those geographical areas prosper economically, and are free from the terrors of war and tyranny. We re prepared to invest considerable amounts of our national treasure and blood to achieve that end. Is that totally altruistic? Of course not. A chaotic Somalia, with pirates hijacking cargo ships - is a menace to world trade, and ultimately our own prosperity and security.

And I can think of few nations with both the resources and the will to be a decisive actor. Denmark (to cite one example) might very well wish to keep the East African coast free from Somali pirates. But it lacks the military assets to conduct - on its own - a large enough operation to effect that end. China, by way of contrast, does have the military resources. But for cultural, historical, and political reasons is unwilling to deploy them in such a role.

The United States is not Imperial Rome. We might watch the Kardashians on our 400-channel cable boxes. But we're up at 6.30am the next morning, driving to our jobs, our schools, our businesses to get on with the task of making the world a better place.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,988
I'm not a big fan of the "exceptionalism" word. It implies that somehow the laws of both man and physics don't apply to the United States. Which is a dangerous delusion for anybody to have.

That said, leadership is a characteristic of just about every biological system (of which I have to count our world of nation-states) I can think of. And leadership is what the United States is uniquely qualified to provide.

We in the US tend to think of ourselves as a relatively young nation. But from a world-historical perspective, the United States has one of the oldest uninterrupted existences as a democratic republic. France has been through a couple of Empires, several Republics, a Consulship, and a few other other forms. Germany and Italy in their present form didn't exist 200 years ago.

Leadership does not necessarily imply domination. The US has no desire to dominate, for instance Europe or Africa. But we - as a nation - believe it to be in our interests to see that both of those geographical areas prosper economically, and are free from the terrors of war and tyranny. We re prepared to invest considerable amounts of our national treasure and blood to achieve that end. Is that totally altruistic? Of course not. A chaotic Somalia, with pirates hijacking cargo ships - is a menace to world trade, and ultimately our own prosperity and security.

And I can think of few nations with both the resources and the will to be a decisive actor. Denmark (to cite one example) might very well wish to keep the East African coast free from Somali pirates. But it lacks the military assets to conduct - on its own - a large enough operation to effect that end. China, by way of contrast, does have the military resources. But for cultural, historical, and political reasons is unwilling to deploy them in such a role.

The United States is not Imperial Rome. We might watch the Kardashians on our 400-channel cable boxes. But we're up at 6.30am the next morning, driving to our jobs, our schools, our businesses to get on with the task of making the world a better place.
I stopped reading at no desire to dominate. Our own mission statements clearly state otherwise. Overthrowing democracies (hell we continue to select the leaders of Haiti) and waging secret wars all over the world (take a look at Africom and what's going on with our drone strikes all over the world, hell we just decided Cameroon of all places is now important to wage war in) to "get the bad guys" while systemically destabilizing entire regions simply cannot be interpreted as trying to do the right thing.

Note that the American PEOPLE and American military force are two entirely separate things, so your last sentence doesn't have any bearing on this discussion. I'm speaking only of power and use of force, not whether Johnny B America who works as a cashier is a bad guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
I agree, but lets acknowledge the situation as it stands, not how we'd like it to be. The US is badly in need of some domestic spending, it badly needs real manufacturing jobs, it badly needs to export again, it badly needs to correct the education system, it badly needs to continue to revamp the HC system but these things cannot come at the expense of our role on the world stage, we cannot become isolationists.
hard to do when the politicians passed NAFTA and TPP. low end jobs will not pay a "living" wage for minimum skills.