My guess is that is inevitable. And the end of Pax Americana is in IMHO much more likely to lead to a nasty and brutish state of world affairs as rising powers compete for dwindling resources and regional hegemony.Originally Posted by alan
My guess is that is inevitable. And the end of Pax Americana is in IMHO much more likely to lead to a nasty and brutish state of world affairs as rising powers compete for dwindling resources and regional hegemony.
Enjoy the strawberry.
A teachable moment for Europe, certainly. In a future likely to feature revanchist Russians, multiple strains of militant Islam and economic convulsions on the periphery, there may be hard lessons in store about the price of unpreparedness.
Exactly. You said nothing about being invaded because it's pretty unlikely that most countries face the likelihood of being invaded by anyone, whether or not the US squanders hundreds of billions of dollars every year on our military.
And even if there was a risk to all these countries getting invaded by this unidentified invader, but they're only keeping a small military because we have a big one, then maybe if we shrunk our military and used our money on more worthwhile things all these other countries at risk of being invaded would then spend their own money on their militaries. Sort of the "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" concept.
You make my argument for me.
I'm actually in favor of overspending on our military. It is a massive jobs program and the only one the right seems to be able to get behind.
"There are too many books in the world to read in a single lifetime; you have to draw the line somewhere." --Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
Yes, I find Putin's recent saber rattling alarming.
"There are too many books in the world to read in a single lifetime; you have to draw the line somewhere." --Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
If the government must be involved in "jobs programs", which is a questionable idea all on its own, surely we could come up with something productive rather than destructive, such as a massive wind and solar energy program to help reduce our reliance on middle east oil. If we didn't need their oil it would solve several problems. 1) We wouldn't need to meddle in their business so they wouldn't hate us so much. 2) They wouldn't get hundreds of billions in oil revenue from us to use buying more and more weapons to attack us.
Or building roads, bridges, railways, ports, schools, hospitals, universities, daycare centers, dams, subways, giant particle accelerators, battered spouse shelters, ...
OK - if I could just say that Doc Martin has been my favorite recent invader...Is there going to be a season 5? Hows that for birdwalkin?
Oh, absolutely. That would be my preference. But you will never convince the right of that. I figure if the government is going to waste money on this anyway, at least put some people to work. Not only does it create jobs in the technology sector, but gives kids in poor areas a job and a way out of poverty.
And the only time the military is destructive is when we are actually at war, like right now. And whether a particular war is truly destructive or constructive in the long term is often a matter of debate.
In any case, our friends across the pond need fear little as long as we continue our wasteful jobs program. They can continue to maintain their piddly, inadequate militaries, and we can continue to put people to work with ours. Win win.
"There are too many books in the world to read in a single lifetime; you have to draw the line somewhere." --Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.
Guns or butter...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote