This is a question I especially want to ask all of the non-Americans. Much of the world lives nations that are in protective alliances with the United States, like NATO or ANZUS, or are otherwise in some way under the hegemonic protection of the United States. Though these relationships are usually technically mutual, and many nations can and do provide their own support of arms to conflicts started by the United States, the United States is clearly expected to contribute unequally in these security arrangements. This is beneficial to the protected nations - like NATO members of Eastern Europe, in that the vast power of the United States deters and prevents large inter-state conflicts. It also allows nations like those of Western Europe to spend less on security and more on social services, because the United States is underwriting their security. However, it reduces the capacity of nations to act independently in foreign affairs, and sometimes causes countries to be dragged into irrelevant bush wars (remember when Iceland participated in the Iraq war?).
So I ask, do you see American military hegemony as a good thing, an unqualified bad, or mixed? From an American perspective, it seems like a large expenditure of resources for little reward.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 49C4D12BCE77CD38160523B7F6E124A5-152785.jpg (149.2 KB, 1024x735, 10kmiles.jpg)
File (): 489FC0339512FA88F3A2F550D780A2C4-34356.jpg (33.6 KB, 600x398, image1282.jpg)
File (): F58D681B4683F1D04E97E7F8DA439706-46683.jpg (45.6 KB, 558x546, milexppie.jpg)
File (): 3A6C9AA6FE01686CC02492C2C62AF45D-35911.gif (35.1 KB, 449x244, us-military-reach.gif)
Just some information to help illustrate how immense the American military and it's presence overseas is
http://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/u-s-military-bases-worldwide/
http://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/u-s-military-bases-worldwide/
It's a mixed bag. From my more libertarian perspective, it seems just wrong that one country takes it upon itself to "represent the free world", instead of having a world-wide partnership of equals with differing perspectives (sort of like what the UN is supposed to be).
On the other hand, in practice it doesn't seem to make a huge difference in our lives that one country's politicians see themselves as natural leaders of everyone else, and as long as the taxpayers they represent want to keep paying for what from the outside seems to be the world's largest penis extension and labor market subsidy scheme, why should I care?
On the other hand, in practice it doesn't seem to make a huge difference in our lives that one country's politicians see themselves as natural leaders of everyone else, and as long as the taxpayers they represent want to keep paying for what from the outside seems to be the world's largest penis extension and labor market subsidy scheme, why should I care?
>>44370
I think it started out okay. Had a good reason sort of. The fight against communism was a good one, and I don't think Nam' was such the unwarranted war as people thought it was. I even fancy that Truman supported the pseudo fascist Greek military junta. Overall, however. It's something to be despised. The US should have kept out of the Middle East which ultimately lead us here.
I think it started out okay. Had a good reason sort of. The fight against communism was a good one, and I don't think Nam' was such the unwarranted war as people thought it was. I even fancy that Truman supported the pseudo fascist Greek military junta. Overall, however. It's something to be despised. The US should have kept out of the Middle East which ultimately lead us here.
>>44370
I see it as a bad thing.
>it seems like a large expenditure of resources for little reward
This explains why it is bad for the American taxpayer in very simple terms. But, if you go further down the rabbit-hole you discover why it is a nightmare for the entire planet, not just Americans. Globalalist, international bankers, Jews, or whatever name you want to call them, have a tendency to occupy whatever the current global superpower is, and then use that nations military influence as much as they can for their own economic benefit. This happened to the U.K. when it was at it's height, and after hundreds of years of colonial and trade wars advancing (((their))$ economic interests, they finally ground the British people to a pulp in two world wars they engineered to pursue their own economic gains, and to insure they maintained control of the European market. After the British were crippled, (((their))) attention was shifted towards the United States. We were the new big, shiny tool to use, and since then early every war or military conflict we have participated in has been to further the interest of globalist bankers.
I want to be clear: I'm not implying the United States was not complete subverted and occupied long before WW2. It was. (((Their))) base of operations simply shifted from London to Washington D.C.
So, in short, our military presence is bad for Americans for the obvious fiscal reasons, but also for the international community because of the nefarious hands that wield its power.
I see it as a bad thing.
>it seems like a large expenditure of resources for little reward
This explains why it is bad for the American taxpayer in very simple terms. But, if you go further down the rabbit-hole you discover why it is a nightmare for the entire planet, not just Americans. Globalalist, international bankers, Jews, or whatever name you want to call them, have a tendency to occupy whatever the current global superpower is, and then use that nations military influence as much as they can for their own economic benefit. This happened to the U.K. when it was at it's height, and after hundreds of years of colonial and trade wars advancing (((their))$ economic interests, they finally ground the British people to a pulp in two world wars they engineered to pursue their own economic gains, and to insure they maintained control of the European market. After the British were crippled, (((their))) attention was shifted towards the United States. We were the new big, shiny tool to use, and since then early every war or military conflict we have participated in has been to further the interest of globalist bankers.
I want to be clear: I'm not implying the United States was not complete subverted and occupied long before WW2. It was. (((Their))) base of operations simply shifted from London to Washington D.C.
So, in short, our military presence is bad for Americans for the obvious fiscal reasons, but also for the international community because of the nefarious hands that wield its power.
Fuck America.
The military spending started around WWI but hasn't stopped since, and the 'murrican economy has leaned against it like an enormous doorstop ever since. If they stopped, it'd just collapse, so they'll keep on finding more and more targets for their brand new manufacture and exported guns 'till the world falls. They cannot just stop meddling in conflicts that aren't their own, but no-one can stop them in a similar way.
Which is why, of course, (((they))) are trying very hard to destabilize the US from the inside, hoping to incite a civil war that'd split those forces in two and give everyone a much better chance of conquering the US.
The military spending started around WWI but hasn't stopped since, and the 'murrican economy has leaned against it like an enormous doorstop ever since. If they stopped, it'd just collapse, so they'll keep on finding more and more targets for their brand new manufacture and exported guns 'till the world falls. They cannot just stop meddling in conflicts that aren't their own, but no-one can stop them in a similar way.
Which is why, of course, (((they))) are trying very hard to destabilize the US from the inside, hoping to incite a civil war that'd split those forces in two and give everyone a much better chance of conquering the US.
File (): C1B82485C831D47E0E8AFF2AD9BB18E4-254708.gif (248.7 KB, 500x375, 1479450168058.gif)
>>44389
I'm gonna dump your bloody bacon crisp and hotdog shipments into the harbor, fucker. What are you gonna do then?
I'm gonna dump your bloody bacon crisp and hotdog shipments into the harbor, fucker. What are you gonna do then?
File (): 7876D7C681213CB064F4AA48B3292CF2-32733.jpg (32.0 KB, 1097x720, 1471674528647.jpg)
File (): B7BAF88CC2BA3A3B1E986188F0215994-340906.jpg (332.9 KB, 751x1080, PutinRA2.jpg)
File (): AFCF93C6D737B38226D6C04763AB75D9-302653.gif (295.6 KB, 300x300, A Relic from MlPol.gif)
File (): 5D168E2088F7A616E2BCA460A6DE6356-164623.jpg (160.8 KB, 618x973, 1497044991620.jpg)
File (): 63014F24655D571FFEBFAB8D9CA7AF6D-110258.jpg (107.7 KB, 500x288, meme1467190510gen.jpg)
>>44370
For me since my country is pretty much the farmer man's land it's pretty good.
Uruguay is always neutral in wars and we just send cows everywhere so it's good to have other countries to watch out for Uruguay.
There's so little people here it would be stupid to even think of going to war.
For me since my country is pretty much the farmer man's land it's pretty good.
Uruguay is always neutral in wars and we just send cows everywhere so it's good to have other countries to watch out for Uruguay.
There's so little people here it would be stupid to even think of going to war.
Im very surprised that no one is calling it out we are already in a pax-America hegemony. The geopolitical alliances are as follows, NATO vs SCO. NATO everyone knows, SCO stands for Shanghai Cooperation Organization, look it up. Africa is still too poor.
The petrol dollar contributed plenty to the reach of American fiscal policies, making the money influence of America the world's problem. The UN legislatively made it a world reserve currency, and only relatively recently China is squeezing their influence in to the IMF, also making the yuan a reserve currency. Because of the compliance to the IMF, I honestly don't think any of these military alliances are of much consequence besides the back and forth of boarders. No one is stupid enough to even think about going against the American Military Industrial Complex, and anything appearing to do so is obviously just for show to divert people's attention. Stupid simple numbers like the US having more in military spending than the rest of the world combined is a really big indicator on who rules.
You can also think about it in the way special snowflakes do, like how the rest of the world learns english more or less in addition to their own language. Its pretty western centric when the rest of the world has to use your language. Personally though, I don't mind, and I use english fine.
This is not even mentioning the military bases the 'US' (NATO) has in other countries, not military alliances as they would love people to think of them as. The host countries pay for American troops to be stationed on their own land. Some may think it is reasonable since the 'US' (NATO) is providing "protection" (not that they aren't), but the truth of the matter is, really, which self respecting country likes to be cucked?
I also have to emphasize that the actions of the united states military are not the fault of the people in it, far from it, people in there could be the best people you'd have anywhere, but at the end of the day, the military is metaphysically ONLY an extension of a SINGLE commander's WILL, not the people's. The military apparatus is a TOOL, and the people in it are cogs in a machine. No matter how much good piety the soldiers and civil servants have, they cannot act on it.
This rant can be easily seen as an anti-American, but I want to really point out that those acting in America's name often are the true enemies, not the citizens. This is a trend happening in most democratic countries, where the presidential equivalent selection is only allowing globalist elites, or people who are prone to globalist influences to be elected. If this isn't an open conspiracy against the world, I don't know what is. Puppet faces that try to suck our trust into the system, choices of only worse or worser on the ballot, ideological manipulative control of the legislative process, the police state, are all phenomenons around the world.
Last but not least, after failing foreign policies, its time for western democracies to fail on domestic policies, colonize your own people with people of other races. I don't think I need to emphasize on that.
I don't know how to end this, but being outside of mainstream media, and the mainstream alt, and not being in the country, really allows one to see what political maneuvers are made to deceive and control, don't think like bill hicks, think like a Globalist, just don't be sick as one.
The petrol dollar contributed plenty to the reach of American fiscal policies, making the money influence of America the world's problem. The UN legislatively made it a world reserve currency, and only relatively recently China is squeezing their influence in to the IMF, also making the yuan a reserve currency. Because of the compliance to the IMF, I honestly don't think any of these military alliances are of much consequence besides the back and forth of boarders. No one is stupid enough to even think about going against the American Military Industrial Complex, and anything appearing to do so is obviously just for show to divert people's attention. Stupid simple numbers like the US having more in military spending than the rest of the world combined is a really big indicator on who rules.
You can also think about it in the way special snowflakes do, like how the rest of the world learns english more or less in addition to their own language. Its pretty western centric when the rest of the world has to use your language. Personally though, I don't mind, and I use english fine.
This is not even mentioning the military bases the 'US' (NATO) has in other countries, not military alliances as they would love people to think of them as. The host countries pay for American troops to be stationed on their own land. Some may think it is reasonable since the 'US' (NATO) is providing "protection" (not that they aren't), but the truth of the matter is, really, which self respecting country likes to be cucked?
I also have to emphasize that the actions of the united states military are not the fault of the people in it, far from it, people in there could be the best people you'd have anywhere, but at the end of the day, the military is metaphysically ONLY an extension of a SINGLE commander's WILL, not the people's. The military apparatus is a TOOL, and the people in it are cogs in a machine. No matter how much good piety the soldiers and civil servants have, they cannot act on it.
This rant can be easily seen as an anti-American, but I want to really point out that those acting in America's name often are the true enemies, not the citizens. This is a trend happening in most democratic countries, where the presidential equivalent selection is only allowing globalist elites, or people who are prone to globalist influences to be elected. If this isn't an open conspiracy against the world, I don't know what is. Puppet faces that try to suck our trust into the system, choices of only worse or worser on the ballot, ideological manipulative control of the legislative process, the police state, are all phenomenons around the world.
Last but not least, after failing foreign policies, its time for western democracies to fail on domestic policies, colonize your own people with people of other races. I don't think I need to emphasize on that.
I don't know how to end this, but being outside of mainstream media, and the mainstream alt, and not being in the country, really allows one to see what political maneuvers are made to deceive and control, don't think like bill hicks, think like a Globalist, just don't be sick as one.
File (): C424234355B8F09B3BAB9E1A5C676787-740480.png (723.1 KB, 4419x5129, 1335112__safe_artist-colon….png)
File (): 5401BD4DBDDF8B45C77EEE37EA49E4FE-387891.jpg (378.8 KB, 1000x823, truth about american patri….jpg)
>>44426
this is in many ways true. Many global or political groups were founded or are controlled by the USA. The governments of many states are little more than marionettes catering to the wants of the lobby elected state represents, put in office by privately owned megacorporations. This is hardly anything but modern day corporate imperialism.
this is in many ways true. Many global or political groups were founded or are controlled by the USA. The governments of many states are little more than marionettes catering to the wants of the lobby elected state represents, put in office by privately owned megacorporations. This is hardly anything but modern day corporate imperialism.
File (): D2391B097A8AF06A8D08F89D6F56928B-81852.jpg (79.9 KB, 440x594, f168eef346dd5a0afbadb50127….jpg)
>>44457
since Trump became president we're prolly actually doing about the same level of kebab removing. Most of it is being done by other kebab through proxy anyways.
since Trump became president we're prolly actually doing about the same level of kebab removing. Most of it is being done by other kebab through proxy anyways.
>>44426
Well, it's essentially eliminated large inter-state conflicts, hasn't it? Sure, it's kind of cucking the NATO member states by taking away much of their foriegn policy, but there are worse problems in politics than having the larger aspects of foriegn policy taken care of by a strong ally
Well, it's essentially eliminated large inter-state conflicts, hasn't it? Sure, it's kind of cucking the NATO member states by taking away much of their foriegn policy, but there are worse problems in politics than having the larger aspects of foriegn policy taken care of by a strong ally
File (): A8C7739CCC95BDCC8C4BFBA03BF968AB-48729.jpg (47.6 KB, 620x388, gaddafi-3_1780857b.jpg)
It's a bad thing.
It harms the self-determination of nations and may (has been and is) the perfect excuse for warmongers in the congress and Deep State to profit from war business. There you have situations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, the former being a Clinton and Obama creation, and the latter being a CIA creation to proxy-war the URSS back in the 70s and 80s.
On the paper, US military can help a region to keep stable, but we all know that reality is much different, and you have cases like what happened in Libya, where Gaddafi was hunted for made-out reasons, as well as in Iraq back in 2003. Currently Syrian and Yemeni intervention reflects a disastrous external policy which ends up helping ISIS, Israel, Saudi Arabia, warmongers like John McCain and completely harming everyone else in Middle East. God knows how they managed to convince Trump to having him flip-flop on one of his main campaign promises.
TL;DR US Army for the USA and only for the USA.
It harms the self-determination of nations and may (has been and is) the perfect excuse for warmongers in the congress and Deep State to profit from war business. There you have situations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, the former being a Clinton and Obama creation, and the latter being a CIA creation to proxy-war the URSS back in the 70s and 80s.
On the paper, US military can help a region to keep stable, but we all know that reality is much different, and you have cases like what happened in Libya, where Gaddafi was hunted for made-out reasons, as well as in Iraq back in 2003. Currently Syrian and Yemeni intervention reflects a disastrous external policy which ends up helping ISIS, Israel, Saudi Arabia, warmongers like John McCain and completely harming everyone else in Middle East. God knows how they managed to convince Trump to having him flip-flop on one of his main campaign promises.
TL;DR US Army for the USA and only for the USA.
21 replies | 14 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived