Father Heathen
Veteran Member
The Europeans preferred leaders with competence, integrity, and decorum? Crazy!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump says US allies are "in many ways, worse than the enemy"
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
Yep, that, too. But because our "allies" are now able to bribe our politicians and get them to award huge aid packages to their countries, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, we can't afford universal health care for our citizens, while those "allies" can.
Not certainly European Countries.
Who want Americans to have all the benefits of free education and universal healthcare.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I agree that its time for the world to take care of themselves for a change. I think America has been taken for granted and if people want to see dangerous regimes get stronger and stronger then so be it. Let the next conflicts happen without US involvement and support.
Yes that is a great point, and we have a responsibility because of that.
I think we just shouldn't have bases all over the world for another fifty years and have our way in everything for another fifty years. I also don't like pondering what kind of trouble the CIA will be getting us into, next time. Its like if my penis could jump out and make babies while I was sleeping then that would be what the CIA is like. It goes out there and does clandestine operations that have side effects. It stops USSR in Afghanistan but then gets us into a war there. It helps Libya, but then that collapses the country. It does all of these things without our public's express approval, and part of the reason is that we have bases everywhere. There's always an excuse why the public can't be informed, and its usually some fetid lie. Why did we bug Angela Merkel's phone? Its absurd, but that absurdity comes from having so much of a military presence all around the world. This situation is not good for the concept of America. Its changing us.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The USA spends far more on health than any of its allies, per head of population.
Even though these countries cover all their populations fully. And the USA only partially by default.
Any of the European health systems transposed to the USA would cost less than now.
Both for the individual and the country as a whole.
PureX
Veteran Member
But the health care conglomerates can bribe our politicians to make sure we never get universal health care, that would cut their huge profits.
It all comes down to that bribery. To the fact that anyone with a pile of money can bribe politicians to give them whatever they want. Which is why heath care costs U.S. citizens twice what it costs citizens in other countries. EVERYTHING in our healthcare system is wildly overpriced, because the corporation involved in providing it have bought off our politicians to make sure they can keep price-gouging us indefinitely.
And with that, would come some responsibilities -- sort of noblesse oblige -- which I think most American leaders have understood.
I sometimes wonder just how much of a threat Russia can possibly be to NATO in Europe, other than the threat of mutually assured destruction. The combined populations of the NATO members on the European continent (excluding UK, Canada, and the US) would far outnumber that of Russia, and their industrial capacity and technology should be capable of fielding a much larger army than that of Russia's. If they've chosen not to do so, then that's really on them - especially if they truly believe that Russia is that much of a threat.
(The way some people talk these days, they seem to insinuate the capitalist Russia is more a threat today than the Soviet Union ever was. But I never believed all the wild paranoid talk about "evil empires" and "Soviet expansionism" back in those days either.)
The U.S. was not so much a defender of democracy or freedom, as many of the regimes we defended were not free at all (such as the Shah of Iran, South Vietnam, Chile, Haiti, and many others). Western Europe was free, of course, but there were strong fears of a possible Russian invasion. But I think it was more of a case where they were more afraid of us than we were of them. Whenever I think of the situation with either China or Russia, I always keep in mind that the fact that those two countries suffered the major brunt of damage and loss of life in World War II. Their behavior and perceptions of the world may be influenced by that part of their historical consciousness.
I think what we're dealing with now are the consequences of the Cold War. China may still be a totalitarian police state, but they're also quasi-capitalist and have been in bed with Western business interests. Russia is also capitalist, more or less. It seems more like a "gangster republic" of sorts, but it's clear that they're not really into the whole communism thing like they used to be.
But many of the nations which are deemed threats that America must deal with are mainly the smaller nations which are far less powerful than Russia or China - or any nation of Europe, for that matter. Sure, there are states like North Korea with nuclear weapons (or the ability/desire to build them), but if they ever use them, the retaliatory strike from the US would completely devastate them.
Besides North Korea and Russia, does anyone prefer Trump, why pick on the Germans?
He picks on everybody eventually. It was just the Germans' turn this time.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I just read that he picked on the US doctors in regards to Covid. Which I assume is to try to make the Covid issue in the US not seem as bad as it is.
Even if he is right, which I doubt, since you can't trust anything he say. What type of mentally idiot would say something like that, it makes all the doctors look like freaking wolves, so instead of blaming them since they most likely did not come up with the rules in the first place, he should have worked towards changing them... he is such an idiot.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The US, Russia, and China are at such points that I just don't see any of those three engaging directly in warfare, because it's going to be more costly in every regard compared to how we can do things now. Hacking, for example, involves no fighting, no bullets, no bloodshed, yet the destruction can still be severe. Another example would be things like NAFTA or Trump's trade war, because those things damage America while benefiting those countries (particularly China).
Proxy wars, however, are likely to continue into the future for "economic benefit."
I wouldn't suggest it either, but I'll admit I have thought of the possibility. I've also thought that, at the very least, there could be a peaceful socialist unification of all the nations of the Americas, which would make us into a solid, unified bloc able to withstand anything the Eastern Hemisphere could throw at us.
I agree completely. Another thing to consider is that the people that live in the countries where we send our troops (or interfere in other ways) never really get over it either. We've intervened in both China and Russia before too, and while most Americans have forgotten these things, the Chinese and Russians have not. The Iranians haven't forgotten that we installed the Shah once upon a time.
All of this corrupts the world, too, and corrupts Americans overall. The citizenry becomes used to these things, but also become so wrapped up in their own lives and hear about these things on the news just before the weather report and the sports scores. Most don't really know where these places are or what we're actually doing there. All they hear is "Axis of Evil," and suddenly it's "Let's bomb them back to the Stone Age!"
It failed because we wanted to have our cake and eat it, too. We wanted wealth, power, luxury (which is common to many large empires over the course of history), and we also wanted other countries to fear us and be wary of the amount of firepower we could pour on them if they ever get out of line.
But on the other hand, we also wanted everyone in the world to like us and think of us as some kind of bastion of freedom, the shining city on the hill, and so forth. Sometimes, the propaganda was spread on so thick it was unbelievable, as if our government was desperate for the world to think of us as Captain America, defender of freedom and crusader for niceness, goodness, and righteousness.
I think if our government had taken a more honorable and upfront approach, we might have achieved more favorable results.
Case in point: A little over 60 years ago, when Castro's Revolutionary Army overthrew the mobbed-up Batista government in Cuba, the US government ostensibly panicked and considered a serious threat to national security. While they were Marxist-oriented, they weren't an automatic Soviet satellite at that early stage, although we treated them as such just the same.
Of course, we could have just left them alone to let them run their country how they see fit, while keeping an eye out for the Soviets, but that wasn't good enough.
If they really were such a grave threat, we could have just invaded them outright, using the full force of our military might. The Soviets wouldn't have declared war on us over that, just like we didn't declare war on them for invading Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
But we didn't really want to do that, because it would hurt our image, which was still all important. We couldn't just launch a Normandy-style mass invasion of Cuba, because that would make us look bad - like we're a bunch of bullies.
Instead, our government trained and equipped Cubans as guerilla fighters to make it look like it was Cubans overthrowing their own government. How could the U.S. be blamed or implicated for that? Or so they must have thought.
It was all because we wanted the world to "like us." So, our leaders came up with this plan, and they apparently thought it could work. But it seems patently obvious that inordinate attention to our image and reputation was much more important to our leaders than actually coming up with a plan that would have better chance of success.
Or they could just go with the first idea, and just leave them alone. That would have saved us a lot of headache later on. After the Bay of Pigs, Castro had no other choice but to appeal to the Soviet Union for aid, which is what led to the whole Missile Crisis.
If we want to be seen as a bunch of nice guys, then all we have to do is be nice. Leave these countries alone to govern themselves.
If we want to be seen as the "big bad" or think we have some sort of "empire," then we have to operate the imperial way, which may not always be the nice way.
It's these "halfway" solutions which seem to go nowhere, since all it seems to do is make everyone mad at America, and it doesn't achieve the desired objective.
I think we can still be a great nation while remaining neutral, but not isolated. A lot of people associate neutrality with isolationism, but I've never understood the logic behind that point of view. We can still have diplomatic relations. We can still have commerce, cultural exchange, freedom of travel, etc. We wouldn't cut ourselves off from the world, but we could take a more laissez-faire approach to geopolitics.
I don't really believe there's any chance of any government or world leader having some ambition of world conquest. Not in the nuclear age, there won't be any more Napoleons or Hitlers. Of course, there's always a chance that some leader with nuclear weapons might go totally mad and "push the button," so to speak. So, I guess we might keep a few nukes around. In case someone launches at us, we can launch a counter-strike so as to ensure that we all go up together.
To whom is Russia a threat?
To my country it is Heaven. We love Russia. My country is filled with industrial entrepreneurs with no marketplace. Russia is a huge marketplace needing industrial entrepreneurs and investors.
Last edited:
Yes, I'll admit that we do have quite a number of internal problems at present. That's why many people believe that we just can't afford to be involved all over the world as we have been. We have issues closer to home that need to be attended to.
I think the best way to maintain positive control over these regions is by striving to improve relations among the major powers of the world. I've observed that that's the main reason we seem to have these problems in various parts of the world. These countries and factions are not a threat because they're really that powerful, in and of themselves. But they've been in a position where they can capitalize on the rivalries of the major powers and use that to their own ends.
The reason we can't invade Iran is not because Iran is that powerful, but it's because it will likely trigger a hostile reaction from either China or Russia (or possibly both). It's also the same reason North Korea is such a thorn in our government's side.
I had nightmares about nuclear war when I was a kid. We never knew if it could ever happen, but just the thought that it might happen did seem rather perilous. It could still happen, I suppose.
It's even possible that someone could steal whatever materials might be needed to build a nuclear bomb. That's what scares me. I don't think that any established government would be that suicidal. I don't even think North Korea or Iran are that crazy either, since they would be wiped out if they ever tried launching a nuke. But some crazy guy who thinks they're on a mission from God - that could happen.
So, you think Russia would invade the rest of Europe? The last time there was a major war in Europe, Russia lost over 20 million of its people. Do you seriously believe that they really want to go through that again?
It seems Trump has that effect on people.
I wonder if that's based more on what they say and the image they exude, or is it more a matter of what they actually do and the practical effects it might have on the globe or any nation in particular.
I can understand this, although the US-UK relationship goes further back than what's been going on recently. We got off to a rocky start, but we slowly patched things up and became friends over time. But are you suggesting that Trump or the US might be responsible for the UK leaving the EU? We're already trading partners, so I'm not sure what kind of deal they can make at this point, no matter who wins the election.
There are some Americans who feel similarly threatened by Britain. I've heard some conspiracy theories about the British royal family and how they still secretly rule America. I don't give it much attention, but I think it's still a leftover fear from our Revolutionary days.
I agree, although it actually started with WW1, when Americans were convinced to support a war to "make the world safe for democracy." We also were a signatory to the Kellogg-Briand Pact in the 1920s, which outlawed aggressive warfare and invasion - although the US refrained from obligating itself to taking any military action against any aggressor. So, in theory, we did care about freedom and democracy in the world, but we didn't really feel obligated to do anything to defend it at that point.
In the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans may have still wanted to stay out of the war, but the tide of public opinion was slowly changing. There was actually a very strong public relations campaign to encourage Americans to support a more active role in world affairs. We implemented a peacetime draft in 1940. Americans weren't just sitting silent with their heads in the sand when the Japanese suddenly surprised us at Pearl Harbor. FDR made it clear that he wasn't happy with the Axis powers, and it was also clear that the US was supporting the Allies. We were no longer truly neutral after Lend-Lease passed.
But some mistakes were made, which Americans have been reminded of ever since. One mistake often cited is that we should have joined the League of Nations and given that organization greater teeth. But even if we had joined, we didn't put as much investment in the military back in those days, so our forces were rather small. We also reduced the size of our naval forces, although by the mid-30s, we were seeing the need to build them back up (when the Two Ocean Navy Act was passed).
But Japan and Germany had been building up their forces and were years ahead of us in the arms race, so we needed time to catch up.
We also learned from the mistake of Appeasement - not specifically our mistake, but recognized as a grave mistake just the same.
So, we learned that we need to be always vigilant, always on alert, and always maintaining a large, well-equipped military force. And we certainly have that.
We also learned to not appease anyone. But I think our government overdid that part to a great extent. We were certainly not going to appease Grenada.
I think the world has changed a lot since NATO was first formed, and with the advances in technology and the kinds of weapons which are available to multiple governments, the kinds of wars which were fought in the past are not really feasible. In the nuclear era, there's always a risk that some madman could push the button and end us all. We lived with that fear all through the Cold War.