The American addiction to war

[GiannKall]

Here are some reasons why America is so addicted to war. None of these reasons has to do with democracy or security

1) The military-industrial complex that after the cold war struggles to find a reason to exist so they must find enemies even if they do not exist
2) A mentality that must show the world who is the boss. Americans can overthrow Qaddafi. Russians and Chinese cannot
3) US public that considers a president who doesnt like war sollutions as a weak president. A president that declares war rallies the public behind him and boosts popularity
4) Few consequences. America can go to vietnam or Afghanistan and whatever happens there are no consequences back home. This is the prime reason why US has stopped interfering in latin American countries. Having a considerable amount of Latin American citizens, US doesnt want to cause problems with them. Wars on Asia or Africa on the other hand doesnt have significant consequences

 

[C130]

U.S has been the de facto sheriff of the free world since 1945. if we had taken a isolationist stance the red menace of communism wold control the world.

everybody hates the man but the man don't care

 

[PDF]

American addiction to war is due to OIL!!!

 

[GiannKall]

U.S has been the de facto sheriff of the free world since 1945. if we had taken a isolationist stance the red menace of communism wold control the world.

everybody hates the man but the man don't care

Yes but that doesnt mean that the west should start neocon wars creating chaos and terrorism. In the 19th century you could go to Sudan and play war games with the local salafists without serious global consequences. Today, because of internet and mass media, you cant. Its dangerous. You polarise the world and you go some steps closer to a clash of civilizations

 

[VCheng]

U.S has been the de facto sheriff of the free world since 1945. if we had taken a isolationist stance the red menace of communism wold control the world.

everybody hates the man but the man don't care

They all dream of having US power, the rest of the world, truth be told. All that US power that is being decried to be obscene here, will seem justified when they have it for themselves.

 

[me_itsme]

They all dream of having US power, the rest of the world, truth be told. All that US power that is being decried to be obscene here, will seem justified when they have it for themselves.

Better US than China, Russia or any mid east country for that matter.

 

[VCheng]

Better US than China, Russia or any mid east country for that matter.

But if you are Chinese or Russian?

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

U.S has been the de facto sheriff of the free world since 1945. if we had taken a isolationist stance the red menace of communism wold control the world.

everybody hates the man but the man don't care

Genius confused Non interventionism with Isolationism.

 

[me_itsme]

But if you are Chinese or Russian?

It will always be their country first and the crimes committed would be way more worse than US. My personal opinion.

 

[VCheng]

It will always be their country first and the crimes committed would be way more worse than US. My personal opinion.

Of course. Human nature is the same, no matter what the color of the passport.

 

[FaujHistorian]

But if you are Chinese or Russian?

hahaha

even then!

Ask rich Chinese and super rich Russians.

Where would they rather be

hahahah

 

[VCheng]

hahaha

even then!

Ask rich Chinese and super rich Russians.

Where would they rather be

hahahah

I am sure they would prefer their own country to be the #1 superpower so they would not have to leave.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I am sure they would prefer their own country to be the #1 superpower so they would not have to leave.

Reality though is totally oppossite.

#1 country is typically based on four (or more legs).

1. Economic improvement and status
2. Military improvement and status
3. Social improvement and status
4. Political improvement and status

China is going towards the economic improvement for sure. It is also easy to gain military status with economic improvement (at least partially).

So what about the remaining two legs?

My limited reading shows that it takes centuries to gain social and political status.

For china it will be doubly difficult. Smaller countries can experiment with social and political setup and get away with it.

But to change political and social setup of billion plus people?

Like suprano would say

Fo-Gedd-A-bout-it.

 

[Winchester]

Ask rich Chinese and super rich Russians.

Where would they rather be

Don't confuse the rich of this country with those in China
More Chinese students return to find work after studying abroad|Society|chinadaily.com.cn

This is Shanghai

 

[GiannKall]

The problem is that the west keeps having a colonial 19th century mentality that promotes the idea that the west "owns" the world. This means that everywhere you must have western political systems and western culture. But while in the 19th century you could conquer India or capture Chinese ports, you cannot do these things today.