I’m pretty sure the Soviets were the Root of All Evil for a certain type up through the 80s (remember Red Dawn?). When the Soviet Union fell, we had to find new Roots of All Evil, so for a while it was mostly the boring enemies within - Political Correctness, liberals, drugs, minorities, The Clintons, etc. Then 9/11 Changed Everything™ and the IslamoFascists got to be the Root of All Evil, except the enemies within are also that.
13 Likes
“So honor the valiant who die 'neath your bombs,
But pity an America who slays all its foes.”
- G’trok, the American Klingon
2 Likes
This is why whenever I play as America in Civ 5, I always opt for the Autocracy ideology. It just feels right.
5 Likes
Sometimes being 1 in every 45 times, on this measure. Think Clinton will be like Carter?
3 Likes
Doubtful, but more likely than Trump being like Carter.
13 Likes
The corollary is the absence of US media coverage that fails to report on the fact that Russia is the one that has been smashing ISIS, and exposed Turkish and US support for ‘moderate radicals’ aka Al Qaeda, JaN and others as a farce.
Of course here in the US, ISIS suddenly dropped off the media’s radar during that time.
4 Likes
We were still relatively neutral until WWII. Remember we initially tried to stay out of it. Look at the standing army figures, they would rise and fall with major conflicts. We had some elevation after WWII, and then after WWII we never went back to the “increase things in times of need” and went to “be prepared to fight wars on two fronts”.
Though, at the same time, ~1900 all you needed was rifles, bullets, artillery, shells and horses in reserve, and just add more men and horses in time of war. Maybe a few ships. As war got more complicated, you have more than just basic equipment you have to stockpile. You now have tanks, helicopters, computer guided artillery, subs, aircraft carriers, planes, cargo planes and trucks, humvees, etc etc. And the dozens of technicians to keep each one in working order.
This is the lesson learned from the ramp up required in WWII (often with less than ideal weapons, because “good on paper” designs were green lit.) So on one hand, we sort of have to have a larger armed forces in the past due to fact it isn’t as simple as “give a guy a gun and a uniform and some rations”.
That said, certainly I would like to see a more neutral stance. Just because we have it, doesn’t mean we have to use it. And I have said in the past I think we can not only do with less, but let our ALLIES build up their forces, vs relying on ours.
The good news is, even though the mentioned meme is correct, the size and scales of the armed conflicts we have been in the last 40 years or so has been fairly small. In fact war across the world is down, primarily it is civil wars and smaller skirmishes, vs 2 countries going at it. And FARC just signed a peace agreement.
2 Likes
I don’t disagree, but we’ve also expanded our NATO affliation into Eastern Europe before much of this round of Putin bellicosity.
I don’t think it is… I do think it’s naive to believe that we bear no responsibility. Despite their still existing arsenal of nukes, we are still more economically, politically, and militarily powerful then the Russians, yet we act as if they are a bigger threat then they are. [quote=“nemomen, post:17, topic:84625”]
And nobody is saying Russia is behind “everything bad in the world.”
[/quote]
Fair enough, but I do think we have an overly antagonist stance towards the Russians, prior to the current round of events, that might not have been warranted.
6 Likes
While I don’t disagree with most of what you say, I don’t think the text we’re discussing says what you’re arguing. It’s possible to make a realistic, balanced critique of US foreign policy re:Russia that fairly considers the US and Russia’s mutual belligerence. It’s possible to make a realistic, balanced critique of the ways Russia has been wrongly painted as a villain while acknowledging the serious, malicious aggressions the Russian leadership has engaged in. It’s just that that passage doesn’t do any of that, and what it says is utterly wrong-headed. Starting with the weasel-worded insinuation in “maybe it’s a coincidence,” through the false suggestion that the “new cold war” is new, to the false exaggeration that some unnamed party is now saying “Vladimir Putin is behind everything bad in the world,” the passage is a hot mess.
8 Likes
Or, and maybe i am just being misguided, we could take the Islamic terrorists at their word, which, of course, is that they think our tolerance of ideologies other than Islam is cause for war, which they are determined to wage without end.
no one in the free world went near Afghanistan, we tolerantly left the Taliban to murder their domestic critics, and enforce draconian stoneage policies on their people. didn’t stop them willingly supporting the people who murdered 4000 innocents in New York, did it.
2 Likes
if voting changed anything, they would outlaw it.
6 Likes
[quote=“Brainspore, post:26, topic:84625”][quote=“daneel, post:25, topic:84625”]
Think Clinton will be like Carter?
[/quote]
Doubtful, but more likely than Trump being like Carter.
[/quote]
Sanders would’ve been.
13 Likes
While I think it’s fair to take many Islamic extremists at their word (with some care to consider the possibility of exaggerations/mistranslations/need of interpretation/etc.), they not only don’t have one coherent statement, but those statements don’t say what you claim they say.
Also, the rhetoric of people who face regular bombings and foreign military presence by the “free world” might be extra heated and need to be considered in the light of their circumstances.
And then we invaded Iraq on false pretexts, destabilized the entire ME, and gave a century’s worth of persuasive justifications for future generations to loathe and want to attack the US and other nations in the “free world” that committed a long stream of loathsome, immoral crimes against their countrymen, their families, and their peers. Abu Ghraib alone was serious enough to call many to arms, but that’s now a minor note in a far longer list of grievances.
20 Likes
Sometimes you just have to go with the Carteriest remaining option available.
6 Likes
Sanders was an option. Fucking stupid populace went with goddamn Clinton instead.
The world hates America for a reason.
18 Likes
Yeah, but the only reason the ME had any stability was a combination of dictatorships, monarchies, and theocracies.
If no one is murdered in your prison, yay, but it is still a prison.
Not saying what we did in Iraq helped, but honestly I feel it is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
2 Likes
That’s why I said “remaining” option.
No, you’re damned if you do anything with Kissinger’s involvement.
8 Likes
