US, biggest warmonger in the world

polaris_x wrote:

did i say they were behind them? ...

It was about as explicit as an implicit statement can be in your prior post.

all i'm saying is that you can't continue to spend money on missles and planes and drones if there is world peace ...

That was the second part of what you said. The first part was an attempt to blame the lack of said world peace on the US intentionally fomenting unrest in Iran, Egypt, and Libya in order to have an excuse for a big military.

polaris_x wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

That was the second part of what you said. The first part was an attempt to blame the lack of said world peace on the US intentionally fomenting unrest in Iran, Egypt, and Libya in order to have an excuse for a big military.

haha ... for someone who couldn't decipher what was obvious in a post about the catholic church and mary magdalene - you all of a sudden have derived an ability to now understand context?

well ... i'm here to clarify that you are wrong ...

do i think the US has been guilty of creating political instability for economic imperialistic goals ... definitely
do i believe the arab spring rising was orchestrated by the US? ... no
do i think the US is responsible for these latest protests supposedly related to an anti-muslim film? ... no ...
do i think that global insecurity is good for defense contractors? ... yes
do i think that there needs to be threats to security to ensure continued spending on weapons? ... definitely

That thread was locked before I could respond to your patronizing post. In my post that you were responding to in that other thread, I clearly laid out the thought process that could lead to the conclusion that you and some others had drawn. If you chose to read that with even an ounce of intellectual honesty, how can you possibly claim that I didn't understand what you and some others were getting from the OP? If I didn't understand, how could I have laid out the thought process that led to that conclusion? Of course I understood; I just didn't agree it was the ONLY conclusion. Honestly it's like you're being intentionally obtuse on what I actually said in that thread -- dunno what your deal is there.

Anyway, getting away from your ad hominem issues and back to the topic...the only real disconnect here is the unrest you said the US caused and the application of that to arab spring by Jason P. I of course don't read every post on AMT, so I don't know what you were or were not "cheering on". In this thread, initially you very clearly implied that the US was involved in fomenting instability in Iran, Egypt, and Libya (note I didn't say anything about the arab spring here or previously, since you didn't either) and that the purpose was as an excuse to maintain a large military, which is what I said in my earlier post. Now you're saying that the US does promote instability to justify a large military, but without mentioning any specific countries.

If the interpretation that you were disagreeing with before was the claim that you thought the US was behind (or "orchestrated") the Arab Spring, then fine, but that's never what I was claiming you said. When I said that it was an "implicit statement" in your post, I was talking about the instability being intentionally caused to justify a large military, not the Arab Spring specifically.

riotgrl wrote:

And yet, how many of our citizens who think we are warmongers, that we need to bring the troops home, that we need to close all our overseas military bases, etc. Are willing to not be the lone superpower, or even a superpower, anymore? We've stayed on top for so long because we built a machine of fear and false strength. How many are willing to follow those other countries that use to be the number 1 country (remember England and France were superpowers before us?) into lowly number 2 or 3 or even 4th place status? I am, but I don't really think most Americans are willing to give that up.

What countries are asking the US to remove their military presence?

(crickets)

MotoDC wrote:

That thread was locked before I could respond to your patronizing post. In my post that you were responding to in that other thread, I clearly laid out the thought process that could lead to the conclusion that you and some others had drawn. If you chose to read that with even an ounce of intellectual honesty, how can you possibly claim that I didn't understand what you and some others were getting from the OP? If I didn't understand, how could I have laid out the thought process that led to that conclusion? Of course I understood; I just didn't agree it was the ONLY conclusion. Honestly it's like you're being intentionally obtuse on what I actually said in that thread -- dunno what your deal is there.

Anyway, getting away from your ad hominem issues and back to the topic...the only real disconnect here is the unrest you said the US caused and the application of that to arab spring by Jason P. I of course don't read every post on AMT, so I don't know what you were or were not "cheering on". In this thread, initially you very clearly implied that the US was involved in fomenting instability in Iran, Egypt, and Libya (note I didn't say anything about the arab spring here or previously, since you didn't either) and that the purpose was as an excuse to maintain a large military, which is what I said in my earlier post. Now you're saying that the US does promote instability to justify a large military, but without mentioning any specific countries.

If the interpretation that you were disagreeing with before was the claim that you thought the US was behind (or "orchestrated") the Arab Spring, then fine, but that's never what I was claiming you said. When I said that it was an "implicit statement" in your post, I was talking about the instability being intentionally caused to justify a large military, not the Arab Spring specifically.

... there's that word obtuse again! ...

your point in the other thread was that there could be multiple interpretations - we didn't see it that way and i can confirm that i've received correspondence to confirm our interpretation ... you chose to give inlet the benefit of the doubt in that thread but here - you are making conclusions that are both false and presumptive ... i get it tho - you represent a different ideological viewpoint so you're gonna play the party line ...

Jason P wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

And yet, how many of our citizens who think we are warmongers, that we need to bring the troops home, that we need to close all our overseas military bases, etc. Are willing to not be the lone superpower, or even a superpower, anymore? We've stayed on top for so long because we built a machine of fear and false strength. How many are willing to follow those other countries that use to be the number 1 country (remember England and France were superpowers before us?) into lowly number 2 or 3 or even 4th place status? I am, but I don't really think most Americans are willing to give that up.

What countries are asking the US to remove their military presence?

(crickets)

Well, my brother was stationed in South Korea for a year and he said the older citizens of that country wanted US military presence (they remembered the incursion of the North Koreans into the south), however, the younger generation was vehement about the removal of American military troops NOW. As far as governments, I would assume you are correct in that none of them want that (no doubt, it enables those countries to retain power and prestige both at home and abroad to be in an "alliance" with America). However, I'm not really asking what those governments nor their citizens want. I am asking how many Americans are willing to give up that power and prestige by closing bases and reducing our standing army? My guess is few or none.

polaris_x wrote:

... there's that word obtuse again! ...

your point in the other thread was that there could be multiple interpretations - we didn't see it that way and i can confirm that i've received correspondence to confirm our interpretation ... you chose to give inlet the benefit of the doubt in that thread but here - you are making conclusions that are both false and presumptive ... i get it tho - you represent a different ideological viewpoint so you're gonna play the party line ...

Changing your tune once again, I see. First, I supposedly couldn't fathom your interpretation. Now you see you were wrong there, so you're saying that my point was there could be multiple interpretations, which is what I've been saying all along. Thanks for catching up. It's hilarious that you concede that, yet still feel the need to say "I've received correspondence to confirm..." as if that somehow counters my point that there could be multiple interpretations. The fact that cate clarified her purpose has nothing to do with whether the topic as provided could be interpreted different ways. I spoke with cate via PM as well, for whatever that's worth, and we had a very pleasant conversation wherein I actually readily agreed that her actual intent was indeed the most likely interpretation. I never got that far with you because you were too busy being snarky and patronizing (and obtuse c'mon it's a good word, whether you agree with its applicability or not).

Sigh, Inlet's complaint in the other thread was about mod/admin consistency and the varied use of the word whore, which apparently he found offensive; a topic I made zero comment on. My PoV had nothing to do with inlet, so you can get off that.

Anyhow, sorry for the derail, OP, but I'm not the one who brought it up.

On topic, the US spends too much money on its military. Agreed. Whether the sole purpose for that military is imperialistic expansion or war for its own sake (i.e., the profit of the defense industry) is hardly substantiated by this particular article. The majority of the article is only about how big the military is and it even fucks that statistic up. The conclusions drawn are conjecture based on the fact of the size of the US military.

As for calling in chits, you're bloody right, cate, but fortunately for us that would wreck China just as much. Once the world realized we couldn't honor most of our debt, the majority of China's reserve currency would go up in smoke. Too big a risk for them (let's hope).

MotoDC wrote:

Changing your tune once again, I see. First, I supposedly couldn't fathom your interpretation. Now you see you were wrong there, so you're saying that my point was there could be multiple interpretations, which is what I've been saying all along. Thanks for catching up. It's hilarious that you concede that, yet still feel the need to say "I've received correspondence to confirm..." as if that somehow counters my point that there could be multiple interpretations. The fact that cate clarified her purpose has nothing to do with whether the topic as provided could be interpreted different ways. I spoke with cate via PM as well, for whatever that's worth, and we had a very pleasant conversation wherein I actually readily agreed that her actual intent was indeed the most likely interpretation. I never got that far with you because you were too busy being snarky and patronizing (and obtuse c'mon it's a good word, whether you agree with its applicability or not).

Sigh, Inlet's complaint in the other thread was about mod/admin consistency and the varied use of the word whore, which apparently he found offensive; a topic I made zero comment on. My PoV had nothing to do with inlet, so you can get off that.

Anyhow, sorry for the derail, OP, but I'm not the one who brought it up.

On topic, the US spends too much money on its military. Agreed. Whether the sole purpose for that military is imperialistic expansion or war for its own sake (i.e., the profit of the defense industry) is hardly substantiated by this particular article. The majority of the article is only about how big the military is and it even fucks that statistic up. The conclusions drawn are conjecture based on the fact of the size of the US military.

As for calling in chits, you're bloody right, cate, but fortunately for us that would wreck China just as much. Once the world realized we couldn't honor most of our debt, the majority of China's reserve currency would go up in smoke. Too big a risk for them (let's hope).

good grief ... i suppose we could go on telling each other that we've missed the boat on this but it's clearly degenerated to the point where it's not worth responding to ...

Jason P wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

And yet, how many of our citizens who think we are warmongers, that we need to bring the troops home, that we need to close all our overseas military bases, etc. Are willing to not be the lone superpower, or even a superpower, anymore? We've stayed on top for so long because we built a machine of fear and false strength. How many are willing to follow those other countries that use to be the number 1 country (remember England and France were superpowers before us?) into lowly number 2 or 3 or even 4th place status? I am, but I don't really think most Americans are willing to give that up.

What countries are asking the US to remove their military presence?

(crickets)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/world ... inawa.html

Generally, the citizens that do want our bases in their countries do so because it brings in money for them. Why should we be subsidizing their citizens and sticking the bill to the taxpayers here?