Only if we let it.Obama yet again is getting heat from the right for his remarks at the Nuclear Summit.
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
All things considered, is being a world's superpower a burden on America?
Honestly, America wouldn't have this burden if the rest of the world didn't depend on us for protection. Europe has been slacking off when it comes to self defense.
In your opinion,where is the threat to Europe?
We know terrorists have attacked several European countries. It doesn't have to be an immediate threat, threats will rise up in the future. If anything Russia and Iran pose threats to Europe currently.
Terrorists were attacking the UK long before 9/11.
The US gave them a great deal of money and did very little to help the UK.
Russia is no immediate threat to Europe they supply Europe with gas and oil.
Iran hates the UK because it is an ally of the US.
The only real threat that Iran could pose for Europe is to give Islamic terrorists a dirty or small nuclear device...see above.
Isn't giving a great deal of money helping? We paid them to help themselves and they really didn't do much with it.
I'm talking about the future, conflicts are bound to happen. WWII happened and America had to bail out Europe. Much of Europe is liberal and very pacifistic. That same mentality led to Hitler rising and being able to start WWII.
And this all upsets you terribly doesn't it?We don't need to get involved in other people's affairs and we don't. We do things for our strategic advantage, and not much more. When their was a genocide going down in Rwanda, Darfur, what did the US do? Nothing. If we were the champions of democracy and world's policeman we should have gotten involved. But because we are not liberators we don't share much of a burden. Anything we do is for our own sake and no one elses, and that is what the world gets upset at. They only wish they could have our strength to go invade their neighbors without the worry of the US bombing them for trying to challenge our rule.
All things considered, is being a world's Military superpower a burden on America?
Obama yet again is getting heat from the right for his remarks at the Nuclear Summit.
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
IMO, yes it is a burden, and Obama summed it up in one sentence. We lose American lives and spend money we barely have on our military (around $1 trillion a year, last I heard). We spend more on our military than the next top 10 countries COMBINED! And for what? So we can be the world police? Yes, our causes are often just, but should it be our job to be the Democracy Crusaders? Why should we be the ones who send the most troops... spend the most money... lose the most lives? We've spent more than a trillion dollars on Iraq. I wonder what kinds of things we could have done with that money back home? Maybe given the tax payers another break? I feel Obama's comments were absolutely appropriate and the right IMO is just too proud to agree with him. Either that or they're just trying to find one more ridiculous thing to make fun of him for.
the IRA did a great deal with the money they got from the US.
They blew quite a few people up and shot quite a few soldiers with it.
The US did not exactly bail out Europe, it was in their interest to join Britain and Russia in destroying the third reich and the Japanese.
I am not knocking the US. Without Britain and its empire, USSR and the US the Nazis would have dominated Europe Africa and Western Asia
Without any of the three, Hitler would have prevailed .
I do agree that Europe sat back and allowed the US to protect us from the USSR.
I can agree with a lot of what you said. However, I think much of the world slacks of intentionally on military spending because they know America will help them out.
Isnt that prudent foreign policy by the slackers?
Seriously!
Actually, it is :mrgreen: If anything it's the logical decision even if it isn't the most fair.
And this all upsets you terribly doesn't it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?