What Does the World Think of US Politics

[Serano]

Without getting into the nitty gritty about the topics at hand, I was just curious what those of you outside the US think of all that's going on. I know we have several from Canada, and others from around the world, so yah, just curious is all. Especially with all the doomsayers preposterous statements like "If the US Defaults, the Global Market will Fall."

 

[bettsyboy]

Well that's a complicated question.


I personally am a realist, so I try to see this from a really neutral perspective.


America's financial problems stem from it's extensive military expenditure, however the problem isn't as simple as "Just get out of the middle east" because the saying from spiderman "With great power comes great responsibility" is in fact true on the global political scale.


America as the world's foremost military superpower, has an international obligation to move in to troubled areas and neutralize dictators and corrupt regimes, If America simply abandons those areas, they would be committing the worst crime against Humanity in the last 300 years by leaving the people vulnerable to the Taliban.


I think that this HUGE mantle of responsibility was taken the wrong way, America should have worked to forge an Alliance with other superpowers so global military peacekeeping missions could have been properly funded and that America's strategy should have been overhauled.


I use Vietnam as an example here.


In Vietnam, more than just Americans were fighting, in the south an entire province was put under Australian control, however, we didn't use carpet bombings, free fire zones or anything like that, instead we fought the Viet Kong on their own terms, we build hospitals, schools and protected farms which bought the locals onto our side for recruitment, so the Viet Kong in those areas were in the same possition as the Americans, where they were ambushed by local militias and walked into minefields.


And in Papau New Guinnea, where Australian forces have successfully held back Islamists from moving in to Papau New Guinnea from Indonesia because we act as a peacekeeping force who help the people and have them on our side, even though Australia is occupying Papau New Guinnea we are never criticized for it except by Islamists who want to wage Jihad there.


My point is, America could maintain it's military presence in these areas and finance them easily, however just like Vietnam, America's pride won't allow them to reorganize their military this way, where they could get even greater results with less manpower and less cost, which is what Australia has accomplished in many areas of Afghanistan with far fewer losses.


America could have avoided this financial crysis by reorganizing it's military and putting the money they would save into education and infrastructure, and then America's debt would start reducing dramatically each year ad could even put a stop to China's economic rise to power.


And if the U.S defaults on it's debts, then it would be like if Saudi Arabia ran out of oil, at this level of technology and connectivity we have these days, any sort of financial crash would be a temporary setback, not a world-ending catastrophy.

 

[Serano]

On the economic front, I believe the issues stem far more than simply on the military front. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't be playing world police force. But that's a subject for another day I suspect. The purpose of this post, was more to find out how much people in other countries follow American politics and such. My personal belief is the whole thing is being drummed up by the president, the media, and even some republican. Fact of the matter is, the US pulls in 250 billion in taxes and only has to pay 20 billion in interest on the debt... Not that you'd ever hear that. And, we have the woman from the IMF on one of the sunday news talk shows who was talking about it and all. That's what got me thinking if people on the outside actually follow it. I'll be honest, I don't really follow other countries news and such unless they directly affect the US. Issue being that I've never lived in another country, so was just curious of the opinion. Thanks again for the input.

 

[bettsyboy]

Well the thing is, america has to play world police.


You can't ask a cop who is equipped and trained, in uniform and on duty, NOT to prevent a crime or to just ignore it and keep walking.


America didn't just out of the blue declare itself the world police, that responsibility was thrust upon it by the rest of the world after WW2, starting with the protection treaty with Japan.


So many americans are so completely ignorant of this fact, and honestly I admire America's determination to uphold it's responsibility to the rest of the world, however I do think that they could go about it in a much better way. 
Also, you mentioned the Republicans... honestly I think the republicans are only half of the problem, for ever 1 republican who promotes more spending etc... there are 2 democrats saying "no military spending and no more border security" which is equally, if not more insane.


I think the republicans have become something other than what they were, in the days of George Bush Senior and Reagan, the republicans were great! they had a backbone, managed the country much better and took care of the people, however this great party has been bastardized and corrupted by idiots, just like the Democrats.


you know, the Republicans are stupid, but at least they're not like the Democrats who are equally as stupid but pretend to be smarter.


the Republicans would kill America financially by overspending, the Democrats would ruin the American economy by opening the floodgates to foreign companies who would only take money from america and back to their own countries.


you cannot blame this all on one party, like when the media tries blaming the Tea Party for the government shutdown... they're just a bunch of loons screaming with pieces of cardboard! they dont control sh*t.


the fact is, for America to get back on top, it needs to grow a backbone, re-grow it's balls, rethink it's military policies, put money back into educations (by the way, Obama has been in for years and i have yet to see the American school system improve) throw out all this "political correctness" nonsense to stop letting feelings dictate policy, and stop crap like outsourcing, and tell the people to shut up about taxes.


and they are just the first stages... of course Obama wouldnt do that, his balls are being passed from handbag to handbag, it'd take him a lifetime to find them again.


America needs an intelligent no-nonsense leader who isn't afraid to put his boot down and show everyone who's boss, who won't bend over backwards to accommodate the feelings of others and more.

 

[Hatchet]

 

[ninbinz]

America is the biggest kid on the playground, the rest of us put up with America because after the U.K the next biggest kids are China and Japan and nobody wants China to be the biggest kid around. (China's mean, don't tell anyone!!)

 

[Serano]

You know, this is why I like you bettsy. You tickle my debate bone to the point I'm filled with glee and can't resist any more.





Antonio, Where's My Money!


Let's first start out with the flawed analogy of the US Military being glorified mall cops. First off, the reason the US was thrust into the world of being the world's police force, was the the US was the only country in the aftermath of the war, to counter the growing threat of the Soviet Union. And let me be clear, in that situation we certainly needed to maintain a large military force with bases all over the world if we were to defend against the spread of Soviet Communism.


But since you bring up the Soviet Union, I think it would be best to begin our examination of this topic with a look at US Spending compared to when we were in a Cold War with them. For those who may know, in the 1980's we were gearing up for an eventual World War 3 with the Soviet Union. They were not only a genuine threat to our national security interested around the world, but also genuinely the bad guys. From oppressing their dissenters, to violently while crushing any thought of individual freedom, this definitely wasn't a country you wanted to be in at the time.


With all that said, would you be surprised to learn that we are in fact spending more now than we did at the height of our spending in 1988, the year before the wall came down? In fact, in 2012 we spent over a quarter of a trillion dollars more than in 1988, the year before the Berlin Wall came down, heralding the end of both the Soviet Union and Communism.

Due to inflation, it isn't always fair to judge total dollar amounts however. In the same way we can't do a straight comparison of Gone with the Wind's total sales to say, Avatar (adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind is still the best selling film all time.) So, let us turn to look instead at how much money we spend as a percentage of GDP. This will allow us to look at the relative importance we put on military spending as opposed to 1988. What we discover is that the United States is in fact spending 4% more (as a percentage of GDP) than we did in 1988. Come to think of it, we are spending as much as a percentage now as we were during the buildup to the first Iraq War. Which should make one wonder just what the hell we're building up for now?

Finally, the idea that we can get around our debt and deficit issues without addressing the military is absolutely ludicrous. In the following graph, you will see that the military is the third largest spending item on the US Budget at around 700 billion dollars. Keep in mind, that this military budget doesn't include spending for domestic security organization like the Department of Homeland Security. And it's not like we don't have any room to cut. Do we really need to spend as much as the next thirteen nations combined?

Oh Yah, This Looks Much Better!


Now that we've established what sort of cost it is to maintain this world's police force, let's now address the subject of, "Is it worth it.?" After all, can you really put a price to world peace? To answer this question, let's look at some of the recent examples of where we offered the great benevolence of the United States Military. After all, no one is going to want to foot the bill for a police force that has a lousy record right?


The first example that should comes to mind is Afghanistan. At least with this country, there was a definite national security interest, and thus a reason for going in. After 9.11, there was no question that we had to go in and eliminate the man and the organization behind the most infamous terrorist attack in US history. The operation to remove the ruling power and take over the country was, I believe, a brilliant one. Sending in special forces backed by supreme US air power allowed us to strike surgically and assist the native Afghanis to take back their homes.


However, after the was was done and it became a "Police Operation", and everything went down hill from there. Despite the backing of NATO Forces, the longest US Military Commitment anywhere, trillions of dollars and the cost of thousands of lives, Afghanistan as a country is no better off than when we arrived. The government of Karzi is one of the most corrupt in the history of mankind. He will bail out his brother who is convicted of corruption, just to put him back in power again. Whole provinces are controlled are now controlled by the same people we were fighting against. And as we are leaving the country this year, it is in no better shape than it was ten years before we arrived, or twenty five years after the Soviets left.

And let me say that, one of the worst motivations for going into a country, is that idea that we can "save lives". Look back at the second Iraq war; strip away the talk about whether or not there was WMD's.(which I believe was, but that's another story) The other big selling point for going in was that Saddam was a brutal dictator. And for all of those who think we should attack Assad for his (alleged) use of chemical weapons, Saddam was much worst than Assad.


On March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, Saddam launched a genocidal chemical attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan. The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack. The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq, was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history. (As a side-note, anyone who thinks we HAD to attack Syria for the use of Chemical Weapons, but thought we should never of gone into Iraq, you're all hypocrites!)

Having established that we were in the right to attack now, by your standards of going in to save peoples' lives, how did that war turn out? Well, another decade long war where we leave a country that is just barely functioning and still bitterly divided. And guess what, there are reports just last week that terrorism is once again on the rise in the country. Hopefully it won't turn out to be the bitter failure that Afghanistan was, but both of these examples should adequately explain why it is a fallacy to think you can rush in, take out the bad guy that is doing all the bad stuff, and think everything will be OK.


Speaking of Syria, let's examine the catastrophe that almost was. Were it not for the Russians bursting in with a peaceful compromise, (and if I ever have to say that sentence again, I will wash my mouth out with bleach) we would of been forced into a position to once again save the day... or would we?


Let us examine those people who we would of been assisting by attacking Assad in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons (It is important to note, that it was never firmly established it Assad gave the order, if a rogue general launched it, or if the rebels did it to incite world wide condemnation). Below is a link to a video that I am going to put a disclaimer on due to it's graphic nature. If you wish to view it on your own, I do invite you to do so only if you have a strong stomach. If not, then I shall summarize what is happening in it below the video.


Viewer Discretion is Advised!


[media]





[/media]
Basically it is a movie filmed by some of the rebels, after they have found one of the dead Syrian soldiers. One of the men proudly walks over to the dead corpse, leans down and proceeds to cut the heart out of his body. He then states that, "... swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, your soldiers of Bashar are dogs." Afterwards, he proceeds to eat at the freshly cut out heart in a gorey and stomach churning display.


What is more troubling about the rebels is that the more we learn about the opposition groups inside Syria, the less friendlier they seem. At one time, in the beginning of the conflict, there were moderate Syrian Rebels who wanted a stable democracy in the country. They have now since been drowned out, or pushed out, by far more extreme groups such as al Nusra. From the USA Today article back in April, "The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well."


Whether it is Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Egypt who at this time is under Martial Law and may be tipping to a Civil War on it's own, US Involvement in all of these situations have only made them worst, not better. And it's not like it's guarantee to foster good will even if we do. One year after the Lybian rebels killed the deposed Gadaffi, they launched an attack on our embassy and kill the US Ambassador





No Money, Not Helping, Why Not?


In conclusion, I would once again say that it is not only futile to intervene in such situations like Syria, but it is also something we can no longer afford. I have showed you how in country after country, US involvement has only worsened the situation. Couple that with a growing sixteen trillion dollar debt, failed police intervention operations, are simply something we can no longer afford.





The final example, and the one I leave you to think on, is that of Somalia. After twenty years since our involvement in the country; it is ninth in the world deaths, and third in the world in infant and maternal mortality rates. Probably the most telling statistic about them is the fact that they are 217th in the world (of 222 countries tracked) in life expectancy. Wanna know who is 218th? Afghanistan.





Ever heard of the phrase, "Stay out of the way before you make things worse?"