CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What happens if the US Military
What happens in the world if the US military ceases all operations and brings all of its land and sea forces home, closing all bases in all countries, and refusing to deploy troops except for dire and direct US interests.
The foreign military gets more power and can operate the black programs with more secrecy to devleop powers. The economies grow because the US military will not be sucking their ass.
It would mean non stop sleepless nights for us over here as the Americans keep telling us they're " protecters of the free world " and only for them we would all be fucked ; I've been told it twice on here in the last week so it must be true
It would mean non stop sleepless nights for us over here as the Americans keep telling us they're " protecters of the free world " and only for them we would all be fucked ; I've been told it twice on here in the last week so it must be true
They fill their heads up with this nonsense from the time they are old enough to watch TV. America is just like a modern version of Rome. The citizens are too fat and too high on cheap entertainment to notice that their military culture is the one doing damage to the world.
America is just like a modern version of Rome. The citizens are too fat and too high on cheap entertainment to notice that their military culture is the one doing damage to the world.
Riiiight. Obama, the late "King of Rome" drops more bombs than can be imagined, so what do you do like an ass clown? Put his picture on your Rusticus puppet account praising him as an imperialist god. You really are a full blown dipshit...
Agreed. The books I linked you to (Dermot) by Larry Schweikart, will give you a very good idea of how/why America acts the way it does and how people here tend to think of themselves and America's place in the world. Most people here believe in American Exceptionalism just as strongly as they believe in Gravity or God and to challenge that is absurdist tantamount to a Conspiracy Theory or blatant denial of reality. In reality, the rest of the world views us as the nation that is the greatest threat to world peace (Gallup Poll: http://nypost.com/2014/01/05/us-is-the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace-poll/ )
Thanks again X those History books you mentioned are truly appaling by international standards of academia; your assessment to me is correct a lot of Europeans are terrified of this ultra aggressive American attitude in business , politics and the media that has shown its true face under Trump .
To me and I've said it before the biggest threat to world peace is not Muslims , Russians or various perceived enemies of the US , the biggest threat are American hardline fundies who seem to be everywhere ; when one sees the likes of Mike Pence a religious looney as Vice President of the U S that's scary and made all the worse by having Trump running the circus .
Look at the average American fundie on C D rabid bible thumping gun nuts with a hatred of anything that's not American or deemed the American way .
I lived in the states and loved the country and its people but I lament what it's now reduced too and the tragedy is most Americans do not realise a once great country has been reduced to a laughing stock in European society
Dermot, you are seeing exactly what the news wants you to see.
The truth is, most American's can't stand that orange in a toupee, we still fight for the rights of people and we still try to move forward. But yes, we aren't a great country anymore. Anyone who touts that doesn't have the facts. Our literacy, our education, our jobs, our manufacturing....it's all crap. Until we can focus on that and get some people's heads out of their bums it may not change fast enough.
You would not be able to see this from your vantage point, but the hardcore Trump supporters are not at all what you describe.
These Trump supporters you are denigrating are the people most likely to support withdrawal of US military forces from around the world.
First, The American hardline fundies who seem to be everywhere only seem like that because that is what the Democratic Party and the liberal media folks portray. It is a fiction. Part of that is the mischaracterization that when conservatives say "American" they mean "White American". That is just plain not true, but it is purveyed by leftists in an effort to get non-whites to vote Democrat.
Second, You are buying into an absurd and inaccurate stereotype when you write Look at the average American fundie on C D rabid bible thumping gun nuts with a hatred of anything that's not American or deemed the American way .
- A - The vast majority of people who own guns are like the vast majority of people who own hammers; they think of them as tools that are not to be used unnecessarily, stupidly, or carelessly. (I own 10 or 12 hammers, my favorite of which is a 20 pound sledge.) We would take exception for good reason were anyone to say they want to take away our hammers. I bet you would, too.
- B - Most fundamentalist Christians are largely apolitical about everything but abortion. They may have opinions about political issues, but not strong enough ones to really matter more than which flavor of ice cream to eat.
- C - The characterization of fundies as hating anything not American is silly. Liking/wanting "traditional" American values does not imply hatred of everything else. My experience (especially in Texas and South Carolina) with these folks is that they are not at all hateful, or even isolationist. Generally, they are tolerant of anything they do not have to pay for, and that does not create an involuntary obligation on anyone's part. They like kind, honest, hard-working, and law-abiding people, regardless of race or culture.
Third, while there is some racism in the US, most of it is leftist identity politics. The neo-Nazi/KKK dilholes are very few and far between.
The vast majority of Trump supporters are nowhere close to xenophobic. We just wanted different tax and regulatory policies, and for government spending to be oriented primarily for the good of working Americans (citizens and legal residents).
What is described as "nationalism" is America first, NOT America only. I know you appreciate the distinction.
Fourth, the folks who want America first in US policy don't hate things that are not American. They just are tired of paying to try to fix other countries' problems.
- A - They don't want US immigration policy to be oriented toward what is good for people who want to come to the US to the exclusion of what is good for Americans (citizens and previous immigrants of any race).
- B - They want NATO countries to keep their military spending commitments, so the US can be less critical and be less financially and operationally responsible for the defense of the Western world.
- C - They also want the US to stop paying the lion's share for the UN, which almost exclusively helps nations that make only nominal contributions, and does NOTHING to help US citizens.
- D - Similarly, they never wanted the Paris Climate Accords because the accords were primarily a scheme to get the US to pay other nations' development bills.
-
Do not mistake the following as an affirmative claim, but I would not be surprised to find that much of the dislike of the Trump policies abroad is largely due to many nations still not wanting to lose benefits from US government aid and spending in their countries.
These Trump supporters you are denigrating are the people most likely to support withdrawal of US military forces from around the world
Trump explicitly stated that he intended to carry out War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in his campaign and later as President (therefore, people supporting his foreign military policy are supporting the motion/idea of said crimes). The Green Party and Ron Paul type Libertarians do want to do want to withdraw US military forces. This is a few articles from the Green Party platform:
n. Our defense budget has increased out of all proportion to any military threat to the United States, and to our domestic social, economic and environmental needs. The United States government must reduce our defense budget to half of its current size. The 2012 defense budget exceeded $700 billion, and that does not take into account military expenditures not placed under the defense budget.
o. The U.S. has over 700 foreign military bases. We urge our government to phase out all bases not specifically functioning under a U.N. resolution to keep peace and bring home our troops stationed abroad, except for the military assigned to protect a U.S. embassy. Many of these bases are small and can be closed immediately. We advocate further reductions in U.S. foreign military bases at a rate of closure of 1/4 to 1/5 of their numbers every year
q. The U.S. is the largest arms seller and dealer in the world. We urge our government to prohibit all arms sales to foreign nations and likewise prohibit grants to impoverished and undemocratic nations unless the money is targeted on domestic, non-military needs. In addition, grants to other nations may not be used to release their own funds for military purposes.
s. The U.S. must prohibit all covert actions used to influence, de-stabilize or usurp the governments of other nations, and likewise prohibit the assassination of, or assistance in any form for the assassination of, foreign government officials.
I don't believe it's a " fiction " I meet and deal with Americans over here weekly and no one so far has said as much ; a
So do you think all our European media is totally ill informed on such matters ?
Trump is universally disliked ratings for the U S and its image have been destroyed by this clown have a look at how Trump and the US are now perceived internationally from PEW research who actually do pretty accurate pools .....
My " stereotype " is far from absurd and If this site which has a majority of Americans on it is anything to go by it actuallly makes my point stronger
Americans that think guns are tools are idiots a gun is a lethal weapon ; I suppose going on this logic gun = tool , tool = weapon
this is post truth philosophy as in emotional appeals and unquestioned assumptions hold sway over what is
American fundamentalists have opinions on gender issues , abortion , climate change , evolution , gay marriage etc ,etc I could go on and on but I think you get the point to suggest I'm mistaken is disengenous
The characterisation is accurate just look at members of the groups stated above all reviled in their own country for holding rational views not informed by religion ; several demonstrations can be seen on here again weekly where outraged fundiies spew their hatred at anyone or anything that's not deemed American or the American way
I've no desire to wade through the rest of your argument as I've done the Trump debate to death ; I remember before Trump ever considered running for president he was perceived by most as a loudmouthed brash egotist when " he threw his cap in the ring " for the presidency worldwide Americans included thought it hilarious I admire the inventiveness of a sizeable amount of Americans to now elevate this idiotic bigot onto a lofty pedestal and now rebrand him as a visionary and a " genius "
A rather fitting piece on Trump ........
BY SARAH MARSHALL
July 6, 2016
Is Donald Trump a white trash icon? His hair is as teased and artificial as Dolly Parton’s; his eternally pursed lips recall Elvis’s, minus the sensuality; his orange skin suggests the kind of cosmetic mask that Tammy Faye Bakker once kept between herself and her viewers. Ten years ago, he even went so far as to gamely don a pair of overalls and perform the Green Acres theme, alongside a giggling Megan Mullally, at the Emmys.
WHITE TRASH: THE 400-YEAR UNTOLD HISTORY OF CLASS IN AMERICA by Nancy IsenbergViking, 480 pp., $28.00
MOST POPULAR
Scott Pruitt Declares War on Air Pollution Science
The DNC Is Broken
The GOP’s $1.5 Trillion Tax Plan Does Almost Nothing for the 99 Percent
Trump Is President, But Kevin Spacey Can’t Even Play One on TV
Paleo Politics
Today, commentators who try to make sense of Trump’s mass appeal often fall back on “white trash” signifiers, even if the term itself never rises above the level of subtext. A recent New York Times article announced that counties most likely to contain Trump supporters were also likely to be populated by mobile home residents who had no high school diplomas, worked “old economy” jobs, and listed their ancestry as “American” on the U.S. census. Trump’s public persona is the kind of brash, ball-busting bully you want on your side when you have become convinced that no one else will stand up for you. His campaign strategy may be unfamiliar to the democratic process—or at least to its public face—but he comes from a long and well-established tradition of heavies, henchmen, and block bosses. He is, in other words, the kind of leader who might well be called on by a population demographer William Frey described to the Times as “nonurban, blue-collar and now apparently quite angry.” Or, to put it in the kind of blunt terms we associate with the candidate: White trash.
If Trump’s success has indeed been driven by the “nonurban, blue-collar” and “quite angry,” then he is only exploiting a demographic that is as integral to American identity as the Founding Fathers. “The white poor,” historian Nancy Isenberg writes in her new book White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America,
In reality, the rest of the world views us as the nation that is the greatest threat to world peace
That's because no on likes the police. I should note that by "rest of the world" you mean 24% of those polled in the 65 counties. It's also the top country people would move to.
When there is a military superpower, conflict stabilizes. This is true regardless of the virtues or vices of the superpower. Saddam was a shit, but his presence was a stabilizing feature in the middle east. Similarly, the potential and actual threat of the US military, is a stabilizing feature in the world. Removing this feature would bring substantial chaos to various regions.
Consider that the US is the teeth of the UN and you will see the issue clearly.
Also, while it's true that 80% of respondents in the US thought that it had a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world in 2010, of those 80%, 77% thought the US was at risk of losing this special character.
The U S is perceived as much as a threat as the Chineses or the Russians according to PEW research .....,
Across 30 nations surveyed by Pew Research Center both in 2013 and this spring, a median of 38% now say U.S. power and influence poses a major threat to their country, up 13 percentage points from 2013.
Concerns about U.S. power as a threat are comparable to worries over Chinese and Russian power in much of the world. About three-in-ten around the globe name China or Russia as a major threat.
It is the threat of force by the most powerful that dissuades the use of force by the many less powerful. Domestically it's called government. Internationally its called the balance of power.
The long decline of violence was accelorated by the Enlightenment, whose princple values created the US. The US has been the dominant military superpower at least since 1991 and we have continued to enjoy the greatest period of peace in human history.
The Qin Dynasty was one of conquering warfare where they annexed the land of the surrounding states in order to create the area that is now modern China. Furthermore, the Qin Dynasty instituted the extremely harsh system of Legalism. The brutish regime stomped out all forms of dissent by an "iron fist". The State fell apart within 15 years of its construction. The Han Dynasty that superseded it was much more stable (comparatively), not as harsh, and lasted for 400 years.
The larger point is, you cannot claim peace if it is only accomplished through coercion and force. That is not peace, it's fear, intimidation, bullying, ect.
The larger point is that you cannot have peace without the threat of repercussion for initiating force against others. That's what the rule of law is. That's what government is. International politics is more anarchic, but the principle is still there.
The larger point is that you cannot have peace without the threat of repercussion for initiating force against others.
I agree with the principle. Mao Tse Tung wrote, "Power blooms out of the barrel of a gun." This includes power to enforce peace, law, and order. Without the strength of NATO nations' militaries, for example, there would be no real incentive to keep nations (like Russia) from invading some NATO nation.
Absolutely, the US military presence in South Korea has been an added incentive to keep North Korea from invading, just as the North Korean military (and now nukes) has discouraged invasion by South Korea.
You should reference fact rather than fiction. North Korea may be a better example. If you want to know if that place is peaceful, just ask any North Korean. Maybe take a poll. You like those.
You should reference fact rather than fiction. North Korea may be a better example. If you want to know if that place is peaceful, just ask any North Korean.
Lol. And how many North Koreans have you ever spoken to, you massive hypocrite? You talk about the difference between fact and fiction and then in your very next breath arbitrarily decide the opinion of North Koreans.
Most North Koreans will tell you that they live in the best country on Earth and that you hate their freedoms, because indoctrination works the same in Korea as it does in the States.
Amarel, your position is 100% consistent with the official Party slogan
Except that it isn't.
Tell me exactly what about my position you disagree with. So far I have provided examples and reasoning for my position. The only thing you took a reasoned approach to was my use of the Qin Dynasty. Everything else has been "nuh uh" and characterizations.
Do you disagree that Laws are the threat of repercussions for certain action?
Do you disagree that being able to clearly predict who would win a military conflict dissuades military action by those who would lose?
Are you retracting your position on the Qin Dynasty? You are the one who invoked the Qin in the first place as your example of a society that brings "stability" and "peace" through military might, force, power, intimidation, ect. as though it were a net positive in the region.
Most North Koreans will tell you that they live in the best country on Earth and that you hate their freedoms
Lol. And how many North Koreans have you ever spoken to, you massive hypocrite. I'm sure propaganda can convince a starving man that he is full. It doesn't take propaganda to convince me that I have a house, a full fridge, 2 50" tvs, an I-phone, multiple computers, an I-pad, season tickets to OKC Thunder games, and 3 vehicles...
I love how you call me a massive hypocrite for assuming the opinion of North Koreans right before you tell me the opinion of North Koreans.
Yes indoctrination is alive and well in most places in the world. I'm still just so astonished after talking to you that anyone is still so susceptible to the cartoonishly false assertions of Marxist indoctrination. But if you had time to ask "most North Koreans" anything, you may have spent too much time there. Also, I forgot that I banned you.
I love how you call me a massive hypocrite for assuming the opinion of North Koreans right before you tell me the opinion of North Koreans.
So in other words you are the only person permitted to use blatant logical fallacies? Well that's hardly fair, is it? You want to be solely responsible for deciding the opinion of North Koreans do you?
Quantumhead also tells me you've banned him from the thread. Pathetic.
So in other words you are the only person permitted to use blatant logical fallacies
At least you admit that you're a hypocritical piece of dog shit. That's the first step. Hey nomenclature, I have a banana in my pocket. Do you want it? Of course you do. Come get it.
I know. That's why I know they would say they live in the most wonderful place on Earth. A poll would be near 100%. I know you love polls and appeals to popularity, so I thought you would like this too.
I stated earlier that a military superpower will stabilize conflict regardless of the superpower's virtue or vice. I am not advocating tyranny, which would characterize stability under a superpower of vice. But when the threat of force comes from a place of virtue, we call it the rule of law. It also has a stabilizing effect.
Now, misunderstand my position again so that you have something to argue with.
I know. That's why I know they would say they live in the most wonderful place on Earth.
The reason you brought up North Korea in the first place was to imply the complete opposite. This is why people don't argue with you, Amarel. Your own arguments perpetually contradict themselves because you are dishonest. Both with others and with yourself.
@TheSnake. Thank you! I am glad other people are noticing this as well and are assigning points accordingly. Amarel, look at the scoring of our conversations, other people know that you are bullsh'ting here.
Quote my position and refute it. Don't mischaracterize. Quote. Or I'll have to ban you for being as retarded as Nomenclature/snake/quantumhead/whoever he uses next
I have stated my position repeatedly. That an overwhelmingly strong force brings stability to a region. History supports this and I gave examples. It's true even when the power at hand sucks, such as in North Korea.
I have stated my position repeatedly. That an overwhelmingly strong force brings stability to a region. History supports this and I gave examples. It's true even when the power at hand sucks, such as in North Korea.
And I disputed your uninformed Qin dynasty bullsh't and showed that it was the exact opposite of what you were/are trying to claim it to be. Go back a few posts to read about it if you missed it.
I have stated my position repeatedly. That an overwhelmingly strong force brings stability to a region.
You sound exactly like Hitler. Nothing is stable when you use force to make people do things. Try opening a history book and see if you can tell me what every single empire since the dawn of man has in common. I'll give you a hint. None of them exist any more.
Probably the best argument I have read on the internet.
Not looking for the best. Just the most accurate.
You don't seem to know how laws work
You don't seem to understand the difference between force and law. First you claimed force brings stability to a region, and now you have swapped the word force for law. I am quickly beginning to see why other posters have accused you of intellectual dishonesty.
If you weren't a new version of an old troll I would say you are like a child wandering into the middle of a movie. I'll catch you up.
I stated that a military superpower will bring stability to a region, even if that superpower sucks. This was Pre-Saddam Middle east. This is the case because when the results of a military conflict can be predicted without firing a shot, the shots don't tend to be fired.
I compared this to law because the threat of force is exactly what law is. The government has the overwhelming advantage in a violent conflict between you and it.
Whether the laws are good or bad, whether the regional superpower is good or evil, this singular strength breeds stability.
If you weren't a new version of an old troll I would say you are like a child wandering into the middle of a movie. I'll catch you up.
I stated that a military superpower will bring stability to a region, even if that superpower sucks.
No, you did not say this. You said this:-
I have stated my position repeatedly. That an overwhelmingly strong force brings stability to a region.
An "overwhelmingly strong force" is not the same thing as the rule of law for a cornucopia of different reasons, including the fact that law operates under the principle of democratic consent. Your word-swapping tricks are not even consistent with basic common sense, because even if we assume that force and law are indeed the exact same thing, all you are really arguing is that the United States is a dictatorship and that a dictatorship is necessary for peace. So we are back to me pointing out that this is Nazi ideology.
I am not advocating tyranny, which would characterize stability under a superpower of vice
You listed the Qin Dynasty yourself as a prime example of stability and peace. I then showed how your position of "peace" is consistent with the society of 1984. You are simply asserting that the US is a superpower waging constant warfare out of "virtue" not "vice", and polls/world opinion indicates that is not at all how the world sees the US (e.i. as Nomencalture, Dermot, ect. pointed out, people like you living in the US are dangerously delusional about the US's character and position in the world)
Now, misunderstand my position again so that you have something to argue with.
Boy you didn't disappoint. Neither did you read my post apparently.
Why don't you go ahead and quote where I assert what you claim. You have not so subtly switched from trying to argue for your obviously false position to characterizing my position, lying about what I have said, and simple ad hominem.
No, you are misunderstanding your own position because you believe that it is so self-evident that the US is a "virtuous" military Superpower that there would be catastrophic effects if this benevolent force was removed from the world stage. I have shown you that world opinion does not agree with you on this at all and thinks that you and people who think like you on this topic are "dangerously delusional". You need to provide substantial evidence that the US as the current military Superpower is in fact acting out of "virtue" rather than "vice" with its military/foreign policy and that because of US presence/position, the world is continuing "...to enjoy the greatest period of peace in human history" as you have claimed and that the regions that the US touches are in fact "stable".
You altered your post before I could downvote it and answer fully. Not surprised.
I stated that the world continues to enjoy the most peaceful time in history and the US has been the superpower since 1991. I don't have to show that the US is the cause of this peace. It is sufficient that the most dangerous nation on the planet has not brought an end to this peace.
Nor do I have to show that the regions "touched" by the US are stable. Do you suppose that every house the police enter they bring stability to? No. It is the threat of force that brings stability, not the use of it.
In this debate, you haven't made a single honest attempt to counter my position. You simply corrected one bad example. Thanks for that.
You dishonest little fuck. The middle east was flung into chaos by the removal of Saddam. Does my statement of this truth mean I think Saddam is virtuous?
You haven't argued against my statement of what would happen without the US, you simply appealed to popularity, like you always do and then claimed that what I must do is argue for the virtue of military conflict. No I don't. I have stated my positions. I don't have to state what you wish my positions were.
When your arguments aren't full of fallacy, I think it must be an accident. I really am disappointed that your quality is what it is.
I wish you would use my words against me. You put your own words in front of and behind your quotes of me. I have to restate exactly what I said so that my position isn't altered by your misrepresentations.
I almost forgot. I told you that if your pattern held true, you would ignore my direct question and misrepresent my position. You have ignored all questions (they weren't rhetorical). Do you mean to continue to ignore them?
@Amarel. If you want to claim that even when I quote you that this does not accurately portray your position, then state your position again now. Then, we will let other people decide if that lines up with your former position, if you are "moving the goal posts" or that I am misrepresenting your views/position deliberately or otherwise.
I've repeated it so many times. Following is from a post explaining my position yet again to one of the trolls you have aligned with:
I stated that a military superpower will bring stability to a region, even if that superpower sucks. This was Pre-Saddam Middle east. This is the case because when the results of a military conflict can be predicted without firing a shot, the shots don't tend to be fired.
I compared this to law because the threat of force is exactly what law is. The government has the overwhelming advantage in a violent conflict between you and it.
Whether the laws are good or bad, whether the regional superpower is good or evil, this singular strength breeds stability.
I don't expect I can allow you to continue to waste my time. I'll leave room for one more post. If it isn't a positive response to one of my many requests/demands that you answer even one question or acknowledge my actual position, then I'll ban you and consider you on par with the some of the other filth on this site. Which will be sad, because I think this account is your second or third attempt at a non-troll persona. Wanna try for free will again?
Are you just going to make threads and ban people when they inevitably disagree with you since this is a debate site and your arguments are more often than not tenuous at best?
Look at the point score, the majority of people who read our recent exchanges and weighed in are not on your side at all.
My biggest issue is the USA should not be the teeth of the UN. The UN needs its own teeth - we have failed to act within international law, ourselves. It's like we elected ourselves cops, and now have power over the judge.
I was going to say that Ireland would be just fine since the UK has a decently strong military and some geographic security. But then I saw the 2014 end of year poll (mathfan cited the 2013 end of year poll). It says that only 25% of respondents in Western Europe would be willing to fight for their country, which is the lowest average. Only 38% of Irishmen are willing to fight for Ireland. Seems pretty weak. Or maybe people are just used to not having to think about it...
You say ......only 38% of Irishmen are willing to fight for Ireland. Seems pretty weak. Or maybe people are just used to not having to think about it...
How accurate do you think these polls are ? How would one ever know .
It's certainly not something I have ever thought about nor any people I know maybe because we have always being neutral in wartime
If we ever had to go to war on our own account we wouldn't stand a chance as our population is less than 5 million .
It's amazing culturally Americans seem obsessed with war and constantly " kicking ass" ,movies ,media and a fair amount of the population are obsessed with this never ending narrative.
It's interesting America does not fair much better than Ireland at 46 per cent so I think a lot of the talk is just that
Only 27 per cent of British people would volunteer 30 percent of French and 18 percent of Germans ; maybe most people have had their fill of war and only the so called superpowers are really interested in continued obsession with the milatary
You say ......only 38% of Irishmen are willing to fight for Ireland. Seems pretty weak. Or maybe people are just used to not having to think about it...
How accurate do you think these polls are ? How would one ever know .
I wonder about the poll, too.
For example:
-Did the question only include joining a state military organization?
-Did they only ask people of military enlistment age (18-35 years old in the US) or did they include people who are too old or too young?
-Was there a specific conflict or scenario described in the question, or was the hypothetical situation left undefined and up to the imagination of the people being polled?
-etc., etc.
It's interesting America does not fair much better than Ireland at 46 per cent so I think a lot of the talk is just that
If 38% sounds weak, and the US "does not fair much better," consider that even if the US citizen interest in defending the country is the same as in Ireland, that is still 38 of 330 million, which is over 125 million. There are only 10 countries with populations more than that. There are only 22 countries whose population is even half or more of that number.
Yes Amarel made a good point about these type of polls and I never place too much credence on them either way ; although it's suprising how many people concede a debate , point or argument when faced with an authorative sounding poll
Regarding the figures posted I don't accept the poll as even accurate so any "information " regarding such is void of any real importance to me anyway .
I don't know how accurate they are, but they are fun. It's the same poll cited as showing the world fears the threat of US power.
If we ever had to go to war on our own account we wouldn't stand a chance as our population is less than 5 million
Whether you would loose sleep without the US military in Europe or not, you should loose sleep without some other countries taking on the responsibility of protecting yours.
It's amazing culturally Americans seem obsessed with war
The US is war-weary. We have been in the longest conflict in our history, and with nothing to gain. As for the movies, war is an interesting topic of conflict that has been dramatized since forever.
maybe most people have had their fill of war and only the so called superpowers are really interested in continued obsession with the milatary
Many in the US would like to see a smaller role in the world for our military. The US is the teeth of the UN and most Americans don't even care about the UN. Our foreign policy changes sometimes withing the span of a single president. Most of our allies can afford a smaller military budget so long as ours is huge. I would like to save US money and let the EU "pay their fair share" for their own protection. Most people in the EU would like to see a smaller US military as well, though they usually fail to realize that may mean higher enlistment numbers for them.
They are fun I enjoy seeing how different polls can be depending on who's doing them
It's something Amarel that's never really bothered me that much
Yes war movies sell , having military must cost a fortune I wonder how much of taxpayers money goes to fund the military?
Yes a lot of Americans I've talked have no time for the U N ; that's a fair point regarding higher enlistment and it is something people do not take into account
Statisticians can keep data technically factual while conveying the opposite message of another statistician who is technically factual. In econometrics I learned that you can “beat up the numbers until they say what you want”.
The downvotes are the result of a troll campaign. They all popped up within a half hour of each other. It’s not important.
It’s not history, it’s current affairs. In 2003 there was near 3/4 approval of war in Iraq. Now, sending ground troops for Iraq or Syria has less than 50% support.
As for history, whether or not a people are war weary typically has little to do with whether the nation goes to war.
You are calling a society that has been in perpetual warfare and idolizes war/violence in the popular culture (as Dermot points out) as war weary. Name a decade in US history that did not have war.
Hermann Goering proclaimed that although "the people don't want war," they "can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders."
Good stories require conflict. There is no greater conflict than war, which is why cultures the world over and throughout history have had stories of war. Hollywood makes good movies that are loved the world over. They are not indicative of a bloodthirsty culture. Nor is bad international policy indicative of regular people’s desires, as Goering pointed out.
Remember how beloved the Viet Nam war was? Yeah, me neither.
First- Tthe following is neither supportive nor critical. It is dispassionately observational.
Second- The use of quotation marks around a term indicates that I am only referring to how some people characterize the topic, not what my judgment about it is.
-
Amarel,
I appreciate your comment that The US is war-weary. We have been in the longest conflict in our history, and with nothing to gain. As for the movies, war is an interesting topic of conflict that has been dramatized since forever.
While it would make sense for the US to be war weary, I don't think Americans really are.
We just want a clear win.
We also want cheaper wars.
Consider:
- 1 - In almost 250 years of US nationhood, there have only been 11 or 12 periods of a year or more (adding up to about 45 years total) that the US has not been involved in an armed conflict.
The longest period of peace was 18 years, just prior to WWII. All the rest of the peaceful periods were six or fewer years long .
- 2 - American Culture, like the majority of cultures, has a love of war at its root. We see this in popular culture. If movies show us anything, it is that we like war even more than crime. The warrior archetype has been a critical player in the American character and US government policy.
- 3 - What is interesting is that we are conflicted about war. We have aspects of our macro culture that think we should hate war, and we have developed the idea that we should be ashamed of it. That never really takes hold but it does mitigate our enthusiasm.
We do not worship War as a god, as did the Romans, the Greeks, and the Vikings (and various other Germanic tribes), nor do we build an honor cult around it as did the Samurai and the Medieval knights.
Americans are pretty damned good at war, (both waging it and making weapons for it) and we are proud of that. We also feel kind of bad about being so good at it, so we constantly institute rules of engagement that give some advantage to our enemies, or make the conflict "more fair".
- 4 - Some of the near constancy of US involvement in warfare is because of three centuries of near-constant armed conquest of the continent, and some of it is because Theodore Roosevelt conceived of the US taking on the role of the world's policeman.
That switch in the early 20th Century from Manifest Destiny as the justification for wars (we are good at conquering, so we must be destined to conquer) to being a "keeper of the peace" is a telling moment. We stopped conquest and annexation, and switched to trying to instill constitutional republics, "protect the weak", be the worldwide "good guys".
It is revealing that after we stopped blatantly trying to profit from war, the American people still wanted to be involved in wars, so we started getting involved in other countries' wars. (Cuba, WWI, Korea, Viet Nam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, Syria, etc.)
Whether you believe the US profits from these, or that it is well-intentioned meddling, it is clear that that Americans in general and the US Government want to be involved in wars. We rarely pass up a chance to join somebody else's war.
By deploying their military overseas the U.S, is able to confront their enemies on foreign soil, such as the face off with North Korea from South Korea, or during the cold war, confronting the old U.S.S.R., in western Europe.
However, with the constant evolution of intercontinental missiles there will inevitably come a time when we should concentrate our military budget on the protection of the homeland and let the other NATO members look after themselves.
NATO formed to protect the nations of western Europe and the time must be approaching when they will have to take more, if not full responsibility for their own defense.
Amarel you are naughty boy, you are a vegetable boy arent you? I would like to make the debating with your ass, I will prove that the raw paleo is the best diet if you bedate me.
I'd be ok with it but then I don't know much about politics oversea's.
With America it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you don't send your troops out to help another country you are spit on for unwillingness to help others. If you do send your own people out you are spit on for "being pushy". So screw it. Bring our men and women home and let the rest of the world do their own thing.
Of course this is said without coffee, I'm kind of pissy today and honestly I'm just tired of seeing our people getting killed and spit on for their sacrifice.
Bring the jobs back to America, bring the military back to America and let's fix our own issues.
The pretty obvious fact is that NO US President is actually the leader of the free world. That is just marketing to make people to think the US President has more power and influence than he actually has. It also makes people think American taxpayers have a responsibility to other nations that may even supersede domestic responsibilities.
We know that very little of these huge expenses ever benefit American citizens. Typical of this silliness is caring whether Hussein used WMDs against the Kurds, or Asad used them against other Syrians. Soviet invation of Afghanistan and Russian invasion of Crimea and Ukraine are not our problem.
US involvement in the third world, whether militarily or through aid programs are expensive, and useless to the American taxpayer. Trump supporters know this.
It is the anti-Trump people (both Democrat and Republican) who want the US to continue the same meddlesome bullshit that has characterized the last 75 years of US military involvement worldwide.
Seriously, how would you feel if the US pulled out of NATO?
I know mainland Europe would be screwed. They are not capable of mounting more than a token defense against any Russian incursion. Certainly they do not want to pay the actual cost of a force sufficient to act as a believable deterrent.
Japan, S.Korea and other countries would acquire nukes out of necessity.
Among the nations that would disappear would be East Timor, Taiwan, Israel (they may take their neighbors with them), and The Baltic states. The Balkan states would eat each other up, and eventually fall to Russia.
All the western nations of Europe and any other strong US Allie would have to arm up.
Global trade will suffer greatly and all economies will decline in the short run.
Japan, S.Korea and other countries would acquire nukes out of necessity.
And you ban me out of necessity because you're a simpleton and a plebe and a dimwitted barbarian.
Among the nations that would disappear would be East Timor, Taiwan, Israel (they may take their neighbors with them), and The Baltic states. The Balkan states would eat each other up, and eventually fall to Russia.
And that would probably be a good thing if you ass me.
Global trade will suffer greatly and all economies will decline in the short run.
This is why free speech needs to be banned, the US has been keeping foreign economies down and building their own economy on their backs from the beginning you imbecile.
Among the nations that would disappear would be East Timor, Taiwan, Israel (they may take their neighbors with them), and The Baltic states. The Balkan states would eat each other up, and eventually fall to Russia.
Probably true.
Why would these be bad for US citizens?
The US has sufficient natural and human resources to be able to be self-sufficient, and certainly our military is able to protect our own shores, and provide entirely for our own defense.
Why should US taxpayers foot the bill for the existence of East Timor, Taiwan, Israel, etc.
What good does it do US citizens to keep Europe from having to pay the real cost for their own defense?
It is a benefit to the US to have strong allies to trade with, and a stable world to trade in. This doesn't mean the US tax payers should foot the bill, but it helps explain why we do.
Though I would advocate a much smaller US military presence in the world, I would not advocate an immediate withdrawal from everywhere. The correct way to do it would be a well planned process that doesn't leave our allies and trade partners our in the cold.
I agree that we need strong trading partners, but they need to be strong enough to pull their own weights.
Regarding "a well planned process that doesn't leave our allies and trade partners our in the cold," what that would mean practically is giving time for allies to increase military capability, and stabilizing the places our military forces are prior to leaving.
How has that been working out in Afghanistan after over 15 years.
The problem is that as long other countries think they can lean on US military platforms and personnel, most of our allies won't actually spend the money to completely support their own security. They will just wait it out and hope the US policy changes, because they don't think we will leave them hanging. For example, there is no reason for US military presence in South Korea or Germany or Turkey. These nations are capable of supporting sufficient military force that our local presence is not required. Similarly, the US "advantage" of having bases in these places is only so we can relieve our allies of the burden of protecting them.
Some of the places our military is busy "stabilizing" are places that may take decades to stabilize, and may not be able to support constitutional republics without constant outside "support" (meddling). What realistic well planned process includes removing our "advisors" anytime in the next half century?
The fact is that for exactly the same reason you cannot fix someone else's family, you cannot fix someone else's country. Our efforts in mitigating internal conflicts are expensive, ineffectual, and usually end in US support of dictators that our military ends up trying to remove two decades later.
I can see taking the time to slowly withdraw from some bases and active international conflict zones, but the US military should immediately withdraw from all internal conflicts worldwide.
Our forces and equipment should definitely be brought home from Europe.
I am sure you can see how removing forces slowly from Europe, S.Korea, Japan etc is not the same as removing forces slowly from Afghanistan.
Sorry. I thought I made that clear.
Europe is not an active conflict zone, and the economies are robust (though heavily burdened by runaway welfare states), so there is no reason to believe they could not immediately (within a few months) take over the burden borne by the US. Let the self-righteous leftists scramble to protect themselves from Russian hegemony.
South Korea has an even more robust economy, but it is in a near-active conflict zone. The replacement of US forces would probably require a couple years, largely because of how substantial our permanently stationed US force is.
US forces have been at the DMZ for six decades, and despite the economic capability to take over the US burden at any time during the last two decades, South Korea has not bothered to do so because they did not have to. More to the point, of the four parties to the Korean War, only South Korea refused to sign the peace treaty, and continues to insist there should ultimately be a united Korea.
South Korea has been able to refuse to put an official end to the Korean War by acknowledging North Korea as legitimate and permanent because the US has been supporting much of the cost of maintaining a cease fire.
Afghanistan was always a lost cause. History shows that NOBODY EVER WINS IN AFGHANISTAN. Alexander, the Umayyads, the British, the Soviets all found themselves mired in slow defeat there.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
-Kipling
Unless we are willing to depopulate the entire nation (and we should not), there is no reason to think that staying would change anything. We may as well just roll to our rifles....