Kevin's Watch

Ananda wrote:

SoulBiter wrote:It is priorities. Ours just happen to be different than yours. I think its ridiculous that there are countries that don't have what I would call a 'true' military that is strong enough to deal with situations on a global scale. Matter of fact if more countries had that, the US could possibly scale back. I would say many countries are getting the 'peace time benefit' because the US has a larger military.

Right, I got that it is your priority. I asked why. You say because the us must have a 'true' military and are unable to 'scale back' because other countries are what? freeloading?

I suggest to you that there is not a possibility that you will ever scale back as long as it makes so much money to spend on military so you outspend the rest of the world. What is it? Double the next several largest militaries combined? It's about money. Good luck trying to stop them from spending it. I predict that the powers making all the money will do everything possible to keep spending on that stuff going and rising if possible.

SoulBiter wrote:Here is another and I bet some of you take it. Prilosec for heart burn. My doctor prescribed it for me because I have GERD due to a hiatal hernia. He said, no longer term worries. Wellllllll thats not true... you actually need stomach acid in high doses to process certain vitamins. So at some point I find that I'm Vitamin B and D deficient. Go figure. I also found out that when you take prilosec and stop, you get something called acid relapse... basically the acid production goes crazy... making you think.. hey time for more prilosec. But once you stop taking it for a few months, the relapse goes away, the vitamin deficiency corrects, and if you watch your diet properly you can limit the normal acid production without drugs. But no doctor told me that, I had to find out on my own.

That's funny, SB. I am surprised they didn't try to give you a pill to help with the side effects of the other pill. Not sure how it is other places as I only live here, but pills are not overly prescribed here. There is an emphasis on prevention, cures and so, not on handing out pills to treat every symptom. The problem is that handing out pills to treat symptoms is so much more profitable than preventing the symptoms in the first place. I guess drug companies love things like you described.

Don't want too much drift in the topic, (I know, I should place and period after "but" and and leave out the rest; just can't help myself) but outside of a very few nations, (Britain, France, maybe Italy) few nations have a military force capable of holding out for very long against military of the size that N. Korea, the US, China, Iran, the old Iraq, and even the present Russia is capable of fending. The vast majority of Europe, and for that matter N. America essentially enjoy the umbrella of protection that the US and few others provide.

Frankly, in many ways, I'm with SB on this, we could stand to get out of the world policing business, or conversely, if we are going to go around wielding the "Big Stick", we need to get a lot better at applying it.

SB's dead-on when it comes to the obscene amount of money we spend on the military. Take that spending away, and we'd be able to afford any social program(s) we want.

Unfortunately, our economy would tank if we did so.

SoulBiter wrote:

Ananda wrote:
Right, I got that it is your priority. I asked why. You say because the us must have a 'true' military and are unable to 'scale back' because other countries are what? freeloading?

Don't you think "enjoying a peacetime dividend" is a nicer way of saying it? I would not call it freeloading per'se. But there are countries that can afford to spend money on social programs that they would not be able to afford if they had to put in place a more expensive military.

Actually I would love to see the US stop doing so much globally and take those dividends and use them to fix things here. The balancing act is finding that balance between 'fortress America' and living globally where if you let things go too long, they end up on your doorstep anyway.

You guys really believe that- that you *are* the world police? We had movements in the 60s/70s to get the us from doing what the ussr was trying to do here in europe.

Of course, there is no way to prove your point that the world would be worse off without the us doing constant war/threat moves based on money and power. And, there is no way to prove that it wouldn't (unless we can break into an alternate universe and look). We can both agree that we'd like the us to get out of the lives of the rest of the world, though. What? 3000 or so died at 9/11 and the us then turned around and killed or had a hand in killing... what? 100, 200 thousand civilians in their response?

There is the thing about being in a stinky room an not noticing the stink, but others who arrive do notice the stink. If those stay long enough, they forget it is there. Growing up in a country, you tend to take for granted that your way is right. Happens to all of us. Just an fyi, people outside the us don't all see you as the helpful, peaceful nation that many americans think they are. And, since I have to write a disclaimer, that goes for all countries.

I'd love to see us quit spending so much on the military, personally.

But about the health care discussion: It reminds me of the conversations I used to have with my kids when they were trying to get one another in trouble. "It's not *my* fault! It's *her* fault!" "*She* started it by doing X!" "But I only did X because she did Y first!"

We can point fingers and assign blame all day. But I think the more productive approach is the one I used with my kids when they fell into the blame cycle: "I don't care *who's* to blame. Here is the situation we have now. How are we going to fix it?"

So...stepping away from all the blaming and the finger-pointing:

* We have a huge problem with obesity in this country. That's a given. And it's getting worse; the percentage of Americans who are overweight was still climbing, the last I knew.

* Our current approach -- in which we expect people to fix the problem on their own -- clearly isn't working.

Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out *why* the current system isn't working? And I'm sorry, but if saying that "fat people just need to stop stuffing their faces" hasn't worked yet, it's unlikely to work in the future. So maybe we ought to be focusing on finding workable solutions instead of just doling out shame.

Also, you guys are focusing on obesity to the exclusion of a whole lot of other health-related issues this country faces -- and one of the biggest, and one that I suspect will eclipse obesity here before long, is the cost of health care for the elderly. I mean, I get why that is: it's not nearly as much fun. It's easy to feel all superior by pointing at fat people and blathering on about personal responsibility. But there's only one way to avoid getting old, and we're all going to be there eventually.

Also -- *nobody* has a comment about Reich's article? Nobody wants to talk about the Big Pharma/doctors/insurers payola cycle?

Reich's an idiot; I didn't read the article. But it's no secret that BP has paid off the government (they helped write Obamacare), and that they pay off doctors to prescribe things. We've talked about both things here for years.

Ananda wrote:
You guys really believe that- that you *are* the world police?

In a de'facto way, yes. When there are events in the World that require a strong military to intervene, where do they go? Typically that's the US. Where else would anyone go? If China/Russia, etc etc (just picking large countries with a large military) decided to invade anywhere in the world, who else would be able to stand against them?

SoulBiter wrote:

Ananda wrote:
You guys really believe that- that you *are* the world police?

In a de'facto way, yes. When there are events in the World that require a strong military to intervene, where do they go? Typically that's the US. Where else would anyone go? If China/Russia, etc etc decided to invade anywhere in the world, who else would be able to stand against them?

And let's be honest here, the rest of the world is fine with that. Especially since it frees them up from having to support a military.

"America! Fuck yeah!"

Okay, so the above's somewhat tongue in cheek, since SB, your "de facto" point is pragmatically speaking valid. Such is the depth of the embedding of the military/industrial/corporate infrastructure within the very fabric of the US that it's not going to change any time soon (regardless of the fact that, as Cail, I and others have pointed out here and elsewhere, were even 50% of annual overall US defence spending to be put to use elsewhere, you guys would be able to afford whatever social programs you wanted).

However, SB, you ask this:-

SoulBiter wrote:When there are events in the World that require a strong military to intervene, where do they go? Typically that's the US. Where else would anyone go?

There's an inherent fallacy in that - the US doesn't only throw its acknowledged militaristic weight around when asked or when someone "goes" to it - it's really not at all like International Rescue waiting for a distress call to come in and only (or invariably) mobilising when one does. Militaristically speaking, the US tends to act unilaterally and in its own best interests. Of course, this is not inevitably a bad thing, but it's arbitrary and the US utilising its military might is a matter of your administration's arbitrary choice. There's no moral high ground here – it's just "might makes right". I can't see you guys steaming into the West Bank anytime soon to defend the Palestinians from any more Israeli land-grabs, for instance.

Such is inevitable, I suspect, but, given that you guys have the forces to appoint yourselves "world police" if you so choose (as you have), it begs the inevitable question quis custodiet custodies?

If another country wants to defeat ISIS, go for it! What's stopping you?

Zarathustra wrote:If another country wants to defeat ISIS, go for it! What's stopping you?

Blunt but true. The US had a non-interference policy in the early 1900's and Germany almost conquered all of Europe. Japan conquered much of Asia. The problem is that we don't live in a World where this couldn't happen again. If ISIS were allowed to continue, they could conceivably conquer much of the middle east, eventually threatening other countries. Do we really want to live in a World where ISIS gets its hands on Nuclear Weapons or even advanced weapons that could threaten outside of their borders?

SoulBiter wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:If another country wants to defeat ISIS, go for it! What's stopping you?

Blunt but true. The US had a non-interference policy in the early 1900's and Germany almost conquered all of Europe. Japan conquered much of Asia. The problem is that we don't live in a World where this couldn't happen again. If ISIS were allowed to continue, they could conceivably conquer much of the middle east, eventually threatening other countries. Do we really want to live in a World where ISIS gets its hands on Nuclear Weapons or even advanced weapons that could threaten outside of their borders?

That's fallacious.

If the US began implementing a noninterference policy do you really think that the rest of the world would not begin funding their militaries?

This isn't 1900 anymore.

Cail, Turkey (a NATO ally) already has a military. That military is parked on the border of Syria, literally watching the siege of a city of 50,000 innocent civilians about to be slaughtered by ISIS.

It's not an issue of money. It's an issue of will. If we got rid of our military, this planet would fall to dictators very quickly, because most countries would not act until it was too late.

This planet needs leadership, not merely guns.

For some countries that is a fallacious statement, but for others its probably spot on.

We would like to think they would protect themselves, but I'm not so sure that they would do that. At least not until the wolf was breaking down the door, so to speak. I think 'some' would start funding their military more, but others would not. Too many countries have a Kum-ba-yah approach to international issues. 'If we all treat them with respect, they will leave us alone"...... yeah they will

And what is our responsibility to them?

If you can argue that we have the responsibility to be our brother's keeper when it comes to mutual defense, then you're showing a bit of inconsistency when you argue against universal health care using your line of reasoning....

A paraphrased Zarathustra on the last page of this thread wrote: We all want all people to be protected from global bad actors. The question isn't who is the most compassionate, but what's the best way to achieve it. I think people are better off when they accomplish such a basic responsibility on their own, rather than the complacency that comes from dependency.

We really don't have any responsibility to them. The issue is that eventually it ends up on our doorstep anyway.

Zarathustra wrote:Cail, Turkey (a NATO ally) already has a military. That military is parked on the border of Syria, literally watching the siege of a city of 50,000 innocent civilians about to be slaughtered by ISIS.

Turkey has a number of self-interest problems with getting involved. Including, but by no means limited to, the fact that the gov't is scared to death of its own military. I think they're incorrect and short-sighted, but Turkey ain't the only country with limited vision and mistake-prone politics.

SB wrote: We would like to think they would protect themselves, but I'm not so sure that they would do that.

Some would step up, some would look for other methods, some would just hope. But some just plain couldn't do it.

And not just little/weak economies/resource-poor folk. Given the financial foundation and constraints of the EU and the Euro and the resource constraints, having to replace what the U.S. does would likely shatter the EU...or perhaps create a German Empire by default/in all but name.
The U.K. might get through it OK...but I'm not at all sure any other member would. At least in the short and medium terms.
They wouldn't HAVE to give up their health care, but given the finance structure and influence, it would be the most expedient method as far as those who control that structure and have that influence are concerned. And we all know those are the only people who really matter.
Even if/when they're wrong. Which in this case they would be.

SoulBiter wrote:We really don't have any responsibility to them. The issue is that eventually it ends up on our doorstep anyway.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe Europe starts taking defense seriously again.

Regardless, we have no business meddling.

Zarathustra wrote:If another country wants to defeat ISIS, go for it! What's stopping you?

How about the UN get rid of the us, russia and china vetoing everything and so keeping it dysfunctional? The world would act. It is a fallacy to say that, because the us has self appointed itself as the world police (acting mainly in corporate interest), that, absent that unilateral imperialism, the world would fall apart. The world would just structure differently. Also, just as an example of other countries doing things, france goes in and helps in africa and so on a regular basis where the us fears to tread. Sweden sends peacekeeping/aid soldiers all over the world through the un despite our neutrality.

And, again, as I mentioned some days ago, if the us just spent only as much as the next several largest militaries put together rather than double, you would still be the war machine number 1 and have a lot of money for other things. But, the us won't ever do that because the powers that be make too much money the way things are now and they convince the people that they NEED all that crap. When politicians, people start to make movements against this spending, I guess they have scandals, die in accidents, go away. And, the corporate media whips up fear to keep people scared: we MUST spend even more on military because look at these scary people! Also, your military is a good tool for making money for connected corporations. They made a fortune from your latest wars, secured a pipeline for an oil corporation in afghanistan and so. It's about money, not security and helping the rest of the world.

Its the meddling in the first place that has created many of the problems that now need policing.

Don't get me wrong, I am as comforted as the next guy that genocides can be thwarted and evil regimes taken down and America does play a leading role in this........ sometimes. The Fallen's point tho' is well made; only when its in their own interests. Its not really "policing" if you are willing to stop a robbery at the jewellery store or the bank because they have some wealth you can get a bit of action on, but won't bother with the stick up at the 7/11 because they don't hold much cash.

Lets face it the urgency to invade Iraq was far more to do with oil for Euros than humanitarian effort, it was after all the sanctions which created the humanitarian problem in the first place; an extension of this is now IS in Iraq and Syria. The fact that the "world police force" leaned on a lamppost whistling whilst the Balkans ran red with blood and mass slaughters in Africa took place shows a cynicism towards the word humanitarian...... a sort of "for five dollars the flower is free" cynicism.

In some ways it may be better not to have a police force that only answers calls it can make a buck out of and ignores the rest.

Ananda wrote: It's about money, not security and helping the rest of the world.

It must be such a relief to see the world so clearly. Black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. I believe the U.S. makes some bad decisions, can be motivated by money, has serious flaws in the political process but I also believe there are good and noble motivations in many actions done by this country, as with any country.

I am burdened with seeing the grays in the world.