This barbaric form of medieval justice actually worked

[cassowary]

Well, I don't see a groundswell of public opinion demanding the US withdraw from NATO. Nor from the US-Japan defence treaty. So I assume that the majority of Americans support the idea of the US being a pokiceman.

[Jim the Moron]

". . . the majority of Americans . . ." understand squat about international affairs.

[Doc]

It provoked much criticism both in Europe and the US.

Yes, because it threatens the objectives of the military-industrial complex. No wonder Trump quickly dropped the subject.

That's baloney. Trump's loudest critics came from the Democratic side of the aisle. They are not known as biggest supporters of the military spending.

The major parties are both corporatist, and different only for show. Sure, Trump could say the sky is blue and the Democrats would howl about it for public consumption. But ultimately, especially in military matters, the Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same vulture.

I don't know Steve First I read you calling Sertorio an uncle tom Now you are saying Political parties all look the same to you.

The thing is that most Americans have long accepted the role of the US as the world policeman. So have the Europeans and East Asians. Americans in general believe their country is there to make this a better world. American isolationism died in WWII.

That random collection of assertions might be more persuasive if it didn't come from someone who, as a foreign taxpayer, saves a lot of money if they're true.

The part about American Isolationism being dead is certainly not true.

[neverfail]

It would be better if the Europeans and Asians shoulder the burden of their own defence, so that the U.S. can concentrate its resources on actual Americans. The U.S. faces no practical threat of invasion, its military budget could be cut by 90% without that changing, and American taxpayers don't owe other countries a thing.

The trouble with that logic is that "defence" is merely a polite, somewhat duplicitous, euphemism for the means to wage war. It is favoured especially by the Anglo democracies for the sanctimonious PR pretense that: 'Oh no! We do not initiate wars of aggression. We merely defend ourselves if and when others try to aggress against us.'

( Give me a break!)

The capacity of countries, even of alliances of countries, to militarily "defend" themselves is very unequal. Some would, either from paranoia or ambition, use military might wage wars of aggression. It was arguably America's selfish isolationism in between the two World Wars; its refusal to support international and multilateral bodies like the League of Nations, that saw the rise of the Axis powers leading to World War Two.

The number of sovereign "national" entities in the World have multiplied several-fold since the end of WW2. With that I would suggest that the propensity for international and intranational conflict has multiplied in geometric proportion.

I agree utterly with the last sentence in your statement above (strange how Americans grudgingly prefer to identify as "taxpayers" rather than proudly as citizens.). But bearing in mind how a multiple "domino effect" could and probably would see a regional conflict overflow its bounds into a global conflagration; would you as an American "taxpayer" wish to have that on your conscience?

[neverfail]

The part about American Isolationism being dead is certainly not true.

I agree!

Were it not for the fact that FDR managed to steer the USA into World War Two, the country would likely have continued its tradition of pre-WW2 isolationism from world affairs to this very day.

I am aware of a dichotomy between America's governors and the general populace in terms of enthusiasm for the conduct of foreign affairs. American citizens (sorry, I mean taxpayers) as a rule feel no engagement with US foreign policy. During my visits to the US I have been appalled by the general ignorance of the world outside America's borders and how it functions. Especially true of Americans who live away from the large metropolitan centres on either coastline - and that means the vast majority of them.

Isolationism is therefore closer to the American heart and soul than engagement in global affairs. The possibility, or rather the likelihood, that this submerged monster will eventually gain ascendancy in American politics, poses a permanent danger to the rest of us.

[Doc]

The part about American Isolationism being dead is certainly not true.

I agree!

Were it not for the fact that FDR managed to steer the USA into World War Two, the country would likely have continued its tradition of pre-WW2 isolationism from world affairs to this very day.

Actually he steered Japan into attack the US.

I am aware of a dichotomy between America's governors and the general populace in terms of enthusiasm for the conduct of foreign affairs. American citizens (sorry, I mean taxpayers) as a rule feel no engagement with US foreign policy. During my visits to the US I have been appalled by the general ignorance of the world outside America's borders and how it functions. Especially true of Americans who live away from the large metropolitan centres on either coastline - and that means the vast majority of them.

Isolationism is therefore closer to the American heart and soul than engagement in global affairs. The possibility, or rather the likelihood, that this submerged monster will eventually gain ascendancy in American politics, poses a permanent danger to the rest of us.

In America all politics is local. FOr eample when Japan attacked the US Japan became local politics everywhere.

[SteveFoerster]

It would be better if the Europeans and Asians shoulder the burden of their own defence, so that the U.S. can concentrate its resources on actual Americans. The U.S. faces no practical threat of invasion, its military budget could be cut by 90% without that changing, and American taxpayers don't owe other countries a thing.

The trouble with that logic is that "defence" is merely a polite, somewhat duplicitous, euphemism for the means to wage war. It is favoured especially by the Anglo democracies for the sanctimonious PR pretense that: 'Oh no! We do not initiate wars of aggression. We merely defend ourselves if and when others try to aggress against us.'

( Give me a break!)

I agree with that, at least in the case of the U.S., and you'll notice I've often referred to it as "military spending" for that very reason. I'm not going to scroll up to check, but I believe I was saying "defence" in this thread only in response to Cass's similar usage.

The capacity of countries, even of alliances of countries, to militarily "defend" themselves is very unequal. Some would, either from paranoia or ambition, use military might wage wars of aggression. It was arguably America's selfish isolationism in between the two World Wars; its refusal to support international and multilateral bodies like the League of Nations, that saw the rise of the Axis powers leading to World War Two.

That's absurd. The failure of Germany's neighbours to smother Nazi ambitions in their crib was entirely their own fault, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Americans. The League of Nations wasn't useless because the U.S. wasn't involved, it was useless because the member countries it did have wouldn't act, as when Haile Selassie I asked their help repelling the unprovoked Italian invasion of Ethiopia and was ignored.

The number of sovereign "national" entities in the World have multiplied several-fold since the end of WW2. With that I would suggest that the propensity for international and intranational conflict has multiplied in geometric proportion.

That there's been no third world war, and that we live in the most peaceful era in history, strongly suggests otherwise. On balance, decentralisation is a means toward peace, not war.

I agree utterly with the last sentence in your statement above (strange how Americans grudgingly prefer to identify as "taxpayers" rather than proudly as citizens.).

Not all taxpayers are citizens.

But bearing in mind how a multiple "domino effect" could and probably would see a regional conflict overflow its bounds into a global conflagration; would you as an American "taxpayer" wish to have that on your conscience?

In the case where the U.S. reconfigured its budget away from empire and towards actual defence, in your scenario (which is much more hypothetical than you admit) it wouldn't be on the conscience of Americans, because we wouldn't have started it.

Let me reiterate this so that it's clear: American taxpayers do not owe the rest of the world free military service. The U.S. is not your dad. If you believe you are threatened by some other country, then get off your asses and do something about it.

[Jim the Moron]

Words of wisdom, SteveF.

[Doc]

Ok. You are right about the blind suicide bomber. He can still be guided by radio to walk into a crowd of infidels. Security forces will need to be suspicious of blind people wearing audio devices.

Drones?
And that was exactly my point about the drones. Drones kill, maim and of course occasionally blind people, some no doubt innocent. Since blinding an ISIS fighter is no worse than 'droning', why not do it? Or do you want to ban drones because it can sometimes cause blindness if the eyes are hit by shrapnel?

War is barbaric but we can't avoid it.

If it can't be avoided, then one should fight. But that's so far from reality that it's not even worth mentioning. The bottom line is that U.S. policymakers seek war out with abandon. There's no reason they should be in the Middle East at all. It's not promoting positive change in the region, and it sure as hell isn't in the interest of everyday Americans. It's a means to funnel obscene amounts of tax dollars to politically connected defense contractors -- nothing more.

Don't forget to mention politically connected Silicon valley tech companies.