What are your opinions on the US Foreign Policy?

[Longhornfan1234]

Nm.

[behindmydesk]

Remember I agree our military is to big and we get involved way way way way to much. But for discussion where do we draw the line? As the leader of the world don't we have an obligation to protect those that need it? Mostly because of Oliver stones history show think of ww2. If you were in charge when do we enter? Or should we have? Should we have waited or gone sooner? Should we have only went to war with Japan who attacked us? Many people and myself (at times) say Iraq wasnt worth it and we shouldn't have went because they didn't attack us but neither did Germany in ww2. (Yes it's different because Iraq wasnt attacking our allies at the time. But remember they did a decade earlier). This question isn't in defense of our actions but more seeing people's thoughts and also to possibly show that these are huge decisions with most likely no great answers or at least concrete answers.

[cabernetluver]

Remember I agree our military is to big and we get involved way way way way to much. But for discussion where do we draw the line? As the leader of the world don't we have an obligation to protect those that need it? Mostly because of Oliver stones history show think of ww2. If you were in charge when do we enter? Or should we have? Should we have waited or gone sooner? Should we have only went to war with Japan who attacked us? Many people and myself (at times) say Iraq wasnt worth it and we shouldn't have went because they didn't attack us but neither did Germany in ww2. (Yes it's different because Iraq wasnt attacking our allies at the time. But remember they did a decade earlier). This question isn't in defense of our actions but more seeing people's thoughts and also to possibly show that these are huge decisions with most likely no great answers or at least concrete answers.

I think part of the question is framed incorrectly. I think a well defined mission statement limits mission creep.

I never wanted to go to Iraq. As far as Afghanistan, a mission statement of wiping out those who attacked us and those who gave them aid, would have been my mission statement.

Our military budget is bigger than the next nine countries combined, so yes it is bloated. England had a policy that its navy had to be stronger than the next two combined. That makes plenty of sense to me.

[Patsfan56]

Remember I agree our military is to big and we get involved way way way way to much. But for discussion where do we draw the line? As the leader of the world don't we have an obligation to protect those that need it? Mostly because of Oliver stones history show think of ww2. If you were in charge when do we enter? Or should we have? Should we have waited or gone sooner? Should we have only went to war with Japan who attacked us? Many people and myself (at times) say Iraq wasnt worth it and we shouldn't have went because they didn't attack us but neither did Germany in ww2. (Yes it's different because Iraq wasnt attacking our allies at the time. But remember they did a decade earlier). This question isn't in defense of our actions but more seeing people's thoughts and also to possibly show that these are huge decisions with most likely no great answers or at least concrete answers.

You have the gonads to reframe the strategy, and actually define "national interests". Then we would be in a position to understand exactly what we should be prepared to defend with military force. From there, ita all a matter of deduction in framing a military that supports that policy. The other issue is cost. We spend more now that we did at the height of Reagans military with drastically fewer military resources. Does that not scream something is ****ed up six was from sunday on how we are paying for this defense system?

As for the US foreign policy, if you open this link it takes you right to it. Is it me, or does the structure seem redundant, unfocused, and self aggrandizing? That's nothing new, but I would ahve taken a much more direct, analytical, objective oriented approach.

[WES445]

I think part of the question is framed incorrectly. I think a well defined mission statement limits mission creep.

I never wanted to go to Iraq. As far as Afghanistan, a mission statement of wiping out those who attacked us and those who gave them aid, would have been my mission statement.

Our military budget is bigger than the next nine countries combined, so yes it is bloated. England had a policy that its navy had to be stronger than the next two combined. That makes plenty of sense to me.

China 2,285,000 member standing army, 800,000 reserve
Russia 1,027,000 member standing army, 754,000 reserve
USA 1,458, 209 member standing army 1,458,500 reserve.

Today, we have to contend with the two of the worlds largest land mass and population. Our navy is larger then China, but they are pushing hard to fill that gap. Over the next decade, who knows, and Russia may not far behind ours. So, we may spend alot more, but we still number-wise behind China and Russia combine. I think alot of our problem is that we have alot fat and corruption in our military budget.

[behindmydesk]

I think part of the question is framed incorrectly. I think a well defined mission statement limits mission creep.

I never wanted to go to Iraq. As far as Afghanistan, a mission statement of wiping out those who attacked us and those who gave them aid, would have been my mission statement.

Our military budget is bigger than the next nine countries combined, so yes it is bloated. England had a policy that its navy had to be stronger than the next two combined. That makes plenty of sense to me.

I read your post last night on my phone but would have taken to long to respond that way (btw the mobile app for psd sucks) But wes beat me to the punch a bit this morning. I agree that we are bloated and over spend. But does that mean we spend correctly? I have no idea.

Also I remember during the debate where Obama was talking about military advances and did the bayonette thing (regardless that he apparently mispoke and the marines do have bayonettes on there rifles which I didn't know either) the point still stands. (also I have no idea how to spell that word and spell checker isn't helping)

But the question still stands do we have an obligation to help other countries if so we of course need a bigger military because we can't just ramp up at the drop of a hat. If we do have an obligation when does that go into effect. Do we even have an obligation. I used WW2 as an example should we have intervened? Did we do to early to late? Or just went after Japan.

You have the gonads to reframe the strategy, and actually define "national interests". Then we would be in a position to understand exactly what we should be prepared to defend with military force. From there, ita all a matter of deduction in framing a military that supports that policy. The other issue is cost. We spend more now that we did at the height of Reagans military with drastically fewer military resources. Does that not scream something is ****ed up six was from sunday on how we are paying for this defense system?

As for the US foreign policy, if you open this link it takes you right to it. Is it me, or does the structure seem redundant, unfocused, and self aggrandizing? That's nothing new, but I would ahve taken a much more direct, analytical, objective oriented approach.

I agree just because we spend the money doesn't mean we are using it correctly. Kind of like the teaching in this country, we far outspend everyone else yet don't have near great results.

China 2,285,000 member standing army, 800,000 reserve
Russia 1,027,000 member standing army, 754,000 reserve
USA 1,458, 209 member standing army 1,458,500 reserve.

Today, we have to contend with the two of the worlds largest land mass and population. Our navy is larger then China, but they are pushing hard to fill that gap. Over the next decade, who knows, and Russia may not far behind ours. So, we may spend alot more, but we still number-wise behind China and Russia combine. I think alot of our problem is that we have alot fat and corruption in our military budget.

Well isn't China been speculated if they were to launch a war they'd try a war of attrition? That's going to happen when you have a country as big as china.

[The Schmooze]

If our corporations can make money off it, we can gain control of a country's natural resources, open up new markets for weapon sales, or put ourselves in a position of better strategic location...we will intervene. If not, we will ignore(and have ignored) some of the greatest injustices in recent human history(see: Rwanda in the 90s)

Simple as that. It's not about "protecting us", it's about profit. It's a business. If anything it's about protecting business interests.

[Labgrownmangoat]

You really didn't answer the question. Yeah, spending all that money that would had gone to military on social things would be a big push for our economy. This is cool, but military has always been a tool for the economy to.

1. Keep others from grabing your stuff
2. Grabbing other people stuff thru war or threat of war
3. Protect trade routes and over sea business concerns
4. Make you popular with ally and get better deals for goods.

War or threat of war is a extention of diplomacy and economy. The guy with the bigger guns will always be heard over others for the best deal. Do you think we would have low gas prices compare to europe and other countries if we didn't offer the Saudi and the smaller oil producing arab countries security with our arm forces? Sometimes being able to maintain the peace require a large force. Our presence in the yugoslavia civil war prevented genocide there, while maintaining the peace in far away Korea.
Yeah, we could reduced our armed forces, but which sphere of influences would you lose in the process. Europe? they could come under the influences of Russia military might. That might sound craze, but Hilter was able to raise to power without any surpreme forces to deter him. Middle East, lose control of the oilfields there, thus cause our gas to go up. The Far East where our allies are, or africa or south america, both are rich in resources we need.

In a global economy with massive trade routes and various resources far from home, can we afford to lose influences any where in the world? You know if we pull back, someone will pick up the slack. China and Russia would love to see us cut our arm forces and retreat into a full or partial isolationist foreign policy. Should we allow them to easily gain the world cop position? Would we be in a position to maintain our standard of living or be at their mercy like some third world country?

Every approach has risk. We know the risks of continuing to pour endless resources into our military: vast deficits, extreme foreign entanglements and a temptation to intervene in every conflict ever, anywhere. Those downsides are beginning to catch up to us. Further, the more we empower the Offense Industry, the more they influence our foreign policy via lobbying.

As for all the things you fear we would "lose" if we cut defense spending, do we really need to dominate the world as a whole? Can we afford that luxury? What if we spent five times as much as the next three countries on education and infrastructure? Think that would have any impact on our success? Our competitors are in a position to do just that, and we aren't. That's due largely to an unbelievably bloated Offense budget.

P.S. I'll call it defense the next time we defend ourselves rather than going out attacking other countries. That is offense.

[cabernetluver]

China 2,285,000 member standing army, 800,000 reserve
Russia 1,027,000 member standing army, 754,000 reserve
USA 1,458, 209 member standing army 1,458,500 reserve.

Today, we have to contend with the two of the worlds largest land mass and population. Our navy is larger then China, but they are pushing hard to fill that gap. Over the next decade, who knows, and Russia may not far behind ours. So, we may spend alot more, but we still number-wise behind China and Russia combine. I think alot of our problem is that we have alot fat and corruption in our military budget.

My comment was on money spent not people serving.

[WES445]

If our corporations can make money off it, we can gain control of a country's natural resources, open up new markets for weapon sales, or put ourselves in a position of better strategic location...we will intervene. If not, we will ignore(and have ignored) some of the greatest injustices in recent human history(see: Rwanda in the 90s)

Simple as that. It's not about "protecting us", it's about profit. It's a business. If anything it's about protecting business interests.

I don't like our foreign policies when it comes to destoring nations freedoms and resources for profit or our role as world police. That is something that has been done down thru history. Greed has been the motivating factor in expanding one's empire and maintaining it. You would need some great spiritual change in humanity to change that. I don't like it, but like earthquakes, I live with it.

Military forces will always be the arm of the merchants, or corporations interest, before that Kings and Queens building up their wealth. Only small country build army for defense, empire have army to dominate the world and wealth creation. That is where we are, today. Name one country that had enjoyed the highest standard of living in it's time period that didn't dominate the world at that time? Would you be willing to even the playing field around the world if it cost you the quality of life you enjoy now? To many people see our foreign domination as just corps profit, but alot things you take for granted in life is also a result of our foreign deeds as well. Cheap TV, clothes we buy are the result of child or slave labor in some third world nation. Our economy is base on manufacture evils in these countries, brought by our big businese and protected by armed forces. I don't like it, I hate it, but what can we serious do about it?

China has been on the extreme end of being exploited (mid 1800 with the opium wars) as well as Japan by western forces. Much of the militartistic fervor that Japan had in the early 1900s was a result of that foreign adventurism in their country. China is determine to be the world top dog with the same crappy attitude torwards the west as japan did early in the last century. We may have to maintain our pace in military expenditure, but it must be control and regulate to cut waste and fraud. As mention in another post, american tends to outspent everybody in everything, but achieve crappier results then everyone else. That is the problem.

[WES445]

My comment was on money spent not people serving.

Well you have to support those troops with food, supplies and housing, so it is a money thing.

[The Schmooze]

I don't like our foreign policies when it comes to destoring nations freedoms and resources for profit or our role as world police. That is something that has been done down thru history. Greed has been the motivating factor in expanding one's empire and maintaining it. You would need some great spiritual change in humanity to change that. I don't like it, but like earthquakes, I live with it.

Military forces will always be the arm of the merchants, or corporations interest, before that Kings and Queens building up their wealth. Only small country build army for defense, empire have army to dominate the world and wealth creation. That is where we are, today. Name one country that had enjoyed the highest standard of living in it's time period that didn't dominate the world at that time? Would you be willing to even the playing field around the world if it cost you the quality of life you enjoy now? To many people see our foreign domination as just corps profit, but alot things you take for granted in life is also a result of our foreign deeds as well. Cheap TV, clothes we buy are the result of child or slave labor in some third world nation. Our economy is base on manufacture evils in these countries, brought by our big businese and protected by armed forces. I don't like it, I hate it, but what can we serious do about it?

China has been on the extreme end of being exploited (mid 1800 with the opium wars) as well as Japan by western forces. Much of the militartistic fervor that Japan had in the early 1900s was a result of that foreign adventurism in their country. China is determine to be the world top dog with the same crappy attitude torwards the west as japan did early in the last century. We may have to maintain our pace in military expenditure, but it must be control and regulate to cut waste and fraud. As mention in another post, american tends to outspent everybody in everything, but achieve crappier results then everyone else. That is the problem.

Great and often underlooked point. It has absolutely helped give us a higher standard of living than anywhere else in the world. However I'd argue that we don't have to sacrifice our high standard of living to change it. There are certainly ways around everything.

For intance the Saudis are easily bought, so keep giving them money to keep oil prices aritifically low, and take out the military aspect of it. Force companies like apple and every one that outsources that it is illegal to use child labor, and make their only option bringing jobs back here. I'm giving some bland alternatives, but you get the idea.

[WES445]

Every approach has risk. We know the risks of continuing to pour endless resources into our military: vast deficits, extreme foreign entanglements and a temptation to intervene in every conflict ever, anywhere. Those downsides are beginning to catch up to us. Further, the more we empower the Offense Industry, the more they influence our foreign policy via lobbying.

As for all the things you fear we would "lose" if we cut defense spending, do we really need to dominate the world as a whole? Can we afford that luxury? What if we spent five times as much as the next three countries on education and infrastructure? Think that would have any impact on our success? Our competitors are in a position to do just that, and we aren't. That's due largely to an unbelievably bloated Offense budget.

P.S. I'll call it defense the next time we defend ourselves rather than going out attacking other countries. That is offense.

I agree with you, it is losing game. But how do you back out of it? My small brain can't figure out a way of doing it without losing something.

First, I hate our involvment in the middle east. If we pulled all our bases out, someone like China or Russia will move in. Why? Oilfields. Resources and strategic position of troops is the key to any empire survival. Would you trust China and Russia to deal fairly with us? We would be dancing to their tune to maintain our country. What if we pulled out of africa and south america and stop interferring in their nation. Would Russia and China do the same? Both those countries have resources we need. If Russia and China dominate those countries, will it be for their benefit or ours? A strong america or weakening a old adversary?

My main problems with the defense (or offense) budget is the large waste and fraud that is in it. Haliburton couldn't tell the defense department what happen to the billion of dollars that was given to them for services and equiment due the army during the two middle eastern wars. Sevicemen was shocked by crappy equiment installed in their showers over there. We have state of art aircrafts that cause it's pilots to black out in tight turn, but let we order more of them. We still spend billions dollars on naval armadas that can be taken out with one six figure nuke. We could build schools and provide social services on the defense waste and fraud alone. the fat cats have been feeding off taxpayers dollars on stupid wastefull weapons or plain old thievery. We outspend every countries in the world in everything we do and still get the crappiest results in every thing we do. Education, healthcare, childcare and the military. That is our main problem.

[Patsfan56]

Well you have to support those troops with food, supplies and housing, so it is a money thing.

the point this thread has made though is that the relationship between what we get and what we pay for has changed significantly. Someone in the US Government has forgotten that part of the Federal Aquisition Regulation where we are supposed to contract for "best value". Someone apparently read that to mean "Best value as determined by a drunk monkey".

[Gandalf]

I believe we need a strong military force to defeat and intimidate our enemies