Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know. We spent $2 Trillion on Afghanistan. $4 Trillion on Iraq.
There went our Medicare-for-All money.
"Oh, but we can't afford Universal Health Care!!!"
My grandparents used to have a poster that said "it will be a great day when schools get all the funds they need and the military has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." Still holds true today.
The US needs to get off the idea that it is a rest of the world's Lord and Savior. American taxpayer dollars should be used to improve the lives of those in THIS country. We could be providing a quality of life and standard of living equal to the Scandinavian model if we stopped wasting money on bull crap like a failed 20-year war. That's why Scandinavia is kicking us in the rear end as far as CoL and SoL, because they don't try to act like the world police force like the US has fallen into the habit of doing. We should have gone back to isolationalism after winning WWII. We lost big in Vietnam, and that should have been the object lesson. We never should have gotten involved in the Middle East to begin with. I live for the day when the national news doesn't include a headline about that part of the world.
You do raise some good points in theory, however in practice, they don’t necessarily hold up. The high SOL provided by Scandinavian countries can be achieved because their population is a lot smaller, and they lack the over the top bipartisanship that plagues the US (I’m Canadian, so feel free to correct me, if you think I’m wrong). There’s a significant segment of the American population that rejects any kind of federal involvement in the market, either due to mistrust or simply because they believe in an absolute version of a free market economy. That same crowd, also subscribes to the notion that any kind of government involvement in the economy is akin to communism/socialism. While it’s easy to blame foreign entanglements for this situation, the mindset of the average American plays a much bigger role in it.
You do raise some good points in theory, however in practice, they don’t necessarily hold up. The high SOL provided by Scandinavian countries can be achieved because their population is a lot smaller, and they lack the over the top bipartisanship that plagues the US (I’m Canadian, so feel free to correct me, if you think I’m wrong). There’s a significant segment of the American population that rejects any kind of federal involvement in the market, either due to mistrust or simply because they believe in an absolute version of a free market economy. That same crowd, also subscribes to the notion that any kind of government involvement in the economy is akin to communism/socialism. While it’s easy to blame foreign entanglements for this situation, the mindset of the average American plays a much bigger role in it.
It's not that. Well, not for 80% of the people anyway. There are maybe 20%, a good number of whom are represented here, for whom they have an actual intellectual dispute with social welfare as a concept.
It is indeed related to the partisanship. The anti-social welfare attitude in the U.S. comes mostly from the apprehension that, "those people," or "people who don't deserve it" will disproportionately reap the benefits whatever program at their expense, and they personally will not reap much benefit. E.g., if you get into it online, pretty quickly someone will trot out "illegal immigrants" getting whatever benefit as a reason not to have the benefit.
Or some "losers," e.g.g.: college students will use free tuition and all they will do is get high & drunk & not study, or study gender studies or something.
The US needs to get off the idea that it is a rest of the world's Lord and Savior. American taxpayer dollars should be used to improve the lives of those in THIS country. We could be providing a quality of life and standard of living equal to the Scandinavian model if we stopped wasting money on bull crap like a failed 20-year war. That's why Scandinavia is kicking us in the rear end as far as CoL and SoL, because they don't try to act like the world police force like the US has fallen into the habit of doing. We should have gone back to isolationalism after winning WWII. We lost big in Vietnam, and that should have been the object lesson. We never should have gotten involved in the Middle East to begin with. I live for the day when the national news doesn't include a headline about that part of the world.
The idea is not to be the "world's Lord and Savior." As you say "American taxpayer dollars should be used to improve the lives of those in THIS country." that includes physical safety. I'm sorry, just because we may not bother them does not mean that they can't bother us. September 11, 2001 for example.
And why, in your likely view, does the Third World get a free pass to make life miserable for islands of prosperity in their midst such as Israel? If non-interference were consistent I would agree with you. Even though the Taliban or Al Qaeda can't build planes with tribal technology they can crash them into buildings they also can't build.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident
You do raise some good points in theory, however in practice, they don’t necessarily hold up. The high SOL provided by Scandinavian countries can be achieved because their population is a lot smaller, and they lack the over the top bipartisanship that plagues the US (I’m Canadian, so feel free to correct me, if you think I’m wrong). There’s a significant segment of the American population that rejects any kind of federal involvement in the market, either due to mistrust or simply because they believe in an absolute version of a free market economy. That same crowd, also subscribes to the notion that any kind of government involvement in the economy is akin to communism/socialism. While it’s easy to blame foreign entanglements for this situation, the mindset of the average American plays a much bigger role in it.
Another aspect is that they don't need military security; we provide it.
The idea is not to be the "world's Lord and Savior." As you say "American taxpayer dollars should be used to improve the lives of those in THIS country." that includes physical safety. I'm sorry, just because we may not bother them does not mean that they can't bother us. September 11, 2001 for example.
And why, in your likely view, does the Third World get a free pass to make life miserable for islands of prosperity in their midst such as Israel? If non-interference were consistent I would agree with you. Even though the Taliban or Al Qaeda can't build planes with tribal technology they can crash them into buildings they also can't build.
Another aspect is that they don't need military security; we provide it.
Because we do such a good job of that! Thy are really enjoying our military security in Afghanistan.
I wonder if the Afghans would support your contention. Or the "South Vietnamese"?
We are getting notorious from our withdrawls, not just from nations, but also from WHO, certain aspects of the UN, and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Are we an unending tap to fund every socially visionary effort? The WHO is great at "recommendations" except when the PRC is involved. We know the are not going into countrywide lockdown for something as abstract as novel coronavirus; that is a punishment reserved for the rest of the world. It could have done some good for the "world" had it been confined to Wuhan and environs; lockdown was utterly useless when playing whack-a-mole with the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
Because we do such a good job of that! Thy are really enjoying our military security in Afghanistan.
That's good for a laugh, until planes start hitting buildings. Maybe when the Afghans decide to get serious about imprisoning terrorists we leave them alone. When it's the radical Islamists vs. the West we have to shut them down in any way we can.
That's good for a laugh, until planes start hitting buildings. Maybe when the Afghans decide to get serious about imprisoning terrorists we leave them alone. When it's the radical Islamists vs. the West we have to shut them down in any way we can.
The Taliban has never committed any acts of terrorism in the West. There weren't any Afghans in any of those planes.
The Wahhabi doctrine perpetuated and supported by Saudi Arabia has been responsible for all terrorism in the West. Scratch a terrorist in the West, and he's always a Saudi or someone who had been trained in Saudi-supported Wahhabi doctrine.
If the US was ever to get serious about "shut them down in any way we can," the US would go after Saudi Arabia.
Are we an unending tap to fund every socially visionary effort? The WHO is great at "recommendations" except when the PRC is involved. We know the are not going into countrywide lockdown for something as abstract as novel coronavirus; that is a punishment reserved for the rest of the world. It could have done some good for the "world" had it been confined to Wuhan and environs; lockdown was utterly useless when playing whack-a-mole with the rest of the world.
That's good for a laugh, until planes start hitting buildings. Maybe when the Afghans decide to get serious about imprisoning terrorists we leave them alone. When it's the radical Islamists vs. the West we have to shut them down in any way we can.
I feel that you're off-track here on a couple of things.
First, the UN, WHO, or the Climate Accords...those are hardly "every socially visionary effort". And American has one of two choices. Be a part of the discussion or let the rest of the world lead the way.
Second, when the Afghans get serious...how about questioning how serious we were? 20 years and the Taliban takes over in a few hours. Gee, what a great job we did. 20 years an ISIS steps in again in a matter of hours. I think we did a pretty lousy job over the past 20 years.
The Taliban has never committed any acts of terrorism in the West. There weren't any Afghans in any of those planes.
The Wahhabi doctrine perpetuated and supported by Saudi Arabia has been responsible for all terrorism in the West. Scratch a terrorist in the West, and he's always a Saudi or someone who had been trained in Saudi-supported Wahhabi doctrine.
If the US was ever to get serious about "shut them down in any way we can," the US would go after Saudi Arabia.
These acts were done from Afghanistan, not KSA. The Wahabis may have provided ideological support but the terror training camps and basing was in Afghanistan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I feel that you're off-track here on a couple of things.
First, the UN, WHO, or the Climate Accords...those are hardly "every socially visionary effort". And American has one of two choices. Be a part of the discussion or let the rest of the world lead the way.
The "discussion" in this case has to begin with China. The WHO was not about to allow that. Better to shut Italy and then the rest of the West down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Second, when the Afghans get serious...how about questioning how serious we were? 20 years and the Taliban takes over in a few hours. Gee, what a great job we did. 20 years an ISIS steps in again in a matter of hours. I think we did a pretty lousy job over the past 20 years.
I agree that we shouldn't have occupied Afghanistan. We should flatten it if any harm comes to the West again from that country. The people were the ones who let the Taliban back in. As Obama said, elections have consequences.Even though the Afghans didn't hold an election in the U.S. sense, the people have tolerated the Taliban takeover and the human rights horrors. That tolerance has consequences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
