Thread in which the world laughs at America

[DaShi]

You're a useless person.

[The Mad Monk]

I'd be more useful if I had some bonito flakes to go with this seaweed.

[Zevico]

So a proposal by a liberal Polytubbie has the support of a conservative Polytubbie.

How is it we can agree on **** like this, but Congress can't stop itself from driving the country into a depression?


And, more seriously, what the hell is my proposal missing? Why isn't this **** happening?

Three things immediately come to mind: Taiwan, South Korea, Japan.

The US' relations with these three countries is dependent on a continuing military alliance, as against China and North Korea.

US troops in South Korea are a symbolic and practical statement to North Korea: don't mess with South Korea or the US. Yes, the United States is still allied with SK, and yes it does serve American (and broader Western) interests.

US troops in Japan, and American bases there, serve much the same purpose, but are also directed towards China and Chinese expansionsm.

As to Europe. This renders the US able to project force throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East. All of which can and does, when properly directed, serve US interests.

As to the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia, US troops are basically an implicit promise to keep Saudi Arabia stable and its monarchy alive, which, however repugnant, is basically preferable to outright civil war, chaos and the prospect of someone more extreme running the joint. In case you're wondering, no, there's not much of a reform movement in Saudi Arabia and yes, that has a lot to do with the fact that lots of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabian. The same principle applies in Qatar and Bahrain. The reason is simple--Americans (the West generally, frankly) need a stable source of oil and, however unstable it may seem, this is as 'stable' as it gets.

Fact is, when you move out someone else is going to move in. And I frankly don't want to see China move in; or Iran move in; or Russia move in. And they are trying. That's not to say that I'm a specialist in the field and know for certain that every base serves a purpose, of course.

[Tupac Shakur]

On the (long, long, ****ing long) drive up to my mom's place in northern Michigan today, I was struck by a relatively simple idea that seemed to solve some foreign policy issues, as well as help the US economy. In fact, it seems so simple, that I must be missing something completely ****ing obvious as to why no one is suggesting it.


We've got many closed military bases around the country. We've got ****tons of military stationed overseas (even before these ruinous wars).

All those troops in Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, Cuba... bring them home. Station them on re-opened bases. The towns around those bases get a crapload of economic stimulus and new jobs. We save ****tons of money just on the logistics of not supplying the military around the world. And we're far less likely to stick our nose into every pissant country we please, as we no longer have the capability.


Clearly, I'm missing something. Seriously. And I don't think it is only "we won't give up our global military," there's gotta be something else. What is it?

It's not as much of a money saver as you'd think (host country support actually makes it cheaper to station US troops overseas, in some cases), but it's still a good idea even without the cost savings.

And, more seriously, what the hell is my proposal missing? Why isn't this **** happening?

Unfortunately, both parties agree that they like to swing America's dick around overseas and want to be able to stick their nose into every pissant country they please. It's retarded, but that's Washington for you.

[Dinner]

I'd be more useful if I had some bonito flakes to go with this seaweed.

Why put it on seaweed? I normally use dried fish in soups.

[Zevico]

Yeah, there's really no need to trouble yourself over Chinese or North Korean expansionism. Saudi Arabian oil fields burning like candles? Just a daydream.

[BeBMan]

"if you go to zahadum you will die"

Z -2

[Barnabas]

The USA might as well cut farm subsidies, Australians have worse farmland than the USA and they don't need farm subsidies to have a nice first world standard of life.

[Guynemer]

Honestly, do we think South Korea can't defend itself against North Korea? That Japan can't defend itself against China?


EDIT: maybe "incapable" is a better word than "can't" for the idea I'm trying to express.

[DanS]

Unfortunately, it looks like this deal is going to be of the very modest variety.

[SlowwHand]

Japan would have a hell of a time trying to fend off China.

[notyoueither]

Should that be done? No.

Something that would cause me to be ashamed? No.

JM

From what I've heard, they forbid agencies who receive aid from any activities that are not approved of, not just in a specific project.

This results in non-American NGOs not promoting condom use, or promoting crap like abstinence only birth control and public health.

I'd be quite ashamed of the role of the US government in supressing effective anti-HIV campaigns.

[Tupac Shakur]

Japan would have a hell of a time trying to fend off China.

You're a moron.

[Jon Miller]

How can you be ashamed? You didn't vote them into office/etc? Or allow them to be voted into office (as an american)

As far as people not doing what could be done to help out their fellow man, there are a lot more things that should be done that aren't being done other than the HIV/condom use campaigns/etc.

So no, still not ashamed.

Do I disagree? Yes. Did I support the people who made such choices? no (I think)

Really, I don't understand your position. It is like me being ashamed of the big hole in the ground in Alberta or something.

JM

[notyoueither]

I said I'd. As in I would be ashamed [if I were an American.]

It is not just that US aid did not fund condom use. It is that they tried to get others to do the same, as well as the silly abstinence only campaigns.

US efforts have contributed to the epidemic nature of HIV in parts of Africa.