Turkey's Erdogan

[Rasputin_Vol]

Yep. He's using the US as a villain to unify the Turks. Brilliant move on his part. If we had a strong leader then there would have been a better reaction to his claims.

I don't understand. What difference would it have made if the leader was strong or not? I mean, if someone says that the US took part in a colour revolution, it would be pretty hard not to at least take them seriously when it is known that we have been involved in dozens of overthrows since the 1950's. How would a strong president have been able to outrun that 60 year legacy?

 

[LouderVol]

What interests do we have in Syria, Iraq or Turkey? Or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter?

What interests do we have in the South China Sea? In the Black Sea?

its a link in the global economy. even when we don't need it, others will. good or bad but what other world economies do effects us here at home.

it definitely hasn't worked out this way, and its probably not the real reason we are there but the way I have looked at it is this.

If we spent 100 million dollars (laughably small number)on something over there, that has no direct benefit to us, it may look like we are out 100 million. but maybe that 100 million allows whatever country to export 10% more oil to Poland (exact country doesn't matter) with a value of 20 million. well we are still out 80 million. but maybe that 20 million allows Poland to build more industry or stuff or whatever. and leads to a larger future growth in their economy. and suddenly our trade with Poland goes up 5% because of the boost from the 20 million in extra oil. over one year we are still out a lot of money, but as time goes on, and if that 20 million compounds in 20 years the US might see 150 million in extra trade with Poland.

obviously the numbers are made up, and I doubt it actually happens like that; but its the justification I see. long term investment with no short term gains but whose final outcome is not known. its all speculative, but the government has to play the long term game.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

its a link in the global economy. even when we don't need it, others will. good or bad but what other world economies do effects us here at home.

Then let the others that are in that region take up the slack. We simply cannot afford to continue this worldwide policing.

it definitely hasn't worked out this way, and its probably not the real reason we are there but the way I have looked at it is this.

Its good to see here that you are at least open minded enough to question the narrative.

If we spent 100 million dollars (laughably small number)on something over there, that has no direct benefit to us, it may look like we are out 100 million. but maybe that 100 million allows whatever country to export 10% more oil to Poland (exact country doesn't matter) with a value of 20 million. well we are still out 80 million. but maybe that 20 million allows Poland to build more industry or stuff or whatever. and leads to a larger future growth in their economy. and suddenly our trade with Poland goes up 5% because of the boost from the 20 million in extra oil. over one year we are still out a lot of money, but as time goes on, and if that 20 million compounds in 20 years the US might see 150 million in extra trade with Poland.

You're making the argument for Poland to be more involved with their our destiny and economy.

obviously the numbers are made up, and I doubt it actually happens like that; but its the justification I see. long term investment with no short term gains but whose final outcome is not known. its all speculative, but the government has to play the long term game.

The final outcome is debt here at home and stirred up animosities abroad.

The long term game should be for us to re-industrialize and focus on our own economy instead of depending on Poland or other far off lands to import what we need.

 

[LouderVol]

Then let the others that are in that region take up the slack. We simply cannot afford to continue this worldwide policing.


Its good to see here that you are at least open minded enough to question the narrative.

You're making the argument for Poland to be more involved with their our destiny and economy.



The final outcome is debt here at home and stirred up animosities abroad.

The long term game should be for us to re-industrialize and focus on our own economy instead of depending on Poland or other far off lands to import what we need.

I have said it a number of times on this forum. we definitely need to refocus our efforts, things aren't working out like they should. But that doesn't mean we pull off the world stage. China is a perfect example of the success of what we are trying to do everywhere. but it doesn't mean we let China/whoever take over a region and undo all the work/money we have put into these areas. Is it crazy we are defensive with our investments and protective of our friends/allies?

again this isn't selfless help of Poland. the idea is that we see real benefits as well but not as soon as Poland or whoever does. and despite what you believe the US has made a real difference in the world since the wall fell. look at any measuring stick for people's lifestyle, its gone up. and yeah we are seeing an uptick in violence, but it is still well below historical levels.

I still think we can do both, fix our own economy and stay involved in the world. As I have said we need to step back from a leadership role and into a partnership identity that China has adopted with the world. and at home we aren't changing until the hard choices are made, pulling off the world stage won't make those happen any easier.

it may be hard to see but our constant involvement is not only building up the world and ourselves, but also keeping major wars in check. Its a fundamental question you have to answer for yourself but would you rather have these pinprick conflicts, expensive in money but not so much in lives, or the generational major wars?

imo its better to do anything we can to avoid those total war situations we found ourselves in.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I have said it a number of times on this forum. we definitely need to refocus our efforts, things aren't working out like they should. But that doesn't mean we pull off the world stage. China is a perfect example of the success of what we are trying to do everywhere. but it doesn't mean we let China/whoever take over a region and undo all the work/money we have put into these areas. Is it crazy we are defensive with our investments and protective of our friends/allies?

again this isn't selfless help of Poland. the idea is that we see real benefits as well but not as soon as Poland or whoever does. and despite what you believe the US has made a real difference in the world since the wall fell. look at any measuring stick for people's lifestyle, its gone up. and yeah we are seeing an uptick in violence, but it is still well below historical levels.

I still think we can do both, fix our own economy and stay involved in the world. As I have said we need to step back from a leadership role and into a partnership identity that China has adopted with the world. and at home we aren't changing until the hard choices are made, pulling off the world stage won't make those happen any easier.

it may be hard to see but our constant involvement is not only building up the world and ourselves, but also keeping major wars in check. Its a fundamental question you have to answer for yourself but would you rather have these pinprick conflicts, expensive in money but not so much in lives, or the generational major wars?

imo its better to do anything we can to avoid those total war situations we found ourselves in.

I've already said my piece. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[volprof]

It's very simple: neither the South China Sea nor the Black Sea are organically "trade zones." They're only "trade zones" because we Americans wanted it that way and made it that way. The system before was merely in service to imperial economies, and there was no reason for any one power to keep shipping lanes in, say, a South China Sea, open for all because there was no benefit in such actions.

So, if you want relatively uninhibited international trade (you know, that pesky thing we need for job growth), then you'll want an active and proactive America in the world. If you want a return to the isolated imperial economies of the nineteenth-century, where job growth was mostly at the whim of what mood Britain, or France, or Russia, or Spain, or Holland was in one day, then you'll want an America that retreats from the world and leaves it to "spheres of influence."

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

What incentive would China have to bottleneck trade lanes and ports when they are the world's largest exporter?

 

[volprof]

What incentive would China have to bottleneck trade lanes and ports when they are the world's largest exporter?

A guess might be to protect oil and other natural resource interests in and around fake islands they created in a region where it shares deep-seated historical animosities with other nations competing for access to the same resources.

A better question, although yours is apt, might be why China thinks it needs fake islands in disputed areas if it isn't going to be a threat to international shipping lanes in that region.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]