Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (2391)	3/13/2002 2:54:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I can see how some people can get an impression like that but I don't think the impression is based on the reality of US actions. When you look at how the US is actually using its military I see few signs of such massive aggression. In the last dozen years you have had the war to kick Iraq our of Kuwait (which was supported by many other countries, and when we won we didn't try to march on Baghdad), the involvement in the Balkans (where the US has been reluctant to get involved by did partially at the urging of many European countries), Afghanistan (do you think this action was unjustified or an example of bullying and hubris?). Of course there are possible future actions but it seems they would mostly be small scale actions against terrorists and their supporters. Then there is Iraq. Now is true we are trying to make Iraq change and there is speculations of a possible US military actions against Iraq but 1 - We haven't actually done anything (unless you count trying to enforce the sanctions which they signed on to, or the relatively ineffective "no fly zones" which where created for humanitarian reasons. 2 - One possible action against an aggressive nasty state that is trying to build weapons of mass destruction and has a history of invading its neighbors hardly is enough to say the US is trying to bully the world. and 3 - Iraq has violated the ceasefire for years. You violate the terms of the cease fire agreement and the cease fire can end. ABM, bio weapons treaties, tactical nuclear use, massive increase in military spend... ABM is purely defensive. Its really of no concern to the rest of the world except to those that might want to share in the protection, or those that might want to lob nuclear missiles at the US. I can't see why the first group would be against it, and the second group can go screw themselves if they think that the US has to keep itself unprotected. Bio Weapons - Its not unreasonable to not agree to a treaty that might allow intrusive annoying inspections, but at the same time provide little real protection. In any case even if the US is wrong about this, not signing on to a treaty, even a good perhaps important treaty is not an example of bullying the rest of the world. Tactical Nuclear weapons use - Gee I must be really out of it, not only did I miss the US's subjugating of the rest of the world, now I have missed the news of the nuclear weapons use that was part of implementing this domination. Massive Increase in military spending - Not actually so massive as a percentage of our current military spending, or of our GNP, or government spending. The biggest part of it is increasing salaries for our military. I can't see how paying Private Smith or Airman Jones a bit more is really threatening to the rest of the world. Another chunk is to replace the weapons we used in Afghanistan. I don't suppose you think the US should just draw down its stockpile every time it does get involved in a conflict, until its totally disarmed, but then maybe you think a wave of love and understanding will flow all over the world and weapons of war will be obsolete. Most of the rest of the spending increase is to just keep up our readiness after all the cuts pushed through by Clinton. If we had not had such massive cuts before these increase, or if this level of increase year on year keeps going for very long then I will join you in being against it (but not in claiming that the rest of the world should be scared about it) Tim