you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alduin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'd rather bring all the troops home and cut the military spending. But if somebody wants to pay us for protection, I'm okay with that too.

There's a problem now that if we do that, other countries will build up military and eventually there's going to be another world war. But if we don't do that then we're stuck paying the bill for world peace.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But if we don't do that then we're stuck paying the bill for world peace.

I don't understand this. Some of the people the US is fighting are global terrorists, but some of them want very regionally-limited things and the US doesn't seem to have a reason to be fighting it.

A war's only as warry as its weakest group; fighting for the weakest group serves to prolong the war and make it bloodier.

[–]Alduin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well this is all just my opinion but I think you're very close to the answer there. If two sides both hate you and they start fighting each other, you want that fight to drag on for as long as possible. So you help the weakest group - not enough to make them win - just enough to keep it even. If they fight each other for long enough, maybe they'll even start to hate each other more than they hate you.

The same applies to the west. As long as the media can keep two sides fighting against each other, the establishment can do whatever they want.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well…

That's deeply concerning if true. What's more concerning, though, is that that's viable.