Why does the U.S. stick its nose in everyone's business (i.e.,Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and maybe Ukraine)? Why do we think we always know better, and it's our job to solve everyone else's problems?
"And maybe Ukraine"? Maybe?The US does have a bloody history. It does meddle, that's for sure. But there's a thing about politics: it's not because of what you think it is. It's because there's a world order and the US has every reasonable expectation to make sure that order endures forever. That order was built by the British, re-negotiated at the end of WWII and handed-off to the the Americans as the Cold War heated up. It's still largely in the hands of the US and Brits to this very day. In regards to each and every conflict, the US is merely doing the obvious thing that hegemonies do: make sure that its interests are secured. In the case of Vietnam and Korea, the US was ensuring that the USSR (and China) weren't able to expand their world order. Iran was the culmination of British petrol interests losing and the US coming to their aid to topple the old government and install a leader who was sympathetic to the Brits and Americans. Afghanistan was a case of the US working to destroy the USSR (who were, alternately, working to destroy the USA). The second time was to destroy AQ and the Taliban. Syria is currently a proxy war for the Russians/Iranians and the US/French/Brits/Saudi Arabia. Notice, at no time did I legitimize these actions. Only that when you remove invective and pique from the conversation and focus on the events, they tend to not surprise you as much. I would add that I think the US is failing in its leadership role, that it has a TON of terribly spilled blood on its hands, that I think Bush & Co. should be on trial for war crimes and that the ire that many feel for the US is well-earned. But, I'm also not surprised by American meddling, neither should you.
Why's America's government keep getting involved with foreign affairs?
Excellent answers & the bravery of American and allied soldiers is beyond reproach! However the latent chemical attack in Syria alleged to B by the Govt against the Rebels gives serious concern to all . . . . . . . . . I ask . . . . . if the attack is the work of Islamic Lunatic clerics !! ?? They have no regard for human life whatsoever . . . . . their own Muslims included & such an incident like this . . . . . has their vile creed written all over it !!?? Did they in fact attack the Rebel cause deliberately !! ?? As the free democratic world to a large extent supports the rebel cause . . . . . what better opportunity . . . than to throw in a weapon of mass destruction and provoke world reaction . . . . There is more to this than what is currently known . . . . and Western leaders should be careful . . . and not under any circumstances get militarily or otherwise involved . . let the Arab Islamic scum dog - eat dog !! ??.
Despite several failures, why does the USA keep interfering with the internal and domestic affairs of other countries?
Because, just like every other even marginally powerful country in recorded history, American politics is dominated by an insatiable arrogance that causes them to infiltrate the business of everyone else around them.This mentality began (in the context of American politics) very early on, probably after the so-called ‘winning’ of the War of 1812, with the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine. As America solidified its political strength and ego with the Civil War, and the various wars resulting in the ownership of the continental US teriitory, this mentality further increased. Nationalism, which was becoming a worldwide ideal, began to integrate itself in the minds of American politicians, and the US decided to become an imperial power, proving itself by finishing the Spanish American War in a mere 3 months. Thus the US had started to become a world power.The World Wars, though, were the real triggers to the US’ status as a superpower and the mentality that comes with it. Because they did not actually enter either war until much later (giving them a military edge, btw), they were allowed to build up their economy significantly, and this paired with the fact that they did not suffer nearly as much as any European power meant they had the stability needed to expand, while this was not the case for other powers (With the exception of the USSR, but that's a whole other discussion).And so following the Second World War the United States was a superpower, and the arrogance that it had held for years since the early days of the War of 1812 shined through, inciting it to poke its head into everyone else' business. As well, it partially has to do this in order to maintain its superpower status, something it obviously immensely values.
Does NATO stand a chance in a war against Russia?
That depends what kind of war. Russia has quite different military doctrines than the USA and NATO in general.If Russia invaded Europe, according to old Cold War plans, it’d be a defeat for them. They simply lack the necessary force. They are not prepared for this kind of force projection, their army is not designed to face NATO forces as an attacking force. If a Russian invasion ever occured, it’d be in the Baltic states or somewhere else in the buffer zone. In any case, it’ll be very limited and the Russians will try to achieve a status quo before major NATO forces drive them out or their little adventure escalates into a worldwide shitstorm.But if NATO invaded Russia, that’ s a whole different story. In this case, NATO would very well lose. The Russians are well prepared to defend their Motherland, and they have strong traditions doing so. Not to mention that NATO also lacks the necessary ground potential. Most likely they’d grind to a standstill somewhere around the Dnepr, and then it’s either nukes or GTFO.To summarize, a NATO-Russian war would not lead anywhere, in any case. There is no point trying to win small territories from each other while risking to lose everything. (And I am not talking only about a potential nuclear scenario: there are serious economic ties tangling the two factions to each other, and straining them would be almost as bad as bombing each others’ cities.) As neither side could invade the other’s territory and occupy enough land to cripple the opponent into submission, it’d be just a very nasty tug of war.Finally let me point out that no wars are repeated exactly as the previous one, yet military planners tend to fall into the mistake of preparing for it. In WW2, the demise of France was to prepare for trench warfare and mass attacks again, but they got mobile armies and air support. Britain still believed in the might of the battleship, just to have its ass kicked by Japan and have most of its warships locked in Scapa Flow by German submarines. Most people nowadays imagine a war between Russia and NATO as some strange mix of WW2 and Cold War plans. No it’ll never happen. Not that way.
Why does the USA chase off dictators around the world at huge cost when it could give free healthcare to all its citizens for a fraction of that cost?
One important reason for this is that they do it for their own safety. Just because a dictator is far away at the moment, it doesn't mean that they won't strike closer to home soon.Before World War Two, Hitler was just another foreign leader engaging in some Argie-bargie with his neighbours. Britain and her allies decided that Germany weren't worth fighting until the invasion of Poland, by which time Germany were absolutely a force to be reckoned with. Were Neville Chamberlain to have taken a firmer stance, Britain would likely not have been forced into such a large-scale war.Another reason is the USA’s desire to show off her strength. While they can't march their troops into China or Russia, they can exert their might elsewhere and show that they are no pushover. They can also use these conflicts to challenge other major powers, as happened in Syria with Russia.There's also a humanitarian aspect of it. Many people would be uncomfortable leaving hundreds of thousands of lives in danger, held at the whim of a dictator. To leave these people behind would be a moral failure in many people's eyes, and so they refuse to abandon them.The budget for the NHS for 2015/16 was over 116 billion pounds, or almost 150 billion US dollars. The USA has a population that is around five times that of the UK, so that would make their requires budget three quarters of a trillion dollars, give or take. The US spend about 600 million dollars on the military each year. That is not enough to cover health care for everyone.Aside from that, some people like healthcare being paid for by the people that use it. Many, especially the rich, will pay more towards it than they will receive from it. Healthcare also provides jobs and money for people working in that sector, a lot of which will change were it to come under public control.Finally, the quality of healthcare may diminish in the public sector. Spending cuts and budgeting will mean that expensive treatments won't be as readily available, so overall healthcare quality will go down.Note: I am not opposing the idea, just suggesting why others might.
What do Russia and the U.S want from each other?
The United States wants to continue to be an economic superpower, where money and influence are the main currency, but the US maintains a military that can protect allies and unseat those who disrupt this system.The Russians want a return to the Superpower table after their fall to regional powerhouse after the Soviet Collapse. They are resource strong, but wildly corrupt, so they are not economically strong, and vulnerable to sanctions. But Russia, as a Authoritarian State, has few compunctions about military usage, and this has allowed them to interfere and invade neighbors. Since no one wants a war with Russia, this has allowed them to gain territory and influence at little political cost.Putin has repeatedly spoken of the failures of the Liberal World Order, that democracies are unstable, and that the West offers little to the world with ideas like free trade and elections. He has offered a different vison, a strong ruler who offers order and protection. Discrediting his international opponents by supporting nationalists and authoritarians has paid off well for him so far, and the only question is will democracies respond to the threat, or fall into isolationism and factions because of it.More importantly, Putin himself, as an authoritarian leading an oligarchy, needs to remain as the soul source of power and the target of influence in Russia. In the United States, leaders change, parties fall out of power and regain it with great regularity, Putin has nowhere to go if he falls, he won’t leave office until he dies. This means he needs to project power constantly, in the media and the halls of power, so that he is not challenged.My biggest fear is honestly what happens when Putin dies. He’s 65, and though in excellent health, he works a brutally stressful job. The average lifespan in Russia is 70.8 years. Putin can’t prepare a successor, that would dilute his power. The power struggle could easily get bloody, as the repressed minorities might rise up, power players would seek military strength to back up claims for power, and other nations would try to tilt Russia their way as Russia tilted them.
Is Trump going to pull everyone into World War III?
No. Liberal media has constantly portrayed Trump as someone “unfit” to hold the nuclear launch codes, but in reality, Trump has been preaching non-intervention, a break from US foreign policy that has been sticking it’s big nose into world affairs for decades.Trump seeks cordial relations with Russia, and while he wants to economically reign in China, neither side will risk a conflict. If both sides engaged in total war, while China would be unable to defeat America, America would be unable to hold China, while still causing incredible amounts of damage, so it would be a lose lose proposition for either side.If a smaller conflict occurs, such as with North Korea, it would not cause World War 3. North Korea is stupid, but not stupid enough to provoke America into a war. America knows that attacking the North would probably involve nukes being deployed by the Kim regime, so they will not attack unless provoked. China knows that in the case of this war, America and South Korea will win, and a major US ally, along with US bases, will be on its border, so they will try to reign in any attempts by the North to attack the South.There is nothing to worry about here. It’s going to be business as usual in Washington, and most people will not notice any difference in their lives at all in the next 4 years. Trump is already beginning to dial down the inflammatory rhetoric, and is toeing the Republican party line more and more every day.Hopefully what he will do is make America stop appearing to be a bully on the world stage, and widespread America bashing will subside.