Is it America's job to "run the world"?

[feed_me]

Wait so since the equipment is aging, when did you guys start adding the ensure to keep the equipment running

 

[J_the_Centrist]

I went to join the army in 2003 but was declined for health reasons. I see your point but we failed in all of these military endeavors simply because our presence wasn’t really wanted in the first place. If there’s not an overwhelming desire for a military presence, as was the case in Western Europe during WWII then we will have a series of disasters like the ones in recent decades. Support of the native population is paramount in such ventures and if you don’t have that then all you’re doing is occupying or conquering and that is not America but historically that is how it is defined. Another issue to consider is that there are perhaps tens of thousands of orphaned children coming of age as a result of our wars since 911, do you think that they consider us allies? I think not.

 

[Pup7]

Wait so since the equipment is aging, when did you guys start adding the ensure to keep the equipment running

At the Federal rate we probably can’t afford the medical bill.

On a serious note, we’ve cannibalized some mothballed jets in museums for parts because we can’t get the funding via Congress. The B-1 bomber is a prime example.

To protect the C17, Boeing developed a scale sort of like “combat-stress hours” for jets - and the Air Force started swapping out trainer jets with combat ready ones to relieve the wear and tear on the airframe. We’ve never done that at any point in our history, and it’s not because the building is lower quality. It’s because the number of hours that jet has spent in combat surpasses what she was expected to handle at the time she was developed in 1989, and in the conditions she has been operated in.

The F16 is rife with metal fatigue - it’s a 30-35 year old airframe. Our tankers are 45-50 years old on average, and our B1s are pushing 30. The B52, still venerable in her Medicare years is about sixty.

This is DOD wide; I just happen to know more about my own service, and two of my best friends are colonels and pilots and midlevel commanders and deal with this stuff daily. One is a fighter guy by trade, the other is a C17 pilot by trade. Tie in the DOD wide pilot shortage - human wear and tear - and you have the full picture.

 

[Pup7]

I went to join the army in 2003 but was declined for health reasons. I see your point but we failed in all of these military endeavors simply because our presence wasn’t really wanted in the first place. If there’s not an overwhelming desire for a military presence, as was the case in Western Europe during WWII then we will have a series of disasters like the ones in recent decades. Support of the native population is paramount in such ventures and if you don’t have that then all you’re doing is occupying or conquering and that is not America but historically that is how it is defined. Another issue to consider is that there are perhaps tens of thousands of orphaned children coming of age as a result of our wars since 911, do you think that they consider us allies? I think not.

Then think about this:

No military base abroad is sovereign US territory. Germany could ask us to leave tomorrow. We did pull out of Manas in Kyrgyzstan because they asked us to leave. Korea could ask us to leave. We don’t just set up shop as a rule. SOFAs - Status of Forces Agreements - change as conditions change. Germany is a good example of that.

Even Afghanistan is an agreement at this point. Was it at first? No. But the mission is different now.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

I am sincerely sorry but I don’t see Russia as a threat to anyone. I think that they only want to maintain influence in their own region and not to run or threaten the world. NATO requesting our presence is sincerely suspect to me, which I can say thanks to people like you who I appreciate very much and I mean that. I believe that if something doesn’t concern us then why should we get involved? As pertains to NATO, who did the asking and why?
What you said about Hungary and Poland is interesting, considering they’re in open rebellion against the EU and what seems, very much, to be a population replacement campaign, AKA the “refugee crisis.”

 

[Pup7]

What you said about Hungary and Poland is interesting, considering they’re in open rebellion against the EU and what seems, very much, to be a population replacement campaign, AKA the “refugee crisis.”

Look up the bases. It’s not “population replacement”. We’ve been there for the better part of a decade. Has nothing to do with the EU. It’s a NATO base.

You may not see Russia as a threat. It is, and it’s known it is.

 

[Pup7]

I believe that if something doesn’t concern us then why should we get involved?

Question: should we have stayed out of WWI, then? That didn’t concern us. We entered the war reluctantly after dragging our feet and maintaining isolationism for years. It’s what got Wilson elected. We didn’t even initially join the UN because the treaty of Versailles was repudiated by our Congress and we remained that way through the 1920s. Roosevelt changed all that as WWII heated up in Europe, and we would likely have entered that anyway even without Pearl Harbor. It would’ve been the right thing to do.

As for NATO nations, NATO is an agreement to mutual defense. That’s what NATO is. And ironically, it was formed for mutual protection from the former USSR.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

I agree, we have placed ourselves in a position where we’re committed to our presence everywhere. I just wonder if we can maintain it or if we’re fit to anymore. I can’t get over what we’ve become and I’m not even forty yet. I shudder in horror to what I’ll witness lower ourselves to if I live another four decades or more.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Do you support the idea of an absolute monarchy?

Yes. Democracy is a farce

 

[Pup7]

Depends on how it’s exercised.

There has to be a reason there aren’t too many absolute monarchies left…

 

[Pup7]

I agree, we have placed ourselves in a position where we’re committed to our presence everywhere. I just wonder if we can maintain it or if we’re fit to anymore. I can’t get over what we’ve become and I’m not even forty yet. I shudder in horror to what I’ll witness lower ourselves to if I live another four decades or more.

What you’re saying isn’t new, though. This has been said time and time again throughout history. My parents feared during the sixties and seventies, we worried in the eighties. It’s not new.

And we haven’t always been the ones to place ourselves. We have treaties we uphold (NATO), we have requests we fulfill (the Middle East). We DO screw up, yes.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I think it’s fair to keep in mind that all the representative governments are fairly young, spending themselves into oblivion, and basically committing cultural suicide.

I’m not sure they’ll stick around long term.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

The refugee crisis has the potential to replace or displace the native populations of Europe. No country, truly sovereign, in its right mind would subject itself to such a thing.

I’m not saying Russia is perfect but a threat to the world? I honestly don’t think so and not because I’m an Orthodox convert either. I think they only want what’s in their own countries best interest and I can’t criticize them for that. During the Soviet Union yes, but today I fail to see it.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

When special interests are the driving force then yes, but when the people are in charge and morally upright then it can work. It worked before and perhaps can work again.

 

[Pup7]

Look up what’s happening in Saudi. That place is going to implode. And I’ve lived there, so I can see how it would happen.

I’d rather at least have the option than live like the Saudis (the only absolute monarchy I’ve ever experienced, so it’s the only personal reference I have). I wasn’t military, I was a civilian, and lived there for three years.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Special interests have always been the driving force. The idea of “the little man” having a say is a myth.

 

[Pup7]

The refugee crisis has the potential to replace or displace the native populations of Europe. No country, truly sovereign, in its right mind would subject itself to such a thing.

I can’t disagree with this. Yes, indeed - let’s ask Angela how that’s working out for her.

It’s the main reason my British husband has no desire to go back to Europe and backed Brexit. When I first came back on active duty he was all ready to go back to Germany (he lived there seven years, before I met him). Now? Not a chance. I’ve filled my overseas assignment requests with Alaska. (Even when I was sent unaccompanied to Korea for a year, meaning he could not go, he was fine with that - he actually said “at least it’s not Europe”.)

(For DOD purposes, HI and AK are indeed considered overseas - OCONUS - Outside the CONtinental US.)

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I think their failures are more cultural and religious than anything to do with their government type.

Austro Hungarian empire was a good example of a functional, free, stable, monarchy until it was dissolved.

 

[Pup7]

I don’t know that it was as stable as all that. They started attempting to disband/decentralize that in the 1840s, though - and it was because of various ethnic issues. It basically collapsed on its own in the wake of WWI.

I don’t know details so I can’t get into a deep discussion, but if it was so great for everyone, why did it go away? Not a smart question and I don’t mean it cute. It’s a real question (worded poorly, I’ll admit it. )

 

[feed_me]

On a serious note: I have to say that America is controlled by a deep state that has there own agenda, too many things dont add up to say that America is in control.