No one option is sustainable. Who said it was? But American interventionism certainly helped prop up the head start the US first received by sharing a landmass with unorganized and comparably technologically inferior city-states, a later received by being the one developed nation to avoid abject destruction. It helped. That's the point: you said it's hurt, I said it helped for the majority of the time applied.
Has it? You still offer no numbers nor analysis. You yourself said that this was a complex issue well before, yes? Did you take the time to disentangle the non-linear effects to say that interventionism=better? Or are you taking coincidence of economy and claiming that interventionism had positive effect on it? I just want your evidence for the claim, nothing more.
We'd have less security, too. It's a balance.
You have proof for this, or is it just assumption? My opinion is that without the interventionism our actions wouldn't play into the hands of terrorists. Hell, had we not trained OBL and the terrorists to fight the Russians, we'd likely see decreased threat now. Each time we intercede unjustly into foreign lands, we play into the propaganda of terrorists. We make the world a little less stable, a little more at risk. You can only bomb people for so long before they become REALLY pissed off about it, and if they can find no satisfaction through diplomatic means, they are all the more likely to try non-diplomatic means.
No, the offshoring really doesn't. Nations with large and varied interests will have large and varied foreign military/political/socio-economic interests. You're confusing the cause with the effect.
Not really. It's simplified because there has been growth in sectors not in industry, but those revolve around technology and would require that we educate more of our population to maintain. However, the wealth gap is not confused and the buying power is not confused. One of the reasons people bitch that we can't buy our own products is because wealth distribution did not keep up with labor and environmental laws. So to subsidize that, we use slave labor where we can get it. Currently it's China. Which in and of itself does lend to some stability because China is less likely to involve itself militarily against the United States with its economy so deeply entwined with our own. Which would bolster my point that trade, not war, make for stability.
Everything's dangerous. Water is dangerous if you drink too much. It's also dangerous if you don't have enough. Very dangerous in your lungs. Less so in your stomach. To say water is completely good for you or completely bad for you, then, would be wrong. It depends on the degree, it depends on how it's applied. Government is the same way.
Government is the same way. I did say it was necessary, and its necessity is in securing the rights and liberties of the People. Anarchy does not work. Measured fact as well. So we must have some, but too much currently has affected our freedom and liberty as well as put us in more danger of international retaliation.
You can also marry a guy. You can marry someone who isn't of your race. You can now fly, much cheaper than in the 1950s (per capita). Your wife can have maternal leave. Freedom is more than gun rights and the NSA (did you have cell phones in the 1950s anyway? So let's call that a wash- you didn't have any freedom from wiretaps then, either, that's why the Church Committee convened in the 1970s).
I can marry a guy in some states. It's not a wash though, all you have is superficial things which obviously would have been allowed had we invested in our freedom instead of killing those around us.
You don't have the Soviet Union on the brink of nuclear war. Are you saying the TSA is capable of killing more people at once than nuclear war? Has the TSA ever killed anybody? You're being very meolodramatic here.
We have something worse. A former Soviet block selling arms to others, not being able to account for some, and we trained the terrorists to help fight them and that pretty well backfired.
Has it cost that? Does that include troops salaries and perks? You should look into that.
Overall cost of the WoT. 1% of our debt
No, it's not. That's kinda the problem. It's your opinion, and if you can't figure out that just because you think it, it's true, then you have some significant problems.
Indeed it is. America has some of the most aggressive police in the world. We also jail more people per capita than any other nation on the planet. We've restricted areas of free speech, we monitor the "malcontents", there is no privacy anymore, and the 9th and 10th amendments are all but ignored.
I hope to see it someday!
If you're ever honest about the data, you'd see it already.
I didn't say better. I said they maintained US standards for quite some time. Are Americans 'better off' than if those policies weren't applied from the 1890s onward? Of course.
You said it helped, so that means it made things a bit better, I'm just trying to see if you could actually quantify your statements. Pssst....you haven't.
We're much safer than the 1960s, of course. We're not under the threat of nuclear war. Terrorism is about the democratization of violence, via technology, and that has very little to do with American policy. What American policy could've completely avoided twitter?
Are we? We no longer have the Soviet Union it's true. But we're worried about North Korea having weapons, Iran going nuclear, Russia not being able to account for all its nukes, etc.
Standard of living, 1870s to now. I already told you that, why did you ask again?
Because you've produced nothing to actually back it up other than saying the same thing again. Of course the standards of living neigh across the globe have increased but proportionally so? And still? 70+ years we've been in the ME, how have we fared?
lol?
If the only thing you want to use is wealth accumulation...it still wouldn't be smart thing to use when the comparison is against the gilded age lol
Oh, America make some money, it's just that the money isn't distributed along natural demographics. Which is the dishonesty in that plot of yours, you're purposefully skipping over all the statistics.
eace
