• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's Superpower "Burden"

Is America's status as a Superpower a burden on America?


  • Total voters
    22

Jucon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
All things considered, is being a world's Military superpower a burden on America?

Obama yet again is getting heat from the right for his remarks at the Nuclear Summit.

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."



IMO, yes it is a burden, and Obama summed it up in one sentence. We lose American lives and spend money we barely have on our military (around $1 trillion a year, last I heard). We spend more on our military than the next top 10 countries COMBINED! And for what? So we can be the world police? Yes, our causes are often just, but should it be our job to be the Democracy Crusaders? Why should we be the ones who send the most troops... spend the most money... lose the most lives? We've spent more than a trillion dollars on Iraq. I wonder what kinds of things we could have done with that money back home? Maybe given the tax payers another break? I feel Obama's comments were absolutely appropriate and the right IMO is just too proud to agree with him. Either that or they're just trying to find one more ridiculous thing to make fun of him for.
 
Last edited:
Obama yet again is getting heat from the right for his remarks at the Nuclear Summit.

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

All things considered, is being a world's superpower a burden on America?
Only if we let it.

What The Obama said is fine so far as it goes; if that's the 'rational' basis for voluntarily reducng our status as a superpower, then any issue taken is legitmate.
 
It's definitely a burden, i can't see it in anyway that it wouldn't be a little bit of a burden, but the benefits of being a world's superpower far outweigh the burden's in my opinion.
 
Security has a price tag unfortunately
 
Its a burden if you guys think it is the only thing that matters.
The States will dominate the world for a while still and be a big player in the foreseeable future.
 
I view it as a burden primarily because it puts us in the position of being hated by much of the world. Other than that, it drains huge amounts of money from our economy, but that's our own fault for trying to get involved in every penny ante country that "needs" our support.
 
Honestly, America wouldn't have this burden if the rest of the world didn't depend on us for protection. Europe has been slacking off when it comes to self defense.
 
We don't need to get involved in other people's affairs and we don't. We do things for our strategic advantage, and not much more. When their was a genocide going down in Rwanda, Darfur, what did the US do? Nothing. If we were the champions of democracy and world's policeman we should have gotten involved. But because we are not liberators we don't share much of a burden. Anything we do is for our own sake and no one elses, and that is what the world gets upset at. They only wish they could have our strength to go invade their neighbors without the worry of the US bombing them for trying to challenge our rule.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, America wouldn't have this burden if the rest of the world didn't depend on us for protection. Europe has been slacking off when it comes to self defense.

In your opinion,where is the threat to Europe?
 
In your opinion,where is the threat to Europe?

We know terrorists have attacked several European countries. It doesn't have to be an immediate threat, threats will rise up in the future. If anything Russia and Iran pose threats to Europe currently.
 
We know terrorists have attacked several European countries. It doesn't have to be an immediate threat, threats will rise up in the future. If anything Russia and Iran pose threats to Europe currently.

Terrorists were attacking the UK long before 9/11.
The US gave them a great deal of money and did very little to help the UK.

Russia is no immediate threat to Europe they supply Europe with gas and oil.
Iran hates the UK because it is an ally of the US.
The only real threat that Iran could pose for Europe is to give Islamic terrorists a dirty or small nuclear device...see above.
 
Terrorists were attacking the UK long before 9/11.
The US gave them a great deal of money and did very little to help the UK.

Russia is no immediate threat to Europe they supply Europe with gas and oil.
Iran hates the UK because it is an ally of the US.
The only real threat that Iran could pose for Europe is to give Islamic terrorists a dirty or small nuclear device...see above.

Isn't giving a great deal of money helping? We paid them to help themselves and they really didn't do much with it.

I'm talking about the future, conflicts are bound to happen. WWII happened and America had to bail out Europe. Much of Europe is liberal and very pacifistic. That same mentality led to Hitler rising and being able to start WWII.
 
Isn't giving a great deal of money helping? We paid them to help themselves and they really didn't do much with it.

I'm talking about the future, conflicts are bound to happen. WWII happened and America had to bail out Europe. Much of Europe is liberal and very pacifistic. That same mentality led to Hitler rising and being able to start WWII.

the IRA did a great deal with the money they got from the US.
They blew quite a few people up and shot quite a few soldiers with it.

The US did not exactly bail out Europe, it was in their interest to join Britain and Russia in destroying the third reich and the Japanese.
I am not knocking the US. Without Britain and its empire, USSR and the US the Nazis would have dominated Europe Africa and Western Asia
Without any of the three, Hitler would have prevailed .

I do agree that Europe sat back and allowed the US to protect us from the USSR.
 
It is a burden in two ways, as I see it.

One is that some other countries automatically looks to the U.S. for support or a reaction. I guess that's a good thing as long as we can deliver. If we don't deliver its even worse

The other is that it further fuels obnoxious pro-American sentiment. The reason I say that its obnoxious is because many Americans use the over-utilized "we saved you guys in the war." Therefore many Americans walk around with the notion that our country deserves more respect, or it deserves respect first over other nations.

The second a president doesn't live up to these burdensome standards, he is criticized, and that's been the case for the last 15 to 20 presidencies.
 
Last edited:
We don't need to get involved in other people's affairs and we don't. We do things for our strategic advantage, and not much more. When their was a genocide going down in Rwanda, Darfur, what did the US do? Nothing. If we were the champions of democracy and world's policeman we should have gotten involved. But because we are not liberators we don't share much of a burden. Anything we do is for our own sake and no one elses, and that is what the world gets upset at. They only wish they could have our strength to go invade their neighbors without the worry of the US bombing them for trying to challenge our rule.
And this all upsets you terribly doesn't it?
 
Britains just think the 'we saved your asses in WW2 amusing and think that the Americans get their history of WW2 from Errol Flynn movies, the Russians dont even call it World war 2 they call it the great patriotic war and no one else except themselves played a major part in it.
The French think that the German occupation was a chance for their women to soften up the Germans by shagging them until General De Gaulle saved them.
Only Americans think they saved everyones asses in WW2.
The Americans proved they were a warrior nation during WW2 and should be extremely proud of the contribution that they gave against the threat of the Axis powers..but they did not do it on their own
However the Americans can IMO claim that they did hold back the Communist threat near enough on their own .
They didnt do it because they loved Europe but they did do it virtually on their own
 
Well of course, but how else could we dominate other countries to defend our rights to their resources.

The free market stops at our borders don't you know.
 
All things considered, is being a world's Military superpower a burden on America?

Obama yet again is getting heat from the right for his remarks at the Nuclear Summit.

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."



IMO, yes it is a burden, and Obama summed it up in one sentence. We lose American lives and spend money we barely have on our military (around $1 trillion a year, last I heard). We spend more on our military than the next top 10 countries COMBINED! And for what? So we can be the world police? Yes, our causes are often just, but should it be our job to be the Democracy Crusaders? Why should we be the ones who send the most troops... spend the most money... lose the most lives? We've spent more than a trillion dollars on Iraq. I wonder what kinds of things we could have done with that money back home? Maybe given the tax payers another break? I feel Obama's comments were absolutely appropriate and the right IMO is just too proud to agree with him. Either that or they're just trying to find one more ridiculous thing to make fun of him for.

It is inevitable the China will soon surpass America as a superpower like we are standing still.

Simple math and population capacity producing economic power shows this.

China becoming more of a capitalistic and changing from its ancient ways are going to make it iminent that China will soon become the worlds largest superpower by a longshot.

America will actually be the third ranking superpower within 20 yrs and China will overshadow everyone...
 
the IRA did a great deal with the money they got from the US.
They blew quite a few people up and shot quite a few soldiers with it.

The US did not exactly bail out Europe, it was in their interest to join Britain and Russia in destroying the third reich and the Japanese.
I am not knocking the US. Without Britain and its empire, USSR and the US the Nazis would have dominated Europe Africa and Western Asia
Without any of the three, Hitler would have prevailed .

I do agree that Europe sat back and allowed the US to protect us from the USSR.


I can agree with a lot of what you said. However, I think much of the world slacks of intentionally on military spending because they know America will help them out.
 
I can agree with a lot of what you said. However, I think much of the world slacks of intentionally on military spending because they know America will help them out.

Isnt that prudent foreign policy by the slackers?
Seriously!
 
Isnt that prudent foreign policy by the slackers?
Seriously!

Actually, it is :mrgreen: If anything it's the logical decision even if it isn't the most fair.
 
Actually, it is :mrgreen: If anything it's the logical decision even if it isn't the most fair.

The US military/govt are not stupid . Maybe it suited them that Europe was a very junior partner in NATO.
 
And this all upsets you terribly doesn't it?

Not really. Its the reason why our standard of living is so high and that we are not like Europe where many goods are not worth the price, but what can you do when its the only option?
 
Good god. Some of you people have no sense of history or national purpose.


The Barbary Pirates Wars sums up everything. These series of wars took place in the Mediterranean Sea in the early 19th century. Europeans, wealthy from their excursions across the world via colonialism, were content with paying ransoms and tolls for passage through this sea. The U.S., at its birth and infancy, could not afford to pay such things to secure its export/import businesses. Therefore, we went to war. And even though having to take a break in these wars to satisfy the British's desires to attack the U.S. in 1812, American Marines and Sailors wound up defeating the Barbary Pirates and solved the problem for everybody (even Europeans).

In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine had said that further efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as acts of aggression requiring US intervention. At the very end of the 19th century, the Spanish-American War brought America into the colonial game in a few locales (Cuba, Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico).

At the turn of the century, American Marines had to aid European nations in China. Aside from France, Germany, Japan, and Russia carving out spheres of influence in China, America had some "stock" in the existing Chinese government. Our role in the Boxer Rebellion was about securing more of our import/export stabilities.

Of course, Europe starts World War I, which disrupts our import/export trade stabilities. With their inabilities to figure it out, Americans eventually venture out into their world to secure it. In 1941, Japan tests us and force us to defend security. But once again Europeans couldn't figure out their own messes onn their continent, so Americans have to eventually cross the ocean to restore import/export trade securities.


And after WWII? When all of Europe's powers withdraw from their former colonies to licke their self inflicted wounds? The Soviet Union filled much of the voids and by the 1950s held influence over most of the world. America stood alone as the only force that could deal with a globe on the verge. The import/export world for the free world was endangered and since America didn't have a "big brother," we began to play the Cold War game. We often enough shelved our morals and values to beat the Soviets to the dictators and the populations, especially in the Middle East where oil had consumed the world as the ulitmate resource to build military and civilization.


After the Cold War, dumb asses began to assume that "our wars were over" as if the history of why we went to war was not an issue any longer. Throughout the 90s, politicians on both sides drew our military down and assumed that the outside world was now some how cooperative and healthy. 9/11 smacked the morons in the face and reminded them that even our two oceans will not protect us from the instabilties and corruptions of entire regions abroad. They claim to hate us for our activities abroad, but they wrap it all up in religious dogma and cultural propoganda. Europeans have been murdered over some cartoonist's idea of free speech. Amongst this wave of fanaticism, are our import/export trade stabilities. Even Somali pirates threaten international water ways (full circle, huh?)

It has been a burden. But it is a burden because Americans want a certain life style. The American military can pull back across the ocean. Slowly, but surely, will be the chinking of our lifestyles and securities as our trade partners abroad come under attack by military neighbors or suffer the famine and disease of a neighbor. Or from having to suffer the flood of refugees that would come from a neighbors internal civil wars. People are ignorant of military affairs, but when it came to Sudan and Rwanda, U.S. Marines were there. While the world refused to intervene, U.S. Marines were busy training neighbors to defend their borders. Chad and Ethiopia were important to containing Sudan's Sharia wreckage from leaking into Djibouti and other locales.


People have this illusion that they can criticize our involvements in little nothing countries or our interventions into other people's affairs, but the truth is that if they could and would handle their own affairs so that they didn't interfere with our global mission, we wouldn't be there.

Protecting America's interests and the freedoms of Americans have far more to do than some simpleton's idea that he must be attacked for his freedoms to be jeapordized. Should NATO step up or individual European nations bear the burden for their own sakes for a change? Hell yeah. 65 years of licking their wounds is enough time to catch your breath. But until we have a "Big Brother" like Europe has, we are stuck fending for ourselves and guiding the world's affairs to our favor.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom