Libertarianism - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Are you really blaming the military industrial complex on countries like Canada?

Numbers_sl said:

Are you really blaming the military industrial complex on countries like Canada?

Click to expand...

Every country that uses cheap petroleum (Even if they export), involves itself in international trade using the U.S. as a reserve currency (Canada) and also has no, if any, military of it's own is involved in the U.S. military industrial complex's profit and need. I'm really not sure why people look at the world as compartmentalized, separate entities--but it's not like that, at all. It's just like the pharmaceutical debate when people ignore the stress put on the American system due to how we handle generics and approval with other countries (Which drastically changes the investment and price rationality in our markets). It's all connected. Tomorrow I will wake up, and fill my car up for far less than I can in any other country--and I know that, in a big way, is like a world wide thank you for keeping our boots on the necks of millions.

Edit: And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a conscious plan on evil Canada's part--I'm saying there is a great deal of money to be made by maintaining this system, and all western states actively participate. The biggest principle participation is trade is done in U.S. currency because we maintain global stability.

Countries like Canada do their best to acquire trade deals that are of net benefit to them. News at 11. How did Canada help create the situation?

Lithose_sl said:

And yes, I said stable. Argue all you want--but the wars and interventions today cost a great deal less lives, and are a great deal less destructive, than they were before active intervention/trade (Without overt control, sorry Britain, colonialism doesn't count) was the diplomatic policy of the world power(s) (And it's more than the U.S., you think Britain and France aren't out there banging heads?). The U.S., for years, has been acting like any good fire fighter without water--we light smaller, controlled fires to burn away excess fuel and prevent a larger fire later. We are burning away Afghanistan because they had a pretty deadly combination of black market revenue (Opium), weapons (From us, lol), access to regional destabilizing factors (Soldiers from various states) and anti-trade governance, as well as a lack of a good foil or counter in the region (Due to Pakistan's collapse). Our reason for Iraq was far less noble--but it was still in the same vein, we wanted to access another western, trade friendly government to lessen Saudi Arabia's and Iran's sphere of influence and get the entire region more stable--yeah, that kind of blew up in our faces, but that was thegoal.

Click to expand...

God damnit I guess I'll drop my idealistic, isolationist fantasies. Lithose dropping knowledge bombs again, actually making me reconsider my position. I don't have to like it though!

Numbers_sl said:

Countries like Canada do their best to acquire trade deals that are of net benefit to them. News at 11. How did Canada help create the situation?

Click to expand...

By actively participating in various global entities which put pressure on the U.S. to actively participate in regional conflicts to ensure stable trade relations? One such practice is the use of U.S. currency as a reserve to provide instant and accepted global liquidity for all trade deals--there was even an effort to bring about a new, international reserve but it was nixed (By various actors) out of fear of weakening the U.S. as a stabilizing hegemony. That status, is fueled by our use of the military, which creates a huge profit motive (Through need) for the military--which constantly grows the military. (Pretty simple cycle, no?)

If NK attacked SK, I think about a 12 billion dollar market would fall to pieces between Canada and SK. So when NK sabers rattle, is it a Canadian aircraft carrier which shows up? No? Well then. It's just like on a local level--without police and a recognized legitimacy of violence under their control, trade can not take place. Part of the way you pay for that is by using our currency. (And there are other factors, to) Another way is lobbying, when a Canadian (Or anyone) companies interests are threatened, they lobby your own governmentandthey lobby ours (And you get your own government to lobby ours)--any decent international company, regardless of base, has a lobbyist in washington. Again, demand, always demand for the stabilizing effects of a hegemony that's open to trade. And this makes change difficult here (ONE factor, there are many others)--Asking us to change, before altering the demand, is like stopping a train without slowing down it's engine--not going to happen. (Sorry can't think of a better analogy)

What has Canada done to put pressure on the U.S. other than the typical trade negotiations that everyone enters into that helped fuel the military industrial complex?

Numbers_sl said:

What has Canada done to put pressure on the U.S. other than the typical trade negotiations that everyone enters into that helped fuel the military industrial complex?

Click to expand...

I've explained it twice, I'm not explaining it again because you simply restate the question. (And I'm not sure why you're going on about trade negotiations--while that is a point, it wasn't even the practice I used in my example.)

I guess I don't understand where you are coming from. You can't just blame the rest of the first world for the military spending going on the U.S. without someone asking for clarification.

Numbers_sl said:

I guess I don't understand where you are coming from. You can't just blame the rest of the first world for the military spending going on the U.S. without someone asking for clarification.

Click to expand...

I explained it in two posts....Again, you asked, I answered. You keep asking--I'm not sure what you want. After WW2, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were asked (Or allowed) to fill power vacuum's. During that time, the U.S. began to assert itself as a global stabilizing agent opposite of Russian influence. Part of it's job as a stabilizing agent was ensuring markets remained stable in emergent regions--we didn't just want to make the world "safe for democracy", we also wanted to make sure countries like Canada could trade with X country because trade tended to indoctrinate people toward "our team". After Russia collapsed, we continued to fulfill this role--part of that role is acting as a military deterrent for various regions throughout the world.

Countries, like Canada, which trade within these regions benefit from the U.S. as a stabilizing agent. They generate demand bytrading in our dollars--which has a host of empowering effects for the U.S. and our markets (And various benefactors within)--combine this with plenty of lobbying revenue flowing in from actors within those countries that rely on U.S. military hegemony for market stability and you have an immense demand, generated bymultiple other countries trading habits, which has greatly increased the profit motivation for military growth in the one nation that actively supplies the need for security--the U.S., which feeds the host of issues being complained about in this thread.

Canada COULD attempt to retract some of this power from the U.S., like China and Ven attempted to do by trading in home currencies--but Canada, and many other nations, refused and therefor commodities (like Oil) are still priced in dollars and most trade happens with either dollars or the Euro (Pushing everything through our financials, which U.S. corporations do make money off of--but not the U.S. government, so privatized profits, U.S. socialized defense)--which, as I explained above, is just one part of the cycle that creates demand for the U.S. to act as a stabilizing agent. At any time the world could come together (And it's tried, read about SPRD) and ween itself off our tit, and go in on their own and attempt to maintain market stability--but that would cost money and cut into profits--so it'snotdone.

So you have a bunch of countries not only enjoying the effects of our policies, but also actively making profits for private forces in our market (Which puts immense pressure on our government) by using our currency--then turning around and saying "What you're doing is kind of shitty, eh?". The reality is, if they want it to stop, the ball is in their court. But they like the gravy train as much as the U.S., the difference is they get to hide behind their hypocritical indignation as they profit off the same misery we do.

In the span of a couple posts, Lithose just made me a little more conservative and pragmatic by using logic, reason and his own thoughts. Something that Merlin, bmizzle, and the rest of the conservatard crew couldn't do in 2000 posts by regurgitating right wing talking points.

The problem is you previously associated the modern republican party with actual conservatives. Who really don't have a major political party that represents them.

Tanoomba_sl said:

There appeared to be some kind of debate as to how big of a difference there is between human-operated VS completely automated drone strikes. All I'm saying is the difference is minimal at best. Someone pressing the "auto-kill" button and someone pressing the "kill" button after waiting for the cross hairs to scroll over the target on the monitor are pretty much the same fucking thing.

Click to expand...

Who cares? What about the ship 50 miles off shore launching tomahawks? Or the plane dropping bombs? Or the sniper taking out targets?

And bro, we're protecting ourselves from people. How specific of an answer would you like? People who we have intelligence indicating that they mean to do us harm.

TheBeagle_sl said:

In the span of a couple posts, Lithose just made me a little more conservative and pragmatic by using logic, reason and his own thoughts. Something that Merlin, bmizzle, and the rest of the conservatard crew couldn't do in 2000 posts by regurgitating right wing talking points.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he is basically articulating my stance in the argument I have with Tuco every 3-4 months about overseas military involvement, but he's more educated than me so he makes it sound much better than I do. I consider myself pretty conservative, in a reality based scale.

Lithose_sl said:

So you have a bunch of countries not only enjoying the effects of our policies, but also actively making profits for private forces in our market (Which puts immense pressure on our government) by using our currency--then turning around and saying "What you're doing is kind of shitty, eh?". The reality is, if they want it to stop, the ball is in their court. But they like the gravy train as much as the U.S., the difference is they get to hide behind their hypocritical indignation as they profit off the same misery we do.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Great posts.


"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."


Hegemonic Stability Theory, Tanoomba. Look that shit up, son. Like I said, we literallyarethe world police.

Lithose_sl said:

So you have a bunch of countries not only enjoying the effects of our policies, but also actively making profits for private forces in our market (Which puts immense pressure on our government) by using our currency--then turning around and saying "What you're doing is kind of shitty, eh?". The reality is, if they want it to stop, the ball is in their court. But they like the gravy train as much as the U.S., the difference is they get to hide behind their hypocritical indignation as they profit off the same misery we do.

Click to expand...

So how did Canada and friends make you develop the military industrial complex? Of course countries around the world exploit current conditions, but I've never read anything about Canada's involvement in international institutions that pressured the U.S. into spending $700 billion a year on the military in the U.S. The soviet economic system was its own worst enemy and was destined to fail in places that it was forced upon. Canada has traditionally been wary of American military strength and has pushed back against military development of space, or even the development of nuclear weapons. Make no mistake, the U.S. has made its own decisions based on their own interests and countries like Canada are invited to international groups and agreements in part because it serves American interests to have us at the table, not the other way around.

Numbers_sl said:

but I've never read anything about Canada's involvement in international institutions that pressured the U.S. into spending $700 billion a year on the military in the U.S.

Click to expand...

NATO, maybe? Jesus christ man, you're fighting a losing battle here.