4 mo. ago • 90%

The reason it is so hard to change

31 comments

That's not hard to swallow. It's shoved down our throats daily.

35
- Shoved down our throats?
  
  6
- 2
Isn’t every single nation known to man making decisions that best serve themselves?

21
- Norway puts all its oil money into a national trust it uses to improve the quality of life for its citizens like provide free education. The US government says its illegal to cancel student debt.
  
  9
  
  But the post is about foreign policy not internal policy
  
  2
  
  People keep saying this but never providing proof this is true.
  
  -5
- Sure, but the US makes the decision to start or support wars a lot more than anyone else.
  
  -1
- I think I told someone the other day that nobody was suggesting liberals supported imperialist activities on the basis of their liberal ideology
  
  I think I owe that person an apology
  
  -1
Replace US with anyone.

19
- Sure, but the US starts and supports a lot more wars than any other country and wastes as many tax dollars on it as the next ten countries combined, so it's fair to single them out.
  
  5
- but picking on the new guy is so easy.
  
  3
- Go ahead and try, China and Russia combined can't do it.
  
  -2
very easily swallows the pill, as this has been known for decades and is the same literally everywhere

16
- We can't help but involve ourselves in international atrocities. What are we supposed to do when they obviously benefit our capitalistic interests??
  
  0
Wait, was that different in any point in time?

Basically all wars start (and end) out of economic interests (which come in a wide variety, eg land, easier enforced economic policies over another country, colonialism with military bases, or even just pain old money spent on war industry).

11
- Basically all wars start (and end) out of economic interests
  
  I would dispute this very strongly, unless you simplify 'economic interests' to mean anything and everything that brings gain to anyone, at which case a politician starting a war solely for PR to stay in power would count as doing so for 'economic interests'.
  
  3
  
  True, but even politicians can't start a war without incentivizing a whole machine of people to do it. And that power needs to come from somewhere and kept being fed.
  
  The victor never really (or voluntary) leaves the spoils, or the land.
  
  5
From the outside looking in I eat this pill so much it's easy to swallow nowadays.

7
Also AIPAC

2
I wish, then the US would actually do what needs to be done

1
- The free market will save us
  
  2
- "By the capitalistic short term intrests of its politicians"
  
  1
  
  That makes more sense
  
  2
I also know only the very basics of foreign policy. I guess when workers rise up and seize the means of production it’ll be a moot point.

“What do you have to lose?” - Donald Trump

0
- much complicated, very nuance
  
  0
It is not all that bad. Wealth creation needs peace, rule of law and happy to spend consumers. I would be more afraid some ideological guy leading country towards what his ideology says it must be.

-5
- It is not all that bad. Wealth creation needs peace
  
  All the wars for oil and other resources would disagree.
  
  So would the obscene profits of the military industrial complex.
  
  5
  
  Sure, but nothing compares with WW2 and many wars triggered by the Cold War.
  
  1
- "Stay still and let the peace sweep over you"
  
  2

You've viewed 31 comments.