Why does everything always come back to WWII? Winning that war is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, as its the origin of the national security state we find ourselves in today. One thing I can assure you of is its not 1939. We are back to like 19th century nationalism, there is no real contest of ideologies, even though we long for a new Cold War to give us purpose or moral clarity (hence the China panic). The Ukraine conflict is probably more like the Crimean War than anything that happened in the mid 20th century. And Defeat us at what exactly?
Well, I think we all know why the U.S. is lying … What about Russia’s 13,000 casualties? It is conceivable that Russia has 3,000 KIA and 10,000 WIA since October, but these losses are not reflected in social media and do not represent a degradation in Russia’s military power. Not so for Ukraine. Hell, even Zelensky told U.S. Senators he was going to draft 40 year old men. That means Ukraine’s losses are so great that they are being forced to dragoon men too old for the rigors of combat. Why Is U.S. Intelligence Lying About the War in Ukraine?
World War II made us the world's policeman because we were the last superpower standing. We were the only country that could rebuild Europe and Japan. You can't argue that Europe and Japan are not better places because of our involvement in their rebuilding. And it also benefited us, giving us trading partners as well as allies in a world order based on international law. Most of the world is much more peaceful because of it. Unfortunately, we probably gave a little too much technology to the untrustworthy and dangerous Russians, who immediately after the war started consolidating their "gains" and setting up puppet governments everywhere they could. Without the "national security state", as you call it, there would be several times as many wars as we've seen so far. If we left Europe without putting U.S. bases there, the Soviets probably would have invaded and taken over the continent in the 1950's. It's how an empire-minded government thinks: take as much as the other side will allow, and then take some more. It takes a unified group of countries to oppose empire-building and conquest. Without that, the Soviets would take over Europe and the Chinese would (eventually) take over Asia. We would be left isolated, without trading partners. Eventually, one of them would take over South America and work their way north. Our economy would be weaker without European trade, and we might not be able to defend ourselves from the onslaught. You seem to be taking military events and possibilities in isolation from economic events. That is not wise. It takes money to build a military. The strength of a military is tied to the strength of the economy, and the strength of a modern economy is tied to international trade. You seem to assume that our massive economy exists solely because of American exceptionalism and natural resources, and has little to do with our military activities protecting international trade. They are tied together. The military needs the economy to supply it, and the economy needs the military to protect it. The fact that our interactions with other nations occur as a benefit to both countries means that most of the rest of the world does not mind us being wealthy and successful. Only those that have no regard for international law and are looking for chances to take things from others have a problem with us on a regular basis. If we had retreated into our isolationist shell after WWII, we would have had the strongest military for a few years, but after the Soviets took over Europe, they would have been more powerful than us within a decade, if we did not re-invade Europe and set them free again (if the American people did not revolt and prevent it). A second U.S. invasion would have been bad for both the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. might have sunk into a second Great Depression, and Europe might have been so far removed from normal life after two destructive wars that they might not have ever fully recovered from it. Civilization would be the worse for it, without doubt.
I disagree with almost everything you've said here, especially your view on the Soviets, as these are simply our justifications for our own aggression and continuation of the security state, possible down to one "long telegram" written by George Kennan urging us not to cooperate with the USSR after the war. But it is refreshing to hear people make the argument that sustaining American capitalism requires armed violence at home and abroad, that we can agree on.
Witness the breathtaking ease with which ignorance is peddled. Nowhere did I justify any specific war. I merely justified the existence of a powerful military, not the need to use it on a regular basis. Protecting trade routes and starting wars are two different things.
We sure do use it on a regular basis though, and if we dont, we sure sell our ammo and weapons to people who actively are. Remember when Trump dropped a big bomb in Syria just because it was cool? That's basically what having all those weapons are for, its no fun if you cant use them, and they dont have market value if they just sit around in a warehouse, there are always people that want to use them.
So if you have a weapon in your house to protect the family from burglars, you are a vicious killer. There is no evaluation of whether you have the capacity to use the weapon for good or bad. You have it; therefore, you are a violent killer who should be stopped.
Most of our weapons sales (as far as dollars) are to Europe and Japan. Aside from maybe England protecting their Falkland Islands or helping us push Iraq out of Kuwait, how many times have Europe and Japan gone to war since WWII? Our weapons sit in warehouses and airport hangars, or are used for training. We sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. How often do they invade other countries? They have had a running battle with Yemen, but I tend to think that Yemen is at least partially at fault there. There is no evidence that Saudi Arabia wants to take over Yemen, enslave them or eradicate them. Much of our weapons sales to the rest of the world is to counter Russian or Chinese weapons sales to their opposition, or to directly counter a threat from Russia or China. Most weapons do not get used. If Taiwan had no defenses (and no weapons), China would have invaded it by now. Do you doubt that? Coming up with one case where a mentally-defective president expressed his idiocy over one bomb dropped on a terrorist group in Syria is no way to condemn the entire program. Other presidents probably would have authorized the same bomb to be dropped, but they wouldn't have said anything stupid. So your argument doesn't hold water.
It's amazing that after holding out for basically two years Ukraine will probably end up losing this war just because we couldn't get our logistical ducks in a row. Ukraine Invasion Day 659: US polls at 45/34% in favor of aid If the aid stops I think the war ends pretty quickly. It's really sad given all that has transpired to this point.
Did the USSR take over the nations between Moscow and Berlin (against their will) after WWII, or did they not do that? Did they provide some minimal level of security and help rebuild, and then go home and let them govern themselves, or did they set up puppet governments that were required to follow orders? The U.S. provided a condition known as "freedom" to the countries it liberated in WWII. The Soviets provided a condition known as "servitude" or "oppression" to the countries it liberated. Bonus question: were the liberated people happier, or the oppressed servants?
Japan actually cant go to war offensively its in their Constitution, and we still have defense obligations as part of the continuing occupation of that country 80 years on. Of course we have definitely supported their increased liberalization of what their armed forces can do under the banner of self-defense, and right-wing politicians in the country want to abandon the JDF's restrictions altogether, including Abe who was assassinated (not for that though). You also literally named multiple wars in which Europeans were involved, but you can add Vietnam and Korea to the mix there.
Europe was divided up between all the Allied powers after the war. There was room for cooperation with the Soviets after the War. Eventually our leaders were persuaded that there wasnt, George Kennan being a key figure here, got Truman on board. The Iron Curtain wasnt inevitable. Americans never look at their own actions, and they always claim the worst motivations of their enemies after the fact to justify their own intransigence and aggression. We decided the Soviets shouldnt have the bomb, and that was kind of that. We made the Cold War as much if not more than the Soviets.
