reply to post by mugger
Why is it the United States problem to defend all of these countries? If our government comes for our guns, there will be no U.S. to defend anyone
Ask your political leaders that, as they are the ones that put that responsibility on themselves. World Police much?
And for the record, if the government was coming for "your guns" well, you are a civilian, so, yeah, you aren't the one defending anyone but your
own self and your loved ones. the military, you know, the guys actually out there taking bullets to protect you, they will still have their guns.
Which brings us to the obvious. Even if the entire military command was onboard with some tyrannical coup, the actual people required to do this for
the most part wouldn't be. don't you see, when you say the government is coming to take your guns, you really mean the military, because that's an
operation that takes a hell of a lot of boots on the ground.
So, the next time you sit here and say the government is coming for your guns, remember that you are essentially saying that those troops, you know,
the ones you probably have a bumber sticker saying you support, are mindless drones that will come kill you if they are told to do so.
Anyways. The US isn't some isolated fortress. Like it or not, it's part of the international community. As such, it has responsibilities and
obligations. And be realistic, when we're talking about defending, we're talking about defending the US INTERESTS in the region, not the people.
It's in the best interest of the United states that countries who are friendly to the US remain so, for trade and economic reasons as well as
Take WW2 for example, the US loves to shove it in the worlds face that "they won the war" when, in reality, the US, Britain, Canada,and Russia won
the war. But the part left out is, the US refused to enter the war, or do much of anything, because they felt they had no vested interest in the
region when Hitler decided to start invading everyone he could throw a tank at. Even when friendly neutral countries were brutally invaded, the best
the US offered was a deal on some ships for the brits and canadians, in exchange for military bases.
not until Japan bombed the crap out of Pearl Harbor, showing their willingness and ability to strike at the mainland US, did they join in the war.
That lesson was learned hard. If the Us administration had the foresight to see the interests they SHOULD have in Europe, they would have made every
effort to stop the German expansion before it became an all out world war.
Hence, the world police. The US is arguably at the top. When it comes to force, yes, no question, when it comes to economy and other factors, well,
it's slipping. The best interest of the united states is to keep the status quo, and through applied pressure from various angles, seek the create
an even larger gap in the balance of power.
This is why you see the US willing to wage war on places in the middle east to "free the people" while ignoring similar if not worst human rights
abuses in other, less interesting, areas.
It hasn't been about defending people, ever, not to those in command at least, the ones moving the chess pieces. The boots on the ground, however,
I'm sure would say they are defending your rights, and the right to life of anyone whom they are sent into battle for.