[Sixstrings]

(HD) The World Without America - Full Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z_j5XBjA2U

The film asks the question, what if we did just cut the military budget and withdraw from the world?

Good narration and personal stories by the filmmaker, an immigrant to the US that escaped the USSR and saw the horrors in Yugoslavia.

He interviews ambassadors and some interesting people around the world, from the UK to Kuwait, to China.

I found the analysis about Europe the most interesting, and a good reminder in the film about the history with Yugoslavia.

The fact from the 1990s is that there was horrible genocide in Bosnia. Europe did nothing at all, they just ignored it for a long time. Then they sent peacekeepers but wouldn't allow them to protect anyone. All the Europeans would do is talk and talk endlessly, and diplomacy, and more died.

Serbs herded 8,000 Bosnians into an abandoned factory. The Bosnians thought it was the Dutch peacekeepers protecting them, but all the Dutch did was stand there and watch as Serbs shot all 8,000 civilians dead.

I vaguely knew about this from the 90s -- the "mass graves," but not the details.

So anyhow, finally it fell to the US, once again, to intervene because Europe is incapable of it. The documentary examines that question, US intervention, and how it always falls to the US nobody else will help.

Then 1999 and Kosovo. The US didn't wait this time for Europe to handle it, and immediately intervened with air war and bombing on Serbia, and that made the Serbs stop for good and all the Kosovars weren't killed. Humanitarian intervention really can save lives, or you can do nothing and just watch holocausts and genocides unfold.

Kuwaitis are interviewed, recalling that they thought the world would help them post annexation but nobody did. Some sided with Saddam. But then the US intervened, and built a coalition, and liberated Kuwait.

USA doesn't even get anything out of all this, but grief and our soldiers sacrificing for people that aren't all that grateful. If we are empire, we're the only empire in history that frees a place and still has to pay market price for the darn oil anyway.

Documentary also points out that Europeans are hypocritical -- THEY actually get their oil from the middle east. While it's the US that keeps stability in the ME, with Europe always criticizing it, yet Europeans are the one that need that oil. China and India also get their oil from the middle east.

Pretty good documentary -- it makes a good case for American empire in the world, for the good of the world, but really there's no benefit to the US.

I think the filmmaker is right, without the US the world would devolve into regional wars all over the place, and then larger wars, and there would be holocausts and genocides and there'd be nobody to ever stop it -- without the US, who would ever stop a genocide? The Europeans, on their own? No. The Russians or Chinese? Heck no.

If America does not do it, nobody else will. Would that be a better world?

Wars and horrors all over the place, and genocides, and no more global cop providing global stability and order and kicking a Saddam out of Kuwait or telling Russia they can't keep annexing places?

[Strummer]

Then 1999 and Kosovo. The US didn't wait this time for Europe to handle it, and immediately intervened with air war and bombing on Serbia, and that made the Serbs stop for good and all the Kosovars weren't killed. Humanitarian intervention really can save lives, or you can do nothing and just watch holocausts and genocides unfold.

You know shit about Kosovo. The current leadership of Kosovo (all very good friends of the current and previous US administrations) are facing a trial for crimes against humanity:

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la- ... story.html

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Sixstrings]

You know shit about Kosovo.

It will be nice of someone can watch some of the documentary and comment on what this Romanian American filmmaker has to say. It talks a lot more about Bosnia and that's just the first part. And it's a few years old I think. And it doesn't matter how bad Syrian religious extremists or Kosovars are, you still can't gas them and put them in mass graves. USA is the only force in the world that stops that sort of thing, we're it.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-kosovo-prosecutor-war-crimes-organ-traffic-20140729-story.html

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The overall point: genocide and neverending war are bad, it's only been the USA that's ever done anything about it, it's taken us to end both the world wars, it took us to defeat communism.

Really, how would a world left to its own devices be better off? It wouldn't. It would be genocides and wars and holocausts and growing Russian Empires all over the place.

Food for thought. Uncle Sam ain't so bad, he's kept the peace for all of our lives. He's kept the ME stable enough to keep oil flowing to Europeans.

You take the USA out of this picture and the whole damn thing will fall apart into chaos.

[Strummer]

When I take the USA out of the picture I see Iraq and Lybia and Syria as stable countries and not the hellholes they are today.

[vtsnowedin]

When I take the USA out of the picture I see Iraq and Lybia and Syria as stable countries and not the hellholes they are today.

You are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

[basil_hayden]

When I take the USA out of the picture I see Iraq and Lybia and Syria as stable countries and not the hellholes they are today.

You are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

That's a 10-4.

[Subjectivist]

There is a serious logical fallacy, namely the belief that if the USA did not act or influence others not to act nothing would happen. Without American influence other countries would not be obligated to wait for our lead to see which way we would go. The EU, PRC, Russia would weigh the pro's and con's for their own national interests and act accordingly.

[careinke]

There is a serious logical fallacy, namely the belief that if the USA did not act or influence others not to act nothing would happen. Without American influence other countries would not be obligated to wait for our lead to see which way we would go. The EU, PRC, Russia would weigh the pro's and con's for their own national interests and act accordingly.

I agree. Think about it, your kids will take your money, food, shelter, etc. as long as you give it to them. Once you stop doing that, they figure out how to do it on their own. We, as parents, are supposed to do that with our children. The goal is not to raise children, but to raise adults, and if you are lucky parents.

It's time for the other nations to grow up and take responsibility for themselves.

[vtsnowedin]

Very well said.

[Sixstrings]

It's time for the other nations to grow up and take responsibility for themselves.

Europe hasn't had to defend itself for generations. Young Europeans aren't interested in serving in the military. And Euro nations aren't interested in funding a real military.

So here we still are, decades after the cold war, still paying for defending Europe and with 40,000 troops still in Germany so Germany doesn't need a real army of its own.

Oh, and they don't like us anyway.

Other than protecting Israel, US ME involvement has really been about keeping stability and keeping the oil flowing to Europe -- a Europe that likes to drive cars, but doesn't like American oil wars! And ME oil goes to China, and India. US never needed that Saudi oil, yeah it's a world market but we import from Mexico and Venezuela. So what the hell do we get out of it. My neighbor's a vet and has all kinds of disabilities from Desert Storm. Why don't as many Germans and French have to come back wounded, you know? Why's it got to be us all the time, and it's not even appreciated and everyone is so anti-American so f*ck it you know?

What do we get out of it, other than wounded and dead soldiers and 40,000 troops in Germany for 70 years now when Germans really do not even like us.

At least Ukrainians and Poles like us, that counts for something anyway. They ought to pull the US bases out and troops out of Germany and relocate it all to Poland.

The other side of this isolationist argument though goes like this -- if we pull back like we did before, then we're just going to have a repeat of what happened before -- WWI, WWII and then when we do have to get in it for our own defense sake it's a big massive world war by then.

That, and a chaotic world with wars all over the place and Russia building an empire really isn't good for business and the US economy. It would hit us here too.

I guess the bottom line on it is just ignore what the folks in the provinces say and how much they bitch -- because they always look to Rome in the end. It would be fine to let them handle things and lead if they COULD lead, but they can't -- that's the point made in the documentary I linked. They're like squabbling siblings. They can't ever agree on anything, look at Yugoslavia and how they just let that go on for so long and they never could agree -- it fell to the US to stop it.

And now with Ukraine, it's Yugoslavia all over again, and the EU hasn't been able to do anything in the absence of American leadership in it. If you leave it up to the EU they'd just let civil war and genocide fester forever, on their border. Europe has NEVER been good at preventing huge massive wars -- only the US has proven able to do that. It's not appreciated, but the fact remains that the US has kept pretty good peace in the world. Crimea is the first annexation since Kuwait. There really have not been regional wars all the time all over the place, and truly massive wars, and that's thanks to the US.

Germans and French don't really like us so I don't really care anymore, but Poland and the Baltics shouldn't be abandoned, nor Ukraine. Really the Obama admin should be paying more attention to them, with some separate deals and arrangements independent from NATO.

At the end of the day, it will just be a cost benefit analysis -- at what point is the savings from defense cuts worth seeing Europe come under Russian control, or China dominate the Pacific. Isolationism is tempting but really that's never worked for us, we always get dragged in, and if you wait until it's a world war then that's not smart if it could have been just a little action in Ukraine instead and nip it in the bud there.

A possible compromise solution: be a little isolationist for a while until Europeans appreciate us again, and figure out they need us? But still something has to give on funding all of this. EU is actually richer than the US. It can't go on forever with them not funding a real military and Americans paying all the costs in taxes and casualties.

[Sixstrings]

And another thing, take a look at the ebola situation.

Where are the European armed forces to help out and get a handle on something like that? They're nowhere.

The fact really is that if the US does not do it, it does not get done, and that's a more dangerous world whether that's oil disruptions and caliphates, or pandemics, or the AIDS pandemic too we're the ones that stopped that in Africa. With many billions of our tax dollars.

Did the British send all that money down to Africa for AIDS? Did Germans? Did Russians or Chinese? No.

Are they able to respond like we are, to ebola? And send some troops in get a handle on it? No.

Is there any other force in the world that can prevent annexations and regional wars? No.

It's a tough situation -- you've got all this thankless task stuff we do, and all this anti-Americanism out there, yet who the f*ck would send 3,000 troops for ebola in Africa if not us. Nobody. Nobody else gives a sh*t or can get it together without us, we're it.

[Keith_McClary]

Other than protecting Israel, US ME involvement has really been about keeping stability and keeping the oil flowing to Europe -- a Europe that likes to drive cars, but doesn't like American oil wars!

Why does the US have these oil wars?

[Sixstrings]

Why does the US have these oil wars?

Because we love freedom.






Hope I gave you a chuckle. The boring rational dull truth about US ME policy, it was to:

1. Keep the Soviets out, so they couldn't have control of the oil and therefore advantage in a WWIII. Every Soviet war plan called for grabbing the ME first.

2. Protect Israel.
3. Keep the region stable as possible, and keep the oil flowing to the ungrateful Europeans and Chinese. Also as much as some of you don't like all these places, they are US allies.

4. Fight AQ, and now ISIS.
5. Going forward, to block China from controlling the ME -- in the coming years they're going to be VERY dependent on that oil. So we should keep ultimate control in the region, it's a hedge against China attacking us.

[AndyA]

Sure obviously there is no benefit to the US at all, they just do all of this out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's my understanding that WWII was won by the Russians, 95% of all German casualties were in the USSR. Normandy was a sideshow in comparison. The Russians actually fought the Germans, unlike most of Europe. Defeated Napolean too.

[vtsnowedin]

Sure obviously there is no benefit to the US at all, they just do all of this out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's my understanding that WWII was won by the Russians, 95% of all German casualties were in the USSR. Normandy was a sideshow in comparison. The Russians actually fought the Germans, unlike most of Europe. Defeated Napolean too.

Not quite but the Russians were at it for years before the US brought enough pressure to end it. The US Army took over eight million prisoners that survived the war. If the Russians had caught them how many of them would have lived to tell the tale.

[Keith_McClary]

1. Keep the Soviets out, so they couldn't have control of the oil and therefore advantage in a WWIII. Every Soviet war plan called for grabbing the ME first.

2. Protect Israel.
3. Keep the region stable as possible, and keep the oil flowing to the ungrateful Europeans and Chinese. Also as much as some of you don't like all these places, they are US allies.

4. Fight AQ, and now ISIS.
5. Going forward, to block China from controlling the ME -- in the coming years they're going to be VERY dependent on that oil. So we should keep ultimate control in the region, it's a hedge against China attacking us.

You forgot, keep control out of the hands of the people who are "sitting on" it.

To summarize, you are saying: keep control from anybody but you.

[Sixstrings]

You forgot, keep control out of the hands of the people who are "sitting on" it.

Oh for goodness sake, Keith, would you ever wave the flag for anything?

You know what, I do know where you are coming from, but you know what -- average folks like you and me don't really have to think about deep long term gepolitical strategy. We can afford to read Noam Chomsky books and watch RT.

But SOMEBODY in charge does have the responsibility. I just happen to understand strategy and realpolitik. And I just happen to think evil Kanadian Stephen Harper kind of Western human rights empire is better than a Russian dictator holding sway in the world.

China actually probably won't be a threat, they're trying to be "technocrats" lately and yes they're still communist and nobody can protest the gov but tehnocrats are better than expansionist nationalists anyway.

China MAY be a problem though, and when and if it is, it is wise that the US is overseeing the middle east -- it will be a direct block on their ability to attack us.

And Canada gets to benefit from that security umbrella as well, whether they appreciate it or not.

And you don't even make any sense -- of course qataris and Saudis and Kuwaitis own their own oil.

[radon1]

3. Keep the region stable as possible

4. Fight AQ, and now ISIS.

[AndyA]

Not quite but the Russians were at it for years before the US brought enough pressure to end it. The US Army took over eight million prisoners that survived the war. If the Russians had caught them how many of them would have lived to tell the tale.

Right, Russia was attacked in 1941 (same year as pearl harbour), so yeah that's a huge headstart for the Russians. POW's even if they die, are not generally listed as casualties, KIA and WIA are generally listed as casualties. If you bothered to look, you would see it's a pretty reasonable assessment.

[AndyA]

Well Sixstrings, if it wasn't for the downright dumb (liby, Iraq) and totally evil (United Fruit Company, DRC etc.) things the US does, it may be possible to take the very few useful things the US does without a mountain of cynicism. Because the US has been caught red handed many times fucking over nations for big business, it's pretty hard to accept that anything they do, is done without an alterior motive.

Cui bono? Directly, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin/Boeing + others, indirectly the banks who finance it. War is basically a racket where taxpayers are used as a willing conduit to give money to the MIC. Now if you think the MIC gives a shit about 'the greater good' you need to get out more. How many civilian lives did the Iraq war (pick one) save? Sanctions killed more Iraqi children then Saddam ever did.

P.S. If you could define 'annex' that would be very nice.