Tanada wrote:You can say anything you want as well Six, but unless you have a lot of backup you can't force anyone else to agree with you if they don't wish to.
Well, regarding globalism and America the global cop -- *I* am divided on it, actually. About 50/50. Just me personally, as a citizen and voter.
All I know is that things made more sense and were handled right with W. Bush in office, or old HW Bush.
But yet we can't have 3 trillion dollar wars, either, and Iraq was not handled quite right and the neocon theory did not work out (turn the ME into democracies).
Rationally I know, though -- that SOMEBODY, or a group of nations sombodies, has to intervene in things sometimes *to prevent larger and dangerous threats to national security*. Or, mass migration, because Syria was never handled.
On the pro side of anti globalism -- our government could start spending half that current $580 billion military budget, on other things. And then LET China lead in the Pacific, or LET war break out over there and Europe too and Africa and everywhere else, and let's just not care anymore and hope radioactive clouds never come our way.
We could just say, "okay Canada and Australia, we just want to be neutral total anti war like you are. We're not gonna do anything anymore. You guys are on your own, go lead in the world, we're done, we GIVE UP. Somebody call Putin, see if he'd like the job."
On the con side of anti globalism -- maybe, with empire gone, the economy would be a lot smaller though. Maybe economic depression. Nobody really knows.
I'm divided about it, Tanada. I can do a list of pros and cons, for either globalism or anti globalism.
And these are all very big questions that most voters don't think about -- the "elite" have to, the "establishment." And yeah, we all think we're not a part of that.. but actually we are.. we're in the boat too.
P.S. My opinion is that whatever is done in the Pacific, it should probably only be if the world community is asking us too, and all the allies out there, and the Europeans too. We're only doing all this for THEM, to start with.
And the tangential benefit is some trade and commerce advantage for the US, by leading the trade deals. And then, the security advantage of having all these allies, and they buy our US bonds and they buy US dollars. And then they want us to solve their problems and lead / stabilize their regions in return for that, that's the reality folks.
Just old school strategy -- yes, there's national benefit if you've got the border area ringed with allied governments. Things would be riskier if the line is at Hawaii, and maybe the Pacific is Chinese controlled.
In the middle of all that -- maybe China isn't really a problem for us, maybe China can work with us more, and we don't care if they're the future leader.. since they're pretty much consumerist like we are, and they like western things and American tv and movies. They wouldn't quite be like communism, taking over the world.
So there, those are my thoguhts about it. It's not simple.
But if the US Navy wants to get Teddy Roosevelt tough and get the big stick out and cruise around those islands, then that is simple, China ain't gonna do nothin'. The global order is reasonable. It would like China, and everyone else, to follow international law and the maritime disputes tribunal in the Hague.