Hey, we’re broke. Someone else is going to have to pick up some of the tab for a while.
While an American role as the “world’s policeman” has become an increasingly contentious partisan issue, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans agree that the U.S. should not get more involved than it currently is in the ongoing conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas.
The poll shows that 4 in 10 U.S. adults want America to broadly take a “less active” role in solving global conflicts. Only about one-quarter think the U.S. should take a more active role, and about one-third say its current role is about right.
[…]
Where the U.S. should be focusing its international military resources is also a subject of debate, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over whether the nation should be taking a more active role in the war between Ukraine and Russia or the war between Israel and Hamas.
Among U.S. adults overall, there isn’t much appetite for a more active role in either conflict: Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say the U.S. should be taking a more active role in each war. For each, about 4 in 10 say the current role is about right, and 36% say the U.S. needs to take a step back.
But Republicans and independents are more likely than Democrats to say that the U.S. should dial down its support for Ukraine. About half of Republicans and independents want the U.S. to take a less active role in the war between Ukraine and Russia, compared to only 18% of Democrats.
Decreasing our world footprint AND actually saving the money recovered is the dream. If Government is just going to use it for more left/right propaganda to gain a few votes, what difference would actually make? With no benefit to the American people, we might as well be decent policemen. Can you imagine a Russian or Chinese world ‘police force’?
In principle I strongly side with decreasing our military footprint, but with today’s political climate, I don’t really see any difference until/unless Russia starts lobbing ICBMs our way.
T, there’s more to the story. Being the GloboCop is in the interests of Global Business American companies. Gokldman is already looking forward to the umpty-BILLION job of rebuilding Ukraine. Naturally, they will take 10% (or more) off the top. The “War for Oil” in Iraq? No. It was a “war for Aramco,” AND a “war to keep Israel safe from Iraq” because there was and is plenty of petroleum available in the US and in other parts of the globe; we would have no trouble importing it with or without Iraq.
Right now we are building infrastructure in Israel to “feed the hungry.” Just so happens that the location and most of those facilities will be very handy for Israeli petroleum interests, too.
It’s not being “a cop,” even though I, too, use that terminology. It’s about the MONEY, just like the lawyers tell you every day.
>It’s about the MONEY, just like the lawyers tell you every day.
That was my point as well, sorry it did not come across that way to you.
The military machine ties to Government alone are enough money for politicians to continue being the world police dept, that is where I was coming from. Of course there is a lot more to the story, but I think my point stands. The military machine and the rebuilders and oil securers are not sucking money from the military or the Government, they are taking the money from us against the majority’s wishes. And that is why this is not much of a political football, imo. This is one of those issues that both parties want to keep behind the scenes as much as possible, one of the issues that they are pointing away from when they start pointing towards abortion, religion and LGBTQ to keep people riled up on their ‘hot’ issues. Neither side is ever willing to give anything back to the people other than the occasional sop. Money is power and they want to keep all of both, or as much of it as they can. Because of this, even if the Government did agree to and actually did reduce the military budget, that money saved would not go back to our wallets or just to balancing our budget, much less paying down our debt. It would go to different spending streams and will until the Government does collapse in some manner.
And I just used the word cop as it is part of the title of the post so I thought it apropos, it had very little to do with my comment or the meaning behind it.