If the US Government

[The2ndWheel]

wasn't spending $500 billion a year(that we know of) on the global police force that is the US military, would the rest of the world be as "progressive" as it is? What I mean is, would these other countries be spending their tax money on their military, or would they still be spending that money on healthcare and education? I have a guess of my own, since empires existed before the US, and will after. They don't have to worry too much right now, since every war has led to the mono-culture, single superpower world we know and love today. I know Europe went through the war years, and have "learned" from it to become peaceful and diplomatic, but why do I think any country would do exactly the same thing as the US if they were in a position to do so?

Just asking.

[neoblues]

1. Tough Question...

I often find it difficult to know why others think what they think (a surprise?). What people would do if they had the resources to spend and the U.S. wasn't massively influencing the World's political and security environment, would depend upon how afraid they were of losing their own security/nation/way of life and such. If afraid, they might invest in their military. If they're too small to compete or to hope to have the power to resist either their neighbors or the world's bigger (and more beligerant--like us) powers, then even if they're afraid they may not choose to do much military investment.

When a country is faced with potential beligerance but it can't hope to compete through conventional military power, but they do have the potential to develop nuclear weapons... then the decision to pursue such development is plainly the most rational thing to do. With that single technology, they can resist even the "big boys" (some "big bullies"). No wonder IRAN and Korea want to be nuclear powers. It brings with it some serious threats, but they have to be taken seriously and anyone who threatens their sovereignty has to think twice (and more) before considering things like invasion (whether the purpose is to spread "Democracy" or not).

I would guess that your reasons for thinking anyone would do what we're doing if they had the chance is that the ubiquitous propaganda that has both subtly and more recently blatantly filled American's "information environment" for decades, has had it's effects. That you're here means that it's not been as successful or complete--at least not on most of the bigger issues, as those who most influence or control our nation's leadership, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't had some small effects.

I also think you're keying in on the historical sense of some of the more unfortunate qualities of human nature. That is, wherever there is wealth and power, corruption and further lust for power and wealth seems to always follow. One expression of that is that powerful nations/empires tend to use their power to intimidate, control and try to get what they want from the rest of the world. If the rest of the world resists... well, that just calls for stronger actions. So, I think you're probably right that any other singular hyper-power would act as selfishly as we are. Yet we were supposed to be the exception. We were supposed to be better than that. We have ideals of honesty, freedom, peace etc..

America has always claimed it wanted free markets (controlled/limited but "free") and supported a world of nations working together... Of course, we and played as competitively as it could (and cheated or intimidated where it could)... But we've crossed a line. We're supposed to play fair--at least some semblance of it. We're supposed do the right thing--whatever that is, and we're no longer bothering with such considerations. At the very least, we are supposed to respect the rule of law (including international law) and the sovereignty of other nations. Alas, we've played games and engaged--for selfish/immoral reason--in an illegal war. Our leaders have ignored our relatively proud past, ignored tradition and proper behavior and ignored the rule of law. One political faction has taken power through decades of very careful, clever planning. Supported--actually, "controlled" is a better word--by the vast and growing power of Corporations (a front for the Wealthy/Aristocracy), this one party has taken power.

Democracy is a obstacle and a hindrance to the attainment of "absolute" power, but they're working on changing it to allow for virtual total control. It can't honestly be called a Democracy if the will of the people is ignored--even if it's just the will of half (or less)(in our case more) of the country. If the people cannot effectively "change" their leadership, it's not a Democracy either--and we should consider our defective electoral system, disenfranchisement as well as the fact that encumbents are virtually assured of re-election (money, campaign machine, gerrymandering), nobody can hope to successfully run for Congress unless they're wealthy and have wealthy benefactors, we get a uniquely limited (extremely limited) selection for all offices but especially for the Presidency! In other words, we don't really have the power to change our leaders in any significant way--even if they don't do what we want and despite the fact they actually LIE to us regularly. The remaining element of Democracy is the requirement that no person or faction can gain absolute power over the government--and Bush's "Unitary Executive" has been acting as a de-facto autocrat. Congress has failed to exercise it's powers since it's controlled by the same faction. Even the Supreme Court is controlled by that faction. Anyone who thinks we still live in a Democratic Constitutional Republic is engaging in wishful thinking.

If we were still a real Constitutional Republic with a government honestly elected by and responsive to the citizens... we wouldn't be doing what we're doing in the world. If the public was properly informed by it's primary source of information, the M$M, the people wouldn't stand for what's being done in our name. The current ruling faction would rapidly and dramatically lose power; alas, they own and control the media--and aside from the internet (which they're working towards controlling--even more than they already do), that's the whole story! The power of the MSM cannot be understated, it is overwhelming--because it is THE source of information for most people. The Internet reaches only a fraction of the people--and relatively speaking, it's a slow and awkward way to get your information (sure, it's not that hard and it has great capabilities--but you have to work at it, know where to go to find your information, search and read, find snippets of video and hope it works or wait for it to work, etc, etc, etc, by comparison to the boob tube or radio--just turn them on and information gushes at you with full video/audio). Anyway, our media effectively controls everything most people ever see, hear or read--it is their source, their window on the world. As things go badly in the world, though, even the media finds it difficult to keep up the pretense that everything's fine; and people begin to wake up to the fact that not everything is what it appears to be. So, there's hope that enough people will become informed and act to take back their government and restore it.

So, we may stop behaving the way we have been and thus we won't be doing what you think other countries would do if they were in a position to do so. In other words, it isn't necessarily unavoidable/inevitable. Though, the struggle between Good and Evil or Corrupt Human Nature and Enlightened Human Nature, is inevitable. Right now, the corruption is winning, but in the dimension of time, this is but a single battle. Even if we lose (and we have indeed lost, at least part of this battle), one thing is constant--and that is change. The spark of noble, elightened human behavior is always there--just as the resistance to oppression and injustice.

So, this offensive world behavior by the U.S. is just temporary. Such things are to be expected and if another country were in our position, they too would have to deal with the struggle between doing the right thing and abusing their power. They might do better (not really likely), they might do worse.

Since we've considered what the U.S. appears to be doing and pondered whether others would do it, it seems reasonable to consider why we're doing what we're doing and what it might mean. To that end, I'm going to use my imagination to consider those ideas. Doing so is similar to presenting a theory which is really just a guess/prophesy what might possibly happen. This doesn't mean that I think it will happen, it's just a creative supposition. Feel free to add your own observation, thoughts, guesses or suggestions?

In the end, though, right now the battle has just begun. The forces behind this corruption, the root of the 'evil' is to be found in the world's wealthy (some actively involved, other's almost innocently uninvolved but their concentrated wealth still acts to enable the others). The thing is, they control not just local/national businesses, but worldwide, multi-national corporations! The current M$M/Mega-Media Corporations are taking steps to dominate the public information sphere, world wide! What is happening here is happening everywhere--and yes, it is a conspiracy. Most of it isn't even secret, it's happening in broad daylight--because no one can stop them. Everywhere politics exists, the influence of the wealthy is becoming dominant. If they succeed, the common people all over the world can look forward to having their lives controlled and being used to achieve the goals of those behind all this. Is this suggesting a "New World Order"? Who knows. Those in real power can keep the world organized into countries just as they are and still control everything that goes on. Since they're already everywhere, this isn't a battle that will have any specific win or loss--it's a matter of degree. How much are "they" able to control right now? How much in ten years? At some point the battle may be effectively over--when they own or control all the governments. Depending on how well they run things, how obvious their existence is, whether they change the arrangement of nations and whether they're benevolent enough to the world's population, they may face long-term resistance. Then again, if they promote the illusion of freedom and allow people to have enough control over their lives with a decent standard of living... they may be in control, face no resistance and exist peacefully. In many ways, that would be good for most of the world...

Then again, people who are driven by greed and lust for power aren't likely to be benevolent. They could just as easily remake the whole world in any way they desire. Oppression is likely, with most people being used as low-wage slaves. That alone would breed resistance, but could they organize when the whole world is under a organized oppression? I can imagine the whole world being organized like one big corporation. Then again, considering that no man-made organization lasts forever (we hope our Constitutional Republic will be the exception), there would be competition and contention between departments/divisions and there's always the fact that in any organization, there will be differences between executives and some of them would have desires for more power that they've been given. Thus is born the seeds by which those "owners" who are the real powers will face threat of being overthrown. Human nature again. Who knows. The thing is, just as we never dreamed we'd have a President who ignores the law, lies to us, involves us in illegal wars, and runs up the debt--while gifting the wealthy and corporations with gigantic tax cuts..., it could happen. Coudn't it? Now, why would anyone think something like this?

Miscellaneous observations? All governments in history have changed, been abolished, replaced, destroyed or annexed. We seem to be witnessing an evolution that comes in fits and starts. It progresses and regresses. We have a well designed government, but as we're witnessing, even it can fall to human corruption. Still, so long as the people are reasonably well educated and have come to expect certain freedoms, it seems likely that any change to ours would necessarily recognize and provide at least some semblance of what is expected--at least until the next generations can be weened from such expectations. The truth is, our government even at it's best could benefit from some improvements. Remember, it was designed at time when the only way it could work is to elect representatives and have them all gather someplace to do the busines of government. That was because the only way for the will of the people of a particular region to be included in the national government was to have individuals from the region--presumably informed by his fellow regional residents as well as sharing most of their attitudes--go and represent them. That was when it took days and weeks just to send even the most urgent message from a distant state to the capital. Now we just pickup the telephone or send an email. Instant communication. We even have polling companies that can talk to thousands of people and gather their opinions. There is much less need to have an individual either represent large numbers of people he doesn't know or hear from, or to even require them all to gather in a national capital city. Presumably every person could be polled for their opinions if they wanted to be. Since not everyone would, nor would they be expert enough on many issues, we probably should have a government much as we do have. However, it seems to me, that the People should still have the final say. How about having our government work just as it does, except that we have a system by which every citizen can be polled and securely vote... and if enough people were unhappy with something the Government has done/decided, they could just call for a national referendum. When they do, expert analysis and details of the question at hand would be covered thoroughly in the media and on the internet... After a few weeks of national review, a vote is done... if a super-majority is achieved, the government's original decision/plan/policy is defeated. The People could even make the decision at the same time by selecting from a set of proposed choices--a multiple choice vote. Real Power to the People. Something that wasn't even possible to imagine back in 1789 when we ratified our Constitution. Seems reasonable to me, but it's a notion I don't hear others talking about much. Why isn't this one of our political demands?

Apologies for the booklet sized response. I thought I was staying on topic, but it seems I may have drifted a bit.

[sweetheart]

2. The surplus and societal engagement

Postulate that the 500 billion was spent on AID's vaccines and achieving a baseline of medical care for
every human being on this planet. If the money is spent wisely, it buys goodwill and long term
civil relationships, where people trade across boarders because they like each other and are doing
it because their societies really do benefit each other by trading.

When the only traffic we send abroad is soldiers and spies, what to expect but civil breakdown
everywhere on earth, in terms of inter-social relationships that must be living.. living civilian
international relationships not based on military coercion... and as these increasingly diminish
under the bush militarism, we are all at risk.

The surplus will want to "do" something in the world, and by being great hearted, our culture could
put itself above attack and terrorism for 1000 years. None of it is achieved by war and force, not
a lick. The budget is an entire waste. Nobody is attacking the borders except people we supplied
and trained. The budget is attacking us. Kill it.