‘US like a hammer, everywhere else in world just nails for it’ – US vet

[Pangu]

‘US like a hammer, everywhere else in world just nails for it’ – US vet RT — SophieCo

 

[Ewok6102]

‘US like a hammer, everywhere else in world just nails for it’

In other words, whoever gets to grip the US by its 'dangly bits' will get to wield the world"s strongest weapon. Making everywhere in the world 'its nails'.

 

[anon45]

True of the military, though its their job to think like that. Not true of the government, should be obvious given the deal worked out with Iran, the sanctions on Russia, the support for the SDF. Its pretty clear that the US has and uses more options than brute force. That said, if we had to we could.

 

[Aepsilons]

‘US like a hammer, everywhere else in world just nails for it’ – US vet RT — SophieCo

Great video! @Pangu

Its pretty clear that the US has and uses more options than brute force. That said, if we had to we could.

What are these 'more options', @anon45 ?

 

[anon45]

What are these 'more options', @anon45 ?

Sanctions, business deals, coalition building (deterrence), diplomacy/ deal making, support of groups that align with our interests,etc.

 

[Aepsilons]

Sanctions, business deals, coalition building (deterrence), diplomacy/ deal making, support of groups that align with our interests,etc.

In other words, heavy securitization. Thanks for reaffirming.

 

[Piper]

In other words, heavy securitization. Thanks for reaffirming.

Not necessarily. US FP is not perfect as it is often driven by political agenda. Bush and Cheney came from a very different school of thought than Obama.

Your statement is correct in context of Bush years but Obama has been lot more judicious when it comes to securitization of FP. The truth is that US has more firepower be it diplomatic, economic or military than any other country in the world. It dwarves whatever Russia and China may together field. In terms of brute force there is simply no parallel.

However wielding power and exercising power are two very different things and US is mindful of that. There are many countries which we can just bomb to oblivion without any significant loss to American lives but we choose the most painstakingly slow and humanitarian way to resolve conflicts. For eg Russia is conducting 10 times as many sorties as US in Syria - Why? The simple reason is that US is careful to minimise the collateral damage and acts only when there is significant intelligence against ISIS.

I am not saying we are completely altruistic - it is just that we realized after hard earned experience that it is much harder putting out fires than starting one.

 

[Aepsilons]

Not necessarily. US FP is not perfect as it is often driven political agenda. Bush and Cheney came from a very different school of though than Obama.

Your statement is correct in context of Bush years but Obama has been lot more judicious when it comes to securitization of FP. The truth is that US has more firepower be it diplomatic, economic or military than any other country in the world. It dwarves whatever Russia and China may together field. In terms of brute force there is simply no parallel.

However wielding power and exercising power are two very different things and US is mindful of that. There are many countries which we can just bomb to oblivion without any significant loss to American lives but we choose the most painstakingly slow and humanitarian way to resolve conflicts. For eg Russia is conducting 10 times as many sorties as US in Syria - Why? The simple reason is that US is careful to minimise the collateral damage and acts only when there is significant intelligence against ISIS.

I am not saying we are completely altruistic - it is just that we realized after hard earned experience that it is much harder putting out fires than starting one.

Candid analysis, and i thank you for that, @Piper .

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

In other words, heavy securitization. Thanks for reaffirming.

Well that's not necessarily true. For instance nobody thinks of Venezuela as a security issue. It's something more like putting a country on a global ignore list.

Edit:oops piper beat me.

 

[Aepsilons]

Well that's not necessarily true. For instance nobody thinks of Venezuela as a security issue. It's something more like putting a country on a global ignore list.

Edit:oops piper beat me.

lol, putting a country on an ignore list eh? but , mwa fwen, don't forget ze sansyons. aight?

as the italian americans would say, 'capiche'?



ps. its like eating spaghetti and deciding not to get spumoni afterwards. don't make sense.

 

[Piper]

lol, putting a country on an ignore list eh? but , mwa fwen, don't forget ze sansyons. aight?

as the italian americans would say, 'capiche'?



ps. its like eating spaghetti and deciding not to get spumoni afterwards. don't make sense.

There is a reason why we have never had an Italian American President

Lot of countries would love to be on our ignore list but we are EVERYWHERE!!

 

[Aepsilons]

There is a reason why we have never had an Italian American President

Lot of countries would love to be on our ignore list but we are EVERYWHERE!!

tsk, your anti italianism is offensive.

as for everywhere, that's really relative. you get my drift.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

lol, putting a country on an ignore list eh? but , mwa fwen, don't forget ze sansyons. aight?

as the italian americans would say, 'capiche'?



ps. its like eating spaghetti and deciding not to get spumoni afterwards. don't make sense.

Well sanctions are a form of ignoring. You get countries to refuse to buy or sell or do any dealing with them so it's basically an ignore situation.

 

[anon45]

In other words, heavy securitization. Thanks for reaffirming.

Piper put it in better words than I could.

US gov foreign policy is heavily influenced by the president and his cabinet, and in Obama's case I would not say It has generally viewed the issues in the world as nails, to be pounded by American military force.

 

[Aepsilons]

Well sanctions are a form of ignoring. You get countries to refuse to buy or sell or do any dealing with them so it's basically an ignore situation.

gotcha.

Piper put it in better words than I could.

US gov foreign policy is heavily influenced by the president and his cabinet, and in Obama's case I would not say It has viewed the issues in the world as nails, to be pounded by military force.

pounded by military force, as in iraq? but, mon frere, where were the wmds, and last i remember, the hijackers from 911 were mostly saudis, funded by a saudi (tho also ethnic yemeni) extremist , right? interventionism in iraq in 2003 led to global security, yes? or did it lead to antithesis thereof?

and as for aghanistan, the immense firepower of ISF led to the annihilation of taliban right ? or did it....um...fail in said policy objective?




*bow*