[josho]

This is a common misunderstanding. The US doesn’t send its military around the world because they want to protect freedom and democracy. The US does this to protect open markets that it then gets first right to exploit.

The US has benefited from this situation since WW2. It’s one reason why the US economy has been so successful.

It’s also only now that the US has exploited these markets that they can question the purpose to continue their military imperialism.

TLDR: the US military across the globe wasn’t done out of altruism. It was to expand US economic power.

[robertlagrant]

Arguing intentions seems foolish. The result is the world gets free trade defended basically at zero cost, which was my point. If Scandinavia had to pay for that, it would have far less money available to spend its money on Scandinavia First policies.

[fastasucan]

>the world gets free trade defended basically at zero cost

At zero cost? Ask the families of those who have been killed by american millitary.

>If Scandinavia had to pay for that

Other than the Scandinavian soldiers killed, and millitary gear lost in the different wars? Other than the thousanda of refugees scandinavia and europe have taken in from the destabilized middle East?

>it would have far less money available to spend its money on Scandinavia First policies.

There are no Scandinavian first policies.

Again, why should Scandinavian countries pay for Americas geopolitical activities more than is already done?