Partially yea, it may be that using the word "security" in that first post was a wording error that caused a bunch of people to misunderstand you. But then, in this follow up, you've mentioned that Norway is benefiting from the US lowering the supply of oil (I assume via setting it, and the people who extract it, on fire)... I am not Norwegian and can't speak as to their preference, but given that Norway is currently scaling back their oil exploration efforts along with the general character of Norwegians that I've met, I'll make an effort. I'm going to assume that the Norwegian ethical stance is against the US starting wars in the middle east and killing people to make their oil a bit more valuable.
> Norwegian ethical stance is against the US starting wars in the middle east and killing people to make their oil a bit more valuable.
I mean the American ethical stance, as demonstrated numerous times by various popular votes, is also against war. However, that does not change the fact that countries benefit from it. Ultimately, while perhaps making some countries hypocritical, none of what you said changes the argument I put forth: namely that, by virtue of being the only country whose citizens are forced to pay for the status quo (which has the effect of subsidizing the economies of many of the countries to which the article attempts to compare the united states), there is no way to properly compare US tax policy to any other country.
> Partially yea, it may be that using the word "security" in that first post was a wording error that caused a bunch of people to misunderstand you
Indeed. For some reason, many people define security as not just security of the status quo but also some cosmic fight between good and evil.
Both countries do not benefit from it, otherwise they would view these wars as just and support them. The political machines in both countries support these wars and force the populace into them - in part (in the US at least) by being a two party system without any way to politically express a desire to not go to war, one party is more hawkish but both parties are full of hawks.
As an American I am happy to say, "Please, America, stop messing up the world for everyone with your endless economic wars." A bully cannot neutrally justify their own actions, they are biased in approving of the path they have chosen.
No, the point is that a subset of the populace benefiting monetarily isn't equivalent to a country benefiting. People can rationally say that acquisition of wealth is not the sole goal of existence.
