Larsca, see below my comments to your replies:
"i agree with you. but: the enormous expenses on military of the us government is financed by the rapidly growing numbers of poor people in the us."
Relative question. The military industrial complex does fuel certain aspects of the economy as well, employs many of America's poorest social groups and isnt purely to be seen as expenditure. Just look at the European's clumsy and failed attempts to build up their own military structures (Eurofighter, Transall, Eurocorps etc.). In the end, its more expensive to build a new military than to improve and maintain a technically sound one. America's military is the right size, just improperly applied. The world would be much worse off if America had the attitude of much of Europe and said "who cares, not our problem". Interesting exceptions are the UK, France and Italy, whose military I respect. Even they however are dependent on American logistics if they are to operate anywhere with more than a regiment of men for longer than a few months.
"Vietnam and Somalia were a "wargame" between the usa and ussr in the cold war periode."
Vietnam was a failed political ploy to control communism, based on a flawed containment doctrine. It wasnt a wargame between the US and USSR but rather between capitalism and communism, communism in the 60's wasnt exclusively Russian.
Somalia was a UN-initiated fiasco burdened by poor planning and UN politics, for example the prohibiting of armor (tanks) being used in force because it would "draw too much attention". A perfect example of why the US doesnt like multi-national military operations.
"both ended in the GIs kicked out of country."
Kicked out is an exaggeration, the US could have stayed as long as they wanted. Their goals however were no longer able to be achieved and sensibly they left. Vietnam was a humbling defeat nonetheless, Somalia merely an example of why war in the third world is never black and white and why "humanitarian mission" and "war" don't mix.
"in former yougoslavia you have now a situation of enourmous shadow economy, criminality and political disharmonies."
And is in Europe. Europe, as always in recent history, totally incapable of keeping its own politics in order. Genocide was taking place within European boundaries and all Europe could think of to do was say "Hey, stop doing that!".
"whereever the usa believes to have the right to conduct war, then mostly after there is complete chaos remaining back (unfortunately)."
"Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war"... any nation that goes to war should be aware of the long-term consequences, you are quite right in stating that the US and the US public doesnt understand this. Its something I bemoan before any US military involvement.
"maybe you should start to think about, that some european governments are more clever in the prognose, if there is any international right or clear reason to make war."
Which generally ends up in the European governments doing nothing. The question is, when does something have to be done. Not my question to answer.
"what makes the usa-wars so stupid and untrue is, that they are covered with the label "fighting for freedom and democraty""
I agree that this is stupid. The current US government is a disgrace. It does damage US credibility and distracts from all the humantitarian activities that the US does participate in. Never forget that the primary goal for a US government is to get reelected and they will do anything to do it. The US government (and not just the current administration) is almost always speaking to the American people and hoping to convince them of the righteousness of their intentions. They really don't care much what the rest of the world thinks. Sad but true.
"this includes the support of dictators by usa-government, dictators who kick the word freedom in the ass. "
That's global politics. Sometimes a dictator you can control is better than a radical you can't. If you can't play that game, you need to get out of the sandbox. Global politics isnt ice cream and paddy cake.
"sure you know about the morgenthau-plan, means to bomb germany into middle-age quality as a agricultural country."
At the time, nobody argued with this reasoning.
"that a big reason for the support was, that in germany anarchy could grow and/or westgermany could come closer to the ussr."
Again, politics. Or would you have prefered a Soviet Germany?
"...but you also more million poor people than any other industrialized country.
if forbes is for you the expression of american success, then i prefer the european way of success."
American capitalism is brutal, its true. European socialism is struggling to survive. Which large economies are doing best in Europe? The ones that are moving away from traditional socialist models and more towards American capitalism. There is no perfect economic system, but I still prefer one where success is still achieveable. In America you can still achieve something with hard work. In Europe its much more difficult when you are paying 40% taxes financing the bums drinking their sad lives away and the immigrant family and their 13 kids.
"by the way: andy warhol was born in slovakia."
And smart enough to leave and come to America.
"now back to american women :-)"
Oh no, must we? :)