3 ms·
Strong evidence where written by whom? Do I want more war, no I don't. But I also don't support hegemony. Most of Islamic fundamentalism would not be possible w
by x5n1 10y ago
Strong evidence where written by whom? Do I want more war, no I don't. But I also don't support hegemony. Most of Islamic fundamentalism would not be possible with the Saudis and the Saudis would not be possible without the US. Israel would have to make better peace with its neighbors without the backing of the superpower. Pakistan would probably be less fundamentalist had it not been for the 70s CIA plots to fund Jihadism in Afgahnistan. America is the only big player on the board, it can make all sorts of justifications for its political moves. And there is no way of knowing what the world would look like without them. Only rhetoric and theory.
What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet and quit being America's puppet. The same goes for pretty much everyone in the world. It is not good to rely on anyone else to represent your people and your economic interests in the world. Trusting other people's leadership is not a smart move, it keeps you incompetent.
edit: replying to the comment below.
So your point is that there is only enough room in the world for one ultra-national anti-internationalist country and the US is it. The end state of the game is when there is no such country in the world. That includes the US.
- emblem21 10y ago> "Strong evidence where written by whom?" > "What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet" Advocating ultra-nationalist, anti-internationalist policies is, precisely, what leads to the mass conflict the grandparent was talking about.
- tremon 10y agoEurope is not a nation. Arguing for Europe to stand up is very much internationalist.
- emblem21 10y agoStand up against whom?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- krapp 10y agoThe United States, obviously. The US is still occupying Europe with hundreds of military bases, it supports and funds terrorist groups and drug cartels, it undermines democratic governments and threatens the security of Europe's people through NSA and CIA sabotage. There's no reason for the US to maintain the overwhelming global military presence that it does, particularly in Europe. World War 2 is over, and the US will never actually go to war with an enemy like Iran, Russia or China, or any country that might actually pose a legitimate threat to global security, so why keep up the pretense of being the "world's policeman?"
- emblem21 10y agoSo you're saying Europe should self-identify as an organization of humans capable of their own autocracy and then use that self-determination to establish their own military assets, which would destabilize global security as yet another non-hegemonic nuclear player enters the space? I stand by my original comment.
- x5n1 10y agoI never did advocate that. I don't think the US should be isolationist. I think the US should take a leadership role, but it should be multilateral and it should respect the rights of other country's citizens, rather than focusing on its business interests only. Also enough with the human rights shenanigans. If you actually believe than do as you say.
- littletimmy 10y agoRead The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski. He makes a very strong case for US hegemony. Btw, I do respect your points. I'm rather conflicted about this topic myself. We don't really know what the world would be like if the US were to practice isolationism - and we don't get do-overs for history if we mess it up. The powers that be seem to have decided that a forced stability is better than the risk of global instability.
- selimthegrim 10y agoPakistan would possibly be less fundamentalist if Kissinger hadn't told Bhutto "We will make a terrible example of you" for getting the bomb