3 ms·
Here's why I disagree (also not from the US). If you look at actual history, World War 2 happened exactly because some countries were unwilling to defend other
by edanm 10y ago
Here's why I disagree (also not from the US).
If you look at actual history, World War 2 happened exactly because some countries were unwilling to defend other countries, and let the Germans effectively try to conquer Europe. From a game theory perspective, you really, really want to pre-commit to not letting other countries do things that will cause war. So you pre-commit to protecting allies and other countries against e.g. Russian aggression.
The years of the cold war, while hard psychologically, were relatively peaceful, exactly because of these pre-commitments and threats to use force.
I think it's wishful thinking to assume that the world is at relative peace, and that can't change. That's not the default state of the world. And without knowing a hell of a lot more about international politics than I do, I'd be incredibly remiss to throw out the current establishment and say "yeah let's bring in someone new who wants to rewrite the rules". The chance that things will be worse is huge - that's what usually happens when you change things.
- teekert 10y agoYou are assuming US and EU actions in Ukraine are anti-war? The boycotts (that kill European companies as well) are not anti-war, the anti-Russia attitude that almost everyone seems to have here, under the influence of our media, is not anti-war? John Kerry loud-mouthing his opinion in the Ukraine is not anti-war? The way MH-17 was blamed on Russia far before there was even talk about an investigation, is not anti-war? The fact that how Russia sees the Syria conflict [0] is never shown in our western press is not anti-war? The Russians love their children too. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI
- int_19h 10y agoI have direct access to both Russian and Western news/propaganda. There's a lot more warmongering in Russian state funded press than anywhere in the West. I haven't seen any Western news outlets talk about how "US can turn Russia into radioactive ash" in prime time. Technically true, yes, but you don't bring such things up routinely. It's as if you were talking to a guy, say, arguing about something, and every now and then he'd mention, "by the way, I have a loaded gun, and I could shoot you... but I won't, yet".
- postcarnival 10y ago> that's what usually happens when you change things. with that logic we should throw out our two-party system entirely and turn into a constitutional monarchy of bush and/or clintons...
- edanm 10y agoI was speaking about overhauling the entire system. Both sides of the political divide in the States have e.g. maintained support of NATO allies. I think both the OP and others are talking about Trump as "let's get rid of the current political establishment and get an outsider". That's fine, but an outsider that threatens a lot of the foundational international strategy of the US is a threat to world stability. I also think Trump is threatening the very system of democracy int he US by calling the elections into question and threatening to lock up his political opponent. That's a very direct threat to democracy.