5 ms·

While your analysis is true, it only describes the effects which have lead to today's situation. Here are a few causes: * In late 80's US empire has definitel

by binarray2000 10y ago

While your analysis is true, it only describes the effects which have lead to today's situation. Here are a few causes: * In late 80's US empire has definitely thrown international law above the board by organizing color revolutions, destabilizing other countries and waging wars * US empire and its vassals (other NATO members) leave a trail of blood where ever they show up * Officially, US military - despite its huge budget, infrastructure and human power - still has not (15 years later!) defeated "the terrorists" * US empire has definitely destroyed its financial reputation in 1971 by unilaterally canceling the "gold standard" and, since then, the masks are off and US dollar is being printed/created in the computer at the speed of light, without anything but military might to back it * World Bank and IMF - two institutions majorly influenced by the US - wreak havoc in South America, Africa, South Asia and South Europe * Russia is getting back on feet after 2000 and US empire has no means to counter it * US empire and its media have done something remarkable in the 26 years since the fall of the Berlin wall: In 1990 USA was a country with a great image, in 2016 USA is arguably the most hated country in the world The world outside of the empire sees all this. And runs away from the bully who has ("long before Trump") made himself weaker by seeking refuge in those who show at least some respect.

ethbro 10y ago
> in 2016 USA is arguably the most hated country in the world Let's agree to disagree on this, based on the fact that there are a number of countries with active civil wars and/or genocides.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  i think you are missing the point of the parent - not many people care about genocide going on somewhere in the woods as long as it's not dangerously nearby (nothing to be proud of, but a natural part of being human these days). I don't know anybody who would literally 'hate' Rwanda, Burma, South Sudan or your former/current place of pick. now for rather unfortunate meddling into internal affairs of a given state - there isn't a single country in this world that can say US didn't try to f__k them over one way or the other. Not-a-single-one. You may not like this fact, but that's truth. Now we can say something similar, maybe to lesser exent, and maybe with more evil tone, about Russia, or in other ways about England/Dutch/French/Spanish/Belgian/German/and so on for the past, but for pure hate, US made it damn too easy to be hated. don't take this personally - I have much higher issues with Russia in this regard, the country that invaded my home in 1968, killed quite a few, brought more repressions and stayed for 21 years. But US ain't some saint 'good' guy, far from that.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    > not many people care about genocide going on somewhere in the woods as long as it's not dangerously nearby I'm going to take the somewhat cardboard American umbrage, but I think my position is a fair one. For all of our American geopolitical intrigue and intelligence service &#@$ups, the United States generally does care. In the sense that compared with other countries that could act, the United States chooses to do something. Somalia was a failed state, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Iraq was run by a dictator who killed his own people (caveat: yes, domestic and international audiences were lied to about WMD facts), but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Continental Europe was occupied by the Nazis, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Swathes of the Pacific were occupied by Imperial Japan, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. It's easy to say "That's an ocean away, doesn't concern us, and isn't our business." Even when people are being murdered or exploited. Nobody points a finger and says "Why didn't you act when it was happening?" But if we're being honest and fair, then there's zero utility in comparing how well Switzerland is liked vs the US or Russia. It's a hell of a lot easier to make friends if you never enter a competition.
    - rangibaby 10y ago
      Re: Iraq Dictators killing their own people hasn't concerned the US govt before or since. They even called the thing Operation Iraqi Liberation.
- binarray2000 10y ago
  With great power comes great responsibility. Currently, no other country has that much power (things I mentioned in the parent) and does so much harm. Yes, regionally, there are conflicts and hatred/dislike between groups, regions or countries. Yet, US is feared, disliked, even hated - exactly for the misuse of the power.
spiderfarmer 10y ago
> America’s overall image around the world remains largely positive. Across the nations surveyed (excluding the U.S.), a median of 69% hold a favorable opinion of the U.S., while just 24% express an unfavorable view. However, there is significant variation among regions and countries.[0] I think we can agree the US often acts like a douchebag and that it has a lot of passionate haters, but the fact is that there are not that many great countries in the world. It's true that the US is not number #1 in a lot areas and I really believe that's a good thing. The whole world should improve, not just the US. Inequality is at the root of a lot of evil in this world. [0] http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
- tiatia 10y ago
  The US is probably the nicest and most responsible super power ever. A super power like the Roman empire would have won the Afghanistan war for sure. But in a different way.
  - robert_foss 10y ago
    Even the nicest mass murderer is still a mass murderer.
    - tiatia 10y ago
      I don't think the US did mass murder in Afghanistan. This was part of the problem. The Romans would have just made a population reduction of XX% per year and things would have been fine. I think you should put your judgement into perspective.
      - coredog64 10y ago
        Decimation in the original sense of the word?
        tiatia 10y ago
jgalt212 10y ago
I didn't know that Noam Chomsky posted on HN.
- binarray2000 10y ago
  Whoever downvoted you, it's their right. I upvoted you. I actually find your comment funny. But, please, don't compare me with Chomsky.
  - te_chris 10y ago
    No, that would be quite insulting to Chomsky.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      Wow, was this really necessary?
- wslh 10y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nchomsky https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nchomsky
kafkaesq 10y ago
In late 80's US empire has definitely thrown international law above the board by organizing color revolutions, The term "color revolution" didn't exist until the early 2000s. US empire and its vassals (other NATO members) NATO countries aren't in any meaningful way "vassals" of the US. Might I suggest... reading a bit more broadly? To get like you know, a better grip on basic narrative history? Whatever sources you've been drawing from -- it seems you've got the polemics down pat, but your basic geopolitical awareness appears to be quite stunted.
- binarray2000 10y ago
  I just saw your comment. While I don't know if you'll see it/respond to it, here is my response: (1) Yes, the first color revolution was in 2000 in Serbia. And that sentence should have started with "Since" instead of "In". But the three things I've listed in it are undisputed. (2) Since the NATO was founded, the Commander is always an US General. Who is, while being the NATO Commander, still on the Pentagon payroll. And those on Pentagon payroll are under the command of the US President. No other President/Prime Minister of a NATO member state has that power. Next, look at the NATO troop concentration on the Russian border. It is undisputed that NATO is expanding towards Russia. It is undisputed that continental European countries have interest in dialog and cooperation with Russia. But they must follow the US oligarchy. (3) Your last paragraph brings out the suspicion that you swallow the interpretation of widely known history others have chewed for you. You seem to devalue everything that doesn't fit the official narrative. And you get personal. But, no offense taken: Been there, done that. Since 2003 I have started looking at historical facts and interpreting them while asking myself "Cui bono" (Who benefits). And then patterns started to emerge. Patterns of Anglo-american hegemony in the last 150 years. Later I've found the works of Carroll Quigley and Anthony Sutton (to name two greats) who have confirmed what I've interpreted while expanding my knowledge in other areas. Also, reading Zbigniew Brzezinski helped. By the way, it is he who speaks of US vassals. But if you really want to learn lesser known historical facts then, probably, the best place to start is Brzezinski's inspiration: Halford Mackinder and his Heartland Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hist...) To end this post, I'll quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan)

ethbro 10y ago

> in 2016 USA is arguably the most hated country in the world Let's agree to disagree on this, based on the fact that there are a number of countries with active civil wars and/or genocides.

saiya-jin 10y ago
i think you are missing the point of the parent - not many people care about genocide going on somewhere in the woods as long as it's not dangerously nearby (nothing to be proud of, but a natural part of being human these days). I don't know anybody who would literally 'hate' Rwanda, Burma, South Sudan or your former/current place of pick. now for rather unfortunate meddling into internal affairs of a given state - there isn't a single country in this world that can say US didn't try to f__k them over one way or the other. Not-a-single-one. You may not like this fact, but that's truth. Now we can say something similar, maybe to lesser exent, and maybe with more evil tone, about Russia, or in other ways about England/Dutch/French/Spanish/Belgian/German/and so on for the past, but for pure hate, US made it damn too easy to be hated. don't take this personally - I have much higher issues with Russia in this regard, the country that invaded my home in 1968, killed quite a few, brought more repressions and stayed for 21 years. But US ain't some saint 'good' guy, far from that.
- ethbro 10y ago
  > not many people care about genocide going on somewhere in the woods as long as it's not dangerously nearby I'm going to take the somewhat cardboard American umbrage, but I think my position is a fair one. For all of our American geopolitical intrigue and intelligence service &#@$ups, the United States generally does care. In the sense that compared with other countries that could act, the United States chooses to do something. Somalia was a failed state, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Iraq was run by a dictator who killed his own people (caveat: yes, domestic and international audiences were lied to about WMD facts), but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Continental Europe was occupied by the Nazis, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Swathes of the Pacific were occupied by Imperial Japan, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. It's easy to say "That's an ocean away, doesn't concern us, and isn't our business." Even when people are being murdered or exploited. Nobody points a finger and says "Why didn't you act when it was happening?" But if we're being honest and fair, then there's zero utility in comparing how well Switzerland is liked vs the US or Russia. It's a hell of a lot easier to make friends if you never enter a competition.
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    Re: Iraq Dictators killing their own people hasn't concerned the US govt before or since. They even called the thing Operation Iraqi Liberation.
binarray2000 10y ago
With great power comes great responsibility. Currently, no other country has that much power (things I mentioned in the parent) and does so much harm. Yes, regionally, there are conflicts and hatred/dislike between groups, regions or countries. Yet, US is feared, disliked, even hated - exactly for the misuse of the power.

spiderfarmer 10y ago

> America’s overall image around the world remains largely positive. Across the nations surveyed (excluding the U.S.), a median of 69% hold a favorable opinion of the U.S., while just 24% express an unfavorable view. However, there is significant variation among regions and countries.[0] I think we can agree the US often acts like a douchebag and that it has a lot of passionate haters, but the fact is that there are not that many great countries in the world. It's true that the US is not number #1 in a lot areas and I really believe that's a good thing. The whole world should improve, not just the US. Inequality is at the root of a lot of evil in this world. [0] http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/

tiatia 10y ago
The US is probably the nicest and most responsible super power ever. A super power like the Roman empire would have won the Afghanistan war for sure. But in a different way.
- robert_foss 10y ago
  Even the nicest mass murderer is still a mass murderer.
  - tiatia 10y ago
    I don't think the US did mass murder in Afghanistan. This was part of the problem. The Romans would have just made a population reduction of XX% per year and things would have been fine. I think you should put your judgement into perspective.
    - coredog64 10y ago
      Decimation in the original sense of the word?
      - tiatia 10y ago

jgalt212 10y ago

I didn't know that Noam Chomsky posted on HN.

binarray2000 10y ago
Whoever downvoted you, it's their right. I upvoted you. I actually find your comment funny. But, please, don't compare me with Chomsky.
- te_chris 10y ago
  No, that would be quite insulting to Chomsky.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    Wow, was this really necessary?
wslh 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nchomsky https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nchomsky

kafkaesq 10y ago

In late 80's US empire has definitely thrown international law above the board by organizing color revolutions, The term "color revolution" didn't exist until the early 2000s. US empire and its vassals (other NATO members) NATO countries aren't in any meaningful way "vassals" of the US. Might I suggest... reading a bit more broadly? To get like you know, a better grip on basic narrative history? Whatever sources you've been drawing from -- it seems you've got the polemics down pat, but your basic geopolitical awareness appears to be quite stunted.

binarray2000 10y ago
I just saw your comment. While I don't know if you'll see it/respond to it, here is my response: (1) Yes, the first color revolution was in 2000 in Serbia. And that sentence should have started with "Since" instead of "In". But the three things I've listed in it are undisputed. (2) Since the NATO was founded, the Commander is always an US General. Who is, while being the NATO Commander, still on the Pentagon payroll. And those on Pentagon payroll are under the command of the US President. No other President/Prime Minister of a NATO member state has that power. Next, look at the NATO troop concentration on the Russian border. It is undisputed that NATO is expanding towards Russia. It is undisputed that continental European countries have interest in dialog and cooperation with Russia. But they must follow the US oligarchy. (3) Your last paragraph brings out the suspicion that you swallow the interpretation of widely known history others have chewed for you. You seem to devalue everything that doesn't fit the official narrative. And you get personal. But, no offense taken: Been there, done that. Since 2003 I have started looking at historical facts and interpreting them while asking myself "Cui bono" (Who benefits). And then patterns started to emerge. Patterns of Anglo-american hegemony in the last 150 years. Later I've found the works of Carroll Quigley and Anthony Sutton (to name two greats) who have confirmed what I've interpreted while expanding my knowledge in other areas. Also, reading Zbigniew Brzezinski helped. By the way, it is he who speaks of US vassals. But if you really want to learn lesser known historical facts then, probably, the best place to start is Brzezinski's inspiration: Halford Mackinder and his Heartland Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hist...) To end this post, I'll quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan)