3 ms·

And Yemen. The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous reg

And Yemen. The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes. Russia in Syria and China in Myanmar (and they are also starting to influence other countries in Asia). We, the oppressed peopleof this world, needs a stronger US. Not the one retreating as under Trump.

vkou 9y ago
> The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes. Frequently, that would require it to stand up to itself.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
candiodari 9y ago
I am sure this has nothing to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Co... Nothing at all I say !
forkLding 9y ago
We dont need a stronger US, we need a world less dominated by so-called superpowers like USA, China etc. There was strong US influence on Latin American and Middle Eastern dictatorships. Absolute power corrupts all as USA domination on the world would mean more countries having to comply to USA interests. I believe rather the world will become a decentralized world govt under a UN where countries are abolished for regions instead of artifically created nation states that was predefined through conquering and colonization. Where we dont define humanity based on countries but as one single species.
- nradov 9y ago
  Good luck getting countries to agree to abolish themselves. What's the incentive for national politicians to ever agree to that?
  - forkLding 9y ago
    Yeah interesting how countries come before people and humanity. Centuries ago, democracy was looked as mob rule and republics in the Roman sense were favored because they didnt involve the common folk. Its almost amazing that aristocrats and nobles (politicans of the time) agreed to it which they didn't. When a minority gains more than a majority, the majority will try to fight for its powers. Within countries, theres a minority-majority play with national authorities if politicans are a self-serving class separate from that of the general population. I dont think they will agree but I see it as the future where we start losing notions of countries and people's cultures start blending together through tech, media and economy. Its the trend for successful products and philosophies to gradually expand and become more global, not the other way around. I dont pretend to know the future but there have been other theories floating around like the Dark Enlightenment who call for (in my mind wackjob) conservative republics with ideals from past centuries that run as competing corporations instead of countries as the future.

vkou 9y ago

> The US cannot solve every conflict in the world but I wish it would atleast stand up against the thhird party countries that backs vile murderous regimes. Frequently, that would require it to stand up to itself.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

candiodari 9y ago

I am sure this has nothing to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Co... Nothing at all I say !

forkLding 9y ago

We dont need a stronger US, we need a world less dominated by so-called superpowers like USA, China etc. There was strong US influence on Latin American and Middle Eastern dictatorships. Absolute power corrupts all as USA domination on the world would mean more countries having to comply to USA interests. I believe rather the world will become a decentralized world govt under a UN where countries are abolished for regions instead of artifically created nation states that was predefined through conquering and colonization. Where we dont define humanity based on countries but as one single species.

nradov 9y ago
Good luck getting countries to agree to abolish themselves. What's the incentive for national politicians to ever agree to that?
- forkLding 9y ago
  Yeah interesting how countries come before people and humanity. Centuries ago, democracy was looked as mob rule and republics in the Roman sense were favored because they didnt involve the common folk. Its almost amazing that aristocrats and nobles (politicans of the time) agreed to it which they didn't. When a minority gains more than a majority, the majority will try to fight for its powers. Within countries, theres a minority-majority play with national authorities if politicans are a self-serving class separate from that of the general population. I dont think they will agree but I see it as the future where we start losing notions of countries and people's cultures start blending together through tech, media and economy. Its the trend for successful products and philosophies to gradually expand and become more global, not the other way around. I dont pretend to know the future but there have been other theories floating around like the Dark Enlightenment who call for (in my mind wackjob) conservative republics with ideals from past centuries that run as competing corporations instead of countries as the future.