5 ms·

There is nothing special about 2019 though. For Americans, the US war machine was always something vague and remote that sucks in money and spits out veterans w

There is nothing special about 2019 though. For Americans, the US war machine was always something vague and remote that sucks in money and spits out veterans who need to be taken of. However for many of those who live outside of USA, overseas where the US military operates, we understand that power vacuums are very potent and if not for US, some other country will fill the void, with soft or hard power. It’s not just China and Russia; its also Turkey and Iran, for example. We don’t have much for a frame of reference, but I’ll tell you that the this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere, and under the US military umbrella and peace keeping, many nations were able to divert resources into developing their societies, not worried that they’ll be plundered by some aspiring empire.

dantondwa 7y ago
Heavenly is a large simplification. It has been heavenly for America and American companies and somewhat less terrible than other alternatives for its allies. Yes, the NATO has been very convenient for Europe. At the same time, it has meant being economically and politically subjected to the US will. For other less developed countries it has meant, sometimes, existence as de facto American puppet states. For countries which happened to be of strategic importance to the US or in disagreement with its model, it has meant downright destruction, war and catastrophes. Any time you call the US imperialism "heavenly", remember how it has begun, with two atomic bombs being thrown on two cities. Remember all the needless and actually lost wars the US have involved themselves and the world in. Remember the political meddling with local political affairs that the US has practised (the disaster that South America has been; plans like GLADIO and similia in Europe). I much prefer democracy to autocracy. I also see the convenience of NATO. But sorry, I refuse to call American imperialism heavenly. It has been bloody, violent and with very little care for actual democracy and self-determination of nations.
- flyinglizard 7y ago
  Sorry, but the use of atomic bombs here is a red herring; there have been just as many casualties in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and many more casualties in conventional bombing of cities in Europe. Such is the nature of an all-out war, and the atomic bombs prevented an all-out incursion into Japan which would have turned them into rubble. Calling the last 70 years "bloody and violent" is the definition of the lack of historical reference I've been talking about in my previous post. In any historical comparison, it's been a period of unprecedented peace, quiet and prosperity; that aside, most of the conflicts of the post WWII 20th century have been supported encouraged by USSR on the other side. It's not just USA unilaterally attacking sovereign nations.
  - gerytu 7y ago
    I can hardly believe that a well-reasoned person would suggest that the US waging perpetual war (sorry, "regime change") in all corners of the world based on lies and false flag terror should be considered a period of "unprecedented peace".
jbay808 7y ago
> Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere, Well, sort of. Depends on whether or not you elect a government that the CIA approves of. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3...
the_af 7y ago
> "this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere" No, not for those of us in Latin America where US-propped brutal dictatorships -- trained in the School of the Americas -- have left scars which have not yet healed. It was a Cold War playground for the US, and little to do with democracy (though free trade, which does not require democracy at all, was of course involved). Not for those in Vietnam who got to "enjoy" the lasting effects of Agent Orange. And not in many other parts of the world, either.
- flyinglizard 7y ago
  You conveniently forgot to mention that the "Cold War playground" was between USA and USSR, it wasn't USA's alone.
  - the_af 7y ago
    No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interests and that "free" trade flowed with the US. In any case, you're moving the goalposts. "But the USSR...!" isn't a good refutation of "the US wasn't about bringing heavenly freedom and democracy to the world". Students detained, tortured and disappeared by dictatorships trained and abetted by the US. Pregnant mothers raped, electrocuted, and their babies illegally relocated to strangers. Democratically elected governments taken down by force. In some case, even US citizens caught in the crossfire and murdered. "But the USSR...!". Right, I guess nobody told them it was for their own good!
    - flyinglizard 7y ago
      We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.
zanny 7y ago
The broader issue is that, while most would consider the alternative power vacuum bad, American imperialism and projection is obviously not the optimal way to organize global society. The UN is wholly inept and incapable with a security council that overrules decisions and is composed of both democracies and dictatorships, but in theory you would want to have organizations akin to it that could maintain nation state power balance and avoid the propagation of further empire or subjugation between states. Having this one nation beholden largely not even to its people but to its richest dictate global morals and ethics between societies is an oppression of its own, even if the alternative is recognizably worse in the current state of affairs.

dantondwa 7y ago

Heavenly is a large simplification. It has been heavenly for America and American companies and somewhat less terrible than other alternatives for its allies. Yes, the NATO has been very convenient for Europe. At the same time, it has meant being economically and politically subjected to the US will. For other less developed countries it has meant, sometimes, existence as de facto American puppet states. For countries which happened to be of strategic importance to the US or in disagreement with its model, it has meant downright destruction, war and catastrophes. Any time you call the US imperialism "heavenly", remember how it has begun, with two atomic bombs being thrown on two cities. Remember all the needless and actually lost wars the US have involved themselves and the world in. Remember the political meddling with local political affairs that the US has practised (the disaster that South America has been; plans like GLADIO and similia in Europe). I much prefer democracy to autocracy. I also see the convenience of NATO. But sorry, I refuse to call American imperialism heavenly. It has been bloody, violent and with very little care for actual democracy and self-determination of nations.

flyinglizard 7y ago
Sorry, but the use of atomic bombs here is a red herring; there have been just as many casualties in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and many more casualties in conventional bombing of cities in Europe. Such is the nature of an all-out war, and the atomic bombs prevented an all-out incursion into Japan which would have turned them into rubble. Calling the last 70 years "bloody and violent" is the definition of the lack of historical reference I've been talking about in my previous post. In any historical comparison, it's been a period of unprecedented peace, quiet and prosperity; that aside, most of the conflicts of the post WWII 20th century have been supported encouraged by USSR on the other side. It's not just USA unilaterally attacking sovereign nations.
- gerytu 7y ago
  I can hardly believe that a well-reasoned person would suggest that the US waging perpetual war (sorry, "regime change") in all corners of the world based on lies and false flag terror should be considered a period of "unprecedented peace".

jbay808 7y ago

> Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere, Well, sort of. Depends on whether or not you elect a government that the CIA approves of. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3...

the_af 7y ago

> "this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere" No, not for those of us in Latin America where US-propped brutal dictatorships -- trained in the School of the Americas -- have left scars which have not yet healed. It was a Cold War playground for the US, and little to do with democracy (though free trade, which does not require democracy at all, was of course involved). Not for those in Vietnam who got to "enjoy" the lasting effects of Agent Orange. And not in many other parts of the world, either.

flyinglizard 7y ago
You conveniently forgot to mention that the "Cold War playground" was between USA and USSR, it wasn't USA's alone.
- the_af 7y ago
  No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interests and that "free" trade flowed with the US. In any case, you're moving the goalposts. "But the USSR...!" isn't a good refutation of "the US wasn't about bringing heavenly freedom and democracy to the world". Students detained, tortured and disappeared by dictatorships trained and abetted by the US. Pregnant mothers raped, electrocuted, and their babies illegally relocated to strangers. Democratically elected governments taken down by force. In some case, even US citizens caught in the crossfire and murdered. "But the USSR...!". Right, I guess nobody told them it was for their own good!
  - flyinglizard 7y ago
    We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.

zanny 7y ago

The broader issue is that, while most would consider the alternative power vacuum bad, American imperialism and projection is obviously not the optimal way to organize global society. The UN is wholly inept and incapable with a security council that overrules decisions and is composed of both democracies and dictatorships, but in theory you would want to have organizations akin to it that could maintain nation state power balance and avoid the propagation of further empire or subjugation between states. Having this one nation beholden largely not even to its people but to its richest dictate global morals and ethics between societies is an oppression of its own, even if the alternative is recognizably worse in the current state of affairs.