3 ms·

> The U.S. is largely considered the leader of the free world. I can assure you the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.

yostrovs 6y ago
The rest of the free world would be investing a bit more into defense if what you say is true.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  "To lead" has nothing to do with that metal, "lead". The US hegemony has always relied on science and culture more than brute force. Proof: during the Cold War, both sides had about equal militaries. Or, at least, equal for all practical purposes, i. e. killing everyone and everything 20-times over. And yet it were eastern regimes that had to build walls to keep their citizens from stampeding westwards. Nobody in West Germany was prosecuted for watching the East German TV channel. Not just because it wasn't illegal, but mostly because it was done rarely, and mostly ironically. The reverse landed quite a few people in jail. Judging by peoples' actions immediately after the fall of the wall, they weren't afraid of anything American. Or else it's hard to explain how about half of them used their first trip across the border to get a Big Mac.
  - yostrovs 6y ago
    Are you saying it has more to do with chairing meetings?
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
      No idea what you're insinuating. I believe most international meetings are run with rotating chairs. The concept is called "soft power". Practically, it means that when the US asked for something before, say, 2016, they'd get their wish, as long as it wasn't entirely unreasonable and/or didn't cost others too much. Nowadays, they have trouble getting other countries to pick up the phone. And while that is likely to improve somewhat within a month or so, it isn't ever going to go back to where it was. You think you can get the French to agree to, say, extended copyright terms that benefit Disney and Microsoft with military threats? How does that work, exactly? Even born-again christians are going to have a hard time to justify mass murder with some marginal economic utility.

yostrovs 6y ago

The rest of the free world would be investing a bit more into defense if what you say is true.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
"To lead" has nothing to do with that metal, "lead". The US hegemony has always relied on science and culture more than brute force. Proof: during the Cold War, both sides had about equal militaries. Or, at least, equal for all practical purposes, i. e. killing everyone and everything 20-times over. And yet it were eastern regimes that had to build walls to keep their citizens from stampeding westwards. Nobody in West Germany was prosecuted for watching the East German TV channel. Not just because it wasn't illegal, but mostly because it was done rarely, and mostly ironically. The reverse landed quite a few people in jail. Judging by peoples' actions immediately after the fall of the wall, they weren't afraid of anything American. Or else it's hard to explain how about half of them used their first trip across the border to get a Big Mac.
- yostrovs 6y ago
  Are you saying it has more to do with chairing meetings?
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    No idea what you're insinuating. I believe most international meetings are run with rotating chairs. The concept is called "soft power". Practically, it means that when the US asked for something before, say, 2016, they'd get their wish, as long as it wasn't entirely unreasonable and/or didn't cost others too much. Nowadays, they have trouble getting other countries to pick up the phone. And while that is likely to improve somewhat within a month or so, it isn't ever going to go back to where it was. You think you can get the French to agree to, say, extended copyright terms that benefit Disney and Microsoft with military threats? How does that work, exactly? Even born-again christians are going to have a hard time to justify mass murder with some marginal economic utility.