5 ms·

The amount of goodwill the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing. But did not actually manag

The amount of goodwill the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing. But did not actually manage to replicate to what they did in WWII. Backup these results with data is not the way to go. You have to proof the same results could have not been achieved without force. Which is impossible to proof IMO

pembrook 5y ago
Sure, it’s impossible to prove what would have happened otherwise (given the chaotic reflexive system). But an interesting thought experiment, imagine, after ending WWII the US and its people simply sunk into the ocean. Then you’ve got a massive imbalance of power tilted towards Stalin and the Soviets with nuclear weapons and allied with China, vs a weak UK and France. While it’s impossible to prove the USSR wouldn’t have started caring about democracy and human rights and stopped caring about expansion on their own...I don’t think it’s a leap to say the world would be a worse place.
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  But your alternative scenario is ridiculous. Rather than the US and its wealth and power disappear (causing a power imbalance in the process), what if the US simply didn't enter the 20 year long Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, as an example? That is very hard to say the world would be a worse place as a result.
- dncornholio 5y ago
  Same what if problem.. Of course the shift in power would change how we would life now, probably for the worse. That still doesn't justify anything.
cies 5y ago
> goodwill the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. Sadly? It's about time. Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, most of Latin America, many places in Africa. They all have a US hangover. > US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing. Serious? What propaganda outlet do you read? They try to help their big biz make max profits. That's all. That's not "the right thing". Yeah sure they sell it as "the right thing". Who does not...
- dncornholio 5y ago
  Thank you for saying things so directly. I was trying to give them at least some slack, maybe it's already time.. but I'm afraid my personality wont let me. It's like giving up hope
- joyeuse6701 5y ago
  Yet the US is still the premier nation that everyone tries to immigrate to, because as a nation it actually works. The same can’t be said of many of the nations you mentioned, and that was before U.S involvement. The cool narrative of today is to point a finger at the west, but most people I think who espouse this view haven’t had the misery of living under the absolutely nuts regimes that exist in this world.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    >Yet the US is still the premier nation that everyone tries to immigrate to Yes, because they are richest natiom in the world. How is that statement not a complete non sequitur to what was being discussed?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - joyeuse6701 5y ago
      The immediate post I responded to was arguing that the US doesn’t do the right thing, but tries to extract max profits for its big businesses and a bunch of foreign policy mistakes. My point was the US is more than that, and “good” as illustrated by its popularity with immigrants. You can, actually, in this court system receive justice, you can speak your mind at least legally without reprisal. You can leave this nation if you so choose. Being just a “rich” nation isn’t it. There are many rich nations and many not as accommodating.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    So your argument is: if Finland is a nice place to live, then it has the moral right to invade any country where standards of living are lower? Also before US involvement all countries were colonies, do you think being repeatedly invaded and bombed has any negative effects?
fallingknife 5y ago
> US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing Wait, you think that was the motivation for US actions?
sandworm101 5y ago
>> the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. Right there is half of the animosity behind the cold war. Try telling a Russian that it was the US that "ended" WWII. Remember to duck. The US bombings of Japan were bad, but worse was the threat of a Russian invasion of the home islands. Japan decided that it would rather be occupied by Americans than Russians. And it was Russian troops on the streets of Berlin. They suffered far more losses and killed more enemies. It isn't "WWII" in Russia. It's "The Great Patriotic War". Despite what Texas highschool textbooks say, the US did not end that war solo.
- joyeuse6701 5y ago
  True, the Americans were the better alternative for hegemon, hands down.

pembrook 5y ago

Sure, it’s impossible to prove what would have happened otherwise (given the chaotic reflexive system). But an interesting thought experiment, imagine, after ending WWII the US and its people simply sunk into the ocean. Then you’ve got a massive imbalance of power tilted towards Stalin and the Soviets with nuclear weapons and allied with China, vs a weak UK and France. While it’s impossible to prove the USSR wouldn’t have started caring about democracy and human rights and stopped caring about expansion on their own...I don’t think it’s a leap to say the world would be a worse place.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago
But your alternative scenario is ridiculous. Rather than the US and its wealth and power disappear (causing a power imbalance in the process), what if the US simply didn't enter the 20 year long Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, as an example? That is very hard to say the world would be a worse place as a result.
dncornholio 5y ago
Same what if problem.. Of course the shift in power would change how we would life now, probably for the worse. That still doesn't justify anything.

cies 5y ago

> goodwill the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. Sadly? It's about time. Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, most of Latin America, many places in Africa. They all have a US hangover. > US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing. Serious? What propaganda outlet do you read? They try to help their big biz make max profits. That's all. That's not "the right thing". Yeah sure they sell it as "the right thing". Who does not...

dncornholio 5y ago
Thank you for saying things so directly. I was trying to give them at least some slack, maybe it's already time.. but I'm afraid my personality wont let me. It's like giving up hope
joyeuse6701 5y ago
Yet the US is still the premier nation that everyone tries to immigrate to, because as a nation it actually works. The same can’t be said of many of the nations you mentioned, and that was before U.S involvement. The cool narrative of today is to point a finger at the west, but most people I think who espouse this view haven’t had the misery of living under the absolutely nuts regimes that exist in this world.
- andrepd 5y ago
  >Yet the US is still the premier nation that everyone tries to immigrate to Yes, because they are richest natiom in the world. How is that statement not a complete non sequitur to what was being discussed?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - joyeuse6701 5y ago
    The immediate post I responded to was arguing that the US doesn’t do the right thing, but tries to extract max profits for its big businesses and a bunch of foreign policy mistakes. My point was the US is more than that, and “good” as illustrated by its popularity with immigrants. You can, actually, in this court system receive justice, you can speak your mind at least legally without reprisal. You can leave this nation if you so choose. Being just a “rich” nation isn’t it. There are many rich nations and many not as accommodating.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  So your argument is: if Finland is a nice place to live, then it has the moral right to invade any country where standards of living are lower? Also before US involvement all countries were colonies, do you think being repeatedly invaded and bombed has any negative effects?

fallingknife 5y ago

> US felt invincible after it and tried to do the right thing Wait, you think that was the motivation for US actions?

sandworm101 5y ago

>> the US had from ending WWII is sadly running out. Right there is half of the animosity behind the cold war. Try telling a Russian that it was the US that "ended" WWII. Remember to duck. The US bombings of Japan were bad, but worse was the threat of a Russian invasion of the home islands. Japan decided that it would rather be occupied by Americans than Russians. And it was Russian troops on the streets of Berlin. They suffered far more losses and killed more enemies. It isn't "WWII" in Russia. It's "The Great Patriotic War". Despite what Texas highschool textbooks say, the US did not end that war solo.

joyeuse6701 5y ago
True, the Americans were the better alternative for hegemon, hands down.