3 ms·

So the US wouldn't mind if Mexico and Canada joined some China-Russia-Iran military alliance? It's up to them to decide? I don't understand how people can be th

So the US wouldn't mind if Mexico and Canada joined some China-Russia-Iran military alliance? It's up to them to decide? I don't understand how people can be this naive.

hutzlibu 5y ago
The US surely would mind. "I don't understand how people can be this naive." But it is true, that idealism is often labeled as naive. Because seriously? Why is it naive being against any type of imperialism? I can and do criticize imperialist behavior in russia, china, US, EU strongarming smaller nations ... equally.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  People can want whatever they want but to expect any state to behave differently in this situation is certainly naive.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    States are made up of people, so it does matter what people want. But yes, it seems that imperialism is still a wanted concept.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      > States are made up of people, so it does matter what people want. The naivety continues. The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq. Both a priori and empirically, almost all inhabitants of almost all states have almost zero say in how they behave in foreign policy. Second of all, this is emergent behavior. States act in their own self-interest using the power that they have to enforce their security, it is their raison d'être. Those that abnegate quickly cease to exist, so by selection bias no alternatives exist for long.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        I did not say, all people are equal in terms of power. But the masses do have power. "The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq" In germany for example, we had big mass protests - and we did not join the iraq adventure (despite the government was willing to do so).
        guerrilla 5y ago
        "As far as military intervention against Iraq goes, I believe we should be restrained. That means that Germany will not participate," Schroeder told ARD television [on August 9, 2002][1]. The larger protests weren't until 2003.[2][3] 1. https://us.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/index.html https://us.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/inde... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        Because they could read polls before - but without the mass protests, they likely would have went with the alliance.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Mind? Sure. Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope. Except that's exactly what they would do, because these "rights" aren't real, just figments of people's imagination cut off from how things actually work.

So the US wouldn't mind if Mexico and Canada joined some China-Russia-Iran military alliance? It's up to them to decide? I don't understand how people can be this naive.

hutzlibu 5y ago

The US surely would mind. "I don't understand how people can be this naive." But it is true, that idealism is often labeled as naive. Because seriously? Why is it naive being against any type of imperialism? I can and do criticize imperialist behavior in russia, china, US, EU strongarming smaller nations ... equally.

guerrilla 5y ago
People can want whatever they want but to expect any state to behave differently in this situation is certainly naive.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  States are made up of people, so it does matter what people want. But yes, it seems that imperialism is still a wanted concept.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    > States are made up of people, so it does matter what people want. The naivety continues. The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq. Both a priori and empirically, almost all inhabitants of almost all states have almost zero say in how they behave in foreign policy. Second of all, this is emergent behavior. States act in their own self-interest using the power that they have to enforce their security, it is their raison d'être. Those that abnegate quickly cease to exist, so by selection bias no alternatives exist for long.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      I did not say, all people are equal in terms of power. But the masses do have power. "The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq" In germany for example, we had big mass protests - and we did not join the iraq adventure (despite the government was willing to do so).
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        "As far as military intervention against Iraq goes, I believe we should be restrained. That means that Germany will not participate," Schroeder told ARD television [on August 9, 2002][1]. The larger protests weren't until 2003.[2][3] 1. https://us.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/index.html https://us.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/inde... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        Because they could read polls before - but without the mass protests, they likely would have went with the alliance.

ceejayoz 5y ago

Mind? Sure. Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope.

guerrilla 5y ago
> Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope. Except that's exactly what they would do, because these "rights" aren't real, just figments of people's imagination cut off from how things actually work.