4 ms·
>Yet, I believe the humanity was close to achieving real global peace after the USSR's collapse if more effort was made. Does global here mean "the US, Europe,
by nemothekid 5y ago
>Yet, I believe the humanity was close to achieving real global peace after the USSR's collapse if more effort was made.
Does global here mean "the US, Europe, Australia and Japan"? I followed this a bit, but it's concerning that you don't consider the US a malevolent entity. By numbers alone, the in the last 30 years the US has done the most harm to innocent civilians worldwide.
I read the GP a lot more differently, in that non-proliferation was a mistake and if you are a nation-state it's likely of utmost importance that you begin to build nukes in order to prevent Russia (if you are Ukraine), China (if you are Taiwan) or the US (if you are Iran, Palestine, Libya), for fucking your shit up.
- cheschire 5y agoI'm interested what numbers you're pulling that tell the story of the US doing more harm (define harm?) to innocent civilians versus, just the first example that comes to mind, the uyghur genocide.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoIt might make sense to integrate the effect. Are aspects of US power malevolent? Absolutely. Did US protected trade routes also bring billions out of poverty by letting the spice flow? Absolutely. Are all countries flawed? Absolutely.