3 ms·

> "Because we're the good guys" is not a good argument. It’s less of an argument and more of an observation. The people of the US simply aren’t the kind of peo

> "Because we're the good guys" is not a good argument. It’s less of an argument and more of an observation. The people of the US simply aren’t the kind of people to do what the OP suggests. > But even if you go that route, would you say the same of a US under Trump? Considering nothing really changed under Trump besides the 24/7 news cycle going into hyperdrive and him continually saying dumb and annoying things, yes. There was no real difference under Trump than Obama (my favorite president so far during my voting life, for example. The other problem here is you’re just taking arbitrary snapshots in time. Are the British good people? How about the French? They created Napoleon after all. Norwegians? Hundreds of years of raising and enslaving people. Russians? They’re only just now removed from the worst of the worst human atrocities under Stalin. The Dutch? Hello it’s The Congo. Japan? China? Brasil? So you can be honest and look from a historical perspective, or I’m just going to say everyone is pretty bad and we are no better or worse than anyone else.

shkkmo 4y ago
> The people of the US simply aren’t the kind of people to do what the OP suggests. While "nuke half the world" is a bit of obvious hyperbole, I think it is a mistake to write off the risks of the US as the sole nuclear power. It's not that Americans are particularly evil or good, but that unrestricted power is dangerous. There is a reason our constitution is designed to avoid placing too much power in anyone's hands. Unmitigated power is a risk and un-mitigated American nuclear power definitely increases the risk that it will used. The more interesting topic is if it was globally worth trading that risk for the risk of global annihilation.
vaidhy 4y ago
> I’m just going to say everyone is pretty bad and we are no better or worse than anyone else. That is probably the closest to the truth. People in power will do things because they can and they are trying to extract the resources as much as they can. US has been in war pretty much all its history (except for 17 years)[0] It is nice to think we are different, but both history and political studies disagree. I think you want to be blinded by this because the war is not happening on US soil (not after WW2). In the recent times, it is the US who has been the aggressor. [0] - https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/usa-only-17-years-of-peace.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/usa-only-1...
- ericmay 4y ago
  > I think you want to be blinded by this because the war is not happening on US soil (not after WW2). I know. I was in the United States Army :). I’m very much anti-war and I don’t like the excursions we’ve made across the globe. On the other hand, maybe we should leave NATO and stop putting ourselves and our values in a position where they can come under attack? These two things go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. Anyway, my point wasn’t that the US doesn’t do bad or dumb things. It’s that I do not accept singling out America here when someone is claiming we would literally drop nuclear bombs on half of the world if only those pesky Russians and Chinese didn’t have nukes too. It’s especially irritating when the United States has had that opportunity and rejected it, meanwhile regimes in both China and Russia in the nuclear age have killed millions of their own citizens. And moreso, historically many countries that we would talk about here have been far worse actors on the global stage. Personally, the past is the past. But if you (not you specifically) are going to single out the US it just doesn’t sit well with me.
  - vaidhy 4y ago
    I did not read it as anyone singling out US. I read it as a statement that any country having absolute power would not be good for the world and act without impunity. BTW, on NATO, the only country that has invoked article 5 (for mutual protection) is US for the war on Afghanistan. All of these might not be news to you. I am very confused in the role US should play on the world stage. I think the optimism and the aspiration of "can do anything" is very positive. However, I look at the US as it has turned out now and I feel depressed. I feel we have lost our compassion and humanity while being focused on building moats and walls.
moistly 4y ago
The people of the US torture people in black-ops sites despite knowing that torture does not work, and then go on to not prosecute the criminals who planned and approved the use of torture. The people of the US are going to ban abortion despite knowing that this will kill women. Pull the other one, it has bells on.
yywwbbn 4y ago
> The Dutch? Hello it’s The Congo. You probably mean Belgium? I’m not sure if you’re aware but the US occupations of Haiti and the Philippines were pretty bad. Based on what the US did during The Banana Wars and the Indian wars, yes you’re exactly that kind of people. And what does that even mean? The Germans weren’t that kind of people either (and some might argue to an actually bigger degree, unlike the Americans they didn’t at all seemed to be interested in subjugating foreign people until WW1/2) until they were…

shkkmo 4y ago

> The people of the US simply aren’t the kind of people to do what the OP suggests. While "nuke half the world" is a bit of obvious hyperbole, I think it is a mistake to write off the risks of the US as the sole nuclear power. It's not that Americans are particularly evil or good, but that unrestricted power is dangerous. There is a reason our constitution is designed to avoid placing too much power in anyone's hands. Unmitigated power is a risk and un-mitigated American nuclear power definitely increases the risk that it will used. The more interesting topic is if it was globally worth trading that risk for the risk of global annihilation.

vaidhy 4y ago

> I’m just going to say everyone is pretty bad and we are no better or worse than anyone else. That is probably the closest to the truth. People in power will do things because they can and they are trying to extract the resources as much as they can. US has been in war pretty much all its history (except for 17 years)[0] It is nice to think we are different, but both history and political studies disagree. I think you want to be blinded by this because the war is not happening on US soil (not after WW2). In the recent times, it is the US who has been the aggressor. [0] - https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/usa-only-17-years-of-peace.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/usa-only-1...

ericmay 4y ago
> I think you want to be blinded by this because the war is not happening on US soil (not after WW2). I know. I was in the United States Army :). I’m very much anti-war and I don’t like the excursions we’ve made across the globe. On the other hand, maybe we should leave NATO and stop putting ourselves and our values in a position where they can come under attack? These two things go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. Anyway, my point wasn’t that the US doesn’t do bad or dumb things. It’s that I do not accept singling out America here when someone is claiming we would literally drop nuclear bombs on half of the world if only those pesky Russians and Chinese didn’t have nukes too. It’s especially irritating when the United States has had that opportunity and rejected it, meanwhile regimes in both China and Russia in the nuclear age have killed millions of their own citizens. And moreso, historically many countries that we would talk about here have been far worse actors on the global stage. Personally, the past is the past. But if you (not you specifically) are going to single out the US it just doesn’t sit well with me.
- vaidhy 4y ago
  I did not read it as anyone singling out US. I read it as a statement that any country having absolute power would not be good for the world and act without impunity. BTW, on NATO, the only country that has invoked article 5 (for mutual protection) is US for the war on Afghanistan. All of these might not be news to you. I am very confused in the role US should play on the world stage. I think the optimism and the aspiration of "can do anything" is very positive. However, I look at the US as it has turned out now and I feel depressed. I feel we have lost our compassion and humanity while being focused on building moats and walls.

moistly 4y ago

The people of the US torture people in black-ops sites despite knowing that torture does not work, and then go on to not prosecute the criminals who planned and approved the use of torture. The people of the US are going to ban abortion despite knowing that this will kill women. Pull the other one, it has bells on.

yywwbbn 4y ago

> The Dutch? Hello it’s The Congo. You probably mean Belgium? I’m not sure if you’re aware but the US occupations of Haiti and the Philippines were pretty bad. Based on what the US did during The Banana Wars and the Indian wars, yes you’re exactly that kind of people. And what does that even mean? The Germans weren’t that kind of people either (and some might argue to an actually bigger degree, unlike the Americans they didn’t at all seemed to be interested in subjugating foreign people until WW1/2) until they were…