6 ms·

The world map has been mostly frozen the last few decades precisely because USA is the global hegemon and world police. Regional powers (which is what we would

by Msw242 4y ago

The world map has been mostly frozen the last few decades precisely because USA is the global hegemon and world police. Regional powers (which is what we would devolve to) are demonstrating exactly what the world would look like without America running the show: conquest and genocide in Ukraine, saber rattling in the south china sea, genocide of the Kurds. We don't have an interest in solving for all the world's ills, and we are the source of many. But the world has been less stable and more dangerous in the past. What you are espousing is a luxury belief.

tuxie_ 4y ago
It's sad but not surprising that you think that the US did not promote, finance, or execute dictatorships and all kinds of destabilizing tactics against democratically elected governments for the sole reason of not agreeing with their policies. They even sent agents to my country to teach the military how to torture civilians. The only difference is that they were careful to not do it directly, or do it in secret. Exactly the same way they are doing in Ukraine now, where they avoid giving the weapons directly to Ukraine, but instead they use the well exercised muscle of influence.
- zaphar 4y ago
  Ukraine is a terrible example. Russia started that, not Ukraine or the US. Giving weapons and funding it would have been completely absent without Russian aggression. Promoting a better way for countries to adopt, partnering with them in economic activity and education, and helping them to defend themselves when neighbors try to use aggression to oppose that partnership is a much better mechanism for bettering the world than outright war and conquering other nations. Does the US do shady stuff that bites them later? Yes. Is the world overall better with the US as one of the biggest out there for now? Also yes. Both things can be true. By all means shine a light on, and oppose the shady stuff but don't make the mistake of thinking that the world doesn't need a strong entity who can both promote and also defend better ways to govern.
- Msw242 4y ago
  Yeah, we do a bunch of fucked up shit, like fueling the civil war in Yemen, the banana wars, and much, much more. We're less extractive than the alternative, and the US having an effective monopoly on violence has been a stabilizing force. Europeans really don't deserve a voice in this whole conversation given that they rely entirely on the US for protection. Germany's decision to build Nord Stream 2 demonstrates how detached they are from realpolitik.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
trasz 4y ago
>what the world would look like without America running the show: conquest and genocide in Ukraine, saber rattling in the south china sea, genocide of the Kurds. Meanwhile with America running the show: entire regions - South America and Middle East - largely destroyed, with tens of millions of victims. America isn’t the “world police”, they are just the main bully.
- arroz 4y ago
  How did the US destroy South America? And please don’t talk about military dictatorship that happened decades ago .-. Middle East has also been invaded by Europe and Russia China has been running concentration camps on middle eastern (for now the ones within their borders)
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Ah yes, if it happened in the past it had no relvance today.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    The strongest argument for the US destroying South America, aside from the obvious propping up of strong men, is probably training and supporting right-wing militias to combat communism. The effect of their existence as a power base then cascading into politics, etc. That said, most of South America's recent woes have generally been economic (Guatamala, Venezuela), and the rise of Chavez (and the US not directly acting against his movement for decades) undercuts the "US is responsible for what happens in South America" position.
mbg721 4y ago
There are plenty of regional powers that aren't particularly violent or unstable; the traditional concern--regardless of whether it's true--isn't that the US itself would devolve into chaos, it's that by suddenly ceasing to be able to project force in other countries, it would leave power vacuums.
coliveira 4y ago
If you think the world is stable as a result of the US, you should think again. It is exactly the contrary. The US itself is involved in wars since basically its foundation. The reason you say this is because you probably live in the US or one of its rich close alies. Everyone else will tell you that life under US hegemony means constant wars, coups, and political instability.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Could you give some examples? The US has certainly abused its power (notoriously, in the 60s and 70s at the height of the Cold War), but "constant" appears to be stretching historical fact to fit a narrative.
  - coliveira 4y ago
    Are you forgetting that the US has been actively involved in non-stop wars around the world for the last 20 years? And before these wars started, it was doing "special operations" in eastern Europe, parts of Asia and Africa? And in Latin America it never really stoped its coups, military dictatorships and the such, especially in central America. And then of course there was the "cold" war and all the crimes in South Asia...
    - snovv_crash 4y ago
      Look at the hundred years before that. Everyone was fighting, all the time, not just one country with roughly one skirmish (by historical standards) at any single point.
      - bilbo0s 4y ago
        You are all missing the point. War is a constant. It was in the past. It is a constant today. And it will be in the future. All nations are, at heart, "evil" in this regard. Essentially, nations are just scaled up street gangs with more destructive weapons. The only proven method of keeping these street gangs from getting too far out of hand, of keeping all our war at the level of low intensity conflict, is MAD. Nations behave only at the barrel of a gun. To argue that America is "evil" is as irrelevant as it is to argue that America is "good". For instance, I know that all nations can be said to be "evil" at root, and "good" at root. Here's the thing though, do you think it matters to me if China is "evil" and "good"? Of course not, they're just a different street gang. The US has a responsibility to humanity to keep them in line. Should it matter to China that the US street gang is "evil" and "good"? No. They have a responsibility to humanity to keep the US in line. In the age of weapons of mass destruction, only mutually assured destruction has ensured these street gangs don't come into conflict. Relying on sunshine and rainbows and unicorns that crap out skittles is nonsense. This is not a children's game of "good guys-bad guys". There are no good guys or bad guys. Only nations, (street gangs), pursuing interests. They are kept in line only at the barrel of a gun. Take that gun away and they will run rampant.

by Msw242 4y ago

tuxie_ 4y ago

It's sad but not surprising that you think that the US did not promote, finance, or execute dictatorships and all kinds of destabilizing tactics against democratically elected governments for the sole reason of not agreeing with their policies. They even sent agents to my country to teach the military how to torture civilians. The only difference is that they were careful to not do it directly, or do it in secret. Exactly the same way they are doing in Ukraine now, where they avoid giving the weapons directly to Ukraine, but instead they use the well exercised muscle of influence.

zaphar 4y ago
Ukraine is a terrible example. Russia started that, not Ukraine or the US. Giving weapons and funding it would have been completely absent without Russian aggression. Promoting a better way for countries to adopt, partnering with them in economic activity and education, and helping them to defend themselves when neighbors try to use aggression to oppose that partnership is a much better mechanism for bettering the world than outright war and conquering other nations. Does the US do shady stuff that bites them later? Yes. Is the world overall better with the US as one of the biggest out there for now? Also yes. Both things can be true. By all means shine a light on, and oppose the shady stuff but don't make the mistake of thinking that the world doesn't need a strong entity who can both promote and also defend better ways to govern.
Msw242 4y ago
Yeah, we do a bunch of fucked up shit, like fueling the civil war in Yemen, the banana wars, and much, much more. We're less extractive than the alternative, and the US having an effective monopoly on violence has been a stabilizing force. Europeans really don't deserve a voice in this whole conversation given that they rely entirely on the US for protection. Germany's decision to build Nord Stream 2 demonstrates how detached they are from realpolitik.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

trasz 4y ago

>what the world would look like without America running the show: conquest and genocide in Ukraine, saber rattling in the south china sea, genocide of the Kurds. Meanwhile with America running the show: entire regions - South America and Middle East - largely destroyed, with tens of millions of victims. America isn’t the “world police”, they are just the main bully.

arroz 4y ago
How did the US destroy South America? And please don’t talk about military dictatorship that happened decades ago .-. Middle East has also been invaded by Europe and Russia China has been running concentration camps on middle eastern (for now the ones within their borders)
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Ah yes, if it happened in the past it had no relvance today.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The strongest argument for the US destroying South America, aside from the obvious propping up of strong men, is probably training and supporting right-wing militias to combat communism. The effect of their existence as a power base then cascading into politics, etc. That said, most of South America's recent woes have generally been economic (Guatamala, Venezuela), and the rise of Chavez (and the US not directly acting against his movement for decades) undercuts the "US is responsible for what happens in South America" position.

mbg721 4y ago

There are plenty of regional powers that aren't particularly violent or unstable; the traditional concern--regardless of whether it's true--isn't that the US itself would devolve into chaos, it's that by suddenly ceasing to be able to project force in other countries, it would leave power vacuums.

coliveira 4y ago

If you think the world is stable as a result of the US, you should think again. It is exactly the contrary. The US itself is involved in wars since basically its foundation. The reason you say this is because you probably live in the US or one of its rich close alies. Everyone else will tell you that life under US hegemony means constant wars, coups, and political instability.

ethbr0 4y ago
Could you give some examples? The US has certainly abused its power (notoriously, in the 60s and 70s at the height of the Cold War), but "constant" appears to be stretching historical fact to fit a narrative.
- coliveira 4y ago
  Are you forgetting that the US has been actively involved in non-stop wars around the world for the last 20 years? And before these wars started, it was doing "special operations" in eastern Europe, parts of Asia and Africa? And in Latin America it never really stoped its coups, military dictatorships and the such, especially in central America. And then of course there was the "cold" war and all the crimes in South Asia...
  - snovv_crash 4y ago
    Look at the hundred years before that. Everyone was fighting, all the time, not just one country with roughly one skirmish (by historical standards) at any single point.
    - bilbo0s 4y ago
      You are all missing the point. War is a constant. It was in the past. It is a constant today. And it will be in the future. All nations are, at heart, "evil" in this regard. Essentially, nations are just scaled up street gangs with more destructive weapons. The only proven method of keeping these street gangs from getting too far out of hand, of keeping all our war at the level of low intensity conflict, is MAD. Nations behave only at the barrel of a gun. To argue that America is "evil" is as irrelevant as it is to argue that America is "good". For instance, I know that all nations can be said to be "evil" at root, and "good" at root. Here's the thing though, do you think it matters to me if China is "evil" and "good"? Of course not, they're just a different street gang. The US has a responsibility to humanity to keep them in line. Should it matter to China that the US street gang is "evil" and "good"? No. They have a responsibility to humanity to keep the US in line. In the age of weapons of mass destruction, only mutually assured destruction has ensured these street gangs don't come into conflict. Relying on sunshine and rainbows and unicorns that crap out skittles is nonsense. This is not a children's game of "good guys-bad guys". There are no good guys or bad guys. Only nations, (street gangs), pursuing interests. They are kept in line only at the barrel of a gun. Take that gun away and they will run rampant.