7 ms·

These are pretty confident, extremely sweeping claims. I don’t think societal level forces can be so easily reduced.

by meany 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago
Let's look at the last 3 superpowers in history and compare the USSR to the US, or China to the US. Which of the 3 would be best described as an imperial nationalist? - USSR voluntarily disbanded. Moskow currently can't even assert military dominance over the Ukraine. Sole claim to global relevancy for Moscow is the soviet era nuclear arsenal. - China might practically be able to invade a small island off their coastline, but it isn't obvious that they could tolerate the backlash. The quality of their army is largely unknown because they haven't used it seriously in decades. - US has flattened multiple Middle Eastern countries in the last few decades, the world meets in New York to conduct diplomacy regardless and barely makes an issue of this. Has had a comparable number of soldiers stationed in Germany to the German army (at least it did recently, I think that changed under either Trump or Biden). The US dollar is used for international trade and the people who move off it get invaded for unrelated reasons. Technically they did voluntarily shrink their empire too though, because of that business with the Phillipines, but they are still the undisputed military hegemon and set the pace of global affairs. By far the most invasive worldwide spy network. Now this may well be a good state of affairs but the parliamentary democracy is not the timid and delicate flower in this picture. It is the most imperialist of the 3, by far. I can speak in sweeping generalisations because this is a big, obvious and hard to miss state of affairs. Democracies are just more effective than dictators at building and maintaining an empire.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > because of that business with the Phillipines At the time, the Philippines had the same status as Hawaii. Hawaii was a non-state during WW2 that became a full state 14 years later, and the Phillippines became independent instead. I wonder who has it better now? Who would like to switch places with the other one?
  - propagandist 4y ago
    Let's ask the opposite question. Why was Hawaii absorbed but not the Philippines? Who's in Hawaii today that's happy with the status quo, and whose sacred lands are being turned into a road? Did the native population choose to join as a state or was that imposed on them?
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      > or was that imposed on them How exactly imposed? A candidate state needs to hold a referendum in order to ask for statehood status. If the people of the territory don't want to join, nobody will force them to join. It's the other thing that happens: people of a territory want to join and Congress does not grant them statehood. Just ask Puerto Rico.
      - zoolily 4y ago
        Remember that "them" above refers to the native population in Hawaii in the post it's taken from. The reason the referendum succeeded was a big decline in the native population combined with large amounts of immigration from the U.S. Today only 6% of the population are native Hawaiians or 21% if we include part-Hawaiians. That population has doubled since Hawaii became a state.
        credit_guy 4y ago
        > The reason the referendum succeeded was a big decline in the native population combined with large amounts of immigration from the U.S. Is that a fact, or just your conjecture? All I could find was that in 1940 about 46 thousand people voted in favor of becoming a state, and 22 thousand against. Are you saying there's evidence the native population voted preponderantly against? In any case, it took 19 years from that referendum until the Congress approved the statehood. There was a final vote in Hawaii to approve the statehood. There were 132 thousand yeses vs 8 thousand nos. Was that a fake vote, like the Russians just did in the occupied territories in Ukraine? [1] https://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/c.php?g=105252&p=687125 https://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/c.php?g=105252&p=687...
- prvit 4y ago
  > US has flattened multiple Middle Eastern countries in the last few decades Which ones? As far as I know, US military operations in the Middle East have generally involved very little of anything you could call flattening.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    Well, the US flattened some Wagner Group dudes in Syria
  - lgvln 4y ago
    One’d think the countless bombings of the region to be quite ‘flattening’.
    - prvit 4y ago
      Well no, US doctrine generally relies on precision strikes instead of anything you could reasonably describe as “flattening”. In all of the Middle-Eastern conflicts, civilian death tolls through direct US action have been very low.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    The Gulf War comes to mind. From Wikipedia: > Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[49][50] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign
    - watwut 4y ago
      Groznyj, Alepo, Mariopol ...
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > - USSR voluntarily disbanded. That's a stretch. Several of the constituent republics declared independence prior to the final dissolution, and these were militarily (if ineffectually) contested. The final dissolution itself was instigated by a failed coup that saw the Soviet president lose all political capital in favor of the Russian president. > Sole claim to global relevancy for Moscow is the soviet era nuclear arsenal. They retain a permanent, veto-wielding seat on the UN Security Council. They are one of the largest suppliers of troops to foreign countries--I believe the largest if you exclude those countries who would get squeamish about raping the local civilian populace or the like. Again, one of the largest supplies of arms to other countries, and you have only to look at UN resolutions to confirm that that does convey an amount of soft power. They are also one of the largest energy exporters in the world, and (with German acquiescence) that has given them a noose tied around Europe's neck that may prove painful indeed in the 2023-2024 winter. > The US dollar is used for international trade and the people who move off it get invaded for unrelated reasons. Who? Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran haven't been invaded... Oh right, you're talking about those countries which didn't move off of it but talked about it like once a decade before the unrelated invasion.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    I don't feel any need to argue any particular point because I could abandon 90% of my points and it still wouldn't be a contest. Of the 3, if we ask "which of these is closest to being an imperial nationalist power?" the answer is the US. It isn't remotely close. There is no Russian empire. There is no Chinese empire. They are struggling mightily to promote their interests abroad because of all the US bases people keep tripping over, and US-based systems of global governance. Their armies are struggling to move more than a few hundred kilometres from the borders that the US recognises. The US military goes where it wants and does what it wants. A dictatorship just couldn't sustain a global empire the way a democracy like the US does (or the British before them). Dictatorships don't have the economic and military nous. If Russia wanted to win more wars it'd need to use a political system more like the US's - China too. Fun fact: I didn't actually know what nationalism meant before today's article so I looked it up in Wikipedia. The definition is something like "nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation".
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > - China might practically be able to invade a small island off their coastline, but it isn't obvious that they could tolerate the backlash. The quality of their army is largely unknown because they haven't used it seriously in decades. Give them time, and they'll most likely be able to "flatten[...] multiple Middle Eastern countries," too. They also have something like 4.5 times the population of the US, and have gained the economic characteristics that made the US so powerful after WWII. China is now the "workshop of the world, while the US's manufacturing capacity has withered.
- watwut 4y ago
  > USSR voluntarily disbanded. Moskow currently can't even assert military dominance over the Ukraine. Sole claim to global relevancy for Moscow is the soviet era nuclear arsenal. Afghanistan twice, Chechnya twice, keeping Belarus as puppet state and meddling in it for years, trying to same in Ujraine foe years. Still claiming it has right to rule the whole region and decide which alliance other countries enter. Disbanded because I had to and trying to get it back. Oh, genocide, leveling whole cities to the ground in multiple countries Russia is as imperial as it gets.
- TinkersW 4y ago
  China invaded Tibet and still controls it, seems like an empire to me. Also wants to invade Taiwan. Russia took over half of Europe in WW2 and was horrible to the citizens of those "territories", another empire. They have also invaded Georgia/Ukraine in recent memory.
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    There is also the ongoing Uyghur genocide.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

These are pretty confident, extremely sweeping claims. I don’t think societal level forces can be so easily reduced.

by meany 4y ago

These are pretty confident, extremely sweeping claims. I don’t think societal level forces can be so easily reduced.

Let's look at the last 3 superpowers in history and compare the USSR to the US, or China to the US. Which of the 3 would be best described as an imperial nationalist? - USSR voluntarily disbanded. Moskow currently can't even assert military dominance over the Ukraine. Sole claim to global relevancy for Moscow is the soviet era nuclear arsenal. - China might practically be able to invade a small island off their coastline, but it isn't obvious that they could tolerate the backlash. The quality of their army is largely unknown because they haven't used it seriously in decades. - US has flattened multiple Middle Eastern countries in the last few decades, the world meets in New York to conduct diplomacy regardless and barely makes an issue of this. Has had a comparable number of soldiers stationed in Germany to the German army (at least it did recently, I think that changed under either Trump or Biden). The US dollar is used for international trade and the people who move off it get invaded for unrelated reasons. Technically they did voluntarily shrink their empire too though, because of that business with the Phillipines, but they are still the undisputed military hegemon and set the pace of global affairs. By far the most invasive worldwide spy network. Now this may well be a good state of affairs but the parliamentary democracy is not the timid and delicate flower in this picture. It is the most imperialist of the 3, by far. I can speak in sweeping generalisations because this is a big, obvious and hard to miss state of affairs. Democracies are just more effective than dictators at building and maintaining an empire.

credit_guy 4y ago
> because of that business with the Phillipines At the time, the Philippines had the same status as Hawaii. Hawaii was a non-state during WW2 that became a full state 14 years later, and the Phillippines became independent instead. I wonder who has it better now? Who would like to switch places with the other one?
- propagandist 4y ago
  Let's ask the opposite question. Why was Hawaii absorbed but not the Philippines? Who's in Hawaii today that's happy with the status quo, and whose sacred lands are being turned into a road? Did the native population choose to join as a state or was that imposed on them?
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > or was that imposed on them How exactly imposed? A candidate state needs to hold a referendum in order to ask for statehood status. If the people of the territory don't want to join, nobody will force them to join. It's the other thing that happens: people of a territory want to join and Congress does not grant them statehood. Just ask Puerto Rico.
    - zoolily 4y ago
      Remember that "them" above refers to the native population in Hawaii in the post it's taken from. The reason the referendum succeeded was a big decline in the native population combined with large amounts of immigration from the U.S. Today only 6% of the population are native Hawaiians or 21% if we include part-Hawaiians. That population has doubled since Hawaii became a state.
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        > The reason the referendum succeeded was a big decline in the native population combined with large amounts of immigration from the U.S. Is that a fact, or just your conjecture? All I could find was that in 1940 about 46 thousand people voted in favor of becoming a state, and 22 thousand against. Are you saying there's evidence the native population voted preponderantly against? In any case, it took 19 years from that referendum until the Congress approved the statehood. There was a final vote in Hawaii to approve the statehood. There were 132 thousand yeses vs 8 thousand nos. Was that a fake vote, like the Russians just did in the occupied territories in Ukraine? [1] https://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/c.php?g=105252&p=687125 https://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/c.php?g=105252&p=687...
prvit 4y ago
> US has flattened multiple Middle Eastern countries in the last few decades Which ones? As far as I know, US military operations in the Middle East have generally involved very little of anything you could call flattening.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Well, the US flattened some Wagner Group dudes in Syria
- lgvln 4y ago
  One’d think the countless bombings of the region to be quite ‘flattening’.
  - prvit 4y ago
    Well no, US doctrine generally relies on precision strikes instead of anything you could reasonably describe as “flattening”. In all of the Middle-Eastern conflicts, civilian death tolls through direct US action have been very low.
- geysersam 4y ago
  The Gulf War comes to mind. From Wikipedia: > Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[49][50] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign
  - watwut 4y ago
    Groznyj, Alepo, Mariopol ...
jcranmer 4y ago
> - USSR voluntarily disbanded. That's a stretch. Several of the constituent republics declared independence prior to the final dissolution, and these were militarily (if ineffectually) contested. The final dissolution itself was instigated by a failed coup that saw the Soviet president lose all political capital in favor of the Russian president. > Sole claim to global relevancy for Moscow is the soviet era nuclear arsenal. They retain a permanent, veto-wielding seat on the UN Security Council. They are one of the largest suppliers of troops to foreign countries--I believe the largest if you exclude those countries who would get squeamish about raping the local civilian populace or the like. Again, one of the largest supplies of arms to other countries, and you have only to look at UN resolutions to confirm that that does convey an amount of soft power. They are also one of the largest energy exporters in the world, and (with German acquiescence) that has given them a noose tied around Europe's neck that may prove painful indeed in the 2023-2024 winter. > The US dollar is used for international trade and the people who move off it get invaded for unrelated reasons. Who? Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran haven't been invaded... Oh right, you're talking about those countries which didn't move off of it but talked about it like once a decade before the unrelated invasion.
- roenxi 4y ago
  I don't feel any need to argue any particular point because I could abandon 90% of my points and it still wouldn't be a contest. Of the 3, if we ask "which of these is closest to being an imperial nationalist power?" the answer is the US. It isn't remotely close. There is no Russian empire. There is no Chinese empire. They are struggling mightily to promote their interests abroad because of all the US bases people keep tripping over, and US-based systems of global governance. Their armies are struggling to move more than a few hundred kilometres from the borders that the US recognises. The US military goes where it wants and does what it wants. A dictatorship just couldn't sustain a global empire the way a democracy like the US does (or the British before them). Dictatorships don't have the economic and military nous. If Russia wanted to win more wars it'd need to use a political system more like the US's - China too. Fun fact: I didn't actually know what nationalism meant before today's article so I looked it up in Wikipedia. The definition is something like "nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation".
tablespoon 4y ago
> - China might practically be able to invade a small island off their coastline, but it isn't obvious that they could tolerate the backlash. The quality of their army is largely unknown because they haven't used it seriously in decades. Give them time, and they'll most likely be able to "flatten[...] multiple Middle Eastern countries," too. They also have something like 4.5 times the population of the US, and have gained the economic characteristics that made the US so powerful after WWII. China is now the "workshop of the world, while the US's manufacturing capacity has withered.
watwut 4y ago
> USSR voluntarily disbanded. Moskow currently can't even assert military dominance over the Ukraine. Sole claim to global relevancy for Moscow is the soviet era nuclear arsenal. Afghanistan twice, Chechnya twice, keeping Belarus as puppet state and meddling in it for years, trying to same in Ujraine foe years. Still claiming it has right to rule the whole region and decide which alliance other countries enter. Disbanded because I had to and trying to get it back. Oh, genocide, leveling whole cities to the ground in multiple countries Russia is as imperial as it gets.
TinkersW 4y ago
China invaded Tibet and still controls it, seems like an empire to me. Also wants to invade Taiwan. Russia took over half of Europe in WW2 and was horrible to the citizens of those "territories", another empire. They have also invaded Georgia/Ukraine in recent memory.
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  There is also the ongoing Uyghur genocide.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]