8 ms·

Always the promotion of abstraction over concrete identification of interests and power. Who is in charge? "The rules, the rules are in charge". No, it is US wo

by PKop 4y ago

Always the promotion of abstraction over concrete identification of interests and power. Who is in charge? "The rules, the rules are in charge". No, it is US world domination and hegemony, plain and simple. Which is fine, but it's always couched in layers of bs because it allows for the propaganda of "liberal democracy" values of US to obscure good old power and dominance and maintain moral superiority.

ETH_start 4y ago
The US had the power to conquer much of the world at the end of WW2, but instead promoted self-determination and a global security framework based on rules that are applied to all countries, weak and strong, equally.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  South and Central America would like a word about that.
- PKop 4y ago
  They did conquer much of the world and Europe as a result of WW2, and then the rest of the world post cold-war. It doesn't have to imply a draconian or complete absence of benevolence in their conquest. They have military bases all over Europe, and rest of world, they control the global financial system especially amongst their "allies" and have dominant world reserve currency. They sanction and invade countries and leaders that go against their interests. NATO: "To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". Always they are suppressing and sowing conflict amongst rival powers especially on "world island" / Eurasia. And this makes perfect sense, but to not call it a conquest is silly. >self-determination Just to take a recent example, they absolutely did not allow Germany and Russia to make an alliance over energy trade through Nord Stream pipelines, sanctioning all involved players and companies for many years, and making dozens of promises to destroy the project. They also banned Huawei and demanded Western allies comply, not permit self-determination to do business of their own regard. You'll say something to the effect of "well when the rules are broken..". Yes being able to write your own rules and have your vassals comply is called conquest.
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    Wading a tiny bit into this discussion, which country or clique would you prefer to occupy the slot that the US currently does? There's almost always been some hegemon. When the world wasn't as connected, they were regional, then continental, and now world-wide. The US is the current one for a large portion of the world, but in the past you had Britain, France, Spain, HRE, Mongols, Rome..etc. Asia has seen its fair share of regional hegemonies, so has Africa and the pre-contact Americas. So it seems like that's a power void that needs to be filled by _some_ entity, and if left empty it doesn't remain so for long.
    - PKop 4y ago
      I like clarity and honesty about what's going on, not the layers of nonsense that obscure power politics. Notice, the thread here goes "the US is not a world dominating conqueror, and if they are that's a good thing". I know you weren't the one denying it, but my original point was to disagree with the characterization that they are not. If you think they are and that it is good, certainly you must think it is weird how much it is denied that they are, or that western liberal morality requires that it is denied? Cognitive dissonance, no? Personally, what bothers me more than the US being in charge, given that I'm American, is the way the US regime runs things in the homeland. The values, ideology and culture which is cultivated at home is not consistent with the type of foreign conquest/hegemony/will to power externally. One can see this with the way military recruiting for example is suffering. I would prefer, like empires of the past, that a warrior culture and values promoting power and vitality were encouraged at home. That they are not, and woke culture is ascendant makes some like me not very motivated to "fight" for the nation's interest overseas or support a more aggressive heavy handed "hegemony". There are big contradictions, in other words. (I'm a military vet who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, so these issues are meaningful to me... I see the country I fought for not representing my interests, so I have less will to fight for it or support it's fight. Make sense?). If one is not American, and say, European. They should want Europe to be powerful, not the US. I can't tell you how many Europeans I get in conversation with online that for some reason don't even support their own continent or countries to be powerful on the world state. To assert their own interests. To have a military that can enforce their will, or do whatever is necessary to oppose US meddling in their affairs. As if it is some unquestionable fact that the US should dictate to them or that it is better the US have power over them than Europe rivaling US for global power.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > he US had the power to conquer much of the world at the end of WW2 And it did. FDR administration calculated that the US would end up in de facto control of 75% of the world, and drafted a 'world' in which every country would function as a colony of the US with a certain good or resource to produce for the US industry. Indonesia, for example, were tasked with producing rubber. When they got a socialist administration and tried 'independent development', trying to manufacture things that they shouldnt, voila - they got a coup, NYT celebrated as 'a great win for democracy' even as the coup government proceeded to bury 300,000 intellectuals, left wingers, trade union leaders, communists etc alive. And Indonesia went back to 'knowing its place' and doing what its master wanted. Same situation with China - they became way more than a slave labor shop for the US business. And 'the master' is trying to 'put them in their place' right now. Like it did to Japan with the Plaza Accords.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    Indonesia and China are hardly comparable here. The US lost grip on China once the civil war ended, and it could be argued that one of the reasons why the KMT lost was, in fact, the lack of military support by the US.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Indonesia was just an example of how FDR admn. allocated 'responsibilities' to the new 'colonies'. China is a different case.
  - sarma912 4y ago
    why are you getting down-voted lol
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Thinly veiled nationalism still dominates Angloamerica. The proposition of any evildoing except the most blatant and undeniable one (like the Iraqi WMD case), triggers their self-defense instincts that make them defend their group cohesion and the social group they identify with.
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  That seems a little idealistic and even naive. The US acted in its own interests, it just happened that said interests took the shape that they did. Its rules absolutely do not apply equally to all countries; Its rules rarely even apply equally to their own citizens.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    It's fallen far short of this ideal many times, and perhaps it promoted a rules based global security architecture for its own long term interest, but the fact remains, its behavior has been very different from other global hegemons, in not extracting maximum advantage from other states nearly as much past hegemons did. The US's foreign policy - in all its aspects including trade - has generally been extraordinarily mutually-beneficial / positive-sum. The biggest exceptions to this have been US policy in the Middle East and with respect to state-level adversaries.
    - genocidicbunny 4y ago
      > The US's foreign policy - in all its aspects including trade - has generally been extraordinarily mutually-beneficial / positive-sum. The biggest exceptions to this have been US policy in the Middle East and with respect to state-level adversaries. Yes, but that does not at all preclude that said actions would be largely ones of self-interest. Is it not possible that the US realized that by not maximizing their benefit all the time, they could ensure a much more stable environment for their own growth and power gain? Grease the squeaky wheel and it'll work for you longer than if you just force it to keep going until it completely breaks.
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        >>Yes, but that does not at all preclude that said actions would be largely ones of self-interest. Yes, it's entirely possible. Regardless, this strategy that the US has-pursued/pursues makes it preferrable to most other comparable historical states as a global hegemonic power.
- ajvs 4y ago
  Ah yes, self-determination is what they say to all those countries they illegally invaded.
kelnos 4y ago
I would much rather continued US world domination than cede that power to China. Yes, that's easy for me to say as an American, but I can't help but think that other Western nations would suffer as well under China's dominance. Yes, the US's liberal democracy isn't in the best of shape (to put it mildly), but China is an isolationist, authoritarian nation where state censorship and human-rights abuses are the norm, not the exception.

by PKop 4y ago

ETH_start 4y ago

The US had the power to conquer much of the world at the end of WW2, but instead promoted self-determination and a global security framework based on rules that are applied to all countries, weak and strong, equally.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
South and Central America would like a word about that.
PKop 4y ago
They did conquer much of the world and Europe as a result of WW2, and then the rest of the world post cold-war. It doesn't have to imply a draconian or complete absence of benevolence in their conquest. They have military bases all over Europe, and rest of world, they control the global financial system especially amongst their "allies" and have dominant world reserve currency. They sanction and invade countries and leaders that go against their interests. NATO: "To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". Always they are suppressing and sowing conflict amongst rival powers especially on "world island" / Eurasia. And this makes perfect sense, but to not call it a conquest is silly. >self-determination Just to take a recent example, they absolutely did not allow Germany and Russia to make an alliance over energy trade through Nord Stream pipelines, sanctioning all involved players and companies for many years, and making dozens of promises to destroy the project. They also banned Huawei and demanded Western allies comply, not permit self-determination to do business of their own regard. You'll say something to the effect of "well when the rules are broken..". Yes being able to write your own rules and have your vassals comply is called conquest.
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  Wading a tiny bit into this discussion, which country or clique would you prefer to occupy the slot that the US currently does? There's almost always been some hegemon. When the world wasn't as connected, they were regional, then continental, and now world-wide. The US is the current one for a large portion of the world, but in the past you had Britain, France, Spain, HRE, Mongols, Rome..etc. Asia has seen its fair share of regional hegemonies, so has Africa and the pre-contact Americas. So it seems like that's a power void that needs to be filled by _some_ entity, and if left empty it doesn't remain so for long.
  - PKop 4y ago
    I like clarity and honesty about what's going on, not the layers of nonsense that obscure power politics. Notice, the thread here goes "the US is not a world dominating conqueror, and if they are that's a good thing". I know you weren't the one denying it, but my original point was to disagree with the characterization that they are not. If you think they are and that it is good, certainly you must think it is weird how much it is denied that they are, or that western liberal morality requires that it is denied? Cognitive dissonance, no? Personally, what bothers me more than the US being in charge, given that I'm American, is the way the US regime runs things in the homeland. The values, ideology and culture which is cultivated at home is not consistent with the type of foreign conquest/hegemony/will to power externally. One can see this with the way military recruiting for example is suffering. I would prefer, like empires of the past, that a warrior culture and values promoting power and vitality were encouraged at home. That they are not, and woke culture is ascendant makes some like me not very motivated to "fight" for the nation's interest overseas or support a more aggressive heavy handed "hegemony". There are big contradictions, in other words. (I'm a military vet who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, so these issues are meaningful to me... I see the country I fought for not representing my interests, so I have less will to fight for it or support it's fight. Make sense?). If one is not American, and say, European. They should want Europe to be powerful, not the US. I can't tell you how many Europeans I get in conversation with online that for some reason don't even support their own continent or countries to be powerful on the world state. To assert their own interests. To have a military that can enforce their will, or do whatever is necessary to oppose US meddling in their affairs. As if it is some unquestionable fact that the US should dictate to them or that it is better the US have power over them than Europe rivaling US for global power.
unity1001 4y ago
> he US had the power to conquer much of the world at the end of WW2 And it did. FDR administration calculated that the US would end up in de facto control of 75% of the world, and drafted a 'world' in which every country would function as a colony of the US with a certain good or resource to produce for the US industry. Indonesia, for example, were tasked with producing rubber. When they got a socialist administration and tried 'independent development', trying to manufacture things that they shouldnt, voila - they got a coup, NYT celebrated as 'a great win for democracy' even as the coup government proceeded to bury 300,000 intellectuals, left wingers, trade union leaders, communists etc alive. And Indonesia went back to 'knowing its place' and doing what its master wanted. Same situation with China - they became way more than a slave labor shop for the US business. And 'the master' is trying to 'put them in their place' right now. Like it did to Japan with the Plaza Accords.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  Indonesia and China are hardly comparable here. The US lost grip on China once the civil war ended, and it could be argued that one of the reasons why the KMT lost was, in fact, the lack of military support by the US.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Indonesia was just an example of how FDR admn. allocated 'responsibilities' to the new 'colonies'. China is a different case.
- sarma912 4y ago
  why are you getting down-voted lol
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Thinly veiled nationalism still dominates Angloamerica. The proposition of any evildoing except the most blatant and undeniable one (like the Iraqi WMD case), triggers their self-defense instincts that make them defend their group cohesion and the social group they identify with.
genocidicbunny 4y ago
That seems a little idealistic and even naive. The US acted in its own interests, it just happened that said interests took the shape that they did. Its rules absolutely do not apply equally to all countries; Its rules rarely even apply equally to their own citizens.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  It's fallen far short of this ideal many times, and perhaps it promoted a rules based global security architecture for its own long term interest, but the fact remains, its behavior has been very different from other global hegemons, in not extracting maximum advantage from other states nearly as much past hegemons did. The US's foreign policy - in all its aspects including trade - has generally been extraordinarily mutually-beneficial / positive-sum. The biggest exceptions to this have been US policy in the Middle East and with respect to state-level adversaries.
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    > The US's foreign policy - in all its aspects including trade - has generally been extraordinarily mutually-beneficial / positive-sum. The biggest exceptions to this have been US policy in the Middle East and with respect to state-level adversaries. Yes, but that does not at all preclude that said actions would be largely ones of self-interest. Is it not possible that the US realized that by not maximizing their benefit all the time, they could ensure a much more stable environment for their own growth and power gain? Grease the squeaky wheel and it'll work for you longer than if you just force it to keep going until it completely breaks.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      >>Yes, but that does not at all preclude that said actions would be largely ones of self-interest. Yes, it's entirely possible. Regardless, this strategy that the US has-pursued/pursues makes it preferrable to most other comparable historical states as a global hegemonic power.
ajvs 4y ago
Ah yes, self-determination is what they say to all those countries they illegally invaded.

kelnos 4y ago

I would much rather continued US world domination than cede that power to China. Yes, that's easy for me to say as an American, but I can't help but think that other Western nations would suffer as well under China's dominance. Yes, the US's liberal democracy isn't in the best of shape (to put it mildly), but China is an isolationist, authoritarian nation where state censorship and human-rights abuses are the norm, not the exception.