4 ms·

I think your vision is too US centric, US hegemony lead to disruptions to foreign nations like afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc. My pov from latinamerica is that m

by lube 4y ago

I think your vision is too US centric, US hegemony lead to disruptions to foreign nations like afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc. My pov from latinamerica is that my country could be next, and neither your culture nor your "business class" seems the future(we reflect your cultural hegemony with our version of shitty role models), si why not challenge US hegemony?

Armisael16 4y ago
The tariffs and policy in questions are being set by the US - of course the discussion is US-centric, the question being discussed is ‘how should the US be approaching this?’
jimkleiber 4y ago
I think their main point was that it doesn't make sense for the US to challenge US hegemony.
gibbonsrcool 4y ago
The second biggest geopolitical opponent to the US, Russia, is in major decline. Their primary opponent, China, is slowing down and has enormous domestic problems to deal with that are projected to worsen for a long period of time. The US was supposed to be behind in AI research, but technologically, they're ahead. I believe that once AI is used to exert geopolitical pressure, economically or through counter action, it will be a runaway advantage. If this were Star Wars I think we'd be at the point where we were only starting to see the rise of the Empire.
goodluckchuck 4y ago
Hegemony is inevitable, prosperous, and peaceful. Anyone who would challenge US hegemony would either intend to establish themselves their own hegemony or would be patsies creating a situation where another force could do so. Do would we be better off under a global islamic caliphate deriving from afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc… or a Chinese hegemoney, or a German hegemony? I’d put American hegemony up against any civilization that the world has ever seen in terms of equity, prosperity, and peace.
- irrational 4y ago
  I’d put American hegemony up against any civilization that the world has ever seen in terms of guns, mass shootings, and being okay with children being killed in their classrooms.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  For the Americans. In the meanwhile, the rest of the world is so sick of your hegemony, it would rather see anyone else, or better yet, state of a never ending direct fight between the contenders while the rest of the world is left alone. Something like Star Trek no involvement rule.
  - Paradigma11 4y ago
    Usually the contenders dont fight in their own countries but in the rest of the world using proxy wars.
  - iamerroragent 4y ago
    I'm sorry you don't enjoy our Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Apple, and Hollywood. I'm really really sorry that our Navy is used to protect trade. Terrible of the U.S. I'm sorry that the U.S. likes to have allies with democracies and a thriving, consuming, middle-class.
    - Teever 4y ago
      I'm always baffled by this sort of defensive and childish response that happens whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority. It hints at a deep-rooted inferiority complex in the American identity. Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely. Anxiously lashing out at people because they express a desire for improvements in their society, and improvements in American society isn't productive.
      - 4y ago
kodah 4y ago
Latin American oil processing is at an all time high. Latin America: https://www.statista.com/statistics/961585/latin-america-crude-oil-production-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/961585/latin-america-cru... US: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M... Every government has to think about energy independence, of which oil production is part of that story. Our oil economics are also intertwined with US policy, which renewables are helping undo in the US. That's to say, US society is trying to put a cap on how energy independence involves in conflict either directly or indirectly. Latin Americas story is different: https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/papers/working/Latin%20America's%20Missing%20Oil%20Wars.pdf https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/papers/work... > Abstract: In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, oil-producing countries have civil wars at a significantly higher rate than countries without oil. Is there also a link between oil and armed rebellion in Latin America? > I argue the answer is “yes,” but with an important qualification. In the rest of the world, oil heightens the danger of both “governmental” conflicts (over control of the existing state) and secessionist conflicts (to form new states); but in Latin America, oil is only linked to governmental conflicts. This is not because Latin American petroleum has unusual properties, but because the region is uniquely “secession-proof”: there have been no separatist conflicts in Latin America for over a century. I explore two possible explanations for this anomaly: the region’s long history of sovereign statehood, which may have caused national borders to become more widely-accepted; and obstacles to the mobilization of indigenous groups along ethnic lines. Tldr; instead of getting involved in foreign wars to save your oil supply, it's cheaper to centralize the oppression back home.
Fatnino 4y ago
If you think your own country is in bad enough shape that it could be next on a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as they were just prior to US involvement you need to have a good long think about fixing your own problems fast. Each of those countries might have been "stable" by some definition of the word, but they all had pretty crappy organizations monopolizing power. US interference certainly didn't fix their underlying problems but it did dislodge the badguys on top. (unfortunately, often just leaving the spot open for some other badguys because aforementioned underlying problems) Realistically, the next country on the US hitlist is probably Iran, not your latam home country. But first the American public needs to get back it's war appetite, and the shooting in Ukraine needs to simmer down (probably within a year, along new borders that are pretty close to what the current battle lines are), and China needs to not distract us by starting with Taiwan.
adventured 4y ago
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya were all failed states when the US intervened / invaded (which is also not a good argument for invading those nations; the US betrayed its own self-interest in the second Iraq war). If your nation is run by a dictatorship, it's a failed state. If your nation is a theocracy, it's a failed state. You'll notice the distinct lack of the US invading well-functioning, democratic nations (we share a remarkably unguarded, massive border with Canada). You generally can't challenge US hegemony, it's far too large, and still expanding. China is the only entity since the 1950s Soviet Union that could even attempt it. For example while the EU's strongest economies have been largely going sideways for ~15 years economically (since the great recession), the US has added nearly $10 trillion to its economy (a further ~65-70% expansion in 15 years). Who is going to keep up with that, at that size (other than China)?

by lube 4y ago

Armisael16 4y ago

The tariffs and policy in questions are being set by the US - of course the discussion is US-centric, the question being discussed is ‘how should the US be approaching this?’

jimkleiber 4y ago

I think their main point was that it doesn't make sense for the US to challenge US hegemony.

gibbonsrcool 4y ago

The second biggest geopolitical opponent to the US, Russia, is in major decline. Their primary opponent, China, is slowing down and has enormous domestic problems to deal with that are projected to worsen for a long period of time. The US was supposed to be behind in AI research, but technologically, they're ahead. I believe that once AI is used to exert geopolitical pressure, economically or through counter action, it will be a runaway advantage. If this were Star Wars I think we'd be at the point where we were only starting to see the rise of the Empire.

goodluckchuck 4y ago

Hegemony is inevitable, prosperous, and peaceful. Anyone who would challenge US hegemony would either intend to establish themselves their own hegemony or would be patsies creating a situation where another force could do so. Do would we be better off under a global islamic caliphate deriving from afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc… or a Chinese hegemoney, or a German hegemony? I’d put American hegemony up against any civilization that the world has ever seen in terms of equity, prosperity, and peace.

irrational 4y ago
I’d put American hegemony up against any civilization that the world has ever seen in terms of guns, mass shootings, and being okay with children being killed in their classrooms.
tut-urut-utut 4y ago
For the Americans. In the meanwhile, the rest of the world is so sick of your hegemony, it would rather see anyone else, or better yet, state of a never ending direct fight between the contenders while the rest of the world is left alone. Something like Star Trek no involvement rule.
- Paradigma11 4y ago
  Usually the contenders dont fight in their own countries but in the rest of the world using proxy wars.
- iamerroragent 4y ago
  I'm sorry you don't enjoy our Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Apple, and Hollywood. I'm really really sorry that our Navy is used to protect trade. Terrible of the U.S. I'm sorry that the U.S. likes to have allies with democracies and a thriving, consuming, middle-class.
  - Teever 4y ago
    I'm always baffled by this sort of defensive and childish response that happens whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority. It hints at a deep-rooted inferiority complex in the American identity. Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely. Anxiously lashing out at people because they express a desire for improvements in their society, and improvements in American society isn't productive.
    - 4y ago

kodah 4y ago

Latin American oil processing is at an all time high. Latin America: https://www.statista.com/statistics/961585/latin-america-crude-oil-production-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/961585/latin-america-cru... US: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M... Every government has to think about energy independence, of which oil production is part of that story. Our oil economics are also intertwined with US policy, which renewables are helping undo in the US. That's to say, US society is trying to put a cap on how energy independence involves in conflict either directly or indirectly. Latin Americas story is different: https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/papers/working/Latin%20America's%20Missing%20Oil%20Wars.pdf https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/papers/work... > Abstract: In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, oil-producing countries have civil wars at a significantly higher rate than countries without oil. Is there also a link between oil and armed rebellion in Latin America? > I argue the answer is “yes,” but with an important qualification. In the rest of the world, oil heightens the danger of both “governmental” conflicts (over control of the existing state) and secessionist conflicts (to form new states); but in Latin America, oil is only linked to governmental conflicts. This is not because Latin American petroleum has unusual properties, but because the region is uniquely “secession-proof”: there have been no separatist conflicts in Latin America for over a century. I explore two possible explanations for this anomaly: the region’s long history of sovereign statehood, which may have caused national borders to become more widely-accepted; and obstacles to the mobilization of indigenous groups along ethnic lines. Tldr; instead of getting involved in foreign wars to save your oil supply, it's cheaper to centralize the oppression back home.

Fatnino 4y ago

If you think your own country is in bad enough shape that it could be next on a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as they were just prior to US involvement you need to have a good long think about fixing your own problems fast. Each of those countries might have been "stable" by some definition of the word, but they all had pretty crappy organizations monopolizing power. US interference certainly didn't fix their underlying problems but it did dislodge the badguys on top. (unfortunately, often just leaving the spot open for some other badguys because aforementioned underlying problems) Realistically, the next country on the US hitlist is probably Iran, not your latam home country. But first the American public needs to get back it's war appetite, and the shooting in Ukraine needs to simmer down (probably within a year, along new borders that are pretty close to what the current battle lines are), and China needs to not distract us by starting with Taiwan.

adventured 4y ago

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya were all failed states when the US intervened / invaded (which is also not a good argument for invading those nations; the US betrayed its own self-interest in the second Iraq war). If your nation is run by a dictatorship, it's a failed state. If your nation is a theocracy, it's a failed state. You'll notice the distinct lack of the US invading well-functioning, democratic nations (we share a remarkably unguarded, massive border with Canada). You generally can't challenge US hegemony, it's far too large, and still expanding. China is the only entity since the 1950s Soviet Union that could even attempt it. For example while the EU's strongest economies have been largely going sideways for ~15 years economically (since the great recession), the US has added nearly $10 trillion to its economy (a further ~65-70% expansion in 15 years). Who is going to keep up with that, at that size (other than China)?