4 ms·

The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. If those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy w

The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. If those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy way for the US to get other to go along with what they are doing.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> if those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy way for the US to get other to go along with what they are doing Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t.
- D_Alex 4y ago
  "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger. And also... “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger Nobody has permanent friends or alliances. The point is we, a maritime power, tend to be mutually supportive in our alliances in a way land powers are not. (We prefer them to have strong economies and militaries, for instance, and are generally okay, if not thrilled, when they compete with us.)
    - nmylc 4y ago
      I would say that Britain (maritime power) has been playing off European continental countries against each other, certainly up to WWI. The U.S. still does this. Now the Eastern European countries are used as a wedge against the Western ones. Pipelines are blown up, which is not supportive.
    - cpursley 4y ago
      The US puts major preconditions on other countries. And are very inconsistent on how they apply/enforce them. Contrast to all the newly formed (and preexisting but growing) non-western alliances and trade agreements.
      - cpursley 4y ago
        And the weaponization of the dollar really spooked a whole lotta other countries and just added fuel to the fire of them looking into alternative non-dependent systems (trading in non-usd, swift alternatives, etc). At this rate, we’re going to isolate ourselves (Europe is already feeling significant pain). The West is only around a billion people out of what, 8 billion?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - yvan-eht-nioj 4y ago
    I would posit that public pressure on politicians to support an ally in trouble does indeed constitute a form of 'friendship', if that pressure is enough to provoke action.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  "We'll back your military coup if you ally with us" seems fairly domineering and imperial from my perspective. Not naturally aligning us to others.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > "We'll back your military coup if you ally with us" seems fairly domineering and imperial from my perspective. Not naturally aligning us to others. We have allies of colour and allies of convenience. They’re easy to differentiate because we care deeply, almost genuinely, about the internal politics of the former (e.g. the U.K., Germany, Japan, et cetera). They’re discussed as a prize to be contested for. And we tend to welcome their immigrants. With the latter, we don’t, they’re closer to assets, and as a result we tend to prefer the efficiency of autocracy with them. The Gulf and Pakistan fall into this bucket. I understand why we do it, strategically. But I agree it tarnishes our reputation. The difference is, most countries don’t have any relationships in the first category. (Think: the Scandinavia, the Baltic sisters.) Certainly not superpowers.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      "We're nicer to some of our allies," is an interesting take, but I also find it amusing that two of those we care deeply about needed a military occupation to naturally align to our interests.
      - whythre 4y ago
        … a military occupation in the wake of the most destructive war of the last century, started by both of those occupied countries. I bring that up not to crow about the USA’s bygone righteousness, but to highlight that the people of Japan and Germany were ready to embrace a new paradigm, because the old one had resulted in so much suffering and death.
- AndyMcConachie 4y ago
  > Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t. Bullshit. The American strategy with Iran has been to surround it with enemies, including the Saudis. It took China to come in and make peace between the two. In that instance, and many others, the clear USA strategy was to make enemies. There's a difference between alliances and proxies. The USA likes having vassals, it does not like having alliances with equals. Like in Ukraine the USA likes to have its proxies do its dirty work. And like in its growing bombast towards China, the USA would gladly sacrifice Korea and Taiwan if it hurt China.
  - senttoschool 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > The American strategy with Iran has been to surround it with enemies, including the Saudis. It took China to come in and make peace between the two. In that instance, and many others, the clear USA strategy was to make enemies. I’ll concede that our strategy with Iran makes zero sense to me. But I never said we don’t make, or even seek out, enemies. Just that we build alliances. That’s true in our approach with Iran, which leans heavily on our Saudi, Emirati and Israeli allies. > USA likes having vassals, it does not like having alliances with equals We like both. Our alliances with Canada, the U.K. and Australia are ones of supreme, to the point of vulnerability, mutual respect. Our alliances with France and Germany approach co-equal status–we regularly disagree without abandoning each other. We obviously don’t give a shit about the people in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or, frankly, Ukraine, the way we do about Western Europe or Korea. > the USA would gladly sacrifice Korea and Taiwan if it hurt China Just got back from Taipei. Don’t think anyone there sees our committing to defending their homeland as sacrificing them.
    - wheelerof4te 4y ago
      "Just got back from Taipei. Don’t think anyone there sees our committing to defending their homeland as sacrificing them." They don't have to see it that way. In fact, it's much better that they don't. Easier to sacrifice them when it's convenient.
CrampusDestrus 4y ago
Most people act in their own interest A nation is comprised and guided by people Thus, unless something extraordinary happens, nations will act in their own interest
BjoernKW 4y ago
> The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. No country does. Countries don't have morals, countries have interests. Actions by countries are of course almost always justified based on the former, rather than the latter.
- RedCondor 4y ago
  This is just the fascist mindset. "Everyone is as depraved as me, so I can and should be infinitely depraved preemptively."
rayiner 4y ago
> The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. That's a common belief, especially among people outside the U.S. But I think it's totally wrong. I don't think you can look at the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, our our support in Ukraine, and say that's serving America's interests. George W. Bush and Hilary Clinton exemplify a bipartisan coalition, cut from the same cloth, that believes in liberal democracy and individualistic human rights as a religion, and who think America is justified in using war to promote that religion around the world.
- dmreedy 4y ago
  A "bipartisan coalition cut from the same cloth" does not sound very "bi", nor very "partisan" to me, beyond the absolute barest colloquial use of the term to describe the fact that there are two choices of the flag you can raise in order to functionally participate. What you are describing to me sounds a lot more like a single powerbase with a few disagreements of narcissism amongst its participants, with a dramatic hegemonic control over the broader citizenship. The self interests of this neoliberal consensus include empire-building, and have since the cold war that spawned and shaped it. A program to spread that hegemony broader and broader to preserve the flow of resources into the imperial center. I'm trying not to assign morality here per se; just give I think a better model with, I think, more explanatory power.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I disagree with your characterization because I don't think it's accurate. I come from a country where the government has "hegemonic control over the broader citizenship." That's not what's happening in America. It's much more akin to different infighting sects of the same evangelical religion. I also disagree that your model has "more explanatory power." We spent $6 trillion going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we certainly didn't get $6 trillion in oil. We opened up trade with China, gave them our technology, and put them on a path to leapfrogging ahead of us. Your theory is that America is an empire trying to direct "the flow of resources into the imperial center"--but if that's the case then our imperial leaders are extremely incompetent. What happened in Iraq and China makes much more sense under my model. It was an attempt at converting those countries into our religion of liberal democracy, human rights, and capitalism.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> if those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy way for the US to get other to go along with what they are doing Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t.

D_Alex 4y ago
"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger. And also... “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger Nobody has permanent friends or alliances. The point is we, a maritime power, tend to be mutually supportive in our alliances in a way land powers are not. (We prefer them to have strong economies and militaries, for instance, and are generally okay, if not thrilled, when they compete with us.)
  - nmylc 4y ago
    I would say that Britain (maritime power) has been playing off European continental countries against each other, certainly up to WWI. The U.S. still does this. Now the Eastern European countries are used as a wedge against the Western ones. Pipelines are blown up, which is not supportive.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    The US puts major preconditions on other countries. And are very inconsistent on how they apply/enforce them. Contrast to all the newly formed (and preexisting but growing) non-western alliances and trade agreements.
    - cpursley 4y ago
      And the weaponization of the dollar really spooked a whole lotta other countries and just added fuel to the fire of them looking into alternative non-dependent systems (trading in non-usd, swift alternatives, etc). At this rate, we’re going to isolate ourselves (Europe is already feeling significant pain). The West is only around a billion people out of what, 8 billion?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- yvan-eht-nioj 4y ago
  I would posit that public pressure on politicians to support an ally in trouble does indeed constitute a form of 'friendship', if that pressure is enough to provoke action.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
"We'll back your military coup if you ally with us" seems fairly domineering and imperial from my perspective. Not naturally aligning us to others.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > "We'll back your military coup if you ally with us" seems fairly domineering and imperial from my perspective. Not naturally aligning us to others. We have allies of colour and allies of convenience. They’re easy to differentiate because we care deeply, almost genuinely, about the internal politics of the former (e.g. the U.K., Germany, Japan, et cetera). They’re discussed as a prize to be contested for. And we tend to welcome their immigrants. With the latter, we don’t, they’re closer to assets, and as a result we tend to prefer the efficiency of autocracy with them. The Gulf and Pakistan fall into this bucket. I understand why we do it, strategically. But I agree it tarnishes our reputation. The difference is, most countries don’t have any relationships in the first category. (Think: the Scandinavia, the Baltic sisters.) Certainly not superpowers.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    "We're nicer to some of our allies," is an interesting take, but I also find it amusing that two of those we care deeply about needed a military occupation to naturally align to our interests.
    - whythre 4y ago
      … a military occupation in the wake of the most destructive war of the last century, started by both of those occupied countries. I bring that up not to crow about the USA’s bygone righteousness, but to highlight that the people of Japan and Germany were ready to embrace a new paradigm, because the old one had resulted in so much suffering and death.
AndyMcConachie 4y ago
> Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t. Bullshit. The American strategy with Iran has been to surround it with enemies, including the Saudis. It took China to come in and make peace between the two. In that instance, and many others, the clear USA strategy was to make enemies. There's a difference between alliances and proxies. The USA likes having vassals, it does not like having alliances with equals. Like in Ukraine the USA likes to have its proxies do its dirty work. And like in its growing bombast towards China, the USA would gladly sacrifice Korea and Taiwan if it hurt China.
- senttoschool 4y ago
  [flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > The American strategy with Iran has been to surround it with enemies, including the Saudis. It took China to come in and make peace between the two. In that instance, and many others, the clear USA strategy was to make enemies. I’ll concede that our strategy with Iran makes zero sense to me. But I never said we don’t make, or even seek out, enemies. Just that we build alliances. That’s true in our approach with Iran, which leans heavily on our Saudi, Emirati and Israeli allies. > USA likes having vassals, it does not like having alliances with equals We like both. Our alliances with Canada, the U.K. and Australia are ones of supreme, to the point of vulnerability, mutual respect. Our alliances with France and Germany approach co-equal status–we regularly disagree without abandoning each other. We obviously don’t give a shit about the people in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or, frankly, Ukraine, the way we do about Western Europe or Korea. > the USA would gladly sacrifice Korea and Taiwan if it hurt China Just got back from Taipei. Don’t think anyone there sees our committing to defending their homeland as sacrificing them.
  - wheelerof4te 4y ago
    "Just got back from Taipei. Don’t think anyone there sees our committing to defending their homeland as sacrificing them." They don't have to see it that way. In fact, it's much better that they don't. Easier to sacrifice them when it's convenient.

CrampusDestrus 4y ago

Most people act in their own interest A nation is comprised and guided by people Thus, unless something extraordinary happens, nations will act in their own interest

BjoernKW 4y ago

> The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. No country does. Countries don't have morals, countries have interests. Actions by countries are of course almost always justified based on the former, rather than the latter.

RedCondor 4y ago
This is just the fascist mindset. "Everyone is as depraved as me, so I can and should be infinitely depraved preemptively."

rayiner 4y ago

> The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. That's a common belief, especially among people outside the U.S. But I think it's totally wrong. I don't think you can look at the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, our our support in Ukraine, and say that's serving America's interests. George W. Bush and Hilary Clinton exemplify a bipartisan coalition, cut from the same cloth, that believes in liberal democracy and individualistic human rights as a religion, and who think America is justified in using war to promote that religion around the world.

dmreedy 4y ago
A "bipartisan coalition cut from the same cloth" does not sound very "bi", nor very "partisan" to me, beyond the absolute barest colloquial use of the term to describe the fact that there are two choices of the flag you can raise in order to functionally participate. What you are describing to me sounds a lot more like a single powerbase with a few disagreements of narcissism amongst its participants, with a dramatic hegemonic control over the broader citizenship. The self interests of this neoliberal consensus include empire-building, and have since the cold war that spawned and shaped it. A program to spread that hegemony broader and broader to preserve the flow of resources into the imperial center. I'm trying not to assign morality here per se; just give I think a better model with, I think, more explanatory power.
- rayiner 4y ago
  I disagree with your characterization because I don't think it's accurate. I come from a country where the government has "hegemonic control over the broader citizenship." That's not what's happening in America. It's much more akin to different infighting sects of the same evangelical religion. I also disagree that your model has "more explanatory power." We spent $6 trillion going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we certainly didn't get $6 trillion in oil. We opened up trade with China, gave them our technology, and put them on a path to leapfrogging ahead of us. Your theory is that America is an empire trying to direct "the flow of resources into the imperial center"--but if that's the case then our imperial leaders are extremely incompetent. What happened in Iraq and China makes much more sense under my model. It was an attempt at converting those countries into our religion of liberal democracy, human rights, and capitalism.