6 ms·
Maybe this will end in a more peaceful world order where the US no longer bombs and burns anyone who won't "open up" to their corporations, but they won't go do
by cyclecount 3y ago
Maybe this will end in a more peaceful world order where the US no longer bombs and burns anyone who won't "open up" to their corporations, but they won't go down without a fight. The US will start WWIII before relinquishing their "exorbitant privilege".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege
- actionfromafar 3y agoIf this world order ends, you will instead see several local empires bomb and burn anyone within their sphere of influence. Say what you will of the Americans, they will always do the right thing, having explored all other options. I don't have any such hopes of the other powers-to-be waiting in the wings.
- wunderland 3y agoThe Americans will always do the right thing? That has not been true in my lifetime.
- actionfromafar 3y agoMaybe you missed "having explored every other option". It's my tongue-in-cheek way of saying, as bad as the US can be, the difference against a Russian or Chinese lead world is so great, it's not even funny. We sure wouldn't be having conversations like this. I'd be silent, in re-education or dead and maybe you'd be happy with that. But you'd talk about different things on different forums, for sure.
- WitCanStain 3y agoThis relies on the assumption (possibly correct but I don't think definitively established) that a multi-polar world where e.g. China enjoys a similar status to the US would result in them imposing their own values on the world in a similar manner to how the US has done or deposing distant governments. So far China's interactions with the world outside its immediate vicinity (Taiwan, India, SCS countries) have largely been of an economic nature rather than the more bomb-dropping and CIA-flavoured approach the US has taken. So I don't think that the United States' relative loss of power necessarily means a worse world for those outside the US (again, excluding China's immediate neighbours).
- actionfromafar 3y agoYes, it relies on that assumption. Any other assumption goes completely against the evidence.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 0dayz 3y agoRight, if we use your standard for China then America has only done diplomatic actions. You are glossing over China threatening everyone of their neighbors with conflicts, border disputes and ofc exploiting other far reaching countries of their resources.
- pas 3y ago> economic nature plus coercion of Chinese people living abroad, plus a shitload of institutions that promote "Chinese culture" that happen to tow the party line, and so on
- ThalesX 3y agoI am in my mid thirties in an east european country. I barely had any exposure to Chinese culture, without seeking it myself, even though their written history is some 3000 years old. What I grew up on is pure American propaganda and interventionism.
- YeBanKo 3y agoIt would be ironic if you are from one of Eastern European country, where China financed a project, built by its own company and now the said country is facing a debt it can’t handle.
- balderdash 3y agoRight so the difference is logistics? The Chinese don’t have the logistics aircraft carriers / foreign bases yet to effectively bully people beyond their immediate neighbors?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoAre you sure China wants to lead the world by force USA style? Wouldn't it need to first form a political bloc? Where's China's bloc?
- f6v 3y agoWe need to look at hard evidence of how many counties China invaded vs NATO. It’s fascinating.
- actionfromafar 3y agoI'm saying China wants to rule its sphere of influence.
- serpix 3y agoThis forum for conversation would not exist and talking like this would get both of us jailed or worse.
- atlantic 3y agoThe US and China are not that different in terms of censorship. They just censor different things. I'm sure you can think of half a dozen comments that would get you thrown off this forum, and a couple of others that would earn you a visit from the FBI before the end of the week.
- actionfromafar 3y ago"just" is doing some Superman level heavy lifting there. FBI won't imprison a million people in re-education camps.
- endisneigh 3y agoDoesn’t the United States have to most people in prison?
- bart_spoon 3y agoLargely for violent crime, not thought crimes.
- endisneigh 3y agothere are tens of thousands of people in prison in the United States for possession of weed alone.
- the-dude 3y agoAre you aware of the concentration camps in which the Japanese were 'interned' during WWII? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America... I'll leave slavery, the Red Scare, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and all other atrocities out of it for now. This exceptionalism thing is jarring.
- ur-whale 3y ago> Say what you will of the Americans, they will always do the right thing Are you living in some sort of bizzaro parallel dimension? They most certainly haven't since the end of WWII Top of a very, very long list : Irak. They didn't explore anything. The two possible explanations for the decision to go to Irak are: 1) sheer stupidity 2) advancement of US interests at the expense of killing half a million people, so in other words: sheer evil My money is on 2)
- bryanrasmussen 3y agothe phrase having explored all other options is clear, it means the Americans will do the right thing after they have done all the wrong things and tried to make them work. When they cannot make the wrong things work then the will finally, grudgingly, do the right thing. If they can make the wrong thing work they will stick with that. The idea of the ironic viewpoint is of course that some other countries have a larger bag of wrong things they might be willing to try. It's a pretty common comedic trope in English writing to say that someone will do right only after doing wrong. So, the high dudgeon in response is rather missing the point.
- ur-whale 3y agoNice convoluted defense of an indefensible pov. But Occam's razor applies here.
- bryanrasmussen 3y agono it's more of a convoluted explanation of a complicated bit of English usage I assumed you were unfamiliar with given your comment and neglecting to quote the salient phrasing.
- krageon 3y agoOccam's razor is that it was meant to be comedy, because it being serious is not really credible. The rest of the responses seem to agree that if it is taken seriously, this statement is ridiculous.
- 3y ago
- f6v 3y ago> they will always do the right thing Hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis still waiting for that WMD proof.
- jacooper 3y agoThey juts need a bit more time! They are looking for it in kitchens and family apartments!
- rcme 3y agoThe U.S. has definitely done many immoral things. But I don't think that's because the U.S. is particularly immoral. People are immoral, in general, and many are willing to do terrible things to advance their own personal situation. You really don't need to look back too far to find many examples: Europe and its African colonies, Japan and its colonial empire, China and Tibet, Russia and Ukraine, the North Korean regime, the list goes on. I'm more interested in instances when a group with power has chosen not to wielded it.