4 ms·

The view from Disunited Nations seems likely. There need be no successor peace. There could just be a broken ocean. Europe, in particular, has long failed to co

The view from Disunited Nations seems likely. There need be no successor peace. There could just be a broken ocean. Europe, in particular, has long failed to contribute to the peace it prospers in. The US periodically has to go and pacify the place since they are practically barbarians who will start killing each other in massive genocides given a few moments alone. When the US withdraws, weakened and bruised, no doubt they will turn on each other. They already did, and the US had to blow up a pipeline to keep them in line. But that capability won't last forever.

_heimdall 3y ago
There's a very real question hidden in there though, is it even the US's role to "pacify" the "barbarians"? There's a lot rolled up in such a small idea. What makes another population barbarians, and how is it so different from the US? Assuming there are groups of adversarial barbarians around the world, why should the US step in to "fix" it and how can they even define what the fix is?
- renewiltord 3y ago
  I guess that's fair. Americans see it as their role to prevent other people from their recurrent Holocausts. You leave Europe alone for a century and a genocide will ensue. Leave Europe alone for a decade and a war will ensue. Leave Europe alone for a year and violence will ensue. I suppose one could let that happen. But it's hard to say that the extinction of some racial group is a generally acceptable thing. Irrespective of the origins of America, that is a categorical difference in the scale of death and destruction. To Americans, that is barbarism, but it's possible that Europeans do not see it as such and perhaps see civilization as inherently violent. They are foreign to us here and speak different languages so perhaps their true minds are forever opaque to us, but we can see their actions: and that is repetitive quarrels with their neighbours with frequent attempts at ethnic extinction. From that, some conclusions can be drawn.

_heimdall 3y ago

There's a very real question hidden in there though, is it even the US's role to "pacify" the "barbarians"? There's a lot rolled up in such a small idea. What makes another population barbarians, and how is it so different from the US? Assuming there are groups of adversarial barbarians around the world, why should the US step in to "fix" it and how can they even define what the fix is?

renewiltord 3y ago
I guess that's fair. Americans see it as their role to prevent other people from their recurrent Holocausts. You leave Europe alone for a century and a genocide will ensue. Leave Europe alone for a decade and a war will ensue. Leave Europe alone for a year and violence will ensue. I suppose one could let that happen. But it's hard to say that the extinction of some racial group is a generally acceptable thing. Irrespective of the origins of America, that is a categorical difference in the scale of death and destruction. To Americans, that is barbarism, but it's possible that Europeans do not see it as such and perhaps see civilization as inherently violent. They are foreign to us here and speak different languages so perhaps their true minds are forever opaque to us, but we can see their actions: and that is repetitive quarrels with their neighbours with frequent attempts at ethnic extinction. From that, some conclusions can be drawn.