5 ms·

It's a spectrum, not a binary distinction. The answer would be don't go to war with the explicit notion of overturning the very system that maintains the securi

It's a spectrum, not a binary distinction. The answer would be don't go to war with the explicit notion of overturning the very system that maintains the security of those assets. Any system that is totally impartial to enemies that seek to exploit it's rules against itself is doomed to failure; Ergo there will be ALWAYS be the distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders". But the US is a conglemeration of interests, and if you are businessman, an investor, a Capitalist, your interests are the US interests. If you actually understand what guides US foreign policy it's actually very easy to align yourself with US interests in a beneficial way without much costs. To become an "insider". There is no such thing as "unprovoked US aggression", it's all quite predictable decades ahead from certain actions performed today. The US is predictable, and that makes it easy to invest in. China, Iran, Russia, NK, Cuba etc instead are still guided by nationalist impulses, which unfortunately can result in irrational decisions (Ukraine, Taiwan) that are unalignable with business interests. It's a matter of pride really, and that's a big no-no for the investor. It's unpredictable, we don't know if China will really invade Taiwan or not, and that's going to put a major cost in investing. As for other places like India or the EU, their economies aren't large enough and have good enough returns yet, but even if they did, they would likely operate in a similar manner as the US.

roenxi 2y ago
> The answer would be don't go to war... China are, in a disturbingly literal sense, doing dress rehearsals for a Taiwan invasion. As far as I know (not speaking Chinese) their rhetoric has been quite clear that they see military invasion as an option on this topic. They're probably going to be a US-calibre military superpower in short order given their economic and manufacturing foundations. I doubt your answer will make a compelling case to their ears. > There is no such thing as "unprovoked US aggression", it's all quite predictable decades ahead That is suspect: * It almost rejects the entire concept of unprovoked aggression. Although de-facto it is, damaging or obstructing the US's commercial interests isn't supposed to be considered a military provocation. * It is at odds with a country like the US that is continuously in a state of conflict because of their commercial interests. On balance they're probably the most militarily aggressive country in existence right now. That is a lot of implicit provocation! > China, Iran, Russia, NK, Cuba etc instead are still guided by nationalist impulses, which unfortunately can result in irrational decisions (Ukraine, Taiwan) I can't resist a jab at this one. Thank goodness the rationalists prevailed on topics like Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to glorious success, prosperity and other good outcomes!
- elzbardico 2y ago
  China is responding to provocative actions of the US in Taiwan, the same way russia responded in Ukraine. "The others are irrational actors, crazies. We are the normal ones" If you can't smell the propaganda you've been fed to believe this irrational racist statements probably you will enjoy the draft.
  - chii 2y ago
    > provocative actions of the US in Taiwan which was started via China's provocations in the southern china seas. Not to mention the de-democratization of hong kong. As for russia, their "response" is due to the fact that they don't want ukraine to lean westwards, regardless of the desire of the populous. I personally don't believe russia should have any say in how ukraine leans, and if their populous wants to lean westwards, russia have no right to intervene.
  - exe34 2y ago
    From the Pacific to the Himalayas, the republic of China will be free?
  - spookie 2y ago
    No country should be subjugated to the desires of another. Ukraine wanted to join the EU, that was their provocation? Several paramilitary groups in its home soil have been funded by Russia, Russia took over Crimea, Russia has invaded them. Only then was NATO ever on the table. The provocateur is pretty obvious in this case.
    - lenkite 2y ago
      > Ukraine wanted to join the EU, that was their provocation? Hello, 2014 American sponsored, Nuland-designed Maidan coup which got rid of an elected President whose election had been formally and successfully vetted by EU observers, following which a fifth of Ukraine's ethnic Russian regions rebelled. Remember - Nuland was so personally involved that she was handing over food and drinks to "protestors". If this had been a U.S. ally, there would have been howls of foreign interference 24x7 on TV. Ukraine even put joining NATO as a constitutional guideline and part of their National Security Strategy in 2020-21! Imagine Mexico as a member of a military Anti-USA coalition - you can bet that there would an American invasion the next year for "regime change". > No country should be subjugated to the desires of another. Remove U.S. military bases from Cuba, Iraq and Syria - and then talk about "subjugation" to the desires of another nation. The sanctimonious hypocrisy of Americans always astonishes non-NATO citizens.
GoblinSlayer 2y ago
US diplomats say US foreign policy is governed by national interests, implying it's common sense. Who claims impartiality?

roenxi 2y ago

> The answer would be don't go to war... China are, in a disturbingly literal sense, doing dress rehearsals for a Taiwan invasion. As far as I know (not speaking Chinese) their rhetoric has been quite clear that they see military invasion as an option on this topic. They're probably going to be a US-calibre military superpower in short order given their economic and manufacturing foundations. I doubt your answer will make a compelling case to their ears. > There is no such thing as "unprovoked US aggression", it's all quite predictable decades ahead That is suspect: * It almost rejects the entire concept of unprovoked aggression. Although de-facto it is, damaging or obstructing the US's commercial interests isn't supposed to be considered a military provocation. * It is at odds with a country like the US that is continuously in a state of conflict because of their commercial interests. On balance they're probably the most militarily aggressive country in existence right now. That is a lot of implicit provocation! > China, Iran, Russia, NK, Cuba etc instead are still guided by nationalist impulses, which unfortunately can result in irrational decisions (Ukraine, Taiwan) I can't resist a jab at this one. Thank goodness the rationalists prevailed on topics like Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to glorious success, prosperity and other good outcomes!

elzbardico 2y ago
China is responding to provocative actions of the US in Taiwan, the same way russia responded in Ukraine. "The others are irrational actors, crazies. We are the normal ones" If you can't smell the propaganda you've been fed to believe this irrational racist statements probably you will enjoy the draft.
- chii 2y ago
  > provocative actions of the US in Taiwan which was started via China's provocations in the southern china seas. Not to mention the de-democratization of hong kong. As for russia, their "response" is due to the fact that they don't want ukraine to lean westwards, regardless of the desire of the populous. I personally don't believe russia should have any say in how ukraine leans, and if their populous wants to lean westwards, russia have no right to intervene.
- exe34 2y ago
  From the Pacific to the Himalayas, the republic of China will be free?
- spookie 2y ago
  No country should be subjugated to the desires of another. Ukraine wanted to join the EU, that was their provocation? Several paramilitary groups in its home soil have been funded by Russia, Russia took over Crimea, Russia has invaded them. Only then was NATO ever on the table. The provocateur is pretty obvious in this case.
  - lenkite 2y ago
    > Ukraine wanted to join the EU, that was their provocation? Hello, 2014 American sponsored, Nuland-designed Maidan coup which got rid of an elected President whose election had been formally and successfully vetted by EU observers, following which a fifth of Ukraine's ethnic Russian regions rebelled. Remember - Nuland was so personally involved that she was handing over food and drinks to "protestors". If this had been a U.S. ally, there would have been howls of foreign interference 24x7 on TV. Ukraine even put joining NATO as a constitutional guideline and part of their National Security Strategy in 2020-21! Imagine Mexico as a member of a military Anti-USA coalition - you can bet that there would an American invasion the next year for "regime change". > No country should be subjugated to the desires of another. Remove U.S. military bases from Cuba, Iraq and Syria - and then talk about "subjugation" to the desires of another nation. The sanctimonious hypocrisy of Americans always astonishes non-NATO citizens.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago

US diplomats say US foreign policy is governed by national interests, implying it's common sense. Who claims impartiality?