3 ms·

Interests are not immutable. For a long time, the US announced that it wanted a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. Countries that

Interests are not immutable. For a long time, the US announced that it wanted a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. Countries that chose to support the same values often benefited greatly. And when other countries saw the outcome, they sometimes changed their priorities and chose to support the American world order.

coldtea 2y ago
>For a long time, the US announced that it wanted a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. Yeah, that was still bogus. It collaborated with dictators (they are good, as long as they serve it's interests, they're a "regime" when they dont), brought down democratically elected governments, funded orange "revolutions" and opposition parties, and of course bombed, invaded, etc sovereign nations. Further more, it's no place of any single country to try to build "a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law". Even if that wasn't transparently and extremely self-serving hypocritical, not every people share its ideas about democracy, or about capitalism, or what are good laws. >And when other countries saw the outcome, they sometimes changed their priorities and chose to support the American world order. Oh, sweet summer child.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  I don't understand what you are trying to say. People often change their minds. Sometimes when the situation changes, sometimes as a response to incentives, and sometimes because they have thought about the matter and learned something new. And when enough people change their minds, entire countries change their minds. The world order the US marketed during the Cold War was very attractive, and many countries tried to join it voluntarily. Some of them succeeded and some didn't. The US used various means to advance its interests, but that doesn't mean every other country was just a bunch of mindless zombies with no agency and no ability to make choices. Sometimes people just make a choice, because it's objectively better than the alternatives that are available.
- jmye 2y ago
  > Further more, it's no place of any single country to try to build "a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law". So no country should do anything to interact with its neighbors and all diplomacy is a waste of time? I should never try to convince you that my opinion is right because what if you disagree? What a strange, insular way to approach international relations.
  - slater 2y ago
    Maybe a better phrasing would be "impose their idea of a world order, with their ideas of democracy, capitalism, and the rule of their laws"
    - jmye 2y ago
      There is a vast difference between the word I responded to, “build”, and the word you substituted in, “impose”. Hard power and violence “imposes”. Sending you TB vaccines and helping you build roads, well, “builds”.
      - slater 2y ago
        I'm not disagreeing, nor did i claim they're the same word. but your idea of “building” always seems to come with demands, implied or otherwise.

coldtea 2y ago

>For a long time, the US announced that it wanted a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. Yeah, that was still bogus. It collaborated with dictators (they are good, as long as they serve it's interests, they're a "regime" when they dont), brought down democratically elected governments, funded orange "revolutions" and opposition parties, and of course bombed, invaded, etc sovereign nations. Further more, it's no place of any single country to try to build "a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law". Even if that wasn't transparently and extremely self-serving hypocritical, not every people share its ideas about democracy, or about capitalism, or what are good laws. >And when other countries saw the outcome, they sometimes changed their priorities and chose to support the American world order. Oh, sweet summer child.

jltsiren 2y ago
I don't understand what you are trying to say. People often change their minds. Sometimes when the situation changes, sometimes as a response to incentives, and sometimes because they have thought about the matter and learned something new. And when enough people change their minds, entire countries change their minds. The world order the US marketed during the Cold War was very attractive, and many countries tried to join it voluntarily. Some of them succeeded and some didn't. The US used various means to advance its interests, but that doesn't mean every other country was just a bunch of mindless zombies with no agency and no ability to make choices. Sometimes people just make a choice, because it's objectively better than the alternatives that are available.
jmye 2y ago
> Further more, it's no place of any single country to try to build "a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law". So no country should do anything to interact with its neighbors and all diplomacy is a waste of time? I should never try to convince you that my opinion is right because what if you disagree? What a strange, insular way to approach international relations.
- slater 2y ago
  Maybe a better phrasing would be "impose their idea of a world order, with their ideas of democracy, capitalism, and the rule of their laws"
  - jmye 2y ago
    There is a vast difference between the word I responded to, “build”, and the word you substituted in, “impose”. Hard power and violence “imposes”. Sending you TB vaccines and helping you build roads, well, “builds”.
    - slater 2y ago
      I'm not disagreeing, nor did i claim they're the same word. but your idea of “building” always seems to come with demands, implied or otherwise.