2 ms·

I honestly don't care about the oil companies. I'll lead with that. I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the

by YZF 1y ago

I honestly don't care about the oil companies. I'll lead with that. I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US. A regime like Iran's that has killed Americans, is openly calling the US "The Great Satan", is supporting militias in places like Iraq that attack Americans. That funds, supports and trains organizations the US considers terrorist organizations. Is abusing its own citizenry and actively seeks to export its values to other countries. Is supplying weapons to Russia for attacking Ukraine. This sort of regime can't just do whatever it wants under the label of "its own nation" since what its doing impacts others. The US is the big superpower of the "west" and the "free world". For the most part it is its deterrence against Russia and China that is standing in the way of those doing whatever they want (e.g. China taking Taiwan by force). I don't think the world would be a better place if the US just stands back. All that said, intervention, and use of force, needs to be sensible/reasonable/calculated. It's not easy to say where this is going. But it's also not easy to say where it would have gone otherwise. I can also understand Americans not having an appetite for any of this after Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. But to contrast that I think failure to intervene in the Arab Spring led to pretty bad consequences, prolonged civil wars, a refugee crisis, etc. So perhaps some intervention and support would have helped. Also the US withdrawal and lack of support to democracy in Russia were probably factors in the reversal of that country back to where it is today. Anyways, that's my very long opinion on this topic. But I can totally understand Americans not wanting any part of this. But don't think that you can just hide, things that happen in the world impact you.

nemothekid 1y ago
>I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US. You aren't arguing for a free and stable world. You are arguing for a total hegemonic power for US interests - and thats my point. You are taking the position of "this is what is good for US companies and interests" and working backwards from there. It's remarkable you use the "were stopping China from doing whatever they want", but you don't stop and think that there are other people who have legitimate concerns in stopping the US from doing what they want. Replace China with the US and Taiwan with Palestine. Aren't we doing to Palestine what you claim we should stop China from doing to Taiwan? At the very least it comes across hypocritical to claim you are in it for a "free and stable world" when that actually means "the US should get to invade whoever it wants". Furthermore, the same things you say about Iran, you could argue about North Korea. North Korea has killed Americans, they have an entire month dedicated to hating America (it starts next month!) and openly funds corporate espionage attacks that drains billions from Americans. Despite that do you honestly believe, that the world would be safer if we started dropping GBU-43s on North Korean children? Honestly answer me that. Despite what you can say about North Korean regime - don't you believe a North Korea, with Nukes mind you, is far more preferable than the alternative? Where America is dropping bombs on North Korean every 5 years? Which do you think is actually better? Why does North Korea - who again, has done all the same, and more, than Iran get a pass from the military industrial complex? Isn't North Korea clearly the bigger threat when it comes to peace as defined by the parameters you laid out? Once you interrogate this line of thinking it makes 0 sense - and anyone who thinks candidly realizes the contradiction: ironically, once our so called "enemies" have nukes, children stop being vaporized by bombs.

by YZF 1y ago

nemothekid 1y ago

>I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US. You aren't arguing for a free and stable world. You are arguing for a total hegemonic power for US interests - and thats my point. You are taking the position of "this is what is good for US companies and interests" and working backwards from there. It's remarkable you use the "were stopping China from doing whatever they want", but you don't stop and think that there are other people who have legitimate concerns in stopping the US from doing what they want. Replace China with the US and Taiwan with Palestine. Aren't we doing to Palestine what you claim we should stop China from doing to Taiwan? At the very least it comes across hypocritical to claim you are in it for a "free and stable world" when that actually means "the US should get to invade whoever it wants". Furthermore, the same things you say about Iran, you could argue about North Korea. North Korea has killed Americans, they have an entire month dedicated to hating America (it starts next month!) and openly funds corporate espionage attacks that drains billions from Americans. Despite that do you honestly believe, that the world would be safer if we started dropping GBU-43s on North Korean children? Honestly answer me that. Despite what you can say about North Korean regime - don't you believe a North Korea, with Nukes mind you, is far more preferable than the alternative? Where America is dropping bombs on North Korean every 5 years? Which do you think is actually better? Why does North Korea - who again, has done all the same, and more, than Iran get a pass from the military industrial complex? Isn't North Korea clearly the bigger threat when it comes to peace as defined by the parameters you laid out? Once you interrogate this line of thinking it makes 0 sense - and anyone who thinks candidly realizes the contradiction: ironically, once our so called "enemies" have nukes, children stop being vaporized by bombs.