5 ms·
Go back a couple more years, and the UK is probably more relevant to bring up (especially considering the context), they used to have similar aspirations before
by embedding-shape 11mo ago
Go back a couple more years, and the UK is probably more relevant to bring up (especially considering the context), they used to have similar aspirations before they learned better.
- simianparrot 11mo agoThey didn’t learn better. They lost their aspirations and decided to give up as a nation.
- embedding-shape 11mo agoThey decided to stop being a world police, and correctly so. Now we're just waiting for US to understand the same thing, which is slowly happening, finally.
- spankalee 11mo agoGreat, so every country can just smoothly descend further into tyranny with no pushback from any other country. Thankfully we won't have any world police though!
- cafard 11mo agoDuring the US's period as hegemon, its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny America was a major force behind post-War decolonization. It was one of our terms of the European peace.
- greedo 11mo agoThe US provided lip service to the idea, but quickly became paranoid about the threat of world wide communism and changed its tune relatively quickly. In the places where this wasn't a factor, it wasn't altruism by any stretch, but economic interests. The US saw that a post-colonial world would be fantastic for business...
- embedding-shape 11mo ago[flagged]
- nozzlegear 11mo agoIt may not be the sole reason but it's certainly the biggest. Pax Americana isn't just a phrase that wonks made up yesterday.
- embedding-shape 11mo agoYou do realize that there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Or even created before the US was a little British colony looking for purpose in the world? It seems like Americans forget how young their country is, it's barely a blimp in history so far, although recent written history makes it seem a lot older than it is.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Out of curiosity, who are you thinking of? There aren’t that many countries that made it through colonization, industrialization, WWII and then decolonization and the Cold War intact. Very, very few virtually continuously. Fewer still as democracies.
- nradov 11mo agoHow many other countries have been stable democracies since 1776? Or even since 1865?
- hervature 11mo agoI know you are using the definition of tyrant here to be "unjust ruler" as opposed to "absolute ruler". You can certainly have benevolent tyrants but I would argue that, without a constitution, you are by definition ruled by a tyrant. The USA has the oldest ratified constitution so that is a prime candidate for being considered the oldest stable non-tyrannical government. Of course, we are using different definitions of tyrant so you will not agree with my conclusion.
- dandellion 11mo agoThe world police was never really there to stop tyrants, the evidence is that they'd conveniently look the other way whenever they benefitted from it, and they would even put tyrants in place when it suited them. They did stop some tyrants, for sure, but only when it was convenient.
- mgfist 11mo agoThe world saw it's greatest peace under US hegemony. It wasn't perfect and there were bloody avoidable wars on the behest of the US, but by and large things ran smoothly and US sponsored globalism brought prosperity and peace to many.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- dandellion 11mo agoI think it's too early to make that call, considering pax romana lasted 200 years and we're not even a 100 into us hegemony.
- mgfist 11mo agoToo early to make what call? Pax Americana could end tomorrow and it wouldn't make the statement false (well, it would if whatever followed was even more peaceful).
- FlyingBears 11mo agoI would pick tyranny over "democracy" import any day. Neither US or UK have a great track record here.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- oblio 11mo agoThe US managed the assemble an alliance of the... let's count them: Based on military ranking: #5 SK, #6 UK, #7 France, #8 Japan, #9 Turkey, #10 Italy, #11 Brazil, #12 Pakistan, #14 Germany, #15 Israel, #17 Spain, #18 Australia, and if it were allowed to, #20 Ukraine. Based on economic power: I won't even bother, only China, India, Russia aren't US allies in the top 30 or so, by GDP. The US was a world police but it wasn't alone. Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. What the US is doing now is a tragedy that will unfold over many decades. [1] Based on https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-2025-ranked https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-202... (if you have a better ranking, please link it).
- mikkupikku 11mo ago> Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. This breaks down as soon as you stop looking at abstract rankings and dive into the specific logistic realities of force projection. France and to a lesser extent the UK are reasonably capable, but there's no math that adds up to anything approaching America's capabilities.
- eszed 11mo agoBeyond that, if you do get into the specifics of force projection (and basically anything logistical to do with NATO), you see that the entire alliance was built on the assumption that the US would contribute the capabilities that kept the whole system viable. So, $(US) + $(ALLIES) > $(US) However, $(ALLIES) - $(US) < $(ALLIES) This has been true from the beginning, and I don't think was a nefarious plot, or even mistake, for most of the alliance's history. The further we get from the Cold War alignments within which NATO was created, however, the more difficult it has become to sustain.
- greedo 11mo ago'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' was a central tenet of NATO from its founding.
- renewiltord 11mo agoThis is something that people don’t realize. America is no longer world police. If Europeans want to resolve intra-European disputes like Russia-Ukraine we should stay out of it.
- Workaccount2 11mo agoIt's going to take more than 4 years of Trump for America to disappear. Even just a few days ago congress approved $800M in funding for Ukraine.
- pbhjpbhj 11mo agoInstead, by refusing to sell weapons to Ukraine -- and lying about Europe's support -- when it didn't suit Trump, you've firmly placed your flag. Not allies in any meaningful sense.
- kenjackson 11mo agoThe US is becoming even more the world police now. But now we support the wrong people too. It’s doubly bad.
- pbhjpbhj 11mo agoMaybe 'World mafia' is a better description? They're not enforcing law and/or morality (nor ever have been?), they're just pressing countries for bribes for Trump, or to shift World markets for insider trades, or probably still for oil, AFAICT.
- embedding-shape 11mo agoLets see what happens when the invasion of Venezuela kicks off, either the world tries to prevent yet another authoritarian government from bullying those who are already on the ground, or we'll join in on the fun I suppose, if the US feels like it wanna share the future loot.
- tempest_ 11mo agoThey didnt lose aspirations. A lot of the UK seems to be struggling with their loss of Empire even 80 years later. They ran out of money, 2 world wars bankrupted them.
- bArray 11mo ago[flagged]
- iamacyborg 11mo agoIf you’re that keen, go join the reserves? https://jobs.army.mod.uk/army-reserve/ https://jobs.army.mod.uk/army-reserve/
- bArray 11mo agoNobody in their right mind is keen for a war. Nobody would fight in one unless they believed they really had no other choice. I don't blame the people who would runaway to relative safety if the option is available. But. It's clearly a massive security issue. > If you’re that keen, go join the reserves? There is not currently a war, and if there was, there wouldn't be a choice but to join.
- iamflimflam1 11mo agoAnyone who thinks war might be fun should watch some of the interviews with veterans from the “great” wars on YouTube.
- jacobgkau 11mo agoThat's a valid statement that nobody in this comment chain was disputing. It is exactly why the person you're responding to is assuming anyone who can leave, will leave, in that event (and why "you should join the reserves if you're that keen" is an irrelevant comeback-- nobody was saying anyone's keen, only that people aren't keen and will leave to avoid it if able).
- lossolo 11mo agoI would like to remind you that HK was a British colony for more than 100 years, and there was no democracy or freedom then. They only allowed the first partly free elections two years before they gave it back to China, in 1995. And not because they suddenly wanted freedom and democracy for HK, but because it would be harder for China and better for their own interests. Hypocrisy all the way.
- Herring 11mo agoThat's kind of misleading. HK had a lot of civil freedoms (rule of law, independent judiciary, freedom of speech). China explicitly blocked earlier democratization. The vote only managed to get through after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown made HK panic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Hong_Kong
- lossolo 11mo agoThose freedoms were never unlimited, even under British rule (colonial era sedition laws and public order restrictions existed).
- dash2 11mo agoNo freedoms are ever unlimited, so that's not an interesting point. The question is, were they useful? A lot of HKers seem to think so.
- lossolo 11mo ago> No freedoms are ever unlimited, so that's not an interesting point. Of course no freedoms are unlimited, so I'm not sure why are you reading this literally? > The question is, were they useful? Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the lack of freedom under British rule, and you ask if it was useful for HKers? While there are a lot of people in HK who are not happy about what China is doing now, there is almost no one who would take British rule over that. I actually talked with people about it in person when I was in HK.