5 ms·
That is a very reasonable response to the threats they faced.
by Planktonne 7mo ago
That is a very reasonable response to the threats they faced.
- butILoveLife 7mo ago[flagged]
- ta20240528 7mo agoNah mate, Rich powerful countries could also keep slaves and no one would be able to stop it by force. But they don't. Civilisation advances.
- philipallstar 7mo agoThey don't because the west banned slavery on moral grounds, and enforced it on the rest of the world. That advance is actually just western power in effect.
- mcv 7mo agoThat ban on slavery is not being enforced on the rest of the world. The west had no problem playing football in Qatar in stadiums built by slave labour.
- philipallstar 7mo agoWell, not any more! This was hundreds of years ago. The British Empire isn't exactly around any more.
- mcv 7mo agoWhat was hundreds of years ago? Several western countries still allowed slavery well into the second half of the 19th century.
- kannanvijayan 7mo agoThat seems like a simplistic take, given that slavery in pratice still exists and we just decide not to call it slavery due to technical loopholes. The countries most closely associated with the global economic oil supply for example, are largely run on slave labour. "The west" is no longer a well defined thing. America is its own thing now, and I don't think it fits in with any traditional notion of "The West" anymore, outside of historical inclusion. And without America the term just means Europe, so you might as well just refer to things directly instead of coming up with a new term: America, Europe, Canada, etc. It provides no analytical value anymore to talk about "the west" as a shared family of identities or cultures. That concept was more an ephemeral artifact of some colonial history combined with the post WW2 global landscape and the fact that the US was the last industrialized country remaining that didn't have its industrial base bombed to smithereens.
- philipallstar 7mo agoSorry, I don't know what you're talking about. The west includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Not just Europe. But when I'm talking about is hundreds of years ago. History goes back more than a few months.
- kannanvijayan 7mo agoI mentioned Canada in my comments, but only out of vanity as I'm a Canadian. Really when most people talk about "the west" what they have in their mind's eye is US and Europe. The other countries are largely considered lesser auxiliaries, including mine (although Canada has had a higher prominence in recent years). What I don't understand is what analytical value the term "the west" holds anymore, OUTSIDE of that historical artifact. What meaningful statement can you make about "the west" as you define it these days?
- BigTTYGothGF 7mo agoSlavery is alive and well in the US, it just went into the prisons.
- FpUser 7mo ago>"Rich powerful countries could also keep slaves and no one would be able to stop it by force. But they don't. Civilisation advances." Judging by ever shrinking middle class, rise of poverty and few rich owning the rest of the world it is heading back to that state. Have nots are not slaves by definition but their lives are getting worse and worse and where does that end?
- jjtwixman 7mo agoYes really, firstly it worked, and secondly it forced Americans to reckon with murdering and betraying their friends across the Atlantic. You can take Greenland, but you must live with the infamy and treachery of it all. And Trump blinked.
- jacquesm 7mo agoLots and lots of Americans trace their ancestry back to the Nordics and they would not be pleased, to put it mildly. I would expect the territory after a brief economic war to be returned with apologies and reparations by the next president of the USA.
- Planktonne 7mo agoYou're forgetting several factors which undermine your analysis: 1. Denmark does have allies; they're not completely alone, and they're not completely helpless. 2. The US has a track record of invasions, but not one of successfully pacifying states. Resistance works. You're using the same simplistic logic as Russia invading Ukraine; you can't just compare population numbers and guarantee an immediate victory. There's also a separate issue here: the US invading Denmark would lead to a lot of death and a loss of freedom for its citizens, even if unopposed. Flip your demurral: if they're going to take everything anyway, why not fight?
- closewith 7mo agoDenmark is completely alone and helpless against the US. Other EU nations would protest, but none would enter armed conflict.
- vrganj 7mo agoI take it you didn't read the source? > As a source puts it, the French said: "Would you like more soldiers? You could have them. Would you like more naval support? You could have that. Would you like more air support? You could have that too."
- closewith 7mo agoI did, but it simply wouldn't have happened. Whatever about boots on the ground and ships deployed, they would not have fired a shot. There is zero appetite for war with the US.
- jacquesm 7mo agoEurope can wreck the US in 15 minutes and not a shot would be fired. That would have massive effect on the EU too and that's one of the things holding that back. But if the US would invade Canada or Denmark I'm fairly sure that they would not hesitate, especially not if half the USA would be on their side in the decision.
- polotics 7mo agoClearly we are talking about another ethos than yours: What will anyway happen is your life someday ends, what must not happen is that you are remembered in dishonor. Also, Mearsheimer, what a muppet.
- enoint 7mo agoMaybe you mean “structural realism”? Systems realism is a conflation of terms.
- kalaksi 7mo agoBut the outcome as a whole isn't the same. Maybe the same areas get invaded, maybe not. Denmark is also part of NATO. But it isn't the same to just give something up without a fight even if same areas get eventually invaded.