3 ms·
I don't know which part of my post said that I completely agreed with and thought everything that happened in the world preceding the American global control wa
by gammagoblin 12y ago
I don't know which part of my post said that I completely agreed with and thought everything that happened in the world preceding the American global control was good. You are criticising a non-existant point in my post.
I am criticising all interventionism, not just American interventionism. I sort of made this obvious when I criticised Soviet interventionism.
>I mean, I'm not saying America really is the "shining city on the hill", BUT let's call a spade a spade here : American hegemony has been pretty fucking great for America, for Europe, for the whole world. Denying that makes you a moron, nothing more.
For the whole world? Really? What parts of the world, exactly?
As far as I can see, about half the world's population is in the absolute shitter and still very unstable, not made better by the military interventionism of the USA in the middle east for example. The progressive attitude we have here in Europe and that they have in America is not consistent throughout the world. In fact, the socio-economic situation of a lot of the world is very, very bad.
American "hegemony" as you call it has only been good to the US' closest allies and trade partners. China, Russia and India to name three big ones have had to develop by themselves independent of American support. In Europe, I think the leading cause for no repeated big wars is European cooperation and the lack of other political systems than the democratic one. While the American support is relevant, Europe at the time committed to preventing future wars, and to be honest no doomsday prophecies like the Versailles Treaty was made this time.
>Let me state the blatantly obvious here : without American power being unassailable, maybe not globally, but at least on every ocean, our world will get a whole lot worse, very fast. Very fast. Once it happens it will take half a millennium to get liveable again. Can you at least consider for 5 seconds that knowing nothing about history and just having lived the last 30 years might not provide an entirely realistic view of how the world works?
What makes you able to say for certain what the world would look like if this and that didn't happen?
>And if by globalized society you mean the UN, I suggest you check out the UN's successes.
Globalisation is a process mostly independent from the UN. Come on.
>No offence but the "globalized society" is not just a disaster, many people would have been better off living under a dictator ordering a genocide against them than with the result of having the "globalized society" that is the UN interfere with their affairs.
Globalisation, unless EVERY single nation on Earth adopts isolationism both economically and socially, is unavoidable.
- BugBrother 12y ago>>American "hegemony" as you call it has only been good to the US' closest allies and trade partners. China, Russia and India to name three big ones have had to develop by themselves independent of American support Are you aware of the democratic peace theory? Check wikipedia. In short, [stable] democracies don't have wars. Not even USA starts wars with (or intervene in) stable democracies. Most of the cases "suffering" from USA are ~ evil juntas. India is an exception, they have voluntarily turned to Russia for e.g. buying weapons -- I don't know if the country "had" to do anything, re USA (they do benefit from the global market). But Russia's junta prefers to cooperate with non-democracies -- and actively demonizes the world's working democracies. China is doing even worse jingoism than Russia. In short -- don't mix up packs of thieves stealing countries with the countries themselves. Or with democratic governments. >> Globalisation, unless EVERY single nation on Earth adopts isolationism both economically and socially, is unavoidable. Why would globalization necessarily be handled in a good way? We could get the military empire building back; Russia and China have started.
- gammagoblin 12y ago>Are you aware of the democratic peace theory? Check wikipedia. In short, [stable] democracies don't have wars. Yeah. I actually mentioned it in passing. "In Europe, I think the leading cause for no repeated big wars is European cooperation and the lack of other political systems than the democratic one." Other than that I don't think democratic peace theory really holds water when the involved nations are not committed to peace (like Europe is). Russia, a democratic nation (though exactly how non-corrupt it is can be discussed), is currently intervening in Ukraine and so is the USA. >Not even USA starts wars with (or intervene in) stable democracies. I'm not sure I really follow. They seem to have a great time intervening in non-NATO countries. >In short -- don't mix up packs of thieves stealing countries with the countries themselves. Or with democratic governments I've not said that either of these nations have a clean plate, nor have I said that they're a good influence. I've argued that I dislike all interventionism, and since the article /was/ about the USA, I criticised them. India and China sure as hell have a cleaner plate than USA though. >Why would globalization necessarily be handled in a good way? We could get the military empire building back; Russia and China have started. I don't think it is being handled in a good way. That's the god damned point. No nation should have global military police forces.