efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
This needs to be stated more often.
The US Empire doesnt care who is president
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Which gets me because if you look at socialist/communist nations they are far more prone to militization and waging war on their neighbors or themselves. Hell, the USSR is prime example of that, it's one of the most murderous nations in human history.
Moose Biscuits
It would be extreamly painful...
Since the author seems to be jostling for a world without nations or borders (Pixy?) I will put forward my opinion that this is impossible with humans alone. Tribalism is inbuilt, it's a feature not a bug. Therefore the only way to be rid of empires would be a) an off world species or race for us to join together in opposition to, or b) a worldwide government enforced by AI to stamp out human quirks.
A human-run world government would not work. Getting rid of existing tribes would only result in the formation of new tribes to replace them.
A human-run world government would not work. Getting rid of existing tribes would only result in the formation of new tribes to replace them.
Yeah, of course the defense of "for the sake of capitalism" ... maybe it's not the mana from heaven you are taught to think it is. We slaughtered millions of people that had nothing to do with our country but it's okay because now you have 2 day free shipping from Amazon! And those Native Americans too, think how much BETTER the world is since the good and REAL Americans bested them.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
Already knew this, pretty sure a lot of Americans do, and I still care who's president. Doesn't really matter if they aren't omnipotent. I don't really understand what the point of this article is, but it kind of comes off as "voting is pointless" garbage.
Trade only exists in capitalist global economies? You reduce the exchange of goods like food between states to an Amazon prime joke? How old are you?
I mean, can't you make the same argument for literally any empire? Rome brought roads, concrete, political organization. Britain brought education and post-enlightenment ideals to all corners of the planet. The US has brought stability and wealth.
Empires create a more centralized political environment which increases development within their sphere of influence. Empires are also built on violence and maintained by regular, liberal use of that violence. You can't separate those two ideas.
You can even argue that the world is by nature violent and corrupt, and that there's no alternative to empire, and that we, as a species, are incapable of building anything better. But I don't get why people feel the need to jump in and throw out any criticism of a hegemony build on the corpses of millions.
gutter_trash
Banned
Haiti got so fucked over and over,
People seriously need to understand how constant meddling can hold a country down
entremet
Member
Yeah, I agree here. There are ways to deal with tribalism, though. We've kinda done it, though not completely.
Thousands of years ago you would've never imagined hoards of people from different "tribes", nations, in this case, sitting peacefully in flying aluminum cans. But it happens thousands of times per day.
The human species is much more peaceful today.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Yes, yes you can.
Which is why empires aren't inherently, absolutely, evil.
Poodlestrike
Banned
In the abstract you're absolutely correct, but in the article's argument it... actually kinda is. By folding ALL US military behavior into the bloodthirsty imperial model (Korean War equated to Iraq and Vietnam, military bases mentioned alongside drone strikes, involving WW2 at all), the article creates a premise that the US being in charge necessitates all the shitty stuff, and by blithely waving aside the idea of Pax Americana, it suggests that a Pax Russia or Pax China would be just as good (or, rather, just as bad).
Yes, you can, and you should.
Use of the word empire by this think piece - calling it an article is undeserved -- is meant to bring about negative connotations and scare the reader.
Pattycakes
Banned
Wait do people really think the Korean War is on the same page as the Iraq War?
IISANDERII
Member
Naturally. Those truly in power are not just gonna give it up 4 or 8yrs
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Peaceful Kim Il Sung was just taking a walking tour of Korea with his closest friends when the evil Americans attacked!
But the arguments against it - that there is more nuance to empire and that it's not a unilateral force for evil - doesn't really undermine the arguments against it.
Like, you can say: empire is inherently violent, but it brings progress. And my retort is: shouldn't we try to figure out a system that brings progress and ISN'T fundamentally violent?
Like, this article is essentially just a "don't forget that the US does heinous shit all the time" reminder, which isn't exactly earning a Pulitzer, but I think it's valuable. We should avoid becoming complacent and happy with a world where the status quo of "acceptably oppressive" is some sort of high bar.
PeskyToaster
Member
The current web of world security has been created with the goal of preventing another world war and it's been successful for over 70 years. There have been conflicts in that time but none even touching the scale of the world wars which is the whole point of the world setup we have. Who would have thought that nearly all of Europe would be united under one military alliance including France, Britain, and Germany? Bitter rivals for longer than a lot of countries have existed. I think a lot of people take a united Europe and a more united world as a given when it's really atypical and has taken lives, money, and effort to get here.
Pattycakes
Banned
Yeah. What the fuck. My grandmother was a school teacher before the Korean War, and if wasn't for the US she would have been hunted down and killed. She had to flee to the mountains and hide. The "evil" United States saved her life.
FreedomFighter
Member
Doesn't matter how you campaign, you have to walk in lock step with whatever the *real* folks in power want you to do.
A good example is both Obama and Trump being vehemently against the war in Afghanistan and they both had tweets and soundbites denouncing the war as dumb and unwinnable and then they get elected and announce surges. Nothing Stops This imperial war machine, especially no damn president!
A good example is both Obama and Trump being vehemently against the war in Afghanistan and they both had tweets and soundbites denouncing the war as dumb and unwinnable and then they get elected and announce surges. Nothing Stops This imperial war machine, especially no damn president!
Phrozenflame500
Member
I'm pretty skeptical you can blame the US for Korea, as well as the fact that the majority of countries the US stages their military in tend to want them there.
But I do agree the US is a bit too interventionist and even when it should be it's track record isn't great.
Also:
Uh huh.
But I do agree the US is a bit too interventionist and even when it should be it's track record isn't great.
Also:
Uh huh.
Vicetrailia
Banned
US does get itself into many complex issues that just can't be stopped, but are much more easily continued. The empire is massive afterall.
MisterFalcon
Member
Without the US the North Koreans would have won and the war would have been over. The same can be said for WW2.
Is it possible those were the best options?
For whom?
I'll gladly have the USA empire over the Chinese, Russian or Saudi/Qatar/UAE empires, thank you.
For LGBT people, for starters.
For LGBT people, for starters.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Or campaigning on platitudes is easy and actual governance is hard? That is the theme of 2017 after all.
FreedomFighter
Member
It's possible but I don't buy it. I read somewhere that the generals purposely gave Obama three options. Two of them were so ridiculous only the surge option was plausible. Ending the war would be the best option no matter what but the war machine, Wall St., and ideological neocon Hawks make these decision. Prez has no say. They do as they're told.
The real challenge is doing what you believe to be right and carrying out policies that the majority of the population wants (which is to stop all these wars). The "deep state" does not want that, so who wins in this scenario?
Hint: it's never the people.
This is a great point. I also wonder how much the development of nuclear weapons has helped us maintain the "Long Peace". We've reached a point where any large scale conflict brings the possibility of almost unimaginable destruction. That's a pretty good incentive to avoid total war.
Sadly this hasn't done much to prevent sectarian and regional conflicts in much of the world. But things are still getting better, look at the recent treaty in Colombia!
El_Tiguere
Member
Thankfully we have a large number of intellectuals arguing the same point all throughout their entire lives. Someone already brought up Chomsky, but there is also Bill Moyers, Sheldon Wolin, Chris Hedges, Thomas Frank, Thom Hartmann, Cornell West, Adam Curtis, etc etc etc who have all been shouting the same thing.
For those that have a few hours, this interview with Sheldon Wollin is illuminating on how we have gone wrong as a country:
Chris Hedges and Sheldon Wolin: Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist? Full Version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGc8DMHMyi8
One clear thing that every American should understand is that American hegemony is rooted in the worldwide hegemony of the US dollar. Modern colonialism is done by forcing nations to rely on US dollars to borrow and survive, and the control comes from all the covenants/conditions/impositions that come with that debt.
The dollar is now officially on its way out, and the balance of power is tilting eastward. The US dollar is absolutely not immune to history:
On the military front, since Henry Kissinger and his disciples started playing war games for power and profit, the US Empire became a very dark force in the world. The aim was not world peace, but domination of markets to enrich the empire. The world is suffering the consequences of that today in many ways.
For those that have a few hours, this interview with Sheldon Wollin is illuminating on how we have gone wrong as a country:
Chris Hedges and Sheldon Wolin: Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist? Full Version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGc8DMHMyi8
One clear thing that every American should understand is that American hegemony is rooted in the worldwide hegemony of the US dollar. Modern colonialism is done by forcing nations to rely on US dollars to borrow and survive, and the control comes from all the covenants/conditions/impositions that come with that debt.
The dollar is now officially on its way out, and the balance of power is tilting eastward. The US dollar is absolutely not immune to history:
On the military front, since Henry Kissinger and his disciples started playing war games for power and profit, the US Empire became a very dark force in the world. The aim was not world peace, but domination of markets to enrich the empire. The world is suffering the consequences of that today in many ways.
The issue of the American hegemony, concerning if the US has made the world safer and more wealthy or brought avoidable violence to countless millions is, like many things, hopelessly complex. Which is why I can't take articles like this seriously when they try so hard to appeal to your emotions.
It sure is easy to say things like "America is evil" and "the world would be a better place without empires" from the safety of a Western Democracy. But how are we going to get there? How are we going to stop countries like Russia or China from filling the power vacuum?
It sure is easy to say things like "America is evil" and "the world would be a better place without empires" from the safety of a Western Democracy. But how are we going to get there? How are we going to stop countries like Russia or China from filling the power vacuum?
I don't disagree with your goal of finding an alternative to empire
I'm thoroughly convinced the goal is unobtainable in any meaningful timeline in our lives, barring unforeseen science fiction-like events that send the international order into upheaval, because it required a sort of post-force world.
Because I think it's essentially impossible, I'd say the effort is best left to devising methods of improving the current model (I.e. improving America the Hegemon) rather than trying for a new one.
So just leaving Afghanistan as we left it was the best option for everyone? Blow it up then say "sorry everyone" and high tail it out of there?
Unlikely, India is a large but still a poor country in a per capita sense. Their overall economy just isn't developed enough to be a true world power.
China is only sustained by being integrated with the US global trading system which still requires them to use oppressive tactics on their people to keep them under control.
If the US ever quits protecting china's trade routes then china needs to get past Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea who can blockade China and cut off not only trade but China's oil supply.
If they can get past that first chain then they have to negotiate a way past the straits of Malacca and the myriad of countries that can apply pressure to that region.
Should China fail to secure trade routes to the rest of the world on their own then the drop in the quality of life for its people would lead to China breaking apart into several independent states as it usually has done throughout history.
FreedomFighter
Member
You can't.
In my opinion, the rise of China and Russia is inevitable. But l would no one would be able to completely dominate like the US does now bit there be a multicolor world based on mutual respect where there are enough checks and balances where you won't have one nation just recklessly invading and sanctioning every other nation if doesn't like or doesn't do what it's told.
That's the best case scenario.
You would make the assumption of an immediate pull out, but I think a time table to withdrawal, which Obama initially tried to set, would be a start. Certainly not the "we will be there for decades to come!" rhetoric coming out of the Beltway now.
Acknowledging that this is the best we've got isn't condoning the evils committed by the system. What alternative is there, realistically, to this? I don't believe for a second that any government won't be constantly attacked and harrassed, or infiltrated by power seekers who care only for personal gain.
There is a better solution for the world, but it does not involve humans in charge. We will either be goverened by AI or climate change/war/disease will have wiped us off the planet. If there is such a solution that can be had without those outcomes, I'm open to hearing it. The article's intent is clear, but its offered fix is far too idealistic to be taken seriously. Thus it's point is blunted.
We already have Russia invading and annexing territory from other countries. China is on the verge of committing to a military intervention over the South China Sea. How exactly are we going to check that behavior from intensifying?
There have always been timetables. What do we do during that time? Sit around? Try to make it better in the time we have left? How?
Hari Seldon
Member
Yeah that part of the article is clear horseshit.
FreedomFighter
Member
The same way we have to check US from invading, sanctioning, drone striking, cruise missling, and meddling everywhere... have counterbalanced where no country is above international law.
Not really. Timetables are gone, it's all perpetual war now. Last time we had a timetable was when Obama said we'd be out in 2014. Never happened and now people are saying US forces will be there indefinitely. The only way to end this is set a real timetable and stick to it. Unless you want the war to last forever, then well, you're currently getting your wish.
Kind of hard to do without a strong, centralized global super power.
Latvian Hitman
Member
China and India are saddled by the two largest peasant populations on the planet. India has zero chance to put forth a modern economy capable of leading all nations in that amount of time. China is joined at the hip to the US. They're completely reliant upon continued economic success stateside to stay relevant themselves.
Russia is actually dying off from systemic neglect and theft from the people. Birth rates have mostly been below replacement levels for nearly the past 3 decades. 25% of russian males die before age 55. Tuberculosis and rampant heroin and alcohol abuse have ravaged the russian people. They are on borrowed time and the recent land grabs are an attempt to narrow their borders (Europe gets more narrow the further west you go) and forcibly insert healthier populations and economies into the russian system to stave off disaster for a couple of decades.
I am skeptical that Russia and China (or any nation) would be content merely just being balancing forces. Nor do I believe that is a realistic outcome. The resource disparity alone renders it impossible.
FreedomFighter
Member
US is the strong Global superpower and that's why it can get away with all this. Russia annexed Crimea and got sanctioned and condemned for it. If US decided to annex, say, Haiti... no one could do anything. And US officials know that. That's why we got Lindsay Graham and several retired generals on weapon manufacturer payrolls all over MSM advocating for war with DPRK no matter the consequences. They go on live TV in front of the whole world and spew some of the most racist and bellicose rhetoric because they know they don't have to answer to anyone. This is a power dynamic that should not exist anymore.
You could be right. Don't know what the future holds in this regard. But right now, this is what it looks like will happen.
Yeah...as much as I and others around here dislike Trump, when people go back and quote his old tweets re: Afghanistan or Syria following his decisions as President and call him a "hypocrite" or "liar" that's clearly not quite the case.
What he wrote/said back then were his real thoughts, what he does as President are not actions taken based off of any of his thoughts/plans. He's not masterminding anything.
We saw the same thing with Obama. While he did attempt to deliver on his word to close Gitmo, he also spoke about peace while dropping more bombs on the ME than any previous president...because those weren't his decisions. America gonna America, there will always be reasons to pay for moar war.
What he wrote/said back then were his real thoughts, what he does as President are not actions taken based off of any of his thoughts/plans. He's not masterminding anything.
We saw the same thing with Obama. While he did attempt to deliver on his word to close Gitmo, he also spoke about peace while dropping more bombs on the ME than any previous president...because those weren't his decisions. America gonna America, there will always be reasons to pay for moar war.
The US had always had a timetable. The current 13k troops are part of a NATO mission with US troops making up about half that.
Just walking away isn't a viable option. Something has to be done before everyone picks up and leaves. You want a timetable but you're short on ideas about what should be done as it winds down.
If only Hillary had won.