Support NeoGAF

[FreedomFighter]

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.

Having troops in Afghanistan indefinitely or "for decades" don't sound like a timetable to me. Being there for 16 years sounds like any timetable ever went to complete shit. On top of that, they're "not winning".

No one is saying leave immediately. What I am proposing is that there be a hard timetable that is adhered to withdraw.

And that means coming to terms with the fact that the US lost this war and can't ever win it. Now is not the time for ego. It's time to negotiate an end to this war or it continue to be a waste of time and treasure.

 

[patapuf]

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.
.

Every permanent seat in the security council is above international law. Especially the US, China and Russia. They can - and do - as they please and if they want to annex bits of territory they just take it.

Having a balance of equally strong powers is historically the absolute worst and leads to way more unstable situations than one overwhelming force. We were closer to nuclear war when the US and the UDSSR were similarily strong than after the collapse of the soviet union. The European powers went to devastating wars with each other every 100 years - at least. It's true for much of the rest of the world as well.

Conflicts are way more likely to escalate between equal powers.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Every permanent seat in the security council is above international law. Especially the US, China and Russia. They can - and do - as they please and if they want to annex bits of territory they just take it.

Having a balance of equally strong powers is historically the absolute worst and leads to way more unstable situations than one overwhelming force. We were closer to nuclear war when the US and the UDSSR were similarily strong than after the collapse of the soviet union. The European powers went to devastating wars with each other every 100 years - at least. It's true for much of the rest of the world as well.

Conflicts are way more likely to escalate between equal powers.

I think this is a good point.

 

[KHarvey16]

Having troops in Afghanistan indefinitely or "for decades" don't sound like a timetable to me. Being there for 16 years sounds like any timetable ever went to complete shit. On top of that, they're "not winning".

No one is saying leave immediately. What I am proposing is that there be a hard timetable that is adhered to withdraw.

And that means coming to terms with the fact that the US lost this war and can't ever win it. Now is not the time for ego. It's time to negotiate an end to this war or it continue to be a waste of time and treasure.

The troops there are for the NATO mission. There's like 40 countries sending soldiers.

It's not about "winning" anything. It's about not fucking everything up (even justifiably according to the international community, as Afghanistan was) and just leaving.

You just keep repeating timetable timetable timetable. Well fine, but what do we do while it runs down? Stare at each other?

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Having troops in Afghanistan indefinitely or "for decades" don't sound like a timetable to me. Being there for 16 years sounds like any timetable ever went to complete shit. On top of that, they're "not winning".

No one is saying leave immediately. What I am proposing is that there be a hard timetable that is adhered to withdraw.

And that means coming to terms with the fact that the US lost this war and can't ever win it. Now is not the time for ego. It's time to negotiate an end to this war or it continue to be a waste of time and treasure.

if I were the taliban, I'd love a hard timeline for the asshole Yankees to withdraw. So you mean we just need to twiddle our thumbs and stockpile most of our arms for a specific date? Token skirmishes here and there to maintain the status quo and keep them on board and the men sharp, but not push too hard and lose too many assets.

So whatever happens between now and date x, that's the withdrawal date? You think that is a better strategy than a conditions based withdrawal?

 

[Cagey]

Every permanent seat in the security council is above international law. Especially the US, China and Russia. They can - and do - as they please and if they want to annex bits of territory they just take it.

Having a balance of equally strong powers is historically the absolute worst and leads to way more unstable situations than one overwhelming force. We were closer to nuclear war when the US and the UDSSR were similarily strong than after the collapse of the soviet union. The European powers went to devastating wars with each other every 100 years - at least. It's true for much of the rest of the world as well.

Conflicts are way more likely to escalate between equal powers.

Right.

To use an analogy based off the Hegemony of the United States Navy argument I made earlier...

Imagine a town marketplace with vendors who arrive each Saturday to sell or trade their goods to each other and to townsfolk. Produce, meat, household goods. Now, this marketplace has tons of valuable products, so crime does occur: from petty thievery of goods all the way to vendors attempting to push each other out. The most orderly marketplace would be one where the marketplace, or one vendor at the marketplace, has enough security force to ensure order by itself without competition.

Why? The alternative scenario involves multiple vendors with competing security forces. At that point, there is no order: there is inherent competition for supremacy to dictate the terms of the order that each vendor seeks to establish in their name.

What is the danger in the "most orderly marketplace"? The hegemonic power in this town marketplace is abusive or neglectful or incompetent or irrational or actually evil.

(The above is why the US Navy has been so important: it's the guarantee of free travel of the seas.)

It flies in the face of modern democratic principles to rely on a hegemonic empire to be noble and champion small-l liberal democracy, in the same vein as citizens hoping for Enlightened Despot rather than an abusive or neglectful or irrational or evil one, but given that the international community is roughly two hundred states co-existing as sovereign, that's the only answer.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

I mean in a sense, its true. We have Military bases all over the world. The sun doesn't really set in America if you consider those military bases. Along with American culture also influencing many as well. Wasn't it called something like Mcdonaldization? Just remember ing from the top of my head so feel free to correct me.

 

[FreedomFighter]

The troops there are for the NATO mission. There's like 40 countries sending soldiers.

It's not about "winning" anything. It's about not fucking everything up (even justifiably according to the international community, as Afghanistan was) and just leaving.

You just keep repeating timetable timetable timetable. Well fine, but what do we do while it runs down? Stare at each other?

I don't really know what you want from me.

For the third time - I'm advocating not to leave immediately but having a real timetable for withdrawal instead of stationing troops there indefinitely. The NATO troops there are negligible and can be pulled out any time. US troops make up the bulk of soldiers there and private contractors dwarf the amount of troops altogether. This cannot go on forever. Am sorry, but there has to be an end. And there needs to be deescalation and negotiations. The whole point of the surge is about winning the war - and here's Mattis telling you so.. It won't happen. So time to try something else and cut loses.

 

[frontovik]

The US is certainly an oligarchic empire in all but name, which succeeded the British Empire in the aftermath of WWII.

It certainly wouldn't broadcast that fact to the world, but you have to be quite naive to not recognize the US for the institutions of empire its wields. It irks me when it indulges in hypocrisy by criticizing other nations for the same crimes it willfully committed in the name of business; claiming to protect its so-called "allies", when they're mere vassals; and talk of "democracy" and "American freedom" while bombing some hapless nation in Africa or the Middle East.

That being said, the world has enjoyed relative peace during this era of the Pax Americana, but it's quite disappointing that those who drive the US would rather serve corporations and its military industrial interests rather than improving its own infrastructure and domestic policies.

History has shown that the longevity of empires are fleeting though, so it's impossible the US can maintain its status quo The notions of India and China becoming global empires is ridiculous, but if the US was to decline substantially .. then the world might revert back to the regional powers of pre-WWI.

 

[KHarvey16]

I don't really know what you want from me.

For the third time - I'm advocating not to leave immediately but having a real timetable for withdrawal instead of stationing troops there indefinitely. The NATO troops there are negligible and can be pulled out any time. US troops make up the bulk of soldiers there and private contractors dwarf the amount of troops altogether. This cannot go on forever. Am sorry, but there has to be an end. And there needs to be deescalation and negotiations. The whole point of the surge is about winning the war - and here's Mattis telling you so.. It won't happen. So time to try something else and cut loses.

Are you even reading what I'm writing? Focus on the sentences that end in a question mark.

 

[BUNTING1243]

The indomitable strength and hegemony of the United States Navy is the single biggest reason for our interconnected global economy, which has deepened ties across the world, thus leading to a more stable international environment, enabled the fast and easy shipment of resources, including food and oil to allow countries to feed and flourish, etc. etc.

But such facts have been preemptively dismissed as a "defense force".

It's threads like these where I realize just how extreme elements or this board are.

...and stuck in sophomore year of college,

i appreciate that you're trying to make an argument in the first part of your post, but this is a intellectually lazy attempt at dismissal that really undermines whatever else you're trying to say

 

[FreedomFighter]

if I were the taliban, I'd love a hard timeline for the asshole Yankees to withdraw. So you mean we just need to twiddle our thumbs and stockpile most of our arms for a specific date? Token skirmishes here and there to maintain the status quo and keep them on board and the men sharp, but not push too hard and lose too many assets.

So whatever happens between now and date x, that's the withdrawal date? You think that is a better strategy than a conditions based withdrawal?

That's why this war is pointless. 16 years and Taliban will take over in two weeks, a month tops, if the US withdrew tomorrow. All those lives and all those billions and for what? That's why I think US refusing to leave is all about ego; not wanting to lose. The problem with a conditions based withdrawal is the condition will be "defeat the Taliban". Well, good luck with that. Time to tuck tail between legs and admit defeat; try to leave on the very best terms possible. And this means having to sit down with the Taliban and negotiate.

 

[Nomadic Sparks]

Oh man this is an extremely flawed article

The atomic horrors Japan endured was because of their own version of imperialism was too evil and had to be fought with the might of the American military and an invasion of Japan would've sapped our resources in terms of casualties and what not.



I kind of agree with that article but I agree more with our hegemony better then Russian or Chinese.

Soft power is helluva thing

 

[Metroxed]

For LGBT people, for starters.

If we had to have an hegemonic power, LGBT people would be better off on a world where the EU is the hegemonic power.

Besides, which country holds the hegemony has little effect on the rights of LGBT people anywhere. Or having the US as a superpower (or the EU instead) somehow improves the quality of life and rights of LGBT people in places like Africa, the Middle East or Asia? No, as far as I can tell.

It's not like if China became a superpower, LGBT people would suddenly be oppessed everywhere. They would still be oppressed where they're currently being oppressed and not where they are not, just like it's happening under American hegemony.

So it's a poor example.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

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.

What makes you think we aren't constantly trying to figure out a better system?
Every peace treaty, new trade deal etc are tiny steps towards a better system.

Hell I'd say the invention of a global and mostly open internet is even a not so tiny step.

 

[FreedomFighter]

I kind of agree with that article but I agree more with our hegemony better then Russian or Chinese.

That's a fair view to have, but keep in mind that this is because we live in the US, so we don't have to worry about too much. But think about what others have to worry about with US as the global hegemon. If you lived in Iraq, Iran, or Syria, you'd probably have the opposite view. I just think it's best to be mindful of this. You're view on any global hegemon depends on what country you live in.

 

[Cagey]

i appreciate that you're trying to make an argument in the first part of your post, but this is a intellectually lazy attempt at dismissal that really undermines whatever else you're trying to say

You're right, it was unnecessary.

 

[Deepwater]

Offering that "I prefer our country having a global hegemony rather than those other countries" is a particularly weak take. Speaks to the American Exceptionalism mindset that we've convinced ourselves this is the best possible path.

NeoGaf is very deeprooted in "violence at home is a big no no but I'm very much okay with violence abroad because, hey, it could be worse". It's really hypocritical. The call to action at the end of the article is very valid and not even particularly infeasible in our ever connecting global age. But we won't get anywhere as long as Americans, Russians, and Chinese people continue to believe that they themselves offer the best solution forward.

It may not happen in our lifetimes, but we'll probably see a mass shift in geopolitical power once half the world is submerged.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I can almost hear the ignorant "USA is not an empire" stampede coming.

The difference between the U.S. and other "empires" is that we will gut a country via economic/physical force, and then we make them indebted to us permanently.

The U.S. uses debt slavery to control nations, instead of outright putting our name on the door out front.

Far more insidious and long-lasting than old-school British-style imperialism.

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

Haiti got so fucked over and over,
People seriously need to understand how constant meddling can hold a country down

Naw man, those Blacks went through all that effort to free themselves and look what they did to their own country? Maybe they were better off as slaves!

/s

 

[KHarvey16]

The U.S. uses debt slavery to control nations...

Examples?

 

[Deepwater]

Examples?

Puerto Rico for one

 

[Morrigan Stark]

"It totally isn't an empire, look at this concept we took from the Roman empire!"

Yeah, that made me laugh too

 

[KHarvey16]

Puerto Rico for one

Uh, how? That seems like a very poor choice to use as an example.

 

[Muffin1611]

NeoGaf is very deeprooted in "violence at home is a big no no but I'm very much okay with violence abroad because, hey, it could be worse"

This becomes painfully apparent on days like today. Sadly.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Examples?

The entirety of Latin America? (except for Venezuela and Cuba I guess...)

Global bankers remain at the top of the imperial food chain because they can shut off the valve of credit for an entire sovereign nation if they don't play ball with the terms and conditions of said debt.

The way the IMF and ECB has toyed with Greece is only ONE macabre recent example where people are dying and suffering, but all that matters is that the bankers get their money back (with interest).

 

[Nomadic Sparks]

That's a fair view to have, but keep in mind that this is because we live in the US, so we don't have to worry about too much. But think about what others have to worry about with US as the global hegemon. If you lived in Iraq, Iran, or Syria, you'd probably have the opposite view. I just think it's best to be mindful of this. You're view on any global hegemon depends on what country you live in.

I'll keep that in mind next time

 

[Fancyarcher]

It's a bit weird to fixate on the powerlessness of the US president to change things when the fact is, the US president could very easily change things if he campaigned and won on that platform. The blame for the bad behaviour of the US abroad lies squarely at the feet of the US people, who continue to vote for the same old ideas.

Also, don't try to say that the two party system limits peoples' choices. If people really cared about changing things, it wouldn't take long for a suitable candidate to rise up through the system.

Actually Trump actually partially ran on seclusion, but he wants to get involved in wars though, just to help his approval, and also because the U.S. president is often pressured into conflict, in a damned if they do, damned if they don't, type situation, when it comes to conflict in other countries. Sometimes it's out of corruption too, or done behind the country's back as well. Most people would rather not get involved in a conflict, but the government may have other ideas.

 

[zabuni]

Part of why there isn't any push back on hegemonic actions by the United States is that the left (this article* included) has no real concrete foreign policy. As such, center to right wing takes the wheel.

To find out, I talked to a half-dozen people with experience in the liberal foreign policy world, ranging from congressional staffers to professors to former White House officials. Most of them pointed the finger at something that might not seem obvious: Think tanks.

Think tanks are peculiar beasts. In their ideal form, they’re supposed to be like universities without students, where scholars sit and dream up ideas. What they mostly do is provide politicians with ready-made ideas they can seize upon as their own solutions to pressing national problems.

Congressional staffs and party officials often have their hands full just doing their day-to-day jobs, and true academic scholarship typically doesn’t focus on developing actionable policy ideas. Think tanks bridge the gap, translating academic knowledge into concrete proposals policymakers can use. They’re also a place to produce talent, to groom officials who can take new positions when there is a transfer of power.

The best progressive think tanks do excellent work on domestic issues. But in the national security space, most of what they produce is similar to policies produced by down-the-middle centrist operations. Progressive activists have spent years trying to figure out how to build up a more robust think tank architecture, but they keep failing — to the point where they’re not even sure how it could be done.

And this article in indicative of the above. Revolution? Really? Viva la revolution is the solution to application of power in foreign policy? Especially after the last century? Where half the large hegemonic actors were communist?

 

[Pandora012]

Puerto Rico for one

I'm not really sure that counts. Puerto Rico is part of the US. This debt is a combination of them mismanaging their finances and Congress stopping them from declaring bankruptcy, for some reason.

 

[Deepwater]

Uh, how? That seems like a very poor choice to use as an example.

They've been dealing with a debt crisis for a few decades, that in large part is due to being ignored by Washington. They've been stuck in this loophole of not getting statehood benefits but also not being able to declare sovereignty (not saying that they should).

I'm not really sure that counts. Puerto Rico is part of the US. This deb is a combination of them mismanaging their finances and Congress stopping them from declaring bankruptcy, for some reason.

They're not a state, and thus do not have the agency or the sovereignty that would exclude them from the original point of debt slavery. The entire idea of US territories, today, is glorified colonialism maintained with banks and money rather than guns and ships.

 

[KHarvey16]

The entirety of Latin America? (except for Venezuela and Cuba I guess...)

Global bankers remain at the top of the imperial food chain because they can shut off the valve of credit for an entire sovereign nation if they don't play ball with the terms and conditions of said debt.

The way the IMF and ECB has toyed with Greece is only ONE macabre recent example where people are dying and suffering, but all that matters is that the bankers get their money back (with interest).

Ok so you're talking about big C Capitalists, not the US specifically.

 

[KHarvey16]

They've been dealing with a debt crisis for a few decades, that in large part is due to being ignored by Washington. They've been stuck in this loophole of not getting statehood benefits but also not being able to declare sovereignty (not saying that they should).

So that's a nation being controlled by US debt? I think you're trying too hard to force this into that without thinking it through.

 

[Future]

This is where back seat coaching becomes a thing. I'm pretty sure obama wasn't thrilled when authorizing drone strikes and all of the atrocities the US commits. But these are almost impossible choices, with risks inherent. Hindsight is 20/20 but there are no perfect solutions to anything here. A drone strike in theory could have reduced or removed innocent life down the line. Or it could be causing a loss of a larger amount of innocent life if the intel isn't correct, or fueling more radicalism.

North Korea is a great example. With them flaunting their missle tests, should someone have stepped in and stopped them before? If they do attack, what's the armchair analysis gonna be? Obviously we should have?

You can't know. There are no good calls. There is only the calls you make. And who America elects basically sets the tone of the kind of rhetoric and decision making that goes forward. Electing trump meant America was happy with wagging a big stick, hence the "fire and fury" comments to North Korea.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Love how our death total includes the entire death totals for entire wars. No one else ever fired a shot.

Even sanctions are murder.

And even a world in which we didn't have all those military bases would be unacceptable to the author, because they want a presidentless socialist country. This article is one long screed that ends with a "viva la revolution" punchline.

So no, I'm not going to take anything they say seriously. It's bizarro-world political theory.

 

[Deepwater]

So that's a nation being controlled by US debt? I think you're trying too hard to force this into that without thinking it through.

No, it's the idea that America will hard/soft colonize a nation, give it lukewarm support for decades, and now said nation is forced to remain within the American economic and political sphere for even a chance of not completely collapsing unto itself.

 

[HellforLeather]

This reads like some high school edge-lord's paper.

 

[Deepwater]

This reads like some high school edge-lord's paper.

Riveting take

 

[Fusion Pizza]

Somebody just discovered Noam Chomsky or watched The Untold History of the United States.

 

[KHarvey16]

No, it's the idea that America will hard/soft colonize a nation, give it lukewarm support for decades, and now said nation is forced to remain within the American economic and political sphere for even a chance of not completely collapsing unto itself.

Colonize? That isn't what happened. C'mon.

Does Puerto Rico prefer independence or statehood?

 

[Fuchsdh]

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.

That graph is a laughable load of crock. How did reserve currencies cause the French Revolution?

 

[El_Tiguere]

US hegemony (NEO-COLONIALISM) based on US debt servitude is as real as American pie. It can be argued that the military is the usual enforcer of last resort when countries don't play ball (Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a great read for this).

One hilariously SAD thing many people didn't notice about the SEVEN countries targeted by Trump for his travel ban:

So here is General Wesley Clark right after 9/11 listing the same SEVEN countries targeted by the US empire going forward (Yemen made the travel ban list because Saudi Arabia wants to cleanse the Shiites there):

Could there be anything related to global bankers and the US empire about those countries? Why are they the targets? Time to take out and put on those tinfoil hats!!!

That graph is a laughable load of crock. How did reserve currencies cause the French Revolution?

It didn't cause it. It just marked the end for that particular reserve currency being used as the global reserve currency.

 

[Deepwater]

Colonize? That isn't what happened. C'mon.

Does Porto Rico prefer independence or statehood?

Whether not Puerto Rico wants to be a state isn't the point of this discussion, and the fact that you balked at the idea of Puerto Rico being colonized means there is really nothing more to discuss.

 

[KHarvey16]

Whether not Puerto Rico wants to be a state isn't the point of this discussion, and the fact that you balked at the idea of Puerto Rico being colonized means there is really nothing more to discuss.

Puerto Rico certainly was colonized.

You offered PR as an example of a nation the US has enslaved using debt. That's nonsense for a number of reasons.

 

[Deepwater]

Puerto Rico certainly was colonized.

You offered PR as an example of a nation the US has enslaved using debt. That's nonsense for a number of reasons.

of which you've failed to expound upon in any manner other than "thats not true". Have a nice day

 

[Cryoteck]

US hegemony (NEO-COLONIALISM) based on US debt servitude is as real as American pie. It can be argued that the military is the usual enforcer of last resort when countries don't play ball (Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a great read for this).

One hilariously SAD thing many people didn't notice about the SEVEN countries targeted by Trump for his travel ban:



So here is General Wesley Clark right after 9/11 listing the same SEVEN countries targeted by the US empire going forward (Yemen made the travel ban list because Saudi Arabia wants to cleanse the Shiites there):

Could there be anything related to global bankers and the US empire about those countries? Why are they the targets? Time to take out and put on those tinfoil hats!!!

It didn't cause it. It just marked the end for that particular reserve currency being used as the global reserve currency.

Interesting, but keep in mind correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Muffin1611]

As much as I think some of the points in the article are true or worth discussing, I really hope that that Rothschild post is a joke. Because if not, whew.

 

[Fuchsdh]

US hegemony (NEO-COLONIALISM) based on US debt servitude is as real as American pie. It can be argued that the military is the usual enforcer of last resort when countries don't play ball (Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a great read for this).

One hilariously SAD thing many people didn't notice about the SEVEN countries targeted by Trump for his travel ban:



So here is General Wesley Clark right after 9/11 listing the same SEVEN countries targeted by the US empire going forward (Yemen made the travel ban list because Saudi Arabia wants to cleanse the Shiites there):

Could there be anything related to global bankers and the US empire about those countries? Why are they the targets? Time to take out and put on those tinfoil hats!!!

It didn't cause it. It just marked the end for that particular reserve currency being used as the global reserve currency.

The French franc wasn't used as "global reserve currency" at the time. It's trying to backfill a 19th and 20th century idea onto a completely different economic world.

And you're seriously advancing a Jewish banker conspiracy. How the hell is that not a bannable action?

 

[KHarvey16]

of which you've failed to expound upon in any manner other than "thats not true". Have a nice day

Huh? Puerto Rico isn't a nation! He about we start there? The US didn't colonize it, the populace doesn't seem to think they're being enslaved (maybe they just don't know any better? I think that's the usual rationale) and why would we even try to enslave them anyway?

 

[El_Tiguere]

Interesting, but keep in mind correlation does not imply causation.

True. In the game of world dominance and credit-based money as power, it can help to put the pieces of the puzzle together. The good ol' "follow the money".

The French franc wasn't used as "global reserve currency" at the time. It's trying to backfill a 19th and 20th century idea onto a completely different economic world.

And you're seriously advancing a Jewish banker conspiracy. How the hell is that not a bannable action?

France was one of the first countries experimenting with central banks and fiat currency with John Law, and international investments and merchant trade were being conducted on the basis of these.

And on the whole Rothschild thing, it was a picture I found that listed the seven countries. While the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties STILL operate in the background, global banks are now more in your face about exerting their control without the need to point at shadowy figures who conspiracy theorists love. It's not reptiles or Jews... it's just bankers and investors.