International Thread 3

[Heartofice]

What I’m saying is that if the US wasn’t the hegemonic power in the world then someone else would be stepping into that void and bullying smaller countries and expanding their control. 

You might not like what the US is doing, but you are able to complain about it without fear of arrest. 

So going back to the original point we were talking about, yes I would rather the US was the dominant global power and sometimes you need to do unsavoury things to keep it that way. Don’t be naive and think we are all living in a hippy commune. Dictators are going to be installed,  now do you want them to be under US control or Russia’s? You decide 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

What I’m saying is that if the US wasn’t the hegemonic power in the world then someone else would be stepping into that void and bullying smaller countries and expanding their control. 

Meh Probably. But I don’t really see why that generally would be worse for the world as whole. How is it better for the world for the US to support/prop up dictators in certain regions than some other nations? Answer: it isn’t. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

You might not like what the US is doing, but you are able to complain about it without fear of arrest. 

 I must again point out in efforts to secure it’s global power, the government has eroded it’s citizens rights. Case and point during the Cold War people were arrested, victimized and had their lives ruined for just the action of being critical of the US’ foreign policy. My rights being respected isn’t really thanks to the fact the US sales arms to Saudi Arabia to murder hundreds of thousands in Yemen. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

So going back to the original point we were talking about, yes I would rather the US was the dominant global power and sometimes you need to do unsavoury things to keep it that way. Don’t be naive and think we are all living in a hippy commune. Dictators are going to be installed,  now do you want them to be under US control or Russia’s? You decide 

Lol, you’ve given no real reason for why a Russian backed dictator would be worse for the world. Your reasoning on why it’s better seems to rest on the level political or social  freedom each nation’s governments gives its own citizenry. Which again I must stress isn’t contingent upon a dictator having allegiance to either nation. 

 

 

[Heartofice]

23 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh Probably. But I don’t really see why that generally would be worse for the world as whole. How is it better for the world for the US to support/prop up dictators in certain regions than some other nations? Answer: it isn’t. 

 I must again point out in efforts to secure it’s global power, the government has eroded it’s citizens rights. Case and point during the Cold War people were arrested, victimized and had their lives ruined for just the action of being critical of the US’ foreign policy. My rights being respected isn’t really thanks to the fact the US sales arms to Saudi Arabia to murder hundreds of thousands in Yemen. 

Lol, you’ve given no real reason for why a Russian backed dictator would be worse for the world. Your reasoning on why it’s better seems to be the political or social  freedom each nation’s governments gives its own citizenry. Which again I must stress isn’t contingent upon a dictator having allegiance to either nation. 

My point is that you can live in a world where the US is the hegemon or it could be China or Russia or some Islamic state. Your life right now is pretty damn comfortable and you can vote and complain when your government does things you don’t like.  

Were that not the case then your life might change and all the fun you are having complaining on the internet might be taken away. If for instance the US had not intervened in countries during the Cold War would you even be alive right now? Who knows, but things would certainly be different for you. If the US gets relegated to a minor player and China decides how your country is run then you’ll be sitting and wishing that the US had been projecting its power around the world a bit more.

Its all very well sitting and complaining online from the comfort of your bedroom but you at least have the option to do it. Global power plays are the way the world works im afraid.

 

[Alarich II]

The point, I believe, is this:

If you are Hungarian or German or Czech (for example) and you had your popular uprising squashed by Soviet tanks, then your perspective might be different to, let's say a Nicaraguan perspective. And from that perspective its the tanks that matter, not who drives them.

But the difference to me is in this question: to whom is the Chinese or Russian government accountable? The fact remains that in the US you can and do have an open and free discourse about the morality and and quality of their foreign interventions and their government is held accountable in free elections.

Does that make American war crimes "better"? Certainly not, but at least every 4 years the question is put before the American people - do you want to keep or change this government and what it does. So you do have a certain degree of public control and discourse. And that's why I prefer the American hegemony over any other. It's a small difference but for me it tips the scales.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

What I’m saying is that if the US wasn’t the hegemonic power in the world then someone else would be stepping into that void and bullying smaller countries and expanding their control. 

You might not like what the US is doing, but you are able to complain about it without fear of arrest. 

So going back to the original point we were talking about, yes I would rather the US was the dominant global power and sometimes you need to do unsavoury things to keep it that way. Don’t be naive and think we are all living in a hippy commune. Dictators are going to be installed,  now do you want them to be under US control or Russia’s? You decide 

If the order of global power was China>Russia>USA or Russia>China>USA then the USA would still have its sphere of influence and friends and allies. But it would be more circumspect and inclusive in the way it tries to win friends and influence people. In some ways the USA would probably be a much better global citizen and a much more staunch supporter of global democracy and accountability than it is now. Possibly even for itself. The USA would see installing and aiding democracy as the way to increase its influence in the world, in opposition to China and Russia not giving a fig about democracy and being quite happy to prop up and deal with brutal dictatorships. As it stands, with the USA in 1st place we only have one global power that gives the appearance of caring about global democracy, but we have none who actually care enough to actively seek to increase international democracy and accountability.

What we also have is the USA being constantly wary of losing it's top dog status and so it constantly compromises its great principles as it seeks to maintain that position, as well as spending outrageous sums on its military to the detriment of its own people.

The world could actually be a better place with the USA not being the undisputed global power, but still a significant power.

[Heartofice]

31 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

The point, I believe, is this:

If you are Hungarian or German or Czech (for example) and you had your popular uprising squashed by Soviet tanks, then your perspective might be different to, let's say a Nicaraguan perspective. And from that perspective its the tanks that matter, not who drives them.

But the difference to me is in this question: to whom is the Chinese or Russian government accountable? The fact remains that in the US you can and do have an open and free discourse about the morality and and quality of their foreign interventions and their government is held accountable in free elections.

Does that make American war crimes "better"? Certainly not, but at least every 4 years the question is put before the American people - do you want to keep or change this government and what it does. So you do have a certain degree of public control and discourse. And that's why I prefer the American hegemony over any other. It's a small difference but for me it tips the scales.

Exactly this point.

I also think it’s pretty naive to think that if China and Russia started to take over that the US would start being a lot nicer to countries and be installing ‘democracy’ everywhere. Democracy being a very easy thing to manipulate, especially in new systems , it would lead to an even greater loss of soft power. There is a reason countries tend to install dictatorships or puppets, because you can control them.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

My point is that you can live in a world where the US is the hegemon or it could be China or Russia or some Islamic state. Your life right now is pretty damn comfortable and you can vote and complain when your government does things you don’t like.  

I got your point. I just found it really stupid given my ability to complain isn't protected by virtue the US having more of a global presence than Russia or China. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Were that not the case then your life might change and all the fun you are having complaining on the internet might be taken away.

Or might be not.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

If for instance the US had not intervened in countries during the Cold War would you even be alive right now? 

Another bizzare point. You could use this rational to try to justify any historical event no matter how atrocious. "You( let's say a Jewish-American whose father fled nazi Germany and came to America) say the Holocaust was bad huh, but would you be here without it!"

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

If the US gets relegated to a minor player and China decides how your country is run then you’ll be sitting and wishing that the US had been projecting its power around the world a bit more.

If the US government continues to use the basis of securing it's global influence to undercut it's citizens rights as it has done and quite frankly is still doing, I would say I'm not particularly grateful the dictator currently massacring his people is US friendly.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Who knows, but things would certainly be different for you. 

Sure. 

 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I got your point. I just found it really stupid given my ability to complain isn't protected by virtue the US having more of a global presence than Russia or China. 

Isn’t it? You have a free and open internet and you aren’t arrested for what you say. If the US for example had to bow down to the orders of Beijing then maybe that changes.  You are just assuming the world is going to be the way it is right now. 

My rational is that puppet governments and international intervention are going to be happening, China does it and Russia does it already, but nobody there gets to complain about it. 

It would be lovely if we lived in a world where big countries don’t bully small ones, but we don’t live in that world, and I don’t think we ever will. So maybe just be happy that your side is on top right now 

[Varysblackfyre321]

37 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

The point, I believe, is this:

If you are Hungarian or German or Czech (for example) and you had your popular uprising squashed by Soviet tanks, then your perspective might be different to, let's say a Nicaraguan perspective. And from that perspective its the tanks that matter, not who drives them.

But the difference to me is in this question: to whom is the Chinese or Russian government accountable? The fact remains that in the US you can and do have an open and free discourse about the morality and and quality of their foreign interventions and their government is held accountable in free elections.

Does that make American war crimes "better"? Certainly not, but at least every 4 years the question is put before the American people - do you want to keep or change this government and what it does. So you do have a certain degree of public control and discourse. And that's why I prefer the American hegemony over any other. It's a small difference but for me it tips the scales.

Again accountable? Neither of the major political parties are really interested in prosecuting the worst/most important war-criminals for their crimes. Yes, the common people could openly  talk, about whether or not Dick Chenye deserves the Death penalty-but no one in any significant political office is actively pushing for that to happen nor does it appear likely to ever happen. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Isn’t it? You have a free and open internet and you aren’t arrested for what you say. If the US for example had to bow down to the orders of Beijing then maybe that changes.  You are just assuming the world is going to be the way it is right now. 

 

Not really. Again the justification for why government needs to erode certain rights of it's citizenry is fairly often  this idea of keeping even the slightest edge over its enemies.

Quite frankly I think you've watched one too many redscare films man. Because you seem to think either the US is the GREATEST power on earth or it unequivocally surrenders to China or some other nation and all Americans' rights are lost.

A very childish view of international politics.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

My rational is that puppet governments and international intervention are going to be happening, China does it and Russia does it already, but nobody there gets to complain about it. 

 

Yep. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

It would be lovely if we lived in a world where big countries don’t bully small ones, but we don’t live in that world, and I don’t think we ever will. So maybe just be happy that your side is on top right now 

It would be lovely if you could actually provide a real reason for a US hegemony around the world is a net-good for it. 

You know instead of just doing really humorous, I'm sorry "mature"  fear-mongering of this idea if the US isn't at the GREATEST power on earth all rights for it's citizens are gone.

Which somehow for some reason would be a worse atrocity than all the other countries that the US has had hand in installing a dictator in lol? 

Yes, just be happy you're not the worst victim of US imperialism I suppose shut up and support upcoming Iran war and any other crime the US wants to commit to secure power.

I'm sorry but I can't help but think of you basicly grilling  me over not supporting the US ousting Maduro. How heartless was I to not want the US to do a regime change to get rid of dictator? But, now, the US supporting/installing dictatorships is totally natural and justified, and I'm naive if I don't want my taxes to go to making sure undesirables the Saudis are fully capable of killing children in a war with a nation not threatening the US. 

 

 

[Alarich II]

25 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Again accountable? Neither of the major political parties are really interested in prosecuting the worst/most important war-criminals for their crimes. Yes, the common people could openly  talk, about whether or not Dick Chenye deserves the Death penalty-but no one in any significant political office is actively pushing for that to happen nor does it appear likely to ever happen.  

The example is not very well selected, because last time I checked, the US were a constitutional democracy, where sentences are decided after a fair trial before a court of justice. The death penalty as a political instrument is not exactly what describes a democratic state and I would be wary of any politician who runs on a slogan like "death-penalty for ...", I mean it really does make "Lock her up" look tame in comparison and that was already far beyond the pale (IMO).

But your point, as I understand it (and you'll correct me, if I'm wrong) is that those responsible are in fact not held accountable for their actions. Which is a valid point to make but doesn't really adress what I've been saying. Because the same can be said for those who are responsible for Russian warcrimes in Chechnya or Chinese warcrimes in Tibet and elsewhere.

The difference is that talking about your own crimes in the US doesn't get you a bullet in the head or ten years in a "reeducation" camp. The question of right and wrong are open to public discourse and elections and that in itself is a valuable thing, even if the public decides not to care.

[Varysblackfyre321]

37 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

The example is not very well selected, because last time I checked, the US were a constitutional democracy, where sentences are decided after a fair trial before a court of justice. The death penalty as a political instrument is not exactly what describes a democratic state and I would be wary of any politician who runs on a slogan like "death-penalty for ...", I mean it really does make "Lock her up" look tame in comparison and that was already far beyond the pale (IMO).

I didn’t really argue to skip granting these war-criminals due process and just hanging them. I merely made note, no one in any position of significance is striving for that to happen or likely will try to pursue to you actually bringing justice to men who are literally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. I’ll be honest I wouldn’t be outraged if within my life  if let’s say Bolton was charged and tried for his crimes. 

37 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

But your point, as I understand it (and you'll correct me, if I'm wrong) is that those responsible are in fact not held accountable for their actions. Which is a valid point to make but doesn't really adress what I've been saying. Because the same can be said for those who are responsible for Russian warcrimes in Chechnya or Chinese warcrimes in Tibet and elsewhere.

It is the main point yes, but I must point out I’ve been rather clear I don’t think Russia or China are better in terms garnering global influence.

37 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

The difference is that talking about your own crimes in the US doesn't get you a bullet in the head or ten years in a "reeducation" camp. The question of right and wrong are open to public discourse and elections and that in itself is a valuable thing, even if the public decides not to care.

And, again this ability isn’t really contingent upon the US biggest the dog on the world stage. It’s really simplistic to say if the US isn’t as imperialistic as it is now, then it’s citizens stands a greater chance of losing all their rights.

And it’s not just public apathy allows these scumbags. But also corruption that infests the entire political system. And I think it’s not controversial to say many of the interventionist policies the US engages aren’t purely governed by the idea of it being good for the nation.

And is this really a metric you want to use?  Which empire benefits it’s own citizenry the best? 

[Alarich II]

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And, again this ability isn’t really contingent upon the US biggest the dog on the world stage. It’s really simplistic to say if the US isn’t as imperialistic as it is now, then it’s citizens stands a greater chance of losing all their rights.

This is not really about US citizens losing some or all their rights, it's about having a decision about foreign policy scrutinized in an open and free discourse. That is a value in itself. If, for example the US decides to invade Iraq, the decision can and will be questioned, not only by journalists but also by politicians, even if that doesn't necessarily make a difference to the dead Iraqis. But what makes a differences is that those consequences can be talked about, that you'll not be killed for saying: this is wrong, we should not do this. A wrong decision can be reversed or at least corrected under the pressure of public scrutiny. 

The small, but important, difference is that the US has a public conscience, even if money, power and apathy drown it out for most of the time. And that's why I prefer the US to the alternatives.

[House Balstroko]

On 6/19/2019 at 9:34 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don’t think the people who suffer by the pursuits of empires usually  care if the Empire is  American or Russian.

Like if I’m a citizen from x country ruled by a US backed dictator why should I care if my neighbors and family’s suffering help keep the US as the dominant power? 

Sorry, it's been a few days, but I'm back.

Yes, I do think that the US is better state actor then either Russia or China and for a number of reasons. 

More free press: Sure, it's under attack all the time, but there is nowhere near the level of censorship found in either of the other two powers.

More progressive policies: Once again, these do come under attack and there have been a number of disturbing developments over the years. Nevertheless, the US has legalized gay marriage, recreational marijuana in certain states..

Still more democratic: I'm not going to go over the constitutional republic vs democracy debate here, though I'm pretty sure you know what I mean. Yes, democracy doesn't live up to it's name.

More cynical population: On the surface this might be bad, but Americans are far more willing to question and scrutinize their government's actions on a number of issues then their counterparts in the other two.

Huge value to the world. This might be controversial, but bear with me. The US provides countless products that are used by people all over the world and influence their daily lives and that includes entertainment.

As a non-American, I admire the US for what it's accomplished, while still being highly critical of some of it's actions. And no, I don't dislike Russia or China either, but I see their growing influence as a problem.

[House Balstroko]

15 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If the order of global power was China>Russia>USA or Russia>China>USA then the USA would still have its sphere of influence and friends and allies. But it would be more circumspect and inclusive in the way it tries to win friends and influence people. In some ways the USA would probably be a much better global citizen and a much more staunch supporter of global democracy and accountability than it is now. Possibly even for itself. The USA would see installing and aiding democracy as the way to increase its influence in the world, in opposition to China and Russia not giving a fig about democracy and being quite happy to prop up and deal with brutal dictatorships. As it stands, with the USA in 1st place we only have one global power that gives the appearance of caring about global democracy, but we have none who actually care enough to actively seek to increase international democracy and accountability.

What we also have is the USA being constantly wary of losing it's top dog status and so it constantly compromises its great principles as it seeks to maintain that position, as well as spending outrageous sums on its military to the detriment of its own people.

The world could actually be a better place with the USA not being the undisputed global power, but still a significant power.

I actually agree with the bolded, but it then raises new questions. Who should the other superpower be? The reason why Russia and China are brought up is because they are the only two (mostly China, actually), that are able to gain superpower status in the near future. All other state actors are too small at this point to be able to challenge the pecking order. 

As far as it actually improving the standing of people around the world, I have my doubts. During the Cold War, the US and the USSR were playing games all over the globe to upset the other one's influence. Prior to that, European powers waged two massive and costly wars that ended up pitting large groups of people against one another.

There is actually little evidence to support that concept if we turn back the clock. Having powers be in opposition to one another is actually detrimental to the world. 

France and the UK share a lot in common with the US as they are part of the West, and will often sing the same tune, with a few deviations. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be great if they became superpowers as well. 

Ideally, the major powers need to be on the same page if you really want things to work out in the long run.

[Rippounet]

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Dictators are going to be installed, now do you want them to be under US control or Russia’s? You decide 

This is actually a pretty curious assumption. The Soviet Union is disintegrated, Russia's international influence is minor to say the least, and I haven't heard of China *installing* a dictatorship yet.
To suppose that "dictators are going to be installed" is to take a rather grim view of politics - and humanity in general.

And the thing about the US being such a hegemon for at least 30 years (if not 70) is that there are many cases when it could have tried to support democracy abroad without fearing interference from another power: even assuming such interference had happened, the US could have crushed it.
A different way to put it is that there are many instances when the US could have actively spread democracy with little risk to its own interests.
The reason it often doesn't is directly linked to the way it manages the international order. And by "it" one might wonder if we are really talking about a country or about a succession of governments beholden to certain interests.
And ironically, this management is also what raises the cost of actually spreading democracy throughout the world (something that some US decicion-makers are acutely aware of, ha ha).

What freedoms US citizens have or don't have is completely irrelevant as regards all these points - unless you are yourself a US citizen.

13 hours ago, Alarich II said:

This is not really about US citizens losing some or all their rights, it's about having a decision about foreign policy scrutinized in an open and free discourse.

The crushing majority of foreign policy decisions are not scrutinized. To write about "open and free discourse" about them is just showing one's ignorance about such things.
It is really quite rare for the American people to have a genuine impact on a specific decision about foreign policy - a few counter-examples notwithstanding.

If that's difficult to wrap your head around, simply ask yourself how often you have had a chance to have an impact on your country's foreign policy, including military deployment. Then compare your answer to... say... the number of military deployments your country has performed in your lifetime.

You can then have fun and go back to the US, looking at the number of military interventions it has performed in the past 50 years or so.
 

On 6/17/2019 at 3:52 AM, House Balstroko said:

I still think highly of the US and would much rather have them as the dominant power than either the Russians or Chinese.

This is a perfectly valid sentiment and overall one I happen to share.

However such sentiments are entirely dependent on where one lives. There are hundreds of millions of people who will have the very opposite feeling and rather have *anybody but the US* as the dominant power (there are also quite a few who won't give a damn).

Most people on this forum will naturally be inclined to favor US dominance out of self-interest.
But I highly doubt the people on this forum are that representative...

[HoodedCrow]

Anyone think the US didn’t retaliate because the drone actually was in Iran’s space, and that Trump and his hawk pals are grooming the American people to accept a TV ready war with Iran without Congressional oversight? The goal is to win the next election and distract from his family corruption? The Saudis would likely pay up too. Trump said publically that he thought Obama would cause a war with Iran to win a second term, so its an idea clanking around his noggin.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The reason it often doesn't is directly linked to the way it manages the international order. And by "it" one might wonder if we are really talking about a country or about a succession of governments beholden to certain interests.
And ironically, this management is also what raises the cost of actually spreading democracy throughout the world (something that some US decicion-makers are acutely aware of, ha ha).

True. Hell these special interests profit from the US suffering as well. I mean the US will be wrecked by climate change-yet a country’s oil supply is often a major reason for why the US desires to overthrow a regime. 

 

[Which Tyler]

5 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

Anyone think the US didn’t retaliate because the drone actually was in Iran’s space, and that Trump and his hawk pals are grooming the American people to accept a TV ready war with Iran without Congressional oversight? The goal is to win the next election and distract from his family corruption? The Saudis would likely pay up too. Trump said publically that he thought Obama would cause a war with Iran to win a second term, so its an idea clanking around his noggin.

Doesn't basically everyone think that?

Trump's poking at the Iranians until he has an excuse his domestic audience will accept, or he gets enough of a ratings boost to feel secure that he'd get a second term.

We've known for 3 years that this was going to happen, the k of question then was NKorea, Venezuela or Iran

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Doesn't basically everyone think that?

Trump's poking at the Iranians until he has an excuse his domestic audience will accept, or he gets enough of a ratings boost to feel secure that he'd get a second term.

We've known for 3 years that this was going to happen, the k of question then was NKorea, Venezuela or Iran

He's got to time it right too, Go in too early and you could end up with a failure by the time the election rolls around. Seems a bit too soon to go now.