|
davidb posted:If it wasnt for america germany and japan would be under soviet control. So yes their democracy is thanks to america If it wasn't for France, Britain would have crushed the American revolution. Se yes, their democracy is thanks to France. See how easy this is? If it wasn't for Britain, Spain and France would have colonized North America. So yes, their democracy is thanks to Britain.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:But is that not something we can only say in hindsight, as the lucky survivors of what may as well have been Not to mention that US hegemony is still pretty useful and the world is a better place than it would be if for instance China had a more dominant role. Many of the potential poles in a multipolar world are tbh rather unsavory entities you would not want having equal say in world affairs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Not to mention that US hegemony is still pretty useful and the world is a better place than it would be if for instance China had a more dominant role. Many of the potential poles in a multipolar world are tbh rather unsavory entities you would not want having equal say in world affairs. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:42
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Why would China or India or Brazil be any worse at foreign policy than we are, Senor Pinochet? How do you know the world is a better place? And do countries like China do things we consider "unsavory" because they want to counteract our influence? China definitely would be as bad or worse, there is enough evidence for that already I think. On the other hand, I think a lot of nations have a FYGM attitude because the dominant power does too - it's sort of like kids who get bullied when they're small at school taking the opportunity to wail on everyone when they get big, as a pay-off for getting wailed on themselves. That definitely forms a part of how China thinks about its history of having its poo poo pushed in by Europeans.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:China definitely would be as bad or worse, there is enough evidence for that already I think. On the other hand, I think a lot of nations have a FYGM attitude because the dominant power does too - it's sort of like kids who get bullied when they're small at school taking the opportunity to wail on everyone when they get big, as a pay-off for getting wailed on themselves. Eh, it's more that large/powerful countries all act a certain way because they can. China's actions are alike in some ways to e.g. Russia (mostly the dispute with the islands which coincidentally have tons of oil) but are very dissimilar in other ways (e.g., they're not trying to annex neighboring countries). Brazil is very similar to the US in many ways, from their inequality to their demographic crises. I don't think they would act much different from the US if given the opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I suspect a Brazillian superpower foreign policy would be very like the US's. China does exhibit irridentist tendencies, even if it's not territorially demanding. Its neo-colonialist efforts in Africa are already the stuff of legend though - unsurprisingly, new forms of imperialism are more and more purely economic.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Really we'll always have a million excuses as to why country x or y shouldn't share power with us, and so will they. The point of having a multi-polar world is to prevent a single or two countries from dictating international policy to the rest of the world and acting as a destabilizing influence by demanding everything they want at the expense of everybody else. The United States promotes first and foremost the interests of the United States, and the vast majority of people do not live in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
re: Alexanderchat from yesterday -- Effectronica posted:That's above and beyond what other empires did, really. Only the Inca attempted something similar in scope. Assyrians did it definitely as did the Egyptians, hence, you know, Book of Exodus. I think the Romans did also at least to some extent. Plus, keep in mind Alexander's motivation: from what I've read at least, the idea wasn't so much "Traill of Tears everyone we don't like into lovely lands" as "mix and integrate the empire into a whole." Disinterested posted:'Barbarian' is onomatopoetic, 'ba ba ba' is imitating the babble of a non-Greek speaker or an inept Greek speaker, and was often slung at Macedonians. As long as we're getting this technical, the Macedonians under Phillip, Alexander's father, were allowed to compete at the Olympic Games, and were thus considered Hellene. Sure they were called barbarians by people like Demosthenes but he was an rear end in a top hat anyway. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah, I suspect a Brazillian superpower foreign policy would be very like the US's. China does exhibit irridentist tendencies, even if it's not territorially demanding. Its neo-colonialist efforts in Africa are already the stuff of legend though - unsurprisingly, new forms of imperialism are more and more purely economic. Australia > South or Middle America > Europe > Africa > Asia
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:04
|
|
Cingulate posted:Personal ranking of what continent I wish the next lone superpower oppressor to come from: I think if Australia became a world superpower I might commit suicide.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think if Australia became a world superpower I might commit suicide. They are literally the US but with funnier accents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think if Australia became a world superpower I might commit suicide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
I'm not sure my nation could survive the humiliation of being surpassed as the premier world power by two former colonies successively, particularly when the second one was used as a penal colony and beats us at all the sports we invented. On the other hand, their beer adverts are hilarious.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
In the various European fiefdoms, scorn for America and Muslims has replaced national pride.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They are literally the US but with funnier accents. No, Australia is like an all-Texan trailer park, with bigger bugs and no Mexican food.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Not to mention that US hegemony is still pretty useful and the world is a better place than it would be if for instance China had a more dominant role. Many of the potential poles in a multipolar world are tbh rather unsavory entities you would not want having equal say in world affairs. It's a good thing US hegemony staves off the influence of unsavory entities. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
I wish there was a picture of his face when he was arrested.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
The US is a lot like democracy or capitalism. It's pretty terrible, but it's a lot better than basically any other thing that's actually been tested yet on that scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:If it wasn't for France, Britain would have crushed the American revolution. Se yes, their democracy is thanks to France. america exists because of those countries. And other factors too. But those countries didnt push the pendulum towards or away from democracy. America did swing the russian communist pendulum away from japan/germany towards democracy. But if it matters to you we can say britain, or france made americas democracy posible. Doesnt change what America did for Japan/germany
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The US is a lot like democracy or capitalism. It's pretty terrible, but it's a lot better than basically any other thing that's actually been tested yet on that scale. The US is basically as good and as bad as any global hegemon and there haven't been many. Everyone thinks they're doing new things (see the new economic wizzkids advocating the unheard of idea of giving all the money to the rich) because we have smart phones now but imposing your will on the world through violence and economic domination is not a new thing that Americans discovered and they don't get a free pass. We can probably find this exact quote written in Greek or Mongolian and for sure we can find it in British. Pretty much every global hegemon even used the exact same reasoning America does. "Our values are self evidently superior. Its a moral neccessity to spread them". I'd even be convinced America is more benign than malign if they didn't disregard international law as a matter of policy, which makes them a threat to world peace like any other rogue state, except unlike NK they are in a position to destroy the world if their hegemony is threatened. ("The only country to ever nuke another wouldn't do that!")
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
In some ways the will to say your values / religion / whatever was superior is understandable, particularly in an era before science or really any form of truly advanced human knowledge. A lot of Empires have come in to existence with extreme good fortune and even acquired their empires with ease that even then probably seemed quite surprising. At that point you're searching for an explanation of how you reached that historical crossroad, and the lazier you are, the most quickly you reach for the most immediate point of difference between yourself and the conquered (religion, race, form of government, whatever) and ascribe your relative strength to that. But usually someone was smart enough and moral enough to realise this was retarded at the time, and the wide array of information available to everyone by now should really have done more to alter behaviour. Perhaps it has, a little; it is, after all, a less violent time than any other.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
davidb posted:Youll have to do better than health care to sink american nationalism. Especially post obama care Not really, my boyfriend is fully insured and he still had to pay over $200 (a $50 co-pay at the time, and then he also got a $170 bill a week later) for a trip to the doctor's to look at his eye for 5 seconds and tell him he had a stye recently. This is not including the antibiotic ointment he then picked up from the pharmacy. Meanwhile it costs me exactly zero to visit a GP when I'm back in the UK and medicine is a lot cheaper too. As many posters have explained this won't stop me from complaining about the UK, as I can always grouse about politicians cutting funding to the NHS (for no real reason other than ideology) and making it less efficient. I think it's healthy to focus on what's bad about your country and how it should be improved, it prevents complacency and short-sighted arrogance. Also, America spends proportionally more on healthcare than most nations with universal healthcare, and has been doing so for years, it doesn't "sink economies" by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
How close are we to the point where the counter culture position is patriotism? Hating America is getting pretty status quo in some circles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:How close are we to the point where the counter culture position is patriotism? Hating America is getting pretty status quo in some circles. Well, my grandfather swam across the Puyallup River to protest for Indian fishing rights, taught Shakespeare and Afro-American Studies and got angry as gently caress hatemail postcards from random birchers in 1968. I was basically forced to become a Harry Browne libertarian in order to rebel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Weldon Pemberton posted:Not really, my boyfriend is fully insured and he still had to pay over $200 (a $50 co-pay at the time, and then he also got a $170 bill a week later) for a trip to the doctor's to look at his eye for 5 seconds and tell him he had a stye recently. This is not including the antibiotic ointment he then picked up from the pharmacy. Meanwhile it costs me exactly zero to visit a GP when I'm back in the UK and medicine is a lot cheaper too. As many posters have explained this won't stop me from complaining about the UK, as I can always grouse about politicians cutting funding to the NHS (for no real reason other than ideology) and making it less efficient. I think it's healthy to focus on what's bad about your country and how it should be improved, it prevents complacency and short-sighted arrogance. someone pointed at American healthcare system as to why american nationalistm is misplaced. i said theyd have to do better than that to sink nationalism(not economy) because were closing the gap on the healthcare situation. The healthcare doesnt have to be perfect it just has to be not nationalism sinking. As to why americans spend more on healthcare than other countries... Europeans walk more, drive less, eat healthier and go to the doctor less for small things Americans do all the wrong things healthwise hence their more obese. They also go to doctors for every small itch, twitch, bump. Also hows americas immigration situation compared to other countries? because immigrants come, they swarm the ERs with all the ailments they left their country with
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:How close are we to the point where the counter culture position is patriotism? Hating America is getting pretty status quo in some circles. America is great and deserves better than to be led by the usual pack of ignorant racists, robber barons, bible-thumping dominionists, and war profiteers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:If it wasn't for Britain, Spain and France would have colonized North America. What do you mean "would have"? They kinda did, nearly all of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Hey everyone in this thread, can I suggest putting this guy on ignore? Thread will be better if nobody pays attention to it. You seem like a huge angry baby so maybe you should just take a break
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
davidb posted:w When it comes to fat people, the cheapest solution is the final solution. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
davidb posted:someone pointed at American healthcare system as to why american nationalistm is misplaced. i said theyd have to do better than that to sink nationalism(not economy) because were closing the gap on the healthcare situation. The healthcare doesnt have to be perfect it just has to be not nationalism sinking. These are all things you're wrong about and have no real depth of understanding in regards to. I look forward to you providing more evidence for this shortly in the next few posts!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Obviously American health care is expensive because Americans go to the doctor willy-nilly. There's certainly not a huge problem of people ignoring health issues out of fear of high bills until they become catastrophic and send them to the emergency room, no sir!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Obviously American health care is expensive because Americans go to the doctor willy-nilly. Preventative care generally doesn't save money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Generally, I agree with you technology was a major factor in the world-wide increase of welfare. But first, the extreme technological progress has factually happened under this system. Second, I think it's not the only one; if (and I think this quite likely) the capitalists have discovered it is more profitable to allow the 3rd world some basic development than to brutally oppress them with whip and bullet, and that a peaceful Europe is more profitable than a nationalist Europe, and that has caused a significant increase in well-being, then that is better than Stalinism, aristocracies, and every other way the world has so far been organised in. Is a better world possible? Surely. But you cannot argue for this better world by obfuscation and false claims. You can say, we wish for a better order because we are concerned the current one, as far as it has brought us, likely will not bring us further (and I am quite with you on that one). But you can't say it has not in the past greatly improved global well-being, more than any other system so far. Tell me where I was bringing "obduscation and false claims", if you don't bring examples then you sound like you're full of it. Ultimately, the question is if we could have a better system than we do now and the question is obviously yes and even if things are technically improving because of technology, that doesn't mean another system could use technology or resources better. If anything it could be argued much of the technology we rely on is a product of the Cold War. Also, you ignore the impact of inequality of social relations and on societies, inequality in many ways distorts them beyond a few simple statistics. It is also plainly clear when you read the news what the results are even if life expectancy crept up a bit more. What is the point of pride when vast inequalities still exist? Also btw, I think you are actually quite wrong by the Soviets, you can point to Stalin and his murder, fine, but you can't also say that the real improvements didn't happen in the Soviet Union either. Life in Imperial Russia was significantly worse for most people, and silent starvation was a continual practice. It doesn't dismiss the Holodomor but something does need to be said about life expectancy and the quality of life readily improving for most of the population over time and electricity, public transportation and housing being built. If you want to say that Stalin's atrocities were unnecessary and a enormous waste of lives, I don't disagree but saying nothing came out of the Soviet Union is just revisionism. Even today many people miss the economic stability that was part of the Soviet Union. The answer isn't to bring back Stalinism, but to honestly look at what good state socialist societies did and see what could be taken out of that experience even if it was modified. In many ways Europe did this but it has clearly started to slide As far as consumption, at least in China it is clearly not enough to support the expansion of China's industries. The Chinese middle class has bought cars but they can only buy so much and so often and there is a reason Chinese growth is dropping and even the IMF is substantially lowering predicted global economic growth. A ton of trade was send to China but the profits of it were obviously spent very unequally. Some Chinese got a chance of a better life but many did not and it is a real question of what is going to happen to them. Oh yeah and as far as Eastern Europe, life there did increase significantly but it was quite clear that the 1990s were very hard on the population and that if anything Poland recovered the quickest for a variety of reasons. In comparison, Hungary had a far more bitter transition. In Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and much of the rest of the former Soviet Union things if anything life fell apart for many people quite a while. There were clearly winners and losers even if everyone got "theoretical" accessible to Iphones. Pensioners in Ukraine are still waiting for the great bounty that wild free market capitalism should have brought them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What do you mean "would have"? They kinda did, nearly all of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:20
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What do you mean "would have"? They kinda did, nearly all of it Also Sweden.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:For a given value of colonized. Setting up a few forts along a river and claiming territory thousand of miles in either direction is not really the same as actually settling the land. I'm glad to know that Mexico just had a few forts set up in a thousand miles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Ardennes, is there any specific line of mine you actually disagree with? Or do you just want to make a different emphasis over unambiguous facts? One note regarding the style of the argument: you're right Stalinism improved some things. But what I said wasn't that Stalinism* made everything universally worse, but that it was in effect less good than Capitalism, both for its own countries as well as the world. Just like I didn't say Capitalism was the best thing ever, only that it's better than everything we've tested on a large scale so far. * edit: and the follow-up regimes Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also Sweden. And the Netherlands. And Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm glad to know that Mexico just had a few forts set up in a thousand miles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That Mexico had heavier settlement in areas that were later conquered by the US doesn't change the fact that Spain had laid claim to massive areas far outside their practical control, or that France had likewise claimed a ton of territory where they had essentially no presence. So did the US for many decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:56
|
|