Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean quite, besides war with China is avoidable. In the long term neither side really wants to have a conflict, which is why they keep inventing all kinds of ways around international law that avoid direct conflict with the US. If war would be inevitable, then retreating back to the Pacific Islands is no use as some in China dream of a Chinese Hawaii. Retreating is only going to make China bolder, and that boldness could cross into accidental recklessness and war you want to avoid.

And its not just the wealthy who have benefitted. Sure they have benefitted immensly more because of the way our system works. But the average US citizen has enjoyed a life style not attainable without the system set up after WW2.

No. We can avoid war by returning our forces home, eliminating military support treaties with every country on the planet, and returning to just being a commercial power.

The current system only benefits the wealthy who have given up any pretense of caring. Communism is dead. We did our part.

China was strong before the US existed, as did its hegemonic aspirations. It will be the same after the US.
Same for Russia.

No need for us to be involved any more. The people who think we should be are the wealthy who benefit from it. Theirs sons and daughters haven't been in a war since forever so there is no downside for them.

We have isolationists, anarchists, and wanna-be freikorps all over the place. The US feels more and more like the 1930's have been catching up with us.

Perhaps this is common after all big recessions?

I like how you aggregate people who don't want to be imperialists any more with analysts and Nazis.

Well the liberals gotta show that they can be just as good defenders of the US Empire when the other side falters

The informal US empire is always better than the chaos a hegemonic transition brings. Especially as the US at least tries to pretend human rights and international law are important while the other contenders view it as an entirely optional Western construct. So liberals like most other Westerners should care about any potential collapse and the consequences of it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The informal US empire is always better than the chaos a hegemonic transition brings. Especially as the US at least tries to pretend human rights and international law are important while the other contenders view it as an entirely optional Western construct.

Nah. We did better without being in continuous wars.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The informal US empire is always better than the chaos a hegemonic transition brings. Especially as the US at least tries to pretend human rights and international law are important while the other contenders view it as an entirely optional Western construct. So liberals like most other Westerners should care about any potential collapse and the consequences of it.

Actually, it isn't better to have a world hegemon that lies. It's the same as having one that doesn't lie. Arguably, a hegemon that doesn't lie is better than one that does because then there aren't going to be as many people falling for the lies.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The informal US empire is always better than the chaos a hegemonic transition brings. Especially as the US at least tries to pretend human rights and international law are important while the other contenders view it as an entirely optional Western construct.

Nah. We did better without being in continuous wars.

You say that, the growth rate of US GDP since 45 and the start of the informal US empire says something else. Honestly, its incredibly tragic that lives are lost, but from a political and economic perspective those relatively 'few' lives when compared to other powers has bought more than ever seen in history. You might not want to see it that way, but US prosperity on this level was bought and sustained by the US military being overseas. Now that doesn't mean all wars helped that standing, plenty of stupid choices, but those are US politicians making them, not the world forcing it upon you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The informal US empire is always better than the chaos a hegemonic transition brings. Especially as the US at least tries to pretend human rights and international law are important while the other contenders view it as an entirely optional Western construct. So liberals like most other Westerners should care about any potential collapse and the consequences of it.

Actually, it isn't better to have a world hegemon that lies. It's the same as having one that doesn't lie. Arguably, a hegemon that doesn't lie is better than one that does because then there aren't going to be as many people falling for the lies.

Really it is though, because at least the US tries to have some semblance of respect for international law and human rights, the idea that its on the level of Russia or China in this regard is laughable. The last year the US 'annexed' territory is 1898, meanwhile we have 2012 and 2014 for China and Russia respectively.

As a foreigner, you bear none of the burden, so whatevs Bro.

Lets see the EU do it. You can't even defend yourself from Russia.

Yeah, the fact that there are carrier groups anywhere that water has salt and military bases on every continent pretty much means that the US can politely (or inpolitely) tell other people how it’s going to be. That is how the US has sustained such prosperity, even now it’s very prosperous. After all, pretty much everyone has food, water, internet and a phone.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Yeah, the fact that there are carrier groups anywhere that water has salt and military bases on every continent pretty much means that the US can politely (or inpolitely) tell other people how it’s going to be. That is how the US has sustained such prosperity, even now it’s very prosperous. After all, pretty much everyone has food, water, internet and a phone.

Crazily, Canada, Europe, and Asia have the same without it.

@Disciple of Fate, as a nation, yes we are prospering- but as a people we really aren't. The wealth divide is rising, pay rates are stagnant while cost of housing and medical care continue to rise.

It is not a good time to be an average American. There are undoubtedly are wars out there worth fighting, but at this point I have no confidence our government can identify them, or address them in an effective manner.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
@Disciple of Fate, as a nation, yes we are prospering- but as a people we really aren't. The wealth divide is rising, pay rates are stagnant while cost of housing and medical care continue to rise.

It is not a good time to be an average American. There are undoubtedly are wars out there worth fighting, but at this point I have no confidence our government can identify them, or address them in an effective manner.

EXACTLY.

 Frazzled wrote:
As a foreigner, you bear none of the burden, so whatevs Bro.

Lets see the EU do it. You can't even defend yourself from Russia.

None of the burden? The Dutch went to Iraq and Afghanistan with the US, even though we had no dog in this fight. Allied support is what helped the US become what it is today, regardless of military strength.

Also you do realize two (one in a few years) EU countries have nukes right? The idea that the US is the only one standing in the way is a bit silly. If the US leaves then its only natural that the European countries start shifting more budget towards defense. Europe had sizable armies during the Cold War, it wasn't always like this.

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean quite, besides war with China is avoidable. In the long term neither side really wants to have a conflict, which is why they keep inventing all kinds of ways around international law that avoid direct conflict with the US. If war would be inevitable, then retreating back to the Pacific Islands is no use as some in China dream of a Chinese Hawaii. Retreating is only going to make China bolder, and that boldness could cross into accidental recklessness and war you want to avoid.

And its not just the wealthy who have benefitted. Sure they have benefitted immensly more because of the way our system works. But the average US citizen has enjoyed a life style not attainable without the system set up after WW2.

No. We can avoid war by returning our forces home, eliminating military support treaties with every country on the planet, and returning to just being a commercial power.

The current system only benefits the wealthy who have given up any pretense of caring. Communism is dead. We did our part.

China was strong before the US existed, as did its hegemonic aspirations. It will be the same after the US.
Same for Russia.

No need for us to be involved any more. The people who think we should be are the wealthy who benefit from it. Theirs sons and daughters haven't been in a war since forever so there is no downside for them.

We have isolationists, anarchists, and wanna-be freikorps all over the place. The US feels more and more like the 1930's have been catching up with us.

Perhaps this is common after all big recessions?

Yes. It doesn't always manifest itself the same way in every country after every recession but recession cause economic hardship and when people are hurting they want help. When a good chunk of the population is struggling financially due to a recession it's only natural for a political movement to manifest that seeks to prioritize domestic improvement and husband resources to do so. Those circumstances also make it much easier to think less rationally about the reasons why it benefits us to be involved internationally and spend money on foreign aid/foreign policy when people want help NOW because they're struggling NOW and politicians/pundits/party apparatchiks are happy to placate that desire by scapegoating our foreign policy as a monetary drain or waste when it really doesn't impact our budget that much and has valid reasons for supporting it. Undervaluing long term gains in favor of counter productive short term gains can help you win in the next election cycle even if it hurts the country in the long run which is one of the problems we've always faced in the US but is exacerbated by the technological advances in the information age that have shortened our attention span, increased our need for instant gratification and increased the reward for kneejerk political appeasement of concerns.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
@Disciple of Fate, as a nation, yes we are prospering- but as a people we really aren't. The wealth divide is rising, pay rates are stagnant while cost of housing and medical care continue to rise.

It is not a good time to be an average American. There are undoubtedly are wars out there worth fighting, but at this point I have no confidence our government can identify them, or address them in an effective manner.

Yeah, but is that a consequence of your politics or of your hegemonic position. You can't seriously argue that if the US steps back from said role that those problems would be fixed right? There is nothing stopping you from fixing said problems now except internal unwillingness.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Really it is though, because at least the US tries to have some semblance of respect for international law and human rights, the idea that its on the level of Russia or China in this regard is laughable. The last year the US 'annexed' territory is 1898, meanwhile we have 2012 and 2014 for China and Russia respectively.

The US tortures and invades however it pleases. Currently they're putting children in concentration camps.

Drawing the line at directly annexing territory when the US has effectively ruled the planet for half a century is silly. You don't need to annex a little spot of land when you can get entire countries to order their economic and political systems to your liking.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Really it is though, because at least the US tries to have some semblance of respect for international law and human rights, the idea that its on the level of Russia or China in this regard is laughable. The last year the US 'annexed' territory is 1898, meanwhile we have 2012 and 2014 for China and Russia respectively.

The US tortures and invades however it pleases. Currently they're putting children in concentration camps.

Drawing the line at directly annexing territory when the US has effectively ruled the planet for half a century is silly. You don't need to annex a little spot of land when you can get entire countries to order their economic and political systems to your liking.

Invades and then leaves, which is something I have yet to see the others do. Russia and China don't just torture, they torture their own population. The US has done some absolutely gak things, but their replacements sure as hell isn't going to be more benevolent.

At least the US just strong arms you. If China can't strong arm you it will just start picking apart your territory and force the world to no longer recognize you as a country. I mean everything the US has done the others have done too and worse. Yes in a lot of ways the US has and is doing some bad things, but given a choice between the three, its clear which one is best once alligned with them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
@Disciple of Fate, as a nation, yes we are prospering- but as a people we really aren't. The wealth divide is rising, pay rates are stagnant while cost of housing and medical care continue to rise.

It is not a good time to be an average American. There are undoubtedly are wars out there worth fighting, but at this point I have no confidence our government can identify them, or address them in an effective manner.

Yeah, but is that a consequence of your politics or of your hegemonic position. You can't seriously argue that if the US steps back from said role that those problems would be fixed right? There is nothing stopping you from fixing said problems now except internal unwillingness.

I do not know. I'm just tired, and I don't think that a country that can't take care of its citizens really needs to be in charge of other countries. I'm not saying we're the worst, because we aren't. But I seriously doubt we're the best choice for the job anymore. I'd love to see a Norwegian Hegemony, or the Canadian Confederation. Some nation that can create happy citizens ought to be the one rebuilding these countries and showing us the way.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
@Disciple of Fate, as a nation, yes we are prospering- but as a people we really aren't. The wealth divide is rising, pay rates are stagnant while cost of housing and medical care continue to rise.

It is not a good time to be an average American. There are undoubtedly are wars out there worth fighting, but at this point I have no confidence our government can identify them, or address them in an effective manner.

Yeah, but is that a consequence of your politics or of your hegemonic position. You can't seriously argue that if the US steps back from said role that those problems would be fixed right? There is nothing stopping you from fixing said problems now except internal unwillingness.

I do not know. I'm just tired, and I don't think that a country that can't take care of its citizens really needs to be in charge of other countries. I'm not saying we're the worst, because we aren't. But I seriously doubt we're the best choice for the job anymore. I'd love to see a Norwegian Hegemony, or the Canadian Confederation. Some nation that can create happy citizens ought to be the one rebuilding these countries and showing us the way.

Sadly hegemony doesn't work said way. If the US steps back then China is the only real option unless the EU decides to do an insane 180 (I mean its almost impossible). I don't think anyone can argue that while the US might not be able to take care of its citizens, China is doing better than the US on said front.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Invades and then leaves, which is something I have yet to see the others do.

After setting up a government that will be obedient to the US. How often does Russia and China bomb and invade countries all over the planet, anyway?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yes in a lot of ways the US has and is doing some bad things, but given a choice between the three, its clear which one is best once alligned with them.

It is only clear to someone who is already aligned with the US and prepared to overlook the atrocities it commits.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a foreigner, you bear none of the burden, so whatevs Bro.

Lets see the EU do it. You can't even defend yourself from Russia.

None of the burden? The Dutch went to Iraq and Afghanistan with the US, even though we had no dog in this fight. Allied support is what helped the US become what it is today, regardless of military strength.

Also you do realize two (one in a few years) EU countries have nukes right? The idea that the US is the only one standing in the way is a bit silly. If the US leaves then its only natural that the European countries start shifting more budget towards defense. Europe had sizable armies during the Cold War, it wasn't always like this.

Cool, then Europe no longer needs the US umbrella. Self empowerment. go for it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Really it is though, because at least the US tries to have some semblance of respect for international law and human rights, the idea that its on the level of Russia or China in this regard is laughable. The last year the US 'annexed' territory is 1898, meanwhile we have 2012 and 2014 for China and Russia respectively.

The US tortures and invades however it pleases. Currently they're putting children in concentration camps.

Drawing the line at directly annexing territory when the US has effectively ruled the planet for half a century is silly. You don't need to annex a little spot of land when you can get entire countries to order their economic and political systems to your liking.

And another vote for the US to lull back. Write your politicians! Europe should go its own way no, separate from the US.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Not surprising, really. As the US irresponsibly vacates its various positions on the world stage, other countries will move in. John Oliver did a good bit on China this week that ended with a commentary that China is ready and able to fill in for the US, and that we probably shouldn't be so eager to give them that chance.

John Oliver can screw himself. There is nothing more that I can't stand is someone from another country coming to our country and dictating how screwed up our society is while making millions of dollars in the process. Sort out the UK's problems first and then I'll appreciate what you have to say. Same with Trevor Noah. Trevor criticizes the South African elite for leaving South Africa to all its problems while doing the exact same thing. What a clown.

 Frazzled wrote:
No. We can avoid war by returning our forces home, eliminating military support treaties with every country on the planet, and returning to just being a commercial power. . . No need for us to be involved any more. The people who think we should be are the wealthy who benefit from it. Theirs sons and daughters haven't been in a war since forever so there is no downside for them.

Frazzled, this is a little naive. The US is all over the world to protect its own interest first and foremost. I know what you are saying but in reality pulling back will just lead to us being pushed around or having things dictated to us. Do you want that? You haven't lived during a time when that happened, so you'd have to really imagine what that would be like. While yes we have fought some wars, some for the right cause, and others questionable, and fought some better than others, we have helped keep the peace. There is no doubt in my mind that if we weren't as involved in Europe as we are that it would be a messy place. By being able to keep things they way they are, we benefit. We tried pretty hard to stay out of WWI and WWII and still got dragged into it. You have to be able to protect your assets so to speak.

We have treaties to come to the defense of Taiwan (by law as a matter of fact), Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. There have been times when I saw protests in South Korea for the removal of US troops, or whenever Duterte opens his mouth, I think how nice it would be just say f*** it and send everyone home and leave them to their problems. But the reality is we'd probably just end up back there at some point anyway. Imagine a world where China-South Korea relations flare up and China blockades their ports. . . How would that effect South Korean trade with us? Or the rest of the world for that matter? The impact to financial markets and so on. And who else in the world is capable of stepping in to prevent that? No one. So even if we pulled back, we'd just be right back there someday anyway. Having troops there sets a red line so to speak and keeps things stable. And we also have a greater say in dictating terms when we negotiate.

Also, look how long it takes to build an aircraft carrier these days. YEARS. Its just not a matter of riveting sections of steel 24 hours a day anymore. Weapons are far more complicated then they were in WWII. Chances are, when the next major war is fought, what you have at the beginning is probably all you are going to have for the remainder of it, so what you have available at the start is going to be really important. I agree there is too much money being made in the military industrial machine, and a whole lot of waste, but I don't see how you resolve it within our system either. But I would rather be safer than sorry.

It all sucks but we live on planet Earth.

Rosebuddy wrote:

The US tortures and invades however it pleases. Currently they're putting children in concentration camps.

Drawing the line at directly annexing territory when the US has effectively ruled the planet for half a century is silly. You don't need to annex a little spot of land when you can get entire countries to order their economic and political systems to your liking.

I love how anti-american Rosebuddy is every day on here. I just love it. All that anger, and all he can do is bang it out on his keyboard. In the US Politics thread no less. Hates it but can't stay away. So hopeless.

LOVE IT.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The informal US empire is always better than the chaos a hegemonic transition brings. Especially as the US at least tries to pretend human rights and international law are important while the other contenders view it as an entirely optional Western construct.

Nah. We did better without being in continuous wars.

We've never not been in continuous wars. The only thing that has changed has been the intensity level and public exposure of the wars. You're longing for a past that never existed.

Our withdrawal from foreign involvement will only hurt us. The world is only so big, it is a defined pie of resources and if acquiesce to a smaller slice of the pie then somebody else's slice gets bigger.

Neither us nor Russia seem to really want to make a go of more casual relations. Putin's not trying to take over the world, he's just trying to rebuild the Soviet Union. The thing is, for Russian growth either in foreign influence, resources, or economics that generally comes at a cost to American or Western interests. Pretty much, because of how we postured after WW2, Russian interests are direct threats to US hegemonic interests. Revamping that dynamic means someone's economy is taking a blow somewhere, and neither of us are willing to take that blow just so we can all get along.

China's foreign policy is a lot more subtle than Russia's. Russia generally directly competes with US interests in markets we're heavily invested in. They're done this since WW2. They need oil so Russia supported the communist party in Iran and convinced them socializing their oil industry that's owned by US and British companies is a good idea. China focuses on emerging markets Rare earth metals in Africa, uranium in Afghanistan, etc,  and oil is likely the driving force behind their South-China sea expansion. Which is why we're getting concerned. China has another trick up their sleeve in that they heavily tied their economy to ours. Aside from their heavy investment in our government, where they hold an insane amount of bonds (That's all the "OH EM GEEEEE, CHINA OWNS OUR DEBT!" gak you see the Republicans flip out about. It's not like they can cash it in when they want or anything), they're also our largest trading partner. It doesn't behoove them to directly compete against the US the same way Russia does. However, being so closely tied to China economically makes it imperative that we gain and hold any leverage we can to improve our standing in that relationship.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Invades and then leaves, which is something I have yet to see the others do.

After setting up a government that will be obedient to the US. How often does Russia and China bomb and invade countries all over the planet, anyway?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yes in a lot of ways the US has and is doing some bad things, but given a choice between the three, its clear which one is best once alligned with them.

It is only clear to someone who is already aligned with the US and prepared to overlook the atrocities it commits.

China: India, Korea, and Vietnam. Its currently building bases that claim all the waters off Vietnam, Korea, the Phillipines, and a host of other Asian nations. Mongolia, and conflicts with the USSR.
Indirect: Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam.

Russia: here's a list: Hungary, Czechloslavakia, Poland, Ossetia, Ukraine, Afghanistan. These are direct action.
Special forces: El Salvador, Cuba, Angola, Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc. etc.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Not surprising, really. As the US irresponsibly vacates its various positions on the world stage, other countries will move in. John Oliver did a good bit on China this week that ended with a commentary that China is ready and able to fill in for the US, and that we probably shouldn't be so eager to give them that chance.

John Oliver can screw himself. There is nothing more that I can't stand is someone from another country coming to our country and dictating how screwed up our society is while making millions of dollars in the process. Sort out the UK's problems first and then I'll appreciate what you have to say. Same with Trevor Noah. Trevor criticizes the South African elite for leaving South Africa to all its problems while doing the exact same thing. What a clown.

So, do you have any actual argument against John Oliver? Otherwise what you're claiming is similar to "you're not a doctor, you can't tell me you're hurt" when you clearly are spewing blood from a missing arm.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The informal US empire is always better than the chaos a hegemonic transition brings. Especially as the US at least tries to pretend human rights and international law are important while the other contenders view it as an entirely optional Western construct.

Nah. We did better without being in continuous wars.

We've never not been in continuous wars.

Since 1991 we have been in conflict with someone, somewhere. There has never been a period in my kid's life where we weren't fighting somewhere. Thats insane.

Iraq,
Somalia,
Serbia,
Iraq II
Afghanistan
Iraq III.

special forces from here to Antarctica.

So, news coming from the detention centers is getting worse and worse from physical abuse to kids being force fed drugs

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The informal US empire is always better than the chaos a hegemonic transition brings. Especially as the US at least tries to pretend human rights and international law are important while the other contenders view it as an entirely optional Western construct.

Nah. We did better without being in continuous wars.

We've never not been in continuous wars.

Since 1991 we have been in conflict with someone, somewhere. There has never been a period in my kid's life where we weren't fighting somewhere. Thats insane.

Iraq,
Somalia,
Serbia,
Iraq II
Afghanistan
Iraq III.

special forces from here to Antarctica.

It goes back farther than 1991. You're omitting Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Columbia, Libya, El Salvador, Lebanon, Bolivia and the Philippines just from the 1980s plus the Cold War. Again, you're yearning for some nonexistent past when the US wasn't actively conducting military operations on foreign soil that never existed.

Even more reason to stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:
So, news coming from the detention centers is getting worse and worse from physical abuse to kids being force fed drugs

Whats cool is how none of this appeared during the Obama administration...

 Frazzled wrote:
Even more reason to stop.

We do it because there are valid reasons to do it because it benefits our country. You seem to want to dismiss all of that in favor of believing that the only reason we got involved in Somalia, the Balkans, Grenada, etc. is to make wealthy Americans wealthier.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Invades and then leaves, which is something I have yet to see the others do.

After setting up a government that will be obedient to the US. How often does Russia and China bomb and invade countries all over the planet, anyway?

Just because they don't have said capability now doesn't mean they never will. If the US retreats from East Asia, rest assured that Taiwan will provide a sufficient example. Still having a government set up still beats what happened to Tibet, Ukraine or Xinjiang. Enjoy your life as a third rate citizen under the ironclad boot of the state. You think Gitmo is bad, its believed that as many as a million Uyghurs are in Chinese conce... uhum 're-education' camps.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yes in a lot of ways the US has and is doing some bad things, but given a choice between the three, its clear which one is best once alligned with them.

It is only clear to someone who is already aligned with the US and prepared to overlook the atrocities it commits.

Well do you think China is going to be more benevolent towards its enemies. Or are you going to overlook their atrocities because they aren't the US? The US might be bad to its enemies, but there is absolutely zero reason to assume China will be any different. Its simply naive to believe they will be any better.