Has the world been a better place with the US being the "world police" and dominant superpower since the fall of USSR, or has it made the world worse off? Is there another country that could've done better? What benefits does having a powerful United States give us that is constantly involved in foreign conflicts and do the positives outweigh the negatives? tl;dr should USA been isolationist?
>>17414319Since 1991 and even more prominenly after the lunch of the GWOT and War on Drugs, there are more terrorist attacks per year and more terrorist group operating today than at the height of the Cold War.More drugs are trafficked around the world and the accompanying violence has escalated.The world would be more stable under Soviet hegemony since Russians actually understand spheres of influence.America should be isolationist instead of butting it's head where it doesn't belong.
>>17414319should have gone full hog in the 50's and claimed an atomic world empire, too many half-measures, "world police" has got u.s nothing, should have been World Conquering from the start
>>17414330Do you really think the world would have been better off under Soviet control?
>>17414319No. We have been cucked long enough. We are going to take back the canal, Canada, and get Greenland. China has been taking over the world one by one. Why is it bad when America does it? We lost respect with Biden. Underneath Trump the world feared and respected Americans.
I'm curious if there are any arguments that support what the US has been doing so far. Can anyone say why we're better off with the US being the only superpower?
>>17414342There is no way the USSR controls the world
US hegemony is preferable to any realistic alternative
>>17414510Some countries are better off, and other are not. There are winners and losers in either scenario. Really agnostic on this issue.>>17414334>should have been World Conquering from the startEvery puppet government the US propped up eventually failed, and it came at too high a cost so the US basically stopped its overseas interventions. As for outright colonialism, that wasn't an option given the Republican nature of the US, and the rise of Nationalism as the dominant ideology in the 20th century, In other words, the US wasn't the type of country to be a colonial empire, and even if it tried, it would come at a disastrously high cost.
>>17414319as aggressive and intrusive US can be i rather that someone will force democracy on me than a dictatorship
>>17414544List all the realistic alternatives and how the world would be worse off in these cases. The key word here is "realistic"
>>17414552Iraq could've taken over Saudi Arabia in '91. At that time he had a larger military than the US, that nobody knew was such a paper tiger, and could've easily bullied every country in the Middle East. He would control the price of oil in that region and was already complaining that the price was too low (one of his excuses for invading Kuwait). Since every nation in the world depends on oil to survive, this could have created a new superpower.
>>17414552You want to suck Tyrone off don't you, Hans? You like it when your wife is impregnated with nigger babies as Chang takes over your country with socialism as you cannot afford food.
>>17414651.... bump?
>>17414544CP victory.
>>17414342The USSR couldn't even tard wrangle thirdies they absorbed into their communist empire. They literally failed at 19th century style colonialism with 20th century tech.
America is always saying “God bless America” yet it’s one of the worst countries to live in that have money. I don’t think God likes them at all.
we've already seen what Russian occupation of one's country brings. it's nothing anyone ever needs to recreate.
>>17414881Compared to name an African country? I'd argue that even the most impoverished American is doing far better than the average person in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Chad, etc.
>>17414958>the bar has to be lowered to African shitholes in order for America to look good
Globally? Maybe, i could see an argument for it. But for America itself it has done no favors, in fact it probably contributed to its decline
>>17414319>le ebil CIA is behind everything. Nobody has any agency. Its all le CIA>everyone knows le true right wants gay interracial couples to defend their marajuana greenhouses with guns those other guys are le feds.Reddit is down the hall and to the left buddy.
>>17414963Chinese then? Care to compare poverty and quality of life? Or we can asks the slaves in Qatar. Can you name a non-western nation with more prosperous citizens, and would any of these nations be inclined to empire and hegemony like the United States currently is?
>>17414985>everyone knows le true right wants gay interracial couples to defend their marajuana greenhouses with guns those other guys are le feds.Meds, now.
>>17414990>Can you name a non-western nation with more prosperous citizensJapan. No niggers, no crime, everything is clean...want me to continue?>and would any of these nations be inclined to empire and hegemony like the United States currently is?Empire isn't a good thing you retarded shitskin Mutt. All empires do is invite foreigners into white countries. There has never been an empire that benefitted Whites, EVER.
>>17415009>Japan.>non-western>no will to empire and hegemony>Empire isn't a good thing you retarded shitskin Mutt.Well based on your choice of words, let me make a comparison I'm sure you'll understand: Germany.Would Germany be filled with 'foreigners' if Hitler won and created an empire out of Europe - especially comparing today where Germany is NOT an empire and we see the results?
>>17414319>look up bludstamm and other contemporary right wing extremists>all they do is march on the sidewalk screeching about Hitler and tranniesWhy are right wing extremists so fucking useless?
>>17414958>that have moneyDid you not read that part?>>17414990China was just recently lifted from poverty, give them some time to recover.>>17415009>JapanThey are severely overworked.
>>17415034Working is a good thing. Maybe if you had a real economy and not just a bunch of Uber drivers with a degree in tranny therapy, you would actually be able to pay for your infrastructure.
>>17415042Japan is the country with the largest national debt-to-GDP ratio.
>>17414626Okay, how is that worse then the US being the hegemon?
>>17414651Hot, but how is this related to this thread?
>>17414881And Europe is an Islamic nation
>>17414319The alternative to hegemony is fucking world war. :|
>>17414319Who do you think would be better?Imperial Japan?China?The USSR?The fucking British Empire?
>>17415208Having a powerful, unified Middle Eastern hegemony under the control of a military dictator who controls global oil prices with nuclear ambitions and historical use of chemical weapons against civilian population centers?
>>17415258That's what I'm asking. If someone has to be the hegemony today, and it isn't the US, who would do a better job?
>>17415258British Hegemony would be great. They did a great job building civilization wherever they went. I see no reason to think they would be terrible. You’re just a pajeet aren’t you?
>>17415275Russia.
>>17415258China is the only country I trust. When gringos destroyed my country, China repaired
>>17414319US is the best superpower in history.Assblasted Yuropoors and Chinamen will seethe but we already know what it looks like when they’re calling the shots.
>>17415258>The fucking British Empire?The British were 1000000000x more benevolent than the United States.
>>17414881America’s god is Mammon.
>>17415295?
>>17415358But were they better than the US when the UK hegemony existed?
>>17414547> that wasn't an option given the Republican nature of the USThis is a lazy answerA) France is one of the most enthusiastically colonialist countries ever, especially under the Third Republic.B) The USA colonised the majority of its current day territoryC) The USA already colonised many overseas territories, some of which are still basically American colonies
>>17414330>than at the height of the Cold War.The height of the Cold War was so long ago that it simply lived under completely different material conditions. and major advancements from the industrial revolution hadn't started to create obvious side effects and wouldn't until a bit later.
>>17415044Denbt is a problem, but GDP is a meme. It doesn't actually exist.
>>17415358>The br-MFFF MFFFF I LOVE MOHAMMADS VEINY GIRTHY ARAB COCK MFFF MFF I LOVE TASTING HIS SANDNIGGER CUM
>>17414881America is awesome to live in. If it sucks it’s because you’re poor, brown and probably addicted to drugs. Ideal life easy mode is being born a middle class or higher American. Only country that can really compete at that league of comfy easy mode is Switzerland.
>>17415380mental illness
>>17415358What did the US even do that was so bad?>The nukesDeserved>The InjunsBritain did that too, it’s called Canada>SlaverySame again>Glownigger psyops and interventions in other countries of dubious justificationVirtually invented by Britain
>>17415278>>17415358More like 1000000000x more incompetent.Besides, it would literally be the exact same shit people sperg out about concerning the USA. Lets say the British Empire is instantly reformed (all colonies including the USA) with total loyalty to the crown. How would bongs ruling differ in any meaningful and positive manner from Americans ruling?
>>17415403bombed yugoslaviaruined middle east - lybia, iraq, syria
>>17415416Nigga what? You know British saars did those things too, right? Literally every single one of them?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#21st_century
>>17415416> bombed yugoslaviaBomber Harris> ruined middle east - lybia, iraq, syriaSeriously, nigger? Pic related.Plus who INVENTED Israel?
>>17415403>nukes>DeservedNo argument here.>>The Injuns>Britain did that too, it’s called CanadaAnd yet there's more injuns in Canada than the US. Also the British government respected the proclamation line even if American settlers didn't.>>Slavery>Same againBritain threw away ships and resources battling slavers in the Atlantic for absolutely no personal gain. The United States held onto slavery longer than most Latin Americans. Imagine being more barbaric than a fucking mexican.>>Glownigger psyops and interventions in other countries of dubious justificationYes this is bad and the fact that you were this specific about it shows that you know it's uniquely terrible.
>America bad!>*Licks black cock*>Ruined Middle East!>Watches wife give birth to sandniggers
>17415440Obsessed
>>17415432> And yet there's more injuns in Canada than the US. There are almost 10 million injuns in the US, that’s 10x more than in Canada.>proclamation lineIgnore the fact that they lost the entirety of relevant territory a few years later and afterwards proceeded to pursue their own version of Manifest Destiny all the way to the Pacific.> Britain threw away ships and resources battling slavers in the Atlantic for absolutely no personal gain.A few short decades before the US also abolished slavery but after both of them had been practicing it for hundreds of years. Not seeing the massive moral high ground here.> Yes this is bad and the fact that you were this specific about it shows that you know it's uniquely terrible.It’s really not unique at all, Britain was an old hand at this shit before the CIA even existed. Belgium and Greece were basically the original colour revolutions, Britain spent the 19th century constantly intervening in random wars and countries from the Crimea to Transvaal to Afghanistan, and bullshit jingoistic lying press hyping up all of this is a 100% British invention bequeathed to to the USA.
>>17415414>creates the greatest empire in the history of mankind. >they were incompetent You’re being contradictory. You don’t become a hegemon by being incompetent for most of your history. Incompetence is why Spain, Russia, and Germany never became world hegemonies.
>>17414330>Russians actually understand spheres of influence.In that their sphere is ever increasing, sure. In case you forgot, they were having literal proxy conflicts against CHINA in AFRICA
>>17415467> >creates the greatest empire in the history of mankind.But that’s the USA
>>17414626>Since every nation in the world depends on oil to surviveWas this already that widespread back then? There were more nuclear plants and stuff>cars and shitIsn't that big of a deal outside the US, there's trains and electric trams, lithium battery tech would've rushed due pressure too
>>17415270>historical use of chemical weapons against civilian population centers?nvm you're full of shit lol
>>17415483> Isn't that big of a deal outside the US, there's trains and electric tramsThere is nothing more myopic than the kind of urban yuropoor that thinks the entire world is like whatever city he lives in and never asks himself where anything comes from. Passenger vehicles aren’t even close to being the main consumer of fuel anyway.
>>17415504learn to read carbrain
>>17415504>mutt cant read
>>17415506>>17415512The assumption that the price of oil is only relevant to “cars and shit” is the most retarded thing about that post
>>17415515learn to read, retarded carbrain
>>17415515i don't have school shootings in my country :)
>>17415520Okay the price of oil doesn’t matter outside America because electric trains and trams will transport goods and people everywhere for all purposes. Should work as long as you don’t need to cross overseas, fly or do basically anything besides commute a person to a relatively nearby location. You’re so smart.
>>17415523lolnogunz
>>17415485>yes Alex I'll take what was the Iraq-Iran war for $500 please
>>17415475Not even close.
>>17415537But Britain is the USA’s gimp slave pet. Clearly they are superior to them at least.
>>17415542There was the time when the Ottoman Empire made the Roman Empire its gimp slave. But no serious person will claim the Ottoman Empire was greater than the Roman Empire.
>>17415548There’s a very credible argument to be made that the Ottoman Empire was superior to the Byzantine Empire, or possibly even a direct continuation of it that represents the apex of its history. The Byzantines were a shitshow.Plus the Ottomans conquered Constantinople almost 1000 years after the Byzantines arguably peaked, the USA permacucked Britain about 20 years after they peaked.
>>17415278British wealth extracted their colonies into the dirt and basically made little ethnic enclaves of British people and collaboraters while 98% of the population ate mud.Even Australia was basically treated like a backwater shithole, which was ruled over by tyrannical dictator governors who paid everyone in rum and Australian's were treated as mostly disposable cannon fodder. Which the British abandoned the second push came to shove with Japan.UK set up good institutions in Australia, but Australia thrived in the end in spite of Britian. The same with New Zealand.
>>17415526OK so I ate a really good korean bulgogi with steamed bread and I'm less violent now.This post is 90% of the gist of the point I wanted to make, including sarcasm. Public transportation at the very least will be affected much less in countries that invest(ed) in trains, trams, and similar transport relying on electricity. I specifically typed "outside the US" because I'm well aware the US is heavily reliant on cars, trucks, airplanes, and similar logistics, unlike Europe, East Asia (belongs to this category, although they're not so integrated, so it's a coin toss if they connect tracks between countries). Africa and South America have bigger issues.Overseas transit will be affected for sure. Yet, I'm not denying that. I was addressing in-region transport.I don't consider what will happen beyond the 6 months - 1 year mark, because there's too much variables in play, other than lithium battery technology being improved (not developed, it already existed in the 90s) much earlier and maybe to better standards than current day.
>>17415609Anon this is my point. Passenger cars and related technologies like motorbikes are a minute fraction of oil consumption, that’s just the main reason the average person personally buys gas. However everyday everyone in the world is reliant on oil-based golds and supply chains that depend on oil based fuel.Yes, people who live in cities or need to travel to other cities can use electric trains and trams as alternative infrastructure. You could even harness alternative sources of power for heat and electricity. However there’s still the vast networks of logistics that need to use trucks, ships and planes. Theres still military dependence on oil based fuel. There’s still the trillion dollar petrochemicals industry. There’s still all the people that live outside cities. So yes, if one single country could control the global oil market at whim this would raise a few eyebrows for more than just Americans and car drivers. In fact being that country is one of the central goals of American foreign policy.
>>17415430>bomber harrisYou don’t even have the point to that. The bombing of Yugoslavia was a NATO operation. RAF pilots dropped bombs on Yugoslavia in 1999.
>>17415548>There was the time when the Ottoman Empire made the Roman Empire its gimp slaveThe Byzantine Empire was an entirely different entity from Rome and you know you're lying. And yes, the Ottoman empire was superior to the shitty Byzantines.
>>17415918We know, that's why you have a higher homicide rate that Russia and a lower life expectancy than China lol
>>17416533>higher homicide rate than RussiaNot truehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate>lower life expectancy than China Also not truehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
>>17416533just come on here and lie about basic ass stats, even those regimes own numbers dont agree.
>>17416135No, The ERE, was the senior half of the empire, you have to be historically illiterate to think Rome ended when the western junior half ended.
>>17416675There was no senior half of the empire, they were two separate governments. It’s not like Constantinople was the real capital and the west was just a devolved subordinate province. The East was just the less cartoonishly corrupt and incompetent half. You can say the Byzantines had continuity with Rome, as an extremely mutated vestigial rump state like super Taiwan. But even then the Byzantines the Ottomans conquered were not even that original rump state, the crusaders destroyed that, the one they conquered was a reconstruction.
>>17415032>all they do is march on the sidewalk screeching about Hitler and trannies>Why are right wing extremists so fucking useless?This is a pretty good book if you want to understand extremist groups. There are groups that form to accomplish a particular goal and is more or less in touch with reality, and then there are groups that are focused on reacting to some collective fantasy that arises from the unconscious needs, desires and collective anxieties of the group (you can tell this was written in the 1950s when psychotherapy was getting big). The author, Bion, actually believed the dynamics of the latter also occurs among "normal" groups all the time, like fans of a movie, game, T.V. show or whatever. But the main takeaway is there are several different types of these so-called "basic assumption groups" and their pathologies tend to get in the way of accomplishing anything.One of these is the "fight/flight group." I think this is very common with right-wing groups. This kind of group behaves as if it must preserve itself at all costs, and that can only be done by running away from someone or fighting someone or something. The leader for this sort of group is one who can mobilize the group for attack, or lead it in flight. So for right-wing extremist groups, that can take the form of organizing the group to flee the cities for rural Idaho or somewhere. But I think marching down the sidewalk and screeching in a group, and acting aggressively like that toward their surroundings, is mostly important for the members themselves -- it fills some kind of need for them -- rather than doing anything productive or achieving anything.
>>17414985>everyone knows le true right wants gay interracial couples to defend their marajuana greenhouses with guns those other guys are le feds.this but unironically
>>17415373>France is one of the most enthusiastically colonialist countries ever, especially under the Third Republic.I answered that part, and looks you answered yourself as well. Even if the US was the colonial type like France, it would've paid an extremely high cost, and failed, the same way France did. You're basically replying to yourself and proving my point>US colonized most of its territoryThat's called being a settler colonial state, not a Colonial Empire. Two very different things>The USA already colonised many overseas territories, some of which are still basically American coloniesTiny pieces of land, nothing where they couldn't subdue the couple thousand island dwellers there. They, however, couldn't hold in to the Philippines, wonder why
>>17418083The USA would have been invaded by Germany, capitulated and then forced to try and rebuild itself post war while clinging on to its colonial empire? Plus France wasn’t even militarily defeated in Algeria anyway, it was political.> That's called being a settler colonial state, not a Colonial Empire.The only difference is the willingness and facilitation of people to move to the colonies and their chance of success at becoming a majority. Hence why basically every colonial empire engaged in a lot of settler colonialism. > They, however, couldn't hold in to the PhilippinesThe US position at the time was actively pro-Filipino independence. If they wanted to keep it by force they easily could have, as the Japanese in WW2 and the Filipino rebels 40 years earlier found out. They may not even have had to. Hell, the modern day Philippines would probably jump at the chance to join the USA as a state if it was offered to them.You seem to think nationalist rebellions are just some predetermined irresistible fate. The existence of the USA, the Russian Federation, Brazil, Israel and China says otherwise. In reality nationalism needs distressing circumstances to be attractive, and even if they’re there separatism can still be easily crushed. The European colonial empires on the other hand were either buckbroken by WW2 and WW1 back to back, had massive external pressure from the USA and the USSR simultaneously to withdraw, or both.
>>17418191>Plus France wasn’t even militarily defeated in Algeria anyway, it was political.Exactly, the cost of maintaining a Colonial Empire was too high, so they gave it up, despite trying as hard as possible to keep it.>The only difference is the willingness and facilitation of people to move to the colonies and their chance of success at becoming a majority. Hence why basically every colonial empire engaged in a lot of settler colonialism.That's not remotely true. The Natives in North America were replaced by settlers. The same wasn't done by the British in India for obvious reasons. The only settler colonial societies were in the New World, not the old. It was both impractical and undesirable for Brits to set up English colonies in Hong Kong, or Bengal. And when a Colonial Empire tried to become settler (France) it failed.>The US position at the time was actively pro-Filipino independence. At what time? The Spanish American war? >If they wanted to keep it by force they easily could have, as the Japanese in WW2 and the Filipino rebels 40 years earlier found out. Even if they could militarily maintain it, the cost would be too high to "politically" maintain. >You seem to think nationalist rebellions are just some predetermined irresistible fate. Not at all, it's just that Colonial Empires rely on the acquiescence and acceptance of the conquered people to survive. The rise of Nationalism made every subjected people hostile and rebellious. The only country coming close to colonial empire in the modern world is Israel. And it maintains its occupation at a prohibitively high cost. Dealing with constant rebellions and military conflicts isn't "politically" feasible, so they give up.
>>17419216If they tried as hard as possible to keep it they wouldn’t have gave it up. Portugal, a much poorer shittier country actually did try as hard as possible to keep their colonial empire, and their ultimate downfall wasn’t colonial nationalists. Dealing with those was easy, it was subversive elements at home.> The same wasn't done by the British in India for obvious reasons.The Natives in North America weren’t replaced by Settlers, the natives are still there. They’re just so few they were easily outnumbered by settlers. The British raj on the other hand had hundreds of millions of Indians compared to 160,000~ European settlers.> At what time? The Spanish American war?Clearly not given when that war was over the Americans immediately turned their arms against Filipino nationalists and won easily. I’m talking about after WW2. You seem to be trying to frame Filipino independence as some kind of anti-US liberation struggle rather than the official post-war US policy. They also maintained all economic rights in the Philippines anyway.> Even if they could militarily maintain it, the cost would be too high to "politically" maintain.Why? For over a hundred years colonialism was extremely politically popular, decolonisation is basically just a communist psyop that’s extremely destructive to the natives in most cases.> The rise of Nationalism made every subjected people hostile and rebelliousNationalism is a fad that passed. Economically prosperous and socially liberal countries don’t typically have rebellions. For most of colonial history the natives were for the most part collaborators in these projects rather than victims or opponents of it. Even today we see that millions of former colonised people would rather live in their former colonial power than in their newly independent country, because it’s a shithole.
>>17414985>the state should have the right to throw you in jail for some grassSo much for le small government.
