You Aren't Going to Like What Comes After America
nytimes.comConsidering I'm not that fond of what currently is, I'm ok with checking what comes next.
Things can always be worse. The power vacuum left by the United States will be gigantic and the jockeying to fill it is likely to mean costly rearmament worldwide (already happening) and wars.
I doubt anyone cheering on the notion is going to enjoy that process or survive long enough before old age claims them to see the other side.
Always fun to say, always dangerous to live through the actual repercussions of what may "come after" - though this article wasn't really talking about a post-America.
As "bad" as America is (and it's not at all, the hyperbole is anti-intellectual) you aren't guaranteed better future circumstances and history shows that it is much more difficult and time consuming to rebuild institutions, whether that's international law backed by the United States, or the FDA or Department of Education that MAGA want to dismantle, and doing so is a very dangerous gambit without a clear replacement structure.
In fact, I'd argue that the increase in war we've seen over the last 6 years is precisely because of a decline in US relative power and control. Do you want more of that? Because that's what being OK with checking what next seems to imply today.
Additionally problem nations, whether that is Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, or others don't just like go away or become peaceful democracy-loving countries where, but, if only the US were to go away everyone would be happy. In the "what's next" you are looking at an American withdrawal from NATO and subsequent further aggression by Russia, Iran further dismantling and destroying the Middle East's stability and proceeding to build nuclear weapons, China invading Taiwan with impunity and pushing Japan and South Korea closer to an authoritarian communist led order, and you have countries such as Cuba or Venezuela where economies are in ruins, mass migration throughout Latin America occurs along with increases in violence and other destabilizing factors.
None of that excuses American behavior toward Canada recently, but burning everything down because Trump mean tweet seems like an outrageously bad idea. On the other hand, it'll save us quite a lot of money in the short term.
Cuba entering the short list of problem nations is certainly the effect of US propaganda efforts to shift the hyperbole window
Generally agree with your propositions and I suspect non-Americans would put America on that list before Cuba
I used to believe that too but with more revelations coming out about partnerships with Russia and China, work to support and prop up Venezuela’s dictatorship and the negative effects caused by that (mass migration, economic catastrophe, &c.) I’ve changed my tune quite a bit.
> I suspect non-Americans would put America on that list before Cuba
Yes perhaps. That goes to show how effective anti-western and anti-democracy propaganda is. Most people around the world no very little of Cuba and just think it’s like this little harmless nation that just wants to be peaceful and whatever and that’s true of the population but not true of the authoritarian, communist government that seized power.
I think the reason people most cite for putting America on the list with Russia is that we started a war that affects the entire world. America is destroying boats in the western hemisphere with missiles instead of interdicting and following international law. The list goes on...
There are other places that ought be on that list before Cuba, like Yemen, where missiles are actually flying from and disrupting a second straight. It is also likely you are overestimating the support from Russia and China. Russia has been unable to support its allies anywhere near where they promised or we perceived. China doesn't find Cuba of strategic importance, Iran is a far more effective avenue for them against America. Recent secondary sanctions have cut off many of the non-adversarial countries that were doing business in Cuba.
When I mentioned Iran in my mind I was including all of their terrorist proxies (Hamas/Palestine, Hezbollah, Yemen, &c.). I didn't intend to rank order here. I should have been more clear - my fault.
> America is destroying boats in the western hemisphere with missiles instead of interdicting and following international law. The list goes on...
Yea but that's a misunderstanding on the part of those who look at these activities and then think they know what's going on.
> It is also likely you are overestimating the support from Russia and China.
Well now that the US is becoming much more assertive we've been able to diminish that support and show, as you can I think see as well, how ineffective both Russian and Chinese support for 3rd party countries is. That includes not just Venezuela but Iran as well. The point though is less so to do with the specific level of support, and more of the general anti-democratic alignment that these nations find themselves supporting.
I find it hard to debate when you cannot acknowledge our own (american) propaganda and the effect it has on our people. Watching international news will show you things you cannot find from domestic sources. France24 is my primary. Another thing you will see is far more decorum in reporting.
I acknowledge it but too often it's the primary topic and I think it's of less importance. What are the facts and what policies and such are we pursuing? That's what is important. What are your biases? What international news are you watching that is feeding you misinformation about the current state of the world? This goes both ways.
I'm not sure specifically what you wanted to debate though, but I'd be happy to do so. France24 is fine but you have to remember that international news is also extremely subject to certain biases and propaganda effects despite the marketing around transparency. I watch international news, and read and speak very basic French and have traveled throughout the world so I'm well acquainted with such topics.
I'm admittedly a little disappointed that when you found someone seemingly disagreeing with you that you immediately turned to suggesting that I need to acknowledge some unknown propaganda effect and that such an effect colors my worldview or understanding of various topics to such a degree that I must not know what I'm talking about or whatever.
> some unknown propaganda effect
The number of Americans that believe the 2020 elections were stolen is one place where we can see effect (I make no assumptions about your position on this topic)
I'm not following your point here. Americans are subject to propaganda? Yes so are every other country and people on the planet.
And no, the election wasn't stolen.
> that's a misunderstanding on the part of those who look at these activities and then think they know what's going on
So, bombing civilian boats rather than intercepting them, then bombing the survivors, is not what it looks it is. Would you like to explain what it is?
Sure. Drug and human traffickers don't operate military boats?
If another country wants to use its navy and sail to South America and spend money intercepting these folks to stop criminal behavior, that would be great. Less of my tax dollars being used. Otherwise it seems to me we can take care of the problem ourselves as we see fit. No different than drone strikes under the Obama administration. Some of course see an issue with both, but I don't.
> human traffickers
Wait, I might be a bit out of the loop here, but are you saying that "double tapping" boats loaded with victims of human trafficking is "stopping criminal behavior"?
Yes you’re out of the loop. No, that’s not what is being said. Hope that helps.
Would you care to share any source indicating that any of these civilian boats that were destroyed, were carrying human traffickers (but, apparently, not any trafficked victims)?
You can traffic drugs on your boat and people on land. Who would have thought?
Why are you over-indexing on whether the US allegedly killed people being trafficked? Why would that thought even come to your mind? Can you share a news article or something?
And no, I did not claim that people were being smuggled on boats.
But if you don’t like how the US is handling it please let us know your proposed solution and which non-US countries will interdict these boats and stop their activities (and of course on land too).
You answered this:
> So, bombing civilian boats rather than intercepting them, then bombing the survivors, is not what it looks it is. Would you like to explain what it is?
With
> Sure. Drug and human traffickers don't operate military boats?
So you brought the "human traffickers" claim into the discussion. That's why I'm asking.
You can be a drug and human trafficker and operate your boat when trafficking drugs and your van when trafficking people.
Or you can have your drug traffickers under your command operate your boat while you the drug and human trafficker hand off the drugs and drive the people around.
You’re looking for a gotcha but it’s just a waste of time here.
Anyway what’s your plan for other nations to solve this problem? Who will be interdicting these civilian boats used for drug smuggling? If they are using the boats for human trafficking how will you approach the situation? What if they threaten to kill the hostages? Will the EU navy be taking care of this problem at their expense?
> anti-democracy propaganda
As in when the president (who was elected) claims widespread election fraud without any evidence?
Sure, I think he should be in jail for January 6th and his claims about election fraud are stupid and incorrect. (Anti-democracy propaganda)
But the full quote from me included anti-western propaganda. I am not that interested in whatever Donald Trump says in the context of this conversation because it's just an attempt at distracting the conversation around the actions taking place outside of the US, whether that's Russian or Chinese election interference, or other various propaganda tools that are utilized in America, or the western world more broadly.
Well, it sometimes happens that neighborhoods go down hill. If Canada felt like moving, I think it would get on well in Europe if we can find room for it.