Note that this is from a country that wouldn't exist if not for the allied countries and that the US has somehow managed to all but erase that reputation. We recognize our debt, we also recognize that this is to a country that no longer exists in a meaningful way. All we have now is multiple variations of the mob.
The way you pay off that debt is not to the original liberator now turned oppressor, but by extending similar help to countries that are now in a similar bind as we were then. Like Ukraine. I really think we are morally obligated to liberate and help Ukraine.
Our debt to the US has long been paid off. It was paid off when we submitted to their economic world order, when we bought their goods and their entertainment, when we bought their software and let our own software industry dwindle, and finally when we went to war on their side on their questionable military adventures.
We owe the US nothing. I will still help them when they actually want it, but not like this.
> Our debt to the US has long been paid off. It was paid off when we submitted to their economic world order, when we bought their goods and their entertainment, when we bought their software and let our own software industry dwindle, and finally when we went to war on their side on their questionable military adventures.
Yeah the US we knew is gone. I think about this sometimes when I am listening to American music from the 20th century, how much soft power they had, how great they made America sound either directly or indirectly. That America that we all looked up to and admired is gone. Pity.
I am the guy who participated in Green Card lottery for few years willing to work in most advanced planet‘s semiconductor companies. I changed my mind recently. Speedboat ambushes, Greenland, public executions by ICE „officers“ and now Iran war. US I knew is definitely gone. That’s not the country sharing culture and values peacefully anymore: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika-Haus_(M%C3%BCnchen)
To be fair, the US has never been peaceful, and it's the country that started the most wars since WW2. It's just that it used to be in our team, and human nature makes the aggressiveness of our team justified, or at least understandable, or at least ignorable, or at least not quite changing our deep feelings.
And, at least regarding the more recent ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, Europe witnessed the largest anti-war protests in history.
From that perspective, the current "emperor is naked" development might be positive in the sense that Europe can relatively soon have enough military power to be taken seriously, and at the same time become impossible to drag into an offensive war because none of its countries wants any war and we only went there because US pressured us into - but now that the USA has became unreliable, there's no reason to sacrifice oneself.
The US was historically self-interested in empire building, with an excellent PR campaign in front of it, but... it also did useful and good stuff, both for its allies and for unrelated parties. USAID was a testament to this.
PR spin aside, it was largely a force for global stability (a few notable and disastrous military quagmires aside). "Free trade" isn't much of a philosophy to hang your hat on but it is an ideal of sorts, and it allowed a more connected world.
Now? Brazen corruption, kleptocracy, hostility towards allies...
It's certainly fair to say the US never lived up to the ideals it espoused, but now it's not even espousing those ideals and seems to actively be working against them.
That’s a different topic. This is about how America acts towards the world, historically the so-called second and third world but now apparently to potentially everyone.
They're related, though. Most other hegemons sought absolute domination and a weakening (and impoverishment) of everyone else. The US was generally confident in its security and prosperity that it allowed others to become prosperous, too.
Yes this is I think the key thing... the "rising tide raises all boats" strategy. The deal was, if you play by the US rules and let their corporations in, they'll leave you alone or even give you back something useful in return.
Now the rug pull... you've been operating this way for the last 50 years, and suddenly the US is out to extract as much from you as possible no matter how close an ally you are or how friendly to their corporations you are.
I'm tired of the both-sidesing that I see on places like HN to justify the current administration's actions. The US historically didn't shake every country down (even allies!) under the implicit threat of its military might, because global stability and prosperity was good for US business interests.
It did try to overturn unfriendly regimes but it was far less brazen and reckless about this, operating over longer timelines, and the instability caused by those disastrous interventions seemed like it was a lesson learned (but now has clearly been forgotten).
South Korea and Taiwan were definitely not first world countries when they started. Not even inhabited by white people (so less likely to be favored by 60s America, for example).
The Persian Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE).
Israel also wasn't developed in 1947.
Let's not ignore facts when they're inconvenient.
In the Western Hemisphere the US track record has been a total mess but in the Eastern Hemisphere I'd say about 30% of the time US allies tripped on their own feet on the way to prosperity.
Your whole side topic here is an exercise in ignoring the inconvenient facts of murder and destruction in favor of some supposedly rosy alliance narrative.
Yeah I remember elementary school too. Where people don't care if one of the kids is an a*hole because "he's nice to me".
There has always been a meddlesome quality to the USA that the rest of the so called developed world turned a blind eye to. Along the lines of 'their bastards, but at least they're our bastards'. Of course that does not make it good, but the balance calculation worked out in favor of toeing the line and being careful not to get pulled out of joint too much. 9/11 changed all that and effectively Bin Laden forced the USA to lower its mask for long enough that the world could no longer ignore the bad sides of Uncle Sam. Even that would have not been enough to seal it, but Trump has managed to accomplish this in record time.
I think that a big part of it is the transparency brought on by the vast communication bandwidth that came online starting after the dot com years. This stuff happened before just the same, but was concealed by media gatekeepers.
Bay of Pigs, regime changes all over including Iran, South Asia wars, Afghanistan (not the recent one, the one in the 80s), all the cold war stuff, etc etc.
It's the two party system. If liberals are okay with 'pro lgbt muslims' and say things like 'gang violence isn't a problem' then people no longer vote for liberals.
Trump doesn't have popular support. Many of his 2024 voters are furious with him.
What Trump has is oligarch support - an unholy alliance of weird and cranky tech billionaires, old(ish) money, foreign money, media owners, and insane white supremacist patriarch-wannabes, some of whom operate through think tanks, some through megachurches.
The media are doing an excellent job of normalising this, not least - but not only - sanewashing Trump's obvious mental and physical decay.
I want to believe this desperately, but from what I see (well, on YouTube videos, surveys and polls) it makes it very hard for me to do so. I still see massive endorsement from the not so well to do in the hinterlands.
I will however grant you that my sampling is no where close to uniform.
As a european I see what you mean, but that 'we all' in your sentence probably hasn't included those from Latin America, and large parts of Africa or Asia since long before Trump. The US pulled quite a few less than admirable tricks (to use an euphemism) on non-europeans during the 20th century.
I wouldn't be that cynical. From the interactions I've had with people from mainland China, particularly those in the educated classes, I can say for certain that it was soft power that drew them towards the West and the US in particular. China already beat back the West in the Korean War.
As an American I feel this way too - there is a nostalgia and disappointed yearning for what was probably a propaganda pipe dream. I find myself disappointed and indignant at the long list of bullshit we are doing right now but I'm surprised by my own extreme sense of betrayal over how we don't even -want- to be "the good guys" anymore. I know the US has a long history of evil, dont get me wrong, but until recently (~covid) I thought most of us at least wanted to be a positive force in the world.
For me, Dan Carlin said it perfectly - I want the America from the promotional material.
> ... but seeing how quick Europe and Canada turned on the US ...
I think they rightfully turned defensive in light of the current administration. Remains to be seen how/if they change when the administration changes.
OK but this is just an argument in favour of forever wars lol. That's realism I guess in the way that Nazi Lebensraum was also realism.
> how quick Europe and Canada turned on the US
It's YOU that turned on YOUR allies. YOU threatened to invade YOUR allies. Jesus fucking Christ. You are living in a different universe entirely. I agree that countries apparently can "turn on a dime" as you say, but it's not us that's "turned on a dime" it's YOU.
Exactly. It's the US that turned against its allies. Those allies are still loyal to each other; they didn't turn on anyone. Look at how many countries immediately sent troops to Greenland. There's no doubt who is the traitor and who is loyal here.
If you want to rule purely through hard power, you become Russia.
The laws of human behavior are certainly less fundamental to the iniverse than the laws of physics, but, since we are humans, they are equally as binding on us.
Human behavior, and human society, have changed tremendously through the ages. It's the fastest sort of "evolution", to stretch that term a bit.
Plus there's nothing natural about widespread global war. It's not like you getting angry at your neighbor over some domestic dispute. Global wars are artificially engineered by guys who want to profit from them. It's not "human nature". Those willing to go to war exploit human nature, sure, but this is done intentionally; and just as intentionally, it could be downplayed or mitigated.
And if it's about egoism and greed, we've learned to reign those in in multiple situations. If we can attempt to go to Mars or whatever, I'm sure we can first try to sort things out on Earth.
Get out of your mindset. It's bad for you.
In Cosmos 2, Neil de Grasse Tyson has a reflection about that saying, "what are you going to do? It's human nature!". I encourage you to find the clip on YouTube and watch it.
Edit: well, I wanted to find the transcript or clip, but I cannot now. The Cosmos sequels are infuriatingly hard to find, and in my country there are no legal ways of watching them anymore (fuck you, Netflix and Disney! I pay you yet you remove stuff I like).
Here's Sagan's last paragraphs from his Pale Blue Dot speech instead:
"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
> How about Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, Canada, Iran and other countries the USA seized / controls or plans to?
Do Americans support this violent annexation and expansion? As a European I'm feeling threatened. Very few countries have Atom Bombs and can say NO to the USA.
Check this thread. Examples aplenty. Fortunately not even close to a majority, but yes, Americans like that exist. Europeans too by the way, but at least we have managed to mostly keep them out of power.
'Until early in 1778, the American Revolution was a civil war within the British Empire, but it became an international war as France (in 1778) and Spain (in 1779) joined the colonies against Britain. The Netherlands, which was engaged in its own war with Britain, provided financial support for the Americans as well as official recognition of their independence. The French navy in particular played a key role in bringing about the British surrender at Yorktown, which effectively ended the war.'
I've seen actual people (mostly this year) who write stuff like, "sure, I can't deny that this is fascism now, but you've been calling lawlessness for the rich, concentration of power in the public and private sectors both, militarization of the police, the war on drugs, free speech zones, surveillance capitalism, voter suppression, pushes to roll back civil rights, and many of our wars, fascist, for decades! It's not my fault I didn't realize it was for-real this time."
They're so close to getting it. So very, frustratingly close.
At least one of them got published somewhere recently, might have been The Atlantic. You just wish you could smack them with a clue-stick.
Men of old age are indeed generally ill-suited for the presidency (as are the young; middle age best balances vigor with prudence and wisdom). The elderly function better as advisors where they may be consulted for their experience, or as amici curiae.
That being said, I don't think we can pin this particular expression of derangement on age, or at least not age alone. Trump has nothing to lose. He cannot run again. He doesn't care one whit about the common good or even tawdry partisan interests. This is his unhinged narcissism at work, abetted by a cultish, smarmy, obsequious coterie of yes-men that surrounds him.
There is no evidence that dozy Donny the paedo president has dementia. It's just that one of his personality traits is "Arbitrary".
I can just imagine him saying, as he walks into the TV room in the Whitehouse, "I went to Glitterhoof's chamber and gave him a good tumble! It is good to be the king!"
> There is no evidence […] Donny […] has dementia.
Oh, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, but nothing that would constitute proof without access to the results of a detailed medical examination. Source: watching the decline of family members, and others in the care home my mother is currently in.
The increasing randomness and apparent lack of concentration, the “resting his eyes” in some meetings, the leaning, etc. A lot of the signs could be other things of course, like just plain ol' age related decline. But if the people close to him don't at least have concerns, would he have been subject to the cognitive tests he is so proud of “winning”?
Trump took more than double the amount of vacation days in his first term, and if the golf tracker is accurate, he's on pace to increase it this term.
> Trump's talking basically every day in front of press
I'm not sure if talking === communicating_effectively. There are certainly noises coming out of his mouth, if that's the only metric we care about.
> Joe Biden was in far, far worse shape than Trump is
Given the choice between a president who recognizes his own weaknesses and delegates to competent team members and one who is unable to admit a single mistake and surrounds himself with grossly unqualified and incompetent sycophants, I'll take the former.
> There's absolutely no comparison
As with most comparisons made by Trump supporters - you're right, but not for the reasons you think.
The truth is Obama whether you like him or not was the last traditional post War American President.
Biden copied Trumps extremist way of Government. Biden said (totally abnormal comments for a president) "we've been patient with the unvaccinated, but our patience is wearing thin" highly aggressive comments. Trump is basically using that same language with illegal immigrants and Americans critical of Israel and the Iran war.
Both are senile. Bidens was more pronounced but less erratic/manic as Trumps. That make Trumps senility more dangerous.
Both Biden and Trump wanted to use media organizations to censor their political opponents. Trump using FCC to remove broadcast licenses for critical media, Biden administration communicating with social media companies to get users that post critical content banned.
If you still view this as a partisan problem, where one side is the good guy. We won't get anywhere. The United States and the interests that control it, both D and R, are at war with the American people. Im my opinion.
> highly aggressive comments. Trump is basically using that same language with illegal immigrants and Americans critical of Israel and the Iran war.
You're equating a _statement_ made by Biden (with regards to a public health crisis actively killing Americans) with Trump arresting US citizens, illegally deporting asylum-seekers, and bombing Iran without congressional approval, a plan for the strait of Hormuz, nor buy-in from allies. This is not a good faith comparison.
> Both Biden and Trump wanted to use media organizations to censor their political opponents
Again, you're comparing the Biden admin _asking_ Twitter to censor content (primarily relating to revenge porn against his adult son) with Trump actively threatening the broadcast license of networks because comedians were mean to him - another bad faith comparison.
...because he had competent people around him that he trusted enough to make decisions, and not former TV hosts.
This isn't to say "oh he was just a puppet" nor "all US presidents are puppets", but to say that the decision of who they choose to fill important positions is in and of itself the most important decision in every presidential term. They only really need to be not senile for the first month or so, for the rest of the term it's just a PR problem.
There’s just absolutely no comparison between one senile president who maintained our democracy and another senile president who loudly, proudly, and rapidly destroyed it.
He was the Democrat nominee in 2024, and all the shills were saying[0] he was extremely competent and focused still. It's only when he actually finally appeared on television suddenly Kamala Harris - not even a 2024 nominee, I don't think, and got zero votes in 2020 - was pushed in to replace the democratically nominated representative with a party elite-anointed one.
The 'unprincipled' simply remember how long it took the establishment and Biden to drop out of the race ( and even that was only after it became painfully clear he is barely there ).
I know it kinda goes against the tribal nature of political conversations, but, hear me out here, they both suck in their own unique ways and, more importantly, they both may be a little too old to manage this country ( though, to be fair, for different reasons ). We really need to start enforcing principles over tribe. It has gone a little too far.
Agreed, but if you have that choice Biden and/or Kamala over Trump shouldn't be a 'too close to call'. You might as well put Al Capone on the ballot (and I'm fairly sure he would have won).
Yet, only one of those two is an admitted pedophile, only one of those two has been convicted of fraud, only one of those two is in the Epstein files, only one of those two is convinced we need to deploy a nuclear weapon in Iran...
Anyone of principle would have been saying this before 2025, and far louder.