Scoop: The US has information that indicates Russia has prepositioned a group of operatives to conduct a false-flag operation in eastern Ukraine, a US official told CNN on Friday, in an attempt to create a pretext for an invasion. Story to come.
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) January 14, 2022
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Great more tax dollars Iβm gonna have to pay to babysit the world.
I wish other countries took care of their own problems instead of us having to fix it for everyone, but I guess thatβs the price we pay for being the best country on the planet.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It'd be nice but it's too late to change it now. If the US just stopped meddling we'd see war and destruction on a never before seen scale. Everyone who has beef with anyone could settle it themselves because there's no risk of the defacto world police getting involved. And military technology has advanced dramatically during the nuclear (relative to scale) peace, to the point that I doubt anyone could even predict the level destruction conventional weapons could cause now. Nevermind the posibility of nuclear weapons being used.
Good drama tho.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Worst take on drama; this is the exact position the allies took which inevitable led to world wars one & two. Turns out that acting as 'world police' to deter warfare only works if you periodically make good on the threat.
If the US stopped meddling we would see a return to Vattel's Law of Nations, which is best characterized as weak nations not picking fights with strong nations and other nations staying the frick out of conflicts that don't concern them. The US has innovated on this model wonderfully by deliberately supporting the weaker side in every conflict on some arbitrary basis of legitimacy. Of course, this only reduces warfare, as when two sides approach parity in military power, the outcome of any military conflict becomes more certain, creating enduring peace. This is why everywhere the US enforces its 'world police' presence, we see paragons of stable government, as in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the increasingly peaceful Ukraine.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't have enough spoons to read this shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Lol what? Frick no, bro. Especially WW1. WW1 was the result of the Concert of Europe, which is (ironically enough) a manifestation of the very geopolitical landscape you advocate for.
There was no "world police" prior to WW2. The world was highly multipolar. "World police" only really exists in a global bipolar or unipolar environment.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're quite wrong. Take a gander at this piece from F. A. Voigt in Unto Caesar (1938):
For 'international air force' read 'Nuclear annihilation'. Voigt was an old-line British imperialist. But by the 30's he starts to show some pangs of guilt.
You're right that the world was multipolar in the 1930's β there were two poles: Anglo-American hegemony and a handful of loosely allied independent countries who weren't getting with the program. It was much more multipolar in the 1830s, to say nothing of the 1730s.
You can be sure that this 'universal peace liberation' line of thought was circulating through the great war period, too. Take a look at this bit of rambling from Lord Grey in his memoirs:
Just take a second to dwell on the phrase 'dangerous peace movement'. 'We're not fighting for our hegemony, we're fighting for our allies. If they want to make peace, that's fine β just, as long as it's peace on our terms. Until then, there must be no peace. After all, we must secure reparations and liberation for them'.
Keep in mind, that these two sources are Pro-britain. Voigt was starting to see the cracks in the seams, but couldn't reconcile it with the vision of imperialism that he grew up in. Grey didn't even realize he was struggling with doubt, he just talks in circles.
At any rate, you can be assured that this thinking is quite old, and β coincidentally or not β correlated with the advent of total war and the bloodiest conflicts in human history. The intent is peace, but the effect is war. At least so I think.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
First of all, no one is proud of or impressed by you for typing all that because no one is going to read it.
Second, a bunch of shitty quotes is super unnecessary when you could just say "Britain was similar to the US before WW1" and save us all the headache of having to scroll through that monstrous comment.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You can read it or not; it's basically a splice of a few different Moldbug posts. If I just said "Britain was similar to the US before WW1" no one would have believed me. There aren't any recognized school of thought that endorse this view, so I have to corroborate it from scratch.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
what? The US supports the side that advances its interests.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's interests are quite abstract and ideological, though β unless there's some monetary benefit to supporting insurgents in Libya and Syria. When Obama said Assad must go, was he being informed by a projection of increased oil revenue, or something?
In fact, the US is openly sworn to the spread of democracy and peace, and quite routinely supports liberation efforts whose financial incentive is nil, seeing as the effect is typically to set certain parts of the world on fire.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The US wasn't world policing until after WWII so it's conservative approach to global military conflict didn't leave a power vacume, it was part of the status quo. Conflicts before that were going to happen regardless. I'm talking about what would happen if the US just up and stopped world policing after 80 years of meddling and monopolizing world politics.
Nations with strong militaries will have free reign to do what they want to their weaker neighbors due to the dramatically reduced risk of bringing the cops into it. Any other strong nation will be in a position to take up that job (Russia or china for example) but will have to monopolize global politics themselves.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The US was absolutely world policing in WW2 (E.g.), in fact, their policy for it was formalized before they had even entered it.
Conflicts before that were going to happen would absolutely not have happened with the certainty that US interference gave it. Would Libyan insurgents have tried to topple Gaddiffi, if the US hadn't gave them a wink, wink, nudge, nudge?
Without a 'world police', nations with strong militaries will indeed have free reign to do what they want to their weaker neightbours. They already do β unless you were to think that the US, and by extension, it's allies, β are 'weak'.
Any strong nation could take up that position when it's gone. This isn't really worth the effort, though (it costs a lot of money for very little return β at least the British were profiting off of their colonies), and so is only pursued if the nation is also possessed by an ideological zeal β for instance, to support World-wide revolution, or perhaps quasi-religious obsession with spreading freedom and democracy. Classical international law didn't persist for hundreds of years for nothing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Do you pin your comment on top of all the others as a coping mechanism?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I do it because I can. Itβs janitor privilege. Perhaps you could be come a janitor too and do it. Wait no you canβt, we arenβt hiring π
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's a shame. You guys must be over budget on jannie wages already
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We run at a surplus actually. Christmas bonuses were in the 5 figures
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's way more zeroes than I get
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
On the one hand, very correct.
On the other, low-functioning, and utterly Trumppilled hand: Why'd we pay for those nukes of we can't use them?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context