384 karma · joined December 16, 2020
Otherwise it's the common battle between "orderliness at any cost" and freedoms. US or Europe seems to strike a better balance, for all of their shortcomings. In China its ruled by the CCP with an iron fist.
WW2 was just before nukes, and also had actors like the Nazis that were completely off the spectrum - where they would eradicate or dominate opponents if they were to win.
We then saw the Cold War, where the Soviets and US never felt compelled to have an open confrontation because the costs were so high and the end goals of both sides weren't to conquer the other (just carve up the rest of the world as much as possible).
Now we're at China vs the US -- they are competing over future influence but the costs of confrontation are too high.
Putin/Russia thought the Ukraine thing would be a quick victory where the West would be too slow/split to act effectively in time and then they would solidify the new "facts on the ground" easily.
What's the benefit of taking unskilled people in who's backgrounds we don't know?
The fact that if you ask probably >85% of voting Americans if the Iraq War was a good decision -- they would say no. And they vote with that moving forward.
It's an imperfect system that is still the best available.
Yet you bring forth these US atrocities in war, while Saddam himself killed 10's of thousands of innocents with gas etc. Directed from the top.
That's the kind of stuff that would happen in a power vacuum where your autocrats take control.
Russia (aka the Soviet Union) has done plenty of interventions since the start of the Cold War.
Thinking that Ukraine compares to Iraq is simply incorrect. I didn't support the Iraq War, but as you can see today -- the US's end state there was not control over the country, gov, or people. That's verifyable.
Russia has verifiably ANNEXED land and people, and its public goal is to destroy the democratically elected gov of Ukraine. Even in that regard, Saddam was a dictator.
It's actually pathetic to compare Russia in Ukraine to Iraq. I don't think even 1 Ukranian would agree with you.
Are you naive enough to think that the CCP doesn't have a massive and complex surveillance apparatus? Do you expect the US to tie its hands behind its back when competing against the CCP?
All this kind of talk is from a position of not understanding or not accepting the reality of what's at stake. These countries are autocratic and they want control of the world.
The US with all its faults is the better path forward.
I know it's edgy to sit in a relatively safe country in the world and espouse about how bad the US is... but if you were to actually look at the facts of the past 70 years of general US hegemony (nearly 30 of true hegemony) -- most of the indicators are showing the longest periods of peace, economic growth, and lifespans in most of the world.
Look at the other 2 candidates -- Russia and China
Russia: invaded and annexed part of their neighbor. Brutal destruction of Chechnya. Support of NK with technology.
China: autocratic communist cabal. Essentially took Hong Kong by force. Threatening to invade and annex Taiwan by force.
The argument is clear, and it's also clear that your edgy "US bad!" stance is sophomoric at best.
The US isn't perfect but its the best option towards a "rules based" order of the world.
Which can probably be an impetus to solve some forms of depression, or have a change in life etc.
So I think you're partially right but also partially wrong at writing it all off as useless or some fad.
Keep it up with the languages though, always time well spent.