IMO as a non-us citizen, all commies/tankies have this romanticized view of "america ending" that they don't understand how much struggle and suffering they're signing the entire world up for
Buddy... the world would be *just fine* without a McDonalds on every corner. America does nothing for the world, except being one of the largest exporters of weapons and terrorism.
Imagine world where China and Russia sets standard on international laws. It would come down to might makes right, so any small nation next to bigger nations will scramble for nukes for self preservation.
I m fine with nuclear proliferation.
Exactly! Despite "everyone" always bitching about America being the worlds cop, there's no one else to take that role of global deterrent! At least all the bad shit the Americans do/did always come out and are disclosed and criticised by other Americans! I can’t even imagine the Russian or Chinese government being held accountable by their own people! (Btw, I'm European (Italian) not American)
1. No. You've been "working on it" for nearly a century and clearly can't do it.
2. You do not actually care about other countries even if you're nice and accepting when people come to your lands, and that's the real reason America has to play world cop. If an ISIS-like organization knocks your towers down you would not do shit about it. If Cina tells you to f off you would not do shit about it. Even now NATO is basically Europe relying on the US, and it's not like any of these developments are a surprise because it's been extremely cozy relying on daddy America to keep world order while Europe could focus on advancing itself.
3. I'm neither American nor European, this isn't nationalism and it's not self-hatred, no one is based but at least the US is a world leader keeping democracy and order on it's massive shoulders.
Richest economy on earth has that de facto obligation. British Empire had it before, now it’s the American Empire. Abdicating that responsibility would lead to catastrophe.
Its ok the EU becoming global hegemon has approximately a 0% chance of occuring. They have zero access to the most dynamic growth industries, they're generationally behind in military technology and reliant on cooperation with the US, and most of all, their militaries are all systematically underfunded and they have no political will to fix that, even with the looming specter of Russian aggression.
>their militaries are all systematically underfunded and they have no political will to fix that,
I wish they would. I don't not support EU becoming a global hegemon \ superpower, because I have issues with their European values, I don't support it because I see what weak pushovers they are.
Tbh dude, you're part of the problem if by "historically worse than the US" you thought I was talking about "Islamophobia" and not, you know, the UK colonizing half of Asia and Africa which among other things started the whole IP crisis. The systemic racism and Islamophobia and xenophobia (lol) you're talking about is genuinely first world problems after the colonizing and apartheid and genocide your grandparents generation committed that actually destroyed the third world and many cultures. Your French police aren't Nazis, you do not know xenophobia, and your "racism" is only bad by your own European privileged standards. Europe is literally up there as some of the most accepting places on Earth. You think people being jerks to people over skin color is bad? In other countries people DIE for being the wrong race or wrong religion or the wrong ideology. All of this theatrical ideology about racism you got from the US too, so don't blame others for obsessing over America. It's exactly this dramatic fake martyrism and detachment from what Europe did up until like 30 years ago, that drive so many people in Europe to the right.
Let me remind you that Europe used to have actual Nazis, actual xenophobia based in actual fascism and actual actual colonialism of other cultures and actual apartheid. Europe has drastically improved morally to the point you are talking about what you are talking, and you don't even realize all this progress came at the price of Europe detaching from the larger world and relying on the US to keep the democratic world order in place. All this while today Europe does buisness with actual dictators appointing them to key positions in the UN like Iran, the champion of human rights violations and spreading fanatic religious terror in the middle east being appointed the UN Human Rights Chair! Holy hell! Europe is now so weak and unprincipled that it can't even defend itself or aid Kraine! That's crazy negligent.
And to be clear - local racism IS an important issue, and just because people are treated worse in other countries does not mean that they should receive bad or unequal treatment in a democracy, but holy hell, be aware of Europe's history and global significance on the world stage.
The US is important with its military, until another democratic supranational force with multiples countries can take that role.
Right now, without the US, Autocratic countries would be the hegemons of the world.
It's not. That's just a lie. The US military has done NOTHING in the passed 100 years to make the world a more peaceful place.
US diplomacy has done very little in that regard, and policy has moved the world towards more destabilization. The entire influx of radicalized Muslims around the world is a direct result of the USA.
> The US military has done NOTHING in the passed 100 years to make the world a more peaceful place.
Guess we forgot about WW2. Oh I forgot. According to communists Stalin personally marched to Berlin and shot Hitler.
No one would claim America is innocent or always in the right, but this American diabolism only shows the most vulgar understanding of history. I don't see a realistically better alternative aside from more progressive international standards.
Why do you think China hasn't moved on Taiwan or North Korea hasn't gone full nuke rain on South Korea? Or why Russian is afraid to even sneeze in the direction of a NATO country?
To be fair, I don't disagree really re:the importance of the US military, but Russia would most certainly lose a war against the entirety of NATO even if that didn't include the US, and I'm pretty sure North Korea must know internally they are too weak to have pretty much any modern nation retaliate.
South Korea itself certainly has a military capable of retaliating alone if NK were to suddenly strike, regardless of US-involvement. Though obviously were China then to back them then it would come down to more but just speaking in a vacuum, US intervention isn't the only reason these countries haven't resorted to these actions
Yea I'm being a little hyperbolic, I agree. There's more nuance in these affairs. I'm just saying the idea of the US jumping into any conflict is a good deterrent
Would NATO even stick together without the US involved? Seems like Russia could probably scare a lot of Eastern Europe into sitting out or outright joining them.
Russia clearly is not afraid of NATO, China is almost certainly going to invade Taiwan, and S.Korea I'm not sure. It seems like N.Korean military is pretty shit.
Where have you been the past couple of years? Russia can't even invade ukraine... not afraid of NATO? Almost everything they do is part of a playbook specifically centered around putting as much buffer between them and NATO states as possible.
Lol I actually forgot I was in a Destiny thread while reading these comments bc some were so stupid then I read "Nathan" and was like- wait where am I? No shot.
> It's not. That's just a lie.
You're either a few crayons short of a full box or you refuse to think about what you're spewing before you spew it, which is unfortunate.
> The US military has done NOTHING in the passed 100 years to make the world a more peaceful place.
Here are just few examples of MANY ways the US military has contributed to global peace and stability over the past 100 years:
* World War II (1939-1945): The US military played a crucial role in the defeat of the Axis powers. The US involvement helped bring an end to widespread atrocities and oppressive regimes, leading to the establishment of the United Nations and a more stable international order.
* Korean War: The US military, as part of a United Nations coalition, intervened to repel North Korean aggression against South Korea. This action helped maintain the sovereignty of South Korea and established a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, despite ongoing tensions.
* Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief: The US military frequently provides aid during natural disasters. For example, after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the US military provided significant humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, which helped save lives and restore stability to affected regions.
I can keep going if you want more.
Also, it would be "past", not "passed".
> US diplomacy has done very little in that regard, and policy has moved the world towards more destabilization. The entire influx of radicalized Muslims around the world is a direct result of the USA.
While it is undeniable that some US foreign policies have had unintended negative consequences, it is an oversimplification to blame the entirety of global destabilization and the rise of radicalized groups solely on the USA. Blaming the USA alone for global instability and radicalization ignores sooooo many other factors, like regional conflicts and historical issues. US diplomacy has also helped maintain peace and provide aid worldwide, showing its positive impact.
It's funny... you use ChatGPT enough, and you immediately start noticing when other people post them. Nice AI usage.
And, I def did the math wrong. I was essentially saying that since WW2, the US has been a force for destabilization, but I rounded too much on the math. I should have just been specific and said since WW2 onward.
I will also concede that the Korean War was justified, which was quite the rare exception to how the US conducted business in various other conflicts around the world. But on a scale, doesn't compare. Vietnam alone more than cancels out the good did with S. Korea.
> And, I def did the math wrong
No, you were just wrong. Which is fine. I think people get too caught up on "America bad" and forget all the good shit:
Some more:
* Peackeeping in Bosnia,
* Fighting Ebola in west Africa,
* Combatting piracy off Somalia
Once again, I can share more.
I wouldn't deny that the US Military has done shit things - but in comparison to some of the other world powers, it's night and day.
America IS bad. They just brand themselves as the good guys because they show up when a hurricane hits somewhere, and thinks that cancels out all the murdering.
Sure, the US has made mistakes, but they've also saved lives and helped keep the peace worldwide. It's not all bad or good—it's a mix of both, leaning towards good.
What do you think would have been better post-WWII?
I'm coming from the perspective of someone who thinks liberty and self-determination is a good thing. I could see you disagreeing if you **feel** authoritarian governments with a history of death, pain, and suffering are a better direction - but it's just that, a feeling. Due to lack of experience or knowledge on the subject. Which, once again, is unfortunate.
This comment is just pure projection. As far as experience, I have experience with the US's death machine, because I was a part of it. I traveled to bases around the world. I've seen what the US does with it's military... which is take money from the people and waste it on useless shit, or bombing people.
Where's your experience come from, bud?
It's so easy to believe the US is useless in policing the world when you don't see how much of a shitshow was prevented because of US hegemonic presence. Criticizing bad US foreign policy is fine but stop deluding yourself into believing every powerful dictatorship for the past 70 years wouldn't immediately pursue their imperialistic ambitions if US magically disappears.
And I didn't even mention how crucial the US navy is in enforcing global trade laws which alone justifies our global presence as a net good
This is like saying to a poor person standing next to a billionaire, "hey don't be sad... the average wealth between you both is 500 million dollars!"
Go tell this to the Vietnamese or any number of countries (Hell, Iraq right now is at risk of total collapse) destroyed by the US.
That comparison genuinely makes zero sense. You’re the one comparing the US to the rest of the world, not me.
The point is that compared to any other world power the US has handled a much more stabilized world. You can say that another country would have done a better job (which is almost certainly not true), or that the US has no impact, but I think that’s ridiculous.
For every shit war the US has intervened in (Iraq, Vietnam), you can point towards an intervention that’s morally correct (Yugoslavia, Korea, Afghanistan 2x, Ukraine). Compare this to the track record of Britain or the USSR I think it’s pretty evident the US has done a pretty good job.
> You’re the one comparing the US to the rest of the world, not me.
I was referring to your "the world has never been more peaceful!" Yeah, on average the world is more peaceful, accentuated by extreme violence. Get the analogy now, bud?
>For every shit war the US has intervened in (Iraq, Vietnam), you can point towards an intervention that’s morally correct (Yugoslavia, Korea, Afghanistan 2x, Ukraine).
"For ever day I hit and abused you, wife... I made up for it by buying you expensive things and telling you you're sweet. So all-in-all, I'm a good person!"
Ah yes, because the Soviet Union annexing countries, China annexing countries, Russia annexing countries, is the bastion of stability on the world stage.
Lol how much krocodile have you done lately?
Since ww2 Europe and perhaps even the world as a whole has been more peaceful than it ever has been. This is also a direct result of American diplomacy.
It's a direct result of an expanded global trade, proliferation of technology, and certain technical policies, such as taking out lead additives from gasoline (petrol). The US has done little to stop conflict, often committing assassinations, inciting political unrest, and flooding countries with money and drugs in order to get regime changes that afford the US economic advantages.
Expanded global trade is a direct result of America guaranteeing shipping lanes. If someone tried to do anything weird like the Houthies they can expect to be blown up by the US and it's allies.
So we're just going to ignore NATO, Ukraine, Yogoslavia, Libya, Taiwan? The reason why there hasn't been another major war in Europe yet is in large part due to the US. The US will do weird shit in some 3rd world countries but they have mostly stopped since the cold war ended. Another yhing to consider is that almost any other country in the same position will do these things, it's more a function of power than ideology.
> Expanded global trade is a direct result of America guaranteeing shipping lanes.
This just assumes that if the US hadn't/doesn't perform this function, that it would be performed through other actors. Do you know why Europe and other entities are building up their armed forces for the first time in a long time? It's because after the course of about 20-25 years, the US has dwindled the confidence it's cultivated on the world stage as being the hegemonic force. Europe and everyone now have serious doubts that the US wont spin out of control (see Trump presidency).
>The reason why there hasn't been another major war in Europe yet is in large part due to the US.
How so? I've never heard this assertion before, so I'm curious why you believe this.
“Albert Einstein wasn’t that great - your assuming someone else wouldn’t have taken his place”
Europe is building up its armed forces because of Russia - literally nothing to do with the US
It’s called deterrence moron - if I have gun and you have a knife - you probably won’t ray to stab me - Russia hasn’t made moves on Estonia or any other ex soviet block nations because Uncle Sam is behind all of them - trump might fuck it up but for now they know they’re protected under NATO - the US being the backbone of it
> “Albert Einstein wasn’t that great - your assuming someone else wouldn’t have taken his place”
Absolutely. Yes. Do you know anything about Einstein's competition at that time? There were *numerous* other physicists who were vying for the coveted equation, and many were hot on his heels.
>Europe is building up its armed forces because of Russia - literally nothing to do with the US
[Sorry, but you're wrong.](https://fpif.org/america-the-unreliable-superpower/) Europe was incredibly shaken by the Trump presidency and even Biden cast many doubts about his ability to lead as commander in chief.
>It’s called deterrence moron ....
You really are a simple fucking dunce, ya? Russia literally INVADED another country, even with the full unadulterated backing of the US.
>This just assumes that if the US hadn't/doesn't perform this function, that it would be performed through other actors.
You cannot simultaniously complain about the things the US has done and not give props for the things the US has done. It's possible that whoever would've replaced the US in protecting shipping lanes also replaced the US in fucking around in 3rd world countries.
>Do you know why Europe and other entities are building up their armed forces for the first time in a long time? It's because after the course of about 20-25 years, the US has dwindled the confidence it's cultivated on the world stage as being the hegemonic force. Europe and everyone now have serious doubts that the US wont spin out of control (see Trump presidency).
Yes, this is indeed a massive problem.
>How so? I've never heard this assertion before, so I'm curious why you believe this.
A lot of it is through NATO and the US's nuclear umberella. NATO with the US in it has probably been the largest force for peace in human history.
My hatred of the US government didn't come until I was knee deep into my 2nd deployment and the torture pictures were released. I was already a citizen by that point.
Do you know how many people would starve and go without medicine and other necessities if it wasn’t for US Aid as well as the US Navy protecting global free trade?
How does this relate to us aid or global trade?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-14/vietnam-seeks-to-gradually-expand-security-defense-ties-with-us
No, I'd prefer there were no global super powers selling small arms en masse to lesser countries, trying to promote conflict. Is there something written that the US would be worse off if it weren't selling weapons to the globe?
> No, I'd prefer there were no global super powers selling small arms en masse to lesser countries, trying to promote conflict.
I agree. But if Russia and China are doing it too, our hands are kinda tied at that point, no? I agree that it’s a sad and undesirable situation though.
> But if Russia and China are doing it too, our hands are kinda tied at that point, no?
But why? I don't understand this idea. If your neighbor is selling drugs, does that mean you must as well?
Get Canadian healthcare you fucking braindead waste of oxygen, the fall of the US would mean a global return to warfare all over the world, dictatorships running rampant and 10x the current amount of genocides, not something you care about
Yes we all know you're being hyperbolic dipshit. Still you believe there is truth to your comment. That's why everyone is pointing and laughing at you. Do you need further explanation?
I dunno why you're using "we" in a sentence, because clearly **you** had no fucking clue what hyperbole even was until you googled it. You even used a fucking equal sign in your comment, you fucking genius.
And I couldn't care less what people think, considering that nearly every single one of these assfucks are young enough to be little kids when 9/11 happened, and have never experienced any actual trauma in their entire sheltered lives. Just like you.
America's collapse is not simply just having less McDonalds around the world or the ending of all wars.
You'd be surprised at the reliance of American money to third world countries. In the country where I'm originally from (Bangladesh) [the United States has given us 400+ million dollars in economic aid](https://www.foreignassistance.gov/) in the 2022 fiscal year, is one the country's [largest trade partner in exports](https://www.lloydsbanktrade.com/en/market-potential/bangladesh/trade-profile#:~:text=Foreign%20Trade%20in%20Figures&text=The%20country's%20main%20export%20partners,3.9%25%20%2D%20data%20NBS), and has [helped financially in previous humanitarian crises](https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/may-09-2024-united-states-announces-nearly-31-million-humanitarian-assistance-rohingya-refugees#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20government%20has%20provided,but%20much%20more%20is%20needed). A complete collapse of the United States would not do many countries (both third and first world) any good.
(And let's not even talk about the global financial & tech hub that the U.S. runs, imagine if Google, Amazon, Microsoft, the top financial companies, etc. were to shut down. Not looking good at all.)
The collapse of the U.S. would also not magically end all wars no matter what lense you look it through. Whether you are a hardcore realist who believes states are inherently anarchical and want power for themselves, then in the event of a U.S. collapse, another country will take the helm of global hegemon and start wars all over again. If you believe international instuitions keep things in check, a collapse of one of the major arbiters of those instituitions will not do you any good either.
Now, I do have my fair share of harsh criticism for the U.S. and their foreign policy, but a complete collapse of the United States is not going to magically make our world a better place to live in or institute [global socialism somehow](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dfwf4g/comment/l8mr7g4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Do you imagine that if you didn't get your investments, or aid through the US, that they wouldn't exist at all?
And no, nobody proposed that "all wars would end," but the number of conflicts that have arisen *because* of the US is numerous. You can look away from them because your country benefited... but that doesn't absolve them of the misery they cause every day.
Hell, want a contemporary example? [Pentagon ran secret anti-vaxx campaign in China](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/). I wonder how many innocent people died, and how this will play out as far as new wars because of shit like this?
>Do you imagine that if you didn't get your investments, or aid through the US, that they wouldn't exist at all?
You bring up a fair point, however my main point was not that the U.S. is unique in its ability to transfer aid but that you simply neglect that the U.S. in general does play an important role in many country's development and wealth. The collapse of the U.S. of any form, which is what the topic of this post is about, will not do any good for any of these countries. At the end of the day the U.S. is a global hegemon currently (though that might change in the future with the rise of China) and has a pivotol role in other country's economies.
>And no, nobody proposed that "all wars would end," but the number of conflicts that have arisen *because* of the US is numerous. You can look away from them because your country benefited... but that doesn't absolve them of the misery they cause every day.
I do not disagree that the U.S. has caused a number of global harm across the world and is not necessarily a force of good but again the collapse of the U.S. will only lead to another global power starting wars for their own benefit or other countries starting their own wars leading to greater global instability (if you're more keen in believing that instituitions like the UN produce international order).
My main thesis is that I personally disagree with the idea that a sudden collapse of the U.S. will magically solve all our problems. You may not believe this personally judging from your reply but your initial comment seems to imply a non-chalant attitude towards U.S. collapse which I think is the wrong message to send.
> The collapse of the U.S. of any form, which is what the topic of this post is about, will not do any good for any of these countries.
How do you know? I certainly don't know the details behind these deals. What if they are total shit? Or maybe they could get better deals from another country? I refuse to just accept your assertion that the US is the best possible outcome for yours or any particular country just because.
>I do not disagree that the U.S. has caused a number of global harm across the world and is not necessarily a force of good but again the collapse of the U.S. will only lead to another global power...
I've heard this ethereal argument so many times, but it's just an assertion. "Whatabout X superpower?" What about them? Is Brazil, for instance, going to do worse on the global stage than the US? How so? Personally, I'm not moved by fictional boogie men, all the while the US empire marches on and commits atrocities that make the Israel/Palestine conflict look tame.
>My main thesis is that I personally disagree with the idea that a sudden collapse of the U.S. will magically solve all our problems.
My main counter is that the world has had about 75 years of US control, and the world is worse for it in many ways. I don't think Russia is a better option, but it's doubtful they would be an actual influence anyways. I believe that more power should go to lesser nations and hegemonic powers should crumble.
It seems you've bought into the idea that "because there are dominant forces in the world, that's just how things *have* to be." I disagree.
>How do you know? I certainly don't know the details behind these deals. What if they are total shit? Or maybe they could get better deals from another country? I refuse to just accept your assertion that the US is the best possible outcome for yours or any particular country just because.
I never said they were the best possible outcome, I simply have said that they are impactful and pointing out how globally connected the world is to the United States. My point is that given how interconnected the world is to the U.S. suddenly ending the U.S. will lead to strongly negative economic outcomes amongst many partner countries. Imagine all the financial instituitions, the tech instituitions, the huge funneling of global trade, all gone. This will not lead economic prosperity and will take a long time before it all recovers.
>I've heard this ethereal argument so many times, but it's just an assertion. "Whatabout X superpower?" What about them? Is Brazil, for instance, going to do worse on the global stage than the US? How so? Personally, I'm not moved by fictional boogie men, all the while the US empire marches on and commits atrocities that make the Israel/Palestine conflict look tame.
Again, like if the U.S. were to collapse in a short timespan and lose the majority of its global influence without any strong international instituition keeping every country in check, I can't imagine a world where there won't be some global instability of some kind. Every country wants to be the most powerful and dominating as it is in their best interests. What is stopping Russia or China or India or any other large country from becoming the next hegemon? Time and time in history there are old hegemons that fall and new ones that come up. My personal view is the only way to stop this are more powerful and interconnected instituitions like the UN or financial systems that keep countries in check from attacking each other, however I do not believe we are there yet and a U.S. collapse will certainly not usher that either.
>It seems you've bought into the idea that "because there are dominant forces in the world, that's just how things *have* to be." I disagree.
Listen man, I am not a supporter of U.S. hegemony like I said I am one of those people who believe that international instituitions can prevent conflict. I just personally believe that blowing up the U.S. and purposefully causing its sudden destruction is not the way to go. I do support a gradual decline in U.S. hegemony and give this power to all nations (though I am still unsure if this is feasible, but I am reading up more on this day by day) like having more nations and expanding veto power in the UN security council and strengthening international instituitions but the collapse of the U.S. I cannot support unfortunatley.
To be honest I think we're talking past each other. I don't disagree that U.S. hegemony has been a net negative globally but I am simply disagreeing with your understanding of how connected the U.S. is to global affairs and how its destruction is not the magic bullet to prosperity.
>I never said they were the best possible outcome, I simply have said that they are impactful and pointing out how globally connected the world is to the United States.
Are you familiar with an economic concept called 'opportunity cost?' If not, I highly recommend you do a quick read, because it certainly applies here.
>given how interconnected the world is to the U.S. suddenly ending the U.S. will lead to strongly negative economic outcomes amongst many partner countries.
Again, I don't accept this assertion. It could be the complete opposite. I'll give you a general example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLc3ehhPIKA
A summary is that Perkins claims that the CIA/NSA use economists to "make deals" with countries in exchange for resources, and although the rich get richer, the poor from those countries often suffer from them.
>I can't imagine a world where there won't be some global instability of some kind.
This idea *completely* ignores the entire quagmire that happened with the destabilization of the Middle East. If you were correct, then we would ***not*** see a rise of global terrorism because of a direct result of US foreign policy.
>Every country wants to be the most powerful and dominating as it is in their best interests. What is stopping Russia or China or India or any other large country from becoming the next hegemon?
I don't agree with the first premise, because oftentimes countries see the dominant position as not cost effective. Second, there's nothing stopping China or India rising in power *right now.* China, for instance, is giving out very large economic development packages all across Africa, increasing their "hegemony." Same with India. You also haven't stated *why* the US hegemony is better than, say, China.
>I just personally believe that blowing up the U.S. and purposefully causing its sudden destruction is not the way to go.
Lol, nobody has that ability, and that's not what I think is a serious potential outcome. But if we were thinking in terms of "what if," as in "what if the US never ascended to global superpower, or didn't interfere so much in other country's affairs, then I'd argue that it's not clear that the world would be worse off, and that actually it might be significantly better. And if the US declined in power, that clears the sky for smaller trees to grow, and that too might be better.
>This idea *completely* ignores the entire quagmire that happened with the destabilization of the Middle East. If you were correct, then we would ***not*** see a rise of global terrorism because of a direct result of US foreign policy.
Lol, nobody has that ability, and that's not what I think is a serious potential outcome. But if we were thinking in terms of "what if," as in "what if the US never ascended to global superpower, or didn't interfere so much in other country's affairs, then I'd argue that it's not clear that the world would be worse off, and that actually it might be significantly better. And if the US declined in power, that clears the sky for smaller trees to grow, and that too might be better.
If that is what you are arguing for then I am sorry for wasting your time as my argument was merely a critique of accelerationism and the belief that a collapse of the U.S. in an instant will create a better society (as some people in the screenshots of the main post seem to suggest). Ignore the last two paragraphs then as that is what I am discussing.
The question of what if the U.S. did not become a superpower is an interesting question. I definitley think if the U.S. did not interfere as much in global affairs there would be better outcomes. However the other side of me believes some other country would take the mantle as a a [semi-realist ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations))myself. I think a decline in U.S. power and handing it off to unrepresented countries would definitley keep the U.S. and other powers in check and create a better global society.
>Are you familiar with an economic concept called 'opportunity cost?' If not, I highly recommend you do a quick read, because it certainly applies here.
Again, I don't accept this assertion. It could be the complete opposite. I'll give you a general example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLc3ehhPIKA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLc3ehhPIKA)
>A summary is that Perkins claims that the CIA/NSA use economists to "make deals" with countries in exchange for resources, and although the rich get richer, the poor from those countries often suffer from them.
I'll look into the video later, thank you nonetheless. I think you keep on misunderstand my point, my belief is not that there exists better deals I simply don't believe ending the U.S. right now will solve this issue. I agree there are probably better ways the U.S. can distribute aid or countries can work together to deliver aid but to discount and stop all U.S. aid suddenly is like I said not what I agree with.
>I don't agree with the first premise, because oftentimes countries see the dominant position as not cost effective. Second, there's nothing stopping China or India rising in power *right now.* China, for instance, is giving out very large economic development packages all across Africa, increasing their "hegemony." Same with India. You also haven't stated *why* the US hegemony is better than, say, China.
In your first sentence you say oftentimes countries see the dominant position as not cost effective but then you elude to how countries like India and China are trying to grow their influence, thus proving my point. Furthermore, there will be exceptions but in general I think countries generally do want to get more powerful over the long-run but I would be open for some case studies to read up on. Suddenly decreasing the U.S. influence will probably see their actions embolden more strongly due to such an unstable event occuring leaving open a power vaccuum. I do not believe that Chinese hegemony is worse than American. Like you I think hegemony is something we should move away from to build a more stronger world order. However I think that should come with reforms and they should come gradually not related to sudden destruction of the U.S. as I outlined in my previous response.
It’s so fucking hilarious how accelerationists think AMERICA should collapse and some how think communism will rise from those ashes when the most likely outcome if far right authoritarianism
Even from the lefty accelerationist steelman pov, they need to have like serious inroads with the working class nationally, in order to influence what would happen after a collapse, and their ideology isn't even remotely popular enough for this. They just totally gloss over even what their own ideological forefathers say. IIRC one of them, Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky idk which one, said explicitly that communism isn't some inevitability, that once capitalism fails, it's just going to magically turn into communism. But these people don't read shit, they just fly on america bad, rich people bad, platitudes
they are too insufferable and out of touch with normal people to convince any of them of their idea. there is literally no way for them to communicate their stance without sounding like absolute lunatics.
With what the online left has become I totally agree. But in theory, it's not too hard to talk to people who are struggling and say, "Damn aren't you sick of barely getting by while Jeff Bezos pays someone to wipe his ass?". Back in my more hardcore lefty days we worked with local unions on strikes, contract neogitations, protests, and more. It was the perfect blend of helping out the community as well as getting your ideas out there. But, you're right so much of what we see online is people that don't care about convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with them about anything
yes, i don't think it is difficult to convince proles that the rich are fucking them in the ass. the problem is the tone they use to convey their message. in short, their PR strategy is very poor. no one in this movement can be taken seriously because every one of them has some outlandish take, like condoning shoplifting because the rich are stealing from you too. i wish you could read french because you could see the ridiculous things tankies circlejerk about in a local subreddit.
Yeah I mean realistically if the US collapsed, what would happen?
China takes over large parts of the world...?
I guess commies glaze the fuck out of China and actually think it's some sort of utopia though so RIP.
Unironically yes. “Team America world police” is a great meme and we should be critical of the US military industrial complex. But the US military is what holds a significant amount of global democracy together. This is me sperging out and rambling after a couple beers but I don’t think it’s ridiculously off the mark:
Taiwan and South Korea fall to China, same with the majority of East Asia. Best case scenario for Japan is rapidly increasing its military and becoming even more isolationist. Russia continues to push through Eastern Europe. Essentially can do whatever they want as long as they don’t piss China off. Same with Iran. Israel wiped off the map. The entire Middle East essentially reverts to something like the Ottoman Empire run by Islamists
The only democratic, economic powerhouses left are Germany, France, and the UK if they’re lucky. Maybe Italy as well. Africa and South America become even further dominated by China and Islamists. Australia/new zealand have to go the same isolationist route as Japan. Alaska and Canada are left undefended and the Canadian economy is destroyed. Russia possibly takes control. America itself and maybe Mexico turn into an alliance of feudal regions run by warlords.
This is the best case scenario where no nukes are even dropped. People do not realize that the American military is the glue that holds democracy together against China, Russia, and Iran. The entire world except for certain pockets still armed with nukes fall to totalitarianism. The CCP controls half or more of the globe, and Russian oligarchs, Islamists, and US right wing facists control maybe 40% collectively.
The remaining 10% are isolationists pockets armed with nukes in Western Europe, East Asia, South Africa, Some of south America, and the US. And possibly India. These countries still cannot easily manufacture chips (and therefore weapons like drones) without Taiwan. Whatever of Canada and the US are mostly useful for oil and natural gas. China and OPEC control the largest percentage of oil and gold. The world heads down a path of two options. The entire world in a couple hundred years is controlled by totalitarian regimes, or nuclear destruction. Unless there is a miracle revolution by liberal militants that believe in democracy. Like the US or French revolutions. But on a global scale
>This is me sperging out and rambling after a couple beers but I don’t think it’s ridiculously off the mark:
Yeah I mean I was being serious. If the US fell China would unironcially take over large parts of the world.
It's just that commies love China so they probably think that would be great and not the awful child labor, concentration camp, Big Brother, secret police, etc... world that I think most people realize it would actually be.
But yeah, if I'm being honest I don't even think Western Europe would be able to stop China and would get taken over. NATO without the US and versus China and Russia I'm not sure that it'd be able to stand on its own (although Ukraine showing the incompetence of Russia maybe gives more credibility to them being able to hold out)
Even if it could though it'd just be a matter of time with China controlling/being allied with countries that control literally like 80% of the globe and human population.
I agree completely. There is a very decent chance the CCP would control 80% of the global population within our lifetime if the US collapsed tomorrow. That comes with all the things you mentioned. Big brother, concentration camps, etc. “wrongthink” these tankies advocate for that I believe is a serious internal threat the west are not taking seriously enough.
Our best chance for the survival of democracy would maybe even be India now that their population has surpassed China’s. And because they have nukes. The UK would have the advantage of being an island nation like Japan, and a potential alliance with France that has nukes as well. Pakistan also has nukes though and presents a serious potential issue for all of those countries
South Korea has no nukes to keep tensions lower with North Korea, which again plays into China and the Cold War. Providing South Korea with nukes would be seen as an implicit threat against China, and possibly even Russia.
Countries like Germany and Japan have no nukes because of agreements made after WWII. All three of these countries could build nukes if they wanted to. Or a country like France could simply give them to them
It's funny because it really does ignore what could hypothetically happen if a collapse did happen. If it isn't civil war there would be a cluster of nations. Probably some sort of authoritarian/religious nation based in the south. Possibly an independent Texas if they don't join the authoritarian nation. Some remanants of the US which most def wouldn't be communist. Maybe California/west coast based nation depending on if the US doesn't fully doesn't dissolve.
None of these would be communist, at best maybe u get a more progressive California nation but also this is the same nation that is tech liberal and won't even sniff communism.
But all of this is so hypothetical that it's not worth seriously thinking about. Not to mention the amount of influence other nations would try to exert, none of which are communist.
It's sucha uniquely American thing to hate America with all your heart while you benefit from the America being stable and the #1 superpower in the world every second of your miserable life. They'd never move away from every cushy benefit this country provides them to somewhere with none of it.
China is right there if you wanna try.
I mean I love the country don’t get me wrong. But it’s hard to fathom the fact that half of the country thinks a crook like Trump is lesser of “two evils”. I rather take a literal chimpanzee over trump.
Part of me wishes America would be destroyed just to see how these people will like it when they actually have to experience it.
I really hate how the internet allowed people who never experienced conflict in their lives a platform to pretend they're revolutionaries.
As much as I despise reality TV, this should be a show. Take all these world burners and stick them together in the ashes of a Democracy and watch them rock and cry in the corner.
Canada mf’s when America implodes and their entire economy, defense, and trade goes with it
https://preview.redd.it/93dfga56qn6d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a79ac567ab26801e6c9d608065b32a589830cb2
Would you guys rather live 3 years in the wild doing the stuff your body was meant to do, then die a brutal death at the dispassionate hands of nature? Or would you rather live as a housecat for 20 years, existing in relative comfort at the price of extreme boredom and being a more successful organism’s little bitch?
Honest question, I don’t know the answer myself, but I think this is how a lot of leftoid anarchists and rightoid preppers view the world
Alot of people, especially younger ones have completely lost faith in the system.
People are depressed, lonely and have lost hope. Not surprising that many just want to see the world burn.
Europe isn't real.
It's a hoax perpetrated on the American people by the demonrats to trick them into believing other countries might do *some* things better which is clearly false since America is number 1.
Ever read the Constitution, libtard?!
I don't give a fuck what any bozo says, horseshoe theory is 100% correct, true and accurate. The far left and far right both think america is the modern day rome, and they both dislike that about america, the only difference is the far right hates america being modern rome because of gays and pederasty, and the far left hates america being modern rome because of imperialism and oppression.
Question for the more educated. Why do lefties hate “lesser of 2 evils” so much they’re willing to let their LGBT and minority allies suffer? Do they really believe some hypothetical revolution will be achieved with enough suffering?
Genius logic, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, to achieve communism we need to give absolute power to those we hate, so that they will be more obviously corrupt.
At which point the people will unite and do the communist revolution finally!!! Genuinely 400 IQ.
do they not realize the cascade of global failure that would happen if the US we’re to dissolve? like think of how much critical global infrastructure is centralized in the US? Just in the tech/internet sense.
Sure google, amazon, ibm and all of the big players have redundant servers across the globe but i don’t think those redundancies can withhold the entire load. What happens when critical AWS servers go offline? What happens when payments can no longer be completed? what happens when outlook/gmail servers are downsized to a fraction of what they currently are?
IMO as a non-us citizen, all commies/tankies have this romanticized view of "america ending" that they don't understand how much struggle and suffering they're signing the entire world up for
Buddy... the world would be *just fine* without a McDonalds on every corner. America does nothing for the world, except being one of the largest exporters of weapons and terrorism.
Did you forget s/?
Imagine world where China and Russia sets standard on international laws. It would come down to might makes right, so any small nation next to bigger nations will scramble for nukes for self preservation. I m fine with nuclear proliferation.
Exactly! Despite "everyone" always bitching about America being the worlds cop, there's no one else to take that role of global deterrent! At least all the bad shit the Americans do/did always come out and are disclosed and criticised by other Americans! I can’t even imagine the Russian or Chinese government being held accountable by their own people! (Btw, I'm European (Italian) not American)
Pax Americana is dying and if it's allowed to pass it will be mourned
U.S is the second best option after based EU Federation empire as global world hegemon(we're working on it)🗿
1. No. You've been "working on it" for nearly a century and clearly can't do it. 2. You do not actually care about other countries even if you're nice and accepting when people come to your lands, and that's the real reason America has to play world cop. If an ISIS-like organization knocks your towers down you would not do shit about it. If Cina tells you to f off you would not do shit about it. Even now NATO is basically Europe relying on the US, and it's not like any of these developments are a surprise because it's been extremely cozy relying on daddy America to keep world order while Europe could focus on advancing itself. 3. I'm neither American nor European, this isn't nationalism and it's not self-hatred, no one is based but at least the US is a world leader keeping democracy and order on it's massive shoulders.
Richest economy on earth has that de facto obligation. British Empire had it before, now it’s the American Empire. Abdicating that responsibility would lead to catastrophe.
Especially if your flag is Spider-Man colors. With great power...
>Europe as global hegemony. Not sure we're ready for more colonialism and genocide chief
Based. Not sure why you're downvoted and we're denying that some parts of Europe are historically worse than the US.
Its ok the EU becoming global hegemon has approximately a 0% chance of occuring. They have zero access to the most dynamic growth industries, they're generationally behind in military technology and reliant on cooperation with the US, and most of all, their militaries are all systematically underfunded and they have no political will to fix that, even with the looming specter of Russian aggression.
>their militaries are all systematically underfunded and they have no political will to fix that, I wish they would. I don't not support EU becoming a global hegemon \ superpower, because I have issues with their European values, I don't support it because I see what weak pushovers they are.
[удалено]
Tbh dude, you're part of the problem if by "historically worse than the US" you thought I was talking about "Islamophobia" and not, you know, the UK colonizing half of Asia and Africa which among other things started the whole IP crisis. The systemic racism and Islamophobia and xenophobia (lol) you're talking about is genuinely first world problems after the colonizing and apartheid and genocide your grandparents generation committed that actually destroyed the third world and many cultures. Your French police aren't Nazis, you do not know xenophobia, and your "racism" is only bad by your own European privileged standards. Europe is literally up there as some of the most accepting places on Earth. You think people being jerks to people over skin color is bad? In other countries people DIE for being the wrong race or wrong religion or the wrong ideology. All of this theatrical ideology about racism you got from the US too, so don't blame others for obsessing over America. It's exactly this dramatic fake martyrism and detachment from what Europe did up until like 30 years ago, that drive so many people in Europe to the right. Let me remind you that Europe used to have actual Nazis, actual xenophobia based in actual fascism and actual actual colonialism of other cultures and actual apartheid. Europe has drastically improved morally to the point you are talking about what you are talking, and you don't even realize all this progress came at the price of Europe detaching from the larger world and relying on the US to keep the democratic world order in place. All this while today Europe does buisness with actual dictators appointing them to key positions in the UN like Iran, the champion of human rights violations and spreading fanatic religious terror in the middle east being appointed the UN Human Rights Chair! Holy hell! Europe is now so weak and unprincipled that it can't even defend itself or aid Kraine! That's crazy negligent. And to be clear - local racism IS an important issue, and just because people are treated worse in other countries does not mean that they should receive bad or unequal treatment in a democracy, but holy hell, be aware of Europe's history and global significance on the world stage.
The US is important with its military, until another democratic supranational force with multiples countries can take that role. Right now, without the US, Autocratic countries would be the hegemons of the world.
It's not. That's just a lie. The US military has done NOTHING in the passed 100 years to make the world a more peaceful place. US diplomacy has done very little in that regard, and policy has moved the world towards more destabilization. The entire influx of radicalized Muslims around the world is a direct result of the USA.
> The US military has done NOTHING in the passed 100 years to make the world a more peaceful place. Guess we forgot about WW2. Oh I forgot. According to communists Stalin personally marched to Berlin and shot Hitler. No one would claim America is innocent or always in the right, but this American diabolism only shows the most vulgar understanding of history. I don't see a realistically better alternative aside from more progressive international standards.
I heard the guy that killed hitler was a huge nazi so they might be onto something
Why do you think China hasn't moved on Taiwan or North Korea hasn't gone full nuke rain on South Korea? Or why Russian is afraid to even sneeze in the direction of a NATO country?
To be fair, I don't disagree really re:the importance of the US military, but Russia would most certainly lose a war against the entirety of NATO even if that didn't include the US, and I'm pretty sure North Korea must know internally they are too weak to have pretty much any modern nation retaliate. South Korea itself certainly has a military capable of retaliating alone if NK were to suddenly strike, regardless of US-involvement. Though obviously were China then to back them then it would come down to more but just speaking in a vacuum, US intervention isn't the only reason these countries haven't resorted to these actions
Yea I'm being a little hyperbolic, I agree. There's more nuance in these affairs. I'm just saying the idea of the US jumping into any conflict is a good deterrent
Oh yeah, for sure
Would NATO even stick together without the US involved? Seems like Russia could probably scare a lot of Eastern Europe into sitting out or outright joining them.
Russia clearly is not afraid of NATO, China is almost certainly going to invade Taiwan, and S.Korea I'm not sure. It seems like N.Korean military is pretty shit.
Where have you been the past couple of years? Russia can't even invade ukraine... not afraid of NATO? Almost everything they do is part of a playbook specifically centered around putting as much buffer between them and NATO states as possible.
This person is clearly a child.
No where near as smart as Nathan
Lol I actually forgot I was in a Destiny thread while reading these comments bc some were so stupid then I read "Nathan" and was like- wait where am I? No shot.
That's because Nathan is a based king.
Lol Russia can't even beat an underfunded Ukraine, they are shit scared of NATO
You are actually 12 years old lol
> It's not. That's just a lie. You're either a few crayons short of a full box or you refuse to think about what you're spewing before you spew it, which is unfortunate. > The US military has done NOTHING in the passed 100 years to make the world a more peaceful place. Here are just few examples of MANY ways the US military has contributed to global peace and stability over the past 100 years: * World War II (1939-1945): The US military played a crucial role in the defeat of the Axis powers. The US involvement helped bring an end to widespread atrocities and oppressive regimes, leading to the establishment of the United Nations and a more stable international order. * Korean War: The US military, as part of a United Nations coalition, intervened to repel North Korean aggression against South Korea. This action helped maintain the sovereignty of South Korea and established a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, despite ongoing tensions. * Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief: The US military frequently provides aid during natural disasters. For example, after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the US military provided significant humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, which helped save lives and restore stability to affected regions. I can keep going if you want more. Also, it would be "past", not "passed". > US diplomacy has done very little in that regard, and policy has moved the world towards more destabilization. The entire influx of radicalized Muslims around the world is a direct result of the USA. While it is undeniable that some US foreign policies have had unintended negative consequences, it is an oversimplification to blame the entirety of global destabilization and the rise of radicalized groups solely on the USA. Blaming the USA alone for global instability and radicalization ignores sooooo many other factors, like regional conflicts and historical issues. US diplomacy has also helped maintain peace and provide aid worldwide, showing its positive impact.
A few crayons short of a box is hilarious I’m stealing that lol
It's funny... you use ChatGPT enough, and you immediately start noticing when other people post them. Nice AI usage. And, I def did the math wrong. I was essentially saying that since WW2, the US has been a force for destabilization, but I rounded too much on the math. I should have just been specific and said since WW2 onward. I will also concede that the Korean War was justified, which was quite the rare exception to how the US conducted business in various other conflicts around the world. But on a scale, doesn't compare. Vietnam alone more than cancels out the good did with S. Korea.
> And, I def did the math wrong No, you were just wrong. Which is fine. I think people get too caught up on "America bad" and forget all the good shit: Some more: * Peackeeping in Bosnia, * Fighting Ebola in west Africa, * Combatting piracy off Somalia Once again, I can share more. I wouldn't deny that the US Military has done shit things - but in comparison to some of the other world powers, it's night and day.
America IS bad. They just brand themselves as the good guys because they show up when a hurricane hits somewhere, and thinks that cancels out all the murdering.
Sure, the US has made mistakes, but they've also saved lives and helped keep the peace worldwide. It's not all bad or good—it's a mix of both, leaning towards good. What do you think would have been better post-WWII? I'm coming from the perspective of someone who thinks liberty and self-determination is a good thing. I could see you disagreeing if you **feel** authoritarian governments with a history of death, pain, and suffering are a better direction - but it's just that, a feeling. Due to lack of experience or knowledge on the subject. Which, once again, is unfortunate.
This comment is just pure projection. As far as experience, I have experience with the US's death machine, because I was a part of it. I traveled to bases around the world. I've seen what the US does with it's military... which is take money from the people and waste it on useless shit, or bombing people. Where's your experience come from, bud?
Lmao
lol
It's so easy to believe the US is useless in policing the world when you don't see how much of a shitshow was prevented because of US hegemonic presence. Criticizing bad US foreign policy is fine but stop deluding yourself into believing every powerful dictatorship for the past 70 years wouldn't immediately pursue their imperialistic ambitions if US magically disappears. And I didn't even mention how crucial the US navy is in enforcing global trade laws which alone justifies our global presence as a net good
I truly don’t know how you can argue this. The post WW2 world has been the most peaceful period of human existence and it isn’t relatively close.
This is like saying to a poor person standing next to a billionaire, "hey don't be sad... the average wealth between you both is 500 million dollars!" Go tell this to the Vietnamese or any number of countries (Hell, Iraq right now is at risk of total collapse) destroyed by the US.
That comparison genuinely makes zero sense. You’re the one comparing the US to the rest of the world, not me. The point is that compared to any other world power the US has handled a much more stabilized world. You can say that another country would have done a better job (which is almost certainly not true), or that the US has no impact, but I think that’s ridiculous. For every shit war the US has intervened in (Iraq, Vietnam), you can point towards an intervention that’s morally correct (Yugoslavia, Korea, Afghanistan 2x, Ukraine). Compare this to the track record of Britain or the USSR I think it’s pretty evident the US has done a pretty good job.
> You’re the one comparing the US to the rest of the world, not me. I was referring to your "the world has never been more peaceful!" Yeah, on average the world is more peaceful, accentuated by extreme violence. Get the analogy now, bud? >For every shit war the US has intervened in (Iraq, Vietnam), you can point towards an intervention that’s morally correct (Yugoslavia, Korea, Afghanistan 2x, Ukraine). "For ever day I hit and abused you, wife... I made up for it by buying you expensive things and telling you you're sweet. So all-in-all, I'm a good person!"
Ah yes, because the Soviet Union annexing countries, China annexing countries, Russia annexing countries, is the bastion of stability on the world stage. Lol how much krocodile have you done lately?
So we’re going to ignore Desert Storm and stopping a genocide in Kosovo
Since ww2 Europe and perhaps even the world as a whole has been more peaceful than it ever has been. This is also a direct result of American diplomacy.
It's a direct result of an expanded global trade, proliferation of technology, and certain technical policies, such as taking out lead additives from gasoline (petrol). The US has done little to stop conflict, often committing assassinations, inciting political unrest, and flooding countries with money and drugs in order to get regime changes that afford the US economic advantages.
Expanded global trade is a direct result of America guaranteeing shipping lanes. If someone tried to do anything weird like the Houthies they can expect to be blown up by the US and it's allies. So we're just going to ignore NATO, Ukraine, Yogoslavia, Libya, Taiwan? The reason why there hasn't been another major war in Europe yet is in large part due to the US. The US will do weird shit in some 3rd world countries but they have mostly stopped since the cold war ended. Another yhing to consider is that almost any other country in the same position will do these things, it's more a function of power than ideology.
> Expanded global trade is a direct result of America guaranteeing shipping lanes. This just assumes that if the US hadn't/doesn't perform this function, that it would be performed through other actors. Do you know why Europe and other entities are building up their armed forces for the first time in a long time? It's because after the course of about 20-25 years, the US has dwindled the confidence it's cultivated on the world stage as being the hegemonic force. Europe and everyone now have serious doubts that the US wont spin out of control (see Trump presidency). >The reason why there hasn't been another major war in Europe yet is in large part due to the US. How so? I've never heard this assertion before, so I'm curious why you believe this.
“Albert Einstein wasn’t that great - your assuming someone else wouldn’t have taken his place” Europe is building up its armed forces because of Russia - literally nothing to do with the US It’s called deterrence moron - if I have gun and you have a knife - you probably won’t ray to stab me - Russia hasn’t made moves on Estonia or any other ex soviet block nations because Uncle Sam is behind all of them - trump might fuck it up but for now they know they’re protected under NATO - the US being the backbone of it
> “Albert Einstein wasn’t that great - your assuming someone else wouldn’t have taken his place” Absolutely. Yes. Do you know anything about Einstein's competition at that time? There were *numerous* other physicists who were vying for the coveted equation, and many were hot on his heels. >Europe is building up its armed forces because of Russia - literally nothing to do with the US [Sorry, but you're wrong.](https://fpif.org/america-the-unreliable-superpower/) Europe was incredibly shaken by the Trump presidency and even Biden cast many doubts about his ability to lead as commander in chief. >It’s called deterrence moron .... You really are a simple fucking dunce, ya? Russia literally INVADED another country, even with the full unadulterated backing of the US.
>This just assumes that if the US hadn't/doesn't perform this function, that it would be performed through other actors. You cannot simultaniously complain about the things the US has done and not give props for the things the US has done. It's possible that whoever would've replaced the US in protecting shipping lanes also replaced the US in fucking around in 3rd world countries. >Do you know why Europe and other entities are building up their armed forces for the first time in a long time? It's because after the course of about 20-25 years, the US has dwindled the confidence it's cultivated on the world stage as being the hegemonic force. Europe and everyone now have serious doubts that the US wont spin out of control (see Trump presidency). Yes, this is indeed a massive problem. >How so? I've never heard this assertion before, so I'm curious why you believe this. A lot of it is through NATO and the US's nuclear umberella. NATO with the US in it has probably been the largest force for peace in human history.
14?
Then be the example we all need to see. Own your convictions. Leave if you live here and if you don't, ok cool then it's just some 3rd party shitpost.
I live in Canada, dipshit
You live in a town called "dipshit?" Wow, you must be the mayor or someone important there.
It's always the vassal state citizens that chirp most about the US.
I'm actually a citizen of the US as well. I earned my citizenship... wbu? You just pop out of a pussy?
I was born superior, yes.
Hates America Becomes American. Lol nice
My hatred of the US government didn't come until I was knee deep into my 2nd deployment and the torture pictures were released. I was already a citizen by that point.
Go outside and play kid
How old are you?
Hello from America 3rd party shitposter!
You still in high school huh?
How old are you?
That little voice in your head that tells you that you're a burden to everyone in your life. You should listen to that a little more.
How large is your Funko POP collection
>America does nothing for the world, except being one of the largest exporters of weapons and terrorism. What have the Romans ever done for us?
Do you know how many people would starve and go without medicine and other necessities if it wasn’t for US Aid as well as the US Navy protecting global free trade?
[Uh huh.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/18/vietnam-unexploded-landmines-bombs)
How does this relate to us aid or global trade? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-14/vietnam-seeks-to-gradually-expand-security-defense-ties-with-us
They're buying weapons from the US? Is this significant? It would be either this empire, or Russia.
And, let me guess, you’d prefer Russia?
No, I'd prefer there were no global super powers selling small arms en masse to lesser countries, trying to promote conflict. Is there something written that the US would be worse off if it weren't selling weapons to the globe?
> No, I'd prefer there were no global super powers selling small arms en masse to lesser countries, trying to promote conflict. I agree. But if Russia and China are doing it too, our hands are kinda tied at that point, no? I agree that it’s a sad and undesirable situation though.
> But if Russia and China are doing it too, our hands are kinda tied at that point, no? But why? I don't understand this idea. If your neighbor is selling drugs, does that mean you must as well?
Get Canadian healthcare you fucking braindead waste of oxygen, the fall of the US would mean a global return to warfare all over the world, dictatorships running rampant and 10x the current amount of genocides, not something you care about
This is the most downvotes I have ever seen on a comment (did my part too). Well done Sir!
the retardation levels it takes to think the destruction of one of the largest and most powerful on earth = no McDonalds.
It's called hyperbole, numbnuts. Did you fail your English classes, sport?
Yes we all know you're being hyperbolic dipshit. Still you believe there is truth to your comment. That's why everyone is pointing and laughing at you. Do you need further explanation?
I dunno why you're using "we" in a sentence, because clearly **you** had no fucking clue what hyperbole even was until you googled it. You even used a fucking equal sign in your comment, you fucking genius. And I couldn't care less what people think, considering that nearly every single one of these assfucks are young enough to be little kids when 9/11 happened, and have never experienced any actual trauma in their entire sheltered lives. Just like you.
Speaking from a place of trauma isn't the way to a rational position.
Buddy... how would you know?
America's collapse is not simply just having less McDonalds around the world or the ending of all wars. You'd be surprised at the reliance of American money to third world countries. In the country where I'm originally from (Bangladesh) [the United States has given us 400+ million dollars in economic aid](https://www.foreignassistance.gov/) in the 2022 fiscal year, is one the country's [largest trade partner in exports](https://www.lloydsbanktrade.com/en/market-potential/bangladesh/trade-profile#:~:text=Foreign%20Trade%20in%20Figures&text=The%20country's%20main%20export%20partners,3.9%25%20%2D%20data%20NBS), and has [helped financially in previous humanitarian crises](https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/may-09-2024-united-states-announces-nearly-31-million-humanitarian-assistance-rohingya-refugees#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20government%20has%20provided,but%20much%20more%20is%20needed). A complete collapse of the United States would not do many countries (both third and first world) any good. (And let's not even talk about the global financial & tech hub that the U.S. runs, imagine if Google, Amazon, Microsoft, the top financial companies, etc. were to shut down. Not looking good at all.) The collapse of the U.S. would also not magically end all wars no matter what lense you look it through. Whether you are a hardcore realist who believes states are inherently anarchical and want power for themselves, then in the event of a U.S. collapse, another country will take the helm of global hegemon and start wars all over again. If you believe international instuitions keep things in check, a collapse of one of the major arbiters of those instituitions will not do you any good either. Now, I do have my fair share of harsh criticism for the U.S. and their foreign policy, but a complete collapse of the United States is not going to magically make our world a better place to live in or institute [global socialism somehow](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dfwf4g/comment/l8mr7g4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Do you imagine that if you didn't get your investments, or aid through the US, that they wouldn't exist at all? And no, nobody proposed that "all wars would end," but the number of conflicts that have arisen *because* of the US is numerous. You can look away from them because your country benefited... but that doesn't absolve them of the misery they cause every day. Hell, want a contemporary example? [Pentagon ran secret anti-vaxx campaign in China](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/). I wonder how many innocent people died, and how this will play out as far as new wars because of shit like this?
>Do you imagine that if you didn't get your investments, or aid through the US, that they wouldn't exist at all? You bring up a fair point, however my main point was not that the U.S. is unique in its ability to transfer aid but that you simply neglect that the U.S. in general does play an important role in many country's development and wealth. The collapse of the U.S. of any form, which is what the topic of this post is about, will not do any good for any of these countries. At the end of the day the U.S. is a global hegemon currently (though that might change in the future with the rise of China) and has a pivotol role in other country's economies. >And no, nobody proposed that "all wars would end," but the number of conflicts that have arisen *because* of the US is numerous. You can look away from them because your country benefited... but that doesn't absolve them of the misery they cause every day. I do not disagree that the U.S. has caused a number of global harm across the world and is not necessarily a force of good but again the collapse of the U.S. will only lead to another global power starting wars for their own benefit or other countries starting their own wars leading to greater global instability (if you're more keen in believing that instituitions like the UN produce international order). My main thesis is that I personally disagree with the idea that a sudden collapse of the U.S. will magically solve all our problems. You may not believe this personally judging from your reply but your initial comment seems to imply a non-chalant attitude towards U.S. collapse which I think is the wrong message to send.
> The collapse of the U.S. of any form, which is what the topic of this post is about, will not do any good for any of these countries. How do you know? I certainly don't know the details behind these deals. What if they are total shit? Or maybe they could get better deals from another country? I refuse to just accept your assertion that the US is the best possible outcome for yours or any particular country just because. >I do not disagree that the U.S. has caused a number of global harm across the world and is not necessarily a force of good but again the collapse of the U.S. will only lead to another global power... I've heard this ethereal argument so many times, but it's just an assertion. "Whatabout X superpower?" What about them? Is Brazil, for instance, going to do worse on the global stage than the US? How so? Personally, I'm not moved by fictional boogie men, all the while the US empire marches on and commits atrocities that make the Israel/Palestine conflict look tame. >My main thesis is that I personally disagree with the idea that a sudden collapse of the U.S. will magically solve all our problems. My main counter is that the world has had about 75 years of US control, and the world is worse for it in many ways. I don't think Russia is a better option, but it's doubtful they would be an actual influence anyways. I believe that more power should go to lesser nations and hegemonic powers should crumble. It seems you've bought into the idea that "because there are dominant forces in the world, that's just how things *have* to be." I disagree.
>How do you know? I certainly don't know the details behind these deals. What if they are total shit? Or maybe they could get better deals from another country? I refuse to just accept your assertion that the US is the best possible outcome for yours or any particular country just because. I never said they were the best possible outcome, I simply have said that they are impactful and pointing out how globally connected the world is to the United States. My point is that given how interconnected the world is to the U.S. suddenly ending the U.S. will lead to strongly negative economic outcomes amongst many partner countries. Imagine all the financial instituitions, the tech instituitions, the huge funneling of global trade, all gone. This will not lead economic prosperity and will take a long time before it all recovers. >I've heard this ethereal argument so many times, but it's just an assertion. "Whatabout X superpower?" What about them? Is Brazil, for instance, going to do worse on the global stage than the US? How so? Personally, I'm not moved by fictional boogie men, all the while the US empire marches on and commits atrocities that make the Israel/Palestine conflict look tame. Again, like if the U.S. were to collapse in a short timespan and lose the majority of its global influence without any strong international instituition keeping every country in check, I can't imagine a world where there won't be some global instability of some kind. Every country wants to be the most powerful and dominating as it is in their best interests. What is stopping Russia or China or India or any other large country from becoming the next hegemon? Time and time in history there are old hegemons that fall and new ones that come up. My personal view is the only way to stop this are more powerful and interconnected instituitions like the UN or financial systems that keep countries in check from attacking each other, however I do not believe we are there yet and a U.S. collapse will certainly not usher that either. >It seems you've bought into the idea that "because there are dominant forces in the world, that's just how things *have* to be." I disagree. Listen man, I am not a supporter of U.S. hegemony like I said I am one of those people who believe that international instituitions can prevent conflict. I just personally believe that blowing up the U.S. and purposefully causing its sudden destruction is not the way to go. I do support a gradual decline in U.S. hegemony and give this power to all nations (though I am still unsure if this is feasible, but I am reading up more on this day by day) like having more nations and expanding veto power in the UN security council and strengthening international instituitions but the collapse of the U.S. I cannot support unfortunatley. To be honest I think we're talking past each other. I don't disagree that U.S. hegemony has been a net negative globally but I am simply disagreeing with your understanding of how connected the U.S. is to global affairs and how its destruction is not the magic bullet to prosperity.
>I never said they were the best possible outcome, I simply have said that they are impactful and pointing out how globally connected the world is to the United States. Are you familiar with an economic concept called 'opportunity cost?' If not, I highly recommend you do a quick read, because it certainly applies here. >given how interconnected the world is to the U.S. suddenly ending the U.S. will lead to strongly negative economic outcomes amongst many partner countries. Again, I don't accept this assertion. It could be the complete opposite. I'll give you a general example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLc3ehhPIKA A summary is that Perkins claims that the CIA/NSA use economists to "make deals" with countries in exchange for resources, and although the rich get richer, the poor from those countries often suffer from them. >I can't imagine a world where there won't be some global instability of some kind. This idea *completely* ignores the entire quagmire that happened with the destabilization of the Middle East. If you were correct, then we would ***not*** see a rise of global terrorism because of a direct result of US foreign policy. >Every country wants to be the most powerful and dominating as it is in their best interests. What is stopping Russia or China or India or any other large country from becoming the next hegemon? I don't agree with the first premise, because oftentimes countries see the dominant position as not cost effective. Second, there's nothing stopping China or India rising in power *right now.* China, for instance, is giving out very large economic development packages all across Africa, increasing their "hegemony." Same with India. You also haven't stated *why* the US hegemony is better than, say, China. >I just personally believe that blowing up the U.S. and purposefully causing its sudden destruction is not the way to go. Lol, nobody has that ability, and that's not what I think is a serious potential outcome. But if we were thinking in terms of "what if," as in "what if the US never ascended to global superpower, or didn't interfere so much in other country's affairs, then I'd argue that it's not clear that the world would be worse off, and that actually it might be significantly better. And if the US declined in power, that clears the sky for smaller trees to grow, and that too might be better.
>This idea *completely* ignores the entire quagmire that happened with the destabilization of the Middle East. If you were correct, then we would ***not*** see a rise of global terrorism because of a direct result of US foreign policy. Lol, nobody has that ability, and that's not what I think is a serious potential outcome. But if we were thinking in terms of "what if," as in "what if the US never ascended to global superpower, or didn't interfere so much in other country's affairs, then I'd argue that it's not clear that the world would be worse off, and that actually it might be significantly better. And if the US declined in power, that clears the sky for smaller trees to grow, and that too might be better. If that is what you are arguing for then I am sorry for wasting your time as my argument was merely a critique of accelerationism and the belief that a collapse of the U.S. in an instant will create a better society (as some people in the screenshots of the main post seem to suggest). Ignore the last two paragraphs then as that is what I am discussing. The question of what if the U.S. did not become a superpower is an interesting question. I definitley think if the U.S. did not interfere as much in global affairs there would be better outcomes. However the other side of me believes some other country would take the mantle as a a [semi-realist ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations))myself. I think a decline in U.S. power and handing it off to unrepresented countries would definitley keep the U.S. and other powers in check and create a better global society. >Are you familiar with an economic concept called 'opportunity cost?' If not, I highly recommend you do a quick read, because it certainly applies here. Again, I don't accept this assertion. It could be the complete opposite. I'll give you a general example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLc3ehhPIKA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLc3ehhPIKA) >A summary is that Perkins claims that the CIA/NSA use economists to "make deals" with countries in exchange for resources, and although the rich get richer, the poor from those countries often suffer from them. I'll look into the video later, thank you nonetheless. I think you keep on misunderstand my point, my belief is not that there exists better deals I simply don't believe ending the U.S. right now will solve this issue. I agree there are probably better ways the U.S. can distribute aid or countries can work together to deliver aid but to discount and stop all U.S. aid suddenly is like I said not what I agree with. >I don't agree with the first premise, because oftentimes countries see the dominant position as not cost effective. Second, there's nothing stopping China or India rising in power *right now.* China, for instance, is giving out very large economic development packages all across Africa, increasing their "hegemony." Same with India. You also haven't stated *why* the US hegemony is better than, say, China. In your first sentence you say oftentimes countries see the dominant position as not cost effective but then you elude to how countries like India and China are trying to grow their influence, thus proving my point. Furthermore, there will be exceptions but in general I think countries generally do want to get more powerful over the long-run but I would be open for some case studies to read up on. Suddenly decreasing the U.S. influence will probably see their actions embolden more strongly due to such an unstable event occuring leaving open a power vaccuum. I do not believe that Chinese hegemony is worse than American. Like you I think hegemony is something we should move away from to build a more stronger world order. However I think that should come with reforms and they should come gradually not related to sudden destruction of the U.S. as I outlined in my previous response.
😂 lol. Yokay.
Are you lost?
It’s so fucking hilarious how accelerationists think AMERICA should collapse and some how think communism will rise from those ashes when the most likely outcome if far right authoritarianism
They’re worthless in modern society so they want it to burn down so they can offer some value. They’re bitter angry morons.
roll quicksand alive jar doll automatic person dinosaurs scale shame *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Even from the lefty accelerationist steelman pov, they need to have like serious inroads with the working class nationally, in order to influence what would happen after a collapse, and their ideology isn't even remotely popular enough for this. They just totally gloss over even what their own ideological forefathers say. IIRC one of them, Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky idk which one, said explicitly that communism isn't some inevitability, that once capitalism fails, it's just going to magically turn into communism. But these people don't read shit, they just fly on america bad, rich people bad, platitudes
they are too insufferable and out of touch with normal people to convince any of them of their idea. there is literally no way for them to communicate their stance without sounding like absolute lunatics.
With what the online left has become I totally agree. But in theory, it's not too hard to talk to people who are struggling and say, "Damn aren't you sick of barely getting by while Jeff Bezos pays someone to wipe his ass?". Back in my more hardcore lefty days we worked with local unions on strikes, contract neogitations, protests, and more. It was the perfect blend of helping out the community as well as getting your ideas out there. But, you're right so much of what we see online is people that don't care about convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with them about anything
yes, i don't think it is difficult to convince proles that the rich are fucking them in the ass. the problem is the tone they use to convey their message. in short, their PR strategy is very poor. no one in this movement can be taken seriously because every one of them has some outlandish take, like condoning shoplifting because the rich are stealing from you too. i wish you could read french because you could see the ridiculous things tankies circlejerk about in a local subreddit.
Not just communism but SOY communism from larpers on twitter.
https://preview.redd.it/cnil6eq05n6d1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=220727fc62bb8beb346a497b04cf54adeb1bf568
Yeah I mean realistically if the US collapsed, what would happen? China takes over large parts of the world...? I guess commies glaze the fuck out of China and actually think it's some sort of utopia though so RIP.
Unironically yes. “Team America world police” is a great meme and we should be critical of the US military industrial complex. But the US military is what holds a significant amount of global democracy together. This is me sperging out and rambling after a couple beers but I don’t think it’s ridiculously off the mark: Taiwan and South Korea fall to China, same with the majority of East Asia. Best case scenario for Japan is rapidly increasing its military and becoming even more isolationist. Russia continues to push through Eastern Europe. Essentially can do whatever they want as long as they don’t piss China off. Same with Iran. Israel wiped off the map. The entire Middle East essentially reverts to something like the Ottoman Empire run by Islamists The only democratic, economic powerhouses left are Germany, France, and the UK if they’re lucky. Maybe Italy as well. Africa and South America become even further dominated by China and Islamists. Australia/new zealand have to go the same isolationist route as Japan. Alaska and Canada are left undefended and the Canadian economy is destroyed. Russia possibly takes control. America itself and maybe Mexico turn into an alliance of feudal regions run by warlords. This is the best case scenario where no nukes are even dropped. People do not realize that the American military is the glue that holds democracy together against China, Russia, and Iran. The entire world except for certain pockets still armed with nukes fall to totalitarianism. The CCP controls half or more of the globe, and Russian oligarchs, Islamists, and US right wing facists control maybe 40% collectively. The remaining 10% are isolationists pockets armed with nukes in Western Europe, East Asia, South Africa, Some of south America, and the US. And possibly India. These countries still cannot easily manufacture chips (and therefore weapons like drones) without Taiwan. Whatever of Canada and the US are mostly useful for oil and natural gas. China and OPEC control the largest percentage of oil and gold. The world heads down a path of two options. The entire world in a couple hundred years is controlled by totalitarian regimes, or nuclear destruction. Unless there is a miracle revolution by liberal militants that believe in democracy. Like the US or French revolutions. But on a global scale
>This is me sperging out and rambling after a couple beers but I don’t think it’s ridiculously off the mark: Yeah I mean I was being serious. If the US fell China would unironcially take over large parts of the world. It's just that commies love China so they probably think that would be great and not the awful child labor, concentration camp, Big Brother, secret police, etc... world that I think most people realize it would actually be. But yeah, if I'm being honest I don't even think Western Europe would be able to stop China and would get taken over. NATO without the US and versus China and Russia I'm not sure that it'd be able to stand on its own (although Ukraine showing the incompetence of Russia maybe gives more credibility to them being able to hold out) Even if it could though it'd just be a matter of time with China controlling/being allied with countries that control literally like 80% of the globe and human population.
I agree completely. There is a very decent chance the CCP would control 80% of the global population within our lifetime if the US collapsed tomorrow. That comes with all the things you mentioned. Big brother, concentration camps, etc. “wrongthink” these tankies advocate for that I believe is a serious internal threat the west are not taking seriously enough. Our best chance for the survival of democracy would maybe even be India now that their population has surpassed China’s. And because they have nukes. The UK would have the advantage of being an island nation like Japan, and a potential alliance with France that has nukes as well. Pakistan also has nukes though and presents a serious potential issue for all of those countries
I wonder why south korea and other countries have no nukes, are they dumb?
South Korea has no nukes to keep tensions lower with North Korea, which again plays into China and the Cold War. Providing South Korea with nukes would be seen as an implicit threat against China, and possibly even Russia. Countries like Germany and Japan have no nukes because of agreements made after WWII. All three of these countries could build nukes if they wanted to. Or a country like France could simply give them to them
It's funny because it really does ignore what could hypothetically happen if a collapse did happen. If it isn't civil war there would be a cluster of nations. Probably some sort of authoritarian/religious nation based in the south. Possibly an independent Texas if they don't join the authoritarian nation. Some remanants of the US which most def wouldn't be communist. Maybe California/west coast based nation depending on if the US doesn't fully doesn't dissolve. None of these would be communist, at best maybe u get a more progressive California nation but also this is the same nation that is tech liberal and won't even sniff communism. But all of this is so hypothetical that it's not worth seriously thinking about. Not to mention the amount of influence other nations would try to exert, none of which are communist.
Yeah Soviet communism collapsed and in its wake Capitalism then fascism arose.
Insufferable regards
Their worldview is that they hate their daddy (America)
Would you say the same about the founding fathers in the run up to the revolution?
Hating your abusive exploitative daddy is way more reasonable than hating your dad who does his best and is just kinda dumb sometimes
>dad who does his best and is just kinda dumb sometimes I'm sure the loyalists to the crown thought much the same way
They would, but guess what, democracy is worth fighting for, communism is not.
Technically a good point but you won’t find much love for that position here 😅
Yes but hating a monarch is based.
It's sucha uniquely American thing to hate America with all your heart while you benefit from the America being stable and the #1 superpower in the world every second of your miserable life. They'd never move away from every cushy benefit this country provides them to somewhere with none of it. China is right there if you wanna try.
Americans want to be victims so bad
I mean I love the country don’t get me wrong. But it’s hard to fathom the fact that half of the country thinks a crook like Trump is lesser of “two evils”. I rather take a literal chimpanzee over trump.
The country dying by internal stupidity is truly the saddest arc imaginable
Part of me wishes America would be destroyed just to see how these people will like it when they actually have to experience it. I really hate how the internet allowed people who never experienced conflict in their lives a platform to pretend they're revolutionaries.
As much as I despise reality TV, this should be a show. Take all these world burners and stick them together in the ashes of a Democracy and watch them rock and cry in the corner.
Pretty sure they'd just move to Europe or Canada.
Canada mf’s when America implodes and their entire economy, defense, and trade goes with it https://preview.redd.it/93dfga56qn6d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a79ac567ab26801e6c9d608065b32a589830cb2
But how long would those places last against an emboldened China+Russia? NAILS
They would gladly burn the country down and die in the flames if their last moments could be to see the rest of us suffer.
They really think everyone is as depressed and misanthropic as they are.
Would you guys rather live 3 years in the wild doing the stuff your body was meant to do, then die a brutal death at the dispassionate hands of nature? Or would you rather live as a housecat for 20 years, existing in relative comfort at the price of extreme boredom and being a more successful organism’s little bitch? Honest question, I don’t know the answer myself, but I think this is how a lot of leftoid anarchists and rightoid preppers view the world
These lefties would pick cat but just so they could lick their own ass.
We need to reply the Walmart bomb tweet Everytime one of these losers postures America bad
The only way !
I thought the liberals always sided with the fascists... :/
Lol none of these people could survive a revolution. When their Zoloft prescription runs out, they'll be cooked.
Add the semaglutide shots to that list of things running out.
Accelerate
Alot of people, especially younger ones have completely lost faith in the system. People are depressed, lonely and have lost hope. Not surprising that many just want to see the world burn.
Why is Modern Rome an insult?
It isn’t. Only to the Visigoths and Vandals is it.
These idiots don't realize they're the Roman citizens, not the Italian allies, in mOdErN dAY rOmE
Europe is like the Italian allies? Do we get to become part of the USA lol?
Europe isn't real. It's a hoax perpetrated on the American people by the demonrats to trick them into believing other countries might do *some* things better which is clearly false since America is number 1. Ever read the Constitution, libtard?!
I don't give a fuck what any bozo says, horseshoe theory is 100% correct, true and accurate. The far left and far right both think america is the modern day rome, and they both dislike that about america, the only difference is the far right hates america being modern rome because of gays and pederasty, and the far left hates america being modern rome because of imperialism and oppression.
And here I am SPQR. Strength and Honor.
42 comments to 1.5K likes, this doesn’t exactly prove what you’re saying, bud
Lol, replace it with tariffs, as if we don't already have tons of tariffs
Let’s do it, I live in a white gated community so only poor people will suffer!
ugh, twitter has become a place of chinese commie bots, and russian nazi bots and they all want us to be destroyed, fucking assholes
Question for the more educated. Why do lefties hate “lesser of 2 evils” so much they’re willing to let their LGBT and minority allies suffer? Do they really believe some hypothetical revolution will be achieved with enough suffering?
This like appeal of tariffs is like not based in reality, there’s a reason the us moved away from them as the main apparatus of tax collection
These damn fools. What’s funny is in economic terms the US is probably the most equipped the dominate the 21st century. Pax Americana 2.0
“Liberalism leads to fascism” mofo’s POV:
Russian shills and Russian bots
Genius logic, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, to achieve communism we need to give absolute power to those we hate, so that they will be more obviously corrupt. At which point the people will unite and do the communist revolution finally!!! Genuinely 400 IQ.
https://preview.redd.it/o802p3ynyn6d1.png?width=460&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a3d6b6ccd5dce0cf20d16a7e0cc5ff883d98a37
Fallout was just an opportunity for communism 😀
"Rome modern day" AMERICA INVICTA 🦅🦅🦅
https://preview.redd.it/epozy34i1r6d1.jpeg?width=128&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=310dd204957ca2dc8d0361a63d239cb56af3826f
do they not realize the cascade of global failure that would happen if the US we’re to dissolve? like think of how much critical global infrastructure is centralized in the US? Just in the tech/internet sense. Sure google, amazon, ibm and all of the big players have redundant servers across the globe but i don’t think those redundancies can withhold the entire load. What happens when critical AWS servers go offline? What happens when payments can no longer be completed? what happens when outlook/gmail servers are downsized to a fraction of what they currently are?
Ah yes, /r/Destiny and teardowns of random tweets from lefties. A match made in heaven.
“Online political community talks about online politics”
This is like listening to some people talk about politics during lunch then coming to make a post about it.
As you know, r/Destiny is famously the only streamer subreddit where high engagement tweets are discussed
So why engage with the thread then instead of making one you want to see instead?