That’s what you believe but all indicators are saying otherwise. We can’t forget that America never entered world war 2 until late and possibly never would have if Japan didn’t attack? And undisputed that it took Russia to come out on the side it did, had Germany not have turned on their agreement, things would have been different. In terms of stability since, they went into a cold war not long after and you’d have to ask countries that they have imposed themselves whether they are better off and whether the embassies have achieved much? My guess would be not judging by how the world views them. That’s an interesting view in the paragraph regarding the Middle East, who’s better off from taking their oil, and better for who with their interference? Passing the mantle to China, I don’t see it as passing but rather they’ve dropped it. A failed experiment of capitalism masquerading as democracy. Democratic capitalism if you will, Mamdani is experimenting with Democratic socialism which will be interesting to see how the experiment goes
Politics 🤡 Donald Trump
- Thread starter sup42
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
Absolutely, that’s why I’ve mentioned enjoying listening to Martin Bella who’s professed right wing and I agree with a majority of what he says, he’s just a decent person which most of us are. I’ve said my view on the politics thread countless times about opposition politics setting a bad example for society because of division and I believe that’s deliberate. We should vote for away for party affiliation and vote for them based on their policies and character and those voted in form a government that cooperates
I think the US has kept peace due to bad entities knowing the US will deal to them if they step out of line. Iraq was a warning to Saudi Arabia, Iran and all the other countries as much as sorting and showing that the US will break rules and interfere if you dont do it the US way.
All the talk about the US only doing it for oil and themselves - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, etc was for world peace, not just interests.
We can all see the world today and criticise but nobody knows how the world would have been if the US stayed domestically focused after WW2. my pick is Russia would have caused ww3. The Middle East and Islam would rule the majority of the world. North Korea would have swallowed South Korea, China swallowed South east Asia, the world poorer and lower standard of living without capitalism and globalism.
Nobody likes the policeman but think of the alternatives! Right and wrong and how to solve issues is complicated.
I just find the big picture stuff fascinating.
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
You’re mistaking America wanting or keeping world peace, they want world dominance. Wars go on and on through proxy wars so they often are fighting, but fighting through other entities and supplying their weaponry. All the talk about America doing it for the oil and themselves? That falls into the world peace and US interests you cite, though world peace is a huge stretch. They have no interest in world peace but only world domination. You’re right, nobody knows how the world would be if it ended up the other way around but this country is no better in many regards than the countries it criticises
Why do you think this?
NZWarriors.com
You've just described America
Yes. I don’t agree with what Americas does but I’m thankful it was them and not someone else that became the dominant force.
They have veered off course lately but fundamentally democracy is power to people and capitalism is democracy within the economy.
The american keeping the peace narrative is totally stripping everything out of any context.
All the conflicts you listed them as world peace were wholey cause by american intervention.
Vietnam kicked off following the backing of a fascist regime by the americans and refusal to hold elections cause they new the north would have won as Ho Chi Minh had massive support in the country.
They trained and armed the Mujahideen that would later morph into the taliban against the USSR aligned government to Afghanistan.
Libya is a worse place today then it was under Gaddafi with open slave markets and a hot bed for terror training all of which was mostly under control prior.
The fall of Yugoslavia and the following conflict is directly linked to their export of neoliberal capitalism following the soviet dissolution as condition to integrate into the global economy.
Ukraine is mostly just imperial proxy war, could go back again to the dissolution of the USSR and Americas role in that, but it totally is within their interests to assist ukraine in protracting the war without actually helping resolve it.
NZWarriors.com
So how would the world be different today if the US stayed domestically focused and never interfered anywhere?
I don’t necessarily think the US wanted to keep the peace or fix countries, a lot of times intervention was about stopping other superpowers expanding (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc) which ultimately kept the US strong, their competitors weaker and allowed peace.
All the conflicts you’ve listed in all the posts doesn’t indicate peace but rather controlling power by any means necessary being in direct fighting or fighting through others and providing the means. Often the narrative is controlled too in consideration to who the enemy is and we follow it without looking deeper, though sometimes the enemy is clear also. Your initial posts started off by asking will what’s happening in America be remembered 100 years down the line? The fact it’s a nation built on slavery and the blacks haven’t forgotten indicates it will be remembered if the world changes dramatically from this point