JCC Ender Sigh rags on 'Murica

I mean, we're now actually seriously considering moving Australia Day from January 26 because that was the date the First Fleet arrived here and hence, invaded indigenous land. We're not perfect, we just don't buy into any myths.

If I said to yeurgh that it's ridiculous they have a lion as the national animal symbol, and should stick to good English animals like the badger or stoat or fieldmouse, he'd not launch into an impassioned defence of iconography. Similarly if he said we had a flightless bird and bellicose macropod, I wouldn't feel compelled to beat him up.

We just don't think we're that special. And so we don't tend to act as if there's a magical destiny guiding us.

Sorry?

 

Yup. Reminds me of a George Carlin gem: "Symbols are for the sym-bol-minded."

How many of my fellow Americans here would be relieved to drop the sanctimonious "shining city on the hill" "the one indispensable nation" malarkey and just aim to be a decently-run Western industrialized country? Just walk away from the vaunted empire project hatched up by bloviating derangos like Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge and be part of a respectable world community, instead of its thuggish leader?

Wouldn't it be a relief without these burdens? You can bet a lot of folks worldwide would be grateful.

 

We're protecting the country from former Prime Ministers of Norway (under a pre-Trump policy).

 

Thanks Ghost!

 

SuperWatto I read this the thread and the politics thread a lot and I didn't see it, but thanks for pretending that I post previously discussed articles all the time, I guess.

 

Sorry, just thought it was funny.
You as Ghost.

 

There's like 3 of them, yeah. Lovely people.

 

No, he said "decently-run".

 

GrandAdmiralJello: I'd prefer not to be compared to the American Firsters of the 30s and early 40s, but I would take pride in being associated with those who'd prefer that 54% of our country's discretionary income not go to our precious defense budget, or that one of our chief exports not be arms and weapons.

 

The United States gained its "leadership" role through conquest and force. From the Spanish-American War to World War I to World War II to the Cold War, U.S. dominance was achieved not through it being a Beacon of Freedom, but because the U.S. had the factories to make guns and bombs and tanks, the money to throw at allies, and the bodies to throw at the Germans, Japanese, etc. The U.S. throughout the Cold War was not the Righteous Leader but a major anti-democratic, neo-colonialist destabilizing force in the world. Even after the Cold War the U.S.'s harsh treatment of post-Soviet Russia including economic sabotage and the eastward expansion of NATO has heavily contributed to one of the biggest geopolitical problems today.

The U.S. armed forces are sustained by a budget of over a trillion dollars a year (accounting for all military-related spending and not the just the DoD budget), operates in hundreds of overseas bases, is the single-biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world, possesses thousands of nuclear warheads (some of which are still on high alert and pointed at Russia), maintains many times more aircraft carriers than any other country (10 vs. 2 at most), has the ability to rapidly deploy a force anywhere in the world... I'm struggling to see why drawing this down is a bad thing. Military disengagement does not mean political or economic disengagement. It's not isolationist to say we should kill and destroy less.

 

Usually, the answer is no one, with people thinking it will become a multipolar world again where great powers hold influence over their region and no one has dominance. That's what Putin is advocating for, and I believe the Chinese are too. And it's close to what Trump said he wanted in his inauguration address.
(some idealists say a stronger UN... but that's a joke)

 

China stance is very different in private; on the global stage, Beijing would like to be a power among many - which respects the sovereignty of independent nation. But in private, especially since the rise of Trump, the Chinese do see an opportunity and great benefit in being a dominate superpower.

 

How is America a leader?

 

In the sense that they do what they want, and we adapt to it, they are "leading" us.

 

Given the current state of the political system, I doubt any country wants to adapt to it.

In many ways, Ender is right. Since 1945, the US hasn't much lead but defied the international consensus. The United Nations only gained from US leadership when Washington needed it, majority of the times it was always a unilateral decisions. Especially during the Cold War. Latin America would argue American leadership has proved harmful and actually obstructed democratic movements and reforms.

But that's what happens when you're the dominant superpower - you can pretty much do what you like.

 

That's what I meant. We don't adapt by choice. We do what we have to.