some intellectuals are easily annoyed. valid or not.
2 Likes
Very true.
once you figure out it’s all posturing bullshit, you’ll feel better about it all. I’ve spent the last 6 months with the attitude of not giving two fucks about what politicians say or do. they’re puppets with the hand of corporatations shoved firmly up their arse and they care about me about as much as I care about them. Once I see a REAL human being involved in politics (Chuck Cadman) for the purpose of actually giving a fuck about what’s going on around them, I’ll tune back in again. Otherwise, I’m going to pay my required taxes (whilst finding ways to pay less), and concentrate on my friends’ and familys’ well-being.
Nice discussion @El_Dorado and @Magnus
I think it highlights the growing rift between Europe and the United States. Back in the day it seemed a lot tighter. Then I think it was Obama who said America was going to pivot toward the Pacific (or something like that). And since then, maybe even before then I don’t know, it seems the gap between Europe and America is widening.
Oh, and when I say ‘rift’ I don’t mean any particular fall out (apart from relatively minor things like with France over submarine deals with Australia) but just a widening of the gap. I think we have structures in place that were designed for the post WWII reality, but the landscape has shifted enormously.
And while Europe is pretty much a left, center-left, progressive sort of place politically, with a robust social safety net and so on; America has veered way to the right, such that the Republicanism of Ronald Reagan seems quaint these days.
Culturally we are not in the same place. Never have been, actually… although it used to be much closer.
4 Likes
1 Like
I think it is precisely that. Even well into the W presidency US foreign policy was a very post-WWII, Cold War focused one intended to limit Russia’s influence, primarily in Europe (and a bit in Central America and the Caribbean). One of the reasons that has been raised for W’s poor response to 9/11 intelligence was because Condi Rice (National Security Advisor) and her team were incapable of understanding the threat because they saw everything through the context of a Russiancentric Nation State lens.
Obama’s Asian Pivot was a paradigm shift precisely because it was an attempt to move away from that post-WWII thinking, and instead refocus that area where national security meets foreign policy on dealing with the rise of China, what they viewed as the primary issue of the 21st century.
Ironically, closer ties to Russia via Medvedev was a precursor to that, and that blew up in our face and now we find ourselves back in and old school 1960s style pending crisis
2 Likes
It’s true the U.S.is the de facto guarantor of world stability, and in that sense we have to counter Russia’s threat. My point is more to your concentration on military solutions. There is no military solution if Russia decides to attack Ukraine. The reasons are obvious. Same reasons we did nothing over the Crimea beyond sanctions.
The situation is the same for Taiwan, most regrettably. If China decides to attack, the U.S. will do nothing. We can’t risk nuclear conflict with China over Taiwan. The situation with regards to China is the West’s own fault. We wanted to make markets there and did not insist the government apply basic freedoms first. Very bad decision, and we can say the U.S. had an outsized role in that decision. I wonder what the West would do if China absorbed Taiwan through military action. Would we economically disengage with China? We should, but I doubt our leaders have the strength of character to demand that.
As to Afghanistan, we could stay another fifty years, and the result would be the same. Outside of Kabul, we had little influence. We were holding the country for the privilege of a few thousand Western-thinking Afghans while most of the populace favored the Taliban, who were at least largely organic and kept order when they were in charge.
3 Likes
Hey mate. I have to throw in the towel or get back to you later. I saw this now and it’s too late since tomorrow is Christmas and I am with my family. We celebrate on the 24th in Norway so will be busy tomorrow. Lots of family stuff going on.
I’ll properly read what you wrote later. For now, I want to wish you and everyone else Merry Christmas ! 
3 Likes
I think the US loses a conventional war with Taiwan too, due to size and proximity of China’s armed forces. I forget which America general I read recently, but he did a piece basically saying America loses if they fight China over Taiwan.
As for Afghanistan, I don’t know enough about guarantees and so on, but my take is America went into Afghanistan on dodgy premises, as part of its misguided response to 9/11, stayed there way too long, ultimately got nowhere, then got out abruptly, causing more death and disruption than necessary, though there was no good ending there.
From Alexander the Great, to Genghis Khan, to the might of the British Empire, to the USSR and then to America and it’s allies, what did we learn? Stay the hell out of Afghanistan.
Apart from a rapid in and out humanitarian sort of thing, I am generally of the view that countries are better off changing in their own time and in their own way. When enough people want said changes, it evolves and becomes what it should be. When a foreign nation inserts itself and imposes something that the receiving nation is not ready to receive, it’s a shitshow.
2 Likes
You have a point, but the US looks back at its intervention in Germany and other parts of Europe after the second world war as a blueprint of how it could be a benign force in the world, and in that case the result was, generally positive.
2 Likes
Intel (I think, but could be a different tech company) put out a public statement requesting its customers source their parts from places other than Xinjang. Within 24 hours they had backtracked and apologized and said they wouldnt do it again. Presumably the “it” is show concern for human rights.
To the degree the favorability of the Taliban to us among those outside of the Kabul (often Western educated) elite was not a result of any affinity for them, but a rejection of the methods we used to keep the taliban at bay, which resulted in 20 years of mass civilian causalities.
Earlier this year I listened to a really interesting podcast on how everything you thought you knew about the marshal plan was wrong, both in its motivation and effect. I can now remember neither the podcast or any of the substance of it.
I think I need to stop drinking.
1 Like
That would be a drastic step.
I seem to recall that the UK actually received more than Germany, but not sure about that.
The principal long term benefit was the creation of the West German constitution, which continues to be the basis of the state. It is an extremely enlightened document, moreso than the US version in my opinion, and has been the foundation on which the success of post war Germany has been built.
I think the point of it is that it is held up in the US as an example of American beneficence and the sort of thing we do because we’re just lovely, when in reality its primary motivation was to help germany get to its feet quickly enough that taking help from the Soviets would feel less needed.
Anyway, it worked. I think most West Germans and Japanese were/are pretty thankful to be living under Western-style democracy rather than under totalitarian communism. I was stationed in Germany in the 1980s, and I can report when we went on field exercises near the border, people often came out of their shops and houses to wave and shout greetings at us as we drove by. That was forty years after the end of the war. They still appreciated what side of the border they were on and who was ensuring it stayed that way.
4 Likes
Indeed, the motivation is less important than the result. The short term benefits of the Marshall plan fade into insignificance compared to the long term effect of having a robust democratic foundation.
How’s your German? 
Anti-American sentiment was on the rise in the 80’s, but definitely earlier the sentiment was pretty widespread.
Nearer the urban garrison, there was a bit more weariness of hard-partying American soldiers, to be sure. In those days the Reagan Administration was rolling out the Pershing II missiles. There was a fair amount of protests. Indeed, one night a large parade of Germans came to our barracks to protest. Our counteraction was to hang out our windows to see if there were any pretty maidens among them. The closer you got to the Iron Curtain, the more appreciative the response. That said, I drank in many a fest tent and many bars, too, and found the Germans to be most hospitable. I can’t recall a single one ever telling me “American, go home.”
2 Likes
Not when we’re talking about what actions we continue to take or likely to take. I think my point (Im not even sure anymore) is Americans bring up the Marshall plan as a model for doing good for other parts of the word, but that is never what motivates us to act. And Im not talking about a Hume like Philosophy where all good deeds are ultimately self centered, but for us to act on a significant scale it always must require a force we feel we need to oppose. If other entities benefit as a result then great, but the motivating factor is opposing something.
So if we take something like the Obama’s TPP, yes we might have included projections about how countries like Cambodia would be economically advantaged by it, but ultimately the only thing we cared about was reigning in China’s economic and geopolitical influence.
Well, for whatever reasons the US was heavily involved in the creation of two of the world’s most stable and prosperous countries out of two countries which had caused massive mayhem and slaughter in the first half of the 20th century.
On the basis of that success it has presumed that it would be able to repeat that feat, and we have all seen the consequences.
3 Likes