|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Microsoft has vowed to “solve the problem of cancer” within a decade by using ground-breaking computer science to crack the code of diseased cells so they can be reprogrammed back to a healthy state.
In a dramatic change of direction for the technology giant, the company has assembled a “small army” of the world’s best biologists, programmers and engineers who are tackling cancer as if it were a bug in a computer system.
This summer Microsoft opened its first wet laboratory where it will test out the findings of its computer scientists who are creating huge maps of the internal workings of cell networks.
The researchers are even working on a computer made from DNA which could live inside cells and look for faults in bodily networks, like cancer. If it spotted cancerous chances it would reboot the system and clear out the diseased cells.
Chris Bishop, laboratory director at Microsoft Research, said: “I think it’s a very natural thing for Microsoft to be looking at because we have tremendous expertise in computer science and what is going on in cancer is a computational problem.
"It’s not just an analogy, it’s a deep mathematical insight. Biology and computing are disciplines which seem like chalk and cheese but which have very deep connections on the most fundamental level.”
The biological computation group at Microsoft are developing molecular computers built from DNA which act like a doctor to spot cancer cells and destroy them.
Andrew Philips, head of the group, said: “It’s long term, but… I think it will be technically possible in five to 10 years time to put in a smart molecular system that can detect disease.”
The programming principles and tools group has already developed software that mimics the healthy behavior of a cell, so that it can be compared to that of a diseased cell, to work out where the problem occurred and how it can be fixed.
The Bio Model Analyser software is already being used to help researchers understand how to treat leukemia more effectively.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem).
Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen.
Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome.
|
On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome.
I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in an attempt to conquer Europe (unless they're going to come after the gays and atheists or something like that), although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. I mean, at some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2.
You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on.
|
A solid majority of Americans would redirect $38 billion the Obama Administration pledged to Israel toward other priorities.
The Obama administration last week signed an executive agreement with Israel pledging $38 billion ($3.8 billion per year) in foreign aid for fiscal years 2019- 2028. The majority of the proposed spending is for Foreign Military Financing to provide Israel advanced and upgraded jet fighters, to continue developing Israel’s missile defense systems and to purchase other U.S. weapons. Although the White House has released a Memorandum of Understanding fact sheet, the actual MOU has not been made publicly available.
An IRmep poll fielded by Google Consumer Surveys reveals 80.8 percent of the US adult Internet user population says they would redirect the proposed spending toward other priorities. Caring for veterans (20.7 percent) was their top priority, followed by education spending (20.1 percent) and paying down the national debt (19.3 percent). Rebuilding US infrastructure was favored by 14.9 percent, while funding a Middle East peace plan received 5.8 percent of support.
Only 16.8 percent said the $38 billion of pledged foreign aid should be spent on Israel.
The statistically significant survey of 1,005 adults was fielded September 14-16 and had an RMSE score of 1.4 percent. The findings reflect other survey data revealing low US public support for aid published by Antiwar.com in 2014 and 2016 and May, 2016 polling by Shibley Telhami released by Newsweek on September 16.
Though non-statistically significant, demographic breakouts of the IRmep survey suggest differences between younger and older Americans. Among younger Americans aged 18-44 years an average 11.7 percent said aid to Israel was a priority over other options, while 25.2 percent of those in the 45- 65+ category chose Israel as their top spending priority. Despite an appearance of finality, the aid package may only be a guaranteed "floor" of official US financial commitment to Israel. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has pledged to legislate more aid to Israel than negotiated in the expiring fiscal year 2009-2018 MOU as well as the new MOU. Graham views new MOU restrictions on Israel and its lobby’s ability to constantly petition congress for additional tranches of ad hoc aid every year as an infringement on the separation of powers. Israel and its US lobby appear to be allowed to make special pleadings to Congress for additional aid as long as it goes into Israeli military industrial projects that are not related to anti-rocket and tunnel systems. Campaign advisors have already indicated a Trump administration would not be limited by Obama administration MOU covenants. A Hillary Clinton administration, heavily influenced at all levels by pro-Israel donors and campaign officials, would also be highly unlikely to veto future congressional demands for aid far in excess of MOU caps.
Source
|
United States42014 Posts
On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on.
The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts.
Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident.
|
On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident.
The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US.
And I'm not even saying cut all ties with the US, obviously trade relations can exist and whatnot, and we need to be on friendly terms in the overall picture.
Also, I've been homeless in the past, and gained plenty of perspective over the years. I'm personally done with the US in terms of their military and the corporate ownership of their government.
|
United States42014 Posts
On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US.
Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that.
|
On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that.
...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it.
|
United States42014 Posts
On September 22 2016 01:37 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:36 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:31 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:
[quote]
Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. The "rights of international investors" are troublesome to me. The far overreaching concept of "intellectual property" is also one where I have significant disagreements with the US. Do you not like the fact that your labour is massively overvalued compared to comparable effort expended on the other side of the globe? I think it's pretty fucking sweet that I can sit here and post on teamliquid while earning hundreds of times what people no less smart or capable than myself do in Bangladesh while they make shit for me. We've got a system set up where we extract resources from half the world and consume them in the other half and you were born in the right half. Don't fuck with that. ...You are very clearly laying out exactly what I think is wrong with the world at large in that respect. So no, I do not like it, and I will do my very best to fuck with it.
Well at least your position makes sense then. There is no problem with wanting an end to US global hegemony if you also want an end to the peace, stability and prosperity that comes with it. My mistake was assuming you naively wanted an end to the global hegemony while keeping all of the benefits. Carry on.
|
I think we can have peace and stability if we also have equality (rather than prosperity for one half of the world). I've known for years that the west will have to give up some things in order to get there.
|
Ending "free trade" only means that regions that are developing will no longer have the means to develop using the current infrastructure. So they will either retool, serve themselves or implode. The second one is far more likely. And then we might get countries returning to the good, old fashion way of economic stimulus, gear up and declare war on your neighbor.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident.
Guess what you're saying is, it's good to be a colony of a big strong foreign nation. They ensure international trade, they fight your wars for you, and all you have to do is be a loyal puppy dog and pay your dues and align with their policy interests and the like.
Which is a fair assessment to be sure, but also one that has historical precedent of a not-so-rosy variety.
|
There is no historical precedent relative to the current international dynamic.
|
On September 22 2016 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. Guess what you're saying is, it's good to be a colony of a big strong foreign nation. They ensure international trade, they fight your wars for you, and all you have to do is be a loyal puppy dog and pay your dues and align with their policy interests and the like. Which is a fair assessment to be sure, but also one that has historical precedent of a not-so-rosy variety.
What is the alternative? Nationalism, isolation and self interest will likely lead to more violent conflict, not less. And its not like the rest of the world is all going to play along with this. Some nations will simply make free trade deals with China and be happy to receive the trade America isn't.
|
On September 22 2016 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. Guess what you're saying is, it's good to be a colony of a big strong foreign nation. They ensure international trade, they fight your wars for you, and all you have to do is be a loyal puppy dog and pay your dues and align with their policy interests and the like. Which is a fair assessment to be sure, but also one that has historical precedent of a not-so-rosy variety.
The current distribution of power in the Western World isn't comparable to colonialism or other 'historical arrangements', the only groups that claim this unironically are neo-nazi groups who think we should be 'liberated' from the evil American hegemony or crazy radical left-wingers who think that Israel is the worst state on the planet
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 22 2016 01:50 farvacola wrote:
There is no historical precedent relative to the current international dynamic.
In the sense of being able to absolutely murder any opponent with your nuclear weapons if you aren't happy with the result of a war, or in the sense of improved transportation infrastructure, sure, there is no precedent. In the sense of a powerful hegemon that ensures "peace" and international trade through being the disproportionately strongest nation in the world, which has weaker subservient nations under its control, there is a lot of precedent.
|
On September 22 2016 00:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 00:22 IgnE wrote:
i dont know what posts you guys were reading but nettles's posts on this topic were more coherent than half the stuff in this thread. he doesnt "blame obama" for anything other than being president along with every other president since the 70s. Did you miss the previous 6 years of Nettles predicting global financial collapse every 6 months due to whatever he read on zerohedge or infowars that morning? He's been advocating buying gold, water purification tablets and a cabin in the woods for years now. And like the perpetual rapture that has been just around the corner for the last 2000 years, it never comes. But that never seems to make him wrong, it just didn't happen yet, it'll happen tomorrow. Nettles is a joke. He randomly shows up every few weeks in a topic picked at random from the general forum and badly tries to parrot some article he read by a fake economist on a fake news site. Then nothing happens, he disappears and then repeats the trick a few weeks later. Take a look at his post history. Search it for some fun keywords like gold, inflation, collapse or recession.
Ok but he isn't really predicting anything in the line of posts that I commented on other than that growth will continue to be low, and probably lower, even under a Trump presidency. He merely pointed out that it's been a weak recovery and that every recovery since the 70s has been weak. He also pointed out that the era of 3+% growth is over. This is also not a prediction. I'm completely aware of his posting history. I even said he was a lunatic. That doesn't make him wrong about these narrow claims.
|
United States42014 Posts
On September 22 2016 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. Guess what you're saying is, it's good to be a colony of a big strong foreign nation. They ensure international trade, they fight your wars for you, and all you have to do is be a loyal puppy dog and pay your dues and align with their policy interests and the like. Which is a fair assessment to be sure, but also one that has historical precedent of a not-so-rosy variety.
Western Europe is no colony. Western Europe set up a system of economic imperialism, along with direct colonization, which directed the majority of the world's resources towards Western Europe. The USA ended up taking over most of that game but we still have enough of a slice to be worthwhile. And the fact that the strongest power is a stakeholder in the same game as us means we all get to keep playing. British patents, overseas investments and finances are protected from seizure and nationalization by the same system that protects American ones. Hell, the CIA deposed the Iranian government on behalf of BP. We don't have to try to align our interests with the United States, they're naturally aligned. The disputes are small picture, the agreements are big picture.
|
On September 22 2016 01:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2016 01:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 22 2016 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2016 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2016 00:04 KwarK wrote:On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote:
At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. If Trump really dissolved NATO (he won't anyway), the EU would have to finally get a coordinated army. The only reason it doesn't exist already is NATO. All the european armies put together would be easily the second force in the world. Europe has let them armies slide a lot in the last few decades. I would doubt that 2nd place at this point. Especially considering the level of cooperation required. But if the need arose (such as from a disbanded NATO) they have the economy and supply to quickly catch up in equipment (soldiers is a different problem). Look at the current resistance to a EU Army to see why it's not as simple as it would be for a single nation-state to just organize an army and to provide the infrastructure to make it happen. Besides, the end result would basically be replacing US (semi-)occupation with German (semi-)occupation. The strongest nation in the union will exert a disproportionate influence. And I'm sure plenty of countries could be less thrilled with the prospect of that outcome. I'm fairly certain it would be the same as it is now, except without America, and I never see any American soldiers now. Germany "occupying" Europe is a joke. France can pretty much match them in numbers. Every state would just have their own army, but they'd be coordinated together if the unthinkable should happen. And I really don't think there will be more wars in or around Europe, although I suppose things can definitely change over the next 25-50 years. At some point we're going to run out of oil. I imagine that's what America has been preparing for since they took over the Middle East after WW2. You know, in Civ5, when you have a defensive military alliance with another civilization, and you proceed to declare war on a 3rd party without going through your allied civ, the alliance is dissolved. I know that life isn't the same as Civ5, but I'd still like to uphold that rule in this case. Fucking cunts doing whatever they please on the world stage without repercussions. I don't want to condone it anymore by staying in a military alliance with these people who think that's a good idea. I thought it would be different when Obama got elected, but I suppose I was naive, and now there's Hillary and Trump on the horizon. Enough is enough, its time to move on. The United States is the primary force behind the peace and prosperity which is keeping life so awesome for the western world. European interests and American interests are naturally aligned to keep this good thing going. Disagreements about shit like Iraq is insignificant compared to agreements like upholding the rights of international investors, guaranteeing the freedom of the oceans and creating a system for the protection of intellectual property, not to mention preventing any serious war before it starts. Getting mad at the United States is like being mad at your parents for not letting you stay out late when you still get free room and board. Sure, you're pissed off but you probably also should have a think about what it'd feel like to be homeless and maybe get some perspective. The world is great for us but that doesn't mean that it was always going to be great or that it always would be great, it didn't happen by accident. Guess what you're saying is, it's good to be a colony of a big strong foreign nation. They ensure international trade, they fight your wars for you, and all you have to do is be a loyal puppy dog and pay your dues and align with their policy interests and the like. Which is a fair assessment to be sure, but also one that has historical precedent of a not-so-rosy variety. What is the alternative? Nationalism, isolation and self interest will likely lead to more violent conflict, not less. And its not like the rest of the world is all going to play along with this. Some nations will simply make free trade deals with China and be happy to receive the trade America isn't.
Oh right other nations have plenty of demand to buy China's goods if America won't do it.
I know you feel the need to interject your opinion on every single thing that comes up in this thread but you are basically in line with the very worst Trump shills in this thread when you regurgitate some garbage you internalized in the 90s about how the economy works.
|
United States42014 Posts
On September 22 2016 01:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 01:50 farvacola wrote:
There is no historical precedent relative to the current international dynamic. In the sense of being able to absolutely murder any opponent with your nuclear weapons if you aren't happy with the result of a war, or in the sense of improved transportation infrastructure, sure, there is no precedent. In the sense of a powerful hegemon that ensures "peace" and international trade through being the disproportionately strongest nation in the world, which has weaker subservient nations under its control, there is a lot of precedent.
Would you argue that the Netherlands was a colony of Great Britain during the Pax Britannia? If not why would you claim that France, for example, is a colony of the United States now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
