Hi from newbie

[Ethereal]

Like I said, I haven't denied that we aren't saints. But the stabilizing force relates to keeping in check the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and the Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea. The world could have been in a lot more trouble if we were isolationists during the last 70 years.

So invading and destroying large swaths of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is your idea of a stabilizing force? Propping up right-wing death squads and dictators all across South America was stabilizing? Arming and financing the murderous Afghani terrorists who later turned into Al Qaeda... stabilizing? Sorry, but I don't believe starting numerous highly destructive wars all around the world for decades is an example of a stabilizing force.

[Ethereal]

I believe that the word stabilizing is used in a very narrow sense, as in maintaining the status quo for vested interests, whether it serves the interests of those being stabilized or is in fact averse to their interests.

That is the only definition of "stabilizing" that would actually apply.

[CenterField]

So invading and destroying large swaths of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is your idea of a stabilizing force? Propping up right-wing death squads and dictators all across South America was stabilizing? Arming and financing the murderous Afghani terrorists who later turned into Al Qaeda... stabilizing? Sorry, but I don't believe starting numerous highly destructive wars all around the world for decades is an example of a stabilizing force.

Again, not all that we did was good... and you gave some prime examples of it. But still, I think that the alternatives: the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the imperialistic Japanese... most likely would have been a lot worse.

Have you watched The Man in the High Castle? Sure, it's fiction. Science fiction, even. But I think it show to a certain degree what the world could have been if not for the stabilizing aspects of the United States superpower. But like all superpowers, there was abuse, too.

Anyway, on this, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Obviously my view of the United States is much more positive than yours, and I won't convince you, just as much as you won't convince me.

[Tahuyaman]

Which is so weird when your avatar talks about making liberals cry.

How does that contradict that she's a centrist?

[Tahuyaman]

Thanks. So what's the proportion here, as far as progressives, moderates, and conservatives?

It's an even mix across the board. However there are some who want only complete agreement and don't respect anything other than the echo chamber effect.

Plus you just had an exchange with the leader of the "blame america first crowd". He can find a way to blame every earthy problem on America. And if you disagee you're a propagandized moron.

[Ethereal]

Again, not all that we did was good... and you gave some prime examples of it. But still, I think that the alternatives: the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the imperialistic Japanese... most likely would have been a lot worse.

The debate isn't about alternatives being worse or better, but about a specific claim you made regarding the US being a stabilizing force.

Clearly, that claim cannot be supported by the evidence. That various alternatives might have been worse does not demonstrate the claim.

In reality, the US was and still is extremely destabilizing. Pretty much every major war in existence right now has some nexus to US foreign policy.

Have you watched The Man in the High Castle? Sure, it's fiction. Science fiction, even. But I think it show to a certain degree what the world could have been if not for the stabilizing aspects of the United States superpower. But like all superpowers, there was abuse, too.

Anyway, on this, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Obviously my view of the United States is much more positive than yours, and I won't convince you, just as much as you won't convince me.

Your view of the US is based on nationalism and mythology, whereas mine is based on harsh reality.

[CenterField]

It's an even mix across the board. However there are some who want only complete agreement and don't respect anything other than the echo chamber effect.
Plus you just had an exchange with the leader of the "blame america first crowd". He can find a way to blame every earthy problem on America. And if you disagee you're a propagandized moron.

It's good to know that it's an even mix. Echo chambers are not fun. I like to debate - respectfully - with people who disagree with me, because if people 100% agree with me, there is no need for a debate. Like, we've disagreed about masks, but I believe you would agree that my dialogue with you on it has always been respectful.

[CenterField]

The debate isn't about alternatives being worse or better, but about a specific claim you made regarding the US being a stabilizing force.

Clearly, that claim cannot be supported by the evidence. That various alternatives might have been worse does not demonstrate the claim.

In reality, the US was and still is extremely destabilizing. Pretty much every major war in existence right now has some nexus to US foreign policy.



Your view of the US is based on nationalism and mythology, whereas mine is based on harsh reality.

Nah, I continue to think that overall we are a stabilizing force. For example, as soon as we took the eyes off the ball, Putin gobbled up Crimea. Without the United States, a WWIII would have happened already, with the Soviet Union (and later, Russia) invading significant parts of Western Europe, and China terrorizing the smaller states in their region.

Yeah, sure, for some places we were a destabilizing place (the case of Chile comes to mind) but I continue to think that in terms of planet-wide geopolitics, the big picture, we are (or were) a stabilizing force.

So, it's nationalism? So be it. I do love my country. May I ask, what country is yours?

Mythology? I don't think so. Like I said, I'm under no impression that we have only noble intentions. I know perfectly well that we try to foster our interests above everybody else's, but like I said, aren't all nations like that? It's just that we are more powerful than most.

[Tahuyaman]

It's good to know that it's an even mix. Echo chambers are not fun. I like to debate - respectfully - with people who disagree with me, because if people 100% agree with me, there is no need for a debate. Like, we've disagreed about masks, but I believe you would agree that my dialogue with you on it has always been respectful.

Unfortunately many people do only want an echo and they can't handle disagreement and debate.

[carolina73]

So invading and destroying large swaths of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is your idea of a stabilizing force? Propping up right-wing death squads and dictators all across South America was stabilizing? Arming and financing the murderous Afghani terrorists who later turned into Al Qaeda... stabilizing? Sorry, but I don't believe starting numerous highly destructive wars all around the world for decades is an example of a stabilizing force.

Alternatives:

Allow Russia and China to spread Communism throughout Asia

Allow Russia to take Afghanistan and move Communism further south.

Who are these bad dictators of South America that you speak of that the US put in place?


Sometimes you make the best of two choices and may not like either one of them.

Do you want to talk about the people we were opposing and their legacies? China, Russia...