If we helped set up a two state solution then we’d have another ally over there. Hell, if we had a one state solution, we’d have one more ally and one less genocidal apartheid state to leash. And tbh, it’s probably better we’re not over there fucking things up anymore.
Tbh the time with the US as the world police isn’t great. It’s great in the US because we don’t ever get attacked, can import the financial success from our victories, can come back home after and are basically naive to conflicts at home. But I don’t think they’d say the same for all of South America, Asia, the Middle East, or Africa.
I know China is spooky, but the US has destabilized so many democracies and ruined so many countries in its attempt to stop the spooky ghost of communism to keep its financial stranglehold on its imperial sphere that a multipolar world could be better. He waxes poetic about the time of peace from interstate conflict but ignores how the US has arrested the world from progress, trapping us in this late capitalist hell-hole the working class is in now. There’s still violence form the upper class on the poor, or the Imperial core on the third world.
I also noticed he links to an article on the USSR attacking countries but that doesn’t even compare to all the wars we’ve been involved in where we didn’t have to be, usually on the side of the colonial or imperial power or the dictator. And a lot of the military build up in countries such as the USSR, Cuba, or North Korea is in response to the US threatening war all the time during the Cold War and having the capability and will to enact it. They put forward the possibility of a first strike with nukes in all those countries. It was public knowledge that the US refused to live in a world with communism and even when countries would want it themselves without the USSR doing anything, the US would see that as a reason to interfere, trying to connect it to the USSR anyway. They’ve succeeded, but that doesn’t mean they’ve made the world better, just the US richer. Plus, a lot of the latent conflicts that are coming to the surface in that article are a result of Western interference in local, civil conflicts during the Cold War - such as the China-Taiwan or North Korea-South Korea ones. Not all, like the Serbia-Kosovo stuff, but a lot. Maybe if we had just left and stopped propping up local separatist movements things would’ve been calmer in some of those places, like in Vietnam right now.
Its definitely possible I’ll eat my words because the world is getting scary and chaotic, and I’m not sure how other powers will act without US restraint, but hey, maybe it won’t be worse. Maybe it’ll be better. God I hope so lol.
.
If we helped set up a two state solution then we’d have another ally over there. Hell, if we had a one state solution, we’d have one more ally and one less genocidal apartheid state to leash. And tbh, it’s probably better we’re not over there fucking things up anymore.
.
Tbh the time with the US as the world police isn’t great. It’s great in the US because we don’t ever get attacked, can import the financial success from our victories, can come back home after and are basically naive to conflicts at home. But I don’t think they’d say the same for all of South America, Asia, the Middle East, or Africa.
I know China is spooky, but the US has destabilized so many democracies and ruined so many countries in its attempt to stop the spooky ghost of communism to keep its financial stranglehold on its imperial sphere that a multipolar world could be better. He waxes poetic about the time of peace from interstate conflict but ignores how the US has arrested the world from progress, trapping us in this late capitalist hell-hole the working class is in now. There’s still violence form the upper class on the poor, or the Imperial core on the third world.
I also noticed he links to an article on the USSR attacking countries but that doesn’t even compare to all the wars we’ve been involved in where we didn’t have to be, usually on the side of the colonial or imperial power or the dictator. And a lot of the military build up in countries such as the USSR, Cuba, or North Korea is in response to the US threatening war all the time during the Cold War and having the capability and will to enact it. They put forward the possibility of a first strike with nukes in all those countries. It was public knowledge that the US refused to live in a world with communism and even when countries would want it themselves without the USSR doing anything, the US would see that as a reason to interfere, trying to connect it to the USSR anyway. They’ve succeeded, but that doesn’t mean they’ve made the world better, just the US richer. Plus, a lot of the latent conflicts that are coming to the surface in that article are a result of Western interference in local, civil conflicts during the Cold War - such as the China-Taiwan or North Korea-South Korea ones. Not all, like the Serbia-Kosovo stuff, but a lot. Maybe if we had just left and stopped propping up local separatist movements things would’ve been calmer in some of those places, like in Vietnam right now.
Its definitely possible I’ll eat my words because the world is getting scary and chaotic, and I’m not sure how other powers will act without US restraint, but hey, maybe it won’t be worse. Maybe it’ll be better. God I hope so lol.