its just 911 whatever

Europe did help stop Iraq annexing kuwait

"Those values are the dominant values of the world, even if the values of all the world. But the reason for this is the USA."

that is a logical fallacy. It is entirely possible that without the US these values would be more dominant.

On the other hand such speculation is rather pointless. However i believe that whoever had 'won' be it the Nazi Germans or the Soviet Russians, everyone would be singing the praises of their values. Of course it has been shown that open countries are more stable, so either would have become more closed and suffered a revolution (in enough time) or more open and developed the same values we have today (with some people saying "Germany is not perfect. No where is. My point is that of the contenders, Germany is the best of a bad lot."

No matter the super-power, they would have some virtues which could be praised and some of 'our' values would be reflected in any open society.

I think some of the social change in the last 60 years was inevitable. Not a byproduct of the US constitution. It is human nature.

As for Europe, you don't need to increase defence spending (which is a hillarious 1984-esque definition, offence spending if ever i saw it) if you're not going to go to war with anyone.

Sure peacekeeping operations on occasion are necessary. But when the majority of your neighbours are asking to join your common market and/or reforming their legal system to better suit your values there is little need to invade them.

When African nations are attempting to build their own peacekeeping troops there is little need to massively ramp up defence spending if all you need do is send in advisors and trainers to help Other nations build up their conventional military forces to do their own regional peacekeeping.

Whether Europe is unified enough is a good question. That has yet to become clear.

"Those values are the dominant values of the world, even if the values of all the world. But the reason for this is the USA."

> that is a logical fallacy. It is entirely possible that without the US these values would be more dominant.

It may or may not be true, but it's not a logical fallacy. I think a pretty strong case can be made for it. Germany would have almost certainly won WW2 if it were not America. Would you argue otherwise?

It would make for interesting reading if you could make a solid why you think "those values" would be more dominant. How could this have worked out?

As yes perhaps if the Nazis won or if the Soviets had won etc we might be singing their praises. Just as if I was part of the Islamic world I might think that was great culture too.
Most of us on this site, however, are part of liberal capitalist western culture, and if he happen to like that type of culture, we are lucky that it is the dominant culture. But it doesn't have to be that way. And maybe one day it won't be. Fortunes can be reversed. For now we benefit from that hegemony, and it takes strength to maintain that hegemony. The USA provides that strength, for now. That is a fact.
For those who are not part of the dominate culture it is much harder.
So if you argue that America should back off and stop trying to dominate -are you really willing to accept the consequences of that?
Also if you argue "well you can predict the future" or "you can't know what would have happened" - there is truth in this. But when you decide what strategy to support you have to try to speculate what could have been and you have to try to predict how things will turn out. And ultimately bad things have to be done sometimes for the greater good. That's that real world.

Darwyn +1

Once again, you've proven to be the best troll on this site. maple, atom, Fasces, and TC should take notes from you.

You don't strike often, but when you do, you do it right.

typo... If you argue you *can't predict the future

Iraq was crippled by debt in the aftermath of the Iran, a war which they sued for peace to end on multiple occasions. The oil thieves in Kuwait deliberately provoked Iraq with their skyhigh oil production, their slant drilling in Rumaila, and their demand that Iraq pay them huge debt that Iraq had acquired by defending Kuwait from Iran. Iraq was not a threat to anyone and never has been.

The fallacy is that correlation implies causation. Or that it is only by US dominance that 'these values' could have become dominant.

in fact i would say that despite US dominance freedom of speech, religion (or non-religion), and liberalism have become more common. US foreign and domestic policy has largely been directed not at protecting those freedoms but merely at protecting the hegemony and economic interests of the elite (and in fairness, i don't see why you'd expect those who direct such policy to act in any other way)

But apart from what might have happened, if Us power erodes now then other nation-states may wish to agree to prevent any power vacuum by continuing to ally with each other, building up trade relations and not allowing the spread of terrorism or WMDs.

We don't live in a feudal, illiterate unconnected world anymore. Though at present many governments are trying to control access to the internet, there will likely always be freedom to talk to whoever you want to talk to, and to say whatever you want on this network, and that really changes the game.

Somebody needs to explain to me how ousting independent leaders who want to use resources for their own people and replacing them with reactionary thugs is protecting "liberal values".

The rest of the west likes to bandwagon off of American malfeasance but then engage in self-righteous scolding because they're not doing the heavy lifting. But when push comes to shove countries like France, Germany, and Canada are just as eager to help smash democratic movements that oppose their corporate interests.

smedley butler, united fruit, jacob arbenz, orlando letletlier, patrice lumamba, etc etc.

I am not really talking about this from a position of what is moral. But more from the perspective of international chess game - a game which all powers play. International power plays really are Machiavellian. Which side you support really depends on which end you would like to see.

Putin you are an old school communist - we know which "ends" you would like to see. And I respect that, even it not for me. And I understand why you condemn America. There is plenty to condemn. But there was plenty to condemn about the Soviets too. All power compromise core values, in order to preserve those value. This sounds terrible, and it is terrible, but looking at history I can't see too many exceptions to this rule.

@Putin: "Somebody needs to explain to me how ousting independent leaders who want to use resources for their own people and replacing them with reactionary thugs is protecting "liberal values"."

There is a saying "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" - but this saying is not true at all. There is such a thing a fighting for peace. So it is possible to act in a way that is completely illiberal in order to achieve, what is -- on balance -- a more liberal world. And yes it is unfair and tragic, but it seems to be unavoidable. Maybe it can mitigated to some extent, but ultimately all powers are hypocrites.

It is possible for two powers to pursue aims which are perfectly moral from their own perspectives, but those aims not to be mutually beneficial - quite the contrary.
America decided that it wasn't in its best interest to allow Iraq to take Kuwait (it wasn't), but from Iraq's perspective it had every right to to claim Iraq (it does have an excellent claim; moreover Iraq was under the impression that it had the green light from the USA to take over Kuwait, even if that green light was a wink and a nudge).

@Putin: "The rest of the west likes to bandwagon off of American malfeasance but then engage in self-righteous scolding because they're not doing the heavy lifting. But when push comes to shove countries like France, Germany, and Canada are just as eager to help smash democratic movements that oppose their corporate interests.

This is very true alas. I think a lot of people in the west criticize America, but at the same time are happy to reap the benefits of "America's malfeasance".

@Orthaic: "But apart from what might have happened, if US power erodes now then other nation-states may wish to agree to prevent any power vacuum by continuing to ally with each other, building up trade relations and not allowing the spread of terrorism or WMDs."

I guess that is the crux of our disagreement. Maybe I am completely wrong and you are right. You see that balance of power being preserved in peace, whereas I see the balance of power being preserved in war. More war than we see now. You think we have changed, but I don't think we have.

But at some point the ends have to actually be "more liberal". If by "more liberal" you mean more pro-market, then sure. All US actions ended up being 'good' for Capital. But in terms of promoting "democracy" or civil liberties or anything of that sort? Not a chance.

"But in terms of promoting "democracy" or civil liberties or anything of that sort?"

I think America has a mixed record on that front. Western Europe yes. Not so good elsewhere.

agreed

@spyman, you said " You[orathaic] think we have changed, but I don't think we have."

i have to admit, i do not think individuals have changed, I do think that how the behave in mass movements has changed.

There was a time when it cost 10,000 to print a newspaper, now everyone of us can have our own soapbox/blog, potentially with an audience of millions.

That however is not what i think has made the biggest difference.

There was a time when economic 'common sense' was that trade tariffs would protect your economic advantage, and there was a 'us against them' mentality between nation states, and this economic competition was merely a part of the drive for dominance between nation states - where warfare is just another form of competition.

However the economic competition has become a cooperative game, one where free movement of capital and labour has made our world more entwined than ever before.

War may stimulate the economy, generate a lot of debt and increase demand (by destroying things which are in some amount of demand - aside from the increase in demand for security) However the lessons of the two European civil wars (WW1/ the Great War, and WW2) were that you can avoid a war by paying citizens of the other country to have jobs.

Now as mentioned America has a good record in Western Europe of supporting democracy. Though i will disagree with this momentarily, the fact is American money helped Europeans rebuild their nations after the Second World War.

The point being that one of the causes of the war was the economic conditions in Germany due to World War 1 obligations.

Now paying your enemies is not exactly 'common sense' but it worked wonders in Western Europe, a great success of American foreign policy.

orthaic
I think spyman was trying to say that americas foreign policy in W europe is the exception rather than the rule. If you need any examples of toxic american foreign policy, see the "america land of the free...." thread.

ok, i promised i'd disagree.

In Western Europe in the late 40s and 50s America did not have a hard job of supporting 'democracy' or 'civil liberties' - they paid money and people built the kind of societies in which they were used to living.

That is the rebuilt what was there before. Now perhaps they helped 'stem the tide of communism'. But that doesn't have anything to do with civil liberties or democracy actually being in Western Europe in the first place.

I'm not trying to criticise what the US did in Western Europe, i'm just trying to avoid mis-attributing what they did. They did not build civil democracies - those things were already there. This is why US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is doomed to failure. There is no example of building a civil society by sending in troops.

The people will build what the know and trust. The people of Libya have today a chance to build a new society, because the one they had before been demonstrated to be so flawed that the people can overthrow it. They can trust that it doesn't work, and so will likely try something slightly different (perhaps something which they have seen work in Europe, Tunisia or Egypt)

.... anyway, what i think has happened is that the world has moved on, nation-states are now playing a new game, which involves a lot more cooperation. Individual nations still want the most growth, but when they are not threatened by their neighbours, they do not feel the need to spend huge amounts on their armed forces.

When their neighbours all sign a mutual defence agreement they become less afraid of foreign powers coming to their continent and running amok.

There are still unstable parts of the world, but i have never seen the US do much to increase the stability of any of them. Libya did benefit from US weapons, but the French spear-headed the political campaign to take action. (for their own personal reasons and to make France look like a world player... which they are, just among a group of other nations which can easily compete and disagree with France on many things)

Germany ended up paying very little in reparations. The cause of the war was the presence of co-ethnics in lands that had previously been in German hands. Every single crisis was related to reclaiming some territory that was mostly German. The presence of co-ethnics in countries deemed hostile is the source of most wars.

Oh by the way, the 'new society' Libya is building has been declared to be based on sharia law. Good job, NATO. Score another one for Islamism.

@sic, yes, but i think the point i'm trying to make is that 'common sense' has changed, and that we live in an inherently more stable world because of globalized interests. (and all the suffering which this has cause)

American foreign policy in W Europe led to the idea that you could pay money (development aid) and a countries economy would transform.

This have proven time and time again to be false.

Why?

"This is why US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is doomed to failure."

reminded me of this. its funny, if you have a really black sense of humor...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1YAv_tPmho&feature=player_embedded

"
There are still unstable parts of the world, but i have never seen the US do much to increase the stability of any of them."

you sir, are a talented under-stater

"The presence of co-ethnics in countries deemed hostile is the source of most wars."

i entirely disagree, i think economics is the source of most wars.

if two powers have a local dispute between co-ethnics they will go to war if it suits them to go to war, and they will resolve the dispute if their economy is better off.

"we live in an inherently more stable world because of globalized interests. (and all the suffering which this has cause)"

can you explain to me how globalization has made our (any?) society more stable?

What on earth is more stable about this globalized world? Anyway globalized trade is a net drag on GDP. It's a bad deal for everyone.

the point is, invading your trading partners hurts your economy as you have to find new suppliers.

More trade should correlate with less war.

"More trade should correlate with less war. "

perhaps. but sometimes some tiny country full of brown people has something you want, but they wont trade it. Thus, invasion is the only option left for a nation state

And i don't mean to imply that some specific societies and countries are more stable because of globalization, there are many countries where 'globalization' has meant opening up their markets to foreign companies, and where resources have been harvested, to little or no return for the country.

In developing nations globalization hasn't changed that much.
but when talking about the power balance between China, India, Russia, the EU, the US, there is less reason than ever before for any of them to go to war.

I think there is less tension in the world at that international level.

In the regional level, i think South American nations get that the same 'common sense' international relations makes sense, Brazil is better off trading with the other competing economies of South America than invading those countries...

'sometimes some tiny country full of brown people has something you want, but they wont trade it. Thus, invasion is the only option left for a nation state'

did you try saying pretty please?

Yes, i'm sure there are many examples of damage done by 'globalization' but it's more like a collective of G8 nations allowing each other screw over individual smaller developing nations...

well when it is war it may be the S5 rather than the G8... but whoever... Their interests are more or less aligned. Enough that they don't want to go to war with each other.