US says China, Iran, Russia are 'forces for instability'

[V-2]

Aside meddle in countries, the US also laid concrete foundations in the fields of statistical mechanics, molecular biology, quantum chemistry, quantum electrodynamics, quantum computing and nanotechnology, invented the transistor (arguably most significant of the 20th century) and made the vast majority of advancements and breakthroughs in human medicine. It mapped the human genome. It has also almost unilaterally owned the realms of space science and exploration in expanding man's knowledge of the earth, solar system, galaxy, universe and our place within it, so I mean...

The usual argument is that America has started more wars than anyone in the past couple of decades. While that may be true, it is also true that America is the only country that is actually in a position to start wars, without getting squashed like a cockroach.

They've wielded their stick relatively responsibly. I wouldn't be as comfortable with China or Russia, or just about anybody, wielding that stick.

Atleast there is a chance to change leadership in America. No such an opportunity in China, or Russia, or Iran, or whoever.

Not that America is without criticism, but I think we need to put things to a perspective here, at times. Russia is an anarchic country ruled by ex-KGB mobsters, China is basically an Orwellian dystopia.

As Veteran pointed out, its just a small but powerful group within America (and most countries in general) who fuck shit up, the people at large are good and productive.

Just like Von Braun advancing rocketry doesnt justifies the nazi political system.

That's undoubtedly on point but I think proper perspective also reveals the American 'empire' as the most comparatively benign there's ever been. Even operating from a position of unassailable power and leverage in laying out the post-war global financial order, did the US impose Pax-Americana? Place imperial tariffs on incomes, trade or property? Occupy key transshipment or distribution nodes? Err, no. The US granted full access to the largest consumer market on the globe and offered to provide full maritime security for all trade at its own cost on the strength of its unprecedented naval superiority. What followed was the greatest expansion of global economic growth and prosperity in human history.

It's as if people have zero perspective when they talk about this shit and it's even worse when it's claimed the US is desperate to maintain the status quo when it actually no longer really serves its interests. People need to understand that any catastrophic 'collapse' of the current system will hit the likes of China and Europe twice as hard as they've pretty much built their entire post-war existence on it. In any top-down global reset, the US possesses a number of unparalleled advantages.

Or are folks forgetting that the United States boasts the largest continuous mass of arable land and largest interconnected network of navigable rivers - largely running through the former - in addition to wide-open access to the world's two largest oceans? geopolitics 101 starts with geography itself. America will see it through better than anyone else, from the very bottom and inevitably right back up to the top.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Axis of Evil 2

 

[moreorless87]

That's undoubtedly on point but I think proper perspective also reveals the American 'empire' as the most comparatively benign there's ever been. Even operating from a position of unassailable power and leverage in laying out the post-war global financial order, did the US impose Pax-Americana? Place imperial tariffs on incomes, trade or property? Occupy key transshipment or distribution nodes? Err, no. The US granted full access to the largest consumer market on the globe and offered to provide full maritime security for all trade at its own cost on the strength of its unprecedented naval superiority. What followed was the greatest expansion of global economic growth and prosperity in human history.

It's as if people have zero perspective when they talk about this shit and it's even worse when it's claimed the US is desperate to maintain the status quo when it actually no longer really serves its interests. People need to understand that any catastrophic 'collapse' of the current system will hit the likes of China and Europe twice as hard as they've pretty much built their entire post-war existence on it. In any top-down global reset, the US possesses a number of unparalleled advantages.

Or are folks forgetting that the United States boasts the largest continuous mass of arable land and largest interconnected network of navigable rivers - largely running through the former - in addition to wide-open access to the world's two largest oceans? geopolitics 101 starts with geography itself. America will see it through better than anyone else, from the very bottom and inevitably right back up to the top.

I think a key mistake is to talk about "American" interests when actually a lot of political decisions are taken in support of the interests of a small amount of very wealthy people.

In terms of the post WW2 "Pax Americana" being "benign" I think you could point to there actually being far more conflict world wide in the 20th century than their was in the 19th century during the "Pax Britanica". Many would say that the US style style of hegemony is actually more dangerous than colonialism, basically playing absentee landlord with plausible deniability for a lot of the bloodshed that results as well as making much more limited investment in the nations controlled. Ultimately I would argue the collapse of colonialism was mostly down to it simply not being profitable anymore due to the greater investment it entailed, much easier to work via a puppet "indepenant" government.

 

[Karasu-Hanta]

China and Russia should Not be on that list.

Iran belongs and so does north Korea but so does also Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Sudan, Egypt, Somalia, Mauritania. Mauritania has slavery actual chain slavery they dont even pretend like Gulf states do. In maunitarian and many of those African states peoppe are born into slavery. Way different then stealing paper work of an immigrant and forcing them to work.

Pakistan is worse than Iran in many ways but iran I can understand is a net funder of terror. But so are Saudis or there allies are. Egypt is totalitarian beyond what Russia could be accessed of and Turkey is more autocratic than russian.

Actually to make this list easier include all of subsaharan africa and the entire muslim world except European and former Soviet muslim countries and maybe exclude Turkey and Indonesia and Malaysia for now.

Prey tell how is Iran a source of instability ?

 

[V-2]

I think a key mistake is to talk about "American" interests when actually a lot of political decisions are taken in support of the interests of a small amount of very wealthy people.

In terms of the post WW2 "Pax Americana" being "benign" I think you could point to there actually being far more conflict world wide in the 20th century than their was in the 19th century during the "Pax Britanica". Many would say that the US style style of hegemony is actually more dangerous than colonialism, basically playing absentee landlord with plausible deniability for a lot of the bloodshed that results as well as making much more limited investment in the nations controlled. Ultimately I would argue the collapse of colonialism was mostly down to it simply not being profitable anymore due to the greater investment it entailed, much easier to work via a puppet "indepenant" government.

There wasn't and hasn't been "Pax Americana" though as it would've entailed all of the above and a whole lot more. It isn't to say those at the levers of power are not nefarious scumbags, only that the ideology and approach can get far nastier than the American-style hegemony we all know and loathe. The technological tools at its disposal when given military application that previous empires didn't remotely possess can certainly drive up a hell of a lot of destruction in a hurry and much of the same tech has made the world incredibly condensed by comparison, not to mention raised the standard of living of the entire planet (to various degrees).

I don't think colonialism went out of style so much as it simply wasn't necessary in order to project immense power which persists to this day. The world was America's oyster like possibly at no other point for any other power in history: The once mighty Europe was decimated and bankrupt, the rest of the world still severely underdeveloped and America virtually without a scratch. The British were initially quite reluctant to part with it after the war and they'd leaned heavily on their empire prior to the US getting involved at the end of 1941.

In contemporary times, the US is undoubtedly a force of mass instability but a lot of conflicts throughout the world predate any kind of US meddling, some before the country's existence outright, many would pop off with no future involvement at all and the country would be just fine without playing world police. Its allies wouldn't be nearly as swell as they like to believe though, particularly if America pulls out of the arrangement entirely but that's a wait-and-see scenario.

 

[moreorless87]

There wasn't and hasn't been "Pax Americana" though as it would've entailed all of the above and a whole lot more. It isn't to say those at the levers of power are not nefarious scumbags, only that the ideology and approach can get far nastier than the American-style hegemony we all know and loathe. The technological tools at its disposal when given military application that previous empires didn't remotely possess can certainly drive up a hell of a lot of destruction in a hurry and much of the same tech has made the world incredibly condensed by comparison, not to mention raised the standard of living of the entire planet (to various degrees).

I don't think colonialism went out of style so much as it simply wasn't necessary in order to project immense power which persists to this day. The world was America's oyster like possibly at no other point for any other power in history: The once mighty Europe was decimated and bankrupt, the rest of the world still severely underdeveloped and America virtually without a scratch. The British were initially quite reluctant to part with it after the war and they'd leaned heavily on their empire prior to the US getting involved at the end of 1941.

In contemporary times, the US is undoubtedly a force of mass instability but a lot of conflicts throughout the world predate any kind of US meddling, some before the country's existence outright, many would pop off with no future involvement at all and the country would be just fine without playing world police. Its allies wouldn't be nearly as swell as they like to believe though, particularly if America pulls out of the arrangement entirely but that's a wait-and-see scenario.

That's equivalent to say burning someones house down though and then telling them your not morally responsible because if you then had no further involvement with them they'd still be in trouble. If the US withdrew from wider influence on the world the problems it helped to foster would still obviously linger for a great deal of time as indeed has happened with colonialism.

When it comes to the alternative of course I think the ironic thing is that we have all this focus on Russia from the establishment but barely anything on China dispite the Chinese obviously have far more long term potential to replace the US which I'd agree could potentially lead to a far worse environment. I think it comes down again to the real driver for most US policy being the economic interests of the elite, Russia very often stands in opposition to those interests limiting for example US companies ability to profit from oil resource's in places like Syria. China on the other hand is much more integral to their wealth as an endless cheap source of labour.

 

[uppercutbus]

Axis of Evil 2

movie needs a subtitle

 

[Madmick]

So we're agonizing about human rights abuses in China, but we aren't putting Duterte's Phillipines on this list? He's only killed 12,000 of his own people in the last two years, and is in the middle of deporting an Australian nun merely because she told a truth that hurt his feelings. Odd.

What about Venezuela? They're not a source of instability? Maybe it's just they don't have an army big enough to destabilize us.

We also suddenly don't care about anything in Israel. Even I can't overlook that.

It also amazes me how Pakistan and Afghanistan always seems to skate under the radar when these lists are made. Nowhere is morality more scarce, but wars there aren't profitable.

 

[Orgasmo]

I'd say US is a far greater threat to world peace than Russia and China combined, based on its history of interventionism.

 

[sweede]

The usual argument is that America has started more wars than anyone in the past couple of decades. While that may be true, it is also true that America is the only country that is actually in a position to start wars, without getting squashed like a cockroach.

They've wielded their stick relatively responsibly. I wouldn't be as comfortable with China or Russia, or just about anybody, wielding that stick.

Atleast there is a chance to change leadership in America. No such an opportunity in China, or Russia, or Iran, or whoever.

Not that America is without criticism, but I think we need to put things to a perspective here, at times. Russia is an anarchic country ruled by ex-KGB mobsters, China is basically an Orwellian dystopia.

More often than not, I find your posts to be very clinical and with a cynical touch.

But I do like this post. As bad as Trump is, we can be sure he will only sit for a maximum of 8 years.

People are easy to talk bad of USA and their to wet the nose politics around the globe.

USA don´t need international independent orgs to control elections being rigged or not. That is why USA, Canada, Australia and the majority of Europe can call themself the western world. And I would not hesitate to put Japan and South-Korea in to our fellowship. The east and west are over valued in this case. Simple put, our leaders are not viewed as dictators by their own citizens.

Ps. Don´t flame me that I didn´t add the worlds largest Democracy. But I have been to India to many times to know they are corrupted up to the gills. Corruption integrated in to ones culture is a automatic fail to be considered a healthy democracy.

 

[Black Helicopters]

Russia, China, and Iran absolutely are sources of instability because they are competing with current power structures

It comes down to whether you think it’s a good thing or not. I certainly would not want to live in a world with Russia or China as the world leaders.

 

[tramendous]

The US is the biggest force for destabalization.

 

[Seaside]

Prey tell how is Iran a source of instability ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

iran proxy hezbollah also responsible for drug trafficking in latin america

https://globalriskinsights.com/2017/12/hezbollah-iran-find-new-strength-latin-america/

 

[Anung Un Rama]

movie needs a subtitle

Axis of Evil 2: The Phantom Menace

 

[VivaRevolution]

The usual argument is that America has started more wars than anyone in the past couple of decades. While that may be true, it is also true that America is the only country that is actually in a position to start wars, without getting squashed like a cockroach.

They've wielded their stick relatively responsibly. I wouldn't be as comfortable with China or Russia, or just about anybody, wielding that stick.

Atleast there is a chance to change leadership in America. No such an opportunity in China, or Russia, or Iran, or whoever.

Not that America is without criticism, but I think we need to put things to a perspective here, at times. Russia is an anarchic country ruled by ex-KGB mobsters, China is basically an Orwellian dystopia.

You sure we change leadership?

Weird that there is a continuity of foreign policy whether the presidents name is bush, obama, or trump.

 

[Squall Leonhart]

Axis of Evil 2

 

[TheGreatA]

You sure we change leadership?

Weird that there is a continuity of foreign policy whether the presidents name is bush, obama, or trump.

You don't. But as I said, there's a chance to change leadership. Electing the same assholes, over and over, and throwing a small tantrum over it that accomplishes nothing, that's not really the system's problem. That's the people's problem.

The constitution still grants you free speech, the 2nd amendment, along with many other tools that you can utilize to oust shitty governments. The Chinese don't have that. You speak ill of the government, and you're done. Fucked.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

I'd say US is a far greater threat to world peace than Russia and China combined, based on its history of interventionism.

I'd say that ass in your avatar is a threat to world peace.

I'd kill for a piece of that!

 

[VivaRevolution]

You don't. But as I said, there's a chance to change leadership. Electing the same assholes, over and over, and throwing a small tantrum over it that accomplishes nothing, that's not really the system's problem. That's the people's problem.

The constitution still grants you free speech, the 2nd amendment, along with many other tools that you can utilize to oust shitty governments. The Chinese don't have that. You speak ill of the government, and you're done. Fucked.

Fair enough, but that means it is a shade of grey yes?

I personally am of the opinion that the shining light of liberty shouldn't be in the business of shades of grey. That perhaps if we are only distinguishable from China or Russia by comparing whose shade of grey is lighter, that we should look to cleaning our own yard, before we start bitching about how trashed the neighbors is, and how we need to start killing people in their yard if they don't clean it up.

 

[V-2]

You don't. But as I said, there's a chance to change leadership. Electing the same assholes, over and over, and throwing a small tantrum over it that accomplishes nothing, that's not really the system's problem. That's the people's problem.

The constitution still grants you free speech, the 2nd amendment, along with many other tools that you can utilize to oust shitty governments. The Chinese don't have that. You speak ill of the government, and you're done. Fucked.

Another spot-on post.