Republican primary voters most popular issues: This is the way
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (142)
sorted by:
Even a year into the war, Confederate nationalism had grown to quite a point to make 'peaceful reunion' quite unlikely. And obviously, countries like France would not help except with the understanding that the Confederacy will remain independent (and a thorn in the side of the US), otherwise there's no point in it.
I think you underestimate the importance of not having a mortal foe on your doorstep. The US would never have become a regional hegemon, and thus never in a position to tyrannize the rest of the world. That's worth the immorality of backing the Confederacy in my mind.
The attitudes of the puppets at the top do not matter. What does the regime think? Realist logic dictates that the Philippines should hate China, because China is the strongest power nearby and therefore most in a position to try to subvert it and its independence, regardless of what China does or Duterte supposedly thinks.
Even if this is true, that would be because it's close by. I don't see them doing this with Spain. And they're not stupid either.
I mean that realists would disagree with your assessment of why neocons do what they do. No realist accepts that anyone has as a motivation 'being loved by Europe' or 'getting his ass kissed'.
Also, neocons are not liberals. Liberals believe in international institutions. Neoconism is just a competing form of realism cloaking itself in 'muh democracy' screeching - the perfect form of hypocrisy and self-righteousness to fit a country like the US, which goes around the world destroying one country after another while screaming bloody murder after its provocations and hostile actions provoke Russia or China into striking back.
Rest assured that the US would have dumped the Europeans long before if this were true. It isn't, of course. The US is preventing the Europeans from getting stronger and from a country dominating Europe and thereby becoming a peer competitor.
It most certainly did. Even as the Soviet Union received assistance for free (because it had nothing to give), Roosevelt drove a hard bargain with the British, stealing every last bit of gold and leasing military bases. It's smart, but I'm not happy about the destruction of the British empire.
That's not true. Only very late in the game, and then not out of any love for the French, but for fear of communism. Also forced the French to withdraw from Suez, and undermined French Algeria. US threats to withdraw Marshall aid also forced the Dutch to grant Indonesia independence.
And that's not even talking about the Monroe Doctrine and how the French-backed Mexican Empire was undermined by the US, and the Spanish and English were driven out of their colonies in the Americas.
Being a US enemy is dangerous, but being an ally is lethal!
As a realist, you know full well that supposed 'intentions' do not matter, as intentions can change. In the 1970s the US was big friends with China under Mao, while fearing Japan because it was getting too strong. You don't fear the EU right now because it's a pathetic bleating sheep. If it were stronger, we'd suddenly see "worries about human rights in the EU" and claims that the EU engages in unfair trade practices (which is true btw).
This is just realism cloaked in liberalism.
Imagine for a moment that you could prevent the Chinese from being asshoe for $33 billion a year, is that not a great bargain?
That is bad for the US, because it will have less leverage over Europe, and bad for Europe, because that will inevitably lead to war. Or do you think France will stand by as Germany expands its military once again, when there is no guarantee for its security?