Does America deserve to be the “Police of the world”?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I do not think we should be the police of the world. We get involved with too many international affairs, and it costs us billions of dollars and numerous lives.

How’d that work out for Chamberlain?

That was a special circumstance. We are not currently dealing with anything close to Hitler currently.

[Jebslund]

That isn't really how it works....that is going to be the reality of the situation. The collapse of the Unites States is going to have a disastrous impact in economic terms. You can't really wave it away in order to try and make what you are proposing more plausible by saying it isn't a factor. It is whether you like it or not.

Then you are operating under the false assumption that American Global Supremacy is eternal; a naive prospect.

It's got nothing to do with American global supremecy and everything to do with the fact that you cannot simply delete one of the world's strongest economies, responsible for a double-digit percentage of its resource consumption (and, by that token, its business), in trillions of dollars of debt to the rest of the world's strongest economies, without causing economic collapse. If the US collapses, it, by default, defaults on all of its debts. That right there means people don't get paid, and not just here. All trade of American goods and resources, some of which exist/can be grown nowhere else, halts. All the money America spends on foreign goods? That goes bye-bye with the collapse of the dollar, whose value is largely governed by the faith of the people in the government (hence why terrorism, for example, impacts the stock market). Without government backing, all those American Dollars just became worthless, which has a ripple effect as governments that had trade with America find themselves short one of their richest customers. And that's just a *simplified* explanation.

[Thanatttynia]

How’d that work out for Chamberlain?

That was a special circumstance. We are not currently dealing with anything close to Hitler currently.

China is putting Uighur Muslims into concentration camps. How close to Nazi Germany is too close, and how close is fine?

[Badb Catha]

Then you are operating under the false assumption that American Global Supremacy is eternal; a naive prospect.

It's got nothing to do with American global supremecy and everything to do with the fact that you cannot simply delete one of the world's strongest economies, responsible for a double-digit percentage of its resource consumption (and, by that token, its business), in trillions of dollars of debt to the rest of the world's strongest economies, without causing economic collapse. If the US collapses, it, by default, defaults on all of its debts. That right there means people don't get paid, and not just here. All trade of American goods and resources, some of which exist/can be grown nowhere else, halts. All the money America spends on foreign goods? That goes bye-bye with the collapse of the dollar, whose value is largely governed by the faith of the people in the government (hence why terrorism, for example, impacts the stock market). Without government backing, all those American Dollars just became worthless, which has a ripple effect as governments that had trade with America find themselves short one of their richest customers. And that's just a *simplified* explanation.

Yes, and I realized this in hindsight. That is why I proposed a scenario in which this is no longer the case, which was effectively ignored and dismissed for no logical reason.

[Jebslund]

Simpler and inaccurate. Most of those maps only factor in majorities, not representing exactly how many people of each race live where, and racial dot maps have to get down to city level to be even marginally accurate, as 300 million dots on a map small enough to fit a computer screen, concentrated as the US population is, WILL result in dots being covered by other dots.

Majority representation is the overall aim, yes.

And yet those minority populations, which are FAR more significant than country-level racial maps can ever hope to accurately represent, make division along racial lines every bit as unfeasible as ethnic lines. You can't carve up America into ethnostates. It doesn't work that way any more.

[Badb Catha]

That was a special circumstance. We are not currently dealing with anything close to Hitler currently.

China is putting Uighur Muslims into concentration camps. How close to Nazi Germany is too close, and how close is fine?

How does this threaten the USA?

[Jebslund]

It's got nothing to do with American global supremecy and everything to do with the fact that you cannot simply delete one of the world's strongest economies, responsible for a double-digit percentage of its resource consumption (and, by that token, its business), in trillions of dollars of debt to the rest of the world's strongest economies, without causing economic collapse. If the US collapses, it, by default, defaults on all of its debts. That right there means people don't get paid, and not just here. All trade of American goods and resources, some of which exist/can be grown nowhere else, halts. All the money America spends on foreign goods? That goes bye-bye with the collapse of the dollar, whose value is largely governed by the faith of the people in the government (hence why terrorism, for example, impacts the stock market). Without government backing, all those American Dollars just became worthless, which has a ripple effect as governments that had trade with America find themselves short one of their richest customers. And that's just a *simplified* explanation.

Yes, and I realized this in hindsight. That is why I proposed a scenario in which this is no longer the case, which was effectively ignored and dismissed for no logical reason.

Because your scenario is as realistic as saying, "Well, how about if there wasn't gravity? THEN would Superman be able to fly?". The way the global economy works, the only way for the US to no longer be an economic linchpin is to pay off its debts, and for every country it trades with to become self-sufficient and isolationist, and/or for another nation to so greatly surpass it in wealth that you may as well posit a situation in which some bum off the street is suddenly 100 times richer than Bill Gates.

[Badb Catha]

Majority representation is the overall aim, yes.

And yet those minority populations, which are FAR more significant than country-level racial maps can ever hope to accurately represent, make division along racial lines every bit as unfeasible as ethnic lines. You can't carve up America into ethnostates. It doesn't work that way any more.

Which is why culture would take precedent in division.

[Federally United Germany]

China is putting Uighur Muslims into concentration camps. How close to Nazi Germany is too close, and how close is fine?

How does this threaten the USA?

It doesn't need to. How did the Nazis threaten the US before 1941? How did they threaten Britain before they entered the war?

[Thanatttynia]

China is putting Uighur Muslims into concentration camps. How close to Nazi Germany is too close, and how close is fine?

How does this threaten the USA?

It doesn't (?) but it does seem perilously 'close to Hitler.'

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Then you are operating under the false assumption that American Global Supremacy is eternal; a naive prospect.

No I am not, I am going under the assumption that this is supposed to happen in the realtively near future, and the US will continue to be a major economic factor well into the near future, even if it is not the most powerful economy anymore.

Apologies, it seems we've both confused race with ethnicity. Racial division would be more practical as ethnic division is virtually impossible; the distribution of ethnicity in the United States is too inconsistent to be viable, whereas the distribution of race is not. In my opinion ethnicity would be the preferable of the two, but it's simply not viable in America's case.

I mean it is much more clearly defined than Ethnicity that is fore sure...but that doesn't really remove the possibility of massive issues arising from new race states in the previously multicultural US.

See above.

You explained that it is divided by race and not ethnicity above. You did nothing to explain WHY this should be done.

[Badb Catha]

Yes, and I realized this in hindsight. That is why I proposed a scenario in which this is no longer the case, which was effectively ignored and dismissed for no logical reason.

Because your scenario is as realistic as saying, "Well, how about if there wasn't gravity? THEN would Superman be able to fly?".

No, what is unrealistic is insinuating that American Global Supremacy is eternal - which you have effectively done.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

And yet those minority populations, which are FAR more significant than country-level racial maps can ever hope to accurately represent, make division along racial lines every bit as unfeasible as ethnic lines. You can't carve up America into ethnostates. It doesn't work that way any more.

Which is why culture would take precedent in division.

How does that work? So you first say it is race that decides it, but now it is culture? What even do you mean by culture?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

That was a special circumstance. We are not currently dealing with anything close to Hitler currently.

China is putting Uighur Muslims into concentration camps. How close to Nazi Germany is too close, and how close is fine?

Let's go to war with them, and turn the world into a radioactive wasteland due to both of us having ICBMs.

[Thanatttynia]

China is putting Uighur Muslims into concentration camps. How close to Nazi Germany is too close, and how close is fine?

Let's go to war with them, and turn the world into a radioactive wasteland due to both of us having ICBMs.

Great plan. There are levels on the dial between 'tacit acceptance due to greed' and 'nuclear war,' though...

[Badb Catha]

How does this threaten the USA?

It doesn't need to. How did the Nazis threaten the US before 1941? How did they threaten Britain before they entered the war?

It does need to. Foreign intervention needs proper justification in regards to the security of the nation; if it does not, then it is simply the State meddling in affairs that are not it's own.

How does this threaten the USA?

It doesn't (?) but it does seem perilously 'close to Hitler.'

I'd disagree. Hitler wanted Jews removed from Germany first, and when that no longer became viable he opted for their extermination. China is simply reeducating them into accepting Atheism.

Then you are operating under the false assumption that American Global Supremacy is eternal; a naive prospect.

No I am not, I am going under the assumption that this is supposed to happen in the realtively near future, and the US will continue to be a major economic factor well into the near future, even if it is not the most powerful economy anymore.

I never said anything about the "near future".

I mean it is much more clearly defined than Ethnicity that is fore sure...but that doesn't really remove the possibility of massive issues arising from new race states in the previously multicultural US.

Which is why culture would take precedent over race.

You explained that it is divided by race and not ethnicity above. You did nothing to explain WHY this should be done.

Why should the United States be dissolved, you mean?

[Jebslund]

Because your scenario is as realistic as saying, "Well, how about if there wasn't gravity? THEN would Superman be able to fly?".

No, what is unrealistic is insinuating that American Global Supremacy is eternal - which you have effectively done.

No, I have not. Again, this has nothing to do with American Global Supremacy^TM. This is a matter of the US having become a linchpin of the global economy due to the money it owes and the trade it does. Even if other countries are richer, the US is still a major factor, and still would need to get its shit in order just to get rid of half the problem your scenario of just deleting the US presents. Essentially, the US will collapse long before the conditions in which its collapse wouldn't cause an economic cascade failure come to pass, simply because of the way the economics game is played.

[Badb Catha]

Which is why culture would take precedent in division.

How does that work? So you first say it is race that decides it, but now it is culture? What even do you mean by culture?

I didn't say race decides it; I said it was an important factor. I specifically mentioned local cultures as taking precedence.

[Badb Catha]

No, what is unrealistic is insinuating that American Global Supremacy is eternal - which you have effectively done.

No, I have not. Again, this has nothing to do with American Global Supremacy^TM. This is a matter of the US having become a linchpin of the global economy due to the money it owes and the trade it does. Even if other countries are richer, the US is still a major factor, and still would need to get its shit in order just to get rid of half the problem your scenario of just deleting the US presents. Essentially, the US will collapse long before the conditions in which its collapse wouldn't cause an economic cascade failure come to pass, simply because of the way the economics game is played.

You believe the United States will inevitably collapse and soon, then?

[Thanatttynia]

It doesn't (?) but it does seem perilously 'close to Hitler.'

I'd disagree. Hitler wanted Jews removed from Germany first, and when that no longer became viable he opted for their extermination. China is simply reeducating them into accepting Atheism.

So... perilously close to Hitler pre-the Final Solution. I'd rather not give the CCP the time to come up with anything like that if their efforts at re-education are not successful

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I never said anything about the "near future".

Unless other wised specified why would one not assume you are talking about the present or near present day? Especially in a thread that deals with the present day and your solution to it is that the US should be broken up. When are you talking about then? 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years? The more time goes on the less relevancy there probably is in dividing it by race.

Which is why culture would take precedent over race.

And how is that defined? For the most part culture, like ethnicity, is greatly mixed in the United States.

Why should the United States be dissolved, you mean?

For one, yes you still have really failed to explain why a perfectly stable state should be thrown into chaos outside of your own personal feelings. But also, if it is to be divided, why is it by race?

[Badb Catha]

I'd disagree. Hitler wanted Jews removed from Germany first, and when that no longer became viable he opted for their extermination. China is simply reeducating them into accepting Atheism.

So... perilously close to Hitler pre-the Final Solution. I'd rather not give the CCP the time to come up with anything like that if their efforts at re-education are not successful

I fail to see how. Hitler wanted the Jews deported; China does not care about the presence of the Uyghurs, it merely wants to remove their religion. Given the situation in Xinjiang Province it is understandable why. Uyghurs are not being used as a scapegoat, China is simply trying to remove the risk of further radicalization of Muslims by removing the presence of Islam entirely. The fact they are doing so non-violently is actually quite surprising.

[Guelder]

The USA was always been the country who judge over other countries, most companies in Europe are originally from the USA, so I think it's a good thing, they also play part in economics of some countries, I don't see any negativity in it

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The USA was always been the country who judge over other countries, most companies in Europe are originally from the USA, so I think it's a good thing, they also play part in economics of some countries, I don't see any negativity in it

Well not always. In reality the whole America World Police thing is only about a 60 year old thing.

[Thanatttynia]

So... perilously close to Hitler pre-the Final Solution. I'd rather not give the CCP the time to come up with anything like that if their efforts at re-education are not successful

I fail to see how. Hitler wanted the Jews deported; China does not care about the presence of the Uyghurs, it merely wants to remove their religion. Given the situation in Xinjiang Province it is understandable why. Uyghurs are not being used as a scapegoat, China is simply trying to remove the risk of further radicalization of Muslims by removing the presence of Islam entirely. The fact they are doing so non-violently is actually quite surprising.

I feel like you're being wilfully obtuse if you're trying to say you can't see the parallels between 'putting an ethno-religious group into concentration camps' and 'putting an ethno-religious group into concentration camps.' Putting ethno-religious groups into concentration camps is bad on its own regardless of the motivation, and I wouldn't be so sure that it's a far step from wanting to remove someone's religion to wanting to remove that person entirely.

How do you non-violently suppress and intern millions of people?