That depends whether what rises from the ashes is better or worse for the entire planet.
I don’t know whether it’ll be better or worse, but either way it’ll be weaker. Assuming Trump has his way, it’ll be a long time—if ever—before America can throw its way around the world like it does today. The web of alliances (read: army of accomplices) it uses to bully the Global South into submission is irreparably broken.
I don’t know whether it’ll be better or worse, but either way it’ll be weaker. Assuming Trump has his way, it’ll be a long time—if ever—before America can throw its way around the world like it does today.
Holy shit.
You wanna fucking remind me what significantly weaker imperialist countries like Russia do around the world?
The USA’s vast diplomatic power is the least fucking objectionable thing about our foreign policy, and that’s what’s being dismantled. You think the fucking massive intelligence apparatus and the world’s largest military is going to fucking vanish into thin air? Our most horrific imperialist actions have been done unilaterally, or near-unilaterally. We didn’t need fucking Poland to help us invade Iraq. We didn’t need the Aussies to help us bomb Vietnam. You think the US becoming a pariah state is going to help further US policy on that front?
Fucking insanity.
The web of alliances (read: army of accomplices) it uses to bully the Global South into submission is irreparably broken.
ou wanna fucking remind me what significantly weaker imperialist countries like Russia do around the world?
What’s Russian imperialism’s death toll in the last two decades? How many people live under Russian-supported dictatorships? How many genocides has Russia funded? As shown by Russia, significantly weaker imperialist powers cause significantly less harm, just as I said.
The USA’s vast diplomatic power is the least fucking objectionable thing about our foreign policy, and that’s what’s being dismantled.
The US’s vast diplomatic and economic power helps gain global buy-in and coerce support for those objectionable things about your foreign policy.
You think the fucking massive intelligence apparatus and the world’s largest military is going to fucking vanish into thin air? Our most horrific imperialist actions have been done unilaterally, or near-unilaterally. We didn’t need fucking Poland to help us invade Iraq. We didn’t need the Aussies to help us bomb Vietnam.
They’d have been a lot less unilateral if Europe had raised a stink about yet another refugee crisis happening in their backyard. The diplomatic power you’re talking about is exactly why America can trash the world and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it.
What’s Russian imperialism’s death toll in the last two decades?
Literal millions. Holy fucking shit, do you not remember the Chechnyan wars? Syria? The war in fucking Ukraine?
How many people live under Russian-supported dictatorships?
Sudan, Syria until a few months ago, the Donbass, Belarus, Venezuela, CAR, Mali, Burkino Faso, parts of Chad…
How many genocides has Russia funded?
Let’s see, we’ve got Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine. So that’s three at minimum.
How many has the US funded in the past 30 years? Israel’s?
As shown by Russia, significantly weaker imperialist powers cause significantly less harm, just as I said.
“An imperialist country a third of the size and much poorer does less harm than an imperialist country three times its size and significantly wealthier”
Wow, very insightful.
The US’s vast diplomatic and economic power helps gain global buy-in and coerce support for those objectionable things about your foreign policy.
Yes, of course, that’s why we roped in Europe to support our invasion of Iraq.
They’d have been a lot less unilateral if Europe had raised a stink about yet another refugee crisis happening in their backyard.
… really?
You fucking think that in the post-9/11 fury we would have given two shits if Europe (checks notes) objected slightly louder than they already did? And now you’re looking at a fascist regime which explicitly opposes outside economic influence and saying “Wow! Now those other democratic states will have so much more leverage against US imperialist policy!”
Fuck’s sake.
The diplomatic power you’re talking about is exactly why America can trash the world and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it.
“and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it.”
Literal millions. Holy fucking shit, do you not remember the Chechnyan wars? Syria? The war in fucking Ukraine?
Yeah that’s a few hundred thousand tops, not at all millions. Also, since you brought up Ukraine: Russia has been in post-2014 Ukraine (so excluding territory they occupied in 2014) for three years and counting, while America steamrolled the Iraqi government in less than three weeks. It’s actually possible to resist weaker imperialist countries, but there’s nothing a country can do when the US knocks on their door except acquiesce or perish.
Let’s see, we’ve got Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine. So that’s three at minimum.
How many has the US funded in the past 30 years? Israel’s?
Fair enough.
You fucking think that in the post-9/11 fury we would have given two shits if Europe (checks notes) objected slightly louder than they already did?
Given Europe’s reaction to refugee crises in the Middle East (including, you know, calling them crises) I’d expect a bit more than objecting slightly louder. As MAGAt are about to find out, the relationship between Europe and America goes both ways. If Europe had threatened to impose economic punishments on America, or hell even just stop buying US weapons like they’re doing right now, even Bush would’ve had to think twice.
Yeah that’s a few hundred thousand tops, not at all millions.
Estimates of the total number of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, by various war monitors, range between 580,000 as of May 2021,[1] and approximately 656,493 as of March 2025.
The Chechen separatist sources in 2003 cited figures of some 250,000 civilians, and up to 50,000 Russian servicemen, killed during the 1994-2003 period. The rebel side also acknowledged about 5,000 separatist combatants killed as of 1999–2004, mostly in the initial phases of the war.
According to a report published by Le Monde in November 2024, the war may have killed over 150,000 civilians through the combined tolls of bombardments, massacres, starvation and disease.[247] A November 2024 report from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine estimated more than 61,000 deaths in Khartoum State alone, for the period between April 2023 and June 2024.[265]
Russia in the still-ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War:
198,000 killed, 550,000+ wounded
Ukraine:
50,000 killed,[135] 380,000 wounded
And that’s only for the ones they’ve been directly involved in, as mentioned, there are plenty of brutal civil wars and dictatorships Russia maintains support for a la the US and Israel.
Also, since you brought up Ukraine: Russia has been in post-2014 Ukraine (so excluding territory they occupied in 2014) for three years and counting, while America steamrolled the Iraqi government in less than three weeks. It’s actually possible to resist weaker imperialist countries, but there’s nothing a country can do when the US knocks on their door except acquiesce or perish.
Okay, so now that we’ve cut ties with Europe, how would that reduction in diplomatic power, which we have established as the only meaningful reduction in ‘imperial’ capabilities resulting from going full fascist, have reduced our war-waging capabilities in Iraq?
Go ahead. I’m very interested in seeing this analysis of how a hollowed-out pariah state up against the foremost military power in the world is comparable to a rotted military a third of its size up against a country materially backed by the entirety of the West.
Given Europe’s reaction to refugee crises in the Middle East (including, you know, calling them crises) I’d expect a bit more than objecting slightly louder. As MAGAt are about to find out, the relationship between Europe and America goes both ways. If Europe had threatened to impose economic punishments on America, or hell even just stop buying US weapons like they’re doing right now, even Bush would’ve had to think twice.
Bush would’ve had to think twice because, despite being an imperialist fuckwad, he wasn’t an out and out fascist with total control over his own party, likewise compromised of fascists.
And that’s only for the ones they’ve been directly involved in, as mentioned, there are plenty of brutal civil wars and dictatorships Russia maintains support for a la the US and Israel.
You’re going beyond the 20 year cutoff but either way that’s still less than half the US total in the same time period.
Go ahead. I’m very interested in seeing this analysis of how a hollowed-out pariah state up against the foremost military power in the world is comparable to a rotted military a third of its size up against a country materially backed by the entirety of the West.
Iraq was a hollowed out pariah state in part because of Europe following the American position. Also like I said, a strong European response would’ve lowered the scale of the war, if not outright avoided it. And since we’re talking about Iraq,
During the 1990s and 2000s, many surveys and studies found child mortality more than doubled during the sanctions,[8][9][10] with estimates ranging from 227,000[11] to 500,000[12] excess deaths among children under the age of 5.
That’s a quarter to half a million deaths in one country caused solely by American diplomatic and economic clout.
Bush would’ve had to think twice because, despite being an imperialist fuckwad, he wasn’t an out and out fascist with total control over his own party, likewise compromised of fascists.
Trump has total control over his party, but he still has people he needs to appease—including the military-industrial complex. I can’t tell you what will result from the inevitable conflict between Trump and the oligarchy, but it’s not going to be good for Trump’s regime.
You’re going beyond the 20 year cutoff but either way that’s still less than half the US total in the same time period.
… how the fuck so
Casualties for the entirety of the ‘War On Terror’, including seriously wounded (and including part of the period, likewise, ‘beyond the 20 year cutoff’), usually hover around 1.5 million.
If we’re counting indirect deaths, then we have a lot of ‘fun’ things we can add to Russia’s list.
Iraq was a hollowed out pariah state in part because of Europe following the American position.
… yes, because Iraq definitely wasn’t a hollowed-out pariah state following the Iran-Iraq War, and certainly not following their widely condemned invasion which led to the First Gulf War. If it wasn’t for America, Iraq would’ve been enjoying the full fruits of international cooperation just like it did before.
Also like I said, a strong European response would’ve lowered the scale of the war, if not outright avoided it.
How the fuck so? By your own admission, it was over in three weeks. If Europe had completely embargo’d the US, it still wouldn’t have changed opinions inside of three weeks.
That’s a quarter to half a million deaths in one country caused solely by American diplomatic and economic clout.
First you’re in support of sanctions on aggressive hypermilitarized genocidal states, now in opposition because of the human cost of sanctions.
Great. Glad we’re dealing with such a principled and consistent stance.
Trump has total control over his party, but he still has people he needs to appease—including the military-industrial complex.
You can only say “ends justify the means” if you can achieve the ends, otherwise you loose. The whole point of the saying is that the reaching the goal is the only important thing, how you get there does not matter. We’ll have to wait and see if the destination will be reached.
The whole point of the saying is that the reaching the goal is the only important thing, how you get there does not matter.
Actually, the whole point of the saying is that the ends do not justify the means. Not in that way, at least. Machiavelli was a much cooler person than people give him credit.
The prince who reaches his ends does not become justified in the moral sense of being proven right or just. They are not a ‘good’ person because they achieved their ends, even if the ends were noble.
They become justified in the sense of being absolved by society and not being held to account for their crimes.
In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court to appeal to, one looks to the end. So let prince win and maintain his state: the means will always be judged honorable, and will be praised by everyone.
In other words, “The ends justify the means” does not mean “the end was worthy of the means.”
It means whoever wins in the end will not be held accountable for the means they used to get there.
Liberalism isn’t just as defined by USA.
I can’t say yet the ends justify the means. That depends whether what rises from the ashes is better or worse for the entire planet.
I don’t know whether it’ll be better or worse, but either way it’ll be weaker. Assuming Trump has his way, it’ll be a long time—if ever—before America can throw its way around the world like it does today. The web of alliances (read: army of accomplices) it uses to bully the Global South into submission is irreparably broken.
Holy shit.
You wanna fucking remind me what significantly weaker imperialist countries like Russia do around the world?
The USA’s vast diplomatic power is the least fucking objectionable thing about our foreign policy, and that’s what’s being dismantled. You think the fucking massive intelligence apparatus and the world’s largest military is going to fucking vanish into thin air? Our most horrific imperialist actions have been done unilaterally, or near-unilaterally. We didn’t need fucking Poland to help us invade Iraq. We didn’t need the Aussies to help us bomb Vietnam. You think the US becoming a pariah state is going to help further US policy on that front?
Fucking insanity.
Jesus fucking Christ.
What’s Russian imperialism’s death toll in the last two decades? How many people live under Russian-supported dictatorships? How many genocides has Russia funded? As shown by Russia, significantly weaker imperialist powers cause significantly less harm, just as I said.
The US’s vast diplomatic and economic power helps gain global buy-in and coerce support for those objectionable things about your foreign policy.
They’d have been a lot less unilateral if Europe had raised a stink about yet another refugee crisis happening in their backyard. The diplomatic power you’re talking about is exactly why America can trash the world and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it.
Literal millions. Holy fucking shit, do you not remember the Chechnyan wars? Syria? The war in fucking Ukraine?
Sudan, Syria until a few months ago, the Donbass, Belarus, Venezuela, CAR, Mali, Burkino Faso, parts of Chad…
Let’s see, we’ve got Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine. So that’s three at minimum.
How many has the US funded in the past 30 years? Israel’s?
“An imperialist country a third of the size and much poorer does less harm than an imperialist country three times its size and significantly wealthier”
Wow, very insightful.
Yes, of course, that’s why we roped in Europe to support our invasion of Iraq.
… really?
You fucking think that in the post-9/11 fury we would have given two shits if Europe (checks notes) objected slightly louder than they already did? And now you’re looking at a fascist regime which explicitly opposes outside economic influence and saying “Wow! Now those other democratic states will have so much more leverage against US imperialist policy!”
Fuck’s sake.
“and nobody that matters says a damn thing about it.”
Jesus fucking Christ.
Yeah that’s a few hundred thousand tops, not at all millions. Also, since you brought up Ukraine: Russia has been in post-2014 Ukraine (so excluding territory they occupied in 2014) for three years and counting, while America steamrolled the Iraqi government in less than three weeks. It’s actually possible to resist weaker imperialist countries, but there’s nothing a country can do when the US knocks on their door except acquiesce or perish.
Fair enough.
Given Europe’s reaction to refugee crises in the Middle East (including, you know, calling them crises) I’d expect a bit more than objecting slightly louder. As MAGAt are about to find out, the relationship between Europe and America goes both ways. If Europe had threatened to impose economic punishments on America, or hell even just stop buying US weapons like they’re doing right now, even Bush would’ve had to think twice.
Russia in the still-ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War:
Ukraine:
And that’s only for the ones they’ve been directly involved in, as mentioned, there are plenty of brutal civil wars and dictatorships Russia maintains support for a la the US and Israel.
Okay, so now that we’ve cut ties with Europe, how would that reduction in diplomatic power, which we have established as the only meaningful reduction in ‘imperial’ capabilities resulting from going full fascist, have reduced our war-waging capabilities in Iraq?
Go ahead. I’m very interested in seeing this analysis of how a hollowed-out pariah state up against the foremost military power in the world is comparable to a rotted military a third of its size up against a country materially backed by the entirety of the West.
Bush would’ve had to think twice because, despite being an imperialist fuckwad, he wasn’t an out and out fascist with total control over his own party, likewise compromised of fascists.
You’re going beyond the 20 year cutoff but either way that’s still less than half the US total in the same time period.
Iraq was a hollowed out pariah state in part because of Europe following the American position. Also like I said, a strong European response would’ve lowered the scale of the war, if not outright avoided it. And since we’re talking about Iraq,
-Wikipedia
That’s a quarter to half a million deaths in one country caused solely by American diplomatic and economic clout.
Trump has total control over his party, but he still has people he needs to appease—including the military-industrial complex. I can’t tell you what will result from the inevitable conflict between Trump and the oligarchy, but it’s not going to be good for Trump’s regime.
… how the fuck so
Casualties for the entirety of the ‘War On Terror’, including seriously wounded (and including part of the period, likewise, ‘beyond the 20 year cutoff’), usually hover around 1.5 million.
If we’re counting indirect deaths, then we have a lot of ‘fun’ things we can add to Russia’s list.
… yes, because Iraq definitely wasn’t a hollowed-out pariah state following the Iran-Iraq War, and certainly not following their widely condemned invasion which led to the First Gulf War. If it wasn’t for America, Iraq would’ve been enjoying the full fruits of international cooperation just like it did before.
How the fuck so? By your own admission, it was over in three weeks. If Europe had completely embargo’d the US, it still wouldn’t have changed opinions inside of three weeks.
First you’re in support of sanctions on aggressive hypermilitarized genocidal states, now in opposition because of the human cost of sanctions.
Great. Glad we’re dealing with such a principled and consistent stance.
Fucking lol.
You can only say “ends justify the means” if you can achieve the ends, otherwise you loose. The whole point of the saying is that the reaching the goal is the only important thing, how you get there does not matter. We’ll have to wait and see if the destination will be reached.
Actually, the whole point of the saying is that the ends do not justify the means. Not in that way, at least. Machiavelli was a much cooler person than people give him credit.
The prince who reaches his ends does not become justified in the moral sense of being proven right or just. They are not a ‘good’ person because they achieved their ends, even if the ends were noble.
They become justified in the sense of being absolved by society and not being held to account for their crimes.
In other words, “The ends justify the means” does not mean “the end was worthy of the means.”
It means whoever wins in the end will not be held accountable for the means they used to get there.
What he says is true though.
Morality is not a law of nature.
I’m not sure how what you said contradicts what I wrote.
Yes, thanks for rephrasing.