Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 395 posts

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#151

Post by konstmonst »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12
fowlerpower wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think a NATO ally can be hit? With a land war? You think the Republican Party would need to reassert, the same party that dragged us into two wars in the last 12 years? I have to respectfully disagree.

> You really think a NATO ally can be hit No, but the odds don't look as daunting as they used to. It's certainly more bargainable than it ever was. In any case, only the Baltics in my last comment are NATO allies. Lots of American interests aren't covered by Article 5. > I have to respectfully disagree My point isn't that confrontation is likely. It's that disrespectful disagreement of the status quo is more likely…

What happened in Crimea? What about a referendum? How is it worse than US annexation of Hawai? As a matter of fact, Crimea was part of Russia since it was taken from Crimean Khanate in the 18th century. I also don't have any emphaty for the treatment of Tatar Culture because it was a culture of pillaging their neigbours and economy based on slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean%E2%80%93Nogai_raids_in...

I also think that the sanctions also brought Russia some good in the long run: instead of buying stuff in europe they now have to make it themselves. The one who really lost were european countries:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/opinion/wh...

I also think even if Putin may be not ideal leader, he handled the situation in the best interests of his country. I also think the fact, that he is an autocratic leader should not be discriminated against. I think Democracy is not for everybody (as US found out in Iraq and Afganistan) and people in Russia still support him, allthough I think Alexei Navalny would a better Candidate.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#152

Post by yokisan »

zzleeper wrote: post #110
Gustomaximus wrote: post #77

From the article: "It needs to move toward more military integration, which means streamlining procurement. European armies use too many different weapons systems: seventeen main battle tank families compared with just one for the U.S.; 20 types of fighter planes compared with just six; and 13 kinds of air-to-air missiles compared with three." While I dont doubt there are efficiencies to be had, I feel they fail to r…

Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?

For the record: Georgia initiated their conflict with Russia.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#153

Post by nkassis »

65827 wrote: post #42
mark_l_watson wrote: post #7

While the article is probably correct about a partial withdrawal of the US from the world stage, it is leaving something out: in the USA, the military industrial complex is the largest 'special interest' lobbying the government. We spend almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined. As a US citizen and taxpayer, I am reluctantly for a multi-polar world. The reluctance comes from what I expect to be so…

I think a little chaos from the transition won't be nearly as bad as the bizarre paternalistic "we know best" puppet master horseshit that the USA is known for. Not to mention the mountains of bodies created in the process. I just hope people start questioning whatever institutions they are part of more and more, government, private or other. Trump is not on your team, neither is Facebook, neither is your employer, n…

I agree with questioning everything, I disagree with the second part of you last statement. We cannot go at it completely alone, we need institutions to fight for things as blocks. I think it be better to get more engaged.

Lets not reverse thousands of years of Civilization.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#154

Post by urbanj »

rrggrr wrote: post #144
danmaz74 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Trump not a plutocrat?

Because now that he is President the Constitution and Congress are his source of power. There's nothing his money can buy him right now that trumps the power of the office and the Congress.

I guess the billions his family will make out of his Presidency is a pure coincidence.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#155

Post by alkonaut »

emodendroket wrote: post #102
alkonaut wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The safety comes from the idea that they would, which is what keeps the bad thing from happening. If there is any doubt that the US would go to war, that ironically increases the risk that they would. So basically - one says one would definitely go to war. Simply because then you maximize the chance of avoiding it. Donald Trumps administration didn't get the memo I think, when they started being vague on who might be…

Well, that's the theory, yeah. I think there's been some question about some of the newer NATO members for some time though. http://www.interpretermag.com/americans-are-prepared-to-die-...

> I think there's been some question about some of the newer NATO members for some time though

Perhaps. And surely any country would ponder whether it would be willing to send thousands of young people to their deaths for any cause, regardless of what agreements were signed.

But the point is these things aren't supposed to be discussed in public by the parties that need to demonstrate resolve.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#156

Post by gbog »

wsc981 wrote: post #87
tim333 wrote: post #65

I guess now Putin's got a buddy in the whitehouse the Europeans are going to have to do more stop the red army rolling westwards. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trum...

I find it highly unlikely that Putin would want to invade Europe (this is what you seem to suggest). I do understand the importance of the Krim for Russia, as it has their only southern military harbour. It's not something Russia can afford to lose. Dutch people should listen to this very interesting interview with Laszlo Maracz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83G10vWamAc In the interview Maracz explains that the he…

Yep. And also, about Krimea, there is this game of musical chairs: once the music stop everyone gets its chair but one. Some seem to consider that after WWII and Yalta, no border should ever change anymore. That's not fair, not natural, and too rigid. If no borders are ever modifed, will the Kurds never have their own country as maybe they ought to?

To me border moves are always painful, dangerous, need to be done carefully, etc. but not allowing them at all is worse: the pain and danger accumulates and after a while, we get earthquakes sized changes.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#157

Post by dagenleg »

herbst wrote: post #31
knz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US and all of its allies are still allies. This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is. That's not "stirring the pot" - it's potentially a significant shift in the world order and a decrease in how effective our foreign relations are. The public allegations and concern expressed by our allies and own intelligence agencies should give everyone…

Not sure why you are grayed out. From what i can tell you are absolutely right. Before that america was usually discussed as some "crazy big brother" kind of position, especially since they started bombing and droning civils it went more to "evil big brother" but still a big brother. From what i can tell the public view changed since the election and the U.S. is seen as some kind of possible threat for our society an…

Big Brother indeed.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#158

Post by DarkKomunalec »

raverbashing wrote: post #120
DarkKomunalec wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France, Netherlands, Germany, and the U.K. are all countries with large and growing immigrant populations. Seeing their countries 'taken over' by foreigners, people vote for parties promising to put a stop to it. Unfortunately, there are no pro-EU parties making those promises. Quite the opposite - they prefer to chastise their people for not wanting their countries to irreversibly change. So that's how you end up wi…

This is an issue. But it seems even the Europhiles are smarting up to it It's easy to be "humanitarian" with somebody else's money and resources

It's actually not the spending of money I have issue with, though admittedly I don't know how big a part of the budget foreign humanitarian aid represents. It's the underhanded way in which immigration is being accomplished - Germany had "guest workers", which the government promised would return to their home countries. The U.S. had the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which was promised wouldn't change the ethnic make-up of the U.S. Both promises were broken. I don't think anyone believes the current wave of refugees will ever leave - who would be willing to deport them, after they spend 10+ years in Europe, and raise children here who've never seen their 'home' country?

Consider this - despite graphic photos of drowned children, the funding of refugee camps on the other side of the Mediterranean was not exactly loudly promoted.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#159

Post by richmarr »

BurningFrog wrote: post #75
richmarr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they'd want to make significant changes to their political system. The Chinese middle class is already larger than the US middle class (and growing), so they're already going to be the culturally dominant force over the next century. Edit: "they" above being those in power. Obvs there are people in China who want reform.

A reasonably wealthy middle class will take power. Because money is power, and they have most of it. At least that is one way you can view the democratization of the west. The same mechanism - if real - should apply in China as well.

> The same mechanism - if real - should apply in China as well.

Yeah, I think it's realistic to expect growing wealth to affect the political landscape.

I guess my point is that self-imposed political reform is a choice few governments make willingly. OP was suggesting that the soon-to-be dominant world power would choose self-imposed political reform with the specific objective of attracting more overseas students.

To me that seems like choosing to cut off your arm rather than trim your fingernails.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#160

Post by bad_user »

DarkKomunalec wrote: post #130
bad_user wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Brexit campaign was fueled by lies. The real issue is a trend of anti-intellectualism and xenophobia, which I fear we've seen before, triggered by the great depression and a precursor to WWII. It's as if, whenever a financial crisis happens, people go dumb.

Xenophobia, or rational self-interest? How is the common worker better-off by allowing immigration? The only advantage I can think of is having the option of abandoning their country to seek better fortunes elsewhere (assuming immigration is a two-way street). What about the great majority who wish to stay in their own countries?

I would call it stupidity, because the biggest threat to jobs is provably automation and not immigrants.

Immigrants are occupying either the low end jobs that nobody wants, like what you get in agriculture (e.g. strawberry pickers - if you don't know how that's like, try it out ;-)), cleaning services, etc, or they are occupying the high end jobs, like what you get in Silicon Valley, an industry that creates jobs, or say medical doctors, which are hired because of their expertise or to lower the prices, which in the end translates to lower healthcare bills, etc.

Either way, if you ban immigration, you'll get automation, or a crashing economy due to other countries being more competitive. And if you get automation, it's worse than immigrants, because those immigrants are spending their salaries locally, whereas robots don't get salaries.

You know, it's funny you should say that. I'm from an ex-communist country from Eastern Europe and let me tell you, the problem with communism was the extreme inefficiency due to the state's incentive of keeping people hired which ultimately led to hunger and the fall of the USSR.

Post reply on HN