Will the world will be a better place without the US involvement in everything?

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
30,226
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Discounting their involvement in the WW2, In the last 100 years the US has had her involvement in many nation's history. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Cuba, not to mention indirect involvement by the CIA in toppling / installing regimes across the world, indirect/direct support to a certain regimes, arms supplying, and international pressure, etc.

In your opinion, do you think the world will be better of without US involvement?
 
Yes. But not if that is brought by Trump. Trump being a president is a negative sum game at a planetary level. There's no way it becomes a better place.
 
:wenger: Why discount their involvement in WW2?? Also, ask South Korea and Kuwait if they'd be better off without US involvement. I get it that America bashing is a fun pastime on the Caf (some of it deserved), but I do think plenty are just drinking haterade.
 
Let's also discount the Marshall plan, the Berlin airlift, rebuilding and pacifying Japan, independence for Kosovo, taking in countless immigrants and being the best example of a liberal society that values free expression. Then let's imagine the US not pushing so far into Europe at the end of the war, let's imagine France and Spain and Italy and Germany completely under communist domination and let's imagine that without the United States as the beacon of democracy and capitalism, the Soviet Union doesn't collapse and more decades are spent with even more of Europe under control of oppressive dictators and living in poverty.
 
Eboue said:
Let's also discount the Marshall plan, the Berlin airlift, rebuilding and pacifying Japan, independence for Kosovo, taking in countless immigrants and being the best example of a liberal society that values free expression. Then let's imagine the US not pushing so far into Europe at the end of the war, let's imagine France and Spain and Italy and Germany completely under communist domination and let's imagine that without the United States as the beacon of democracy and capitalism, the Soviet Union doesn't collapse and more decades are spent with even more of Europe under control of oppressive dictators and living in poverty.
Click to expand...
That is a hugely debatable statement.
 
Maybe not for every country in the world, but for the country I'm from (Ghana), yes we would have been better off without the US' involvement.
 
Compared to the imperialists that preceded them, they're the least of all evils. But then it'd have been hard to ravage the world the way the British did.

Eboue said:
Let's also discount the Marshall plan, the Berlin airlift, rebuilding and pacifying Japan, independence for Kosovo, taking in countless immigrants and being the best example of a liberal society that values free expression. Then let's imagine the US not pushing so far into Europe at the end of the war, let's imagine France and Spain and Italy and Germany completely under communist domination and let's imagine that without the United States as the beacon of democracy and capitalism, the Soviet Union doesn't collapse and more decades are spent with even more of Europe under control of oppressive dictators and living in poverty.
Click to expand...

Make America great again!
 
VP said:
Compared to the imperialists that preceded them, they're the least of all evils. But then it'd have been hard to ravage the world the way the British did.
Click to expand...
You mean make the world awesome :)
 
Well, the OP should be more specific: the US isn't involved in everything.

On the occasion where the US haven't initially been involved in something, e.g. Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia, DRC, things have turned out really bad because the UN is hamstrung and, so, toothless. The US has had to intervene. This would suggest the answer is No, because the only other superpower prefers not to expend it's resources saving others.

On the other hand, situations were the US have been the primary instigators have also turned to shite.

So, I think the situation is too complex for it to be drilled down to a yes or no.
 
RedChip said:
Well, the OP should be more specific: the US isn't involved in everything.

On the occasion where the US haven't initially been involved in something, e.g. Syria, Rwanda, Bosnia, DRC, things have turned out really bad because the UN is hamstrung and, so, toothless. The US has had to intervene. This would suggest the answer is No, because the only other superpower prefers not to expend it's resources saving others.

On the other hand, situations were the US have been the primary instigators have also turned to shite.

So, I think the situation is too complex for it to be drilled down to a yes or no.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about direct involvement alone, but behind the screen involvement (CIA, funding separatist groups, arming Al-qaeda, multinational company pressuring other government). I live in Indonesia, and the CIA have had their hands on the 1965 major event that changes my nation, for better or worse.
 
Sky1981 said:
I'm not talking about direct involvement alone, but behind the screen involvement (CIA, funding separatist groups, arming Al-qaeda, multinational company pressuring other government). I live in Indonesia, and the CIA have had their hands on the 1965 major event that changes my nation, for better or worse.
Click to expand...
Yes, the US have made a lot of mistakes interferring in the running of other nation-states, especially via the CIA during the cold war. But you could lay that accusation at any superpower or even any superior economic power. The USSR was it too. China has its hands in a lot of pies in Africa. Similarly, France and the UK in their former colonies.

I would also argue that not all MNCs are American and, in any case, MNC's do not represent their governments, although governments can attempt to regulate them. Some of the most egregious corporate crimes have been carried out by non-US MNCs, for example Nescafe with the contaminated baby milk and Chinese corporations who operate mines without any regard to safety in Africa.

It seems to me the US is taken as the poster child for a lot of ill caused by the rich nations and their powerful corporations. The US is part of it, of course, but we should look closer at other powerful nations too, which get off lightly.
 
Sky1981 said:
Discounting their involvement in the WW2, In the last 100 years the US has had her involvement in many nation's history. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Cuba, not to mention indirect involvement by the CIA in toppling / installing regimes across the world, indirect/direct support to a certain regimes, arms supplying, and international pressure, etc.

In your opinion, do you think the world will be better of without US involvement?
Click to expand...

Seeing as humans are basically egoists who are programmed to seek the best deal possible, another State would likely step in and attempt to take its place. If that state is not a Democratic one, then chances are the world would be fecked.
 
RedChip said:
Yes, the US have made a lot of mistakes interferring in the running of other nation-states, especially via the CIA during the cold war. But you could lay that accusation at any superpower or even any superior economic power. The USSR was it too. China has its hands in a lot of pies in Africa. Similarly, France and the UK in their former colonies.

I would also argue that not all MNCs are American and, in any case, MNC's do not represent their governments, although governments can attempt to regulate them. Some of the most egregious corporate crimes have been carried out by non-US MNCs, for example Nescafe with the contaminated baby milk and Chinese corporations who operate mines without any regard to safety in Africa.

It seems to me the US is taken as the poster child for a lot of ill caused by the rich nations and their powerful corporations. The US is part of it, of course, but we should look closer at other powerful nations too, which get off lightly.
Click to expand...
It is not comparable to the interference of US and former colonial powers like UK and France. Yes Chinese meddle in economic affairs in most of African nations. US on the other hand dictates the existance of the state itself like borders, elections and political powers.
 
Manchie said:
It is not comparable to the interference of US and former colonial powers like UK and France. Yes Chinese meddle in economic affairs in most of African nations. US on the other hand dictates the existance of the state itself like borders, elections and political powers.
Click to expand...


I think the difference is cultural; it is one of subtlety. China is just less obvious at wielding influence around the world than these other countries. But the influence is real all the same: if you consider the critical role economics plays in politics and elections, then you could say that China has had the greatest influence on African governments than any other major player in recent years.

By contrast, the UK has retreated from many areas where it was the great external influence.
 
No.

But.

It would be better if they didn't feck things up so much
 
Eboue said:
Go on then
Click to expand...
The World Press Freedom index has the USA at 41st place, between Slovenia and Burkina Faso: https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2016
The Human Freedom Index study ranked the USA at 31st in terms of personal freedom: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf
The CIRI Human Rights Data project in 2011 ranked the USA at 38th in terms of human rights: http://www.humanrightsdata.com/2013/08/human-rights-in-2011-ciri-report.html
The Global Gender Gap Report that examines gender equality in 2015 ranked the USA at 28th: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/rankings/

Scandinavian countries or the likes of Netherlands generally also fare better when it comes to access to healthcare and higher education, what with the crippling costs these two can incur in the US. The Global Higher Education report in 2010 found that the total cost of education (including living expenses) came out at 87% of yearly median income of US households in 2008. As all reports say that higher education in the United States only got more expensive in the last eight years, it's safe to say things did not change for the better. In comparison, the same report calculated the cost of education in Germany at around 28% of the median income: http://www.iregobservatory.org/pdf/HESA_Global_Higher_EducationRankings2010.pdf

And from my admittedly highly subjective viewpoint no country can call itself the best example of a liberal society while it still has the death penalty. Any of the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands or Germany have a better claim as things stand. You might have a case if we go back to before WWII, of course. As of 2016, not a chance.
 
Siorac said:
The World Press Freedom index has the USA at 41st place, between Slovenia and Burkina Faso: https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2016
The Human Freedom Index study ranked the USA at 31st in terms of personal freedom: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf
The CIRI Human Rights Data project in 2011 ranked the USA at 38th in terms of human rights: http://www.humanrightsdata.com/2013/08/human-rights-in-2011-ciri-report.html
The Global Gender Gap Report that examines gender equality in 2015 ranked the USA at 28th: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/rankings/

Scandinavian countries or the likes of Netherlands generally also fare better when it comes to access to healthcare and higher education, what with the crippling costs these two can incur in the US. The Global Higher Education report in 2010 found that the total cost of education (including living expenses) came out at 87% of yearly median income of US households in 2008. As all reports say that higher education in the United States only got more expensive in the last eight years, it's safe to say things did not change for the better. In comparison, the same report calculated the cost of education in Germany at around 28% of the median income: http://www.iregobservatory.org/pdf/HESA_Global_Higher_EducationRankings2010.pdf

And from my admittedly highly subjective viewpoint no country can call itself the best example of a liberal society while it still has the death penalty. Any of the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands or Germany have a better claim as things stand. You might have a case if we go back to before WWII, of course. As of 2016, not a chance.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to see how the US fares on media freedoms among larger countries (100m or more people).
 
Raoul said:
Would be interesting to see how the US fares on media freedoms among larger countries (100m or more people).
Click to expand...
Well there's only 12 of those (US included) and the US fares better than all. But considering that this includes the likes of Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Bangladesh, China, India... not exactly surprising. No one would ever accuse these countries of being liberal societies.

Canada, with 36 million people, is 18th.
 
Of course no. Like every other state, US has done right and wrong things, but still far more right things then wrong things.

Without US influence, World would have been like 1984.
 
Siorac said:
The World Press Freedom index has the USA at 41st place, between Slovenia and Burkina Faso: https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2016
The Human Freedom Index study ranked the USA at 31st in terms of personal freedom: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf
The CIRI Human Rights Data project in 2011 ranked the USA at 38th in terms of human rights: http://www.humanrightsdata.com/2013/08/human-rights-in-2011-ciri-report.html
The Global Gender Gap Report that examines gender equality in 2015 ranked the USA at 28th: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/rankings/

Scandinavian countries or the likes of Netherlands generally also fare better when it comes to access to healthcare and higher education, what with the crippling costs these two can incur in the US. The Global Higher Education report in 2010 found that the total cost of education (including living expenses) came out at 87% of yearly median income of US households in 2008. As all reports say that higher education in the United States only got more expensive in the last eight years, it's safe to say things did not change for the better. In comparison, the same report calculated the cost of education in Germany at around 28% of the median income: http://www.iregobservatory.org/pdf/HESA_Global_Higher_EducationRankings2010.pdf

And from my admittedly highly subjective viewpoint no country can call itself the best example of a liberal society while it still has the death penalty. Any of the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands or Germany have a better claim as things stand. You might have a case if we go back to before WWII, of course. As of 2016, not a chance.
Click to expand...
From my (somewhat limited) visits to and experience of the USA, I can't think of a better country in the world to live in if you're at least somewhat moderately wealthy, and a worse developed country to live in if you're poverty stricken. The gap between standards of living is simply enormous compared to most other developed countries, but I guess it's to be expected given the size of the place in comparison.
 
Siorac said:
Well there's only 12 of those (US included) and the US fares better than all. But considering that this includes the likes of Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Bangladesh, China, India... not exactly surprising. No one would ever accuse these countries of being liberal societies.

Canada, with 36 million people, is 18th.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the US was penalized a bit for corporate owned media, otherwise it would be much higher on the list. I also think it's more of a challenge the bigger the population in Democratic states because the complexity of the system rises exponentially which raises the potential for more interference.
 
Manchie said:
It is not comparable to the interference of US and former colonial powers like UK and France. Yes Chinese meddle in economic affairs in most of African nations. US on the other hand dictates the existance of the state itself like borders, elections and political powers.
Click to expand...

What borders were dictated by the US?
 
Cina said:
From my (somewhat limited) visits to and experience of the USA, I can't think of a better country in the world to live in if you're at least somewhat moderately wealthy, and a worse developed country to live in if you're poverty stricken. The gap between standards of living is simply enormous compared to most other developed countries, but I guess it's to be expected given the size of the place in comparison.
Click to expand...
I heard the same. Its wealth gap is growing incredibly fast, apparently, which presents quite a challenge.
 
Raoul said:
I would imagine the US was penalized a bit for corporate owned media, otherwise it would be much higher on the list. I also think it's more of a challenge the bigger the population in Democratic states because the complexity of the system rises exponentially which raises the potential for more interference.
Click to expand...
That's probably true. But that's just one more reason why it can't really be called as the best example of a liberal society. You could even say that its size and vast diversity makes it impractical for other countries to try and emulate its practices.
 
Siorac said:
That's probably true. But that's just one more reason why it can't really be called as the best example of a liberal society. You could even say that its size and vast diversity makes it impractical for other countries to try and emulate its practices.
Click to expand...

It precedes the timeframe the OP proposed, but the US's political institutions are the basis for Brazil's and Argentina's. So there is a degree of emulation, which is positive because at the very least these countries have copied a liberal and democratic system. That they manage it inadequately (as does the US to a lesser degree) is their own fault, but its probably still preferable to one potentially less liberal.

I think sometimes we might underestimate a bit how impressionable people around the world were during the Cold War. If the Soviet Union had somehow leapt ahead, attained levels of human development and power that the US had, a lot of people (and leaders) in lesser countries around the world that were already democracies would've possibly voted for communist parties and generally looked to emulate the policies and institutions of the Soviet Union.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
It precedes the timeframe the OP proposed, but the US's political institutions are the basis for Brazil's and Argentina's. So there is a degree of emulation, which is positive because at the very least these countries have copied a liberal and democratic system. That they manage it inadequately (as does the US to a lesser degree) is their own fault, but its probably still preferable to one potentially less liberal.

I think sometimes we might underestimate a bit how impressionable people around the world were during the Cold War. If the Soviet Union had somehow leapt ahead, attained levels of human development and power that the US had, a lot of people (and leaders) in lesser countries around the world that were already democracies would've possibly voted for communist parties and generally looked to emulate the policies and institutions of the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
My point was more like that the vast majority of countries are closer to the likes of Sweden and Netherlands in terms of population than to the US so that's where they need to look at. Brazil is big enough though, certainly.

The Soviet Union gained considerable power during the Cold War and had half of Europe under its influence. But in the end it was an obvious economic failure. Yeah, they lost the arms race but they also lost the "standard of living race". Which is a good thing. I'd obviously much rather live in the US than in the Soviet Union. I live in a country that's still struggling with the legacy of the Soviet rule in many ways, economically and psychologically.
 
Being the main driver, backer and organizer of the international system (UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc) should also count for some points, no? I'm not saying they did it on their own, by definition everyone needs to chip in both money and effort to make any of these mean anything. And I know these organizations reflect the way the US sees the world, which can work to their benefit. But are they wholly unfair? Would anyone rather have had a Soviet Union worried about controlling its satellite states draft international law? A vindictive and still colonial France?

I generally think that US global influence is at least the best of bad choices. I don't think a multi-polar world is a great thing, its probably just regional powers having undue influence or aggression towards their smaller neighbors.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
I think sometimes we might underestimate a bit how impressionable people around the world were during the Cold War. If the Soviet Union had somehow leapt ahead, attained levels of human development and power that the US had, a lot of people (and leaders) in lesser countries around the world that were already democracies would've possibly voted for communist parties and generally looked to emulate the policies and institutions of the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...


The Soviet Union was never going to “leap ahead”, because central planning can never compete with a system that is based on individual freedom. Hypothetically speaking: if the UDSSR would have produced better outcomes for its citizens than the USA, they would have had at legitimate case for their political/economical model. The military fight against communism was with few exceptions unnecessary and an utter disaster.

Yes, there are various positive examples of US intervention and nobody is trying to diminish them. Still those don´t justify all the committed horrors. Supporting right wing fascists and strongman all over Latin America certainly did a lot more damage than good. All the meddling in the Middle East also didn´t foster the well-being of the people.

That doesn´t mean that those regions would be sunshine and roses without US interference. They clearly wouldn´t be. The US is not responsible for backwards societies, tribalism, corruption, violence and various other forms of human nastiness. That said once you start killing people left right and center, you better achieve something impressive. Otherwise you are part of the problem and not the white knight in shining armor.

One last thing: The arrogance and delusion caused by American exceptionalism is sadly omnipresent in US policy. That creates the huge gap between the self-perception/talk and action. One of the highest incarceration rates in the world. A permanent and ongoing global war “against terrorism”. Spying on all your citizens (and the rest of the world). A dysfunctional democratic system. I could continue for hours. All these don´t strike me as particularly “liberal”.


PS: Neither worldbank nor IMF count for anything. At least not on the plus side….
 
It's impossible to say, who knows what the other powerful countries would've gotten up to if the US wasn't around? They've done some great things as a nation, but plenty of bad too. I'm more concerned with their potential influence on the future. If Trump wins then we can forget about the US doing anything about global warming for the foreseeable, which I think should be a serious concern for everyone.
 
adexkola said:
What borders were dictated by the US?
Click to expand...

Mexico for one, as they were relieved of Southern California, Arizona, Mexico and ¿Texas? by US forces. Colombia for another, as Panama used to be part of Colombia until the US needed more favourable negotiations for the canal.

Anyway, the original question in the OP is a bit impossible to answer as it so depends on who you ask, making it way too relative and too personal.
 
PedroMendez said:
The Soviet Union was never going to “leap ahead”, because central planning can never compete with a system that is based on individual freedom. Hypothetically speaking: if the UDSSR would have produced better outcomes for its citizens than the USA, they would have had at legitimate case for their political/economical model. The military fight against communism was with few exceptions unnecessary and an utter disaster.

Yes, there are various positive examples of US intervention and nobody is trying to diminish them. Still those don´t justify all the committed horrors. Supporting right wing fascists and strongman all over Latin America certainly did a lot more damage than good. All the meddling in the Middle East also didn´t foster the well-being of the people.

That doesn´t mean that those regions would be sunshine and roses without US interference. They clearly wouldn´t be. The US is not responsible for backwards societies, tribalism, corruption, violence and various other forms of human nastiness. That said once you start killing people left right and center, you better achieve something impressive. Otherwise you are part of the problem and not the white knight in shining armor.

One last thing: The arrogance and delusion caused by American exceptionalism is sadly omnipresent in US policy. That creates the huge gap between the self-perception/talk and action. One of the highest incarceration rates in the world. A permanent and ongoing global war “against terrorism”. Spying on all your citizens (and the rest of the world). A dysfunctional democratic system. I could continue for hours. All these don´t strike me as particularly “liberal”.


PS: Neither worldbank nor IMF count for anything. At least not on the plus side….
Click to expand...

Way too harsh.

Middle East was always a shithole. With or without US, it would have (and still is) gone down the drain. It's quite easy to blame external interference when the people of the country themselves don't have the capacity to fix their own country. Are you saying Middle East would be happy and prosperous now if not for US intervention? Or maybe South America?

Don't really get the scepticism against 'dysfunctional democracy'. Is there any country with a perfect functional one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.