Companies are rerouting around South Africa to avoid militia attacks in Yemen in one of the biggest disruptions to world trade since the Covid-19 pandemic
The book is about the US backing off from protecting global trade and what happens afterword. Such is the core thing holding up our current globalized trading system.
It isn’t about everyone dying or some shit (“Doomerism”), it is about geopolitics.
You should read it. Pretty much no one understands how the current state of international affairs has been maintained by global trade. The U.S. Navy protects all global trade. Not just trade to and from the U.S., but obviously it’s not a popular domestic position and it doesn’t make much sense for the U.S. to continue anyway. There’s winners and losers, but mostly losers
What a dumb take. American interventionism exists to rob countries of oil, destabilize them, and make sure they cannot surpass Americ in power.
The entire reason the middle east is chaos right now is because of America. israel is a prime example. A Nazi state that only exists because of America so they can control the region, and it creates chaos and wars.
America isn’t doing jack shit for stability. If they wanted stability they would stop the Genocide instead of trying to pick fights with everyone to protect israel.
The US is now a net exporter of crude, petrochemicals and LNG. We don’t need the Middle East, in fact they are just competitors. But our allies desperately need those energy sources.
The US is currently in the middle of the largest industrial build out in history in N.A. At the end of it we will produce most of what we need locally. Because of our demographics N.A. has the largest consumer market in the world. Most of what we produce is consumed locally. We export food staples and high end technical products. We don’t need foreign markets… but they need us.
With all of the disruptions that global climate change is going to bring in ten to fifteen years, when N.A. is even more self sufficient than it is now, do you think the US will continue to subsidize the world’s economy? Why would we continue guaranteeing freedom of the seas in areas where we have no interest?
America wants to couple oil to the collar and in the past forced everyone to do so. Any leader that wanted to be paid in gold got killed.
Because everyone needs energy, everyone is forced to trade in dollars. And you know what America can do? Print those dollarydoos.
So they are not just making sure their monopoly is stable but also that they have an infinite money hack by devaluing the global currency that everyone is forced to trade in.
Israel only exists because of Nazis, but you can go ahead and call them Nazis. The irony is clearly not lost on you.
There has not been a world war since the U.S. has been upholding the international order that has seen countries like China, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and many others experience massive economic gains.
The times America has been engaged in conflict since WW2 ended have so much propaganda draped over them that people forget who invaded who first. The North Koreans invaded South Korea to begin the Korean War. The North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam to begin the Vietnam war. The Iraqis invaded Kuwait to begin Operation Desert Storm. The Serbs tried to genocide the Albanians in Kosovo to begin NATO intervention in the Balkans. The one time the U.S. was totally in the wrong was when Bush lied about Iraq being involved in 9/11, which was completely untrue.
You can have your opinions, but it doesn’t reflect reality. And when the U.S. Navy stops ensuring the free flow of goods, the countries that the U.S. is hurting according to you will be begging us to return the world to the previous order.
Of course, idiots Ike yourself will find a way to blame the CIA for whatever happens because it’s just gotta always be the US’s fault.
Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq not 9/11. The rest of your comments are all bullshit too but when you claim that israeli Nazis have been defending themselves into stealing all Palestinian land and murdering little children I guess you need some insane alternate history book for your world view to make sense.
Nope, you’re wrong. He started it all with a connection to 9/11. Then they shifted to 9/11 because US intelligence refused to corroborate his lies. But he made those statements as facts. Dude just wanted to finish what his dad didn’t back in the early 90s
Actually you’re right. My bad. I didn’t know that he lied about “Iraq doing 9/11 too” . And afterwards he lied about the WMD’s too. He was just making up tonnes of lies and finding any reason to invade Iraq and overthrow their government to steal oil.
And America got away with it of course.
I’m not entirely sure how this helps your point of America not being the bad actor destabilizing the region though. If anything it makes it even worse. They’re just lying about everything and killing everyone to steal all their things.
Well it’s the exception as opposed to the rule lol. Look, I grew up thinking the same thing. The truth is there’s a growing faction of folks who want the US to be total isolationists. It’s growing and it’s becoming what’s best for America’s interests. My whole point is that this isn’t what is best for the world’s interests, as hard as that is to believe. We don’t really have to argue back and forth when we can just look at what’s gonna happen in the next decade. But the world will be more dangerous, not more safe without the US spearheading global security. Time will tell
The absolute historical ignorance Americans put themselves through to preserve the patriotism. You really gotta shove your head deep into the sand to have never gotten a history lesson on Vietnam.
Who invaded who in Vietnam? South Vietnam was invaded first. Thats kind what spurred US involvement. Your head is so far up some Russian trolls ass that you forgot history
The US was had troops in South Vietnam since it was founded. It was a rump French puppet state with incredibly corrupt catholic government that was persecuting the Buddhist minorities. The north was made up of the national forces that kicked the French out. They had every right to overthrow the southern government.
This isnt russian troll position. Americans were saying this enmasse the start of the Vietnam war. American protestors died to stop that war. Draftees killed their officers frequently over it. Read anything about it.
It’s not the same. The north and south didn’t sign an agreement a year before saying that the south was free to leave and be its own country before being invaded. It just illegally left because it wanted to own humans. Sovereignty was granted to both the north and south of Vietnam and that still wasn’t enough.
North Vietnam only recognized south Vietnam under international threat. Besides, if Buchanan had signed such a treaty before Lincoln entered office would you then have sided with the south? Are treaties really the moral arbiter in this situation?
Point is you can’t really “invade” your own country. They’re both Vietnam. The north had a moral duty to support their oppressed brethren in the south. If that means sending troops to support then so be it. Claiming moral outrage over this because they “invaded” their own country is a childish form of morality that strips all historical context.
They linked a Wikipedia article for a whole book. We can read the summary section, but presumably it would be better to have read the whole book.
Wouldn’t a comment where they mention what applies in this specific situation make more sense than just a link for a book with a title that’s meant to rile people up?
Doomer nonsense.
The book is about the US backing off from protecting global trade and what happens afterword. Such is the core thing holding up our current globalized trading system.
It isn’t about everyone dying or some shit (“Doomerism”), it is about geopolitics.
You should read it. Pretty much no one understands how the current state of international affairs has been maintained by global trade. The U.S. Navy protects all global trade. Not just trade to and from the U.S., but obviously it’s not a popular domestic position and it doesn’t make much sense for the U.S. to continue anyway. There’s winners and losers, but mostly losers
What a dumb take. American interventionism exists to rob countries of oil, destabilize them, and make sure they cannot surpass Americ in power.
The entire reason the middle east is chaos right now is because of America. israel is a prime example. A Nazi state that only exists because of America so they can control the region, and it creates chaos and wars.
America isn’t doing jack shit for stability. If they wanted stability they would stop the Genocide instead of trying to pick fights with everyone to protect israel.
The US is now a net exporter of crude, petrochemicals and LNG. We don’t need the Middle East, in fact they are just competitors. But our allies desperately need those energy sources.
The US is currently in the middle of the largest industrial build out in history in N.A. At the end of it we will produce most of what we need locally. Because of our demographics N.A. has the largest consumer market in the world. Most of what we produce is consumed locally. We export food staples and high end technical products. We don’t need foreign markets… but they need us.
With all of the disruptions that global climate change is going to bring in ten to fifteen years, when N.A. is even more self sufficient than it is now, do you think the US will continue to subsidize the world’s economy? Why would we continue guaranteeing freedom of the seas in areas where we have no interest?
America wants to couple oil to the collar and in the past forced everyone to do so. Any leader that wanted to be paid in gold got killed.
Because everyone needs energy, everyone is forced to trade in dollars. And you know what America can do? Print those dollarydoos.
So they are not just making sure their monopoly is stable but also that they have an infinite money hack by devaluing the global currency that everyone is forced to trade in.
Israel only exists because of Nazis, but you can go ahead and call them Nazis. The irony is clearly not lost on you.
There has not been a world war since the U.S. has been upholding the international order that has seen countries like China, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and many others experience massive economic gains.
The times America has been engaged in conflict since WW2 ended have so much propaganda draped over them that people forget who invaded who first. The North Koreans invaded South Korea to begin the Korean War. The North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam to begin the Vietnam war. The Iraqis invaded Kuwait to begin Operation Desert Storm. The Serbs tried to genocide the Albanians in Kosovo to begin NATO intervention in the Balkans. The one time the U.S. was totally in the wrong was when Bush lied about Iraq being involved in 9/11, which was completely untrue.
You can have your opinions, but it doesn’t reflect reality. And when the U.S. Navy stops ensuring the free flow of goods, the countries that the U.S. is hurting according to you will be begging us to return the world to the previous order.
Of course, idiots Ike yourself will find a way to blame the CIA for whatever happens because it’s just gotta always be the US’s fault.
The world is literally a mess right now. How you define “stable” is literally in terms of your own day to day affairs.
Lmao. Just give it ten years and we can have that conversation.
Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq not 9/11. The rest of your comments are all bullshit too but when you claim that israeli Nazis have been defending themselves into stealing all Palestinian land and murdering little children I guess you need some insane alternate history book for your world view to make sense.
Nope, you’re wrong. He started it all with a connection to 9/11. Then they shifted to 9/11 because US intelligence refused to corroborate his lies. But he made those statements as facts. Dude just wanted to finish what his dad didn’t back in the early 90s
Actually you’re right. My bad. I didn’t know that he lied about “Iraq doing 9/11 too” . And afterwards he lied about the WMD’s too. He was just making up tonnes of lies and finding any reason to invade Iraq and overthrow their government to steal oil.
And America got away with it of course.
I’m not entirely sure how this helps your point of America not being the bad actor destabilizing the region though. If anything it makes it even worse. They’re just lying about everything and killing everyone to steal all their things.
Well it’s the exception as opposed to the rule lol. Look, I grew up thinking the same thing. The truth is there’s a growing faction of folks who want the US to be total isolationists. It’s growing and it’s becoming what’s best for America’s interests. My whole point is that this isn’t what is best for the world’s interests, as hard as that is to believe. We don’t really have to argue back and forth when we can just look at what’s gonna happen in the next decade. But the world will be more dangerous, not more safe without the US spearheading global security. Time will tell
Vietnam was justifiedThe absolute historical ignorance Americans put themselves through to preserve the patriotism. You really gotta shove your head deep into the sand to have never gotten a history lesson on Vietnam.
Who invaded who in Vietnam? South Vietnam was invaded first. Thats kind what spurred US involvement. Your head is so far up some Russian trolls ass that you forgot history
The US was had troops in South Vietnam since it was founded. It was a rump French puppet state with incredibly corrupt catholic government that was persecuting the Buddhist minorities. The north was made up of the national forces that kicked the French out. They had every right to overthrow the southern government.
This isnt russian troll position. Americans were saying this enmasse the start of the Vietnam war. American protestors died to stop that war. Draftees killed their officers frequently over it. Read anything about it.
Like do you think the Confederates were justified because the Union invaded them?
It’s not the same. The north and south didn’t sign an agreement a year before saying that the south was free to leave and be its own country before being invaded. It just illegally left because it wanted to own humans. Sovereignty was granted to both the north and south of Vietnam and that still wasn’t enough.
North Vietnam only recognized south Vietnam under international threat. Besides, if Buchanan had signed such a treaty before Lincoln entered office would you then have sided with the south? Are treaties really the moral arbiter in this situation?
Point is you can’t really “invade” your own country. They’re both Vietnam. The north had a moral duty to support their oppressed brethren in the south. If that means sending troops to support then so be it. Claiming moral outrage over this because they “invaded” their own country is a childish form of morality that strips all historical context.
Sure, but some interesting observations. 😅
Yeah, nah.
😅
What parts did you find unconvincing?
You read it, right?
They linked a Wikipedia article for a whole book. We can read the summary section, but presumably it would be better to have read the whole book.
Wouldn’t a comment where they mention what applies in this specific situation make more sense than just a link for a book with a title that’s meant to rile people up?
Those that have read it would know there’s a whole section on the US’ protection of world trade and what could happen if it stopped.
Those that have read it would know exactly what it meant to link that book in a thread like this one.