7 ms·

> It's funny how we can't be celebrate a European achievement without trying to interpret it into relationship to the US. It really isn’t funny. The US shat th

> It's funny how we can't be celebrate a European achievement without trying to interpret it into relationship to the US. It really isn’t funny. The US shat the bed and for now the repercussions are mainly being felt outside the US. When the US realises what it’s lost it’s going to be too late.

zzzeek 11d ago
Oh we (the non idiots here) know full well what we lost. If Europe has a larger and more substantial science / technology community, that will just mean more trips/job offers in EU for me, so go Europe !
- mag7269 11d ago
  As an American, I welcome a multi-polar world where Europe pulls its weight when it comes to science, technology and engineering! More so in geopolitical matters. It’s always been very draining for one empire or nation to maintain world peace. The 19th century was Pax Britannica, the 20th, after WW2, was Pax Americana, we can now hope that Pax AmEuropana can offer a counter to the crazy rapid growth of Asia and also find common ground with those nations.
  - anonymars 11d ago
    What rewards do you think the US is going to gain from this path it has begun to travel? Do you think it was all some noble charity case? The UK is likely to be an illustrative example, so it's apt you mentioned it
    - ryeats 10d ago
      You're arguing US imperialism is the best interest for the whole world. It was definitely after WW2 considering the alternative but the only way to keep the US honest is a little friendly competition.
      - anonymars 10d ago
        > You're arguing US imperialism is the best interest for the whole world Where? Are you replying to the right message?
      - plemer 10d ago
        You may be assuming the author of the comment you’re replying to believes that what is in the best interest of the US is also in the best interest of Europe and the world.
  - panick21_ 11d ago
    Yeah the world piece like all the wars in the middle east, Vietnam, proxy conflicts all over the world and so on and so on. I'm not blaming the US for all of these wars but they also didn't prevent them. And the US did overthrow many democracies and often made things much worse, Iran being a great example, but there are many others. I could go on. Peace in Europe was maintained mostly by people in democracies generally wanting to work together. Yes the US had something to do with that as they supported that after WW2 but over the last 50 years, people in democracies generally don't fight each other. And more so by the threat of the Soviet Union that was so clearly the more dangerous option. Its easy to make allies if Stalin is on the other side. And outside of Europe the US hardly maintained peace. Nuclear weapons maintained 'peace' between Soviets and the US more then anything else. And Europe has always pulled its weight in science, technology and engineering.
    - peterfirefly 11d ago
      > Vietnam The US was actually on the right side in that one (just like in Korea). The Communists were not exactly the good guys and their "agricultural and personnel reforms" lead to drastically reduced food production and starvation and death. Blame the US for real things instead, such as supporting the wrong side in Afghanistan in the '80s or ensuring the survival of the Soviet Union in the '40s.
      - kakacik 11d ago
        Tell it to cca 2 millions civilians that died in Vietnam as a direct result of failed US invasion (I really mean just civilians mostly bombed into oblivion, entire human lives list is around 3 million). As in, vast majority of them would be alive is US didn't try their failed adventure. Tonkin gulf is a classic US made up war for power mongering reasons. Telling 'we're the good guys' while regularly bombing entire villages into oblivion with napalm on some vague suspicions ('we heard some gunshot when flying around so we blasted them' scenarios). My Lai and many others. If this is how US population views their past fuckups then no wonder we are where we are, objectivity ain't easy if one is on the wrong side, isn't it. Supporting wrong side in Afghanistan? Against Soviet invasion? Sometimes, often even there are no good sides. If you guys didn't support Soviet union in 40s (which they vehemently denied since then but its their inferiority complex, the issue with russian mentality since forever), there would be no massive eastern front with most german losses and wehrmacht spread out too thinly, and D day would be crushed like nothing. History would be very different in Europe and globally.
  - drysine 11d ago
    >As an American, ... maintain world peace I can't believe people are saying that with straight face. How on Earth can you see all the wars that the US has started or had a hand in igniting and still think that?
    - chronc7403 11d ago
      [flagged]
    - hdgvhicv 10d ago
      What it tends to mean is “prevent the US homeland from being threatened” and “keep US trade flowing”
      - drysine 10d ago
        > “prevent the US homeland from being threatened” That's another thing that puzzles me. How people claim with straight face that anyone is threatening the US homeland.
    - wallst07 10d ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism I think you maybe believing that War would not have happened or there was some other approach without war, ever? I'm sorry but such beliefs are as wishful thinking as buying the world a coke.
    - pyrale 10d ago
      > I can't believe people are saying that with straight face. That's the consequence of a broken education system when it comes to teaching history. Empires rarely come to terms with what they did, and never while they're in power.
  - hiddencost 10d ago
    That's nonsense. It's imparted us with incredible prosperity and peace. The US is a much poorer and worse nation due to you and your kind destroying what we built.
  - lenkite 10d ago
    > maintain world peace Maintain "world war" (for corpo-profit) -> FIXED
- wallst07 10d ago
  I'm an idiot, what have we lost exactly? Soft Power?

zzzeek 11d ago

Oh we (the non idiots here) know full well what we lost. If Europe has a larger and more substantial science / technology community, that will just mean more trips/job offers in EU for me, so go Europe !

mag7269 11d ago
As an American, I welcome a multi-polar world where Europe pulls its weight when it comes to science, technology and engineering! More so in geopolitical matters. It’s always been very draining for one empire or nation to maintain world peace. The 19th century was Pax Britannica, the 20th, after WW2, was Pax Americana, we can now hope that Pax AmEuropana can offer a counter to the crazy rapid growth of Asia and also find common ground with those nations.
- anonymars 11d ago
  What rewards do you think the US is going to gain from this path it has begun to travel? Do you think it was all some noble charity case? The UK is likely to be an illustrative example, so it's apt you mentioned it
  - ryeats 10d ago
    You're arguing US imperialism is the best interest for the whole world. It was definitely after WW2 considering the alternative but the only way to keep the US honest is a little friendly competition.
    - anonymars 10d ago
      > You're arguing US imperialism is the best interest for the whole world Where? Are you replying to the right message?
    - plemer 10d ago
      You may be assuming the author of the comment you’re replying to believes that what is in the best interest of the US is also in the best interest of Europe and the world.
- panick21_ 11d ago
  Yeah the world piece like all the wars in the middle east, Vietnam, proxy conflicts all over the world and so on and so on. I'm not blaming the US for all of these wars but they also didn't prevent them. And the US did overthrow many democracies and often made things much worse, Iran being a great example, but there are many others. I could go on. Peace in Europe was maintained mostly by people in democracies generally wanting to work together. Yes the US had something to do with that as they supported that after WW2 but over the last 50 years, people in democracies generally don't fight each other. And more so by the threat of the Soviet Union that was so clearly the more dangerous option. Its easy to make allies if Stalin is on the other side. And outside of Europe the US hardly maintained peace. Nuclear weapons maintained 'peace' between Soviets and the US more then anything else. And Europe has always pulled its weight in science, technology and engineering.
  - peterfirefly 11d ago
    > Vietnam The US was actually on the right side in that one (just like in Korea). The Communists were not exactly the good guys and their "agricultural and personnel reforms" lead to drastically reduced food production and starvation and death. Blame the US for real things instead, such as supporting the wrong side in Afghanistan in the '80s or ensuring the survival of the Soviet Union in the '40s.
    - kakacik 11d ago
      Tell it to cca 2 millions civilians that died in Vietnam as a direct result of failed US invasion (I really mean just civilians mostly bombed into oblivion, entire human lives list is around 3 million). As in, vast majority of them would be alive is US didn't try their failed adventure. Tonkin gulf is a classic US made up war for power mongering reasons. Telling 'we're the good guys' while regularly bombing entire villages into oblivion with napalm on some vague suspicions ('we heard some gunshot when flying around so we blasted them' scenarios). My Lai and many others. If this is how US population views their past fuckups then no wonder we are where we are, objectivity ain't easy if one is on the wrong side, isn't it. Supporting wrong side in Afghanistan? Against Soviet invasion? Sometimes, often even there are no good sides. If you guys didn't support Soviet union in 40s (which they vehemently denied since then but its their inferiority complex, the issue with russian mentality since forever), there would be no massive eastern front with most german losses and wehrmacht spread out too thinly, and D day would be crushed like nothing. History would be very different in Europe and globally.
- drysine 11d ago
  >As an American, ... maintain world peace I can't believe people are saying that with straight face. How on Earth can you see all the wars that the US has started or had a hand in igniting and still think that?
  - chronc7403 11d ago
    [flagged]
  - hdgvhicv 10d ago
    What it tends to mean is “prevent the US homeland from being threatened” and “keep US trade flowing”
    - drysine 10d ago
      > “prevent the US homeland from being threatened” That's another thing that puzzles me. How people claim with straight face that anyone is threatening the US homeland.
  - wallst07 10d ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism I think you maybe believing that War would not have happened or there was some other approach without war, ever? I'm sorry but such beliefs are as wishful thinking as buying the world a coke.
  - pyrale 10d ago
    > I can't believe people are saying that with straight face. That's the consequence of a broken education system when it comes to teaching history. Empires rarely come to terms with what they did, and never while they're in power.
- hiddencost 10d ago
  That's nonsense. It's imparted us with incredible prosperity and peace. The US is a much poorer and worse nation due to you and your kind destroying what we built.
- lenkite 10d ago
  > maintain world peace Maintain "world war" (for corpo-profit) -> FIXED
wallst07 10d ago
I'm an idiot, what have we lost exactly? Soft Power?