[Melting_Harps]

> England and France famously fought a "Hundred Years' War" in the 14th and 15th centuries over the claim of the English king to the French throne. From that time onwards, neither country ever experienced a Hundred Years' Peace even on their own soil. The longest stretch of peace for either country started in 1945 and extends to the present day.

And Spain fought for independence/Reconquista for 780 years against Moorish occupation of Iberia, the Sengoku Jidai lasted 148 years of internal civil war. I'm really not sure what else you're trying to achieve other than deflecting from the point that we don't have to abide by this mode of operation moving forward and trying to one-up your understanding of Imperial conflicts form the past isn't proving as effective as you think it is.

That fact that it occurred is not being denied, no one is disputing this took place. It just isn't in the US' People's interest to do this given the alternative that exist today. I'm come for a military family, I lived near the biggest Marine Base camp in the US: I've seen first hand the consequences of these campaigns, there is no glory in it just a long list of sad casualties and injured people on the US side.

> It's more than zero, which is what you made it out to be.

Only because your initial argument was based on the notion that the dark ages awaited us if the US pulled out of trade route protection in its attempts to fill the vacumm left behind Rome, when in reality that it's clearly not true... But if you wish me to clarify: yes, US joint coalitions helped, in conjunction with other Global partners participation, re-commandeer sea vessels lost to pirates.

> Yes, and I think it takes a completely willful or perhaps tendentious ignorance of history to claim otherwise.

You seem entirely fixed on the idea that it must continue this way so much you refuse for it to be any other way. Do you really think having this mindset is correct during a pandemic, mass economic crisis and global civil unrest while China is trying to expand its territory and illegally annex Hong Kong and eying up Taiwan, while playing bully in the South China Sea? This doesn't end well for Humanity if it does and could ensure we really do go extinct, Nuclear leaks have been detected in N. Europe from possible failures in Russia this week, do you really think Warfare is in any way a viable choice given all the problems we have going on? We still have Fukushima pouring nuclear contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean for what will soon be a decade in 9 months from now.

I'm afraid there really is no getting to people this belligerent and jingoistic about the matter, I just wonder how long you'd hold that point of view if it was you and those you care about on the front lines fighting these needless banker wars.

1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/radiation-sc...

[Stupulous]

I think that if you would describe the other party here as jingoistic, you're not understanding what they mean.

Their argument is essentially that war is inevitable, and US imperialism is a good way to prevent it. This is a consequentialist anti-war position. Consequentialists often believe that a bad thing is okay if it decreases the net number of bad things. This does not mean they are in favor of bad things happening.

Short of reaching post-scarcity, I don't see a path forward that ends violence without inflicting more. The conservative in me wants to carry on as is, because it's working better than anything else ever has. The liberal in me wants to push for economic measures to take the place of as much of the military as possible, and introduce transparency and oversight to prevent things like the war in Iraq.

You're saying a path exists that would awaken the radical in me. But you haven't explained how it works. You've just suggested that Europe can do what the US is doing instead, which seems net zero. And you've suggested that perhaps we can all just agree to stop, which seems impossible. I genuinely would love to hear more options, it is hard to escape a false dichotomy.

[philwelch]

Essentially what I was going for, except I would use the term “hegemony” rather than “imperialism” since, at its best, the US does not seek to actually control the rest of the world so much as establish conditions for peace and constrain aggression in the international sphere. Some examples of this include American diplomatic intervention in the Suez Crisis, the Marshall Plan, the rebuilding of Japan, the Korean War, the Persian Gulf War, intervention in the 1990’s Yugoslav wars, and suppression of ISIS over the past decade.

I don’t think everything the US has done served this purpose or even had this motive, and I think it’s counterproductive at the very least for the US to abuse its hegemonic power. But it’s also essential, and basically good, for the US to exercise that power responsibly when it’s beneficial to do so.

[Melting_Harps]

> I think that if you would describe the other party here as jingoistic, you're not understanding what they mean.

> Their argument is essentially that war is inevitable, and US imperialism is a good way to prevent it.

How is that not jingoistic? State worship is bad, dare I say 'Anti-American' in the Founder's understanding of the term but going so far as to suggest that US imperialism is a net 'good' in the World?! The US being the biggest most expansive empire the World has ever seen, is the very definition of jingoism as the US can't seem to think in terms outside of war tactics to solve issues; I still remember talking to my physics professor in a somewhat somber yet joking manner about how that spy satellite that was falling back into Earth was blown up using a missile was using also using the same military tactic they used on the moon to see if it had water.

> Consequentialists often believe that a bad thing is okay if it decreases the net number of bad things. This does not mean they are in favor of bad things happening.

That seem more like a rationalization than it does a valid argument, as its premise is not in seeking the most good but in accepting that evil is a constant occurrence and detracting its source is not an option.

Suffice it to say: as a Hedonist at my core I don't accept this argument nor it's flawed premise. Moreover, I come from a lineage of people who are often used as the cannon fodder to achieve that end, and its a cycle I intend to break, if only with my own Life.

> Short of reaching post-scarcity, I don't see a path forward that ends violence without inflicting more.

That is exactly the aim I pursued and abandoned my career for and focused instead on food and agriculture, something I have now in my mid 30s have dedicated the largest part of my Life toward, and we've already achieved post-scarcity not just caloric terms but also in real abundance terms due to technology, mechanization, and automation. Much is left to be done, but that requires more engineering than it does Life Scientists like myself. I just hope we have the right incentives to direct them towards that instead of a Lockheed Martin or Dow Chemicals.

I've since left my work as farmer and chef after achieving all of my goals because I think the next target is to focus on the broken Supply Chains to ensure this occurs in masse in order for it to be replicated elsewhere, as I honestly think that is the only thing left to achieve other than the adoption of more sustainable practices and models. Which COVID is already doing that more effectively than anything I've seen to date as the factory farm model and its immensely complicated supply chains have faltered and failed to deliver on their promises under scrutiny leaving small, local (often organic) farms with more customers and demand then they can meet and their CSA programs are selling out seasons in advance! Community gardens plots were sold out well in advance of planting season where I live, and are getting people to take an active role in community based solutions towards food security.

> I genuinely would love to hear more options, it is hard to escape a false dichotomy.

Honestly, I'd enjoy exploring that too, but this conversation is beyond the scope of this format and requires more in depth discussion and further reading than I think this medium allows.

I'd start with the works of Murray Bookchin, and the ecological centered efforts and works of Alexander Grothendieck and take it from there once you understand the ecological damage and unnecessary destruction we see in a World to maintain the State model that serves the few and the expense of the many in a system that ultimately puts us all at greater risk despite having the means to works toward a more desirable society in our Lifetime.

Consider that we are seriously going to be colonizing Mars in our Lifetime, mainly through the efforts of a Private company not a Nation-State, and the amount of potential economic growth that entails to achieve that could literately usher in a period of Global prosperity unlike anything else we've ever seen as it won't stop with just a colony but also asteroid mining and resource gathering.

We live in the best time in Human History, and yet we walk around as though we're resolved to endless perpetual warfare and reckless ecological death as an absolute. I refuse to accept that and would rather die trying to break that cycle than live comfortably waiting for this perilous and harrowing inevitability.

[philwelch]

> I'm really not sure what else you're trying to achieve other than deflecting from the point that we don't have to abide by this mode of operation moving forward and trying to one-up your understanding of Imperial conflicts form the past isn't proving as effective as you think it is.

I'm pointing out that perpetual warfare is the human condition and that the world we're living in today is the most peaceful we've known in all of human history. That provides very strong and direct evidence that whatever we've been doing between 1945 and 2020 is helping.

> I'm afraid there really is no getting to people this belligerent and jingoistic about the matter, I just wonder how long you'd hold that point of view if it was you and those you care about on the front lines fighting these needless banker wars.

Don't presume to know anything about me. Leave the personal bullshit out of it. We both want the same thing. It's just that the historical record provides very direct evidence that hegemons--be they Roman, Chinese, Mongol, British, or American--can sustain longer periods of peace than any balance of power ever can.

[philwelch]

Also:

> Only because your initial argument was based on the notion that the dark ages awaited us if the US pulled out of trade route protection in its attempts to fill the vacumm left behind Rome, when in reality that it's clearly not true

I entered this thread after your false claim that “the US didn't intervene” in Somali piracy. It’s not my fault you got that point of fact wrong. It’s also not my fault that you refuse to concede that point of fact and make inappropriate assumptions about my personal motivations. The only thing you are proving is your own inability or refusal to disagree in good faith.