[speakfreely]

Your perspective is about 15-20 years out of date, maybe valid in the 1990s or early 2000s. The US is extremely vulnerable both economically and militarily to the "New Axis" (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea). China alone could easily out-manufacture its way to a victory in a conventional war with the US. The US, for all its faults, was a stabilizing force that permitted free markets to flourish in a unipolar world. It is quickly becoming a multipolar world where nationalist industrial policy will decide the future winners. Whatever your thoughts on US policy, I guarantee you'll enjoy China's or Russia's even less.

[rf15]

"a unipolar world" that benefits you is a good thing, I get it. But that kind of thinking is the reason why the US isn't very popular on the world stage, even with its allies. Most of them would backstab the US if they could afford it. Thankfully, politics is a coward's game, keeping everyone a little bit more alive unless your ambitions are absurdly grand.

[Gud]

The US is not very popular anymore because it kept abusing it's unique position as the #1 military power, starting wars it had no business starting, not because it is(was?) #1 as you are suggesting.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US is not very popular anymore because it kept abusing it's unique position as the #1 military power, starting wars it had no business starting

Versus China (annexed Tibet), Russia (annexing Ukraine) and Iran (banana republics across the Middle East)?

People like to see themselves as edgy. It's edgy to be in the rich world and decry imperialism of America's system of allies.

[dns_snek]

> People like to see themselves as edgy. It's edgy to be in the rich world and decry imperialism of America's system of allies.

I suspect that's just your rationalization to make it easy to dismiss people who have a real problem with the status quo.

I don't know a single adult who likes to see themselves as edgy just for the sake of it, but I do know many adults who hold deep disagreements with the status quo and who're not afraid to express it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> that's just your rationalization to make it easy to dismiss people who have a real problem with the status quo

No, someone saying they don't like the status quo make sense. Global politics are anarchic. It's obviously better to be on the winning side. Where I get credulous is when someone claims their preferred actor, especially if an autocrat, would be superior for disinterested parties.

[Gud]

Who claimed those countries have any moral high ground?

[speakfreely]

Since the US effectively became a unipolar power sometime in the late 1980s, the share of the human population living in extreme poverty has fallen off a cliff [https://ourworldindata.org/poverty#all-charts]. Yes, that has come with mind-boggling inequality, but I doubt the middle class people from Asia and Latin America would prefer to go back to subsistence farming just to erase billionaires. I'll never understand why some people seem to think Americans are the only people who benefited from the Pax Americana period (which is now ending -- be careful what you wished for!)

[dpig_]

> Whatever your thoughts on US policy, I guarantee you'll enjoy China's or Russia's even less.

The global politics rendition of "nobody else would ever love you."