Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah the US we knew is gone. I think about this sometimes when I am listening to American music from the 20th century, how much soft power they had, how great they made America sound either directly or indirectly. That America that we all looked up to and admired is gone. Pity.


I am the guy who participated in Green Card lottery for few years willing to work in most advanced planet‘s semiconductor companies. I changed my mind recently. Speedboat ambushes, Greenland, public executions by ICE „officers“ and now Iran war. US I knew is definitely gone. That’s not the country sharing culture and values peacefully anymore: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika-Haus_(M%C3%BCnchen)


To be fair, the US has never been peaceful, and it's the country that started the most wars since WW2. It's just that it used to be in our team, and human nature makes the aggressiveness of our team justified, or at least understandable, or at least ignorable, or at least not quite changing our deep feelings.


And, at least regarding the more recent ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, Europe witnessed the largest anti-war protests in history.

From that perspective, the current "emperor is naked" development might be positive in the sense that Europe can relatively soon have enough military power to be taken seriously, and at the same time become impossible to drag into an offensive war because none of its countries wants any war and we only went there because US pressured us into - but now that the USA has became unreliable, there's no reason to sacrifice oneself.


I really wish hard that Europe gets it shit together.

They are adults now (rare commodity), but can still be pushed around, have their leash yanked.

They have to come to terms with their islands of racist tendencies.

My hope hasn't died yet


The only one of those that's really new is Greenland.


Did that US really exist without a self imposed convenience of blindness ?

The brutality of the School of Americas might indicate otherwise.

Now rebranded as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...


The US was historically self-interested in empire building, with an excellent PR campaign in front of it, but... it also did useful and good stuff, both for its allies and for unrelated parties. USAID was a testament to this.

PR spin aside, it was largely a force for global stability (a few notable and disastrous military quagmires aside). "Free trade" isn't much of a philosophy to hang your hat on but it is an ideal of sorts, and it allowed a more connected world.

Now? Brazen corruption, kleptocracy, hostility towards allies...

It's certainly fair to say the US never lived up to the ideals it espoused, but now it's not even espousing those ideals and seems to actively be working against them.


> USAID was a testament to this.

Absolutely. Credit needs to be given where it's due.


> PR spin aside,

Then the comment repeats the same PR spin.


The thing is, look at all major military alliances in history.

How many of them have a wealthy hegemon and wealthy minor partners?

It's <<extremely>> rare for that to happen and the US managed that for about 80 years.

Ignore all the propaganda and look at the results. Actions, not words.

In the modern era there are basically 0 wealthy Russian (similar story for the Soviets) or Chinese allies.


That’s a different topic. This is about how America acts towards the world, historically the so-called second and third world but now apparently to potentially everyone.


They're related, though. Most other hegemons sought absolute domination and a weakening (and impoverishment) of everyone else. The US was generally confident in its security and prosperity that it allowed others to become prosperous, too.


Yes this is I think the key thing... the "rising tide raises all boats" strategy. The deal was, if you play by the US rules and let their corporations in, they'll leave you alone or even give you back something useful in return.

Now the rug pull... you've been operating this way for the last 50 years, and suddenly the US is out to extract as much from you as possible no matter how close an ally you are or how friendly to their corporations you are.

I'm tired of the both-sidesing that I see on places like HN to justify the current administration's actions. The US historically didn't shake every country down (even allies!) under the implicit threat of its military might, because global stability and prosperity was good for US business interests.

It did try to overturn unfriendly regimes but it was far less brazen and reckless about this, operating over longer timelines, and the instability caused by those disastrous interventions seemed like it was a lesson learned (but now has clearly been forgotten).

This shit is terrifying.


Reading these statements in isolation they all look like damning with faint praise. But they are all sincere.

So strong is the instinct to pay tribute to the nice hegemon of the previous election.


No they are not. Second and third world countries, not buddy first world countries. They don’t get to just do their own thing. Need I go on.


South Korea and Taiwan were definitely not first world countries when they started. Not even inhabited by white people (so less likely to be favored by 60s America, for example).

The Persian Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE).

Israel also wasn't developed in 1947.

Let's not ignore facts when they're inconvenient.

In the Western Hemisphere the US track record has been a total mess but in the Eastern Hemisphere I'd say about 30% of the time US allies tripped on their own feet on the way to prosperity.


Your whole side topic here is an exercise in ignoring the inconvenient facts of murder and destruction in favor of some supposedly rosy alliance narrative.

Yeah I remember elementary school too. Where people don't care if one of the kids is an a*hole because "he's nice to me".


That's a tough question.

There has always been a meddlesome quality to the USA that the rest of the so called developed world turned a blind eye to. Along the lines of 'their bastards, but at least they're our bastards'. Of course that does not make it good, but the balance calculation worked out in favor of toeing the line and being careful not to get pulled out of joint too much. 9/11 changed all that and effectively Bin Laden forced the USA to lower its mask for long enough that the world could no longer ignore the bad sides of Uncle Sam. Even that would have not been enough to seal it, but Trump has managed to accomplish this in record time.


I think that a big part of it is the transparency brought on by the vast communication bandwidth that came online starting after the dot com years. This stuff happened before just the same, but was concealed by media gatekeepers.

Bay of Pigs, regime changes all over including Iran, South Asia wars, Afghanistan (not the recent one, the one in the 80s), all the cold war stuff, etc etc.


"Meddlesome" is certainly a light way of labeling torture training.

What I find more troubling is that Trump has popular support. It's just not Trump. The rot goes far deeper.


It's the two party system. If liberals are okay with 'pro lgbt muslims' and say things like 'gang violence isn't a problem' then people no longer vote for liberals.


Fair enough.


Trump doesn't have popular support. Many of his 2024 voters are furious with him.

What Trump has is oligarch support - an unholy alliance of weird and cranky tech billionaires, old(ish) money, foreign money, media owners, and insane white supremacist patriarch-wannabes, some of whom operate through think tanks, some through megachurches.

The media are doing an excellent job of normalising this, not least - but not only - sanewashing Trump's obvious mental and physical decay.


I want to believe this desperately, but from what I see (well, on YouTube videos, surveys and polls) it makes it very hard for me to do so. I still see massive endorsement from the not so well to do in the hinterlands.

I will however grant you that my sampling is no where close to uniform.


Unless all of the useful idiots in this thread are bots there is plenty of popular support. And it's not like they couldn't know better.


Does JB Pritzker, who many people want to run in 2028, have oligarch support?


You are seeing a side that always existed. Arguably in the past it was worse.


As a european I see what you mean, but that 'we all' in your sentence probably hasn't included those from Latin America, and large parts of Africa or Asia since long before Trump. The US pulled quite a few less than admirable tricks (to use an euphemism) on non-europeans during the 20th century.


Exactly.


> how much soft power they had,

Soft power? Have you been sleeping during the 20th century? The formidable military power of the US comes from a constant state of war.


I wouldn't be that cynical. From the interactions I've had with people from mainland China, particularly those in the educated classes, I can say for certain that it was soft power that drew them towards the West and the US in particular. China already beat back the West in the Korean War.


Yes and they had a lot of soft power too.


As an American I feel this way too - there is a nostalgia and disappointed yearning for what was probably a propaganda pipe dream. I find myself disappointed and indignant at the long list of bullshit we are doing right now but I'm surprised by my own extreme sense of betrayal over how we don't even -want- to be "the good guys" anymore. I know the US has a long history of evil, dont get me wrong, but until recently (~covid) I thought most of us at least wanted to be a positive force in the world.

For me, Dan Carlin said it perfectly - I want the America from the promotional material.


I think a lot of us do. But right now that promotional material looks more like a rigged Microsoft demo than the real thing.


Reminder that “Born in the USA” was not a “patriotic” song.


Neither was "This land is your land"

Where is Guthrie's guitar ?


[flagged]


> ... but seeing how quick Europe and Canada turned on the US ...

I think they rightfully turned defensive in light of the current administration. Remains to be seen how/if they change when the administration changes.


Who turned on whom again?


US turned on the Europe and Canada*


I’d rather give up the empire, then be the type of empire that’s “full focus on hard power.”


OK but this is just an argument in favour of forever wars lol. That's realism I guess in the way that Nazi Lebensraum was also realism.

> how quick Europe and Canada turned on the US

It's YOU that turned on YOUR allies. YOU threatened to invade YOUR allies. Jesus fucking Christ. You are living in a different universe entirely. I agree that countries apparently can "turn on a dime" as you say, but it's not us that's "turned on a dime" it's YOU.

America is lost.


Exactly. It's the US that turned against its allies. Those allies are still loyal to each other; they didn't turn on anyone. Look at how many countries immediately sent troops to Greenland. There's no doubt who is the traitor and who is loyal here.

If you want to rule purely through hard power, you become Russia.


Which actually shows that trying to exercise that hard power made everything worse instead of better.


That is the state of nature. It's not an argument. I don't argue in favor of "forever wars" for the same reason I don't argue in favor of gravity.


Forever wars are a law of nature now?

Such a cynical view of life. With this mindset, we can never change. We're stuck in the cycle of violence.

I believe it can change. We need to get out of the "oh well, this is life" mindset and stop giving the hawks and warmongers a free pass.


The laws of human behavior are certainly less fundamental to the iniverse than the laws of physics, but, since we are humans, they are equally as binding on us.


Human behavior, and human society, have changed tremendously through the ages. It's the fastest sort of "evolution", to stretch that term a bit.

Plus there's nothing natural about widespread global war. It's not like you getting angry at your neighbor over some domestic dispute. Global wars are artificially engineered by guys who want to profit from them. It's not "human nature". Those willing to go to war exploit human nature, sure, but this is done intentionally; and just as intentionally, it could be downplayed or mitigated.

And if it's about egoism and greed, we've learned to reign those in in multiple situations. If we can attempt to go to Mars or whatever, I'm sure we can first try to sort things out on Earth.

Get out of your mindset. It's bad for you.

In Cosmos 2, Neil de Grasse Tyson has a reflection about that saying, "what are you going to do? It's human nature!". I encourage you to find the clip on YouTube and watch it.

Edit: well, I wanted to find the transcript or clip, but I cannot now. The Cosmos sequels are infuriatingly hard to find, and in my country there are no legal ways of watching them anymore (fuck you, Netflix and Disney! I pay you yet you remove stuff I like).

Here's Sagan's last paragraphs from his Pale Blue Dot speech instead:

"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: