Comments by "Doncarlo" (@doujinflip) on "The making of an anti-American global order?" video.

  1. "Multipolar" just means multiple fault lines for militarized conflict. The last time we had a functionally multipolar world, it was full of extractive colonialism ending in two world wars. The reason Pax Romana, Pax Mongolica, and Pax Americana are named after a single power is because it provided a common security environment allowing peaceful trade for like a third of humanity at the time.
    15
  2. Ask the host nations. They want America there because they're mortally concerned about what's likely to happen to them afterwards should the Yankees really do go home.
    9
  3. ​ @ThatBasedGuy Right, the US and Pakistan have long held a formal security agreement. India cannot afford for America to stop casually ignoring it by siding against the US.
    7
  4. ​ @chaoticdanor Problem is they will try to overlord, inventing new "enemies" as necessary. Have you seen how they run their own countries?
    5
  5.  @masoodjalal1152  And security for practically all the world’s oceans, granting the majority of humanity free access to each other on and over international waters even if they’re solidly hostile to the Americans. It’s a more ideal scenario than peace for a tiny fraction of humanity in isolated pockets of the world, while billions of even more people than now suffer wars and genocides because of the local elite’s much more limited and exclusive prescription of how the world ought to be.
    4
  6. Ironically staying in our borders causes even bigger problems. The last times America tried to disengage, it got dragged into WW1, WW2, and 9/11. Forward deployment allows faster containment if not total deterrence of local conflicts before they grow into truly devastating industrialized warfare. Isolationism would be akin to firefighting for a whole county but all the firefighters are in one downtown station.
    3
  7. It would screw up the spelling, but using Belarus and Turkmenistan (a neutral power like Spain was "neutral" in WW2) is arguably more accurate
    2
  8. Although the anticommunist dictatorships that America propped up tended to yield to its people and democratize (South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Chile, etc). Communist-aligned ones would instead double down on repression, and now the last one Mainland China is finally facing the structural weakness that its top-heavy rule built causing permanent stagnation and threatening its downfall.
    1
  9. ​ @Fred_the_1996 A "multipolar" world that the anti-Americans promote just means multiple fault lines for militarized conflict. The last time we had a functionally multipolar world, in ended in two world wars.
    1
  10. Those wars didn't formally end, but they're no longer devastating industrialized combat that threatens global lines of peaceful communication and trade.
    1