• smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

      Yes, the US has a large amount of wealth. That is what makes them strong.

      they ought to perform better

      So you’re saying they should be even stronger (than the strongest nation to ever exist)?

      Or are you saying that “strength” is not about the total power one has, but about the efficiency with which one can convert resources into power?

          • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So if you agree that the US obtained its wealth through plundering and imperialism then what the fuck was your original point? I don’t think you have one and you’re trying to debate just to debate.

            • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My first comment:

              It really does not show the US’s “strength” to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources.

              It really does show the US’s strength when no country has nearly the same amount of resources.

              That was my sole point. Noone having nearly as much resources as the US does show the US’s strength.

              It does not matter how they aquired those resources or how strong they could theoretically be.

              My point was simple and clear from the beginning on: USA = strong.

      • iie [they/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There are different kinds of strength. One kind of strength is to be really good at colonizing and plundering the rest of the world. Another kind of strength is to be really good at dreaming of new horizons and using limited resources to reach them. America has more of the first kind of strength, the USSR had more of the second kind.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

        Do you not understand what plundering is?

        Wealth extraction from the global south into the global north via american companies involved in resource extraction - minerals, gases, etc etc. Rights to said resources gained at the barrel of the gun of the US military itself or a coup instigated by the CIA.

        For the love of god read a book about modern imperialism and how it works and save us from your international political illiteracy. https://resistir.info/livros/imperialism_john_smith.pdf

        • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You completely deviated from the original point.

          Never did I claim that the USA gained their strength rightfully, so why are you arguing against that?

          I only ever claimed that the USA having significantly more resources does show their strength.

          You can discuss the bad things the USA does and has done, but I don’t know why you’re discussing them with me.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You said you did not understand what the other person was saying. This can only come from not really understanding what imperialism is and how it functions.

            I explained what they were saying.

            You are now trying to divert away from that. Because it is not a topic you wish to engage in while you do this nationalist thing of engaging in apologetics and sly weasel-word half-hearted US support.

            • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is guess I could’ve said “I’m not sure why you’re arguing” instead of “I’m not sure what you’re arguing”.

              you do this nationalist thing

              I’m not American, how would speaking well of a nation I’ve never even visited be nationalist? (I can already imagine you calling me a traitor to my own country)

              half-hearted US support

              As opposed to full-hearted US support? You don’t have to be extremely against something or extremely for something (though I’m aware extreme leftists would like to see it that way).

              I do recognize the negative things the US does and has done. But that does not mean that I’ll unreasonably make up negatives (like the USA not being strong while being the strongest nation).

              There are enough factual things to dislike the USA about, no need to make stuff up on top of that.