• 2 Posts
  • 253 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 22nd, 2024

help-circle






  • When the citizens complain and want them out, they are silenced by coercing the local governments.

    Do you have a source? American soldiers who commit crimes do get punished. Crimes of individual soldiers does not mean it’s institutionalised and sanctioned by American policies. Meanwhile, in South China Sea, Chinese vessels waterhose Vietnamese and Filipino fishermen and not letting other nations to traverse and fish in international waters, and claiming an entire body of water despite being well away from their legal zone.

    For these countries, US is a lesser evil. But I have to admit, Trump’s shenanigans making these countries decouple from US, which is good.

    P.S. Fuck Chinese and Russian governments too

    Sure bud. Have a plausible deniability.



  • Contrary to certain narratives, and while it has some merit, US bases are in said countries at the explicit request of host countries because there is a perceived bigger and more existential threat next door. The host country is basically subcontracting the defense to the United States. Trolls would tell you that these countries were “influenced” or “coerced” to let American troops be stationed. Well, the US is not the one claiming the entirety of South China Sea, or invading Ukraine. South East Asia and EU want US troops to stay because of this. Poland is very US friendly, and so are Taiwan, Vietnam and Philippines. The Philippines elected to kick the American soldiers out 34 years ago, but are now regretting it with the benefit of hindsight due to territorrial dispute in South Chins Sea. Certain actors who push for US withdrawal stand to benefit from it for obvious reasons.










  • From cold hard rationale, Hayek and Friedman makes sense, but they do ignore reality that circumstances always change. Deregulation made sense at the time of 1970s oil crisis as the economy and welfare state stagnated, but we’re now in the age of economic prosperity again, but the wealth is hoarded by the few and act as though austerity still matters.

    Not entirely sure about why Friedman’s claim that India was costing the British empire more to maintain, but it has also been repeated in many circles. I suspect that the data is not fully contextualised and repeated as if it’s the absolute truth. An Indian historian countered the narrative, mentioning that if we include the period of private control of India by the British East India company, before India was formally taken over by the British state in 1858, the total wealth plundered from India is about $1 trillion. The term “loot” is Indian origin, which became part of the English language after East India’s violent colonisation. When the British public found out of about the brutal occupation by a private company and were enraged by it, the British state took over the formal administration. But this only happened well after committing crimes against humanity, after a state-sanctioned plunder and massacre that made their private owners and their government enablers rich, while the cost of running another country is taken over by tax payers. It’s an early example of “privatise the profit, socialise the cost”.