| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did the British Empire collapse during the Suez Crisis of 1956, when it was embarassingly unable to open a major shipping chokepoint via military force? Did we know it had by 1957, or did that take a little longer to confirm the shape of the decline? | | |
| ▲ | smackeyacky 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In retrospect the inability of the empire to hold Singapore against the Japanese in WW2 and leave Australia in the hands of the US was the unraveling of the British empire. The Dutch one as well with the fall of the Dutch East Indies. | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | India was already independent by then. That seems like it would have been a pretty strong signal. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Didn't we rather embarrasingly withdraw from Afghanistan recently after two decades of trying to build a functioning government, only to have the Taliban take it back in a matter of days? You're kinda making the point I'm making; the sound of an empire collapsing is often a long rumble, not a sudden snap. | | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | If your suggestion is that the US might be in decline and there have been lots of signals of that going back 30 years, I’m pretty sympathetic. But if it’s specifically the Iran war fiasco compared to the Suez incident I’d suggest those aren’t particularly the same. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But if it’s specifically the Iran war fiasco compared to the Suez incident I’d suggest those aren’t particularly the same. Yes, one's a superpower failing to project power over a critical waterway to much international embarassment, the other is… oh. | | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did the US lose control of the most populous part of its “empire” in the last 20 years? Did it get its population and infrastructure destroyed across 2 generations in world wars in the last 50? Has the US just come off of required rationing for basic food stuffs and been running in 20 years of austerity? Or is the US still the dominant economy in the world, with a problem of over abundance of staples and stuff? The idea that late 1950s uk and the 2026 us are equivalent is laughable. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Did the US lose control of the most populous part of its “empire” in the last 20 years? I might count alienating NATO and China's growing independence as uncomfortably close to that, yes. > Has the US just come off of required rationing for basic food stuffs and been running in 20 years of austerity? Doesn't that make our inability to effectively project power more embarassing? We don't even have to scrap our warships to fund operations; we're dismantling our global soft power sources willingly. > Or is the US still the dominant economy in the world, with a problem of over abundance of staples and stuff? Like the UK once was? | | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | By the time of the Suez incident the uk hadn’t been the dominant global economy for going on 70 years. The second Boer war is probably a better example of shocking poor outcome for their empire by that timeline. Queen Victoria was still alive at that point and ww1 was in the future. Even after ww1 when it was obvious the empire was severely diminished the English retained outsized soft power at least and had until the 60s for the empire to be truly dismantled. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Again, all this asserts "it takes a while", which I'm not contesting at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nostrademons 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Kinda, yes. Osama Bin Laden's express goal was to bankrupt the U.S. by provoking it into a war it could not win. Three wars in the Middle East later, and $33T in additional government debt, and hear we are. | | |
| ▲ | lopsotronic 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 9/11 was arguably the most effective asymmetric attack in the annals of military history, in terms of simple weapon effect. At the same time, it spells out the limits of seeing the world in terms of weapon effect: an American population brutalized by twenty years of occupation; Israel binding tight alliance with Saud; a resurgent heretic Shia power; a meteoric rise of China - historically far more of a foe to Islam than the West. None of these are what you might call brilliant for Bin Laden's ultimate goals. When we fire a gun we don't know what that bullet does twenty years from now. | | |
| ▲ | rbanffy 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 9/11 eroded American democracy in ways that wouldn’t be considered possible. What we observe now is just one more chapter of a long fall that has started in the mid 1980s. Increasing income inequality, breeding dissatisfaction to the point a former reality show character gets elected president. This all was done by many hands - Putin being an obvious one also destabilising the European Union and NATO, and China acquiring the manufacturing prowess the US decided wasn’t worth the effort anymore, and so on. Add to that what seems to be the last straw, a unified payment system that doesn’t uses the dollar as its currency, and you have the perfect storm. Was it Stalin who said the capitalist will gladly sell you the rope you’ll use to hang them? |
|
|
|
