"The US sets the rules"

[Antiwar]

Irrational political panic is as American a phenomenon as apple pie. It often arises as a result of a potential inability on the part of the powers-that-be to control the outcome of developments that may pose challenges to the interests of the existing socioeconomic order or to the status quo of the geostrategic environment. The era of the Cold War speaks volumes about this phenomenon, but it’s also evident in earlier periods — for example, the first Red Scare in the wake of World War I — and we can see clear parallels in the present-day situation with reactions to Ukraine and the rise of China as a global power.
...

Throughout, the shape of world order has of course been a driving concern of policy makers. For post-World War II Washington, there is only one acceptable form: under its leadership. And it must be a particular form of world order: the “rule-based international order,” which has displaced an earlier commitment to the “UN-based international order” established under U.S. lead after World War II. It’s not hard to discern the reasons for the transition in policy and accompanying commentary. In the rule-based order, the U.S. sets the rules.

Chomsky: US Push to “Reign Supreme” Stokes the Ukraine Conflict

The Noam Chomsky Website.

chomsky.info

 

[OrphanSlug]

Well, by all means adopt the OP's "peace, love, and understanding" nonsense that costs even more lives at the hands of tyrants.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Oh, yeah. Chomksy.

LOL.

 

[Ambig]

Irrational political panic is as American a phenomenon as apple pie. It often arises as a result of a potential inability on the part of the powers-that-be to control the outcome of developments that may pose challenges to the interests of the existing socioeconomic order or to the status quo of the geostrategic environment. The era of the Cold War speaks volumes about this phenomenon, but it’s also evident in earlier periods — for example, the first Red Scare in the wake of World War I — and we can see clear parallels in the present-day situation with reactions to Ukraine and the rise of China as a global power.
...

Throughout, the shape of world order has of course been a driving concern of policy makers. For post-World War II Washington, there is only one acceptable form: under its leadership. And it must be a particular form of world order: the “rule-based international order,” which has displaced an earlier commitment to the “UN-based international order” established under U.S. lead after World War II. It’s not hard to discern the reasons for the transition in policy and accompanying commentary. In the rule-based order, the U.S. sets the rules.

Chomsky: US Push to “Reign Supreme” Stokes the Ukraine Conflict

The Noam Chomsky Website.

chomsky.info

All political entities want to set the rules. What's your point?

 

[independentusa]

Irrational political panic is as American a phenomenon as apple pie. It often arises as a result of a potential inability on the part of the powers-that-be to control the outcome of developments that may pose challenges to the interests of the existing socioeconomic order or to the status quo of the geostrategic environment. The era of the Cold War speaks volumes about this phenomenon, but it’s also evident in earlier periods — for example, the first Red Scare in the wake of World War I — and we can see clear parallels in the present-day situation with reactions to Ukraine and the rise of China as a global power.
...

Throughout, the shape of world order has of course been a driving concern of policy makers. For post-World War II Washington, there is only one acceptable form: under its leadership. And it must be a particular form of world order: the “rule-based international order,” which has displaced an earlier commitment to the “UN-based international order” established under U.S. lead after World War II. It’s not hard to discern the reasons for the transition in policy and accompanying commentary. In the rule-based order, the U.S. sets the rules.

Chomsky: US Push to “Reign Supreme” Stokes the Ukraine Conflict

The Noam Chomsky Website.

chomsky.info

Actually in Ukraine it is the UN rules that Putin is violating. Everything you write seems to be pro Russia and China, interesting.

 

[Greenbeard]

For “the peace process,” against rule-based international order.

 

[Antiwar]

For “the peace process,” against rule-based international order.

Your reply shows that you don't understand the thread. It's about who sets the rules and who's able to bend/break the rules.

 

[Greenbeard]

Your reply shows that you don't understand the thread. It's about who sets the rules and who's able to bend/break the rules.

Your reply shows you don’t understand the peace process.

 

[Antiwar]

Your reply shows you don’t understand the peace process.

We might as well have you try to explain how so.

 

[Greenbeard]

We might as well have you try to explain how so.

Process = rules. Hope that helps.

 

[Antiwar]

Process = rules. Hope that helps.

That's a fantastic explanation.

 

[Greenbeard]

That's a fantastic explanation.

Thanks.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

I love how the invader Russia isn't the one who needs to "reign supreme"

 

[anatta]

Irrational political panic is as American a phenomenon as apple pie. It often arises as a result of a potential inability on the part of the powers-that-be to control the outcome of developments that may pose challenges to the interests of the existing socioeconomic order or to the status quo of the geostrategic environment. The era of the Cold War speaks volumes about this phenomenon, but it’s also evident in earlier periods — for example, the first Red Scare in the wake of World War I — and we can see clear parallels in the present-day situation with reactions to Ukraine and the rise of China as a global power.
...

Throughout, the shape of world order has of course been a driving concern of policy makers. For post-World War II Washington, there is only one acceptable form: under its leadership. And it must be a particular form of world order: the “rule-based international order,” which has displaced an earlier commitment to the “UN-based international order” established under U.S. lead after World War II. It’s not hard to discern the reasons for the transition in policy and accompanying commentary. In the rule-based order, the U.S. sets the rules.

Chomsky: US Push to “Reign Supreme” Stokes the Ukraine Conflict

The Noam Chomsky Website.

chomsky.info

dont worry about it. this is the Rise of China century. The USA is on the way down
while we diddle around in eastern Europe.China has extended it's soft power worldwide

They have the rare earths, and the ability to process them -and they arent bound by Paris. but will sell to clueless nations like the USA. .They do it by debt traps to developing nations- while using their hard power in the S.China Sea

Their military is expanding at an exponential pace,while stealing the secrets from the west.
But their soft power gives them the economic clout in the battle for resources,and those nations with raw materials
get a better deal from China then the USA which cant even conceive of soft power

 

[Questerr]

Your reply shows that you don't understand the thread. It's about who sets the rules and who's able to bend/break the rules.

Powerful countries will always set the rules to benefit them and their national interests. If an “international Justice system” was created, the powerful nations would make it serve them.

 

[Antiwar]

dont worry about it. this is the Rise of China century. The USA is on the way down
while we diddle around in eastern Europe.China has extended it's soft power worldwide

They have the rare earths, and the ability to process them -and they arent bound by Paris. but will sell to clueless nations like the USA. .They do it by debt traps to developing nations- while using their hard power in the S.China Sea

Their military is expanding at an exponential pace,while stealing the secrets from the west.
But their soft power gives them the economic clout in the battle for resources,and those nations with raw materials
get a better deal from China then the USA which cant even conceive of soft power

We're all on our way down and out forever, as in humanity is failing. It's possible that "the meek" will inherit what's left of Earth, as in some humans in remote areas might survive.

 

[Questerr]

We're all on our way down and out forever, as in humanity is failing. It's possible that "the meek" will inherit what's left of Earth, as in some humans in remote areas might survive.

In such an apocalyptic scenario, it’s the militarists that will inherit the Earth. The people with the guns with take resources from the people without them.

 

[Antiwar]

The militarists and industrialists are who's most destroying Earth. They're killing themselves and each other. They're set to rid Earth of the natural resource that is the habitability of Earth. They aren't going to inherit anything. Maybe some remote peoples that are already living with Nature will survive.

That militarist ("The people with the guns with (sic) take resources from the people without them") thinks that he's on the winning side and that that's the winning strategy.

 

[anatta]

We're all on our way down and out forever, as in humanity is failing. It's possible that "the meek" will inherit what's left of Earth, as in some humans in remote areas might survive.

you are too pessimistic -if we kill ourselves as a species it could be nuclear war,but overpopulation is the long term exigent threat.

 

[Antiwar]

you are too pessimistic -if we kill ourselves as a species it could be nuclear war,but overpopulation is the long term exigent threat.

Nuclear war is a singular mechanism; environmental destruction has a multitude of mechanisms. Nuclear war might happen; environmental destruction keeps happening.

 

[PoS]

A world without green hippies would be a better place indeed.

 

[anatta]

Nuclear war is a singular risk; environmental destruction is a massive multitude of risks. Nuclear war night happen; environmental destruction keeps happening.

I agree in the sense over-population degrades the enviornment .all this emphasis on "climate change" fails to grasp the reality we are muckingup the oceans, clear cutting the Amazon (China has wiped out Asian hardwoods) and destroying
the natural plant based "carbon sink" that ALSO reduces CO2 in the air

 

[anatta]

A world without green hippies would be a better place indeed.

Hippies were always a plague .. "Freaks" are where the anti-war movement and political power were the true nexus

 

[Antiwar]

Hippies were always a plague .. "Freaks" are where the anti-war movement and political power were the true nexus

"Please don't feed the mindless trolling."

 

[Questerr]

The militarists and industrialists are who's most destroying Earth. They're killing themselves and each other. They're set to rid Earth of the natural resource that is the habitability of Earth. They aren't going to inherit anything. Maybe some remote peoples that are already living with Nature will survive.

That militarist ("The people with the guns with (sic) take resources from the people without them") thinks that he's on the winning side and that that's the winning strategy.

How many people are you cool with killing off to get rid of industry?

Are you still too scared of me to directly quote me? How ****ing pathetic.