For instance: Switzerland has maintained permanent political neutrality since 1815 as they refuse to join military alliances (not a member of NATO), avoid participating in foreign wars and treating warring parties equally under international law. Even though Switzerland has their own military, they rarely get deployed outside their borders (not invading a ME country to commit war crimes) & definitely don’t have over 800 military bases worldwide.
Countries that operate globally are going to have global interests. Countries like Switzerland benefit from the relative peace and stability or existing in the middle of Europe and the European Union, especially since their foreign policy ambitions and concerns are pretty modest, to say the least.
Switzerland is a small country, which is land locked, without many strategic resources and surrounded by much more powerful neighbours - France, Germany, Austria and Italy. All four have been world powers. Switzerland has long played a diplomatic game of survival - and the key to that since 1815 has been to remain firmly neutral in the hope of surviving and playing it’s powerful neighbours (and other powers) off against each other.
Switzerland has used that neutrality to make hay while the rest of the world is suffering. During world war 2 for example, it’s neutrality was highly convenient and it happily kept good relations with the Nazis in Germany/Austria and the Fascists in Italy, providing banking and financial support without caring to look into the crimes against humanity happening just across the borders. A lot of stolen money from the victims of Nazism/Fascism ended up in Swizz vaults, with Swizz bankers taking their cut. Even today there is believed to be huge wealth still hidden in it’s vaults.
So take Switzerland off it’s pedestal. It’s benefited hugely from suffering in other countries. In the modern era it plays economic powers off against each other as a giant tax haven, with one foot in the EU but not a full member. It doesn’t exert military power but it does exert it’s financial power. A military would hold it back from the benefits it’s accrued being “neutral”.
The USA on the other hand is a superpower, and so it uses the military and economic available to it to force it’s will on the world.
because it’s not in the USA’s interest to remain neutral.
It’s in switzerland’s interest to do so.
Switzerland has a weak central government and a heavily influential financial sector. They bring the Euros in and keep the Migrants out.
Idk if I’d call that “neutral” so much as “predatory” or “parasitic”. But it’s a radically different economic model than, say, France with a large labor-heavy energy-hungry agricultural sector or Germany with a large labor-heavy energy-hungry industrial sector. The economic models, and the subsequent need for foreign inputs (particularly fossil fuels and cheap human professionals) to make them work has given local governments very different geopolitical agendas.
Who do you think does the cleaning in Switzerland?
Migrants.
Even though Switzerland has their own military, they never get deployed outside their borders
That is incorrect. Switzerland is taking part in the KFOR and EUFOR ALTHEA missions, for example.
We also occasionally invade Lichtenstein.
For shits and giggles.
Also, swiss army knives are deployed across the entire planet.
Also isn’t the pope protected by the Swiss guard?or are they unrelated?
Can’t help themselves
Switzerland has maintained permanent political neutrality since 1815
Might want to take off those rose colored glasses, but if you truly believe this I have a bridge to sell you.
“Hey Switzerland, where’d you get all that gold from back in the 1930s?”
“Also, why did so many foreign business owners, corrupt politicians, and money laundering operations open up numbered bank accounts in your country between the 1950s and 2010s?”
Switzerland is neutral in the same way a sports bookie is neutral.
Super neutral actually. Never once taken a side! /s
It’s not a question of difficulty, it’s a question of intention. The US does not want to be neutral. It hasn’t wanted such a thing for a very long time. If there was a sincere desire for that, they would have no difficulty doing so.
The current US dominated world order, with, as you note, US bases all across the planet and all of the other ways that US influence is felt, is something that was built by design. The US intentionally and carefully cultivated a world order that was subservient to their interests. They did this by recognising the values of both soft and hard power when used in the “right” (meaning most effective) ways. They used their economic power to lure other nations into their sphere of influence, drawn by the temptation of access to that wealth, and they used their military power to offer safety and security in return for compliance. This was perhaps one of the most genius innovations of the American Empire; where previous global hegemons beat their subjects into submission, America did something smarter; they offered to beat their subjects enemies into submission instead. And yes, where both of these approaches failed, they would always happily resort to other applications of power; invasion, assassination, regime change, whatever was necessary.
But above all else, the American Empire flourished because it offered reasonable, acceptable terms; bend the knee, and you will maintain your freedom, your democracy, your wealth. In fact, all of those things will generally flourish under their dominance. They offered to be kinder, gentler overlords, and the world acquiesced, because the cost was little enough, and the benefits seemingly great enough.
This is a system that took decades to build, and it firmly established America as the per-emminent power on the globe. And it’s that system that Trump is in the process of utterly destroying, because he has never understood how it worked. He cannot grasp any form of power that does not take the form of a boot on a neck. He cannot imagine the idea of mutually beneficial arrangements, even when the “mutual” part skews heavily towards one side. He is so beset by all his imagined grievances that he looked at a global system carefully constructed over decades to benefit the United States and decided that it was completely stacked against them.
This is a super biased, liberal, western centric perspective. The US does not work nicely across the world to achieve it’s goals. It uses it’s coercive power as the global super power to punish those who do not fall in line. We use sanctions more than any regime in the past. We embargo countries for decades when they speak out against our interests and routinely go to war through proxies or by way of clandestine attempts to overthrow them. We have violently subjugated the world not benevolently worked with them.
I beg you to go to the global south and see how impoverished those nations are largely at our expense as we extracts resources through ever more violent and coercive measures.
Pay close attention to exactly what I said. You’ll notice that the word “nice” was nowhere in there. And I was perfectly clear that America was more than happy to use political, military and economic force where necessary;
And yes, where both of these approaches failed, they would always happily resort to other applications of power; invasion, assassination, regime change, whatever was necessary.
When I say that America’s terms were “reasonable” and “acceptable” I assumed it was apparent that this was in contrast to the alternative; direct and violent subjugation. At no point was my argument that America was in any true sense “kind” or “gentle”, and I don’t think that could actually be construed from any of what I said.
We engage in direct and violent subjugation is my whole point its just spun well by the complicit media apparatus who manufacture consent for it. There is nothing reasonable about imperialist conquest. Full stop.
I’m curious; what part of my referring to the USA as the “American Empire” gave you the impression that I was describing this as anything other than blatant imperialism?
The part where you made it seem like anything less than oppressive for everyone involved. You make it sound like the US exerting force across the globe is good for some nations because they get to uphold a facade of Democratic expression that largely does not exist anywhere because of these forces at play.
It is good for some nations (depending on the specific standards of “good” that we’re using). The American global hegemony was infinitely preferable to, say, the Nazis. Exactly how preferable varies wildly depending on where you live, but there aren’t many places where the two could be said to be equal. This is the problem with taking everything in black and white terms; it robs of you of the capacity to recognise nuance.
Everyone here agrees that America sucks. That’s really not a fact in contention. But if you’re coming at this from the perspective that America is the greatest evil that the world has ever seen then you’re really not going to be able to engage in this conversation in any meaningful way.
The Nazis literally drew inspiration for the Holocaust from the US. Directly. They loved how we treated minorities particularly black people. Also US global hegemony has quite directly led to the rise of fascism globally by the exportation and promotion of 3rd way neoliberalism.
To call the US one of the greatest evils of all time is not even kind of an exaggeration.
Why would I be neutral when I can strongarm everyone into giving me everything with no consequences? The only morals in the US is money and dominance. Neutrality is out of the question
with no consequences?
Oh hell yeah. I hope I can find this pirated somewhere. It sounds really good. They missed an opportunity to add my favorite Joe Biden quote to the trailer though:
“Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.”
Has blowback caused the death of someone with the power to do anything about it or is it just the death of the citizens? Blowback killed about 3000 people in 9/11, but Bush was not only fine, he was put in a better position to do whatever he wanted.
When the rich wage war in the US there’s very rarely consequences for them–it’s the poor that die.
Has blowback caused the death of someone with the power to do anything about it
Famously. Just off the bat, you can point to the Kennedy Assassination as blowback from his first term interventions during the Cold War. But there’s a myriad of countries who turned from US-neutral/friendly to perennial thorns in the side of State Department policymakers and US global business interests alike. Iran would be the most obvious instance.
When the rich wage war in the US there’s very rarely consequences for them
History is replete with bankrupted millionaires and dead rich idiots. The socio-economic system mints their replacements. But we’ve got a line from Steve Jobs to Paul-Henri Nargeolet to Yevgeny Prigozhin can be counted among the dead. The 2008 Housing Collapse bankrupted hordes of petite bourgeois investors. The 2001 terrorist attacks decapitated entire businesses in a matter of hours. Jamal Khashoggi was kidnapped and dismembered while alive. Jeffery Epstein was murdered in prison.
Rich people are insulated, but they’re far from immune.
Pointing at Kennedy’s assassination as blowback for US’ non-neutrality is certainly one way to frame that event, though I hesitate to believe it is the consensus historical opinion.
Wealthy losing their wealth because of internal policies and the wealthy dying because of some crackpot distrust in doctors are not examples of blowback from US’ non-neutrality.
While you could reasonably construe the conflicts in the ME and the rise in strikes on US bases in the region as blowback, they don’t affect the higher up power brokers. Trump, despite his cratering public support and starting a war with Iran which lead to the deaths of several US soldiers, is still president. The blowback doesn’t touch him. Even if he’s somehow removed from office after the midterms, I’m not sure that would be considered blowback from the US’ non-neutrality vs just his whole himness, and he’s still moved from ambiguous possible billionaire from before his term to unambiguously multibillionaire after his term.
- Biden is fine.
- Obama is fine.
- Bush is fine.
- Clinton is fine.
- Many others have just died of old age.
Blowback kills kids that wanted healthcare and education, it doesn’t touch the people that caused there to be blowback in the first place.
I hesitate to believe it is the consensus historical opinion.
I’m not sure how you read the assassination as anything other than Blowback directly against a sitting President.
Is historical consensus that Lee Harvey Oswald was aiming for someone else and missed?
Wealthy losing their wealth because of internal policies and the wealthy dying because of some crackpot distrust in doctors are not examples of blowback
Eating information from your own misinformation machine and bankrupting yourself off your own regressive economic policies doesn’t count as blowback?
Biden is fine. Obama is fine. Bush is fine. Clinton is fine.
That’s four people in an organization of tens of thousands. But Jeffery and Ghislaine aren’t fine. Bob Menendez and Michael Flynn weren’t fine. Anthony Weiner and Duke Cunningham weren’t fine.
Even folks like Diane Feinstein and Mitch McConnell haven’t ended well.
Blowback kills kids that wanted healthcare and education.
It kills kids that don’t want it, too.
But it’s also coming from Saudi Princes and Israeli Commanders. It comes for Russians and Ukrainians alike. These foreign policies all have domestic consequences.
I’m not sure how you read the assassination as anything other than Blowback directly against a sitting President.
Is historical consensus that Lee Harvey Oswald was aiming for someone else and missed?
As best I can tell, the consensus is that Oswald was a troubled person with a troubled past who, upon recognizing he had nowhere to go but down decided he wanted to go out with a bang and so chose a high profile target, not on the merits of their international policy, but on the status of their profile. That is not blowback.
Eating information from your own misinformation machine and bankrupting yourself off your own regressive economic policies doesn’t count as blowback?
We’re in a thread talking about spankings delivered as consequence of international interventionism. So no, poor national financial policy and the exercise of individuals within the broken system trying to make a buck and failing miserably is not blowback from international non-neutrality.
That’s four people in an organization of tens of thousands.
You forgot the “many others” mentioned. I was primarily alluding to presidents who, by and large, where not victims of blowback from their international policies as evidence by the fact that most of them died of old age. So no, they aren’t victims of blowback or even of their own making.
Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Anthony Weiner
Legal consequences for sex crimes are not blowback for the US’ imperialist endeavors
Bob Menendez, Duke Cunningham
Legal consequences for financial crimes are not blowback for the US’ imperialist endeavors
Michal Flynn
Legal consequences for campaign finance violations are not blowback for the US’ imperialist endeavors
Even folks like Diane Feinstein and Mitch McConnell haven’t ended well.
Bruh, are you serious right now? The insurmountable march of time is not blowback for the US’ imperialist endeavors. Iraq did not oldify these peeps, and they got pretty much everything they wanted in life.
Blowback kills kids that wanted healthcare and education.
It kills kids that don’t want it, too.
But it’s also coming from Saudi Princes and Israeli Commanders. It comes for Russians and Ukrainians alike. These foreign policies all have domestic consequences.
Yeah, obviously. But that’s not what this thread was about.
Dude, your in a thread about why the US can’t be internationally neutral like Switzerland. The top comment we’re chatting under is about the lack of consequences for the US if they just do what they want and aren’t neutral. That is strictly a topic of international relations. Internal failings, people growing old, and bad decisions leading to losses of personal wealth have absolutely nothing to do with international politics.
Yes, there is blowback for US interventionism, but it doesn’t touch the people deciding to intervene. It only hurts the pawns. If you’re not a pawn then the answer to “why doesn’t the US be neutral” is very well “because we don’t have to be, nothing will happen to me,” and if you’re not a pawn then you’d be damn right.
What did 9/11 do for the elites? Some insurance companies lost some money, and some companies had to hire new positions and find new office spaces–but we also got a blank check for surveillance and military companies.
What did Iran do for the elites? Some line items were stricken off the pay ledger when soldiers died. There’s nothing Iran can do to hold the people responsible accountable. They can strike the US’ bases and cost a bit of money from an organization that just makes up their balance sheet each year–that’s blowback, and or doesn’t hurt the elites at all.
Bankrupted millionaires and dead idiots aren’t the ones diving foreign policy. Mostly anyway. Some specific rich dead idiots obviously still have us by the balls but it’s the living ones who call most of the shots
Bankrupted millionaires and dead idiots aren’t the ones diving foreign policy.
Not once they’re bankrupt or dead, no. But the idea that Tim Cook has influence but Steve Jobs didn’t? Come on. Same with guys like James Cayne and Richard Fuld Jr. Enormously influential, until they weren’t. Shit does eventually catch up to some of the people some of the time.
But then you get a new generation of Gregory Beckers and Sam Bankman-Frieds and Elizabeth Holmes. It’s not that they never face any kind of backlash or consequence. It’s that there’s a conveyor belt of these people. When one falls, a dozen more scramble to replace them.
The line to sell your soul and half your brain for infinite wealth goes around the block.
They are one big fat country - not as easy to ignore as little Switzerland there between these 3 or 4 mountains :)
They are super super super fearful of a war on their own soil. Therefore they want to dominate everybody else all the time.
They live on other countries’ money for a pretty long time now, and they want to continue the tradition. Therefore they always look to continue it, and call this their ‘national security’ - implying that they are always ready to use their armies to secure the future of this blood sucking practice.
They live on other countries’ money for a pretty long time now, and they want to continue the tradition. Therefore they always look to continue it, and call this their ‘national security’ - implying that they are always ready to use their armies to secure the future of this blood sucking practice.
This is the main factor. We’re a country ruled by rich parasites. They only care about extracting wealth from wherever they can and they freely use the military to do so. Just look at the recent news about Rubio and others in Trump’s cabinet already salivating over what parts of Cuba they’re going to take for themselves to further enrich themselves.
The US NEVER fights a moral war, a just war, or a war for humanitarian reasons, they lie about it and claim it’s to save others, but it is ALWAYS about personal enrichment.
Oil and money is better than using their brain I guess.
You’re talking about diplomatic neutrality, not political neutrality.
The USA, outside of the Monroe Doctrine, maintained diplomatic neutrality for a while. World War I ended with the USA still going back to a diplomatically neutral stance before being drawn into World War II.
By the time the USA left World War II, it was generally accepted by the American population that neutrality wouldn’t maintain international peace. Conveniently, that realization happened at the time when the USA was in control of a lot.
American culture and capitalism seemingly dictates that everyone both has an opinion and a will to change things globally to conform to their beliefs and desires.
By definition there’s no such thing as political neutrality.
Politics is the process of engagement between parties, those parties are never “neutral”, or they wouldn’t be engaged with other parties.
There’s no such thing as a neutral country.
