Comment by zmgsabst | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zmgsabst | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The US dictated the rules of the modern world and have seemingly been happy with them for the last 80 years.

The US isn’t a homogeneous entity: for at least 40 years (since the 1980s) there’s been a sharp divide between the general populace and the elites. Unfortunately, this wasn’t corrected until it became overwhelming resentment. You can look at the Seattle WTO riots for an example.

> Everyone is fine if you want a change, go back to your own country, stop trying to be World Police and focus on domestic issues for a few years.

NATO et al have repeatedly complained about just that.

> What we aren't happy about is the constant threats of invasion and subjugation.

Neither were Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. What’s shocking to Canada and EU is not that the US has changed, but realizing where they stand in the world outside of a US supported alliance.

The US is merely applying its policy from the past 80 years within its North American sphere of influence (ie, Canada, Greenland, Panama).

How many countries has the U.S. annexed in the last 80 years?

You’re completely wrong.

But even if you were right that the U.S. was simply applying its foreign policy to its “sphere of influence”, surely even you can see the immense foolishness of applying the same policies you have towards countries that are your enemies or even neutral to you, to countries that are your allies?

Finally, even if we accept that it’s actually really smart to treat your allies as your enemies, in all those other cases the U.S. responded because of attacks by those countries on America, American Allies or American companies. In the current situation there’s no such excuse.

The US is occupying two for profit right now:

- occupying Syrian oil fields

- strong arming Ukraine for mineral rights, after overthrowing a democratically elected government a decade ago

> applying the same policies you have towards countries that are your enemies or even neutral to you, to countries that are your allies?

My exact point is that after publicly shaming Americans (eg, mocking our lack of social spending while being deadbeats to NATO) and collaborating with their perceived enemies (eg, the US internationalist elites) for my entire lifetime, there’s a significant fraction of the US who sees the EU and Canada as adversarial.

If they were allies, why have they spent generations mocking us for our contributions and working against our interests?

> in all those other cases the U.S. responded because of attacks by those countries on America

Syria, Libya, and Ukraine are counter examples.

> In the current situation there’s no such excuse.

Annexing Canada is the US equivalent of Russia retaining control of Ukraine or China slowly invading the ASEAN sea.

That’s what the world looks like in an era of great powers engaging in realpolitik.

> Annexing Canada is the US equivalent of Russia retaining control of Ukraine

Yes, if you disregard a few hundreds of years of history. The reverse, Canada absorbing the US and restoring the continuation of the British Empire, would be more similar, although not equivalent by a long shot.

So “mocking” a country is now casus belli?

If it's a severe mocking it can begin to demoralize a people and make them Canadian.

>My exact point is that after publicly shaming Americans (eg, mocking our lack of social spending while being deadbeats to NATO) and collaborating with their perceived enemies (eg, the US internationalist elites) for my entire lifetime, there’s a significant fraction of the US who sees the EU and Canada as adversarial.

We're watching history be reconstructed into pretext in real time. Soon, we will always have been at war with Canada.

> The US isn’t a homogeneous entity: for at least 40 years (since the 1980s) there’s been a sharp divide between the general populace and the elites. Unfortunately, this wasn’t corrected until it became overwhelming resentment.

You… wait. You think the “elites” aren’t in control anymore and that the “general populace” have their guy in power?

The corrupt millionaire backed by the richest man in the world and half of Silicon Valley?

Can you help me understand what an “elite” is, exactly?

Different definitions of "in control".

Obviously the current administration is not composed of, or working in the interest of, the general populace.

However, the general populace put him there, over the objections of the people the general populace think of as elites.

The top 10% of Americans by income or education level both overwhelmingly voted Democrat in 2024. These are the "elites" that are no longer "in control".

So no, the "elites" are not in control, if you use the definition of "elites" that would be used by the median supporter of the current administration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com