Thread

1. solox3 · 1789653067 · focus · HN ↗

   > US President Donald Trump earlier called the idea "laughable" and threatened "very serious tariffs" on Europe if he considered it a "hostile act".

   So if Canada tries to make friends with anyone other than the US, it's a hostile act?

   Makes it all the more obvious that USA is Canada's abusive partner, that they should have broken up with a long time ago.

   1. jerf · 1789655398 · focus · HN ↗

      Research the "Monroe doctrine"... by which I mean, don't just look up a one paragraph summary, spend a bit of time with it. A few pages of text at least. Ideally in a modern formulation you should encounter the term "World Island" without having directly searched for it and how the modern iteration of the Monroe doctrine is a reaction to that in a way that the original didn't have to contend with.

      I'm not doing advocacy here, I'm giving pointers on how to come to a deeper understanding of what is going on.

      It is also important to understand that the EU is directly attacking this doctrine with this proposal. You are free to agree with the EU. Again, I'm just giving something to guide people to a deeper understanding of what is going on beyond the surface level playground politics of it all. There's more going on than that.

      (Personally I would say I "disagree" with the Monroe doctrine but the sort of national/international structure I would actually want is not even remotely on the table, so... my opinion is thereby of even less import than a random other opinion drawn from "the masses" for choosing "E, none of the above" when that was not given as an option in the first place.)

      1. Angostura · 1789655771 · focus · HN ↗

         I think you've said nothing here other "Look up a good summary of the Monroe doctrine, with which I mildly disagree"

         1. jerf · 1789655954 · focus · HN ↗

            You elided if you want to understand what is going on more deeply, which is a rather important part.

            I say that precisely because I know that in reality most people aren't that interested. Which feel like I'm insulting people or something, but it's just the reality, we don't all have time to dig into absolutely everything all the time, and if you're not interested that's fine. But if you are, this is the best pathway to understanding this at a deeper level than the playground level.

         2. tsunamifury · 1789656381 · focus · HN ↗

            What arrogance.
      2. zmgsabst · 1789655937 · focus · HN ↗

         This is a direct stab at the US imperialist faction — not MAGA, who want the US to break up with the EU.

         I genuinely don’t understand this move through the lens of realpolitik: they’re mad at Trump, so they’re going to offend CFR et al who are aligned on Fortress America and neo-empire by threatening to take a critical vassal for the EU?

         Okay — but you just turned being mad at MAGA into the MIC deep state viewing you as an enemy and therefore further military alliance with any EU member unviable. All because the EU couldn’t stomach four years of crass taunts from a TV conman.

         Total MAGA victory.

      3. Roscius · 1789657208 · focus · HN ↗

         TLDR; The dollar is the global currency of record, the US became the richest country in the world, and Stalin didn't get Europe and Japan. The massive export market and global security was the payoff.

         The trade deficit and debt is in USD it's a line in the ledger that is somewhat fine and sustainable as long as the world stays on the USD as the currency of record. Countries for now are happy to keep storing their reserves in US bonds - Canada holds 600-700 billion in US debt. Japan over a trillion.

      4. maartenscholl · 1789661202 · focus · HN ↗

         Research the "Treaty of Tordesillas"... by which I mean, don't just look up a one paragraph summary, spend a bit of time with it. A few papal bulls at least. Ideally in a modern formulation you should encounter the term "Requerimiento" without having directly searched for it, and how the modern iteration of the line-of-demarcation doctrine is a reaction to that in a way the 1494 version didn't have to contend with.

         I'm not doing advocacy here, I'm giving pointers on how to come to a deeper understanding of what is going on.

         It is also important to understand that the United States is directly attacking this doctrine by just sitting there. You are free to agree with the United States. Again, I'm just giving something to guide people to a deeper understanding of what is going on beyond the surface level playground politics of it all. There's more going on than that.

         1. jerf · 1789662381 · focus · HN ↗

            If you're trying to sarcastically imply something, I'm not sure what it is. That is also a necessary key to understanding a certain era of history. Not the current one, though.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.