World Without US: Geopolitical Forum Debate

World Without US: Geopolitical Forum Debate

Would the world be a better place if the United States disappeared? This question, posed in a geopolitical forum, has generated 135 responses and a series of cross-accusations. From the initial message's "steal, create dictatorships, corrupt, bomb" to the defense that US hegemony brought "unprecedented freedom and security in Spanish history," the exchange reflects a deep fracture. It is not an academic debate: it is a thermometer of discontent with the global order.

From Saddam to the Fed: The Arguments of Hate

The opening message cites Saddam Hussein —"the great Satan"— to describe the United States. From there, a catalog of grievances unfolds: military interventions, coups d'état, support for dictatorships. One participant states that "it is in all wars. Starting them, I miccionan." Another adds that "never on its own territory or border," suggesting the human cost always falls on others. Criticism extends to the European Union, described as "puppets" who "should disappear."

The list of concrete accusations includes support for the Arab Spring, destabilization of the Balkans and Middle East, arming rebels who later became ISIS, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and provoking the war in Ukraine after Euromaidan. All this, according to this current, to "feed your arms industry and keep printing money at the expense of the rest's misery." The dollar, the Fed, and the "Five Eyes" (the intelligence alliance formed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US) appear as instruments of global control.

The Defense: "Unprecedented Freedom and Security"

Against this narrative, another part of the forum argues that the United States has been a necessary evil. "The US has given us freedom and security unprecedented in Spanish History," one message affirms, acknowledging "its own agenda" but emphasizing that "Spain globally has benefited greatly for decades after WWII." The warning is clear: "If that naive illusion of a multipolar world sold today by Russian-Chinese interests arrives... you will miss the preceding decades very much."

Another participant goes further: "between USA and China/Russia I prefer USA a billion times." And a third launches an apocalyptic prediction: "You'll see how well anti-US folks will have it when the Anglo counterpart falls and you are invaded by Asian hordes." The shadow of China looms over the debate: some believe the fall of the US would leave free rein to a new Asian order that would not be more benevolent.

Spain's Role: From Cuba to Segarro

A central axis of the debate is the specific damage to Spain. "The United States has done much harm to Spain (Cuba, Philippines, Sahara...) and continues to do so through Segarro," reads one of the most upvoted messages. The loss of colonies, support for American republics' independence, and the US role in Western Sahara are open wounds. "Don't we remember Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines?" asks another, also recalling "our first astronaut."

Current interference is specified in armament to Segarro and the refusal to include Ceuta and Melilla under the NATO umbrella. "Currently it is arming Segarro, which won't hesitate to invade Ceuta and Melilla," warns one message. The Iraq war also enters the conversation: "it involved us in the Iraq war which led to Zapatero's rise to power and all the degeneration of Spanish society."

Strategic Debate: Could It Disappear?

Beyond desire, the practical question arises. "There is a logical problem; if the USA disappeared... the world would largely disappear with it," argues one participant, describing the US as "a supranational infiltrating and global entity whose undefined borders cannot be delimited." The conclusion is that "the USA must be delimited and thereby limited to contain its adversity."

Others doubt whether it is possible or desirable. "I have nothing against the peoples of countries; there are all kinds everywhere, so no, I don't want the USA or any other people of the world to disappear," writes one participant. The discussion shifts toward the viability of a world government ("impossible; controlling a small group is difficult... doing it with billions") and the role of cash and individual freedom.

Historical Background: From Innocence to Greed

The conversation also looks to the past. "The founding fathers warned about getting into foreign wars, outside their territory and in European messes. But they didn't give a damn," recalls one message. "At first it worked out, but they became greedy and that will be the reason for both their rise and their spectacular fall." The idea that the US was born with an enlightened promise —constitution, human rights, decentralization— then betrayed by breaking treaties with indigenous peoples and launching unjust wars to expand is recurrent.

For now, the debate closes with an exchange of accusations over who has more deaths on their conscience. "Tell that to those dead in their 'defending freedom' interventions," snaps one participant. The discussion reaches no consensus. As in real geopolitics, each side entrenches itself in its data and grievances. The initial question —would a world without the US be better?— remains floating, with more questions than answers.