|
Post by danimal on Feb 14, 2024 5:10:46 GMT -7
If the US isn't the dominant force in global politics, I guess you think it would be better for Russia and China to take up that role.
|
|
|
Post by deadphishbiscuits on Feb 14, 2024 5:50:05 GMT -7
I mean...China already does
It makes EVERYTHING besides weapons that we use in the U.S. of A.
Lol at Russia influence, they can ONLY main tain their own shit and can't even take over another small country with a looney tune president and a boxer governor slash mayor
It's time to take care of the U.S. and let the world figure it out for themselves
APPLEBEEEEES
GO UKRAINE , GO PEACE
Both ain't happenin in the middle east
|
|
|
Post by GBK2point0 on Feb 14, 2024 5:53:33 GMT -7
When TEMU and Tick-tok surpass Amazon and Facebook China has won.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Feb 14, 2024 12:37:19 GMT -7
If the US isn't the dominant force in global politics, I guess you think it would be better for Russia and China to take up that role. That's a completely baseless assumption on your part and putting words in my mouth when I didn't suggest any such thing. I just made observations about how many in the world (including countries like New Zealand, Luxembourg, and others you might not expect) are perfectly fine looking to China over the US. I don't think either China or Russia in the role of #1 superpower would be better, but I can't say that they'd be worse. I could see it being worse for the US but better for other countries - back to it all being subjective and not absolutely objective. Does Russia even have the capability to be a dominant global force or #1 - did they ever or was it just Cold War propaganda that made us think so? I understand that China is the US' adversary and not popular within the US, but a lot of the world doesn't share that opinion. Not every country in the world looks to the US when deciding their own policies. Many Americans think otherwise, but the world doesn't revolve around US opinion, nor should it. I'm just saying that I don't look at the US as being a benign superpower either now or in it's history and that while it's logical to expect many Americans to think America is best suited for that role, many other countries and people in the world who've been on the receiving end of malignant US foreign policy or have been victims of wars started/supported by the US don't look at the US at all in the same way as you seem to. They have no problem with the idea of reduced US global influence. It's easy to be all rah-rah-rah about the USA living within its first world borders with it's first world white people problems, but its a completely different thing to live in a place where they've been fucked by the US and/or it's foreign policy. Ask the Palestinians. Ask Afghanis who had nothing to do with 9/11 but paid the price while the responsible Saudis have continued to benefit from their relationship with the US. Ask the Kurds who've had the football pulled out by the US too many times to count. Ask Argentines whose relatives were thrown out of airplanes over the Atlantic by a US supported dictator during the 70's and 80's. Too many other examples to list. The US as the dominant world power may be just great for you but that doesn't mean it's great for everyone and that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you on this completely and objectively wrong. It just means they live lives where you dismiss their subjective opinions as being completely wrong without taking any consideration of their personal and collective experiences. It's the myopic 'ugly American' stereotype many have of Americans and why I sometimes prefer to identify as Canadian in certain places/circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Feb 14, 2024 12:47:52 GMT -7
I mean...China already does It makes EVERYTHING besides weapons that we use in the U.S. of A. Lol at Russia influence, they can ONLY main tain their own shit and can't even take over another small country with a looney tune president and a boxer governor slash mayor It's time to take care of the U.S. and let the world figure it out for themselves APPLEBEEEEES GO UKRAINE , GO PEACE Both ain't happenin in the middle east When did this swap in positions happen? When did many of the dems/left become the pro-war, pro-imperialism Neo-Cons? Makes me wonder if Biden is going to lose enough of the progressive vote to a third party or just staying home to lose the election.
|
|
|
Post by deadphishbiscuits on Feb 14, 2024 13:01:53 GMT -7
I've always had a Homer side
Id rather see America take care of its own at this point, then the world.
Oxygen mask theory, gotta put yours on first then help the children, elderly, un educated around you
We've helped the world and help fuck up the world enough and sure we've done the same to ourselves, though it feels we've fucked ourselves up more as of late than Helped
2 for 20s, dollar stores ,small town main Street pandarias and pharmacies could all co exist
...I think? Or again?
|
|
|
Post by danimal on Feb 14, 2024 13:05:40 GMT -7
The US has military installations in both new Zealand and Luxembourg.
|
|
|
Post by higs on Feb 14, 2024 14:17:00 GMT -7
Isolationism doesn't work, historically. We tried to remain neutral and stay out of both ww1 and ww2. We were inevitably drug into both conflicts. Stay the course and stand by our allies. This is the way.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Feb 14, 2024 14:32:57 GMT -7
I don't think the US should be isolationists, but I like the idea of the US pulling back a bit and not trying to assert its influence everywhere. The US needs to be more selective in their international involvements. Hold countries to stricter standards which align with US standards as opposed to automatically giving them tons of money with no strings attached or where the US looks the other way when the recipients use the $ to go against US policies. Since Putin is so actively aggressive against the US I have no problem with the US standing by their friends in Ukraine. I'm in favor of the US standing by its traditional allies as opposed to threatening to leave NATO or giving a green light to Putin to attack other NATO countries. I'm less thrilled with the US funding Israel's actions in Gaza when that includes violence against so many civilians that some refer to it as genocidal. I'm in favor of a more balanced sharing of global power than having the US be the only tier 1 superpower. Balance keeps countries in check.
|
|
|
Post by danimal on Feb 14, 2024 14:48:35 GMT -7
Suggesting that security aid to our allies should be in any way conditional is just another "opinion" that shows you don't understand how strategic alliances work.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Feb 14, 2024 15:33:27 GMT -7
The US has military installations in both new Zealand and Luxembourg. True, yet also true that both countries are a part of China's Belt and Road Initiative. Those military bases date back to WWII or post war when it was in their national interest to have them for protection against German and Japanese aggression and the Cold War which followed. From what I understand of history, once the US military enters a country and establishes bases it's very rare that they voluntarily leave. They only leave when told to do so by the host country. Luxembourg and New Zealand's moves to improve relations with China are far more recent which suggests that their national interests have at least somewhat changed since WWII to reflect the always changing global situation. I'd imagine neither country sees an advantage in kicking the US out since their military bases provide both deterrence against attack and boosts to to their economies from lease agreements and stationed GIs. At the same time they also see a national self interest in forging closer ties with China and taking advantage of China's willingness to invest in their infrastructure. Clearly they, and the other 149 countries participating in Belt and Road, have no issue with China having an increased presence in their own and global affairs. But all of that is academic. The real point is that there are billions of people who have no issue with the US having a diminished role in global dominance, no issue with China (as one example) having a greater influence, and that they are not completely and objectively fucking wrong for thinking so. They merely have a subjective opinion that differs from your own subjective American opinion which unsurprisingly favors maintaining US global dominance. In international relations where every nation first looks out for it's own national interests there is no such thing as being objectively right. The Axis powers thought they were right, just as the Allies did. You just think you're objectively right on this topic and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is completely and objectively fucking wrong - as you put it. A lot of Americans need to get out of their self created bubble and realize it's a big fucking world out there and American might doesn't equate to being objectively right.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Feb 14, 2024 16:47:28 GMT -7
Suggesting that security aid to our allies should be in any way conditional is just another "opinion" that shows you don't understand how strategic alliances work. Whether the US does or doesn't, do you really think it would be wrong for the US to impose any conditions at all on countries they provide military aid to? Do you really think that other countries don't make security aid conditional when giving aid to their allies? You wouldn't have a problem if the US gave military aid to a country intended for their security and they instead used that aid to, without provocation, attack another country in order to gain territory, some other asset of value, or for any other reason at all? 'Here's a whole shit ton of weapons, friend and ally, courtesy of Uncle Sam. No strings attached. Attack your neighbors. Bomb some country you're having trade issues with to get them to see things your way. Use them against your own people if they're giving you problems and you want to maintain your grip on power. Conditions? Not in any way. None what-so-ever. Zero. Do with them whatever the hell you want because that's how strategic alliances work, don't ya know.' And are you saying that like Big Taco and myself, the Biden Administration also doesn't understand how strategic alliances work? www.timesofisrael.com/biden-sets-new-conditions-for-us-military-aid-amid-calls-to-limit-support-for-israel/Memo requires recipients to give ‘credible and reliable written assurances’ they adhere to international law, demands annual reports from State Department, Pentagon on compliance“In order to effectively implement certain obligations under United States law, the United States must maintain an appropriate understanding of foreign partners’ adherence to international law, including, as applicable, international human rights law and international humanitarian law.”Maybe it's just me, but those sure do sound like conditions on security aid to an ally. You're fond of telling people in this thread who disagree with you on this topic that we don't understand how strategic alliances work and that we're completely objectively fucking wrong. Bueno. Read the linked article above then tell me I'm the one who doesn't understand how strategic alliances work for suggesting that security aid should have conditions attached. Apparently the Biden administration didn't run their security aid conditions for their ally Israel by you first to make sure they understand how strategic alliances work. Here's another link on the topic that disagrees with your take on conditional aid to allies, but it's just Foreign Policy magazine, so what the fuck do those amateurs know about how strategic alliances work? They should stay in their lane and stick to talking about, uh, foreign policy. foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/07/israel-united-states-military-aid-conditions-gaza-hamas-palestine/Historical precedents, including the George H.W. Bush administration’s refusal in 1991 to approve $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel unless it froze settlement construction, demonstrate the potential effectiveness of U.S. pressure.
|
|
|
Post by danimal on Feb 14, 2024 17:26:10 GMT -7
Sorry no I don't see providing assurances that that recipient will adhere to international law and dictation how they conduct military operations as the same thing.
It's pretty simple, conditional aid signals weakness to aggressors and weakens the security of both countries. I'm pretty sure everyone at foreign policy magazine would agree with that basic premise. I'm also pretty sure they'd all laugh you out of the room for suggesting that the US should cede influence to a country that is currently engaged in an unprovoked military invasion and war crime campaign against a sovereign nation.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Feb 16, 2024 22:06:15 GMT -7
You may not see "providing assurances that the recipient will adhere to international law" re: how they use military aid provided by the US as being "conditional," but it sounds to me like you're playing with semantics, moving the goalposts, or arguing against straw man arguments you're creating against things I've never said. For instance, I never said anything about 'ceding influence.' That's entirely different than having conditions placed on the receiving of military aid. Disagreeing about a policy is one thing and perfectly fine. Saying people who disagree with you are objectively fucking wrong and don't understand is another thing, but still okay. Playing semantics games, moving the goalposts, putting words in people's mouth and using strawman arguments to outright deny what is plainly reported and shown to be existing law is just sad, head in the sand denial of reality. Think what you want about my understanding of the issue of "security aid to our allies should('nt) be in any way conditional," I'm 100% confident on my reading comprehension of the content of the links I posted upthread as well as any I'll link to below. I won't list how many times I came across the word "condition." Since you seem to be advocating that there shouldn't be any conditions at all placed on military aid I asked if you would have a problem with an aid recipient using that aid to invade another country without provocation, use it within their own country against their own people, or any other reason that goes against the reason the aid was given. Since you didn't answer and just diverted I'll take that as your not having a problem with that type of scenario and that military aid should be given with absolutely no strings attached. You're certainly entitled to that opinion. I'm not an absolutist who believes there's only one objectively correct opinion so I won't resort to name calling and say you are completely objectively fucking wrong and have no understanding of how strategic alliances work. I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs on this, even if you don't seem to have the courage to outright say you would be against conditions that would prohibit that military aid being used against a country's own people, to attack other nations unprovoked, or even used to commit genocide. I can understand why you wouldn't want to make that kind of statement since arguing against conditions that would prevent genocide is an ugly side to be on, so it's easier to ignore the inconvenient and ugly possibilities that your 'no strings attached' belief carries. In my opinion you're also entitled to think that anyone who disagrees with you is completely objectively fucking wrong and doesn't understand strategic alliances. As to whether or not military aid should come with conditions (as opposed to 'does that aid come with conditions' which that first link above shows is clearly the case) I'm perfectly content sharing the same morals, values, and beliefs on this as Bernie Sanders and some of those in the Jewish community who advocate on Israel's behalf. I'm taking "must not be provided in the form of a blank check" to mean that there should be conditions attached, otherwise he wouldn't use the term "blank check." I'm also figuring that there would be no need for "compliance" if there weren't conditions that were required to be complied with. “J Street has for years called for greater oversight and accountability over arms and materiel provided by the United States to other countries, including Israel. American assistance — even to our closest allies — must not be provided in the form of a blank check,” J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami told JI.jewishinsider.com/2024/02/biden-places-new-conditions-on-u-s-military-aid-following-criticism-of-israeli-campaign/Not only should be conditions placed on countries receiving US military aid, there are already existing laws stipulating conditions. A simple Google search will lead you to "An extensive set of laws, regulations, policies, and procedures govern the sale and export of. U.S.-origin weapons to foreign countries." So while the recent Biden action may be new, "Existing U.S. law already requires recipients of U.S. military aid to comply with U.S. humanitarian assistance efforts and that U.S.-provided weapons be used in compliance with U.S. and international law, but the requirement to obtain written assurances is new."
This conversation is starting to give me the same feels I get when a religious extremist tries to tell me that I'm objectively fucking wrong and don't understand what they do about god, jesus, etc. When someone believes there's one objective truth (which they can't prove and which conveniently for them is exactly what they believe - like believing god hates the same people they do, god is on their side, god wants so in so to be the leader of a country, etc.), has no ability to recognize any other opinion or considers the entire subject to be subjective at all, and that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is objectively wrong and damned to an eternal hell for not sharing their beliefs - well, it's time to say believe whatever the fuck you want, cut bait, and walk away from the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by danimal on Feb 17, 2024 8:22:35 GMT -7
Fine you're not wrong. Letting Russia and China run the world would totally be fine.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Feb 26, 2024 11:40:15 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by dbg465285 on Feb 26, 2024 12:07:39 GMT -7
RIP to that young man in DC this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by dbg465285 on Feb 26, 2024 12:32:42 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by salmon401 on Feb 26, 2024 14:01:23 GMT -7
Not once have I ever wondered about that winner in that race to the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by thecosmicbandito on Apr 13, 2024 16:09:03 GMT -7
aw jeez
|
|