|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 05 2017 07:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 07:00 Zambrah wrote:
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant. NATO is a fossil. What's the fascination with US treasure and blood being obligated to serve European regional interests? The USSR is no longer around and Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself.
Remind me again which nation Nato assisted in the only use of the defence pact? to date?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 05 2017 07:18 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 07:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 05 2017 07:00 Zambrah wrote:
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant. Maybe not Trump's specific rhetoric given that his rhetoric was 85% nonsense 15% populism, but in general Americans are very much leaning towards isolationism. That isn't going to change just because Trump is incompetent. Yeah, I look forward to seeing the future of the US' policy on the globalism v. isolationism thing, I agree that isolationism seems like its whats going to be happening for at least the immediate future.
Trump did the stupidest thing so far: promise his constituents change, do a 180 and say that he will preserve the status quo, and then take credit for making things better. Everyone is probably pleased with his NATO performance, especially Mattis.
|
The only parts of Trump's constituency I've met have almost 0 idea what hes doing, they mostly just go about their lives happy knowing hes the president and assuming hes doing things to help them.
I'm glad I no longer have to interact with them.
|
On June 05 2017 07:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 07:00 Zambrah wrote:
I think theres almost no way we hear a repeat of Trump's NATO rhetoric from the next president, Republican or Democrat. I'd hazard a guess that the next president will be 10x better from either side of the aisle, although the bevy of turds and nutjobs that seem to compete for the position is still not particularly pleasant. NATO is a fossil. What's the fascination with US treasure and blood being obligated to serve European regional interests? The USSR is no longer around and Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself.
I don't think its a fossil,they still share a lot of common interests. Those interests do not have to be military specifically,they also share a lot of financial and geopolitical interests that somehow have to be defended.
I also don't understand that people seem to think that the usa fought all the wars they did just to serve europe.They mostly did serve American financial and geopolitical interests like for example in Iraq,korea,vietnam,panama,and all the other wars I forgot about. None of them was being fought to make Europe more safe directly. I guess Europe will be safe with less American support as well,we have our own nukes after all lol. We just don't have the army to fight all those oversees battles,but we also don't really have the urge to do so.
On a different note,i do think that the usa has lost their spot as most powerfull country in the world already. China is already number 1,10 years ahead of expectations though most people will dispute this. I do forsee a further decline in Americas influence and power,not only military but also economically. Specially if they continue on the path of isolationism, The international economic power from the usa comes mostly from one region and sector,silicon valey. Manny of its other industries are not that competitive on a global scale,the automobile industry being a prime example.
Maybe the slow change in Americas international politics is not only a matter of choice,maybe it is also a matter of having no other choice. They are not as powerfull as they where 10 years ago,at least not relative to other big powers. Both rusia and china gained power. If we consider the total "power" to be a constant number,like for example 100%. then Americas power now is clearly lower then it was 10 years ago and it will most likely continue to decline. The peak of American power I would estimate to be around 2000-2005. But history will make that judgement in the end.
|
usa is still number 1, though the days of hegemony are likely at an end
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
USA is easily still #1. The Chinese are certainly a formidable opponent on that front but China is still only a developing nation. I am also not convinced that the rise of China into a superpower is inevitable as many Americans tend to assert; it's certainly a very real possibility but their growth is largely artificial and while it goes without saying that that will bite them in the ass eventually, all bets are off for how badly they will slump when their growth phase is followed by a crash phase. What is true, though, is that the influence of the US in the world is waning. Its traditional allies have reason to distance themselves from the US and are themselves in decline, and creating an Asian alliance simply didn't sit too well with the population, manifesting itself in the anti-trade bloc. There's still some hope in that China's neighbors fucking hate China, but it's an increasingly empty one since the US simply isn't all that well-positioned to be an Asian power.
I find it odd that you would single out Silicon Valley as the US's most important source of international economic power considering that Silicon Valley itself is mostly played out. Certainly, big companies came out of that region and produce high-value consumer goods, but the region itself has mostly run its course, now producing shitty companies seeking millions rather than useful ideas. More important is the general sector of high technology, including software, aircraft, rockets, and military hardware, in which the US still has a pretty solid advantage over most of the world. Those are high-revenue industries that sell valuable products, and in general that's what the US is good at. Its navy is easily the best in the world and there are only a few nations that have comparably good rocket/military technology. It's true that there used to be more "made in the USA" of worth though.
|
If I remember correctly France triggered article 5 after 9/11. Then during the Libyan crisis when the US said it wasn't going to interfere the UK and France triggered Article 5 once more knowing full well Obama would have to respond as well as all of Europe. Then started the debacle on how shit Europe's armed forces were with the sole exception of France and Spain.
|
USA is #1... In what, exactly?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 05 2017 08:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
USA is #1... In what, exactly?
Well Freedom, for starters.
|
On June 05 2017 08:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
USA is #1... In what, exactly?
people in jail per capita, okay we're technically number 2 in that. (technically our best math and science students/teams can compete and win globally too although on average where pretty bad.)
|
On June 05 2017 08:13 LegalLord wrote:
USA is easily still #1. The Chinese are certainly a formidable opponent on that front but China is still only a developing nation. I am also not convinced that the rise of China into a superpower is inevitable as many Americans tend to assert; it's certainly a very real possibility but their growth is largely artificial and while it goes without saying that that will bite them in the ass eventually, all bets are off for how badly they will slump when their growth phase is followed by a crash phase. What is true, though, is that the influence of the US in the world is waning. Its traditional allies have reason to distance themselves from the US and are themselves in decline, and creating an Asian alliance simply didn't sit too well with the population, manifesting itself in the anti-trade bloc. There's still some hope in that China's neighbors fucking hate China, but it's an increasingly empty one since the US simply isn't all that well-positioned to be an Asian power.
I find it odd that you would single out Silicon Valley as the US's most important source of international economic power considering that Silicon Valley itself is mostly played out. Certainly, big companies came out of that region and produce high-value consumer goods, but the region itself has mostly run its course, now producing shitty companies seeking millions rather than useful ideas. More important is the general sector of high technology, including software, aircraft, rockets, and military hardware, in which the US still has a pretty solid advantage over most of the world. Those are high-revenue industries that sell valuable products, and in general that's what the US is good at. Its navy is easily the best in the world and there are only a few nations that have comparably good rocket/military technology. It's true that there used to be more "made in the USA" of worth though.
you hit the nail on the head. adding on, finance and capital markets. china has a ton of money, but it's a mess of incestuous state-level financial engineering and oligarchical interests, which is a house of cards increasingly at risk of collapsing.
|
|
|
LL obviously meant Freedom with a capital F.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 05 2017 08:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 08:21 LegalLord wrote:On June 05 2017 08:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
USA is #1... In what, exactly? Well freedom, for starters. so far rankings I can find on freedom have usa at 17 and 23
#17 by the Heritage Foundation's methods. That fuckin bites.
On June 05 2017 08:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
LL obviously meant Freedom with a capital F.
my b, edited
|
On June 05 2017 08:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If I remember correctly France triggered article 5 after 9/11. Then during the Libyan crisis when the US said it wasn't going to interfere the UK and France triggered Article 5 once more knowing full well Obama would have to respond as well as all of Europe. Then started the debacle on how shit Europe's armed forces were with the sole exception of France and Spain.
I think you ought to stick with linking twitter headlines from dubious sources.
|
on the plus side I want to say US is number one on charity donations per capita.
|
Thing is, people questioning NATO is exactly the point in all this.
Leadership-wise, America is never leaving NATO. Trump would do it right now, if he could. He can't. But the damage to our relationship with the civilized world is real, and due to Republican-partisanship, will linger for quite some time.
NATO is tied to Europe. You may want to separate them, but you can't. We need our European allies, and we need NATO.
Some might wonder what the point of America's exceptionalism is without NATO. Why'd we fight WW2 to such an extent, if we're not interested in protecting European democracy?
Why do we have an army several times the size of anyone else if we're going to tell the world's premier democracies: take care of yourself. NATO isn't a political institution that you can simply disjoin. Our country is as shaped by NATO as anyone else's.
It is a fundamental alliance. It is as "sacred" as alliances get. Like much of what Trump does, his lasting impact won't be concrete. It will be a cloud of doubt and obfuscation among America's lowest-common-denominator. Which isn't good. The political discourse in America has become Russophied (think: violently defensive ignorance), and that's an annoyance we'll have to deal with for years and years after Trump leaves the golf course... I mean White House.
Not to mention Putin's Russia has made its threatening intentions known through its actions time and time again. To Germany, Ukraine, Norway, etc., NATO has never been more relevant. The right-wing can hide its head in their bubble all they want (and they've done an amazing job the past 2 months, as the world stares slack-jawed), NATO's purpose and necessity will always be apparent to anyone who cares to look.
|
On June 05 2017 08:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
on the plus side I want to say US is number one on charity donations per capita.
part of that is because 1. we're a developed nation with a really high [economic measure here] per capita an 2. we have a garbage social safety net, so private donations is the way some of the holes in the net are patched. oh, and religion.
|
The amount of VC capital invested in the bay area is comparable to the total in europe. Meanwhile, FB, Alphabet and Apple are among the top10 most valuable companies in the world and are pouring billions into R&D in transformative technologies. To call Silicon Valley played out is ridiculous, no other region in the world has the amount of talent and capital available with a forward looking culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
