It's official, President Trump takes over.

[JohnBrown1917]

I can appreciate that you're trying to balance 2 competing ideas here, Skroe. But here's mine: If we need or want to do something, basically the only dissenting opinion I would give a listen to is from the UK. They're family. Everyone else can go f right off with their objections to what we do.

An American using family analogies?, i'm going for the bingo!

[Berengil]

Hot damn, are you going for the big prize of the stereotypical American arrogance?

It's not arrogance if it's the truth.

BTW, I assume from your avatar that you're Russian. You'd be interested to know that I have zero problem with what Russia does in its own near abroad; Crimea, the former SSRs around your periphery, and so on. It's natural and right that Russia is concerned and involved there.

I literally do not give a sht what you guys do there. It's your business.

[Deleted]

Yes, and those are the only two choices.

No, but they were the options we were discussing...

[Shadowmelded]

No, but they were the options we were discussing...

So are you saying that only a war crime would have prevented the rise of Isis?

BTW, I assume from your avatar that you're Russian.

Pretty sure they're Dutch.

[Mormolyce]

While I won't deny that the celebrity syndrome that Obama had was indeed bigger than Trump's and that the former managed to gather people's attention on a bigger scale - as a "change" President -, do you seriously believe that the fact that it was raining didn't affect the attendance at all?

You really think people will miss a once in a lifetime event affecting the entire country for lack of an umbrella?

- - - Updated - - -

The US Global Image is pretty damn good.

Thanks, Obama :P

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks, me too

Get a room you two!

- - - Updated - - -

You'd be interested to know that I have zero problem with what Russia does in its own near abroad; Crimea, the former SSRs around your periphery, and so on. It's natural and right that Russia is concerned and involved there.

Whoah there buddy, at least wipe Trump's spit off the cock before going for a mouthful.

[Darkeon]

You really think people will miss a once in a lifetime event affecting the entire country for lack of an umbrella?

I've missed more important things than that, due to even less, yes.

A share of years ago, I'd understand. Nowadays, with proper video quality and Internet? I'd rather stay cosy and see it as if I was 5 feet away from the President himself, as he does the speech.

[Berengil]

So are you saying that only a war crime would have prevented the rise of Isis?



Pretty sure they're Dutch.

Well, you can understand my confusion, considering the avatar and the signature graphic. I'm not personally familiar with the poster in question.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoah there buddy, at least wipe Trump's spit off the cock before going for a mouthful.

Why so hostile that I think no vital US interest is found in those places?

[JohnBrown1917]

Whoah there buddy, at least wipe Trump's spit off the cock before going for a mouthful.

Carefull now, we got ourself a wild Trumper here, they can be recognized by its combination of all the American Stereotypes.

[Berengil]

Carefull now, we got ourself a wild Trumper here, they can be recognized by its combination of all the American Stereotypes.

Hardly. I didn't vote for him. That doesn't exclude me from agreeing with him on some things.

[Mormolyce]

I've missed more important things than that, due to even less, yes.

A share of years ago, I'd understand. Nowadays, with proper video quality and Internet? I'd rather stay cosy and see it as if I was 5 feet away from the President himself, as he does the speech.

You didn't have an internet connection in 2009?

Why so hostile that I think no vital US interest is found in those places?

You realise that not giving blowjobs to communist dictators isn't the same thing as hostility, yeah?

[Darkeon]

You didn't have an internet connection in 2009?

I did, yes. It was shittier than it is now. As was most things.

Except the weather, for one ;D

[Skroe]

You say that we should never constrain our actions due to international opinion. Then you give reasons why we should.

I can appreciate that you're trying to balance 2 competing ideas here, Skroe. But here's mine: If we need or want to do something, basically the only dissenting opinion I would give a listen to is from the UK. They're family. Everyone else can go f right off with their objections to what we do.

No. You're misunderstanding. To paraphase Ian Malcom "we so preoccupied with the question of if we could, we never stopped to ask if we should". Brilliant phrase, and eminently applicable.

At the end, asserting US strategic interests is the final word on the matter. But that said that must be balanced against competing imperatives. For example (abstractly), if the US could launch a massive conflict without international support that will have significant negative impacts on it's geopolitcal standing, on it's own... should it? Or should it go slower and build international legitimacy. Maybe the conflict will not be as comprheneisve and "in your face", but it'll spread the political cost and insulate the US from failure.

And frankly, you're 15 years out of date. The UK, under David Cameron, has stripped their military to the bone. The US's key European military partner at the present is France, funny enough.

Being a leader doesn't mean imposing ones will. It means collectively bringing together stakeholders and coming to a maximally agreed upon outcome. When impossible, we should modestly - decisively but without exuberance - do what we can to dictate outcomes. But it's almost always possible to come to an agreement on matters such as this. Mostly, country's just want to play a role in global governance.

The US at the peak of it's power, got there, because it was at the CONSENT of our partners. That is the genius of the liberal international order. It is stable, so long as the US occupies the position of leadership brought about by CONSENT of our partners. The second we start acting like Russia, like we did in 2003 - something I enthusiastically supported by the way - we lose that legitimacy.

I did not used to think Moral Authority mattered. Boy was I wrong. Personal life experience, seeing the world change since 2003 on a day to day basis. Years of hisotircal research. The opposite is true. America's moral authority is _everything_. It is the very foundation of our claim to power. At the risk of sounding like Barack Obama, it is our most powerful weapon. It is self-legitimizing. We abuse that moral authority by acting recklessly at our peril. We are not entitled to it. It is bestowed upon us by our friends and allies and by our fundamental differences compared to our enemies.

This is why, by the way, Vladmir Putin interfered in our election. He knows this. He is hoping to strip America of its moral authority, to drag us down to his level, in order for his declined authoritarian regime to be able to compete with us. We must not play his game. We must be the country of the highest standards and the highest principles, and not simply recklessly using our great power to get what we want. THe second we do that, we lose everything. Donald Trump even TALKING in such a way has been a hammer blow to our moral authority. America must stand, fundamentally, as a champion for the democratic world order. The second it starts pursuing only narrow interests, it becomes just a better armed predator, and will be rightly hated and feared.

It comes down to this: how do you wanna win? Do you wanna win by getting as many tangible benefits as possible? Or feeling tough? Too many Americans think with their balls, and not their brains. We need our allies faith. We don't need their stuff. The more you think with your balls, the more you'll betray their faith.

[Deleted]

So are you saying that only a war crime would have prevented the rise of Isis?

No, i think you will have to apply for some kind of reading comprehension course.

[Wells]

No, i think you will have to apply for some kind of reading comprehension course.

The problem isn't his reading.

[Deleted]

The problem isn't his reading.

No, not just his reading. Also yours it seems.
You are all insinuating that breaking international law by seizing control of the Iraqi oilfields, would be a larger catastrophe than having isis run rampant.

[Wells]

No, not just his reading. Also yours it seems.
You are all insinuating that breaking international law by seizing control of the Iraqi oilfields, would be a larger catastrophe than having isis run rampant.

When you find everyone you're talking with isn't understanding you you're the problem.

[Macaquerie]

Frankly, I think US foreign policy will be much improved once everyone involved with Vietnam finally dies off. That whole generation of leaders just seems pathologically obsessed with finding a dragon to slay to redeem themselves for their failure, jumping into conflicts that really didn't serve our interests just to chase their own white whale. People can bitch and moan all day about Obama being weak and leading from behind, but frankly a period of at least apparent passivity was exactly what we needed to restore our image abroad and build up that all important moral authority. If we had followed up the Bush era with another eight years of outright warmongering, our entire system of alliances would have broken down and we would probably be in the same boat Russia is in today.

[Deleted]

When you find everyone you're talking with isn't understanding you you're the problem.

Yeah, reading comprehension is definitely a problem for you haha
What a way to spell it out for us.

[Uselessrouge]

gratz , i want the same one for germany now , thanks

[Wells]

Yeah reading comprehension is definitely a problem for you haha
What a way to spell it out for us.

Your entire argument, in so far as it can be parsed out, is based on a false dichotomy.