Trump hinted he plans massive War in Middle-East

[Alydael]

Good thing Hillary didnt win, she'd start a war! oh wait

Not a true comparison. Hillary wanted war with Russia, which would have drastically increased our war footing. Trump is just trying to actually end the wars we are already in, instead of having them endlessly go on.....

It's not like Trump is going to bomb Libya out without Congressional approval or anything..... oh wait......

[Crispin]

Not a true comparison. Hillary wanted war with Russia, which would have drastically increased our war footing. Trump is just trying to actually end the wars we are already in, instead of having them endlessly go on.....

It's not like Trump is going to bomb Libya out without Congressional approval or anything..... oh wait......

You base that on what? her not calling Putin a nice guy?

[Deleted]

Take a broader look at history.

How many conflicts over how many centuries did the UK and France engage in? Or Russia and its neighbors?

25 years is a flash in the pan. Russia, while not nearly what the soviet union was, is certainly trying to relitigate the resolution of the Cold War, under which which it feels its interests were negelected and security undermined. This is not the first, nor the last, the losing country in a conflict tries to rewrite the outcome a generation later.

For all we know, America's great power adversary in the 2070s could be Japan, as Japanese citizens and leaders living 55 years from now feel that the outcome of a conflict waged by their great-great-great-great grandparents placed an undue burden on them.

It was only Western myopia that figured that the end of the Cold War was the End of History. No. It was a lul before great power conflict roared back to life.

Unfortunately, you are very correct. And that's why I can't grasp of all the countries in the world is the US trying to change the status quo. I don't even blame the Americans, I blame the narcissistic ego-monger mind of Trump.

[Wells]

You base that on what? her not calling Putin a nice guy?

The general "thought process" has been something like "Clinton called for a no fly zone in Syria therefor she wanted unlimited nuclear exchanges with Russia"

[Deleted]

Trump is just trying to actually end the wars we are already in, instead of having them endlessly go on.....

How is Trump going to "protect" the oil fields without boots on the ground? He asks "pretty please" to Putin for Russian soldiers?

[Medievaldragon]

Not a true comparison. Hillary wanted war with Russia, which would have drastically increased our war footing. Trump is just trying to actually end the wars we are already in, instead of having them endlessly go on.....

It's not like Trump is going to bomb Libya out without Congressional approval or anything..... oh wait......

You base that on what? her not calling Putin a nice guy?

Yea, I don't think Hillary ever stated a desire for going to war with Russia. There was animosity between Putin and Hillary when she was Secretary of State, but no war talks.

[Rennadrel]

Some of what you are saying is the whole reason I don't think we should be involved in the Mid East at all.

All the alliances and political landscape is so convoluted that we will not make sense of it. Also, the normal technique as a targeted action against a state, doesn't work there.

The Mid_East has been as war with its self, in some capacity, for thousands of years. The US is less than 300 years old, we are not going to roll in an change that.

Also, we have separation of church and state. Their states are entwined with religion (deeply). Our modality will not work for them and vice versa.

It is really best to not be involved with them.

Separation of church and still will change under Trump, you'd be crazy not to think that theocratic idiots won't try to use the GOP to push their religious ideologies and discriminatory agendas. It's also the reason why no one in the West should be accepting non white refugees, because their religious ideologies try and push our laws to the brink of being eliminated out of fear of being labeled as a racist or Islamophobe.

[Eggroll]

Holy crap. And we Europeans will have to deal with the refugees, because we know the US will just leave a mess, only destruction in their wake

[Crispin]

Take a broader look at history.

How many conflicts over how many centuries did the UK and France engage in? Or Russia and its neighbors?

25 years is a flash in the pan. Russia, while not nearly what the soviet union was, is certainly trying to relitigate the resolution of the Cold War, under which which it feels its interests were negelected and security undermined. This is not the first, nor the last, the losing country in a conflict tries to rewrite the outcome a generation later.

For all we know, America's great power adversary in the 2070s could be Japan, as Japanese citizens and leaders living 55 years from now feel that the outcome of a conflict waged by their great-great-great-great grandparents placed an undue burden on them.

It was only Western myopia that figured that the end of the Cold War was the End of History. No. It was a lul before great power conflict roared back to life.

Much like the 1890's and 1900's were the "good days"

[Kaleredar]

Not a true comparison. Hillary wanted war with Russia,

You see people keep trying to say that was a thing.

That was never a thing, stop pretending it was.

which would have drastically increased our war footing. Trump is just trying to actually end the wars we are already in, instead of having them endlessly go on.....

...Except this thread right here and Trump's quotes directly contradict that.

[Skroe]

Unfortunately, you are very correct. And that's why I can't grasp of all the countries in the world is the US trying to change the status quo. I don't even blame the Americans, I blame the narcissistic ego-monger mind of Trump.

The US foreign policy and security establishment, which lets be clear, runs the joint, isn't and won't play a role.

The US political establishment - Democrats and Republicans alike - have a kind of bi-partisan consensus (and have for many decades). They have no interest in seeing it changed either.

Americans as a whole, generally speaking, don't know any better. Because of our history, they think of Wars as highly punctated events. You know... 2-4 year conflicts punctuated by peace treaties at the end and a parade. The one exception to that, Vietnam, an entire Generation treated as the worst thing to ever befall the human race for a good while. The Brushfire wars of the past 15 years have been a rude awakening to Americans about how Wars historically have gone for most of the rest of the world, forever - long, protracted, indecisve conflicts that go through hot and cold periods.

The American body politic has long had a very delusional and naive reluctance to its place in the world. I like to say it's perhaps, the biggest humble brag in the world. We lament how we're always entangled in foreign affairs, but at some level, love being the center of the world... exceptional, unequaled. The superpower that slew Nazism and Communism. Of course, we can't have it both ways.

I expect the core of American foreign policy to change little the next 4 years, in no small part because the trends don't really give much leeway to Trump. Hillary, Trump or a Barbie Doll could have been elected President, and the US and Russia would STILL be on a collision course because their interests are diametrically opposed, and unless Russia or the US radically abandons its interests - and they wont - friction is going to continue.

The danger from Trump is weaking of the infrastructure. It took a while for Obama to repair the reckless damage Bush did to the international order, but in some ways he never did (and arguably couldn't), because Bush broke "the trust". If Trump spends the next while running wild over whats left of it, his successors will find themselves inheriting a US with fewer allies and less access.

I think the DoD, Department of State, the CIA, and our allies will work to fence in Trump so that nothing he does has significant lasting repercussions.

[Svad]

He's basically the same as Bush Jr., only Bush had the sense to wait until he was handed a nifty pretext to start his wars. Trump is going to turn the US into even more of a comic book villain.

Lars Løkke and Samuelsen, will bend over for the US and go to war. They will prolly phrase it abit like "Well, we are alrdy in Irak and Syria, so why not continue"

And maybe they think we can get a better deal on the F35 or its just pandering to the new President.

We were in Afghanistan for 7 years or so, and Irak for almost as long, trust me, we will be going to which ever war the US wants us in.

That is unless, DF and S decides its not worth the bother. But Mette F. will without a doubt be Stas minister at the next election, and she wants to look "good" in the eyes of the US, like every Stats Minister has wanted since Nato was formed.

Im just glad my Dad isnt in the Army anymore, and all my friends except 2 ended their contracts a few years back.

[Skroe]

Much like the 1890's and 1900's were the "good days"

Yep. And within a decade the world had to deal with the ongoing aftershocks of the unification of Germany (and its place in Europe), the rise of America and fall of European Empires. In many ways, the "Question of Germany" is still fully unresolved (referring to specifically the type of power Germany will run the EU / role play in Europe), though the "Question of America" largely is.

21st Century Earth faces some big questions, not the least of which:
-How do we deal with a rising China and how does it fit into the international order? What about the balance of power in Eurasia?
-What are the upper and lower bounds of transnationalism and how does it interact with democracy
-The Question of Russia: the Soviet Union fell and in some sense, is still falling. What does the "final form" of Russia look like.
-How will Climate change impact the world order


Theres a bunch more of course. But they're all extremely protracted trends, not punctuated events. With respect to Russia, it took about 200 years for the Western Roman Empire to decline and fall, and it went through several reorganizations. And after it fell, the successor states in the region called themselves Roman, took Roman names and lived under Roman customs, even though the continuity of the imperial institution was gone (and passed to the East). I think with Russia, we'll be seeing something similar.

[Crispin]

Yep. And within a decade the world had to deal with the ongoing aftershocks of the unification of Germany (and its place in Europe), the rise of America and fall of European Empires. In many ways, the "Question of Germany" is still fully unresolved (referring to specifically the type of power Germany will run the EU / role play in Europe), though the "Question of America" largely is.

21st Century Earth faces some big questions, not the least of which:
-How do we deal with a rising China and how does it fit into the international order? What about the balance of power in Eurasia?
-What are the upper and lower bounds of transnationalism and how does it interact with democracy
-The Question of Russia: the Soviet Union fell and in some sense, is still falling. What does the "final form" of Russia look like.
-How will Climate change impact the world order


Theres a bunch more of course. But they're all extremely protracted trends, not punctuated events. With respect to Russia, it took about 200 years for the Western Roman Empire to decline and fall, and it went through several reorganizations. And after it fell, the successor states in the region called themselves Roman, took Roman names and lived under Roman customs, even though the continuity of the imperial institution was gone (and passed to the East). I think with Russia, we'll be seeing something similar.

Watched 2 of our former foreign ministers "one who just finished as president of the un assembly", ponder why on earth the US would take a path of isolationism when China was on the rise, they did find it somewhat ironic that the in Davos, Xi made a vigorous defense of free trade, arguing that “pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room” in the hope of avoiding danger but, in doing so, cutting off all “light and air.”

[Cybran]

-The Question of Russia: the Soviet Union fell and in some sense, is still falling. What does the "final form" of Russia look like.

You have been digging that grave for years now. In the end you will fall into it, like with the Hillary campaign clairvoyance. Hell, Russia got bigger by incorporating CRIMEA.

I'm going to do my best to make it an astonishingly miserable night for the Trumpkins. We're not just gonna twist the knife. We're gonna stab in new knives and twist them too, just to see how much they twist.

I will never get tired of bringing this up.

[Crispin]

You have been digging that grave for years now. In the end you will fall into it, like with the Hillary campaign clairvoyance. Hell, Russia got bigger by incorporating CRIMEA.

Does Bulgaria represent that grave?

[Cybran]

Does Bulgaria represent that grave?

Russia has always been a great friend and partner. I look forward to their greater role in European affairs now that America will be consumed by infighting and racial tensions.

[Berengil]

Yep. And within a decade the world had to deal with the ongoing aftershocks of the unification of Germany (and its place in Europe), the rise of America and fall of European Empires. In many ways, the "Question of Germany" is still fully unresolved (referring to specifically the type of power Germany will run the EU / role play in Europe), though the "Question of America" largely is.

21st Century Earth faces some big questions, not the least of which:
-How do we deal with a rising China and how does it fit into the international order? What about the balance of power in Eurasia?
-What are the upper and lower bounds of transnationalism and how does it interact with democracy
-The Question of Russia: the Soviet Union fell and in some sense, is still falling. What does the "final form" of Russia look like.
-How will Climate change impact the world order


Theres a bunch more of course. But they're all extremely protracted trends, not punctuated events. With respect to Russia, it took about 200 years for the Western Roman Empire to decline and fall, and it went through several reorganizations. And after it fell, the successor states in the region called themselves Roman, took Roman names and lived under Roman customs, even though the continuity of the imperial institution was gone (and passed to the East). I think with Russia, we'll be seeing something similar.

Without getting into nation-bashing, what is it about the Russian Empire/USSR/Russian Federation that prevents its people and government from establishing a long-lasting, stable state in Eurasia?

[edspans]

Russia has always been a great friend and partner.

Do you even think about the words you speak?

[Skroe]

You have been digging that grave for years now. In the end you will fall into it, like with the Hillary campaign clairvoyance. Hell, Russia got bigger by incorporating CRIMEA.

Yeah because betting against the US has been a winning one in the history of the world. but sure Cybran. Put your money on it.

Russia's decline is motivating it's policies, including Crimea. But the fact of the matter is "Russia today" is a fraction the size of it's empire 30 years ago, and smaller still the Russian Empire proper. It's been a downward slope. Three re-organizations around the same idea - Russian imperialism - that all reach an ignominious end.

You can bet your life the fourth form of Russia will be even more contracted, modest and less relevant.

I will never get tired of bringing this up.

What do you think I've been doing?

This is arguably worse for them. Not my preferred outcome, but now we get years to do the same deed.