Not even a week in power

[Draco-Onis]

Wrong on several counts: Brexit, while resource consuming, is unlikely to have a negative impact on British military capability, either regionally or globally. Indeed in the long run one could see a strengthening of hard power. Moreover, it's because the UK will leave the EU that it will have to look further abroad that it may have to return to a more active role in helping to guarantee international security. It will, after all, be more dependent on trade from further abroad.

On the contrary it is you who is underestimating the impact of Brexit, a possible Scottish exit or the EU collapsing altogether. while these events have no effect on the military it means your leaders will not have the political will or the backing to engage in any potential conflicts. That is not even going into the fact that the people in the region will be backing China thanks to their new trade deals and soft power policies, countries have been falling over each other to sign since Trump got elected.

Secondly, China's hard and soft power, while considerable, does not match American power. While it's true Trump has signaled the end for all or nearly all multilateral trade deals, his team has spoken in favour of bilateral deals. These could be used as sweetheart deals to keep certain strategically important players onside.

Not to mention that there's more to international diplomacy than mere trade.

America wants to take their toys and go home, his team was in favor of TPP including his secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Trump's rhetoric even the speech recently mean that most deals which involve compromise, sweetheart deals in US politics are now toxic. Trump has been very consistent about that, also he truly madly deeply loves Russia which gains as much as China in this. The question is how long will Japan last in this environment they are not capable of resisting China economically or militarily.

[omfgreally]

The peace candidate.

wasn't that Obama's title, even tho he bombed more arab wedding with drone strikes than anyone before him?

- - - Updated - - -

the pees candidate

WOW just like CNN you ran with that one, Fake news amirite?

[omfgreally]

Wars with Mexico. Really?

yeah, wow. The good part of their government can't even kill a few gangs.

[Flarelaine]

Brexit, while resource consuming, is unlikely to have a negative impact on British military capability, either regionally or globally. Indeed in the long run one could see a strengthening of hard power. Moreover, it's because the UK will leave the EU that it will have to look further abroad that it may have to return to a more active role in helping to guarantee international security.

They would have to build their navy into something credible for that. Otherwise you're not half wrong.

[Mayhem]

yeah, wow. The good part of their government can't even kill a few gangs.

Uhm the US isn´t known for being gang-free.

[Spectral]

Trump's in charge. He won the election. He has to stand or fall on his own merit. No more deflecting each and every time someone criticizes him.

While my inclination is to broadly agree, I think you can plan on the standard routine of, "blame the guy that was last in power from the other party". I still recall W's backers claiming that the giant deficits his policies caused with a Clinton legacy

[Dextroden]

While my inclination is to broadly agree, I think you can plan on the standard routine of, "blame the guy that was last in power from the other party". I still recall W's backers claiming that the giant deficits his policies caused with a Clinton legacy

I do recall how we went from wanting out of the Middle East to more interventions and arms selling going from Bush to Obama. Same with TPP. TPP was bad (Sanders and eventually Clinton go against it) until Trump decided it needed to go.

[Allybeboba]

Uhm the US isn´t known for being gang-free.

No country is.

[Shadovari]

Just to give you an idea of the area that is being discussed. This region is one of the largest, if not the largest trade route in the world. The amount of trade that passes through it is calculated in the trillions of dollars a year. A lot of energy reserves have been found in the region, too. This is why the Spratly Islands are in so much dispute.

[Deleted]

Is that why he´s hinting at another iraq invasion?

To establish the peace; to bring order to chaos.

[Tinykong]

The peace candidate.

Hey now, that's real hair.

[TITAN308]

If only it were true...

Finally an executive order that would cross all political boundaries and surely get nearly unanimous support.

[Mad_Murdock]

If only it were true...

Finally an executive order that would cross all political boundaries and surely get nearly unanimous support.

OK, I know I'm a horrible person for laughing. But that was funny.

[Rasulis]

If only we had a competent president to guide us through this conflict.

Edit: Also, while Trump isn't the right person to guide us through this, I do think this conflict is necessary. We can't just let them build islands and belligerently throw their weight around when they're trying to control international waters.

Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia also have bases on Spratly Islands. China just have the biggest.

[Deleted]

Yes, a region where a lot of people lived is the same as artificial islands

You missed the point, of course, but that's fine.

[Adolecent]

The peace candidate.

It's Hillary's fault!

[Cruor]

You guys don't seem to understand that a war doesn't have to mean WW3 and nukes flying everywhere. We can simply obliterate the Chinese navy, push them back to thier shores and that's it. USA: 10 Super Carriers. China: 1 hand me down from Russia. Its no contest.

After that, its up to China.

1) Sit in their country and be at "war" with us, like North Korea has been with South Korea for 64 years.

2) Get smart and sign a treaty on USA terms.

3) Use nukes, in which case we have more, and more accurate nukes, more heavy bombers, and better stealth systems. We would win that, and THEY would be the bad guys for initiating a nuke war.

We don't have to invade them to show them whats up, sinking their navy in front of the whole world will be enough.

[cubby]

More like the pees candidate, amirite?

Wasn't it the cheeto candidate?

[Thepersona]

You guys don't seem to understand that a war doesn't have to mean WW3 and nukes flying everywhere. We can simply obliterate the Chinese navy, push them back to thier shores and that's it. USA: 10 Super Carriers. China: 1 hand me down from Russia. Its no contest.

After that, its up to China.

1) Sit in their country and be at "war" with us, like North Korea has been with South Korea for 64 years.

2) Get smart and sign a treaty on USA terms.

3) Use nukes, in which case we have more, and more accurate nukes, more heavy bombers, and better stealth systems. We would win that, and THEY would be the bad guys for initiating a nuke war.

We don't have to invade them to show them whats up, sinking their navy in front of the whole world will be enough.

Awww these keyboard warriors/chickenhawks amuse me.

[Wyrt]

You guys don't seem to understand that a war doesn't have to mean WW3 and nukes flying everywhere. We can simply obliterate the Chinese navy, push them back to thier shores and that's it. USA: 10 Super Carriers. China: 1 hand me down from Russia. Its no contest.

After that, its up to China.

1) Sit in their country and be at "war" with us, like North Korea has been with South Korea for 64 years.

2) Get smart and sign a treaty on USA terms.

3) Use nukes, in which case we have more, and more accurate nukes, more heavy bombers, and better stealth systems. We would win that, and THEY would be the bad guys for initiating a nuke war.

We don't have to invade them to show them whats up, sinking their navy in front of the whole world will be enough.

The more things I hear like the this the more it sounds like the US is the bad guy.