The Next President is...

[FourFans]

20 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is the entire foundation of geopolitics today. 

 

The [long-standing system] is broken so let's get rid of it.

You can't say that about [long-standing system]!  Sure it needs some adjustments to work again but it's vital to global stability.

Ok fine, if we're going to keep it then let's make those adjustments to fix it.

No. It will take years to make these changes.

Fine, then we're cancelling [lopsided trade arrangement that favors an ally at the expense of America].

Wait no, we're fixing it right now! See?! Why are you punishing us by trading with our country the way we've traded with you for decades?!

...and that analysis is the standard by which second and third order effects are ignored.  One small example: What happens with our relationship with Japan, S Korea, or the Philippines if we walk away from NATO?  Will they willingly lay it down for us against China if they know we've become transactional with our loyalty?  If we aren't loyal to our promises, what possible incentive do they have to oppose Chinese expansion?

[Boomer6]

13 minutes ago, FourFans said:

...and that analysis is the standard by which second and third order effects are ignored.  One small example: What happens with our relationship with Japan, S Korea, or the Philippines if we walk away from NATO?  Will they willingly lay it down for us against China if they know we've become transactional with our loyalty?  If we aren't loyal to our promises, what possible incentive do they have to oppose Chinese expansion?

The Philippines and Japan don't really have any options in that regard. We're the only power in the region capable of pushing back on china's claims in the SCS, which violate their sovereignty. Their sovereignty rights are THE incentive to opposing chinese expansion, and they can't do that without us. Korea is in the same boat, but moreso with nK. Their options are to either rely on US, and our nuclear umbrella, or start building nukes themselves to defend against Kim.

[disgruntledemployee]

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

The Philippines and Japan don't really have any options in that regard. We're the only power in the region capable of pushing back on china's claims in the SCS, which violate their sovereignty. Their sovereignty rights are THE incentive to opposing chinese expansion, and they can't do that without us. Korea is in the same boat, but moreso with nK. Their options are to either rely on US, and our nuclear umbrella, or start building nukes themselves to defend against Kim.

So fuck em?  They'll come begging to us?  Sounds like an abusive relationship.  Are you saying we're Ike?

[Boomer6]

9 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

So fuck em?  They'll come begging to us?  Sounds like an abusive relationship.  Are you saying we're Ike?

Nope. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. I don't see the US walking away from the US-Japan Security Treaty, especially because we don't want them developing nukes to deter china. I think the point others are alluding to is NATO has the appearance of an abusive relationship, and we're the ones getting abused.

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, FourFans said:

...and that analysis is the standard by which second and third order effects are ignored.  One small example: What happens with our relationship with Japan, S Korea, or the Philippines if we walk away from NATO?  Will they willingly lay it down for us against China if they know we've become transactional with our loyalty?  If we aren't loyal to our promises, what possible incentive do they have to oppose Chinese expansion?

Walk away? Why type of high school romance analysis is this? 

No, they are not going to willingly "lay it down" against China. They are going to send what they have, where we tell them to send it because they know without us they are nothing more than Chinese vacation destinations. And I bet the Japanese have no interest in finding out how much the Chinese remember about their treatment during WWII.

And where does this NATO loyalty come from? As soon as the threat from Russia fell with the Berlin Wall, Western Europe allowed their militaries to crumble into dust, finally free to spend that money on social programs and solar panels. NATO is a joke, and it exists for one reason. We saved them from Russia (and freed the rest of them), and they know we are the only thing preventing it from happening again. So in exchange for our blanket of strength, they had to pull their weight (a whopping 2%). Of course future American liberal politicians found orgasmic elation from the fantasy that we had finally defeated human nature once and for all and "ended history," so they were only too happy to look the other way while the European military capability evaporated. Now Russia is reminding everyone just how scary a few hundred thousand soldiers on your border can be, even if they lack any semblance of training or modern equipment, and suddenly the Euros have a newfound appreciation for NATO. Cute. 

You have to be delusional (and I know you aren't) if you think any of these countries are going to raise a single pistol against China unless they think it's the only way to maintain their sovereignty and get the Americans into the fight. The Germans sacrificed their entire energy industry for cheap Russian gas, just wait until we find out how dependent these countries are on the Chinese when the time comes to "lay it down."

3 hours ago, FourFans said:

if they know we've become transactional with our loyalty

Our loyalty has always been transactional. Welcome to democracy. Thomas Jefferson learned it the hard way less than 10 years after he helped create this country. Many others have learned it since. 

56 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

I think the point others are alluding to is NATO has the appearance of an abusive relationship, and we're the ones getting abused.

Exactly. NATO only has value if the members are capable of military projection. And if you've ever negotiated anything, you should know that your have no leverage if you aren't willing to walk away. 

[busdriver]

35 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

NATO only has value if the members are capable of military projection.

Not entirely.  It keeps them from developing nukes.

[BFM this]

6 hours ago, FourFans said:

...and that analysis is the standard by which second and third order effects are ignored.  One small example: What happens with our relationship with Japan, S Korea, or the Philippines if we walk away from NATO?  Will they willingly lay it down for us against China if they know we've become transactional with our loyalty?  If we aren't loyal to our promises, what possible incentive do they have to oppose Chinese expansion?

Apples to Oranges.

Japan, RoK, and PI all put in effort and resources within their capability, in contrast with most of NATO.

[Clark Griswold]

Get’em Bernie

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/01/02/sen-bernie-sanders-elon-musk-is-wrong-on-h-1b-middle-class-outsourcing/

Combine old school class n income thinking lefties with ‘Merica lovin patriots and destroy the globalist oligarch tech bros

[FourFans]

I find it interesting how few people recognize the asian situation from the asian perspective.  Japan, Korea, the PI, Thailand, Vietnam ALL have a LOT more options than US or no US.  They can just as easily comply and submit to the Chinese by way of not interfering with Chinese expansion.  For an extreme example: Imagine what would happen if Japan decided that the US can't use offensive forces from Okinawa anymore.  Yes, that's an extreme example that IMO will NOT happen, but options like that do exist for all these countries. 

Consider what would happen if the PI came to  it's own agreement with the Chinese where they simply refuse US basing rights in particular places for mild territory concessions by China.  All these countries have their own agendas, and they all view 'sovereignty' in a very different way than we do.  The list of these kinds of 'what ifs' is endless.

In general, if they observe the US taking steps away from treaties, agreements or promises made in other places, their confidence in our will to come to their aid could degrade, driving them to seek other options to secure their own interests.  It's very dynamic and every single one of these countries has their own interest in mind, and being allied with the US is far from being a catch-all solution from their perspective.

[ClearedHot]

27 minutes ago, FourFans said:

I find it interesting how few people recognize the asian situation from the asian perspective. 

I find it interesting how few people recognize the Chinese situation from the Chinese perspective. 

All too many folks think the Chinese are acting like expansionist trying to conquer the world starting with Taiwan.  While they do want to be a great power and their actions in Africa, South and Central America are more expansionist, when it comes to Taiwan they a completely different motivation and one you might actually agree with if we put it in U.S. terms.

Imagine if there was a big civil war in the united states and you kicked the other side's ass and chased them all the way to California.  With the help of another peer nation the surviving army got on boats and airplanes and took over Hawaii.  Would we view Hawaii as anything other than U.S. territory?  Would we be upset if the peer nation signed a defense of Hawaii pact with the invaders?  In simple terms that is what happened and why they want Taiwan back.

[SurelySerious]

I find it interesting how few people recognize the Chinese situation from the Chinese perspective. 
All too many folks think the Chinese are acting like expansionist trying to conquer the world starting with Taiwan.  While they do want to be a great power and their actions in Africa, South and Central America are more expansionist, when it comes to Taiwan they a completely different motivation and one you might actually agree with if we put it in U.S. terms.
Imagine if there was a big civil war in the united states and you kicked the other side's ass and chased them all the way to California.  With the help of another peer nation the surviving army got on boats and airplanes and took over Hawaii.  Would we view Hawaii as anything other than U.S. territory?  Would we be upset if the peer nation signed a defense of Hawaii pact with the invaders?  In simple terms that is what happened and why they want Taiwan back.

Don’t forget about the global chip foundries and economic gains they can’t control because it isn’t theirs.

I fully understand the argument you presented, but because I’m an American asshole I think Taiwan is a hilarious highlight to the PRC’s second tier global status. They are trying the Japan 1940 playbook to expand their exclusive economic clout…but don’t even have a handle 100 miles off their own coast. Makes me happy.

I’m sure it will come back at us at some point unless we significantly change course to maintain our global status, but at least I am amused for now.

[ViperMan]

53 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I find it interesting how few people recognize the Chinese situation from the Chinese perspective. 

All too many folks think the Chinese are acting like expansionist trying to conquer the world starting with Taiwan.  While they do want to be a great power and their actions in Africa, South and Central America are more expansionist, when it comes to Taiwan they a completely different motivation and one you might actually agree with if we put it in U.S. terms.

Imagine if there was a big civil war in the united states and you kicked the other side's ass and chased them all the way to California.  With the help of another peer nation the surviving army got on boats and airplanes and took over Hawaii.  Would we view Hawaii as anything other than U.S. territory?  Would we be upset if the peer nation signed a defense of Hawaii pact with the invaders?  In simple terms that is what happened and why they want Taiwan back.

Soviet perspective. I think you meant to say Soviet perspective.

Let's "re-imagine" that civil war being fomented, enabled, and supported by a neighboring superpower with a Communist ideology. Beginning in the early 1900s, with the help and assistance of that greater superpower, they begin undermining your democratic / nationalist / republican movement whilst simultaneously taking advantage of the chaos imparted by the second world war and a maniacal enemy that was running roughshod over your territory for the last 10 years. Now, "imagine" losing that war to said forces.

This is not nearly as simple as you imagine it or as simple as your analogy presents it.

You can argue that the US and USSR should have stayed out. Neither of us did. In the end, this is still about what it has always been about: opposing Communism and authoritarians.

[Clark Griswold]

I find it interesting how few people recognize the Chinese situation from the Chinese perspective. 
All too many folks think the Chinese are acting like expansionist trying to conquer the world starting with Taiwan.  While they do want to be a great power and their actions in Africa, South and Central America are more expansionist, when it comes to Taiwan they a completely different motivation and one you might actually agree with if we put it in U.S. terms.
Imagine if there was a big civil war in the united states and you kicked the other side's ass and chased them all the way to California.  With the help of another peer nation the surviving army got on boats and airplanes and took over Hawaii.  Would we view Hawaii as anything other than U.S. territory?  Would we be upset if the peer nation signed a defense of Hawaii pact with the invaders?  In simple terms that is what happened and why they want Taiwan back.

You have a point well but over 70 years has past since the end of the Chinese Civil War, they have defended their island and they have established their national and cultural identity separate from the authoritarian power on the mainland

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This will suck when it eventually goes kinetic, we will be attacked physically on our homeland by them and we will be significantly poorer even if we win initially, they will come back for a round two if that happens but the price is worse if we do nothing
Computer chips, sovereign debt… whatever, it is who leads this planet that is going to be determined by a conflict over Taiwan
We can pretend it’s not, we can say even if we lose a war over it we will still prevail but I don’t think so. Vietnam, Afghanistan were not the same animal as this would be overt direct confrontation with our rival.
If we fight and we lose Taiwan (by we I mean the fractious coalition that is the Free World) then the Islamic world, the Global South and others will cut deals with the PRC to their liking
Like it or not we have to be able to win and to recognize yes we are sticking our nose around the world in a dispute that a point can be made we shouldn’t but there is time when we should, the distinction between those is not always clear like art vs pornography but you know when you see it
This is one of those times


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

In other news…the shenanigans of electing a Speaker seems to be over (and was much less of a debacle compared to last year), so it seems everything is in order for Trump to be certified.  And Merchan plans on sentencing Trump next week, but has already said it (probably) won’t be prison.

“Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.”

And once again the progressives actually thought they had Trump where they wanted him…

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-judge-sets-trump-sentencing-days-before-inauguration

[arg]

Thought this was the Babylon Bee.

 

[tac airlifter]

It’s official: Biden is the worst POTUS in our nations history.

[SurelySerious]

It’s official: Biden is the worst POTUS in our nations history.

You’re right, he’s not left or corrupt enough! Where’s Bernie to save the left?