Think of it the other way around

[MorkandMindy]

When it is too difficult to understand something it might be helpful to reverse the situation

Suppose the US was too violent, it has 5 times the murder rate of England for example, so some huge peacekeeping force moved in,

did 'shock and awe' to New York and Washington, and later when four of the mercenary peacekeepers were found dead outside Princeton, destroyed Princeton with artillery fire.

Do you think you would care more about the sexual inclinations of the leader of the huge peacekeeping force, or about what they actually did?


This might help with understanding how many in the rest of the World see things.

 

[Nithavela]

What.

 

[MorkandMindy]

When it is too difficult to understand something it might be helpful to reverse the situation

Suppose the US was too violent, it has 5 times the murder rate of England for example, so some huge peacekeeping force moved in,

did 'shock and awe' to New York and Washington, and later when four of the mercenary peacekeepers were found dead outside Princeton, destroyed Princeton with artillery fire.
...

What.

The US was unable to think of any good reason to invade Iraq, any connection with 911 was impossible because 911 was done by Wahhabi Muslims and Iraq is part Sunni and part Shiite, WMD was facile and we never even worked out what kind of WMD we were talking about.

Remote controlled drones? Sure, convert a fighter plane to fly 5,000 miles and then send if off over several NATO countries and across the Atlantic and keep control of it the whole way. Aluminum tubes, every chemistry teacher knows there are very very few materials that can be used to centrifuge enrich uranium and aluminum is definitely not one of them.

None of the reasons worked so we invaded anyway, with Hillary Clinton arguing the case so very well.


How did they feel about it? Did we win their 'hearts and minds'?

Well how would we feel if they 'shock and awe' d our capital?

 

[Jack of Spades]

This might help with understanding how many in the rest of the World see things.

Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, after decades of American effort to build it's global dominance, and having achieved that position, if the US was now to pull completely out of the world scene to mind it's own business, as Trump-team seems to want, that would create an unprecedented power-vacuum in many places in the world. Chances are that the consequences of that would be far more catasthropic than any single war US can get involved in, as long as the said war doesn't escalate very badly.

Think of US pulling it's forces out of Iraq, and the subsequent ISIS takeover in the northern parts of the country, and time that by a factor of 600 and you get the picture what is worrying about Trumpist anti-Nato isolationism.

The first, most predictable things that would happen in case of Trumpian US pull-out from the world scene would likely be Russia invading couple of eastern European countries (Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia and Finland for starters), China invading Taiwan, Serbia invading Kosovo.

 

[Nithavela]

Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, after decades of American effort to build it's global dominance, and having achieved that position, if the US was now to pull completely out of the world scene to mind it's own business, as Trump-team seems to want, that would create an unprecedented power-vacuum in many places of the world. Chances are that the consequences of that would be far more catasthropic than any single war US can get involved in, as long as the said war doesn't escalate very badly.

Think of US pulling it's forces out of Iraq, and the subsequent ISIS takeover in the northern parts of the country, and time that by a factor of 600 and you get the picture what is worrying about Trumpist anti-Nato isolationism.

The first, most predictable things that would happen in case of Trumpian US pull-out from the world scene would likely be Russia invading couple of eastern European countries (Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia and Finland for starters), China invading Taiwan, Serbia invading Kosovo.

I doubt it would be any invasions per se, but Russia would definitely build up the pressure and gain loads of concessions.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I doubt it would be any invasions per se, but Russia would definitely build up the pressure and gain loads of concessions.

Straight out invasions are now out of fashion, but that's largely because they're politically so risky. If the political risk (namely, antagonizing the big player in the game, US) was taken away, I'm sure there would be a revival of old fashion panzer blitzkriegs.

 

[variant]

Straight out invasions are now out of fashion, but that's largely because they're politically so risky. If the political risk (namely, antagonizing the big player in the game, US) was taken away, I'm sure there would be a revival of old fashion panzer blitzkriegs.

Russia has already dipped it's toe in the water, and clearly wants a Trump presidency.

China has already dipped it's toe in the water and is benefiting greatly from the Philippine Trump.

If we wish to withdrawal from our role in the world it would be best to do it slowly and have some friendly allies to take over the position instead.

 

[Jack of Spades]

If we wish to withdrawal from our role int he world it would be best to do it slowly and have some friendly allies to take over the position instead.

Sure, if Americans want out of Nato, that's their call. And to be honest, I can totally understand if American taxpayers are fed up with defending so many countries other than their own.

Especially Europeans are undeniably taking American role in their protection for granted in far too many ways. It's a shame for Europeans.

But, if the argument is "for the good of the rest of the world", as it was here, there is the power vacuum factor. But, only thing I expect to come from this discussion is a new ideological position called "Power vacuum denialism." Would fit in the picture.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The US is losing power in South America, not sure ISIS has moved into the 'power vacuum' there.

The US has expanded, not very successfully, control in the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia / ISIS / Al Qaeda / ISIL has moved into each country where the government has been destroyed. I'm not sure if that was the plan but that is what has happened repeatedly.

The Russians would very much like to eradicate those Wahhabi militants who are not all that far from their borders but the US has been obstructing them, again you have to guess at the reason.

 

[Jack of Spades]

The US is losing power in South America, not sure ISIS has moved into the 'power vacuum' there.

I am not very familiar with that corner of the world, so I have to ask, did US have a significant military presence in South America, and then suddenly pulled it away? Or was the process more natural, slow-motion losing of influence there?

US does have military presence in Asia and Europe and is in a some sort of military alliance with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and European Nato-countries, to name a few commitments. Pulling out from those corners of the world would certainly leave a power vacuum, especially if the process is very fast.

The Russians would very much like to eradicate those Wahhabi militants who are not all that far from their borders but the US has been obstructing them, again you have to guess at the reason.

I think Russian interests go a bit further than just eradicating terrorists. It's just the internationally accepted excuse for interventions nowadays, so obviously Putin uses it.

Far more convincing view on what they're doing, is that Russia is on a path of trying to restore the position that Soviet Union had in the world stage. Which is imo, a bit unrealistic plan in current circumstances, Russia's conventional power is just a shadow of that of Soviet power at it's strongest.