Now I know what the initial reactiom will be denial by some and others agreeing. But my goal today is not to decide if America is no more the strongest power in the world which it still is, but something else.

 The United States after the fall of the Soviet Union, becames the main power in the world and could spread it's reach everywhere on the glove. But since the Iraq war the supremacy of the United States has been brought into question, with China being mostly touted as the alternative and the eventual new king.

But I disagree with all this. China has grown true, but so has Russia from the ashes, but as the old bear it is, most of it's action is from pride and the gains it gets from it's action are costly and phyrric at best. The capture of Crimea forced it to work with OPEC when oil came crashing, and the sanctions have hurt what remains of the economy, turning it into a resource country. The European Union although still fragmented is starting to form cohesion from the threat of the old bear and is some times touted as the alternative to the US as the leader in the Western world.

But knowing all this,  I feel the US is woefully unprepared for the future, and how it plans to guide it's foreign policy. Most still cling to the era of American Military might in the past, but with old wounds from Vietnam and Iraq, and the assertiveness of foreign powers checking their moves, and loss influence in multiple regions in the world, I feel the US might want to play a different game.

A doctrine to mainly check the other super powers once and for all, those who are starting to get bold. My proposal would be the strengthening and development of smaller nation's to replace the US in certain theaters around the world, giving the US the capability to retreat and tend to old wounds and internal discord.

To the Far East, the ASEAN nation's with their islands and their natural tendency to form navies, can be used to check China's expansion and even that China's claim in the South China Sea. In the middle east, allowing Iran and Saudi Arabia to grow and develop their game, and even if they are hostile, the two strong regional powers will be able to keep the Russians and Chinese from expanding South, especially with a strong India in the mix to counter them at the borders. And like always Afghanistan will end up as the buffer state.

In Africa I feel I need more information.

So how do you think of this idea?
But maybe I am just deluding myself, and this topic should be in the flood forum to be ridiculed.

I'm okay with the US becoming isolationist. Why send our tax dollars to state sponsors of terrorism when that money could be better used at home. If other countries have a problem and need our help then they can actually use the UN. We can still be an economic power, but we don't necessarily have to be a militaristic one. Especially when our past meddling has created power vacuums and made a entire region unstable.

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on August 06, 2017, 10:00:13 PM

I really wouldn't mind a return to early 1900's American 'isolationism' in the grand scale of things.
Europe needs to take care of itself. The world can go on living without us. South Korea would be maybe the only ally I'd be hesitant to leave alone though. Israel can go fuck itself ten fold.

Re-re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine and then forget about the world outside of our two continents.

Germany needs a strong leader.

Merkel's doing pretty fine centralizing and federalizing Europe in the direction she wants to take it.
Now weather or not that's good and if the EU should exist the way it does today is an entirely different discussion,  but I wouldn't call Merkel a weak leader at all for the same reasons risay posted.

I guess to be a strong leader you need to shout constantly and get attention.

Trump wouldn't have been elected if he had been a yes man.

Quote from: Luciana on August 07, 2017, 10:25:10 AM

I guess to be a strong leader you need to shout constantly and get attention.

Trump wouldn't have been elected if he had been a yes man.

Trump won because Americans are deluded on what they want. Because they had a choice of which hell they wanted. The fanatics in the Repbulican caucus forced one to represent all and all supported him, not because they support him but because he is the party he represent needs to win for them to push their ideals.

The Democratic caucus was also confused. Trump may come out and do a couple sane things. But being diplomatic is more politically cheap than being a strong man where you make more enemies than friends. And what have we learnt when you make more enemies than friends. Your policies can  be blocked by those you insulted when you needed them most. McCain and the like betraying you when you need them.

If anything, the US election system needs a third party to come out of it to challenge the two establishment. People wanted someone anti-establishkent and all they are getting are establishment. A third party is the only hope not the existing two.

For everyone saying Obama is a yes man, should know that Obama said no alot but also tried to be diplomatic. But we know what that got us, the party of No. Which cannot figure out what it wants to do other than scream and whine. No plans or anything. What does Trump do as well whine but never offer any comprehensive plans. If something does not work instead trying he jumps on to something else giving up. Alot of hot air for nothing. If the tax reforms fail, then we will know that Trump will be the strongest looking president to accomplish nothing.  Either he gains humility and get his shit together and stop passing the blame to others or carry on floundering around like an idiot.

If he cannot follow through he should shut up, because all he is doing is showing the world he is full of hot air but no substance. And a really predictable idiot. The Chinese figured it out and were able to delay the US until North Korea acquired ICBM tech. And now what card can the US play nothing. Trump talks about military action but everyone knows he won't do it. And now with nuclear tech and future missile tech being improved on expect North Korea to switch their message and start watching sanctions be dropped in the coming decade.

If you disagree with me see how it occurred in India and China, and Iran as well for a matter of fact.  The only card the US can play to convince China to end their nuclear program once and for all is to remove their THAAD anti-missile launchers from Korea and to forfeit the South China Sea to China. A bigger slap in the face than anything that exists.

Oh wait what was that the US are now talking about opening dialogue with North Korea, where is the tough man now? Desperation setting in for another defeat.
"U.S. can talk to North Korea if it halts tests: Tillerson" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN1AN054

And where is that announcement he was going to make about looking over China trade deal and placing tariffs on it? He was supposed to announce it two weeks ago, but for some reason it was delayed.

If the Chinese can predict and play him like a fiddle who else can.

Honestly I am okay with him doing some reform on legal immigration but he better be careful cause his plan is going to be torn assunder by the agriculture lobby, construction lobby who he is deeply involved in and he relies on heavily, who love the cheap migrant workers. They are going to create loopholes that will keep bringing in migrant workers who will turn illegal after their Visa expires. But we know nothing will happen to the emoloyers, who will keep hiring them once they become illegal, just the illegals are going to be prosecuted and deported. While the businesses keep hiring them, and creating a demand for illegal workers.

And do not start about prosecuting these businesses, a bunch of states tried and gave up and now don't even want to deal with this issue of immigration, they will talk but do little, as doing something substantive hurt their economies and their tax income.

There is already calls for revision that will remove alot of the teeth in these policies and make useless.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_HB_56

Not to disregard the rest of your post, but Obama certainly wasn't diplomatic (I think you mean 'bipartisan'), and that stubbornness is directly responsible for quite a few major issues such as our involvement in Syria, the temporary collapse of Iraq, and the dumpster fire of policy that is the ACA. Obama is right that Americans' hate towards him led to Trump's presidency, but it's not because he's black: it's because he was just an awful president in many regards.

Syria is a weird place, yes America got involved with it, but it was also a task Obama tried his best to avoid after Libya while major factions in his administration which include Clinton we're pushing it and taking action to speed it up. If anything I would have said Obama should have ignored the Clinton and other war Hawks and stayed out of Syria only to look into getting involved on the humanitarian side of things.

Libya was weird as it was the French that dived in first pulling everyone in and then passing the reigns to the US. But it was also Obama's fault for going in thinking no boots on the ground would be okay. Only to find out it was a bad idea all along.

Iraq's failure is more to Obama initial attempt to leave, problem was the Iraqi government created a situation hostile enough for the Sunni to jump to the ISIS ranks when the opportunity arrived. No president could fix that issue, unless they stayed which would have been a bigger toll on the US. If anything I am okay with this because it made Iraq realise the situation they were in and how they could not malign their Sunni brethren anymore. Something that Sadr has made a point of. It may in a sense build a sense of nationalism identity.

If anything Obama avoided going troops heavy even betraying his red line, though succeeding in getting Syria to forfeit it's chemical weapons. With Iran he was able to diplomaticly halt the nuclear arms program though not the missile program, honestly a better option than having a second North Korea on our hands. But Obama did not do enough he should have taken a hard stance of staying out of there and not helping groups with ties to Al-Qaeda, but there is only so much you can do when your intelligence community are doing their own things under your nose.

The ACA was a dumpster fire in certain sense, but the biggest reason was trying to appeal to Republicans. The Republicans would never accept a proposal even if it was friendly to them. I mean the ACA is basically a republican health bill that they themselves pushed and supported before Obama came to power. Romney himself implemented it in his state and Obama was going to do the same. But because it was Obama they would not accept it. I mean the ACA in many ways is a Republican policy, but the only reasoning of it not being accepted by Republicans is that it was proposed by Obama.

The economy was also steered under him from the 2008 recession to the growth it is having now. He left Trump with an under 5% unemployment, with the stock markets hitting new highs that it has not reached in history. All Trump has to do now is not mess with it and it will keep chugging along happily. If he leaves the US under another recession then it will be the biggest blunder I have seen in ages.

I will disagree on him being an awful president, compared to others he did great, Bush, Carter, Nixon there are many that did worse than him. The TPP would have been a nail in the coffin in China's expansion in the East, but we know what happened to that, a few political points win which sacrificed strategic superiority in the economic sense.

People voted for Trump because some hated him, but many hated Clinton, and wanted an outsider. Trump seemed like it but like others he is just another establishment candidate. Only hope for anti-establishment is a third party.

Question: Does the US have national interests anymore? When we deem something a national interest, is it for the nation or for the corporations housed within the nation?

Time to invade another third world nation to get the ol' big stick a whack.

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on August 06, 2017, 10:00:13 PM

Re-re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine and then forget about the world outside of our two continents.

Good job.

ISIS now owns all the oilfields and has strangled the U.S. energy supply.

ISIS is at a point where it's doomed regardleds.
But, if that happened, cool. Re-open the american shores for drilling and don't blockade venezualian tankers. We need to cut our reliance on raghead oil anyway.

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on August 11, 2017, 09:50:54 AM

Quote from: i cum in peace on August 11, 2017, 09:32:25 AM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on August 06, 2017, 10:00:13 PM

Re-re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine and then forget about the world outside of our two continents.

Good job.

ISIS now owns all the oilfields and has strangled the U.S. energy supply.

ISIS is at a point where it's doomed regardleds.
But, if that happened, cool. Re-open the american shores for drilling and don't blockade venezualian tankers. We need to cut our reliance on raghead oil anyway.

If Trump won't finish Isis, Russia will. 90% of warfare is information nowadays and citizens can help Trump drain the swamp in Washington.

Trump isn't interested in draining any swamp you fuckstain, he's just displacing the old obama era blood with new jewish blood.