The Circus rolls on:
1 Like
Some else thinks Xi’s idea of extending his tenure beyond two terms is a good idea:
Maybe you can look forward to a “President for Life” Trump.
Perennial chaos and early morning tweets for ever??
Even commercials in Norway is promoting world peace and friendship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqc8RURjPss
It may already be working:
Bloomberg don’t find Xi jinping’s rise surprising or disturbing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-05/the-rise-of-china-s-xi-jinping-shouldn-t-have-been-a-shock
The joke was not a joke.
How such summit will pan out depends on how well the Koreans manage to flatter him:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-09/north-korea-summit-failure-would-hurt-trump-more-than-kim
Which is all the more reason those of us against the globalist agenda should be wary of it.
I’m not sure what makes you think China is going to be this benevolent superpower that is going to make and execute policy to make the world a better place. China does things for one thing and one thing only… The long term best interest of China.
I applaud Trump for trying to reverse decades of policies from both parties that have weakened our country socially, financially, and militarily but I’m afraid the DC swamp might be too wide and too deep for one man to drain… Time will tell
From CNN… Not quite as globalist as Bloomberg, but on your spectrum:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/asia/djibouti-port-china-us-intl/index.html
"Speaking to CNN, Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Sydney… “The more you invest in the Belt and Road initiative, the more the Chinese are in a position to force your country to align politically in terms of policy,” Davis told CNN, referring to the China’s ambitious One Belt One Road (OBOR) international development strategy.
“So you become dependent on their investment and their largesse, and you’re less likely to be critical of them and you’re more likely to accommodate their interests strategically.”
THAT’S what the future with China leading the way looks like
1 Like
And why those of us that believe in a better world for all are wary of nationalists.
You mean to imply that US is still a benevolent superpower when it tries to dismantle everything that has been accomplished in the last 70 years just to stay as the the world hegemon?
The Belt and Road initiative will of course benefit China, but also all the countries that signs up to it.
China is only interested in having control of it’s own destiny and security, which means having a strong military to defend against aggression by any foreign power and protect trade routes for their raw materials.
That involves controlling the air and sea territory within the “first island chain” (South and East China Seas) They already have the means to be able to detect and destroy any threatening naval fleet that enter the limit of the “second island chain”. (Guam, Marianas, Micronesia)
The best interest of China is a peaceful world and free trade to secure access to raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods. They do not accept or need anybody to tell them what to do, or how to do it, however.
I’m sure you do, but do you see how the present regime is systematically weakening your position in the world?
Military might doesn’t count for much, unless you are ready to unleash MAD.
How do you fight terrorists who are hell bent on going to paradise and collect their 72 virgins (or grapes, depending on the translation) with Naval fleets and conventional armies organized to fight set piece wars of the last century?
That time is over. The “War on terror” can only be won by persuading them that there are a future for them and the generations to follow. Has anybody been persuaded by bombs, bans and threats?
This is really the nexus of our differences right here… What you’re calling accomplishments have come at the expense of the everything that made our country great.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not China’s fault… It’s the fault of the American politicians who sold their own country down the road and the American people for not voting in those who would put the country first. Short of a wave of congressmen and senators that share the MAGA mantra, the point of no return has been passed.
As far as this goes, a good first step is to not let them into your country in the first place. Every single one of the 9/11 hijackers entered into the US legally… But of course we can’t implement any kind of policies to this effect due to it would be racist…smh.
Alternatively, we can adopt your policy of “let them in and smother them with love to convince them of the error of their ways”… How’s that working out for Germany and Sweden… And now even Awesome Norway seems to be starring to reject this madness as well.
I always thought this guy… errr… person was the face of this movement:
But you seem to embody it to an even higher level.
1 Like
I find it disingenuous for anyone in the USA to weigh in on how Europe should handle their mass influx of immigrants in recent years when it was the USA that stirred up the hornets nest in the middle east that caused much of the refugee and immigrant crisis. It would be understandable if Europeans demanded some compensation from the USA for the shit storm they caused in Europe’s backyard.
1 Like
If course it’s how it works… Examples of what I’m talking about: in the 80’s when the Philippines and Panama kicked us out after we had invested billions of dollars in our bases and the Panama canal respectively, we left without incident. Simply walked away from our huge investment of time, money, and (in the case of the Philippines especially) American lives.
Think China will react the same if the newly elected leader of bumfukistan says "thanks for the billions of investment, but we’ve got it from here’. If you do then I think it’s you who’s sorely mistaken or hopelessly naive.
1 Like
My comment wasn’t how they should do it rather to observe how they (Germany and Sweden specifically) ARE doing it and what an unmitigated disaster it has been for the native population.
The US went into the middle East alone? There was no UN team effort there? There weren’t British, German, and other member state’s armed forces there? Are you being intentionally disingenuous?
This statement of yours that we owe poor Europeans anything is laughable after how many BILLIONS we’ve poured into there in the last 70 years (part of the"accomplishments" bugge referred to). This mindset is right out of the “good times make weak men” playbook and is representative of what needs to change in this once great country of ours.
Every single one of the school shooters has also been legally in USA. In fact they have all been white American males, as are most of the other mass shooters in USA, as is most of the 30000 deaths caused by guns every year in USA.
Your phobia against foreigner is shining through. Maybe not to antagonize them with bigotry and racism would be better than to prove them right in their perception that all their problems are caused by the west?
Do you think that Germany, Sweden, Norway and the rest of Europe have problems with their migrants, refugees and asylum seekers? Are you implying that they are committing crimes and killing people en masse?
The facts doesn’t bear this out. Yes, there have been killings carried out in the name of Islam, but most by people born in Europe that has been radicalized by the way they are treated as second class citizens because of their race and religion. (perceived or otherwise)
Looks like an American to me. You sure this picture wasn’t taken in S.F.??
That just add one more phobia to the long list you suffer from.
And your status as the absolute poster child of a white guilt, cucked, globalist puppet to the left wing, pie in the sky agenda is also shining through on this and every other post you make.
Funny you mentioned San Francisco… Perhaps you should try it because you’d certainly fit right in.
Historically? Absolutely! Now you’re just being silly.
The trouble starts when those in power stop using their power. Look at the brutal civilizations of the past. They lost their empires once they went soft. The Mongols, Aztec and Romans, to name a few, didn’t create empires by winning hearts and minds.
1 Like
No white guilt, puppet to the left wing, or with a “pie in the sky” agenda.
If by “globalist” you mean someone who have a global view of things, rather than a narrow minded nationalist view, yes I’m a globalist.
I also see where you come from with your reference to “cucked”:
But no, San Fransisco is not for me, Too many crazies with guns there.
The Mongols, Aztecs and Romans didn’t have bombs, but you are right, they did loose their empires because the got soft and decadent. That is how most empires and great families ends.
As for modern day bombing campaign, they may have scared some, but anger and embolden more. It won a short respite in Iraq, but created a much longer lasting problem, which isn’t over yet.
More bombs were dropped on North Vietnam than in all of WWII, but it did not win the war, or the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese on either side of the DMZ.
How many more wars and millions of people need to die before this simple fact dawn on people in power?
Assad will win in Syria because he is brutal. The United States has lost in Iraq because we were not brutal.
Imagine if the United States had nuked North Korea (or China) back in the 1950s. You think we would have this North Korea problem now?
Imagine if the United States had nuked North Vietnam. You think China or the Soviets would have nuked back?
Hell, imagine if the United States has nuked the Soviets in the 1950s and forced them, or any other country, to abandon the pursuit of nukes. We would be in a unipolar world and perhaps one without major wars.
But the United States didn’t and here we are.
By the way, China has been holding itself together and building itself up threw internal brutality, not peace, love and democracy. This is why they will win (until they go soft).
Not interested in moving to SF because it’s too right wing… The idealogy of all your posts summed up in a single statement.