Florida State Seminoles

[DooKSucks]

If you don't think it is a travesty when America has literally sided with the goddamned Russian aggressors over the biggest European land war since WW2, then you are so brainwashed by the Trump shit that I have no faith you will ever see anything in a reasonable light.

[innocentbystander]

And Trump knows Putin will never order his men to kill US citizens.

Is that why Russian contractors -- who were controlled by the Kremlin -- attacked known US positions in Syria and engaged with firefights with American special forces units? That happened -- and at least one major instance was documented in major media -- and don't think Putin didn't know that was happening. Putin doesn't care about killing Americans. He will knock off American contractors whenever he wants if given the chance.

What?

The US GIs butchered those Russian mercs working for Wagner group. We had no casualties and we wiped them out. More to the point, Putin got the call from Trump in 2017. Trump asked him, are these guys moving on the refinery in Syria that we are defending, are those your troops? Putin said no. Trump said thank you and hung up the phone. Then Trump called the General in command and told him to kill them all. So they did.

Lesson learned.

That was a gamble on Putin's part but it didn't cost him anything. Putin does not give a fuck if Russian mercenaries or Russia troops die, not as long as he remains in power. He faces no political consequences when Russians die. If you knew anything about that culture, you would understand why. If Putin sends Wagner into Ukraine, the exact same thing that happened in Syria would happen in Ukraine if we are defending mineral rights that (hopefully) Zelenskyy signs over to the USA. That will end the war. What do you want Trump to do if not that? This is a brilliant idea, we garrison our financial interest in Ukraine! All Zelenskyy wants is more of your tax money without any oversight on how it is spent. That is because he is immature and he doesn't care how many Ukrainians continue to die. Are you down with that?

If you don't think it is a travesty when America has literally sided with the goddamned Russian aggressors over the biggest European land war since WW2, then you are so brainwashed by the Trump shit that I have no faith you will ever see anything in a reasonable light.

We didn't side with Russia. This never happened. Stop watching The View.

We have given Russia no money. We have given Ukraine $350 billion and Zelenskyy used some of that money to send Ukrainian models to modelling shoots in NYC and Paris. That is what he thinks of his own people and this war. That is not a serious leader. But we can still save him. Trump is willing to get mineral rights and have USA mining corporations work the very Ukrainian real estate that Russia is fighting to Annex. We have given Putin.... nothing. And if Trump gets his way, Putin gets less than nothing. He loses everything he is fighting to take.

[eCat]

[eCat]

its not about supporting Russia, its about keeping America out of a war that is being pushed by people who would rather see Americans die than accept Trump's leadership.

Tell me something, who here would rather see WWIII than Ukraine give up claims to Russian speaking Crimea? Who would demand that Ukraine be let into NATO knowing that is means American boots on the ground fighting against Russia?

Who here gave a fuck about Ukraine before Trump became president?

[eCat]

interesting plot twist here and if true will motivate Trump to attempt to extract the US from NATO

[hedge]

I sure hope that's not what you are basing your claim of people wanting US soldiers to fight and die in Ukraine. Although that tape was edited for the sole purpose of misleading people (and evidently it worked on you, which I see is working a lot lately) he is very obviously referring to the fact that if Russia is not stopped now - with no US troops - then they will continue to provoke and try to take land, but next time it will be a NATO country and the US (or so Zelensky thought at the time) would be treaty-bound to provide material support AND soldiers, and then they would be dying. I would bet money that if you saw the 30 seconds leading up to the clip you posted Zelensky was saying exactly that (and I've heard him say it elsewhere, b/c it's true).

I guess Zelensky didn't figure on Trump pulling out of what had been the greatest military alliance in history and has more of less kept peace in Europe for the past 80 years, which - and I can't believe this even needs to be said, but when you're dealing with Maga morons, evidently it does need to be said - has been a great benefit to the US..

[eCat]

Trump wouldn't have pulled out if Europe didn't think that our 300m should protect and pay for their 500m.

Even now, with all their bluster, they (Europe) are saying that they'll protect Ukraine only with strong U.S. backing

Its absurd that we have tariffs from these countries AND pay a significant portion of defense for the world.

All these liberals must believe we have unlimited funds to be the worlds police, and we are willing to die for aggression against corrupt regimes.

80 years is long enough, Europe should be able to deal with aggressors on their own continent as a united union, especially if they do self serving shit like buying Russian gas to heat their country.

It amazing to me that you're big on post WWII alliances and our obligation to fight in a war our president is working hard to prevent.

I mean it makes perfect sense right - why try to get peace because we belong to NATO, which, btw, Ukraine is not a part of.

btw

The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

which was specifically written on the behalf of the US to opt out of any territorial wars that Europe engaged in.

[hedge]

Pax Americana is over. What comes next will be worse.
by Nicholas Creel, opinion contributor 03/01/25 08:00 AM ET

For nearly eight decades, humanity has benefited from an international order built and maintained by American power.

This “Pax Americana” — characterized by relatively stable international relations, expanding global trade, unprecedented prosperity and the absence of great-power conflict — is abruptly coming to an end. What follows will shock all who have grown accustomed to its benefits.

The post-World War II order wasn’t perfect, but it delivered remarkable outcomes. American leadership produced the longest period without a major war between great powers in modern history. Global poverty declined dramatically, with the number of people living in extreme poverty falling from over half the world’s population in the 1950s to less than 10 percent today.

Democratic governance expanded to unprecedented levels. International institutions, from the U.N. to the World Trade Organization, created forums for the peaceful resolution of disputes. This all occurred under the umbrella of American military supremacy and commitment to a rules-based international system.

That era is ending, not with a decisive event, but through intentional abdication by the U.S.

Recent demands by President Trump — attempting to purchase Greenland from Denmark against its will, threatening punitive tariffs against allies and neighbors, and coercing Ukraine to surrender mineral wealth in exchange for continued U.S. support — signal a fundamental shift. America is abandoning its role as system administrator in favor of becoming just another self-interested great power. The consequences will be extensive and severe.

Security guarantees that prevented armed conflict will weaken. For decades, potential aggressors were deterred by the knowledge that attacking American allies would trigger U.S. intervention. With that credibility eroded, opportunistic powers will test boundaries. Taiwan is in greater danger of an invasion by China, and the Baltic states and other nations bordering Russia are more vulnerable.

Smaller states will increasingly become pawns in great-power competitions. During Pax Americana, small nations could navigate international relations with reasonable autonomy, protected by American-backed international norms. In the emerging multipolar system, these countries will face coercion from regional powers seeking to establish spheres of influence.

We’re already witnessing this dynamic with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s increasingly aggressive posturing in the South China Sea. Like circling sharks that smell blood in the water, hostile powers are preparing for a return to a world where, as Thucydides famously wrote, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Major wars between states will become much more common than it was over the last several decades.

Relatedly, the power imbalance between nuclear and non-nuclear states will become more pronounced and dangerous. During Pax Americana, the U.S. nuclear umbrella protected allies, reducing incentives for nuclear proliferation. As this protection becomes unreliable, countries will face a stark choice: develop nuclear weapons or accept vulnerability. The result will likely be a cascade of nuclear proliferation, increasing the risk of miscalculation, accidents and regional arms races.

Economic prosperity will suffer as the integrated global economy fragments. The American-led order created ideal conditions for globalization: secure shipping lanes, predictable rules and relatively free trade. Without a great power enforcing these norms, protectionism will rise, supply chains will localize and economic efficiency will decline. The poorest nations, which benefited greatly from integration into global markets, will suffer most as investment retreats to safer havens. Wealthier nations will see a decline in their standard of living as access to markets with cheaper labor is blocked off.

The tragedy is that many Americans, frustrated by the costs of global leadership, fail to recognize the many indirect benefits they’ve received from it. It is true that American hegemony wasn’t free to maintain, but by bearing those costs we were able to maintain a world remarkably conducive to U.S. interests. The era of stable markets for exports, reliable access to resources and few direct security threats is ending as we walk away from our role as a relatively benevolent hegemon.

The coming disorder will hurt Americans more than they realize, through increased military threats and economic disruptions. Those celebrating America’s retreat from global leadership will soon learn that their wish was granted on a monkey’s paw. The world that follows Pax Americana will be poorer, more dangerous and less free — a harsh lesson in how much better the imperfect American-led order was than the alternatives that history offers.

[hedge]

"The tragedy is that many Americans, frustrated by the costs of global leadership, fail to recognize the many indirect benefits they’ve received from it."

Reminds me of the old saw about libertarians (and, increasingly, Maga): Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand...

[eCat]

Pax Americana was great for Europe, meanwhile we policed the world in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. We spent untold billions to fight the cold war and keep China in check, both with aspirations of world dominance. We kept nations from becoming nuclear powers on our dime.

They, Europe, in turn were able to invest in health care, education and infrastructure in lieu of a 25% of their budget going to defense. Their people enjoy a higher standard of living thanks to the umbrella of the United States.

Its the height of arrogance to blame America for any future world wars when we're the reason there hasn't been one in the past 80, because the truth then becomes Europe is incapable of managing its own affairs. They are solely dependent on the United States for world peace yet refuse to acknowledge their weakness or obligation to America. Its not just Zelensky who has no capacity to be grateful.

So America says you want world peace, then Ukraine, a non NATO member, should give up land and stay connected with Russia, they lose their fucking minds and tell us where to get off.

Lets see how this plays out with Europe committing to a lifetime of defending Ukraine. I bet it works out great for them.

[innocentbystander]

"The tragedy is that many Americans, frustrated by the costs of global leadership, fail to recognize the many indirect benefits they’ve received from it."

Reminds me of the old saw about libertarians (and, increasingly, Maga): Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand...

Libertarians are not house cats. They are just nerds. They are just nerds who are too scared and intimidated to push back against the insane moral absolutes postured by leftists and they are afraid they won’t look cool if they take a stand on common sense.

As for the rest of your screed, $36,000,000,000,000 in debt

Cold War ended in 1991. 46 years of Pax Americana was enough and far too expensive. 80 years is a non starter

[eCat]

"The tragedy is that many Americans, frustrated by the costs of global leadership, fail to recognize the many indirect benefits they’ve received from it."

Reminds me of the old saw about libertarians (and, increasingly, Maga): Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand...

Ukraine is accepting volunteers to fight Russia between the ages of 18-60 if you're interested in fighting Putin and representing that spirit of support for NATO

[hedge]

"They, Europe, in turn were able to invest in health care, education and infrastructure in lieu of a 25% of their budget going to defense. Their people enjoy a higher standard of living thanks to the umbrella of the United States."

I get it now. You're pissed that somebody else benefited from us being the one real military and economic superpower. Pretty short-sighted if you ask me...

[hedge]

"Their people enjoy a higher standard of living thanks to the umbrella of the United States."

So do we. It's called a win/win...

[hedge]

‘America First’ Is a Lie
America has *always* been about putting America first. Trump’s “America First” movement is about something else entirely.

Donald Trump and Republicans explain their worldview by calling it “America First.” That’s a lie.

American foreign policy has always put America first. That’s what nations do. It’s axiomatic. Why did the United States do Lend-Lease with Britain before we entered World War II and bankroll the Marshall Plan afterwards? Why did we airlift supplies into West Berlin? Why did we spend trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons that have never been used? Why do we police the global shipping lanes and ensure stability in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East?

It’s not because we’re nice.

It’s because these actions further our interests. They make America safer and wealthier. They check the rise of rival powers. They put America first.

[hedge]

In the roughest possible terms, there have been two American eras: Pre- and Post-Hyperpower.

From her Founding to World War I, America was weak. This fundamental fact was why our leaders in that era were wary of foreign entanglements. Geography provided us with a formidable moat, but we were not a great power with the ability to shape events on the world stage. So we tended our own garden and tried to grow according to the rule sets developed by Europeans.

Those rules were quite congenial to us; our population and industrial base grew. After Europe set itself on fire in 1914, we emerged as a peer—a great power, but one in its infancy and unsure of how to leverage its newfound position.

The original “America First” caucus emerged during this period, made up of people whose conception of America was still rooted in her past weakness. They did not have the mental framework to understand that as America’s relative position in the world had changed, so should her approach to the world. She no longer had to work within rule sets imposed by others; she could make the rules for everyone else.

The isolationist movement did not accept this shift and could not see the advantages America would reap by assuming the role of global superpower.

These men were wrong; but at least they were honestly wrong.1 The world was changing and they simply couldn’t adjust to it.

We all know what happened next: America became a dominant global power. Then, after the Second World War, we became the dominant global power. For the next 75 years we ruled the world.

During this Pax Americana, America was the indispensable nation. What does that mean, really?

It meant that no country, anywhere on earth, could act without considering our interests.

Could Sweden pursue nuclear weapons? Could Russia put missiles in Cuba? Could Egypt attack Israel?

In every case, the thought process in foreign capitals went like this:

Thesis: Identify what they wanted.

Antithesis: Determine if America would permit this objective.

Synthesis: Figure out how to pursue their objective in such a way as would be amenable to the Yankees. Or, at least, wouldn’t be likely to arouse too much Yankee ire.

That, my friends, is a power so vast you can’t even conceive of it. And it didn’t just apply to our adversaries—it applied to our friends, too.

Part of the way the United States leveraged our commanding position was by creating new types of alliances. For the most part, before 1945 allies were countries that agreed to fight wars together . . . and that’s about it. The United States had (and still has) plenty of these kinds of alliances—but after 1945 we also developed a deeper, more important kind of relationship.

The relationships in NATO, and among the Five Eyes, and with America’s other really close allies—Japan, South Korea—aren’t merely military agreements. They’re kinships. They transcend peace and war; they’re diplomatic, political, cultural, and economic.

Again: This is leverage. It means that when we go to war, we bring a huge crew with us. Other countries are willing to expend resources, and even shed blood, to stay aligned with us. Even for a contentious war like Iraq, we got nearly 40 countries to participate in some way or another.

This makes things cheaper for us. The Soviet Union and China and Iran have to spend money to dominate and subjugate their clients. Our allies spend money on our behalf, pursuing our interests, because we have shaped them in our image.

That’s what the “kinship” stuff is about. Our allies aren’t just allies. They adopted our rule-sets and hitched their interests to ours.

This multiplication of power wasn’t “good” for America—it was amazing for America. Over the course of 75 years we became wealthier than any civilization has ever been. Our influence over the globe became more far-reaching than that of any empire from the pages of history. Our lead over our next closest rivals expanded by the year.

Our currency became the world’s reserve currency, which allows us to accumulate debt and spend money more cheaply than everyone else. Our markets became the most valuable markets. Global systems of trade were built to our specifications.

And our security became impregnable. It wasn’t just that the American homeland was secure. We were able to turn former adversaries into allies. First Germany and Japan and then the former Eastern bloc nations of Europe and even, for a time, Russia.

Did the exercise of such awesome power cost us anything? Sure. There were some small and savage wars—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. America paid some of the costs in blood; but mostly we paid with treasure. Which was—again—an excellent deal for us. Because we have more treasure than any nation in history.

Here is the thing you must understand: America will win any contest determined by the ability to spend money.

Rightly understood, this is just another example of how America created rules to benefit ourselves: Of course the richest country in history would build a system in which it could exert influence on the global order by spending money: Because the ability to spend money is one of our key advantages.

And yet today’s “America First” class thinks that spending money in order to shape the world is some kind of weakness.

[hedge]

2. Power Is Power

People have a hard time understanding soft power.

Why do we spend $10 billion a year fighting HIV/AIDS in foreign countries? I have to keep saying this: It’s not because we’re nice.

We spend that money in order to stabilize the global order. If AIDS runs wild in one country, that creates ripple effects. It destabilizes the local economy, risking political instability, which in turn risks regional instability. All of which poses some small danger to the established order which—QED—benefits America.

We spend that $10 billion to preserve the system that benefits us.

That’s what soft power is.

If that doesn’t make sense to you, think about hard power. Consider the ballistic missile submarine.

In 1959 America deployed the first ballistic missile sub (commonly referred to as a “boomer”). USS George Washington was designed for one purpose: to launch nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union.

In the ensuing decades, our boomer fleet multiplied. We developed three new classes of SSBN before launching the vaunted Ohio-class, which is now nearing the end of its service. We have a new program, the Columbia-class boat, the first of which is currently under construction.

In the 66-year history of the SSBN program, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars even though none of our boomers has ever fulfilled their designed purpose of launching a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile.

Is that wasteful spending? Does that make us “suckers”?

No. The boomers forced the Soviet Union into another money fight with us and—see above—money fights are the contests in which America always holds the biggest advantage. Thus the boomer program contributed to the peaceful fall of communism. Today our boomers are part of the triad that deters Russia’s and China’s use of nuclear weapons while forcing them to spend their relatively scarce resources in competition with us.

Spending money on nuclear ballistic missile subs is the same as spending money on AIDS prevention in Africa. Power is power is power. And any time America can exert power simply by spending money it’s a win for us.

Because we have the most money.

This stuff isn’t quantum mechanics. American leadership in the world benefits America. First and foremost. To the extent that it also benefits other countries, that’s great. Good for us.

But that’s not why we do it. That’s never been why we do it.

The people who want to pull back America’s leadership in the world under the pretense of being for “America First” are making us weaker, poorer, and less secure. They are giving away our long-term strategic advantages. They are making a world in which other countries do not have to ask themselves, “But how will the Americans respond?” before they act.

And for what? For saving a few hundred billion dollars? The whole point of being the strongest, wealthiest country on the planet is so that you have resources to deploy. That’s what the money’s for.

So what are these people up to? Are they just stupid? Does JD Vance not understand that, in giving away America’s leadership advantage, he is making us smaller and more vulnerable? Do these people not get that they are hastening into existence a multipolar world in which America is not the dominant power but merely a regional player that then becomes hostage to the interests of other countries?

[aTm]

LOL. Kamala Harris should have tried putting all that in her campaign ads.

[aTm]

My question for Hedge is, what happens when the government is no longer willing or able to budget and control its resources? Having the "most treasure" is not exactly the same thing as having "unlimited treasure"

[hedge]

We do have unlimited treasure. I’ve been hearing my entire life how our deficits weren’t sustainable and that we were on the verge of bankruptcy or default. Ross Perot based his entire campaign on that premise back in 1992 when the entire US debt was like a couple trillion and now it’s 15 times that and the only thing that’s happened is that we’ve gotten exponentially richer. It is in the rest of the world’s interest that we remain able to run up deficits every year, we can keep borrowing money as long as we like. Our debt might as well be $300 trillion and likely will be one day and nothing will be any different. Nobody has any concept of what a trillion dollars is (certainly nobody reading this post), much less $30 trillion or $300 trillion. Not many things are more comical than people whose entire net worth isn’t even a million dollars spouting off about how our debt is “unsustainable,” like they know a goddamn thing about capital, debt and finance on the level of the US government..