Letting Putin take Crimea was the precursor to what we have become. Leaving Ukraine to suffer is a disgrace to the entire democratic community. Taking, and threatening to take, sovereign nations puts us squarely in the camp of the world's predators, leaving us with no claim to being a beacon of freedom.
Totally agree but the root of this problem is the hyper-partisan environment in which foreign policy is being conducted. When Putin essentially annexed Georgia the Democrats in Congress would not support a more virile response by George W. Bush and it was an election year and Republicans were hesitant to authorize force for political reasons.
When Crimea was taken Mitch McConnell said that the Senate would not allow Obama to use military force just as they had refused to let Obama enforce his "red line" in Syria.
I'm from the UK and whilst I haven't always agreed with American foreign policy and think that at times it has been hypocritical (such as over the Cuban missile crisis) I've always thought that in general it stood for something above it's own self-interest. Now it's foreign policy doesn't even seem to be guided by self-interest, just the whims of a deranged and dangerous president
It's funny, I don't see any other members of NATO invading or interfering in the affairs of foreign Nations.
I also seem to remember the UK helping significantly in both Iraq and Afghanistan l. Yet the USA didn't help the UK in the Falklands.
The problem is American arrogance that they can dictate terms to the rest of the world. I would be quite happy to see the USA leave NATO if in return it left the rest of the world in peace. You're not wanted. In short America historically has been a hypocritical, arrogant, selfish bully. Using whatever convenient excuse to get it's way in the world. It would've been better if the USSR had survived, at least then America had to at least pretend to care about the interest of other countries.
Who cares? That says it all about your mentality to be frank. Anyone who wants a more prosperous, peaceful world, with less needless death through pointless war should care.
Frankly it sounds like you have no sense of mortality. I hope you get some help bud
Dude, how is allowing a bunch of corporations to run the roost a "more prosperous, peaceful world"? I think you and I clearly disagree on what makes a more prosperous and peaceful world.
It's like when Berny here tried arguing that removing a Communist dictator from power is a bad thing because Trump. How is removing Maduro NOT making the world a more prosperous and peaceful world, for example?
Also, get your head out of the sand, the utopia you desire doesn't exist and will never happen
Maduro not being in power is a good thing. But the United States effectively invading a sovereign nation to effect his removal is a bad thing because it undermines the rules based international order which has largely prevented major conflicts since the Second World War. Let me pose a hypothetical to you, if the leaders of every nation in the world we're to decide that they didn't like Trump and they all banded together to invade the USA inorder to depose him, would they have the right to do something and if your answer is no, what would be the difference between that and the military action to depose Maduro?
I hope for a day all MAGA members and Trump resettle to Greenland by organising a gated community there so they can achieve their dreams and leave everyone else on Earth out from their politics and lunatics
Ok, Berny, assuming you are a good faith actor, I will reply to this article with some points actually addressing it.
Biggest question is: what does America owe these "middle powers" who have been mooching of American security and power for decades? They've been taking America for granted and, ultimately, at America's expense. Don't you think that might build up a little bit of resentment on America's part? Like honestly, if you kept doing nice and kind things for your neighbor, but your neighbor, instead of trying to make things better for themselves, just takes advantage of your kindness, don't you think you'll be a little resentful? Are you going to want to continue to trust that neighbor whom you have done so many good things for when they've done nothing in return? Your neighbor took your kindness for granted, and when that kindness runs out, that neighbor cries foul? Give me a break.
The Best example is Canada. The only reason why Canada is by any means important in the world stage is because of its neighbor to the south. That's literally it. America owes Canada nothing.
It's really funny, actually, that you brought up Mark Carney and his criticism of being a middle power between two hegemons in China and America. Carney literally just signed treaties with one of those hegemons (China), effectively screwing his own people in the process (cheap Chinese EVs anyone?). So let's see, continue to be prosperous under American hegemony that includes freedom or be under the thumb of the Chinese Communist dictatorship. Hmm... I wonder which I would pick.
It's truly laughable that "classical liberals" would rather live under Communist Chinese rule than capitalist American rule.
But I'm a bit confused about how you're attempting to use the example of Canada here. You said "America owes Canada nothing." But that's not what anyone is debating. My "side" isn't saying anything like, "America owes Canada things x, y, and z." Instead, this whole issue is about Trump repeatedly teasing about absorbing Canada as an American state. So, if you wanted to reconfigure your question about the U.S. and China so that it reflects what Canada's actual options are as far as Trump is concerned, it would be: (1) Go from being a free—independent, sovereign, self-determining—nation to becoming another nation's 51st state vs (2) Sign some agreements with another great power, but, crucially, remain a nation. When we lay out the options in a way that actually reflects what we're talking about here, it's obvious that any sensible person would pick (2).
And, just to offer a quick fact check on your final claim there: Actually, no, none of us would rather live under "Communist Chinese rule" than capitalist American rule. That's just misreading us entirely.
Berny, I think you've been ignorant of how China has been behaving toward Canada for decades now. Going along with the Communist power in China so that Canada can be "sovereign" isn't understanding the impact that China has had on Canada. Canada is hardly sovereign with agreements with China, there are a lot of strings attached.
Not to mention that China has been an aggressor against Canada's National interests for a long time now (the bulk of foreign interference concerns in Canada has been regarding China, for example). Your second option doesn't even exist.
"What makes this crisis different is that the aggressor is the United States ..." Are you kidding? Would care for a list of the number of times the US has been the aggressor?
Letting Putin take Crimea was the precursor to what we have become. Leaving Ukraine to suffer is a disgrace to the entire democratic community. Taking, and threatening to take, sovereign nations puts us squarely in the camp of the world's predators, leaving us with no claim to being a beacon of freedom.
Totally agree but the root of this problem is the hyper-partisan environment in which foreign policy is being conducted. When Putin essentially annexed Georgia the Democrats in Congress would not support a more virile response by George W. Bush and it was an election year and Republicans were hesitant to authorize force for political reasons.
When Crimea was taken Mitch McConnell said that the Senate would not allow Obama to use military force just as they had refused to let Obama enforce his "red line" in Syria.
I'm from the UK and whilst I haven't always agreed with American foreign policy and think that at times it has been hypocritical (such as over the Cuban missile crisis) I've always thought that in general it stood for something above it's own self-interest. Now it's foreign policy doesn't even seem to be guided by self-interest, just the whims of a deranged and dangerous president
Maybe, just maybe, other countries should be looking out for their own self-interest too.
Stop taking things for granted. That's the reason you're in this mess.
The only reason people are upset about things is that the world is changing and they can't have that for some reason.
It's funny, I don't see any other members of NATO invading or interfering in the affairs of foreign Nations.
I also seem to remember the UK helping significantly in both Iraq and Afghanistan l. Yet the USA didn't help the UK in the Falklands.
The problem is American arrogance that they can dictate terms to the rest of the world. I would be quite happy to see the USA leave NATO if in return it left the rest of the world in peace. You're not wanted. In short America historically has been a hypocritical, arrogant, selfish bully. Using whatever convenient excuse to get it's way in the world. It would've been better if the USSR had survived, at least then America had to at least pretend to care about the interest of other countries.
Haha hilarious.
Buddy, who cares? Who cares if America is selfish? Who cares if America is arrogant?
Honestly, it doesn't matter. So you can either whine and cry about it, like you're doing, or accept it and work within those parameters.
At this point, all that much of the world is doing is reeeeeing over America's thoughts about itself.
Who cares?
Who cares? That says it all about your mentality to be frank. Anyone who wants a more prosperous, peaceful world, with less needless death through pointless war should care.
Frankly it sounds like you have no sense of mortality. I hope you get some help bud
Dude, how is allowing a bunch of corporations to run the roost a "more prosperous, peaceful world"? I think you and I clearly disagree on what makes a more prosperous and peaceful world.
It's like when Berny here tried arguing that removing a Communist dictator from power is a bad thing because Trump. How is removing Maduro NOT making the world a more prosperous and peaceful world, for example?
Also, get your head out of the sand, the utopia you desire doesn't exist and will never happen
Maduro not being in power is a good thing. But the United States effectively invading a sovereign nation to effect his removal is a bad thing because it undermines the rules based international order which has largely prevented major conflicts since the Second World War. Let me pose a hypothetical to you, if the leaders of every nation in the world we're to decide that they didn't like Trump and they all banded together to invade the USA inorder to depose him, would they have the right to do something and if your answer is no, what would be the difference between that and the military action to depose Maduro?
Great picture!
I hope for a day all MAGA members and Trump resettle to Greenland by organising a gated community there so they can achieve their dreams and leave everyone else on Earth out from their politics and lunatics
Ok, Berny, assuming you are a good faith actor, I will reply to this article with some points actually addressing it.
Biggest question is: what does America owe these "middle powers" who have been mooching of American security and power for decades? They've been taking America for granted and, ultimately, at America's expense. Don't you think that might build up a little bit of resentment on America's part? Like honestly, if you kept doing nice and kind things for your neighbor, but your neighbor, instead of trying to make things better for themselves, just takes advantage of your kindness, don't you think you'll be a little resentful? Are you going to want to continue to trust that neighbor whom you have done so many good things for when they've done nothing in return? Your neighbor took your kindness for granted, and when that kindness runs out, that neighbor cries foul? Give me a break.
The Best example is Canada. The only reason why Canada is by any means important in the world stage is because of its neighbor to the south. That's literally it. America owes Canada nothing.
It's really funny, actually, that you brought up Mark Carney and his criticism of being a middle power between two hegemons in China and America. Carney literally just signed treaties with one of those hegemons (China), effectively screwing his own people in the process (cheap Chinese EVs anyone?). So let's see, continue to be prosperous under American hegemony that includes freedom or be under the thumb of the Chinese Communist dictatorship. Hmm... I wonder which I would pick.
It's truly laughable that "classical liberals" would rather live under Communist Chinese rule than capitalist American rule.
Good riddance.
Frank, first, thanks for reading.
But I'm a bit confused about how you're attempting to use the example of Canada here. You said "America owes Canada nothing." But that's not what anyone is debating. My "side" isn't saying anything like, "America owes Canada things x, y, and z." Instead, this whole issue is about Trump repeatedly teasing about absorbing Canada as an American state. So, if you wanted to reconfigure your question about the U.S. and China so that it reflects what Canada's actual options are as far as Trump is concerned, it would be: (1) Go from being a free—independent, sovereign, self-determining—nation to becoming another nation's 51st state vs (2) Sign some agreements with another great power, but, crucially, remain a nation. When we lay out the options in a way that actually reflects what we're talking about here, it's obvious that any sensible person would pick (2).
And, just to offer a quick fact check on your final claim there: Actually, no, none of us would rather live under "Communist Chinese rule" than capitalist American rule. That's just misreading us entirely.
Berny, I think you've been ignorant of how China has been behaving toward Canada for decades now. Going along with the Communist power in China so that Canada can be "sovereign" isn't understanding the impact that China has had on Canada. Canada is hardly sovereign with agreements with China, there are a lot of strings attached.
Not to mention that China has been an aggressor against Canada's National interests for a long time now (the bulk of foreign interference concerns in Canada has been regarding China, for example). Your second option doesn't even exist.
"What makes this crisis different is that the aggressor is the United States ..." Are you kidding? Would care for a list of the number of times the US has been the aggressor?