Is it America's job to "run the world"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vonsalza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There really isn’t though. Political beliefs aren’t divided into social democrats and communists. Just because I’m not one don’t make me the other.
 
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I see no parallel between the British and communists.
 
Last edited:
Why do you feel entitled to other peoples money?

But being British isn’t immoral. Killing those directly responsible for holding you nation down like the army or politicians would have been ok.
 
Although, there could be a whole thread discussing whether or not Ireland was better off with or without the British. The biggest crime the brits ever committed was turning to Protestantism in my opinion 😬
 
Put yourself in the position of Iran. One president has called you part of “the axis of evil.” The US has invaded your neighbor to the West (Iraq) with overwhelming force and has overthrown the government. The US and its allies have also invaded your neighbor to the East (Afghanistan) and overthrown the government. In fact, the US also helped overthrow your own government in 1953.

So is it reasonable for Iran to be concerned about US invasion? You’d have to be crazy NOT to be worried! So why the desperate search for nuclear weapons? To defend themsevles. Logical.
 
True. I don’t blame them for trying to attain nukes.

I also don’t see anything wrong with us disrupting their attempt.
 
If the U.S. Wishes to forgo its role as global protector of democracy or global enforcer and no longer wishes to exercise global hegemony, Mr. Putin will be glad to assume that role.
 
JimG said:
If the U.S. Wishes to forgo its role as global protector of democracy or global enforcer and no longer wishes to exercise global hegemony, Mr. Putin will be glad to assume that role.
Click to expand...
Goodness, I don’t think the Russian economy can afford to do that.

It’s not a question of political will - It’s a question of math. They simply don’t have enough rubles.
 
Last edited:
Although without the US containing Russia they’d probably quickly gobble up Ukraine, the caucus, Baltic’s and part of the balkans again and might be able to start to generate more economic activity
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Although without the US containing Russia they’d probably quickly gobble up Ukraine, the caucus, Baltic’s and part of the balkans again and might be able to start to generate more economic activity
Click to expand...
Brace yourselves, but I’m not a foe of pan-Slavism. I think it would ultimately generate more stability and I think it would be good for Christianity, albeit not western Christianity.
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
JanSobieskiIII:
Although without the US containing Russia they’d probably quickly gobble up Ukraine, the caucus, Baltic’s and part of the balkans again and might be able to start to generate more economic activity
Click to expand...
Brace yourselves, but I’m not a foe of pan-Slavism. I think it would ultimately generate more stability and I think it would be good for Christianity, albeit not western Christianity.
Click to expand...
It might even usher in the lost Greek “Megali” dream where Greek Christians again rule Constantinople and western Turkey - something that might have happened had the world wars ended a liiiittle differently and/or the US and Turkey hadn’t sought alliance through NATO.

The joy of speculation, right?
 
Last edited:
If there was any chance of that happening and the ensuing government not being completely corrupt and robbing they own country blind I’d be in favor of that
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Although without the US containing Russia they’d probably quickly gobble up Ukraine
Click to expand...
Well maybe not. What did the US do for Crimea? Nothing much. Do you think Ukraine would lose that if it had nuclear weapons?
Perhaps John Mearsheimer was right after all when he argued that Ukraine shouldn’t have given up its nuclear arsenal.
 
Well if we’d had a president with a set of you know what I don’t think Russia would have been able to pull of Crimea. Our wuss in chief at the time was too timid. Hopefully we never end up with another community organizer as president.
 
The irony is that Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal on the condition that US would protect its sovereignty. And it didn’t happen.
I was really surprised that this fact was not made more of a big fuss.
 
Not entirely. If you read the history of that agreement we never agreed to go to war for them.
 
Ok thanks.
Then even more reason Ukraine shouldn’t have agreed to this.
 
They really had no choice. It was either give them up and be left alone for awhile, or refuse and be invaded. If they refused and were invaded they’d have been faced with the decision of whether or not to start nuclear war.
 
But no one would start a nuclear war, isn’t that the theory? Couldn’t they have played off the US vs Russians?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top