So I have been thinking...
When I first read Henry Kissinger's "World Order" and bits of "Diplomacy", I was AWOKEN, and this was some extra points in my political thinking. Problem is, now I am curious...
Kissinger said that before the US started to fuck the world, every state had it's own system and others didnt tryed to change, taking this into consideration, the few I know from Hobbes " Leviathan" and some videos on Schimitt and his "The Political", is it right to say that, in a realistic world, the will to change systems of goverment of others states ir more harmfull? For example, I always look to Iraq of how this modus operandi didnt work. Se overtrown Saddam and them left without doing a proper transition, now there isent a Iraq...
Maybe instead of overthroing systems of government we should puppet them? But wasent a puppet gov that led to Iranian Revolution in the first place?
It seens more like a question of world order then a question of system of governement in many cases, where you need to take a clear picture of what you want for tomorrow and how to achieve it. If I want a world where the US is the supreme world power, them I would need to support local dictatorships from time to time. But in this case, what is even the point of the philosophy of politics or political science if is all pragmatic stuff and ad hoc actions? Has/lit/ any opnions on this?
PS: if this is the wrong board for this discussion, sorry, I only postes because I used some specific books to reference my question.
So I have been thinking
The US is becoming the old Soviet Russia in terms of boogeyman. Europe, Japan, China are all slowly creating friendships with Russia while ostracizing the US.
Bottom line is: even if you mount a puppet show its end will reveal to the audience how they were played to see a story that didn't benefit them.
So is pretty much getting the bigger quantity of political capital and using it while you can.
Although I know the US is getting more and more criticism, a friend of mine who was in the army actualy said to me that if the US was in war with the entire fucking planet, the US actualy had a chance because of how insane their industrial output is. He wasent american, to those who say is american propaganda.
Lately I have comming to the conclusion that if you go to war with a country, and you want to make a major change in that country system of goverment, annex them.
But I know that, as Kissinger said in his books, that annexations are one of the most warmongering things for a state to do to other and this usualy leads for you getting a coalision to hold your advance, because not only you are a danger, but also because you are destroying the order that you live in.
Although annexation is a traumatizing experience for amoust every society, it seens less harmfull than eternal war or civil unrest like in Iraq and Palestine.
And also, what is better for a internal political system them? From the little I know from Schimitt, for example, since conflict is inevitable, the goverment should only try to avoid it,'s citizends killing one another... With this, are despotic governments the better form of government? But every despotic governement ever failed and is universal hated...
But so is democratic ones lately.
I keep wondering them what is a "good foram of governement", less in the Plato's way and more in the pragmatic and with allow's citizens to live their lifes while dont allowing them kill one another.
Do any of anons wanna add something? Plz, gib ideas.
>Although I know the US is getting more and more criticism, a friend of mine who was in the army actualy said to me that if the US was in war with the entire fucking planet, the US actualy had a chance because of how insane their industrial output is. He wasent american, to those who say is american propaganda.
If the US was at war with every single nation it would get demolished in a month or so. Most countries don't have great armies because they are not at war every 5 or so years like the US. If these countries go to war they'll start creating tanks, jets and battleships. Going to war with world would also create a regime meltdown as the already decaying american political system is already crumbling. They're already at an eminent civil war and you think they would have a chance of dealing with the entire world?
>Lately I have comming to the conclusion that if you go to war with a country, and you want to make a major change in that country system of goverment, annex them.
That always works, right? Ukraine is probably a great case of that!
Dude, lmao. Your English is so shit I can't believe you're a native american citizen.
You can't really control the world, that just gets proven over and over again. If you think you can you're delusional. Whatever the method of imposing control, or even the perception, it's going to eventually cause blowback and breakdown. There's just no point in playing such a dangerous game.
Watch this Stephen Kinzer interview:
youtube.com
youtube.com
Annexing a country just isn't going to work out unless you resort to genocide, you're not winning hearts and minds over by doing something like that. If you could brainwash the population there would be no need for annexation in the first place.
You mention Palestine, what if Israel decides to annex it all? Do they grant the Palestinians full citizenship and the right to vote in elections? Why won't they just vote to turn Israel into Palestine when they outnumber them?
There's no such thing as a universal "good government", what's good for one group probably isn't going to be for another. Imposing your model onto another group will just allow them to blame everything wrong on you.
Oh look an effort thread on Veeky Forums
Good work everyone
>Dude, lmao. Your English is so shit I can't believe you're a native american citizen.
I am not. And my cellphone keeps trying to correct my things into portuguese because of that.
But I dont see a civil war comming to US, their institucions are working perfectly and the only thing that truly is out of control is that groups are getting more and more prone to take violent action. This dosent seen a general phenomenon, however, because only specific and pinpointed groups do it, while majority of population seen to condem such violent actions. Tho I am no specialist over politics neither on national security, this dosent seen civil warish for me.
And like you said, other countrys if at war with US would build tanks, jets and shiet, but like mine friend said, the US has a ridiculous industrial output, and this is what pretty much made them win WW1 and 2.
They have more infraestructure and techonology to build and use military equiment. Not only that, they are the biggest military investor in the world.
These mounths the senate even debated the creation of a "US Space Korps".
But this dosent awnser the questions I want user's to give ideas.
Plz halp
>Annexing a country just isn't going to work out unless you resort to genocide, you're not winning hearts and minds over by doing something like that. If you could brainwash the population there would be no need for annexation in the first place.
What if my annexation process isent much harmfull? Maybe slowly inserting annexed populations into the annexing group makes the annexed less anxious about it.
Also, wasent Maquiavel who said that, if a harm needs to be done, do it one time only? Like, you annexed a place, people are angry, seens better to just do a massive crackdown and them let people have a bit of joy for them to see how better is to be cool and be part of the new group. We did this in the past, and worked, are our modern societys so alien to the old ones that the old tatics dont work?
>You mention Palestine, what if Israel decides to annex it all? Do they grant the Palestinians full citizenship and the right to vote in elections? Why won't they just vote to turn Israel into Palestine when they outnumber them?
Dont give them citizenship for a time. When someone moves into a new country, they dont get immediate citizenship, why should annexed group have? Slowly inserting dosent need citizenship. You make schools, make hospitals and teach them and care them for them to feel part of the new group...
Dont seen very genocidy for me... Unless you destroyer their culture, with in some cases, isent this bad at all.
>There's no such thing as a universal "good government", what's good for one group probably isn't going to be for another. Imposing your model onto another group will just allow them to blame everything wrong on you.
Here is one of my points. If there is no universal good government, why should we care for political philosofy and science? If is all ad hoc actions, why do even discuss it?
Why are we here them anyway? Just to suffer?
The philosophers and political scientists of old always tried to find the good government, there must be a form of governement that allows all groups to dell inclueded and dont make any of them suffer, even if they are annexed.
>their institutions are working perfectly
They're? Huh. So what about the hatred they feel towards the State? #BLM, Antifa, Nazis: all these groups lurking around and marching throughout the US means to you that it is all OK?
> groups are getting more and more prone to take violent action
Woah. One of the basic functions (security) is not being reasonably maintained by the state! Just another sign that the State is going fine!
>while majority of population seen to condemn such violent actions
This remark almost makes think you never heard about the XX century. It is a great century, user. You should read about it before typing down comments like that. :)
> US has a ridiculous industrial output, and this is what pretty much made them win WW1 and 2.
Excuse me? Besides you're deficiency in terms of English skills you also know shit about the topic you so read about? user, the American army was so shit that as soon as they killed German squads they threw their national made guns away and picked the German guns[WW II]. In the WW I American wasn't even a top player in geopolitics. Like; what the fuck are you even talking about?
>They have more infraestructure and techonology to build and use military equiment. Not only that, they are the biggest military investor in the world.
And countries don't, am I right?
Nunca vi tamanho idiota. És completamente burro. Vai aprender inglês e estudar história; que tu nem com 15 anos serias considerado inteligente.
>Kissinger said that before the US started to fuck the world, every state had it's own system and others didnt tryed to change, taking this into consideration, the few I know from Hobbes " Leviathan" and some videos on Schimitt and his "The Political", is it right to say that, in a realistic world, the will to change systems of goverment of others states ir more harmfull?
You are subliterate.
>Maybe slowly inserting annexed populations into the annexing group makes the annexed less anxious about it.
Like Tibet?
>You make schools, make hospitals and teach them and care them for them to feel part of the new group...
It sounds nice but it will still just lead to resentment if they feel it's being imposed upon them and they have no control over what's going on.
>If there is no universal good government, why should we care for political philosofy and science? If is all ad hoc actions, why do even discuss it?
Because the actual issues faced by different societies are very different and probably can't be treated in the same manner. An African village isn't the same as an industrial urban community in say China, the African village doesn't have to deal with smog and the Chinese don't have to deal with malaria.
When a third world country in South America tries to perform land reform by forcefully purchasing land owned by US companies and hand out small private partials to peasants to solve social issues then you call them crypto-communists and overthrow the government and return the land to the private American corporations that's going to be remembered.
>They're? Huh. So what about the hatred they feel towards the State? #BLM, Antifa, Nazis: all these groups lurking around and marching throughout the US means to you that it is all OK?
Like I said, pinpointed groups that the government may crackdown in any time, if he truly want it.
>another sign that the State is going fine!
It's true that there is a big problem in justice obstruction when dealing with such groups. But other than this, those groups just do riots, not organaized resistence or coup's.
>This remark almost makes think you never heard about the XX century. It is a great century, user. You should read about it before typing down comments like that. :)
It's funny how you take my words out of context. Are we in what century? Last time I checked, we were in the XXI, and amoust every historian, sociologist and philosopher said that we live in unrelatable times, where majority of people are against the use of violence.
>Excuse me? Besides you're deficiency in terms of English skills you also know shit about the topic you so read about? user, the American army was so shit that as soon as they killed German squads they threw their national made guns away and picked the German guns[WW II]. In the WW I American wasn't even a top player in geopolitics. Like; what the fuck are you even talking about?
It seens that you are the one who lacks knowledge. Every army did this, and you cant expect for a steady supply line all the time in battlefield. The US army in that time was able to even help the soviets with the war effort, sending equipment and materials. And I dont believe that my english is so bad as you say, 'cause you seen to understand me quite well, and use ad hominem quite often too.
>And countries don't, am I right?
Not in the scale of major powers as China or US. It would be dishonest to say that the infraestruct and military equipment from France could get as good as of the US overnight.
>Nunca vi tamanho idiota. És completamente burro. Vai aprender inglês e estudar história; que tu nem com 15 anos serias considerado inteligente.
Se isso foi uma tentativa de falar português, uma dica use menos o tradutor, parece mais um espanhol incompetente. Mas se for português de Portugal, bem, não me surpreende ser horrível a escrita.
Me mandar estudar e dizer que quero pagar de inteligente não são argumentos, na verdade, esta mais para projeção, pois nunca afirmei ser inteligente, mas sua constante tentativa de denegrir-me com ad hominem e falaciais ao invés de tentar responder as coisas que falo só provam que o que eu digo deve estar alem de sua compreensão e por isso voce so faz birra mesmo. Cresça um pouco, user.
>Like Tibet?
Yeah, tho I dont know how Tibet will end up and it would be expect of annexed groups to resist, even if it would be for the best. Tho I would say is more a chinese fault them a general one, because the chinese gov opress minority groups for just the heck of it. China isent a very good place to live. That said, they also opress majority groups too.
>It sounds nice but it will still just lead to resentment if they feel it's being imposed upon them and they have no control over what's going on
True... Good point.
I remember reading that one of the reasons democracys are so sucessefull is that they make the the small people see themselfs in the political process, tho I do know that many people also dont care about the political process, and would rather live without needing to care for them.
>Because the actual issues faced by different societies are very different and probably can't be treated in the same manner. An African village isn't the same as an industrial urban community in say China, the African village doesn't have to deal with smog and the Chinese don't have to deal with malaria.
Thats true, but maybe a descentralized form of government could help, like a federation. Tho I will say that would be very hard for the central government to understand and deal with moving the resources to one or other, a thing that would make some internal conflict over budget (nothing that dosent happen in everyplace, but still...)
>When a third world country in South America tries to perform land reform by forcefully purchasing land owned by US companies and hand out small private partials to peasants to solve social issues then you call them crypto-communists and overthrow the government and return the land to the private American corporations that's going to be remembered.
Thats another problem. When a gov forcefully buys land from other country, I wont lie, but if I was the head of state of such country, I would be pissed, and if I could make a political and/or military movement to take back I consider rightfully mine, I would.
This is one of the reasons so many south american coups happened, and it wasent only american faulty, as much it was a general sense of fear because of external and internal political powers.
It would be dishonest if I said there is a american guilty for trying to retake their lands they invested on and were forcefully taken back by a minor partner.
>Mas se for português de Portugal, bem, não me surpreende ser horrível a escrita.
Um dialecto usado por pretos e escravos ser pensado superior à língua que não é crioula é só risível.
>Me mandar estudar e dizer que quero pagar de inteligente não são argumentos
Ninguém expressou, até agora, que queres parecer inteligente. Estás a mentir para quê?
>Esta***** [quer dizer está?] mais para projeção, pois nunca afirmei ser inteligente
Nem em português te sabes expressar. Afinal a tua iliteracia não é exclusiva ao inglês. E nem precisas de te afirmar como tal, é preciso sim que sejas vincado como burro para te ires embora, e voltares quando parares de publicar conteúdo desprezível neste fórum.
>mas sua constante tentativa de denegrir-me com ad hominem e falaciais*** [falaciais?]
Estamos a discutir lógica formal para ser aplicável acusações de ad hominem? Há algum silogismo subjacente à conversa para ser aplicada uma norma de comportamento imperativa da lógica formal? Como não se verifica uma resposta positiva a nenhuma das perguntas anteriores, então não se aplica essa ninharia parva de "falácias" e de "argumentum ad hominem". Que pseudo-intelectual; tinhas que ser brasileiro.
>ao invés de tentar responder as coisas que falo
Estás a falar ou estás a digitar? Deves estar a ter algum tipo de ataque de pânico; só pode.
>só provam que o que eu digo deve estar alem de sua compreensão
Sim, as merdinhas que andas para aí a expressar que foram provadas vezes sem conta como erradas e trivialmente falsas estão para "alem" da minha compreensão. Leste umas obrinhas "pop" de uns gajos conhecidos e já te pensas como douto de Direito Constitucional e de Ciência Política. Realmente, vossemecê só pode ser um dos Doutos que é venerado pela universidades no mundo fora. Um génio diga-se! Ó ilustre, com tamanha capacidade que você tem sobre a língua portuguesa e sobre o inglês, você só pode ser uma pessoa bastante inteligente! Como disse: um Douto!
>e por isso voce so faz birra mesmo
"Esta pessoa não concordo comigo logo faz birra. :("
/chamando/ os brasileiros do Veeky Forums para que gozem com este gajo para que ele não pense que estou a humilhá-lo porque ele é brasileiro.
>Um dialecto usado por pretos e escravos ser pensado superior à língua que não é crioula é só risível.
>implicando que portugues é a única lingua que foi usado por escravos e negros
Inglês muito?
>Ninguém expressou, até agora, que queres parecer inteligente. Estás a mentir para quê?
>"Vai aprender inglês e estudar história; que tu nem com 15 anos serias considerado inteligente."
Outra mentira pra cesta.
>Nem em português te sabes expressar. Afinal a tua iliteracia não é exclusiva ao inglês. E nem precisas de te afirmar como tal, é preciso sim que sejas vincado como burro para te ires embora, e voltares quando parares de publicar conteúdo desprezível neste fórum.
Mais ad hominem, dispensado.
>Estamos a discutir lógica formal para ser aplicável acusações de ad hominem? Há algum silogismo subjacente à conversa para ser aplicada uma norma de comportamento imperativa da lógica formal? Como não se verifica uma resposta positiva a nenhuma das perguntas anteriores, então não se aplica essa ninharia parva de "falácias" e de "argumentum ad hominem". Que pseudo-intelectual; tinhas que ser brasileiro.
Mais ad hominem, dispensado.
>implicando que falacias só são identificadas com discussões de lógica formal
>portugues se achando quando nem sua bandeira aparece mais em seleção de idiomas
>Estás a falar ou estás a digitar? Deves estar a ter algum tipo de ataque de pânico; só pode.
>É pavê ou pá cumê?
Fucking kek.
>Sim, as merdinhas que andas para aí a expressar que foram provadas vezes sem conta como erradas e trivialmente falsas estão para "alem" da minha compreensão. Leste uma obrinhas "pop" de uns gajos conhecidos e já te pensas como douto de Direito Constitucional e de Ciência Política. Realmente, vossemecê só pode ser um dos Doutos que é venerado pela universidades no mundo fora. Um génio diga-se! Ó ilustre, com tamanha capacidade que você tem sobre a língua portuguesa e sobre o inglês, você só pode ser uma pessoa bastante inteligente! Como disse: um Douto!
>KISSIGER
>POP
LITERALMETE KEKEI
>"Esta pessoa não concordo comigo logo faz birra. :("
Você faz mesmo. Meramente uma verdade. Você só gosta de ser irônico e não responder, logo, birra.
>/chamando/ os brasileiros do Veeky Forums para que gozem com este gajo para que ele não pense que estou a humilhá-lo porque ele é brasileiro.
Desculpe, não sou tão sensível quanto você pra achar isso. Diferente da pessoa que precisa afirmar que o português dele é superior porque, aspas, "é utilizado por escravos e negros", fecha aspas.
Sério, seja relevante em seu continente primeiro e depois você vem querer dizer qual português é superior.
Vou-te responder só para que não te fiques a achar.
>Like I said, pinpointed groups that the government may crackdown in any time, if he truly want it.
Sim, a República de Weimar também podia ter destruído o partido Nazi a qualquer momento, mas não o fez. O Putin também pode destruir a Chechénia a qualquer momento; etc. Destruir um partido, um movimento e entre outros tem consequências políticas imensas. Cria mártires, destrói estabilidade política e social. Deves pensar que é só chegar ali e espetar com polícia e armas. No momento em que os legitimas através de ataques e criminalização estás-lhes a dar legitimidade e atenção. O inteiro século XX está cheio de casos que eu enunciei.
>It's true that there is a big problem in justice obstruction when dealing with such groups. But other than this, those groups just do riots, not organaized resistence or coup's.
Mas qual justiça? Quem é que está a falar de justiça? A política identitária está tão forte no sistema americano que até as próprias instituições têm sujeito que identificam com os movimentos mencionados. Achas que os polícias não votam? Não têm senpaiílias? Os polícias são odiados pelos pretos. Não achas que isso influencia o funcionamento do próprio sistema?
>It's funny how you take my words out of context. Are we in what century? Last time I checked, we were in the XXI, and amoust every historian, sociologist and philosopher said that we live in unrelatable times, where majority of people are against the use of violence.
Tu és mesmo burro. Eu estava a mencionar que tu não sabes um caralho do século XX. Não é preciso haver apoio da maioria da população. Os Nazis foram o quê? Ganharam com maioria absoluta, é? Basta que uma "maioria" relativa seja mais activa que as outras que o resto os seguem. Nunca fizeste trabalhos de grupo? Não vives em sociedade? Não consegues entender que as pessoas são na sua maioria passivas? 101 história e sociologia. Para quem era tão letrada nesta merda pareces é um grande burro.
>It seens that you are the one who lacks knowledge. Every army did this, and you cant expect for a steady supply line all the time in battlefield. The US army in that time was able to even help the soviets with the war effort, sending equipment and materials. And I dont believe that my english is so bad as you say, 'cause you seen to understand me quite well, and use ad hominem quite often too.
Burro. Os americanos faziam isto porque as armas era uma merda. As Thompsons eram armas ALTAMENTE merda, percebes agora? Vieste para aí com merdas de poderio militar mas os americanos nem tinham armas de jeito. Tinham que fazer razias aos alemães para lhes roubar as armas.
E só não escrevo mais porque iria passar o máximo número de dígitos. Ganha vergonha na cara e vai-te embora deste fórum.
>>If the US was at war with every single nation it would get demolished in a month or so.
Given the proper conditions and scenarios. As of right now, America is the capital of Capitalism and the only Navy massive and capable enough to keep the shipping lanes open for all countries.
>Most countries don't have great armies because they are not at war every 5 or so years like the US.
Most countries CAN'T do that. This is willingness and capability of those countries, not just one or the other.
>If these countries go to war they'll start creating tanks, jets and battleships.
True. I suppose they will grab the nearest guy working in a mom and pop shop and have him build and maintain state-of-the-art armaments that has suddenly surfaced out into the public. We can also expect years of experience, developed methods, and supply chains to suddenly appear.
Going to war with world would also create a regime meltdown as the already decaying american political system is already crumbling
>again given the proper circumstances. A lot of money is stashed into the American economy from countries all over the world. Allies depend on the US to deter aggression from more immediate and eternal enemies. When these things go away, then maybe, but first India and Pakistan would want to settle their differences first, so would Russia and the Baltics, and maybe something among Germany, UK, and France might spark up again.
Eu nunca vi alguém tão burro como tu. É incrível.
>implicando que portugues é a única lingua que foi usado por escravos e negros
>Inglês muito?
Mas quem é que insinuo que português foi a única língua usada por escravos e negros?
>Ninguém expressou, até agora, que queres parecer inteligente. Estás a mentir para quê?
>"Vai aprender inglês e estudar história; que tu nem com 15 anos serias considerado inteligente."
>Outra mentira pra cesta.
Moce, isto é mais grave do que eu pensava. Tu não sabes de todo ler. Vamos ver se te consigo ajudar a finalmente realizares o quão burro tu és:
>que tu nem com 15 anos
Ou seja, nem com 15 anos de idade (15 anos de vida)
>serias considerado inteligente
Ou seja, ser considerado inteligente significa que os outros percepcionem a sua capacidade cognitiva a um nível merecedor de reconhecimento positivo.
Agora toda a frase:
>que tu nem com 15 anos serias CONSIDERADO inteligente
Ou seja, que tu nem com 15 anos de idade com vida serias percepcionado como detentor de capacidade cognitiva relativamente positiva.
Não estou a perceber onde é que estás a interpretar que estou a dizer que queres ser compreendido como inteligente. Infelizmente acho que és irremediavelmente burro.
>LITERALMETE KEKEI
Esqueci-me que no Brasil ler Kissinger é ser Douto.
>Vou-te responder só para que não te fiques a achar.
Se você tem dificuldades com o inglês, pode usar o tradutor.
>Sim, a República de Weimar também podia ter destruído o partido Nazi a qualquer momento, mas não o fez. O Putin também pode destruir a Chechénia a qualquer momento; etc. Destruir um partido, um movimento e entre outros tem consequências políticas imensas. Cria mártires, destrói estabilidade política e social. Deves pensar que é só chegar ali e espetar com polícia e armas. No momento em que os legitimas através de ataques e criminalização estás-lhes a dar legitimidade e atenção. O inteiro século XX está cheio de casos que eu enunciei.
Não, sei muito bem do o quanto existe esse problema de criação de mártires e desestabilização política, e nem de longe acho que é só com armas que se controla algo (apesar de que, é bem eficiente, por mais brutal ou sangrento que seja). Sim, o século XX está cheio de casos onde forças políticas confrontaram-se violentamente, mas nem toda força política ganhou legitimidade perpétua. O fascismo só foi derrotado pela força das armas, não por dissertações teóricas, bem como a constante resistencia da sociedade civil contra um governo crescentemente despótico e tirânico. Acho que você pensa que estou defendendo ditaduras e tiranias, quando estou mais querendo saber dos anons o que eles acham sobre essa questão de governabilidade e coisas do tipo. Já avisei que não sou especialista, e que li algumas coisas aqui e ali sobre Schimitt e Hobbes (estou na metade de Leviatã, por exemplo, a preguiça me é muito mais forte até o momento), mas você vive querendo dizer que estou "me achando"; como disse, está mais para projeção.
>Mas qual justiça? Quem é que está a falar de justiça? A política identitária está tão forte no sistema americano que até as próprias instituições têm sujeito que identificam com os movimentos mencionados. Achas que os polícias não votam? Não têm senpaiílias? Os polícias são odiados pelos pretos. Não achas que isso influencia o funcionamento do próprio sistema?
Você claramente não compreendeu o que eu quis dizer com "justiça". Quando quis dizer justiça, não quis dizer sobre a justiça em si, seu conceito, estou falando da capacidade do estado de levar indivíduos que afrontam sua estabilidade com demonstrações violentas e desestabilizadoras. O querido Trumperão lá já mencionou a respeito do ódio de ambas as partes, e quanto a você achar que os negros odeiam policiais, existem pesquisas numéricas que dizem o contrário: não só os negros não odeiam policias como a maioria não apoia o BLM. Sim policiais votam e coisas do tipo, e sim, existem ideologias identitarias nas intituições americanas, mas não são em todas, e para melhorar, não estiveram lá o tempo inteiro. Elas são passíveis de serem retiradas e é exatamente isso que esta ocorrendo, por isso da violencia. Tem mais..
>Tu és mesmo burro. Eu estava a mencionar que tu não sabes um caralho do século XX. Não é preciso haver apoio da maioria da população. Os Nazis foram o quê? Ganharam com maioria absoluta, é? Basta que uma "maioria" relativa seja mais activa que as outras que o resto os seguem. Nunca fizeste trabalhos de grupo? Não vives em sociedade? Não consegues entender que as pessoas são na sua maioria passivas? 101 história e sociologia. Para quem era tão letrada nesta merda pareces é um grande burro.
Sei mais que você, que entra em raiva toda vez que digo algo a qual você não concorda. Procure qualquer historiador e você verá como o século XX foi estranhamente pacífico em relação aos anteriores, salvo as duas Grande Guerras que chutaram a boca do barril.
>Burro. Os americanos faziam isto porque as armas era uma merda. As Thompsons eram armas ALTAMENTE merda, percebes agora? Vieste para aí com merdas de poderio militar mas os americanos nem tinham armas de jeito. Tinham que fazer razias aos alemães para lhes roubar as armas.
Eu nunca vi isso de as Thompsons serem armas ruins, mas já que você diz isso, vou procurar, mas isso não muda o fato de que todos os exércitos da época utilizavam-se de equipamento capturado, incluindo os alemães, que durante o front oriental tinham um grupo dedicado só a isso, Loot Force o nome, caso não me falha a memória.
>E só não escrevo mais porque iria passar o máximo número de dígitos. Ganha vergonha na cara e vai-te embora deste fórum.
Faça mais de uma postagem, portuguesa esperta.
>Given the proper conditions and scenarios. As of right now, America is the capital of Capitalism and the only Navy massive and capable enough to keep the shipping lanes open for all countries.
How long would the capital of capitalism survive with worldwide embargo? Go ahead explain. I'll wait.
>Most countries CAN'T do that. This is willingness and capability of those countries, not just one or the other.
Most countries can't do that because they would be sanctioned and destroyed by the western world. In this scenario if every countries makes an alliance with the only goal of buttfucking the US they'll have more manpower, more money, more armament than 7 EUA. Do you have any idea of how miserable in terms of numbers your country is? We would just throw hordes of troops and you still your armies died down because of the inevitable fatigue.
>True. I suppose they will grab the nearest guy working in a mom and pop shop and have him build and maintain state-of-the-art armaments that has suddenly surfaced out into the public. We can also expect years of experience, developed methods, and supply chains to suddenly appear.
Isn't what you guys do? Grab the nearby high school dropout and give him training?
>Given the proper conditions and scenarios. As of right now, America is the capital of Capitalism and the only Navy massive and capable enough to keep the shipping lanes open for all countries.
>Most countries CAN'T do that. This is willingness and capability of those countries, not just one or the other.
>True. I suppose they will grab the nearest guy working in a mom and pop shop and have him build and maintain state-of-the-art armaments that has suddenly surfaced out into the public. We can also expect years of experience, developed methods, and supply chains to suddenly appear.
Exactely. People think that war-making is this easy. That's what I am trying to say and people still get triggered at me over it.
At least one user who don't comes screaming and bitting like the one in this thread who is writting in portuguese because he is too much of a coward to write in english.
>Mas quem é que insinuo que português foi a única língua usada por escravos e negros?
>Um dialecto usado por pretos e escravos ser pensado superior à língua que não é crioula é só risível.
Ou você escreve tão mal que a comunicação torna-se impossível.
>Moce, isto é mais grave do que eu pensava. Tu não sabes de todo ler. Vamos ver se te consigo ajudar a finalmente realizares o quão burro tu és:
Eu entendi o que você disse, e você se contradizeu, simples. Ou você simplesmente não sabe o que escreve.
>Não estou a perceber onde é que estás a interpretar que estou a dizer que queres ser compreendido como inteligente. Infelizmente acho que és irremediavelmente burro.
"AIn op, voce é burro, uhhh, burrão, ain"
Literalmente, tudo que você diz.
>Esqueci-me que no Brasil ler Kissinger é ser Douto.
Esqueci que os portugueses se acham e dizem que precisa ser douto pra poder opinar.
Já relevancia continental e mundial? Zero.
Ah sim, o que ocorreu com o:
>E só não escrevo mais porque iria passar o máximo número de dígitos. Ganha vergonha na cara e vai-te embora deste fórum.
Ta chateada? Ah relaxa, Portugal já foi relevante user, deixa que a gente cuida daqui pra frente, okay?
>Se você tem dificuldades com o inglês, pode usar o tradutor.
Isto merecia que eu pegasse numa publicação tua e te corrigisse todos os erros, mas o meu sadismo tem limites.
>Não, sei muito bem do o quanto existe esse problema de criação de mártires e desestabilização política, e nem de longe acho que é só com armas que se controla algo (apesar de que, é bem eficiente, por mais brutal ou sangrento que seja).
Não sabes porque és um miúdo que começou agora a estudar ciência política e ainda para aí a jogar joguinhos do "disse que disse": os historiadores dizem isto, o meu amigo disse aquilo. O caso do Mandela é obviamente aplicável ao caso em concreto: um terrorista que matava crianças e afins e mesmo assim a sua prisão criou um mártir.
> Sim, o século XX está cheio de casos onde forças políticas confrontaram-se violentamente, mas nem toda força política ganhou legitimidade perpétua.
Diz-me um regime com legitimidade perpétua.
>O fascismo só foi derrotado pela força das armas, não por dissertações teóricas, bem como a constante resistencia da sociedade civil contra um governo crescentemente despótico e tirânico.
Constante resistência ou constante psyops e ameaças diplomáticas e até mesmo financiamentos de terrorismo local?
>Acho que você pensa que estou defendendo ditaduras e tiranias, quando estou mais querendo saber dos anons o que eles acham sobre essa questão de governabilidade e coisas do tipo.
Não penso tal coisa. Tu é que não sabes ler.
>mas você vive querendo dizer que estou "me achando"; como disse, está mais para projeção.
Burro. O teu problema é nem a tua língua saberes falar.
>Você claramente não compreendeu o que eu quis dizer com "justiça"
Tu é que claramente não te sabes expressar. O que é triste.
>Quando quis dizer justiça, não quis dizer sobre a justiça em si, seu conceito
>Quando exprime a palavra justiça não queria mesmo dizer justiça.
Epá, moce, a sério. Não te envergonhes mais. Uma coisa é estabilidade, segurança ou até mesmo harmonia. Outra é justiça, está bem?
>O querido Trumperão lá já mencionou a respeito do ódio de ambas as partes, e quanto a você achar que os negros odeiam policiais, existem pesquisas numéricas que dizem o contrário: não só os negros não odeiam policias como a maioria não apoia o BLM.
Estou-me a foder para a maiorias, moce. Vives nessa ilusão das maiorias. O que importa é o número de pessoal activo que vai fazer algo. Os nazis também só tinham apoio de uma parte da população e mesmo assim ganharam o país.
>How long would the capital of capitalism survive with worldwide embargo? Go ahead explain. I'll wait.
>implying in a state of war you wont use local resources and embargos can do shit against US navy
Dude... Have you seen the size of their navy? Their tech? Have you any knowledge how powerfull the american military is?
>Most countries can't do that because they would be sanctioned and destroyed by the western world. In this scenario if every countries makes an alliance with the only goal of buttfucking the US they'll have more manpower, more money, more armament than 7 EUA. Do you have any idea of how miserable in terms of numbers your country is? We would just throw hordes of troops and you still your armies died down because of the inevitable fatigue.
FUCKING KEK.
I think I see the anti-american propagandist. Do you know the size of the US? Do you understand that their economy is so powerfull, that even a little something there hits the entire world? Do you know, how expensive and complex is the work of maintaning a military?
Literaly, majority of countrys dont to because they cant keep it. Too expensive for their national budget. And would apply soviet tatics in XXI century scenario? Dude, machine guns, dude, missiles, dude, tanks!
>Isn't what you guys do? Grab the nearby high school dropout and give him training?
>dont understand basic military recruitment
Oh, now I see...
>Sei mais que você, que entra em raiva toda vez que digo algo a qual você não concorda.
Sim, sabes; a começar pelo teu conhecimento na língua portuguesa e na língua inglesa. És um Douto.
>Procure qualquer historiador e você verá como o século XX foi estranhamente pacífico em relação aos anteriores, salvo as duas Grande Guerras que chutaram a boca do barril.
Queixaste que te mandei estudar e agora fazes o mesmo? Que puro hipócrita.
>Eu nunca vi isso de as Thompsons serem armas ruins, mas já que você diz isso, vou procurar, mas isso não muda o fato de que todos os exércitos da época utilizavam-se de equipamento capturado, incluindo os alemães, que durante o front oriental tinham um grupo dedicado só a isso, Loot Force o nome, caso não me falha a memória.
Não sabes? Pensava que ainda há pouco tinhas exprimido a ideia que eras mais conhecedor que eu. Estou impressionado.
Esta é a minha última publicação. Percebi por esta publicação que tu és genuinamente burro: . E percebi pelas imagens de reacção que és apenas um miúdo. Enfim, mas uma criancinha neste subfórum que vai ter a sua diarreia mental em forma de publicações.
>SIZE
>SIZE
>SIZE
>SIZE
Not the other poster you're talking about, but you're goddamn dumb if you think size matters. By your logic, China would BTFO the US because they're bigger, right?
Also
>Anti-american propagandist
Ay lmao, stop sucking american cock.
T. German
>Isto merecia que eu pegasse numa publicação tua e te corrigisse todos os erros, mas o meu sadismo tem limites.
Diz isso pq esta com medinho e/ou preguiça. Vai, te desafio.
>Não sabes porque és um miúdo que começou agora a estudar ciência política e ainda para aí a jogar joguinhos do "disse que disse": os historiadores dizem isto, o meu amigo disse aquilo. O caso do Mandela é obviamente aplicável ao caso em concreto: um terrorista que matava crianças e afins e mesmo assim a sua prisão criou um mártir.
Então só prova meu ponto o Mandela. É tudo pragmatico e ad hoc. E isso não é joguinhos. Depois que derrotaram o Napoleão, a política das monarquias recem refeitas era de caçar e massacrar qualquer sinal de resistencia ou dissidencia. Funcionou por um tempo; os nazistas fizeram o mesmo e nem se fala dos soviéticos. Porém esse tipo de política tem data de validade, pois se você descansar, todos os ressentimentos ressurgem com força. Isso não só joguinhos, é noção básica que até um iliterato sabe bem.
>Diz-me um regime com legitimidade perpétua.
>US
Até hoje com sistema de republica federativa.
As democracias mantiveram sua legitimidade até hoje, diminua seu pedantismo de querer levar "perpétua" ao pé da letra.
>Constante resistência ou constante psyops e ameaças diplomáticas e até mesmo financiamentos de terrorismo local?
>Força das armas = financiar terrorismo local
>Força das armas = ameaças diplomáticas
Por favor, não me venha dizer que até isso você esta querendo desvirtuar.
>Não penso tal coisa. Tu é que não sabes ler.
E você que não sabe escrever.
>Burro. O teu problema é nem a tua língua saberes falar.
Devia contar os burros, já devemos estar no numero 20° e poucos. Manda ver op, continua que você ganha.
>Tu é que claramente não te sabes expressar. O que é triste.
Outra mentira pra cesta, ou problema intepretativo, no seu caso, não surpreende-me.
>Epá, moce, a sério. Não te envergonhes mais. Uma coisa é estabilidade, segurança ou até mesmo harmonia. Outra é justiça, está bem?
Falacia, dispensado.
>Estou-me a foder para a maiorias, moce. Vives nessa ilusão das maiorias. O que importa é o número de pessoal activo que vai fazer algo. Os nazis também só tinham apoio de uma parte da população e mesmo assim ganharam o país.
Os nazis tinham apoio majoritário, só assim ganharam o pais e manteram-o. Os sovietes que não o tiveram, e o mantiveram através do terror e da violencia.
Ah sim, lembrete.
>>E só não escrevo mais porque iria passar o máximo número de dígitos. Ganha vergonha na cara e vai-te embora deste fórum.
Notei...
>implying that size dont matter
Having a small navy, no matter how good it may be, has limitations. The good of the US Navy is that not only is big, its good.
>Ay lmao, stop sucking american cock.
It isen't american cock sucking when is a objective reality.
>Europe, Japan, China are all slowly creating friendships with Russia while ostracizing the US.
True to some extend, however not really for Europa and Japan, they only play along russia, if it completly fits their intrest and is vital e.g. Energy safty of Europe. China had huge Problems with russia historicaly speaking, but they were forced together in the last decade.
>So is pretty much getting the bigger quantity of political capital and using it while you can.
Almost every nation does this.
>Although I know the US is getting more and more criticism, a friend of mine who was in the army actualy said to me that if the US was in war with the entire fucking planet, the US actualy had a chance because of how insane their industrial output is. He wasent american, to those who say is american propaganda.
He is ill infrormed, the iraq and Afghanistan stuff already have over streechted the empire, especially with Syria, Korea, the South Chinese sea and Europe. They know it's fucked. You can easily tell this by thousands small hints; no new cruisers, Sea Wolf class and Zumawalt stopped after three boats (basically only one forward deployed at any given time), only 120 F-22. They try to convince themself it's, because of Russian decline etc., but it's bullshit, if you take into account the chines build up. Russia, Europe and the US are in decline and their power is in reality more limited than one would think, if one doesn't account for the possiblity to basically end it all with an all out ICBM strike (for russia it's really almost the only big cared, apart from EW, air defence and insane amounts of artillery).
>Lately I have comming to the conclusion that if you go to war with a country, and you want to make a major change in that country system of goverment, annex them.
You can change goverments as effectifly without war.
>But I know that, as Kissinger said in his books, that annexations are one of the most warmongering things for a state to do to other and this usualy leads for you getting a coalision to hold your advance, because not only you are a danger, but also because you are destroying the order that you live in.
It's about cullminating systemtic risks and the problem of having a realistic planning to get out or have your bases there without a war at the gates.
>But I know that, as Kissinger said in his books, that annexations are one of the most warmongering things for a state to do to other and this usualy leads for you getting a coalision to hold your advance, because not only you are a danger, but also because you are destroying the order that you live in.
It depends do the people share your religion, culture, racial identity, how was the relation of different groups with the fromer goverment. There isn't one clear answer.
Addendum
>Although annexation is a traumatizing experience for amoust every society, it seens less harmfull than eternal war or civil unrest like in Iraq and Palestine.
Both are pretty clear cut cases were invasion and annexation didn't work. The civil unrest in Iraq is because the sunnites were driven of power and know the local war Shia groups rule and even, if the goverment in Bagdad was still under full US control it wouldn't change anything (hint: it was a puppet goverment to some degree, but they still have more in common with Iran than with the US/Western world). Isreal took the Land and is occuping it till this day (i'm not saying it's a good or bad thing); they basically have full control over the West Bank and defacto also over Palestine and still the groups fight for the Territory with each other.
>Objective reality
>Posts Stirner
kek, what a pseud
Addendum 2
>From the little I know from Schimitt, for example, since conflict is inevitable, the goverment should only try to avoid it,'s citizends killing one another
True, but Schmitt wasn't naive, he always knew about what defines a people (nation, which means shared blood and history) is needed for any serious sovereign (state).
>With this, are despotic governments the better form of government?
The despot is a sovereign, who has either lost "his"/"its" conection with the people or never had one. In modern laymens terms despot is often wrongly considered only a degenerated monarchy, but in fact also a degenerated democracy or aristocracy is despoty (meaning a rule without law).
>But so is democratic ones lately
In think a pure democracy is fiction, like a pure monarchy or aristocracy. Often the truley most prevalent form of goverment is hidden, like in ancient Rome were they for historic reasons couldn't say king/ monarchy.
>I keep wondering them what is a "good foram of governement", less in the Plato's way and more in the pragmatic and with allow's citizens to live their lifes while dont allowing them kill one another
The only way is to have people in one territory, who are similar, this ensures internal cohesion, which results in less conflict (also for other biological reasons mainly having to do with genetics). The end of the West (as we know it) will be the demographic decline in combination with other groups comeing in and claiming their part of the cake. Basically we are in for rough times; Schmitt knew this and he predicted most of what's happening today fairly accurate. You can have illusions, but if they concern something of importants there will be a price to pay. In a weird way we are paying the price for our own sucess and high mindedness in terms of moral; historicaly speaking and even today almost nobody beside us western europeans and those descendent from them could ever effort.
Este zuca burro fodeu a thread toda. Impressionante.
É impressionante a capacidade que esse babaca tem para ser humilhado. O portuga deu o maior vexame da vida desse moleque e não vai existir um vexame maior que esse. Ser rebaixado dessa maneira não vai ser pior do que ser humilhado, execrado, pisoteado, ter a história cuspida e escarrada pelo portuga. Se fode moleque. Você envergonha a comunidade brasileira nesse chan. Te reportei
>He is ill infrormed, the iraq and Afghanistan stuff already have over streechted the empire, especially with Syria, Korea, the South Chinese sea and Europe. They know it's fucked. You can easily tell this by thousands small hints; no new cruisers, Sea Wolf class and Zumawalt stopped after three boats (basically only one forward deployed at any given time), only 120 F-22. They try to convince themself it's, because of Russian decline etc., but it's bullshit, if you take into account the chines build up. Russia, Europe and the US are in decline and their power is in reality more limited than one would think, if one doesn't account for the possiblity to basically end it all with an all out ICBM strike (for russia it's really almost the only big cared, apart from EW, air defence and insane amounts of artillery).
This is new... I need to check out.
>You can change goverments as effectifly without war.
True, but more often than not seens to make everything harder than having a central power over your head.
>It depends do the people share your religion, culture, racial identity, how was the relation of different groups with the fromer goverment. There isn't one clear answer.
Yeah, true, the anschluss of Austria seemed pretty okay by majority populace (tho I am nowhere near as informed of austrian history as i should)
That's my Stirner meme, I use it as I wish.
True, true... Interesting indeed... Thanks for your thoughts user, they sure help...
Ainda ta aqui porque sua esposa não largou o bacalhau não? Reporta a vontade, veja o quanto eu ligo.
Caralho, tô impressionado como o tuga te deu atenção. Tu é babaca pra caralho e envergonha qualquer brasileiro. Volte para o 55chan, valeu?
Eu fico onde eu quero filhão, está sentindo-se ofendido? Ninguém esta te forçando a ficar na minha thread, da mesma maneira que ninguem obrigou o bacalhau lá (se é que não são a mesma pessoa, coisa que eu aposto que são, se não, conectados, cronismo).
Mas vai lá com o seu "ahahaha, ti reportei", to super me importando.
Caralho, velho. Você é babaca e paranóico. Vou apostar que também é Olavete e que segue o Nando Moura
Desculpa, isso ai deve ser outra pessoa que você esta me confundindo, pois sei que o combustível fóssil é real e nunca coloquei pés em moto-clube.
>>How long would the capital of capitalism survive with worldwide embargo? Go ahead explain. I'll wait.
I know we're talking past probable scenarios, but this is a little bit too much. America is extremely wealthy and very powerful. An American partnership is just too good for every single country to hold out on, and nobody trusts each other to commit to an embargo. A world wide embargo against the US under the current circumstances is complete fantasy.
britannica.com
>Most countries can't do that because they would be sanctioned and destroyed by the western world. In this scenario if every countries makes an alliance with the only goal of buttfucking the US they'll have more manpower, more money, more armament than 7 EUA. Do you have any idea of how miserable in terms of numbers your country is? We would just throw hordes of troops and you still your armies died down because of the inevitable fatigue.
I see you're not completely out of your mind. A global resolution against the US is out of the question.
>Isn't what you guys do? Grab the nearby high school dropout and give him training?
But who trains them? In the US, there's already a lot of people who know their jobs well enough to train their own replacements. There's already decades of research, institutional knowledge, and methods about all the hundreds of thousands of general and specific things that go into modern military technology. That's something most countries would have to work up to if they aren't in the EU, or are not China or Russia.
Ah, vai se foder, moleque. Se esteve pagando de playboy intelectual a thread inteira e agora se fica vitimizando o tempo inteiro com acusações que toda a galera é portuga? Porra, se enxerga
Cara que revolta no seu coração, desculpa se eu ofendi seu namorado de Portugal. É só que eles não são mais relevantes pro cenário mundial e todo argumento que ele e você tem é "hur, dur voce é burro e babaca, hur dur"
>what is even the point of the philosophy of politics or political science if is all pragmatic stuff and ad hoc actions?
Kissinger and realpolitik in a nutshell. Really all I know about Kissinger is the bombing of Cambodia and Kissinger's botched understanding of Kantian ethics.
People get to hard on Kissinger-senpai. Realpolitik isen't just "lel, be a jerk 'n' get powah", is a analysis of the reality and trying to work in it.
The reapolitiker knows that the world isent perfect and he needs to work in it. Unlike the idealistic plebian, he dont limit itself. Of course, this may make him take unethical actions, but hey, the idealistic ones often than not did more unethical things them realpolitikers
For your last question on the "good form of government" i'd highly recommend reading, if you haven't already, "Discourses on Livy" by Machiavelli. I think it does a good job at highlighting the importance of the peoples of a state, and how it contextualizes idea of a "good form of government".
Alright, gonna take notes on reading it in the future.
responsible citizenry -> good goverment
irresponsible citizenry -> bad goverment
bullshit
There are many western countries with "irresponsible citizenry" who by and large have decent , functioning governments
I say this as an anarchist
>If the US was at war with every single nation it would get demolished in a month or so.
I know it's trendy to bitch and moan about America and has been for the past ~50 years, but surely you are not delusional enough to believe this? If nukes were off the table (if they were on the whole world dies) and USA went to war against the rest of the world combined, it would effortlessly reduce the coalition to rubble within a month. Obviously it doesn't have the sheer manpower needed to occupy the whole world, but it wouldn't need to, since it could simply blast it back to the stone age. Regardless of what you think of America or Americans, America today is the indisputed sole world superpower, more powerful relative to it's rivals than any nation has ever been in the history of mankind.
>Americans actually believe this.
You lost a war against chinks with sandals. It is really sad to think a country with 300 or so million people can face the entire world in 1 month and win.
You're both idiots, if the US went to war with the entire rest of the world we'd all be dead. Nobody wins.
Oh I didn't read close enough. Ignore
I'm not an American you fucking retard, I'm just not completely brainwashed by anti-American propaganda like you. Did you even read my post? America doesn't need to get bogged down by guerrilas and land invasions and occupations, it can simply use its overwhelming military force to level every single non-American settlement to the ground. We're talking about total war here, not """regime change""".
>use its overwhelming military force to level every single non-American settlement
I don't think you have a realistic idea of exactly how many non-American settlements there are in the world. Not to mention all the American bases on non-American soil who rely heavily on their allies for logistics and supply chain. They'd be sitting ducks.
Ok maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration, but the point stands. American navy is more powerful than all the other navies in the world combined. American airforce is more powerful than all the other airforces in the world combined. The only countries America borders are Canada and Mexico, both of which could be overwhelmed within a week. It doesn't matter if rest of the world has an army numbering billions if they can't get to Americans. American navy could end world trade, and the airforce could bomb every single major city in the world, destroy all important infrastructure, all the arms factories and important naval and military bases in the world. It would obviously be unable to physically occupy the entire world, but could render rest of the world incapable of fighting back. Not to mention that it could inflict casualties numbering in the billions and that's indirectly - from disease and starvation that would be the consequence of American military action. We would be forced to tap out much sooner than the Americans would, and this has nothing to do with what we think of America(ns), it's just common sense looking at the sheer numbers and military capabilities.
If the US took Canada and Mexico they'd suddenly be sharing borders with Guatemala, Belize and Russia. Not really a brilliant resolution.
They do have a great navy but that navy relies on the same supply chains that would be cut off if they lost their allies.
>sheer numbers
The rest of the world combined has about 20x as many military personnel as the US does. I made a thread on /k/ about it as I figured they might be better informed on this than us.
>America doesn't need to get bogged down by guerrilas and land invasions and occupations, it can simply use its overwhelming military force to level every single non-American settlement to the ground. We're talking about total war here, not """regime change""".
But they empirically do get bogged down by guerillas and land invasions and will continue to do so. The Soviet Union could also wage total war but they didn't and they no longer exist today.
America isn't going to wage a global war of aggression. What's going to happen is they will fall behind technologically. It won't be quickly noticed but other nations will outspend them on R&D on advanced militarizable technologies leaving the playing field more. To win you need to be smart and America is becoming more stupid.
The American military doesn't really have that capacity and there's no reason to believe the chain of command wouldn't breakdown in the face of mass civil unrest.
By sheer numbers I meant the size of the navy and the airforce, not the number of men. It doesn't matter if we have a billion infantrymen, you can't fight ships and planes with AKs.
By occupying Canada and Mexico, I was thinking of invading to destroyed their armed forces and prevent them from being used as staging grounds for an invasion of the US. Trying to militarily occupy Iraq-style would be a disaster.
Obviously America isn't going to be #1 forever, but the person who started this discussion thought it of (unless I misunderstood him) as an America vs. the world total war. In that case, I'd definitely bet on America today.
The size of the navy and airforce don't really matter, given that they're spread across the world in a way that leaves them vulnerable to their current allies and not poised to defend their own shores. Hell, they've be fucked if their allies didn't even to attack them where they stand and just refused to let them refuel for the journey home.
I get what you meant but destroying those county's militaries wouldn't prevent landings there, and even if they could, the landings would just take place further South. They're not going to be able to defend the entire North & South America, especially if the people in South America are actively hostile.
Remember how people complain about rare earth metals that technology relies on being mined in China? There are 361,000 population centres they need to destroy. Even uncontested they'll fall out of the sky due to lack of repair from needed materials while trying.
Americans really think they could face the ENTIRE ARMY, NAVY and AIRFORCE of the entire world? Talking about being delusional. Holy fuck. WE WUZ AMERICANS AND SHIEET
>Let the annexed slowly join the one doing the annexing
Fuck no. Letting niggers join the country was the worst choice imaginable. When you let others in, your culture gets hurt, even more if they can vote. This in turn makes your country fail, and your government fail. There will only be one winner, and the government type that is successful will be the one that genocides the rest of the world.
>Entire thread debating Kissinger
>"Metternickian transnationalism" not mentioned once
>Dropped.
By the numbers of industrial output, military expertise and economic power, they well could. US did sactions on Russia for invading Crimeia and Russia is amoust broke.
Letting the annexed in isent give up of your culture, but to assimiliate other cultures into yours. This donset mean destroyer theirs either. Is more for both parties to learn with each other and come with a better culture.
Not what is happening in Cuckland where they let the rape culture of migrants destroyer their humanistic values.
Plz say it them. I wanna hear moar stuff.