Very strong argumentation. I believe one key reason behind US pursuing primacy is something that I've read recently about: how the US uniquely among great powers feels extremely vulnerable. And that it's a core part of its identity, therefore of its policy choices. Always has, since its creation (and before, as colonists individually and collectively all felt very vulnerable to the threat of Native American attacks), then British, Spanish and French invasion (hence the original Monroe doctrine), then Japanese and then Soviet and communist threats. Being vulnerable means wanting two things: 1/ perfect advance knowledge of threats (i.e. building a surveillance system that can anticipate threats anywhere at any time... The intelligence budget per capita in the US dwarfs that of Russia, UK or France), and 2/ being able to strike anywhere based on a preemptive strike doctrine, in order to prevent any emerging rival or even non-rival (domino effect thinking) posing a threat. I fear tackling this feeling of vulnerability might perhaps be needed ahead of having a chance to reducing the military and intelligence budgets. Just my 2 cents.
You attribute more cause of failure and weakness to the evil aspect if this than I am inclined to. Trump ran into the same defenses of a fortress nation that decades of previous administrations had realized long ago were too strong to feasibly overcome.
The US military was arguably less competent to discourage and then to execute due to officer purges on behalf of evil. The bonfire if lives and materiel is US stupidity, maybe on behalf of russian evil.
My perception also is that its evil actions and violence in the world have been weakening the US for a long time. The efforts for good have been awesome, but the evil has led to the accumulation of power by generations of toxic people.
the US successfully discouraged Iran from seizing the strait for decades, because Iran was aware that if it started a war of aggression, the US could in fact defeat it and destroy its geopolitical position fairly easily.
the situation changes a lot when it's the US who starts the war of aggression though.
last paragraph: Moving forward, we need not to repudiate Trump.
could that read as: Moving forward, we need to not only repudiate Trump.
argh; thank you!
Very strong argumentation. I believe one key reason behind US pursuing primacy is something that I've read recently about: how the US uniquely among great powers feels extremely vulnerable. And that it's a core part of its identity, therefore of its policy choices. Always has, since its creation (and before, as colonists individually and collectively all felt very vulnerable to the threat of Native American attacks), then British, Spanish and French invasion (hence the original Monroe doctrine), then Japanese and then Soviet and communist threats. Being vulnerable means wanting two things: 1/ perfect advance knowledge of threats (i.e. building a surveillance system that can anticipate threats anywhere at any time... The intelligence budget per capita in the US dwarfs that of Russia, UK or France), and 2/ being able to strike anywhere based on a preemptive strike doctrine, in order to prevent any emerging rival or even non-rival (domino effect thinking) posing a threat. I fear tackling this feeling of vulnerability might perhaps be needed ahead of having a chance to reducing the military and intelligence budgets. Just my 2 cents.
I think the us has a huge sense of entitlement which drives a lot of this.
You're quite right, and this sense of entitlement is something all major empires share, I believe.
So maybe: Manifest Destiny + feeling vulnerable = need for a massive military and intel budget compared to comparable nations?
Strong article. When are you going to run for President? You'd have MY vote!
You attribute more cause of failure and weakness to the evil aspect if this than I am inclined to. Trump ran into the same defenses of a fortress nation that decades of previous administrations had realized long ago were too strong to feasibly overcome.
The US military was arguably less competent to discourage and then to execute due to officer purges on behalf of evil. The bonfire if lives and materiel is US stupidity, maybe on behalf of russian evil.
My perception also is that its evil actions and violence in the world have been weakening the US for a long time. The efforts for good have been awesome, but the evil has led to the accumulation of power by generations of toxic people.
the US successfully discouraged Iran from seizing the strait for decades, because Iran was aware that if it started a war of aggression, the US could in fact defeat it and destroy its geopolitical position fairly easily.
the situation changes a lot when it's the US who starts the war of aggression though.