| ▲ | vrganj 16 hours ago |
| This whole war has already been a weird suicide ritual when it comes to American soft power. I guess hard power is next. The American Empire, burnt down by its own Nero/Caligula hybrid, while the population just watches it happen... |
|
| ▲ | heresie-dabord 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "Come now, don't exaggerate," said numerous apologists. "How bad can a bad person possibly be?" It would seem that a bad person, elected to the highest office, surrounded by equally corrupt appointees, can do harm on a global scale. And all of it is home-grown. The entire population of deportees posed less of a threat then what the US has bestowed upon itself in one presidential term. |
|
| ▲ | sheikhnbake 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > while the population just watches it happen... About 1/5 of America voted for this guy after seeing the trainwreck of his first admin. At the same time, protests response is continually growing and breaking records as economic disparities and totalitarian responses intensify. |
| |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Looking at all Americans in deceiving. For starters, 1/5 are below the voting age. 49.8% of voters voted for this. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | prmph 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I guess now would be a good time for China to make its move on you-know-who. |
| |
| ▲ | unsnap_biceps 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm starting to believe that China isn't going to make the move. It's winning the hearts and minds of the rest of the world and will be able to leverage its growing soft power well beyond what Taiwan would provide. I just don't see them giving up the position the US has abandoned. | | |
| ▲ | prmph 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm starting to think so as well. The Chinese are typically cautious geopolitically, and very strategic. They may well have made the calculus that for the foreseeable future, they have more to gain from keeping the status quo re Taiwan while their rivals score own goals, waiting for a possible rapprochement with Taiwan on favorable terms. That's something the factions in the Middle East miss: sometimes great change comes from patiently applying pressure and infiltrating from within, rather than a frontal attack. | |
| ▲ | vrganj 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | China's better move rn would be to go for the big soft power play and ditch the Russians for the abandoned Europeans. | | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | vkou 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | China doesn't think in that way. It doesn't make permanent alliances. It is always open to reach limited, scoped deals in fields where it benefits them. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah that sounds like a pretty good deal. Drop the bankrupt Russians and do a deal with us Europeans, a much richer market, to brace against US economic warfare. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Smoosh 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I suspect that they are willing to wait a few more years until they have built up their own chip making capacity so that disrupting Formosa won’t strongly affect their own economy, while it will hinder other developed countries. | | |
| ▲ | orwin 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not so sure about that. Taiwan pro-reunification party still grows, and its economy is hyper-specialized (not surprising, neocolonialism etc). If china's chip production capacity reach acceptable level (which it will), enough to put downward pressure on lesser chip, Taiwan economy might suffer enough that they vote for a reunification, probably as an autonomous regions (like Guangxi or Ningxia). That would be China's ultimate win. |
|
| |
| ▲ | adventured 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not just yet, they should wait for a little bit. The US isn't done depleting its inventory yet, the US might get itself in a lot deeper yet, and the US population will only detest the war even more given time. All of those things will help China take Taiwan. If Iran gets ugly enough the US population will just have that much less willingness to get involved in another major conflict. 3-18 months for Taiwan (9-18 more likely; China still needs some prep). There's no scenario where China isn't going to successfully take the island after this. They now know the US isn't at all prepared to stand off with them in coastal Asia. It would take years of surge production to get ready, the US doesn't have years re Taiwan. If China is going in, we'll start to see large signs of that. They'll begin a number of prominent campaigns, including sabotage, propaganda, extremely large supply movements, and so on. | | |
| ▲ | jemmyw 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If China were to learn anything important from Russia and the USAs "swift" wars it's: don't do it. They'll have the upper hand but a determined government and population will bog down their efforts for years and potentially destabilize politics at home. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | duxup 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I believe Trump when asked about climate change said something to the effect of "I'll be dead by then." I think that applies most everything he does in a way. |
| |
| ▲ | ted_bunny 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's then-thirty and the bees are dying, let's get this show on the road |
|
|
| ▲ | constantius 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Genuine question for Americans: donyou not think that a Democrat today would be leading the same war? We're talking about a party that facilitated, and took part in, 1 year of genocide. In what world could you imagine Israel's planned war against Iran not being automatically supported by whatever US party was in power? |
| |
| ▲ | fabian2k 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The default US policy tends towards starting wars in the middle east. But even very hawkish previous administrations never started this particular one, for the reasons we're seeing right now. So I strongly doubt a Harris administration would have. You're also ignoring just how far outside the norms Trumps administration is. They're entirely dysfunctional, breaking all kinds of laws and full of unqualified extremist with their own agendas. | |
| ▲ | spaghetdefects 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, I think the Democrats would be fighting this war for Israel, just like they did in Gaza. If anything, it's almost good that Trump is leading this as it means the war does not have the support of the neoliberal citizens (politicians are another story). He's also even less competent, "saying the quiet parts out loud"... This is true accelerationism. Clearly it would be better to abandon Israel and not fight any of their wars for them, but flailing incompetently, sinking Israel and creating an Iranian super-power is the second best outcome. | |
| ▲ | thisislife2 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are being downvoted for stating the truth - you are absolutely right that the Democrats too would have fully supported Israel's attack on Iran. Let us not forget that Biden played a major role in Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza (and now in West bank) by helping the IDF spread its propaganda hoax that "Hamas beheaded babies", in the western media (Biden lied that he had personally seen the "horrific pictures " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_baby_beheading_hoax ). Of course, unlike Trump, a Democratic party administration would have resorted to hypocrisy and propaganda that the war was for "democracy", "human rights", "save jews", "fight terrorism" etc. etc. But it would have been much shorter - they would have killed the Iranians leaders too, and struck military targets and then stopped. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | Johanx64 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What do you think American Empire is all about if not controlling the oil rich countries in middle east, as well as extremely oil rich countries like Venezuela? The only failing here is that America has decaying, hallowed out industrial base where it can't just cheaply mass produce and replenish hi-end rockets and tech to take care of business-as-usual quickly, because everything down to raw materials is just so expensive. |
| |
| ▲ | vrganj 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oil itself is becoming irrelevant quickly. It's a play for becoming king of the ashes. | | |
| ▲ | Johanx64 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Familiarize yourself with this:
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ Top reserves by country, historical data on consumption (including by country). These basic data points explain US foreign policy better than anything. There is no data or trends that supports the notion that oil is becoming irrelevant, much less quickly. US with it's current reserves and oil consumption rate would last roughly 12 years, btw. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Let me show you this figure in response: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/United-States-Farm-based... US farm horse population over time. Looked like it was gonna grow endlessly in the 1920s. It didn't because the whole thing became obsolete. | |
| ▲ | bakies 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That doesn't mean it won't happen. | | |
| ▲ | Johanx64 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean something undeniably WILL happen as the world has roughly 47 years left at current consumption rate of oil. Whether what's going to happen will be whatever it is you're imagining is completely different story entirely. Needless to say, If you have a largely deindustrialized country you can't really make any sort of transition happen yourself anyway, not at the grand scale and speed necessary for this endeavour. Expect fireworks. | | |
| ▲ | bakies 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > There is no data or trends that supports the notion that oil is becoming irrelevant > the world has roughly 47 years left at current consumption rate of oil. This is contradictory? | | |
| ▲ | Johanx64 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lets say, you have 47 years left to live. Does that make those 47 years irrelevant - just because they will end? There's no contradiction there. It just makes these last-remaining fossil fuels even more valuable. Moreover oil use hasn't ramped down, nor is it getting replaced in any substantial way. I suspect people have no slightest clue just how reliant the modern world is on fossil fuels outside of it's use in cars. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Teever 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I always find this chart really insightful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil#/media/File:US_Whale... |
| |
| ▲ | nathanaldensr 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is simply not true by most objective metrics... unless you don't like plastic and fertilizer? | | |
| ▲ | OutOfHere 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | We produce a lot of biofuel from corn which can in principle be converted and used to make some but not all types of plastics. |
|
|
|