4 Comments

I wrote a similar article. 30% of the trade decrease was between the US and China, and the US did this deliberately, and "encouraged" allies to follow suit.

We have dominion over the trade routes, and that's unlikely to change. We were and are in the Middle East primarily to keep those routes open, not only to feed and supply the world, but to supply an army if necessary.

I knew once the Houthis started targeting cargo ships, the US would get directly involved.

I wrote this after Crimea, and again when Russia invaded Ukraine.

We could end the war in Ukraine and crush Iran and Palestine tomorrow, but as you pointed out, to a lesser degree, too many liberals here are idiots, hypocrites, and racists.

If everyone is supposedly "equal", they're all capable of the same atrocities as everyone else, and Israel, and now the US, have been directly attacked. While most liberals (and for the record, I consider myself a liberal) buy their food and phones, they have no idea how much they've benefited from US dominance.

If we had put our foot down hard in Crimea, the conflicts today probably wouldn't have happened, and if a region has been fighting for 2000 years, blaming it on the US doesn't hold water, and maybe it's time for a major intervention.

We should crush Iran and Palestine now, definitively, because as ugly as that sounds, it will prevent future wars, and the world has enough problems.

The Pentagon stated over 20 years ago that climate change is the single biggest threat to national and global security, but after 9/11, we became even more dedicated to the idea that having the biggest guns would matter the most, or that intent means nothing without power.

The US isn't clean, but we aren't as dirty as China and Russia, and a fun fact: we didn't invade Iraq until they started dealing in oil with their own currency. The US dictates that all international oil trade or sales have to be done with US currency.

People criticize the US, but a lot of countries don't have to invest in a Navy because of our control of those trade routes, and every empire since Rome or before recognized the importance of being able to control trade or at least stabilize it. I think Rome was the first to invest in a Navy to control trade overseas, but I could be mistaken.

US military doctrine is to be able to defeat Russia and China at the same time if necessary, but we care more about stability than ideology, which is why we pay countries in the Middle East billions a year, regardless of how corrupt or fascist their regimes are.

Taiwan is a different animal, because it would make the US look weak if we gave it up, but if we work out a deal with China and sell it, we wouldn't care, Despite the trade drop, we're still entwined with China, and the US and China ultimately just want to do business,

In this case, liberals would be outraged. Attacking Israel is somehow justifiable, because their the "oppressor," despite the fact their next to 500 million Arabs who want to obliterate them.

Over 90% of the wars in the last 40 years have been in the Middle East and involved Islamic fanatics on either one side or both. Uneducated religious fanatics cause the most major conflicts, even in the US, but too many liberals ignore this, or don't apply to the same standard to the Middle East, which again, is hypocritical and racist.

If a culture subscribes to marrying 9-year old girls, raping and killing civilians, and oppressing women by law, why the fuck should should we respect that culture? The idea of respecting any culture disgusts me.

Again, the US is ugly, but we aren't that ugly, and while most of the world rightfully fears the US, they would rather have us running the show than Russia or China.

Apologies for the length of this comment, and thank you for the thought provoking article. Maybe you lean more to the right than I do, but I think in the end we're both pragmatists, and as bad as war is for everyone, we should go in to win and prevent future conflicts. These wars are brutal and horrifying, and I'm sick of the US being hamstrung by politics.

We should go in and stop this, because if we don't, more wars will start, and these wars will drag on interminably, and the US should do this while we can, or before there are a dozen more conflicts to deal with.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, Harry! I fundamentally agree with much of what you've said. You make a valid point about taking Iran out, or at least toppling the regime before it gets nuclear. But I disagree on Taiwan. To me, that's the ticket for China to reach a status the USSR never dreamed of. The U.S. would regret it within a few short decades. Overall, NATO countries should at least be pulling their weight. Given their crumbling demographics, declining economic competitiveness, and inability of to defend themselves, the day might soon arrive when the U.S. withdraws from NATO to focus on the Pacific, driven not by spite, but by necessity.

Expand full comment

I agree with you about Taiwan, but wasn't as clear as I should have been. If we can sell the idea without China losing face, the US will do that, but the US will not give up Taiwan.

NATO and other countries don't appreciate the US and/or take it for granted.

The US is a fucked up mess, but despite all evidence to the contrary, and no matter how many times our country has broken my heart, I think we've done more good than harm, and that the world would be worse without the US.

We're supposedly on different sides politically, but we have a lot in common, and I appreciate the nuanced civil dialogue. The dialogue is more important than a consensus.

Expand full comment
author

"The dialogue is more important than a consensus." Absolutely, well said! And the U.S. is probably the greatest case of Winner's Curse in history.

Expand full comment