Poll of the Day > Is anybody else sort of worried about US foreign relations post-Trump?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Depending on if Trump is out in 2020 or 2024, what sort of predicament will we be in? What will happen to border relations with Mexico? What will happen to the USMCA agreement? Will we still have the same economic and militaristic relations with Saudi Arabia? Will we improve relations with Germany, England, France, etc? And let's not forget Russia and all that entails.

Hopefully we back out of SA, since we know that the Saudi crown are monsters. Also, if a Democrat is elected I hope they don't have open borders.
---

POST-Trump?

You speak as if the Glorious God-Emperor is ever going to stop ruling over us all with his munificent lordliness!


---

Not really

Most of the rest of the world gets more out of a good relationship with the US than we get from them. at least individually. They'd be stupid to tank their relationship with the US because of one 4-8 year president.

Even if the relationship wasn't that beneficial for them, it would still be stupid to not play nice with the most powerful army in the world. Unless we had a continued pattern of Trump-like presidents, it'll be fine.
---

Smarkil posted...

Even if the relationship wasn't that beneficial for them, it would still be stupid to not play nice with the most powerful army in the world.

Couldn't beat paddy farmers in the woods.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Smarkil posted...

Even if the relationship wasn't that beneficial for them, it would still be stupid to not play nice with the most powerful army in the world.

Couldn't beat paddy farmers in the woods.

The U.S couldn't just go in and level the country. They would have been in and out in weeks if it was total war.
---

GanglyKhan posted...

The U.S couldn't just go in and level the country. They would have been in and out in weeks if it was total war.

It mainly couldn't BE a total war scenario because, even beyond the PR considerations, there was a fear that significant operations could invite direct Chinese or even Soviet retaliation. Instead, pretty much everyone involved was forced to tiptoe around and the US became mired in a defensive war (which ran counter to the actual strengths and training of the US military). Even once operations turned more offensive, there still wasn't really a concerted push to actually invade North Vietnam. Most operations were meant to defend southern territory, which in turn put the US on the back foot from word one.

But even using more conventional methods the US potentially could have won a war of attrition there over the long term. It was rising anti-war sentiment at home that eventually made victory untenable.

Most people don't really realize that the Tet Offensive (ie, the thing that really swung anti-war sentiment in the US into overdrive, creating the impression that the war was unwinnable and the US was sacrificing lives for nothing) was actually a major failure for the north, and it was a huge hit on their morale. One that was reverse once they realized that American resolve was wavering as well, and suddenly a realistic end to combat was in sight if they could simply outlast American morale at home. Tet was a military failure, but a PR victory - and it was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of the US having a chance of victory.

Had the US treated Vietnam less like Korea and more like Japan in terms of military strategy, we'd very likely be living in a very different world right now.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Had the US treated Vietnam less like Korea and more like Japan in terms of military strategy, we'd very likely be living in a very different world right now.

Imagine the weird porn Vietnam would've come up with.
---

Hop103 posted...

Hopefully we back out of SA, since we know that the Saudi crown are monsters. Also, if a Democrat is elected I hope they don't have open borders.

Back out? I say you whoop their asses! America, fuck yea!
---

Nah, I think it was necessary to revise some of these old policies to keep everything fair for all.

The US hegemony has been slowly dying for ~20 years now. Bill Clinton was really the last president to use America's strengths - both hard and soft - effectively on the international stage. Bush Jr. dealt the first blow to US interests with his disastrous misadventures in the Middle East (and his domestic financial policies being a huge contributor to a global recession the scale of which hadn't been seen for a century certainly didn't help); Obama repaired a lot of the PR damage that move caused, but he failed to assert himself forcefully against aggressive moves by China, Russia, and Syria. Trump basically kicked the last legs out on the deal by treating allies like enemies and constantly picking fights with them, all while rolling out the red carpet for regimes who can straight-up murder US journalists without a whisper of serious repercussions from the White House.

It's not out of the question that a future president could rebuild America's influence abroad, but major emphasis on the word "rebuild" - the position of preeminence that America used to enjoy as the world's only real superpower is basically dead now and well beyond simple repair. China is rising and its economy will soon overtake America's as the largest in the world, American military might is no longer a thing that autocrats have reason to fear so long as they ally themselves with the interests of Russia or China, and the damage dealt to America's relations with its allies is not something that can be easily undone.

America is and will continue to be a strong country and a global leader, but it is no longer the unquestioned most important voice in the room. Other countries (or blocs, like the EU) are now approaching that same level of influence, so the US is - and will continue to - increasingly finding itself one voice amongst many on the global stage.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The US hegemony has been slowly dying for ~20 years now. Bill Clinton was really the last president to use America's strengths - both hard and soft - effectively on the international stage.

I'd argue that even he was part of the decline.

Reagan was arguably the last real effective big-stick swinging President. Bush Sr has the success (for certain definitions of the term "success") in the Gulf War to his credit, but his administration is at least potentially responsible for the problem in the first place (ie, our ambassador refused to take a hardline position on Iraq's troop build-up before the invasion, which Iraq took as tacit approval - had we voiced our opposition in advance it's possible they would have had to preempt the invasion entirely). And he had at least a couple of other diplomatic gaffes that weakened the US politically and militarily.

Clinton on the other hand was more or less directly responsible for the cutbacks in intelligence spending that helped turn 9/11 into a clusterfuck, and outright refused custody of Bin Laden when Saudi Arabia arrested him after the bombing of the USS Cole and offered him to us. Almost every foreign policy decision he made - especially in his second term - was wrong. He basically helped create a number of problems that the governments after him were never really able to cope with.

People remember Clinton's term as being positive mainly because it paralleled the strong economic success of the 90s, but Clinton had almost nothing to do with that. Nearly everything worthwhile that happened during his Presidency were things he was smart enough to avoid interfering with, while most of the things he took active interest in had a net negative effect overall.

Arguably the US was strongest on the world stage both economically and politically when we had a singular enemy to point at to bolster coalition support from our allies. But with the fall of the USSR we lost that bogeyman, and we've never really been able to successfully shift that focus, whether to China or against the more nebulous threat of terrorism or anyone else. And with the strengthening of European ties via the EU, the pushback against US hegemony was pretty much inevitable.


---

We survived GW Bush. We'll be okay. Well. Maybe not 'okay', but alive for the most part.
Tbh every day I think more about moving to New Zealand or Australia.
---

Fun fact: no President does anything meaningful when it comes to actual policies. None. They're just figures to 'represent' the people. They don't actually knock out policies themselves.
---

Is anybody else wondering about WastelandCowboy's emotional well-being post-Trump? Will he be able to find a new outlet for his comical overreactions or will he implode?

As far as disastrous foreign policy decisions go, Trump has a *long* way to go to be on par with the likes of GWB (Iraq), Obama (Syria, Yemen, purposefully destabilizing regions, etc), LBJ (Vietnam), etc. And while Trump hasn't done enough to push back against Mexico on border issues, he's done a *lot* more than Obama who tacitly encouraged border violations through his policies.

StoneRevolver posted...

We survived GW Bush. We'll be okay. Well. Maybe not 'okay', but alive for the most part.
Tbh every day I think more about moving to New Zealand or Australia.

Yes, because if you want to escape immigration controversies it makes perfect sense to move to Australia >_>

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/world/australia/asylum-seekers-lawsuit-migrant-camps-.html
---

Zeus posted...

Is anybody else wondering about WastelandCowboy's emotional well-being post-Trump? Will he be able to find a new outlet for his comical overreactions or will he implode?

As far as disastrous foreign policy decisions go, Trump has a *long* way to go to be on par with the likes of GWB (Iraq), Obama (Syria, Yemen, purposefully destabilizing regions, etc), LBJ (Vietnam), etc. And while Trump hasn't done enough to push back against Mexico on border issues, he's done a *lot* more than Obama who tacitly encouraged border violations through his policies.

StoneRevolver posted...

We survived GW Bush. We'll be okay. Well. Maybe not 'okay', but alive for the most part.
Tbh every day I think more about moving to New Zealand or Australia.

Yes, because if you want to escape immigration controversies it makes perfect sense to move to Australia >_>

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/world/australia/asylum-seekers-lawsuit-migrant-camps-.html

My emotional well-being is just fine. If you don't care to read my posts, ignore me. Otherwise, step off.

Just as an afterthought, it's interesting how you always come into topics I that remotely concern Trump, yet ignore others. Does Zeusy have a crush on Bardi?

Imagine believing a single president has the ability to totally fuck up foreign relations forever.
---

Zareth posted...

Imagine believing a single president has the ability to totally fuck up foreign relations forever.

Not even close to what I said.

I think the most defining things about US foreign relationships post-trump (regardless of if 2020 or 2024) will actually be based on what happens in other nations. China's government and policies will heavily influence the shape of East Asian politics and potentially African and Oceanian politics as well. Likewise, the EU, England, and how that all ends up playing out will drastically change the relationship regardless of what Trump does.

With China, it's expansionist policies are going to do little more than drive a wedge between it and the U.S. Combined with its effective attitude of 'Screw the Rules I'm China' make it so that basically nothing Trump does short of going down on Xi will make China and the U.S. 'friends'. It's posing a threat to the territorial waters of multiple nations in the east and even some threats on sovereignty. While it likely won't come to open war China will gladly act like it. I suspect that, post-Trump, the Asian areas will be split between a Pro-US faction and a series of China puppet-nations and claims. Russia will be a big player here and it's unclear where they'll fall as there are good reasons to aid either side as well as stay neutral. Assuming Trump stays his current course I suspect that India, Japan, and South Korea will all be pro-US with the Phillipians, Vietnam, Australia, and New Zealand having more favorable opinions assuming China also doesn't back down. North Korea won't become pro-US but their relationship may improve enough to the point where they'll stay out of any war between America and China. For Russia, China has made movements to claim Russian territory (using the same strategy they used in Ukraine no less) but seems to be avoiding actively antagonizing them as well. Neither are really good friends with the US so they may ally, or Russia may ally with the U.S. to secure their borders from Chinese influences, or play it neutral and hope the bickering doesn't flow over into their lands (which it likely will if the trade war becomes actual war).

In Europe it's pretty much going to all come down to the question of what happens to the EU. If it holds up and keeps the same philosophies it's had I suspect we'll see western europe cool to the US while eastern europe warms up. However, if it breaks and goes into a wave of nationalism sort of like what we're seeing in France right now we'll see a massive reform after which... who knows? China will be trying to spread its influence into Europe as well and, while it may succeed if no one does anything, it likely won't happen until after 2024 that we'll see definative results one way or the other aside from in a few of the poorer/lesser nations.

So, simply put... I think the state of U.S. foreign relations post-trump will largely be independent of Trump and his actions and more dependent on China. I suspect that his greatest impact will not be anything he actually does but, rather, as a rallying point for nationalism over globalism. So long as he keeps America in good shape he'll be able to perform that role. So...

It's really too volatile right now to say.
---

Zeus posted...

Is anybody else wondering about WastelandCowboy's emotional well-being post-Trump? Will he be able to find a new outlet for his comical overreactions or will he implode?

Let's be honest Brett, after Icoyar showed he's the more stable of the 2 of you - you've somehow gotten worse, ok? I wasn't even aware it was humanly possible.
---

I think most foreign nations are well aware of the monster the US is.
---

Smarkil posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Had the US treated Vietnam less like Korea and more like Japan in terms of military strategy, we'd very likely be living in a very different world right now.

Imagine the weird porn Vietnam would've come up with.

lol we killed almost as many, 3million in japan vs 2 million in vietnam
---

We'll be fine, but Trump's buffoonery isn't doing us any favors.
---

I guess Im worrying over nothing. Overreacting as usual.

WastelandCowboy posted...

Just as an afterthought, it's interesting how you always come into topics I that remotely concern Trump, yet ignore others. Does Zeusy have a crush on Bardi?

Who the fuck is Bardi? And I visit a lot of hysterical-overreaction-to-Trump topics. I might have not bothered responding to the latest of Foxx's "THESE allegations will take down Trump! Click me!" topics, but I hit a *lot* of topics.... and, of course, I post in a lot of your non-Trump topics

WastelandCowboy posted...

Zareth posted...

Imagine believing a single president has the ability to totally fuck up foreign relations forever.

Not even close to what I said.

But is it close to what you implied?

Unbridled9 posted...

It's posing a threat to the territorial waters of multiple nations in the east and even some threats on sovereignty.

iirc, the first of the 2016 presidential candidate to even raise this real and ever-growing concern was Jim Webb and he was drummed out of the race quickly by moderators who both shorted him on time and tried to play up the fact that he failed the DNC's litmus test. The others (if they talked about it at all) mostly paid it lip service.

And honestly you'd need a concerted global effort to curb China's expansionist ambitions.

WastelandCowboy posted...

I guess Im worrying over nothing. Overreacting as usual.

---

Zeus posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

Just as an afterthought, it's interesting how you always come into topics I that remotely concern Trump, yet ignore others. Does Zeusy have a crush on Bardi?

Who the fuck is Bardi? And I visit a lot of hysterical-overreaction-to-Trump topics. I might have not bothered responding to the latest of Foxx's "THESE allegations will take down Trump! Click me!" topics, but I hit a *lot* of topics.... and, of course, I post in a lot of your non-Trump topics

WastelandCowboy posted...

Zareth posted...

Imagine believing a single president has the ability to totally fuck up foreign relations forever.

Not even close to what I said.

But is it close to what you implied?

Unbridled9 posted...

It's posing a threat to the territorial waters of multiple nations in the east and even some threats on sovereignty.

iirc, the first of the 2016 presidential candidate to even raise this real and ever-growing concern was Jim Webb and he was drummed out of the race quickly by moderators who both shorted him on time and tried to play up the fact that he failed the DNC's litmus test. The others (if they talked about it at all) mostly paid it lip service.

And honestly you'd need a concerted global effort to curb China's expansionist ambitions.

WastelandCowboy posted...

I guess Im worrying over nothing. Overreacting as usual.

I am Bardi.

So you selectively choose which trump topics to respond to? So long as it works for you?

No. I never said Trump fucked everything up for good. People seem to think I get a hardon for posting about trump. I dont. I seldom post about him anymore. I think people are getting me confused with Duckbear who is just rabid for Trump news.

Youre not cool enough to use that gif.

WastelandCowboy posted...

I am Bardi.

So you've been an alt all this time?! And an alt for some account I'm not sure I've even heard of?!

WastelandCowboy posted...

So you selectively choose which trump topics to respond to? So long as it works for you?

Some I don't see, some I don't feel like responding to (especially if everything that needs saying has been said), and Foxx does too much of the same nonsense for me to waste my time there. More importantly, it's unreasonable to expect somebody to respond to every damn topic.

WastelandCowboy posted...

Youre not cool enough to use that gif.

---

Zeus posted...

So you've been an alt all this time?! And an alt for some account I'm not sure I've even heard of?!

Um, no? Bardi/Bardiclife is the handle I've gone by for literally years. This account was originally an alt to TheSolitaryOne, but that ended around 2012-ish. Sole account since than. I got Bardiclife banned a while back for stupid shit I did in my trolling days.

Zeus posted...

Some I don't see, some I don't feel like responding to (especially if everything that needs saying has been said), and Foxx does too much of the same nonsense for me to waste my time there. More importantly, it's unreasonable to expect somebody to respond to every damn topic.

So why do you always feel the need to come to Trump's defense in the seldom topic I make? And Foxx's topics aren't "nonsense" - they're legitimate topics.

WastelandCowboy posted...

Um, no? Bardi/Bardiclife is the handle I've gone by for literally years. This account was originally an alt to TheSolitaryOne, but that ended around 2012-ish. Sole account since than. I got Bardiclife banned a while back for stupid shit I did in my trolling days.

None of which answers why you'd randomly use a moniker by which I don't know you.

WastelandCowboy posted...

So why do you always feel the need to come to Trump's defense in the seldom topic I make?

Because your complaints are invariably whiny (and generally alarmist) bullshit? If you were posting the same caliber of ridiculous complaints regarding Obama, I'd respond there as well.

WastelandCowboy posted...

And Foxx's topics aren't "nonsense" - they're legitimate topics.

---

Zeus posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

Um, no? Bardi/Bardiclife is the handle I've gone by for literally years. This account was originally an alt to TheSolitaryOne, but that ended around 2012-ish. Sole account since than. I got Bardiclife banned a while back for stupid shit I did in my trolling days.

None of which answers why you'd randomly use a moniker by which I don't know you.

WastelandCowboy posted...

So why do you always feel the need to come to Trump's defense in the seldom topic I make?

Because your complaints are invariably whiny bullshit? If you were posting the same caliber of ridiculous complaints regarding Obama, I'd respond there as well.

WastelandCowboy posted...

And Foxx's topics aren't "nonsense" - they're legitimate topics.

Dude. You appeared out of fucking nowhere in 2015/2016, as if you were summoned to defend Trump against the liberal PotDers. I told you I was only using this account at the time. Due to this, why the hell would I, unless otherwise had reason to, refer to myself as Bardiclife? If you had visited PotD or had been a regular before this sudden migration, you'd know that I was and am Bardi. Hell, ask pretty much anyone. @RCtheWSBC, @Jen0125, @LinkPizza, @AllstarSniper32, etc.

Oh, please. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't give you any reason to say what I say is "whiny bullshit". As far as to the other part of your comment, I actually didn't have a problem with Obama as I agreed with his policies. I don't agree with Trump's policies, save some parts of border control. It's as simple as that.

Again, always with the gifs to exemplify your feelings. A regular of /r/fellowkids, are you?

ClarkDuke posted...

Zeus posted...

Is anybody else wondering about WastelandCowboy's emotional well-being post-Trump? Will he be able to find a new outlet for his comical overreactions or will he implode?

Let's be honest Brett, after Icoyar showed he's the more stable of the 2 of you - you've somehow gotten worse, ok? I wasn't even aware it was humanly possible.

Zeuses names Brett? El oh el.
---

iirc, the first of the 2016 presidential candidate to even raise this real and ever-growing concern was Jim Webb and he was drummed out of the race quickly by moderators who both shorted him on time and tried to play up the fact that he failed the DNC's litmus test. The others (if they talked about it at all) mostly paid it lip service.

And honestly you'd need a concerted global effort to curb China's expansionist ambitions.

It's hard to say considering how heavy the censorship is in China. Apparently there's evidence to suggest that they are nowhere near as stable as they like to claim; but I don't trust that too much. I mean, I don't think they are, but not anywhere near as much as it's made out to be. But for the South China Seas it's basically a 'who blinks first' contest. If China manages to subvert the governments of the various claimants then they might win by default; but it's far more likely that they'll just bully them into submission and try to shove the U.S. out as well.

IMO the 'real' issue is a lack of people willing to actually directly confront China. It's because of the prolonged period of peace IMO. Not saying that it's a bad thing; but a lot of people seem to think that, since the US won the cold war, there's basically nothing to worry about anymore when the truth is just the opposite. The recent turn towards socialism in the west hasn't helped and various other factors make people simply apathetic to China's advancements; until it's too late of course.

I don't know if Trump's trade war is the 'right' answer, but I do certainly feel it's a better answer than just sitting back and doing nothing; especially with China's inability to play by the rules.
---