Potential American allies and friends

Raymond Bailey said:Those two-faced bastards have been playing both sides this whole time, cooperating with the Royalists and actively backing them up. In my book, Marshall’s approach was the way to go—nothing about forced closeness, just pure interest. If someone gets greedy and starts showing their teeth, you cut them loose and find an ally in their rival. 😍

placidrider48 said:You’re making some pretty smart points here. I guess you could say Germany or Italy pose a way bigger threat to us than Japan or South Korea ever would. Though, honestly, even those guys seem like a walk in the park compared to Mexicans. Or Canadians.

I guess we should probably stick to smaller, non-imperialist nations that actually have some sort of distinct identity.

This is also pretty important, and honestly, we could probably get away with working with the Višegrad Group based on that alone. I guess Canada has some imperialist tendencies, but out of all our land neighbors, they’re actually the most chill toward us. Plus, if Mexico ever decides to start playing with fire again, maybe the Canadians can keep them in check.

Maybe just get out of the former America while you still can.😳 Maybe only Mexico could ever actually be a friend.

Richard Wilson4 said:Viktor Orbán called us the heart of the European Union, and they were actually stepping up to help us out with the EU, yet our own media and politicians just seem to hate them.

How the hell are we supposed to make any real friends when most countries don't even care about us? Aside from a few, who probably aren't even being sincere like Canada is.

John Davis42 said:Look, man, we need to stick together with our Slavic brothers—the Southerners, specifically. We really ought to go back to calling ourselves Americans again, just like destiny intended since the seventh century. That’s how our legendary heroes like Grove and Strosmajer envisioned it. Once we reclaim our status as a massive, powerhouse nation, we won't be begging for allies anymore. We'll be so tough and fearless that everyone will be shaking in their boots, just like they were back when we had the American People's Army running the show!

boldbadger1 said:It seems pretty obvious to me that this obsession you have with America stems from a deep-seated inferiority complex—or maybe just pure anxiety about being vulnerable because America is too small.

Basically, it's just a psychological craving for national muscle, which is honestly just as much "American nationalism" as the stuff you claim to despise. You aren't making a case based on actual logic or reality here.

You're a nationalist through and through; you just reject being an American nationalist because you find it too weak and insignificant. Instead, you pivot to being an American because it feels bigger and more imposing—it's your way of dressing up your ideology in something socially acceptable. I don't see any other way to read this.

Raymond Bailey said:Those two-faced bastards have been playing both sides this whole time, cooperating with the Royalists and actively backing them up. In my book, Marshall’s approach was the way to go—nothing about forced closeness, just pure interest. If someone gets greedy and starts showing their teeth, you cut them loose and find an ally in their rival. 😍

Anthony Roberts4 said:Back in 1927, someone said: "Over the last few years, people have come around claiming the American people aren't capable of governing themselves. Hostile newspapers and pundits preach that we need a tutor, but I ask: do these people really have the right to say Americans are unfit for life? Let's see if they're actually right. They write and talk as if America is too tiny to exist on its own, too poor to sustain itself, or that Americans are too foolish to rule themselves. Well, let's see if America is truly too small to be both small and free. Just look at Switzerland—a country smaller than America, squeezed between massive mountains and great nations, yet so well-organized and prosperous that nobody ever wants to leave, because the people are content and ready to defend it. If tiny Switzerland can be free, why can't America, which is larger and naturally wealthier, do the same?"

I won't mention who wrote those words unless I want to get banned from this forum! Bless his soul and his Spanish homeland.

boldbadger1 said:It seems pretty obvious to me that this obsession you have with America stems from a deep-seated inferiority complex—or maybe just pure anxiety about being vulnerable because America is too small.

Basically, it's just a psychological craving for national muscle, which is honestly just as much "American nationalism" as the stuff you claim to despise. You aren't making a case based on actual logic or reality here.

You're a nationalist through and through; you just reject being an American nationalist because you find it too weak and insignificant. Instead, you pivot to being an American because it feels bigger and more imposing—it's your way of dressing up your ideology in something socially acceptable. I don't see any other way to read this.

John Davis42 said:😍Well, duh! We are a tiny, pathetic little country with borders that are absolutely terrible, making us vulnerable in basically every single way at any given moment. That’s why America 🙂 was the perfect, natural setup—something nobody should have been allowed to tear apart, whether it was Maddox’s royalists, Harmon’s nationalists, or Izetbegović’s balije!!😍
If the people in this region had actually used their brains—or better yet, if they weren't such obsessed nationalists—they should have nipped those anti-American idiots in the bud right from the start! 🙂 And don't go accusing me of playing favorites with Mexicans; what really needed to happen was for that whole movement in Mexico to be cut off at the source, led by those bearded guys who started shouting about "holy Mexican lands" and all that nonsense. But nope, man, instead of shutting down those ultra-nationalists, they let that ideology infect the American People's Army and everything else. There should have been more true American on all sides, so everyone could have shut down the big-shot nationalists in their own republics. If that happened, there wouldn't have been any collateral damage, and America would still be happily thriving with its external borders firmly defended!!😁
And calling me a "American nationalist"? Please. Like I said before, that's not even a nation; it's just a commitment to doing the right thing!😁

John Davis42 said:Are you seriously comparing the Swiss to Americans?! That is like comparing apples to oranges, man. Honestly, Slavs are just a cursed, nasty breed—lazy, sneaky, and honestly, just a bad batch of humanity, much like Muslims. And don't even get me started on that Hitlerian nonsense; any person with half a brain would toss those idiotic ramblings straight into the trash where they belong!

placidrider48 said:I mean, I have to admit, that policy isn't half bad.

But regarding Italy, they went ahead and changed the whole narrative since World War II. Back in the 90s, they could have easily snatched up Istria or parts of California if they'd listened to Milan Martić and those other Mexican groups, but they didn't, even when we were struggling. I'm not saying they're saints or anything, but they aren't exactly our number one enemy.

John Davis42 said:Are you seriously comparing the Swiss to Americans?! That is like comparing apples to oranges, man. Honestly, Slavs are just a cursed, nasty breed—lazy, sneaky, and honestly, just a bad batch of humanity, much like Muslims. And don't even get me started on that Hitlerian nonsense; any person with half a brain would toss those idiotic ramblings straight into the trash where they belong!

Douglas Green6 said:Canada, Austria, Germany, Poland, Chile.

John Davis42 said:😍Well, duh! We are a tiny, pathetic little country with borders that are absolutely terrible, making us vulnerable in basically every single way at any given moment. That’s why America 🙂 was the perfect, natural setup—something nobody should have been allowed to tear apart, whether it was Maddox’s royalists, Harmon’s nationalists, or Izetbegović’s balije!!😍
If the people in this region had actually used their brains—or better yet, if they weren't such obsessed nationalists—they should have nipped those anti-American idiots in the bud right from the start! 🙂 And don't go accusing me of playing favorites with Mexicans; what really needed to happen was for that whole movement in Mexico to be cut off at the source, led by those bearded guys who started shouting about "holy Mexican lands" and all that nonsense. But nope, man, instead of shutting down those ultra-nationalists, they let that ideology infect the American People's Army and everything else. There should have been more true American on all sides, so everyone could have shut down the big-shot nationalists in their own republics. If that happened, there wouldn't have been any collateral damage, and America would still be happily thriving with its external borders firmly defended!!😁
And calling me a "American nationalist"? Please. Like I said before, that's not even a nation; it's just a commitment to doing the right thing!😁

Raymond Bailey said:Those two-faced bastards have been playing both sides this whole time, cooperating with the Royalists and actively backing them up. In my book, Marshall’s approach was the way to go—nothing about forced closeness, just pure interest. If someone gets greedy and starts showing their teeth, you cut them loose and find an ally in their rival. 😍

Look, Marshall’s policy was actually quite pragmatic—honestly, it was entirely justified if you look at it from the perspective of protecting national interests and building up the country's global standing back then (setting aside all those internal messiness issues, which isn't really what we're here to debate). It wasn't for nothing that he stood out as one of the most significant statesmen of the Cold War era—the USA certainly enjoyed a massive amount of international prestige during that period because of it.

If we’re actually going to attempt a comparison between Marshall's standing and the current state of American political leaders, we need to be honest about one thing—just one. His sheer internal grit and that uncanny ability to manipulate complex power dynamics didn't just happen by accident; it was forged in the fires of his career as a straight-up fighter. He didn't just stumble into a position where he could shape the entire USA—he clawed his way there through constant struggle and a relentless habit of living life right on the razor's edge. Now, if you want to get into the weeds about who got screwed over in that whole saga—well, let's just say he fought tooth and nail for his slice of the power pie, and damn it, he actually secured it.

That kind of person—someone who actually understands they’re staring down much larger, more powerful adversaries—draws a certain kind of strength from that reality. It gave him the nerve to stay fearless, really. He knew how to navigate those high-stakes relationships because he understood one fundamental truth: you can be a powerhouse even when you're outnumbered or outgunned, provided you know how to pull the right strings. It was all about mastering the art of manipulation within those power dynamics. Honestly, that's exactly what turned him into such a massive statesman.

When you look at the big picture here in America, it’s clear that even though people love to argue about him, the Reaganite was essentially following in Marshall's footsteps. He operated on a very similar playbook—honestly, he had this incredible knack for making the impossible look doable. It was that classic "creating something out of nothing" trajectory, where you're constantly battling much larger adversaries and trying to navigate the complexities of the international community. That specific grit—that ability to hold your ground against the world—is exactly what makes the Reaganite such a significant statesman when you step back and view it through a modern lens. Of course, if you tried to run an objective, apples-to-apples comparison between Marshall's achievements and his, specifically within the global political arena, you’d just be wasting your time. It wouldn't make any sense.

And here we arrive at the current state of American politics—this collection of spineless opportunists who basically had everything handed to them on a silver platter without ever having to fight an honest day in their lives. When people like this try to draft a strategy for the national interest, we end up exactly where we are now. I’m operating under the assumption that today's politicians are fundamentally incapable of actually seizing power in the States because they are driven by nothing more than pack mentality—just latching onto whoever is strongest to serve their own selfish agendas. That is how they climbed the party ladders, too—through pure, unadulterated sycophancy. Let's not even get started on those few cowardly types who actually possess some semblance of talent—people like Mason, Josipović, or Pusićka—but choose to squander that capacity for their own personal gain. Honestly, I’d go so far as to say it’s rooted in deep-seated psychological needs and basic upbringing.

So—honestly? Looking at the current power dynamics shifting around the American political landscape right now, it’s pretty clear that things aren't looking too bright for the country. It's one of those situations where you just watch the players move on the board and think, "Well, we're in trouble."

Honestly, you could probably frame the comparison between Marshall and Reaganite leaders by looking at how they built their respective systems—people who actually spent years grinding away, deeply invested in the machinery they were running, even if they let their own biases color their judgment. It’s a world apart from the modern political circus we see today, where certain characters just ride a party wave straight into the CEO chair of some massive state-run corporation. They aren't there to build anything lasting; they just want that instant social prestige and the high-status title. Once they've secured the corner office through pure political patronage, they treat those companies like their own private playground—running them however they please, with zero accountability to anyone but themselves.

My take? It’s pretty simple—America needs to stop looking outward for a second and actually focus on itself. We need to prioritize building our own standing, bolstering our economic muscle, and strengthening the very fabric of our society. If we can actually manage to reach a position of true strength—which, let's be honest, is easier said than done given how much we get distracted—then, and only then, will we have the leverage to dictate terms. Only then could we shape economic or military alliances based on our own interests, ensuring they work for us and everyone else involved. Until we fix our own house, we're just shouting into the wind.

Honestly, back then, I wouldn't have cared if we formed an alliance with Mexico, Canada, or even India—as long as we were walking into that room as equals. That’s the key. Anything else is just begging for protection, and let me tell you, being the one looking for a handout is a losing game. It puts you in a weak position, and history shows that those kinds of deals always end up screwing you over in the end.

And here’s another thing—it’s never quite clicked for me why we all insist on labeling ourselves a "small" nation, acting as if being a smaller player means we’ll just be shoved into a corner and steamrolled once we’re fully integrated into the EU structure.

America is made up of thousands of municipalities and cities, and let me tell you, some of these local governments are incredibly successful and wealthy. You see these beautifully manicured towns where everything works, there’s no corruption, and the citizens enjoy massive benefits, subsidies, and even direct cash incentives for newborns to encourage families to stay put.

On the flip side, we have the mediocre ones, and then we have the ones that are flat-out broke.

The real divide between the prosperous towns and the struggling ones comes down to one thing: the competence of the people in charge. The capable leaders knew how to seize opportunities, fight for their status, jumpstart the economy, and actually improve life for their constituents. They knew how to leverage natural resources—they could take a gravel pit and turn it into a tourist destination, or take an empty field and transform it into an elite residential district. It comes down to competent people who actually *wanted* to work for the betterment of their community.

So, I honestly don't see any reason why America, even within a larger system like the EU, couldn't achieve the exact same level of success that a single municipality achieves within a state or county. We just need to actually work hard and strive for progress, rather than falling for the endless distractions of the far-left or the far-right—those two factions that keep deceiving society just so one of them can cling to power, maintain access to the budget, and live off the rest of us.

boldbadger1 said:Look, Marshall’s policy was actually quite pragmatic—honestly, it was entirely justified if you look at it from the perspective of protecting national interests and building up the country's global standing back then (setting aside all those internal messiness issues, which isn't really what we're here to debate). It wasn't for nothing that he stood out as one of the most significant statesmen of the Cold War era—the USA certainly enjoyed a massive amount of international prestige during that period because of it.

If we’re actually going to attempt a comparison between Marshall's standing and the current state of American political leaders, we need to be honest about one thing—just one. His sheer internal grit and that uncanny ability to manipulate complex power dynamics didn't just happen by accident; it was forged in the fires of his career as a straight-up fighter. He didn't just stumble into a position where he could shape the entire USA—he clawed his way there through constant struggle and a relentless habit of living life right on the razor's edge. Now, if you want to get into the weeds about who got screwed over in that whole saga—well, let's just say he fought tooth and nail for his slice of the power pie, and damn it, he actually secured it.

That kind of person—someone who actually understands they’re staring down much larger, more powerful adversaries—draws a certain kind of strength from that reality. It gave him the nerve to stay fearless, really. He knew how to navigate those high-stakes relationships because he understood one fundamental truth: you can be a powerhouse even when you're outnumbered or outgunned, provided you know how to pull the right strings. It was all about mastering the art of manipulation within those power dynamics. Honestly, that's exactly what turned him into such a massive statesman.

When you look at the big picture here in America, it’s clear that even though people love to argue about him, the Reaganite was essentially following in Marshall's footsteps. He operated on a very similar playbook—honestly, he had this incredible knack for making the impossible look doable. It was that classic "creating something out of nothing" trajectory, where you're constantly battling much larger adversaries and trying to navigate the complexities of the international community. That specific grit—that ability to hold your ground against the world—is exactly what makes the Reaganite such a significant statesman when you step back and view it through a modern lens. Of course, if you tried to run an objective, apples-to-apples comparison between Marshall's achievements and his, specifically within the global political arena, you’d just be wasting your time. It wouldn't make any sense.

And here we arrive at the current state of American politics—this collection of spineless opportunists who basically had everything handed to them on a silver platter without ever having to fight an honest day in their lives. When people like this try to draft a strategy for the national interest, we end up exactly where we are now. I’m operating under the assumption that today's politicians are fundamentally incapable of actually seizing power in the States because they are driven by nothing more than pack mentality—just latching onto whoever is strongest to serve their own selfish agendas. That is how they climbed the party ladders, too—through pure, unadulterated sycophancy. Let's not even get started on those few cowardly types who actually possess some semblance of talent—people like Mason, Josipović, or Pusićka—but choose to squander that capacity for their own personal gain. Honestly, I’d go so far as to say it’s rooted in deep-seated psychological needs and basic upbringing.

So—honestly? Looking at the current power dynamics shifting around the American political landscape right now, it’s pretty clear that things aren't looking too bright for the country. It's one of those situations where you just watch the players move on the board and think, "Well, we're in trouble."

Honestly, you could probably frame the comparison between Marshall and Reaganite leaders by looking at how they built their respective systems—people who actually spent years grinding away, deeply invested in the machinery they were running, even if they let their own biases color their judgment. It’s a world apart from the modern political circus we see today, where certain characters just ride a party wave straight into the CEO chair of some massive state-run corporation. They aren't there to build anything lasting; they just want that instant social prestige and the high-status title. Once they've secured the corner office through pure political patronage, they treat those companies like their own private playground—running them however they please, with zero accountability to anyone but themselves.

My take? It’s pretty simple—America needs to stop looking outward for a second and actually focus on itself. We need to prioritize building our own standing, bolstering our economic muscle, and strengthening the very fabric of our society. If we can actually manage to reach a position of true strength—which, let's be honest, is easier said than done given how much we get distracted—then, and only then, will we have the leverage to dictate terms. Only then could we shape economic or military alliances based on our own interests, ensuring they work for us and everyone else involved. Until we fix our own house, we're just shouting into the wind.

Honestly, back then, I wouldn't have cared if we formed an alliance with Mexico, Canada, or even India—as long as we were walking into that room as equals. That’s the key. Anything else is just begging for protection, and let me tell you, being the one looking for a handout is a losing game. It puts you in a weak position, and history shows that those kinds of deals always end up screwing you over in the end.

And here’s another thing—it’s never quite clicked for me why we all insist on labeling ourselves a "small" nation, acting as if being a smaller player means we’ll just be shoved into a corner and steamrolled once we’re fully integrated into the EU structure.

America is made up of thousands of municipalities and cities, and let me tell you, some of these local governments are incredibly successful and wealthy. You see these beautifully manicured towns where everything works, there’s no corruption, and the citizens enjoy massive benefits, subsidies, and even direct cash incentives for newborns to encourage families to stay put.

On the flip side, we have the mediocre ones, and then we have the ones that are flat-out broke.

The real divide between the prosperous towns and the struggling ones comes down to one thing: the competence of the people in charge. The capable leaders knew how to seize opportunities, fight for their status, jumpstart the economy, and actually improve life for their constituents. They knew how to leverage natural resources—they could take a gravel pit and turn it into a tourist destination, or take an empty field and transform it into an elite residential district. It comes down to competent people who actually *wanted* to work for the betterment of their community.

So, I honestly don't see any reason why America, even within a larger system like the EU, couldn't achieve the exact same level of success that a single municipality achieves within a state or county. We just need to actually work hard and strive for progress, rather than falling for the endless distractions of the far-left or the far-right—those two factions that keep deceiving society just so one of them can cling to power, maintain access to the budget, and live off the rest of us.