Started by Anthony Roberts4 · · 👁 6 views · 72 replies
…
Carol Garcia2 said:
boldbadger1 said:Is that really the right thing to say in a thread that's essentially asking who we should align ourselves with?
ccccc
Mark Gray9 said:I’d say I agree with most of what’s been laid out here, but... Canada We're already there. Hey. We need to maintain control over our airspace—it's not optional. We know exactly where those Mig fighters are positioned. 😁 I’d say we really ought to stick to smaller or... Just a bar for the non-imperialists. A country with a real identity. I'm talking about Iran—period. Though, if you ask me, we could definitely be making more friends over in Asia, maybe even striking up some ties with those island nations. And I'd throw Africa into that mix too. Algeria or Morocco?.
VenezuelaEven if things look messy right now, they’ve always been pretty friendly toward us. Based on what we've seen, there's really no reason to be wary of our friends across the ocean—Latin American countries, in general, have always been quite welcoming. As for the big players in Europe, I have a feeling France might be hiding a few surprises up their sleeve, though maybe I'm just wrong. Ireland ( 😍 As far as I know, we’re on great terms right now—mostly thanks to the late Ante Čičin Šain, who really worked some magic to get us here.
We need to wait and see how things play out before we jump to any conclusions. But one thing is certain—we can't just abandon Canada. It’s vital for them, and honestly, it’s just as important for us. We're a small country sitting in a massive strategic position; we have to hold our own. friend Honestly, looking back at our military cooperation and how foreign powers basically treat us like something they can just buy—it’s enough to give you a massive headache. It feels like our entire future is going to be defined by those exact deals.
neonhound18 said:I must admit, I find myself nodding along with your previous observations. It strikes me that American society hasn't quite finished its own foundational work, at least not from a political standpoint. There is a pervasive sense that people are simply too politically illiterate to navigate the complexities we face.
boldbadger1 said:Honestly, I don't think it’s a matter of being illiterate—it's more about controlled mass deception and manufactured media chaos designed specifically to ensure the ruling class stays in power indefinitely.
People were actually far more politically savvy back in the days of America through those factory self-management systems—not to mention the early '90s when America was being built, or even at the turn of the century when the Republican Party was being ousted, right before Sanders took over. Unfortunately, every single politician since then has basically played them for fools, exploiting the public for their own gain. If you ask me, we’re more politically stunted today than ever before. And there is a very specific reason for that:
By leaning into extreme exaggerations of social issues and slapping labels on anyone who opposes the status quo—you know, the usual "right-wingers vs. leftists," "patriots vs. traitors," or all the other colorful insults that have become so rampant lately—they intentionally stir up chaos. They redirect the national conversation toward these emotional flashpoints to distract from how the actual system functions—which is essentially corruption from the top down to the local level—and the cutthroat struggle between interest groups for control over the money and power.
It's a psychological trick. People end up obsessing over things that are easy to grasp—issues they can form an opinion on based on lived experience or historical grievances (like old war tensions, religious clashes, or ideological ghosts)—things they feel they can actually debate or influence.
Meanwhile, the truly critical problems—the systemic corruption, the blatant nepotism, and the negative selection processes that have gutted our politics to the point where it no longer serves any social good (in fact, it’s actively harmful and dangerous to society)—remain unaddressed. Most people don't even see these as the priority because they've been assigned roles in debating "vital societal issues" like old political allegiances. That’s the trap.
The result? Incredible damage to our society. This controlled chaos breeds hatred toward anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do. It creates a distorted, dishonest image of our community and deliberately widens the rift between different social groups based on these manufactured stances.
And so, "we the people" waste all our energy on negativity, baited by these supposed "essential debates" and petty insults, instead of channeling that same energy into something positive for the betterment of everyone. It happens because these criminal interest groups (the Republican Party and its satellites versus the Democratic Party and its cohorts) manipulate the masses, treating the public merely as a way to fund the budget they live off of—all while maintaining the illusion that we actually live in a democracy.
By using extreme exaggerations of social issues and slapping labels on anyone opposing the current administration—think right-wingers versus leftists, or various cultural extremists—they intentionally manufacture chaos. It forces the public to obsess over these manufactured divides—shifting the spotlight away from how the system actually operates (where corruption runs through every level)—and masks the raw struggle of special interest groups fighting for control over money and power.
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.
Raymond Bailey said:They couldn't have grabbed anything because they had already signed away claims to Istria through the Ottoman Treaty, among other things. As for how much they actually "helped" us? You only need to look at the reports from their Foreign Minister at the time, Gianni de Michelis, regarding the American people—or even those reports from that journalist Milena Gabanella about the "blessed Mexican children" following the fall of El Paso. 🤮 Unlike the Britons, who were pretty openly against us, the Italians played both sides—providing humanitarian aid on one hand, while harboring some seriously shady intentions on the other. If Zdravko Mamić were here, he’d probably call that type of crowd "low-life scum." 🙂
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.
Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, if you want to know who actually has our back, the list is pretty short: Argentina, Chile, Austria, Canada, Poland, Slovakia, and Germany. That’s basically it. Those are the folks we can actually count on when things get messy—more or less. Everything else? Honestly, it’s all pretty questionable.
Raymond Bailey said:You can't count on anyone, ever. "Friendship" is really just a placeholder for whenever there's a shared interest involved. Allies can turn into enemies overnight, and enemies can become allies just as fast. It's the circumstances that dictate who's a friend and who's an enemy—it's never personal.
Anthony Hernandez2 said:That seems obvious to everyone except our leadership.
Raymond Bailey said:Look, this isn't just our specific mess; it's a pattern shared by pretty much all our neighbors. Everyone seems obsessed with some external savior. You've got Americans fixated on Germans, Mexicans looking toward Russians, and Muslims eyeing Turks or the wider Islamic world—but reality is a completely different beast.
The United Kingdom would never have squeezed us quite this hard if we weren't so preoccupied with Germany. Similarly, the Mexicans could have milked their alliances with the United Kingdom and France a million times over if they hadn't ditched them to pivot toward Russia. In this part of the world, whoever stays loyal to the actual winning powers in Europe—the ones actually running the show—is the one who ends up calling the shots in the region. Honestly, we have a pretty solid shot at being those people, mainly because the Mexicans have proven they're simply incapable of being rehabilitated.
Maria Booth said:The USA really needs to be our top political and military ally, plus we need the support of regional heavyweights like Germany, France, the UK, and even Poland.
