World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Ack]

India is deploying 460 T-90SM tanks to the border with Pakistan, which is in line with their current Cold Start military doctrine involving their rival nation.

The conflicts in the middle East have been going on forever. The crazy part is we send foreign aid and do not even know who is the enemy or in alliance the following weeks!

Just a quick note, Pakistan and India aren't part of the Middle East and have been in near-continuous conflict since their partition as separate nations by the outgoing British colonial government. The Brits cut up the two as a general way of separating Muslims into what is now Pakistan(as per the wishes of the Pakistan Movement led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah) and Hindus into India, though the division was nowhere near ideal for any involved, and many people of different religions ended up on both sides of the oft-disputed border.

Also at this point India is a rising superpower and Pakistan a regional and middle power, so while Pakistan has been a key ally in handling issues in Afghanistan and in the fight against global Jihad movements, India serves as an excellent counterbalance in the region to China(which also has an ongoing border dispute with India). It is in our best interest to keep on friendly terms with both Pakistan and India but also to keep them from going to war with each other, as both are nuclear states with extremely large militaries, developing economies, and a steadily growing middle class.

I've been following the situation in Gambia, but I hadn't read anything more recent than troops gathering to enforce the election results.

The situation in The Gambia has gotten crazy. Yahya Jammeh has fled the country and supposedly emptied the coffers and taken the nation's cash reserves with him. Incoming President Barrow has announced a panel to investigate potential crimes against humanity Jammeh allegedly committed while in office but cautions that the process is merely an investigation and isn't going to serve as a prosecution. The UN, the African Union, and ECOWAS have declared it will not condemn any nation which houses Jammeh, and he is free to return to The Gambia if he so chooses.

[marurun]

Sounds like the new Gambian president is being pragmatic and attempting not to isolate Jammeh's followers or polarize the citizenry at this early state.

[Ack]

It is the best possible policy for a continent so often criticized for its post-colonial history. Hopefully new leaders of African nations will continue to be pragmatic and welcoming and not go the way of ousted dictators and warlords. Africa will potentially be the next continent to see an economic boom. I'm hoping stability, democracy, and personal freedoms are in place as the various African nations continue to develop.

[CRTGAMER]

Also at this point India is a rising superpower and Pakistan a regional and middle power, so while Pakistan has been a key ally in handling issues in Afghanistan and in the fight against global Jihad movements, India serves as an excellent counterbalance in the region to China(which also has an ongoing border dispute with India). It is in our best interest to keep on friendly terms with both Pakistan and India but also to keep them from going to war with each other, as both are nuclear states with extremely large militaries, developing economies, and a steadily growing middle class.

Countries should fight their own battles
This is where the U.S. keeps screwing up. Trying to figure out the current ally (currently India?), dumping money and weapons that months later gets turned against us. Then we dump money on the opposite side all in the name of fighting terrorism and preventing a huge war in the region. A bit ironic the trillions of dollars in the Iraq war, then the country becoming an ally with billions more foreign aid and now we are dumping money to the we thought opposite side Iran. We should be just the referee negotiator and not jump in the war game.

[marurun]

CRT, that kind of isolationist rhetoric leads only to more world conflict. Alliances are what help keep the peace. Only nations too small or physically isolated can get away without those tight international connections, and even then only when surrounded by generally peaceful nations.

[Ack]

Countries do fight their own battles. But there are problems with this:

A) Countries with nuclear weapons may use them, with devastating consequences for the rest of the world.

B) War brings with it refugee and humanitarian crisis.

C) War disrupts the economy and trade. The reason the Middle East is so valuable is due ultimately to oil and gas production necessary to fuel civilizations. Letting it burn will cut the rest of the world off from necessary supplies. Yes, some of this can be mitigated through our own resource production, but it's not nearly enough to sustain us indefinitely without serious ecological harm.

D) Wars may be swift or may rage on. Even after peace treaties are signed, animosities do not dissipate. War may well come again without outside arbitration.

E) Wars can easily be manipulated by outside power players for their own benefits.

Of all of these, E should be the most important, because we are one of the power players. All nations exist ultimately in a state of anarchy with one another, and the more powerful ones are more than willing to sacrifice the weaker as pawns. The only counter to this is to try and enforce some sort of international order. The major powers generally do, though what kind of order depends on the major power. What is more beneficial to us: a world where the American enforced order is the norm(albeit often criticized and disliked), or one where China or Russia set the rules?

[dsheinem]

Countries should...

Hey, CRT - in case you missed it: viewtopic.php?p=1079387#p1079387

[CRTGAMER]

E) Wars can easily be manipulated by outside power players for their own benefits.

Of all of these, E should be the most important, because we are one of the power players. All nations exist ultimately in a state of anarchy with one another, and the more powerful ones are more than willing to sacrifice the weaker as pawns. The only counter to this is to try and enforce some sort of international order. The major powers generally do, though what kind of order depends on the major power. What is more beneficial to us: a world where the American enforced order is the norm(albeit often criticized and disliked), or one where China or Russia set the rules?

Agree, there is the danger of it. The super powers playing that chess game controlling the other countries to their own means. Not right, all should be hands off though that will never happen.

In domestic news, a non-partisan ethics non-profit in the US has decided to sue Trump for violating the Emolument Clause of the Constitution. I have heard a couple great radio interviews with those involved. They basically want Trump to separate himself more fully from his businesses or for Trump to go to Congress to request the necessary exemptions on individual transactions. Their suit is highly relevant and quite valid, though the question of standing still looms. There's good precedent to allow them standing, but it's not guaranteed.

Wait, a group of Lawers suing are a Non-Profit organization exempt from paying taxes?! One thing that really needs abolished is the status of Nonprofit. The sorry excuse it is for the name of charity or whatever agenda is absolute crap since the organization workers take home "Administrative Costs" tax exempt paychecks.

As to that frivolous lawsuit it will go nowhere. Federal conflicts of interest law do not apply to presidents, yet President Trump has already turned ownership to his children. He did not have to do this and has even set any money from foreign guests in his hotels go to the U.S. Treasury.

[s1mplehumar]

I haven't been on here in ages. I just had a hunch this thread would be #1. You guys don't disappoint.

[Ack]

E) Wars can easily be manipulated by outside power players for their own benefits.

Of all of these, E should be the most important, because we are one of the power players. All nations exist ultimately in a state of anarchy with one another, and the more powerful ones are more than willing to sacrifice the weaker as pawns. The only counter to this is to try and enforce some sort of international order. The major powers generally do, though what kind of order depends on the major power. What is more beneficial to us: a world where the American enforced order is the norm(albeit often criticized and disliked), or one where China or Russia set the rules?

Agree, there is the danger of it. The super powers playing that chess game controlling the other countries to their own means. Not right, all should be hands off though that will never happen.

Exactly. And as that will never happen, we need to make sure that we're one of the players at the table, so that our own interests and those of our allies are protected and peace remains. So we sometimes have to forge alliances with countries that are underhanded, support nasty dictators, and knowingly understand that some of the moves we make for benefit now may come back to haunt us later. Because if we don't accept these risks and go full isolationist, someone else will move in to harass and exploit, which may well hurt or even potentially end us somewhere down the line.

In short, it may not be a nice game we all like, but it's better to play it and accept the consequences than it is to not play and inevitably lose.