I think this is a lot bigger than Russia and Ukraine

[Craig234]

Power shifts take some time. Think about how Britain's power changed over the 20th century, for example. The Nazis took several years leading to WWII, as fascist militarism took hold both there and in Japan over years finally exploding.

There are a lot of changes and tensions going on in the world today. In many ways we've had a golden period of relative peace despite some hot spots, so much that we've largely taken 'world peace' for granted. It just worked.

But under the surface, we've had power shifts in numerous areas. The rise of authoritarianism in many places is some of it. China's growth and power flexing just as it becomes hardline totalitarian more than before is another. There's a real analogy between Putin's smoldering fury over the end of the Soviet Union, and Hitler's over the abusive peace terms that ended WWI, both out for revenge to 'make their country great again'. And there's more.

As I recently said, I think China is closely watching Ukraine, planning their takeover of Taiwan. Various countries the US has tensions with are exploring allying, and pursuing things like economic relationships including building financial systems to cut the US and the dollar out and give them more immunity to any sanctions.

After WWII we created the UN to advocate for democracy and to ban aggressive wars; but it's becoming clear that can be challenged. Exploding the danger is the issue of how some of these conflicts are between nuclear powers.

China has been using money to try to gain 'soft power' globally, creating leverage with countries to push them to side with China instead of the west - something that will presumably only increase.

As a result of these changes, we can see more and more challenges to 'the west' - the US and Europe, more and more plots to weaken the west and build alliances against the west globally.

And so we already have Russia claiming it can reclaim its huge empire from before the USSR, and China claiming various lands and the right to do as it likes with them from Taiwan to Hong Kong to the South China Sea - for now.

Post-WWII created a global political culture, with democracy powerful in the world despite adversaries, but those times when economic and military power were distributed one way, seem likely to change as the economics have changed. Who has manufacturing, who has $30 trillion in debt, and so on.

Britain's power shifted, and was challenged and they were diminished. The USSR's power shifted, and was challenged, and they were diminished. Things are quite possibly shifting for the US, tempting challenges by our adversaries, that can lead to changes for the west.

Ukraine might just be the start in numerous shifts and crises globally that could see a lot of change, including the biggest threats to democracy in a long time.

At the height of our global power, JFK pointed out its limitations, saying we do not have the power to be the world's police. Soon after his point was made in Vietnam. We made it again in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We've taken for granted the UN culture of wealthy democracies setting the politics for the world.

As JFK also said:

And our liberty, too, is endangered if we pause for the passing moment, if we rest on our achievements, if we resist the pace of progress. For time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.

 

[Questerr]

If Russia is allowed to conquer Ukraine, it will not stop. Next will be a plebiscite with Belarus. Then they will invade Georgia and Azerbaijan. Then they will demand Southern Lithuania in order to establish a land border with Kaliningrad.

They aren’t going to stop until they’ve rebuilt the Russian Empire.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It's definitely bigger than just this one war. The mob boss in Moscow is gonna take whatever he wants.

 

[jnug]

I think this is a lot bigger than Russia and Ukraine​

No question, which is in part why I think all this quibbling by neophytes and Russia-cons is just so ridiculous. For one thing, the view that Putin is on the offensive now because Biden is so weak is either unscrupulous in the extreme or naive in the extreme. Vlad no longer has lapdog Donnie to cover his flank which said to a monster like Putin, time to go back on the full offensive.

Russia and China are birds of a feather. China is simply in a better economic position. However trying to bicker about which is worse, which is more of a threat is another laughable absurdity. Neither is Communist at this point. Both are autocratic and dictatorial. One with a national leader for life, the other with one that will rule for at least 40 years by the time he is done. Anybody see the ironic similarity in that or do we still want to yammer about communism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's definitely bigger than just this one war. The mob boss in Moscow is gonna take whatever he wants.

Taking territory is the relatively easy part, holding that much territory is apt to prove impossible.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Taking territory is the relatively easy part, holding that much territory is apt to prove impossible.

Which is why Russia and China are so small.

 

[bluesmoke]

While Europe and the US attention and resources are occupied by the Ukraine war with Russia would be the best time for China to take over Taiwan like taking a sip of water. What better timing could there be?

Democracy is under autocratic challenge worldwide, incl from within as is being demonstrated by the Rep/con attack on American democracy. When Putin declared that liberal ideals (democracy) conflict with the interests of most people and said liberalism is "obsolete", he was repeating his oft said opposition to democracy. Trump supported what Putin said because Trump is nothing more than a functioning idiot who though Putin was talking about Democrats. Trump made clear his admiration of autocrats/dictators. With the rise of RW Nationalism in Europe, where are the most democracies, it is obvious that liberal democracy is under threat.

 

[jnug]

Taking territory is the relatively easy part, holding that much territory is apt to prove impossible.

That will be a matter o Ukraine resolve. Every body bag that goes back to Russia is the real threat to Putin.

 

[jnug]

While Europe and the US attention and resources are occupied by the Ukraine war with Russia would be the best time for China to take over Taiwan like taking a sip of water. What better timing could there be?

Democracy is under autocratic challenge worldwide, incl from within as is being demonstrated by the Rep/con attack on American democracy. When Putin declared that liberal ideals (democracy) conflict with the interests of most people and said liberalism is "obsolete", he was repeating his oft said opposition to democracy. Trump supported what Putin said because Trump is nothing more than a functioning idiot who though Putin was talking about Democrats. Trump made clear his admiration of autocrats/dictators. With the rise of RW Nationalism in Europe, where are the most democracies, it is obvious that liberal democracy is under threat.

China does not have to and can't really afford to upset the supply chain apple cart for electronic parts.

 

[Jkca1]

In the back of my mind I keep wondering if this isn't the perfect time to take back Cuba.

 

[Mithrae]

After WWII we created the UN to advocate for democracy and to ban aggressive wars; but it's becoming clear that can be challenged. Exploding the danger is the issue of how some of these conflicts are between nuclear powers.

Revisionist history. The UN was not created to advocate for democracy: Had that been the case, you'd think that it might at least be a little democratic itself! Like other instruments of global governance (World Bank etc.) the United Nations was designed by and for the interests of the powerful. The five veto-wielding members of the Security Council made themselves the overseers of world peace, and unsurprisingly became the world's biggest makers and sellers of military equipment topped, with a huge margin, by the United States.

The case for scrapping the veto and democratizing the UN has always been a compelling one; for example by weighting countries' votes according to a historical population benchmark and current level of democratization, simultaneously incentivizing all countries' moves towards democracy while making it hardest to bully or bribe needed votes from those holding the most influence. But instead of spearheading such efforts when there might have been some opportunity to do so - pushing for restraint on its own power during the window in which it was the world's only real superpower - the USA instead chose to flex its muscles with multiple wildly illegal and destructive invasions of sovereign nations on the opposite side of the world! The parallels between Putin's baseless claims of genocide in Ukraine and Bush's even more ridiculous assertions of a threat to America from non-existent Iraqi weapons are hard to miss.

It seems more or less inevitable that all great powers will have correspondingly great atrocities to their name, but it was always pretty obviously true that American dominance was preferable to dominance by the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany or even the British Empire. But whatever kind of moral standing that may have given America in the 1990s was squandered in the subsequent decade: Instead of striving for a better world, the USA (and allies such as Australia and the UK) chose to continue and to dramatically reinforce a world of 'might makes right,' a world in which there is little if any recourse for the weak attacked by the powerful.

Now of course - as anyone with more than half a brain should have known was going to happen sooner or later - the pendulum is swinging back towards countries even nastier than ours. Time to cry over the spilled milk.

 

[Craig234]

In the back of my mind I keep wondering if this isn't the perfect time to take back Cuba.

Excuse me? You think we own the world to 'take back' countries as we like? I'd like to see a way for Cuba to become a democracy, but we've forfeited much right to be the 'make it a democracy' country since we've killed more democracies than we've made to our south. What we should do is lift our immoral sanctions.

 

[oneworld2]

If Russia is allowed to conquer Ukraine, it will not stop. Next will be a plebiscite with Belarus. Then they will invade Georgia and Azerbaijan. Then they will demand Southern Lithuania in order to establish a land border with Kaliningrad.

They aren’t going to stop until they’ve rebuilt the Russian Empire.

I don't actually agree with that assessment even if it does enjoy wide appeal in the West itself. Why wouldn't it ? It absolves the West for any responsibility for creating the circumstances that have led to disaster in Ukraine.

As Craig states in the OP, which was hugely well written imho, the world never stops changing. Today we are seeing growing challenges to Western hegemony. It's becoming a multi polar world where the West cannot stamp its will on others so easily. The attempts to do so are making for odd bedfellows amongst those resisting control by the West.

 

[Questerr]

I don't actually agree with that assessment even if it does enjoy wide appeal in the West itself. Why wouldn't it ? It absolves the West for any responsibility for creating the circumstances that have led to disaster in Ukraine.

As Craig states in the OP, which was hugely well written imho, the world never stops changing. Today we are seeing growing challenges to Western hegenomy. It's becoming a multi polar world where the West cannot stamp its will on others so easily. The attempts to do so are making for odd bedfellows amongst those resisting control by the West.

Yeah, giving Ukraine defensive weapons and training meant Russia was forced to invade them.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Power shifts take some time. Think about how Britain's power changed over the 20th century, for example. The Nazis took several years leading to WWII, as fascist militarism took hold both there and in Japan over years finally exploding.

There are a lot of changes and tensions going on in the world today. In many ways we've had a golden period of relative peace despite some hot spots, so much that we've largely taken 'world peace' for granted. It just worked.

But under the surface, we've had power shifts in numerous areas. The rise of authoritarianism in many places is some of it. China's growth and power flexing just as it becomes hardline totalitarian more than before is another. There's a real analogy between Putin's smoldering fury over the end of the Soviet Union, and Hitler's over the abusive peace terms that ended WWI, both out for revenge to 'make their country great again'. And there's more.

As I recently said, I think China is closely watching Ukraine, planning their takeover of Taiwan. Various countries the US has tensions with are exploring allying, and pursuing things like economic relationships including building financial systems to cut the US and the dollar out and give them more immunity to any sanctions.

After WWII we created the UN to advocate for democracy and to ban aggressive wars; but it's becoming clear that can be challenged. Exploding the danger is the issue of how some of these conflicts are between nuclear powers.

China has been using money to try to gain 'soft power' globally, creating leverage with countries to push them to side with China instead of the west - something that will presumably only increase.

As a result of these changes, we can see more and more challenges to 'the west' - the US and Europe, more and more plots to weaken the west and build alliances against the west globally.

And so we already have Russia claiming it can reclaim its huge empire from before the USSR, and China claiming various lands and the right to do as it likes with them from Taiwan to Hong Kong to the South China Sea - for now.

Post-WWII created a global political culture, with democracy powerful in the world despite adversaries, but those times when economic and military power were distributed one way, seem likely to change as the economics have changed. Who has manufacturing, who has $30 trillion in debt, and so on.

Britain's power shifted, and was challenged and they were diminished. The USSR's power shifted, and was challenged, and they were diminished. Things are quite possibly shifting for the US, tempting challenges by our adversaries, that can lead to changes for the west.

Ukraine might just be the start in numerous shifts and crises globally that could see a lot of change, including the biggest threats to democracy in a long time.

At the height of our global power, JFK pointed out its limitations, saying we do not have the power to be the world's police. Soon after his point was made in Vietnam. We made it again in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We've taken for granted the UN culture of wealthy democracies setting the politics for the world.

As JFK also said:

Yes, all that happened, but this may be the first time the leader of a powerful nation tacitly threatened to nuke anyone who gets in the way of his aggression.

Actually, come to think of it, it's the second time. China did it less than a year ago.

 

[sanman]

If Russia is allowed to conquer Ukraine, it will not stop. Next will be a plebiscite with Belarus. Then they will invade Georgia and Azerbaijan. Then they will demand Southern Lithuania in order to establish a land border with Kaliningrad.

They aren’t going to stop until they’ve rebuilt the Russian Empire.

In the other thread, they're claiming Biden's done plenty. So be content with what Biden's done. Nothing further to do.

 

[oneworld2]

Power shifts take some time. Think about how Britain's power changed over the 20th century, for example. The Nazis took several years leading to WWII, as fascist militarism took hold both there and in Japan over years finally exploding.

Firstly, apologies for the huge snip but I am conscious of word count restrictions and found your post well written and pretty much on the money.

The world does keep changing and the primacy of the Wests control over the planet is being rejected by others.

To address Russia first. I believe that Putin would love a new Russian empire built by his own hand and in his name BUT I think he is smart enough to know that it is a bridge too far for Russia itself. I think his plan is to damage Ukraine as much as possible and then get out, saving himself the blowback of a long and costly occupation.

For sure he bears a great responsibility for the situation in Ukraine but so does the West and in particular the US. Offering NATO membership was never going to be a realistic option and actually emboldened West Ukrainians to take a much harder stance than they would if they hadn't been duped by their western collaborators into believing that their backs were going to be covered. The bottom line,imo, is that the West will not go to war with Russia over Ukraine. I fear that the western Ukrainians will learn a hard lesson about the West, like the people of Iraq and Afghansitan have before them.

AFAIK the offer of NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine was a US driven vehicle that was not considered a realistic option to the bigger players in Europe, namely France Germany thus rendering the offer a dead letter. The better option, even for Ukrainians imo was to retract the offer and give Ukraine a neutral status, a buffer state between NATO and Russia. I feel that because the Ukraine leadership in Kiev was led down the garden path by the West it never seriously tried to resolve its issues with Moscow or within its own state which has seen basically a split between views and wishes in the west of the country and those of the east.

WRT China, I see them becoming a bigger threat to the West than even Russia is. As the West still tries to hang on to its global hegemon position the Chinese will wait and see just how stretched it is and will, at some point, makes its move on the likes of Taiwan and the contested islands that Japan holds as its own.

It's very much a multipolar world these days imo and the West appears stuck in a reality that has changed and possibly left it behind.

All of the above offer extremely dangerous scenarios but we need to stop

A Feeling we have the right to dominate others all over the planet

B Try and find more diplomatic ways of resolving these issues/challenges precisely because we live with the threat of nuclear annihilation.

My feeling is we are going to hell in a hand cart with a jet engine propelling it until we come to realize that our biggest threat is a communal one, planetary meltdown due to climate changes. The above just makes the likelihood of a cooperative addressing of this crucial challenge of our time dead in the water with not much in the way of hope.

 

[Mithrae]

Yes, all that happened, but this may be the first time the leader of a powerful nation tacitly threatened to nuke anyone who gets in the way of his aggression.

Actually, come to think of it, it's the second time. China did it less than a year ago.

A few years before that a US president threatened an east Asian country that if their verbal threats were not toned down, "They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

 

[Craig234]

Today we are seeing growing challenges to Western hegenomy. It's becoming a multi polar world where the West cannot stamp its will on others so easily. The attempts to do so are making for odd bedfellows amongst those resisting control by the West.

I think that's right, but it's hard as a huge topic. The world has always been multi-polar, but something that seems to be changing now are a couple points: the rising power of some of the 'other side', and the role of nuclear weapons.

If the ones I presume are China are correct, 6 of the top 8 empires in history are China's, are about a third of humanity, most recently the Qing dynasty that in 1800 reached 37% as it made most of modern China. More recently was the British Empire reaching 23% in 1938 - look at them now - and more pointedly is the Russian empire Putin just claimed, about 15% of people by 1800 but 17% of land by about 1900.

So the world has always been multi-polar; after WWII, it was multi-polar - as the US found in Korea a few years later. But how much did it affect the west that China had a lot of people, with tens of millions being starved under tyranny? Not much. Africa's impact was mainly around the benefit brutal colonization provided the colonizers. Etc.

But how much has changed and is changing in that. China about to surpass our economy, the 'third world' no longer colonies for the west to steal resources from but independent countries - a far more moral situation insofar as that but changing the political landscape and creating risks of other moral issues, e.g., what if China is able to make them 'economic colonies' strengthening China's global power for authoritarianism?

As you said, the west has done so much to make these issues worse. How much would things be improved had the west not oppressed people itself and driven so many countries into terrible regimes that are anti-west? It's a long list, but communism wasn't created in a vacuum. What if Russia hadn't been bad enough to lead to revolution? Same for Cuba? If the west hadn't caused Islam to become powerful in the Middle East?

I guess the point can use a few of these examples, such as the west using Islam to overthrow and take power in the Middle East from 'Lawrence of Arabia' to numerous other regimes, to reject Nasser's regional nationalism (and African nationalism), to overthrow Iran's democracy; more recently, we didn't exactly help Russia become a well-governed country instead of a kleptocracy after 'winning' the cold war, on and on.

So, yes, as the world's situation changes, these new alliances of "odd bedfellows" can change the world's political situation, with the US still 5% of the people but other countries' power growing with their independence. The idea was to try to have a world of cooperating democracies, but what we're seeing if largely different than that, in no small part because of the west's abuse of power.

And yes, the history has been one showing limitations of western power, even when it was greater; I mentioned Britain's loss of empire. The US history is humbling through Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan - that same list having resisted France and the USSR. democracy is a moral issue, but power can be on its side or against it. And we're seeing power shift.

 

[Craig234]

AFAIK the offer of NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine was a US driven vehicle that was not considered a realistic option to the bigger players in Europe, namely France Germany thus rendering the offer a dead letter. The better option, even for Ukrainians imo was to retract the offer and give Ukraine a neutral status, a buffer state between NATO and Russia. I feel that because the Ukraine leadership in Kiev was led down the garden path by the West it never seriously tried to resolve its issues with Moscow or within its own state which has seen basically a split between views and wishes in the west of the country and those of the east.

As you rightly lay out, though, one issue is the interests of Russia's border countries - their independence - and another is their role as being either 'Russia's possessions threatening Eastern Europe' or in Russia's view 'Western possessions threatening Russia'. What, really, are the 'issues' for Ukraine to resolve with Russia other than its alignment and independence?

Is expanding NATO to them providing them protection for independence from a threatening Russia, or is it expanding a western empire to threaten Russia? In a sense it doesn't really matter - only that it is an area both sides would like on 'their side' and a power struggle between them, with nuclear weapons in the equation.

WRT China, I see them becoming a bigger threat to the West than even Russia is. As the West still tries to hang on to its global hegemon position the Chinese will wait and see just how stretched it is and will, at some point, makes its move on the likes of Taiwan and the contested islands that Japan holds as its own.

Agreed.

It's very much a multipolar world these days imo and the West appears stuck in a reality that has changed and possibly left it behind.

An effect of the US's governance essentially having been taken over by plutocratic corporate interests who have no clue about governing, but care only about two things, giving our corporations all they want and preventing democracy from interfering; and manipulating and pandering enough to voters to get the power to do the first thing - not to govern sensibly in the world.

That vacuum of leadership has seen tragedies like the 'neoconservative' ideology fill the vacuum helping lead the US to misuse its power harming both others and its own political position. Were clowns like George W. Bush and donald trump really in a position to deal with these issues?

A Feeling we have the right to dominate others all over the planet

I think there's a paradoxical lesson here. That we should not try to be a 'global tyrant' - but that actually, we can't afford a global power vacuum either that authoritarian forces can't want to take advantage of and defeat democracy globally, so that we SHOULD try have global power, but in a manner of promoting democracy and rights of others, not exploiting. The world needs to be protected from the coming aggressive China.

B Try and find more diplomatic ways of resolving these issues/challenges precisely because we live with the threat of nuclear annihilation.

At the end of the day, we have never and IMO can never find a solution to the danger of nuclear annihilation as long as nations are adversaries - it's just gambling leader after leader, situation after situation, crisis after crisis waiting for one to 'go wrong', until we eliminate the weapons.

My feeling is we are going to hell in a hand cart with a jet engine propelling it until we come to realize that our biggest threat is a communal one, planetary meltdown due to climate changes. The above just makes the likelihood of a cooperative addressing of this crucial challenge of our time dead in the water with not much in the way of hope.

It's not the only issue of course, but a critical one showing the dysfunction of our political situation. Including our 'best in the world democratic values' country's allowing the corruption of the fossil fuel industry to overpower our own agenda.

 

[BlueTex]

In the back of my mind I keep wondering if this isn't the perfect time to take back Cuba.

The easiest way to take Cuba back is to thaw relations with Cuba like Obama did and Trump reversed...

 

[oneworld2]

I think that's right, but it's hard as a huge topic. The world has always been multi-polar, but something that seems to be changing now are a couple points: the rising power of some of the 'other side', and the role of nuclear weapons.

If the ones I presume are China are correct, 6 of the top 8 empires in history are China's, are about a third of humanity, most recently the Qing dynasty that in 1800 reached 37% as it made most of modern China. More recently was the British Empire reaching 23% in 1938 - look at them now - and more pointedly is the Russian empire Putin just claimed, about 15% of people by 1800 but 17% of land by about 1900.

So the world has always been multi-polar; after WWII, it was multi-polar - as the US found in Korea a few years later. But how much did it affect the west that China had a lot of people, with tens of millions being starved under tyranny? Not much. Africa's impact was mainly around the benefit brutal colonization provided the colonizers. Etc.

But how much has changed and is changing in that. China about to surpass our economy, the 'third world' no longer colonies for the west to steal resources from but independent countries - a far more moral situation insofar as that but changing the political landscape and creating risks of other moral issues, e.g., what if China is able to make them 'economic colonies' strengthening China's global power for authoritarianism?

As you said, the west has done so much to make these issues worse. How much would things be improved had the west not oppressed people itself and driven so many countries into terrible regimes that are anti-west? It's a long list, but communism wasn't created in a vacuum. What if Russia hadn't been bad enough to lead to revolution? Same for Cuba? If the west hadn't caused Islam to become powerful in the Middle East?

I guess the point can use a few of these examples, such as the west using Islam to overthrow and take power in the Middle East from 'Lawrence of Arabia' to numerous other regimes, to reject Nasser's regional nationalism (and African nationalism), to overthrow Iran's democracy; more recently, we didn't exactly help Russia become a well-governed country instead of a kleptocracy after 'winning' the cold war, on and on.

So, yes, as the world's situation changes, these new alliances of "odd bedfellows" can change the world's political situation, with the US still 5% of the people but other countries' power growing with their independence. The idea was to try to have a world of cooperating democracies, but what we're seeing if largely different than that, in no small part because of the west's abuse of power.

And yes, the history has been one showing limitations of western power, even when it was greater; I mentioned Britain's loss of empire. The US history is humbling through Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan - that same list having resisted France and the USSR. democracy is a moral issue, but power can be on its side or against it. And we're seeing power shift.

We can agree to disagree on the post WW2 world being multipolar. IMO the war years had completely drained any of the power from Europe, Russia, China Japan etc etc and the US alone had both the economic and military means to enforce its will on a truly global scale. It's veto in the UNSC along with enormous control of world economics as per the likes of the World Bank, IMF would reign into the next century and are still extremely solid even today. The Marshall Plan saw a once world power, as in the European states, reduced to debtors to the new king on the block, a situation that started in the aftermath of WW1.

It is true that China will inherit the title of the worlds leading economy and has been busy with a soft imperialism that has seen it chum up with India,Brazil, Russia ect etc to form blocs that are ever growing influences as the Europeans fall behind.

We can speculate about how things might have worked out if certain things hadn't have happened, what would the world have been like had the great powers of Europe not succumbed to socialist revolutions instead of just Russia. We can go on and on but ultimately we can only look back at what has actually happened and where that has led us all. Fascinating stuff btw

 

[Craig234]

We can agree to disagree on the post WW2 world being multipolar.

I'm not sure we need to disagree, but rather to clarify - I suspect you were talking in terms of power, where my point was that a large majority of the world was not part of the 'dominant unipolar' side; and I went on to discuss the importance of how they 'didn't matter' while powerless but things are changing.

IMO the war years had completely drained any of the power from Europe, Russia, China Japan etc etc and the US alone had both the economic and military means to enforce its will on a truly global scale. It's veto in the UNSC along with enormous control of world economics as per the likes of the World Bank, IMF would reign into the next century and are still extremely solid even today. The Marshall Plan saw a once world power, as in the European states, reduced to debtors to the new king on the block, a situation that started in the aftermath of WW1.

All correct - yet at the height of that power, a few years after WWII, how did we do in Korea? A decade after that, with massive resources spent, against peasants in Vietnam? That contrasts with the 'master of the world' role. War with that tiny country broke ours - preventing the re-election of a great liberal president and ushering in our corruption with Nixon and Reagan. Global democracy is dangerously vulnerable, we're learning.

 

[Razoo]

Excuse me? You think we own the world to 'take back' countries as we like? I'd like to see a way for Cuba to become a democracy, but we've forfeited much right to be the 'make it a democracy' country since we've killed more democracies than we've made to our south. What we should do is lift our immoral sanctions.

yep .......

 

[sanman]

But don't worry! Lefty liberals will save us! Their senile leader who can't remember his defense secretary's name will rally the response!

The American Socialist Republic will fight any aspirant or usurper of the socialist crown!