Decency, Trump and Obama.

[Dill]

(03-07-2017, 10:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: In my never going to happen scenario, we don't need the consent and cooperation of other countries militarily because we aren't going to be doing anything militarily.  We have a defensive military, and what goes on between other countries is between them.  Let someone else deal with China and N Korea if they so choose.  

That was the popular argument before WWII.  Then "defense" turned out to require "offense."

What if China and N Korea want to deal with the US?

You noted that much of the terrorism the US currently faces follows from its actions in the Middle East.
I believe that to be correct. But it won't stop now because the US decides to withdraw from world affairs. And conflicts there have tremendous potential to disrupt the global economy.

I am guessing that the difference between our views is that 1) you see the US economy as relatively independent of the global economy, and 2) you believe major conflicts in the Middle or Far East would have no appreciable effect on the US, either directly (crippling US trade, destroying foreign assets)or indirectly (e.g., by crippling allies and trade partners, creating the basis for a future existential threat).  

Where do you see the world in 10 or 20 years? Do you envision a constriction of US trade (and the US economy) in a world economically and militarily dominated by other powers--perhaps some coalition of China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, or perhaps a reconfigured EU? Would it be fair to say that you don't see the potential for a future existential threat forming anywhere, or that even if there is, nothing we can or should be doing about it now?