Jump to content

America's Foreign Policy & Other Shit Going On Around the World thread


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, bolverk said:

since the light came on for me in the early 1990s, recognizing that actual, real-life fascists were taking over the GOP and were a deadly threat to American democracy.

Spot on. My light came on when Reagan and Falwell made kissy kissy on stage in mid-1980s (1984?). I (and a few UT philosophy and artsy friends) knew that politics + religious fanaticism were a toxic brew with deadly results ... if they ever got power. 

The legacy and mainstream media gave them a free pass across the decades.

Now they have near-total power. And they are installing a violent fascist theocracy ... while Elon, DOGE, and billionaires take the spotlight. 

Edited by BevoAbyss
Posted
12 hours ago, bolverk said:

image.png.1e2dd51f4e1a2b0e8b25118b7018181c.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-letter-khamenei.html?smid=url-share

President Trump said he had sent a letter to the Iranian government seeking to negotiate a deal to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

He said the letter was sent Wednesday and addressed to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. The White House did not immediately respond to a request to provide the letter or further describe its contents.

“There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” Mr. Trump told Maria Bartiromo in an interview aired Friday on Fox Business. “I would prefer to make a deal, because I’m not looking to hurt Iran. They’re great people.”

The move is a sharp pivot for Mr. Trump, who in 2018 withdrew the United States from a nuclear deal with Iran, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama.

Iran did not immediately provide a response.

In the interview, Mr. Trump described the letter as saying, “I hope you’re going to negotiate because it’s going to be a lot better for Iran.”

“If we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them,” he said, adding: “The other alternative is we have to do something because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump talked more broadly about his desire to see the world’s countries eliminate their nuclear weapons. He said he hoped to negotiate denuclearization efforts with China and Russia as well.

“It would great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

Ben Rhodes is going to stroke out when he hears this. 

Posted
2 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Spot on. My light came on when Reagan and Falwell made kissy kissy on stage in mid-1980s (1984?). I (and a few UT philosophy and artsy friends) knew that politics + religious fanaticism were a toxic brew with deadly results ... if they ever got power. 

The legacy and mainstream media gave them a free pass across the decades.

Now they have near-total power. And they are installing a violent fascist theocracy ... while Elon, DOGE, and billionaires take the spotlight. 

Damn dog, I remember waking up in the morning to watch Bozo the Clown before elementary school in 1984.

  • Haha 2
Posted
 

It would be hard to argue with anything he said. We are traitors and assholes and we have a jester drunk on ketamine who is tasked with dismantling our country.

Really weird to think back on US History classes and every 4th of July and family trips to Washington DC and the national anthem at countless sporting events and the immense national pride post 9/11 and how I feel each time I watch Band of Brothers, and now realize that I might be alive to watch it all crumble because 82 million ignorant misinformed selfish racist gullible dickheads voted for a fat man with a shitty spray tan and a comb over. Depressing doesn’t even begin to describe it.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, to take the punches that I certainly deserve....I didn't really figure it out/click until 2008, when I realized that what I thought was fringe idiocy of people like Pat Buchanan actually became the dominant ethos of half of America.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was the most catastrophic event to strike this country since Pearl Harbor.  Not because of him, but because of what electing a black man president awakened and infuriated.  I naively thought our country wouldn't/couldn't go full retrograde.  I was so, so, so wrong.

And, having felt the sting and responsibility for being so, so, so wrong....I've lived with my eyes wide open ever since.  Once you see the horror unfolding, you can't see anything else, and you can't look away.  And you can't understand how other people can't see it.  It's a bit Fields of Dreams-ish - even Timothy Busfield, once he saw the reality in front of him in the cornfield, couldn't look away, and joined in the rest of the protagonists in not understanding how anyone could miss it.

So, mea culpa.  I was blind and stupid.  But the only thing worse than having been blind and stupid would be to stubbornly continue to be blind and stupid out of pointless pride.

2008? Pat Buchanan was doing his crazy thing back in the 90's. The Republicans went bat shit crazy 25 years ago. You didn't realize this very early on in the first Bush administration?

Holy Fuck, batman!

Posted

I'm really looking forward to listening to all the MAGA idiots gush over this new nuclear deal after they pretty much called Obama a traitor for the last one and praised Trump for yanking us out of it.

Now they'll suggest that Trump gets the Nobel Peace Prize for doing the same damned thing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Rodrigo Duterte, Philippine Ex-President, Is Arrested on I.C.C. Warrant
The International Criminal Court has been investigating the deadly crackdown that Mr. Duterte, who was detained in Manila on Tuesday, oversaw while in power.

Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines, was arrested on Tuesday in Manila, after the International Criminal Court issued a warrant accusing him of crimes against humanity in his war on drugs in which, human rights groups say, tens of thousands of Filipinos were summarily executed.

He was taken into custody at the airport in Manila after returning from a trip to Hong Kong, according to the Philippine government.

Mr. Duterte, 79, who left office in 2022, is a populist firebrand who remains one of the Philippines’ most influential politicians, and he has enjoyed relative immunity despite several accusations against him. Only a handful of people have been convicted in connection with the killings.

This is a developing story.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Europe is planning on moving forward without the US.  I can't blame them.  We are no longer the indispensable country.

 

 

Edited by 27-25
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Chinese Warships Circle Australia and Leave It Feeling ‘Near-Naked’
The unusual deployment by three navy ships over the past month has prompted a debate in Australia about its aging fleet and reliance on the United States.

image.thumb.png.f056ab7f100b456161017fcd0c1b048f.png

For nearly a month, Australian forces were on alert as a flotilla of Chinese navy ships made an unannounced voyage around the continent. The ships sailed in and out of Australia’s exclusive economic zone. They fired live shots near commercial airspace, forcing dozens of civilian flights to reroute. They sailed past Perth in Western Australia, days after a visiting U.S. nuclear submarine docked at a nearby naval base.

Finally, last weekend, the Chinese ships headed north toward Indonesia.

Australian officials repeatedly assured the public that the Chinese ships’ presence and actions were perfectly legitimate under international law. But the voyage was the farthest south the Chinese military had ever come, and was deeply uncomfortable for Australia.

It has forced the nation to take a hard look at its own aging fleet, its heavy military dependence on a faraway ally, the United States, and the increasing muscularity of its biggest trading partner, China.

There was nothing about the deployment of the three Chinese vessels — a cruiser, a frigate and a replenishment tanker — that was technically impressive or strategically significant. China’s formidable navy has long demonstrated the vast distances it can cover and the capabilities of its premier ships.

Instead, it ended up highlighting Australia’s inadequacies: its own navy is the oldest and smallest it has been since World War II, analysts and former navy officials say. It has two tankers, which are crucial for navigating long distances, as the Chinese did, but both have been out of commission for months. The two Chinese warships had a combined 144 vertical launch missile cells, while the Royal Australian Navy’s 10 warships, altogether, have 200.

“The Chinese are showing us up in our own backyard,” said Marcus Hellyer, an expert on military spending and capability who previously worked for Australia’s defense department.

“We can’t even sail around our own country. They are really rubbing it in,” he said. Australian forces, could of course, rely on friendly countries like New Zealand, which refueled an Australian ship in the Tasman Sea as the two countries jointly surveilled the Chinese ships.

The firestorm the flotilla ignited in Australia is an indication of how China could take advantage of a moment when the staunchest of American allies are being forced to revisit longstanding assumptions about ties to Washington. The United States has not officially commented on the Chinese ships, even though they coincided with the visit of a top U.S. commander and a U.S. submarine to Australia.

Chinese officials have said they were carrying out training in international waters as all navies do, and had nothing to explain or apologize for.

That hasn’t stopped the speculation in Australia about the timing and the message it was designed to send. The ships encircled Australia as the Trump administration has been upending expectations about continued U.S. support for allies like Europe and Ukraine. Australia is about to hold a federal election, in which the ships all but guaranteed that defense will be a major talking point.

“China’s navy is illustrating Australia’s vulnerability at the exact moment that the U.S. is demonstrating American unreliability,” Peter Hartcher, the political and international editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, wrote last month. Between the “buccaneering” in Washington and China’s military drumbeat, he wrote: “We’re so exposed that we face the next decade near-naked.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government has spent the past few years working hard to stabilize relations with China, which had hit a low point under the previous government, with China imposing crippling trade restrictions.

At the same time, Australia has doubled down on its military alliance with the United States. In February, it paid half a billion dollars to Washington as a down payment to bolster the U.S. submarine industry, to eventually receive used U.S. nuclear submarines as part of a security pact with America and Britain known as AUKUS.

Last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told his Australian counterpart, Richard Marles, that President Trump was “very aware, supportive” of the three-way agreement. But a few weeks later, when a reporter asked Mr. Trump whether he would discuss AUKUS with Britain’s prime minister, Mr. Trump asked: “What does that mean?”

Australia first detected the Chinese ships in early February, one to the north and the other two to the northeast. It tracked them as they traveled south along its eastern coast, entering Australia’s exclusive economic zone near Sydney.

The unease over the ships became full blown alarm on Feb. 21, when a commercial pilot flying over the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand heard radio broadcasts from the Chinese vessels warning of live fire drills. The pilot informed Australia’s civil aviation service, which scrambled to divert flights in the area. Nearly 50 planes would end up changing course.

The drills came as a surprise to both Australia and New Zealand but both acknowledged they were legal. One ship had the potential to carry land-attack missiles or anti-ship ballistic missiles.

China’s response was, in essence: Get used to it.

“As a major power in this region, as a country that has so many things to look after, it is normal for China to send their vessels to different parts of the region to conduct various kinds of activities,” Xiao Qian, China’s ambassador to Australia, told Australia’s national broadcaster.

China’s navy, already the world’s largest and rapidly expanding, has also been more aggressive in making its presence felt elsewhere in Asia. Japan’s defense minister said last month that Chinese navy ships had passed through the waters around the Ryukyu Islands — a chain that stretches between Kyushu and Taiwan — a total of 68 times last year, a dramatic increase from 21 times in 2021.

“They are gradually but very steadily spreading their wings, showing the world they’re able to be anywhere they want to be, whenever they choose,” said Rowan Moffitt, a former deputy chief of the Australian navy. “We see no reason to suggest intent to use their capability against us today. Should the intent change, they could.”

But for some, the Chinese flotilla was a reminder of the possibility of hostile powers reaching Australian shores.

“We’ve thought of conflict as something we choose to get involved in on the other side of the world,” said Jennifer Parker, a naval expert and two-decade veteran of the navy.

Last year, Mr. Albanese’s government announced ambitious goals to expand and update Australia’s naval fleet, but the results aren’t expected to be seen until the 2030s, and some experts are skeptical that the local industry can deliver.

Australian warships have sailed near China, through the Taiwan Strait, and participated in joint exercises in the South China Sea. (And a Chinese defense ministry spokesman asked if Australia would notify Beijing of its own exercises near China.) But those are heavily trafficked corridors where multiple countries’ interests intersect, whereas the only reason to be south of Australia or in the Tasman Sea would be to send a message, said Ray Powell, the director of the maritime transparency project SeaLight, who previously served as a U.S. defense attaché in Canberra.

“That particular message is, we are able to hold you at risk,” he said.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
On 3/7/2025 at 11:49 PM, F250 said:

Damn dog, I remember waking up in the morning to watch Bozo the Clown before elementary school in 1984.

You can wake up in the morning to watch Bozo the Clown before work in 2025. I think he bought a Tesla at the White House in yesterday's episode. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 3/6/2025 at 8:07 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

Incredible stuff. We very nearly burned Japan to the ground, told them that they can’t have a military except for what we allow, we get to use their country as a garrison to forward deploy our own forces against Russia and China, and this man believes we somehow got scammed on this deal. 
 

image.thumb.png.3d370ee153b79e8e230e8e6edcea87b2.png

Stupid. Ignorant.  Motherfucker.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


That dude is beyond an evil psychopath.

He is.  The amusing thing is, for all his pro-authoritarian writing, he candidly admits that there is a shit ton of adverse risk associated with an authoritarian.

Risk than sensible people don't want to take.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
On 3/11/2025 at 12:52 PM, 27-25 said:

Europe is planning on moving forward without the US.  I can't blame them.  We are no longer the indispensable country.

 

 

We probably won't see a reduction in defense spending, but this is gonna put a hurt on our defense industry.  All the negative without the positive.

 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He is.  The amusing thing is, for all his pro-authoritarian writing, he candidly admits that there is a shit ton of adverse risk associated with an authoritarian.

Risk than sensible people don't want to take.

Can't edit, but a good article from Vox summarizing many of his views. https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%3A//www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23373795/curtis-yarvin-neoreaction-redpill-moldbug#content

He's also wrong that the executive has lost power.  It's Congress.

Far preferable, in his view, would be a government run like most corporations — with one leader holding absolute power over those below, though perhaps accountable to a “board of directors” of sorts (he admits that “an unaccountable autocracy is a real problem”). This monarch/CEO would have the ability to actually run things, unbothered by pesky civil servants, judges, voters, the public, or the separation of powers. “How do we achieve effective management? We know one simple way: find the right person, and put him or her in charge,” 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Can't edit, but a good article from Vox summarizing many of his views. https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%3A//www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23373795/curtis-yarvin-neoreaction-redpill-moldbug#content

He's also wrong that the executive has lost power.  It's Congress.

Far preferable, in his view, would be a government run like most corporations — with one leader holding absolute power over those below, though perhaps accountable to a “board of directors” of sorts (he admits that “an unaccountable autocracy is a real problem”). This monarch/CEO would have the ability to actually run things, unbothered by pesky civil servants, judges, voters, the public, or the separation of powers. “How do we achieve effective management? We know one simple way: find the right person, and put him or her in charge,” 

Don’t look now, but many Americans aren’t opposed to his views. He’s America’s hate baby with the allure of a Joe Rogan with degrees.

Posted (edited)

@bolverk @Parliament @956 Worldwide @atomheartbevo

OK. So lets play a game. With the US changing our international focus, where are the powder kegs. I have said watch the Balkans (perfect Triangle of fuckery and true believers). So where else? North Africa? Nah, they are gonna sell shit to whomever. Peru/Ecuador? Those fucks don't have fuel to fight a war.

My place to watch per continent that impact us. Play or don't play. Tired of every thread becoming the same shit. Whatever is going on today, we have to think about tomorrow.

1- Africa- The Great Lakes/Nile. Ethiopia vs. Egypt vs Sudan. Add in the Rift Valley. Kenya says Commonwealth my Ugandan brethren (meanwhile Rwanda goes forward and make a new Kingdom.

2- Asia. (India/Pakistan is easy. So is Taiwan. Does anyone care about Burma? So my wild card is Oman. Sultan dies, Iran and Saudis want control. Both can claim it. We think of Hormuz. Nah, its Salalah. (Russia collapses, we don't care about Mongolia)

3- Americas (North)- Coup in Costa Rica. Laugh, but shit happens. Gringo investment is not the same across the country. Limon is poor. Ticos talk about it. Panama is easy. Meh, 82nd with support goes in.

4- Americas (South) Argentina and Chile. Over some obscure pass in the Andes. Lots of minerals in them there mountains. But two subs fight in the Magellan strait. Benefit for the surly 1%. Hot chicks.

5- Australia. This is a hard one, since so many places are not on anyone's map. But a change in regime going pro-china would hurt the Indo-Pacom push. So. Lets pick one. Guam. A nice little airbase and add modern anti-air/antiship. Has the atoll to build on. 

6- Europe. Well here is the shit show. Balkans. Not your usual shit. Orban tries to build a new empire? Nah. Sweden goes all Carl Gustav? Nah. Shit starts in Bosnia, moves south, hits Bulgaria/Romania, Greece feels its oats and here comes the historical power and says fuck you all. Turkey. Pushes to recreate a vision of the Ottoman empire. This is the scariest. While moving into the EU/NATO countries via influence, it pushes ideology NE and military into Syria/ North Iraq. Caucus Oil Baby.)

Please note I left Medical and Environmental off this.

TL:DR OU Sux.

 

Edited by InkaUtexas
Forgot one.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

This is an incredible insightful piece about Trump and his negotiating style, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.

 
 
 
I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
 
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
 
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
 
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
 
There isn't another Canada.
 
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
 
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
 
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.
 
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
 
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
 
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.
 
— David Honig
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Asia. (India/Pakistan is easy. So is Taiwan. Does anyone care about Burma? So my wild card is Oman. Sultan dies, Iran and Saudis want control. Both can claim it. We think of Hormuz. Nah, its Salalah. (Russia collapses, we don't care about Mongolia)

Putting aside Russia falling apart, I'd point to the Middle East. It's very clear the fuckery in Syria is still going on. I don't think the Shiite/Sunni stuff will fully blow up this year, but the potential is there if they feel the Iranians are weak.

I'd also look for whatever succeeds ISIS (or a rebranded ISIS) to rear their ugly heads in Africa.

Edited by atomheartbevo
Posted
Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Putting aside Russia falling apart, I'd point to the Middle East. It's very clear the fuckery in Syria is still going on.

I'd also look for whatever succeeds ISIS (or a rebranded ISIS) to rear their ugly heads in Africa.

Africa is not Asia. Counter pls.

Syria ceases to be a nation if the fuckery continues. KSA, Jordan, Turkey take over along tribal lines. Israel takes (already did) the Heights)

If Putin goes ISIS goes.

Posted
4 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Africa is not Asia. Counter pls.

Syria ceases to be a nation if the fuckery continues. KSA, Jordan, Turkey take over along tribal lines. Israel takes (already did) the Heights)

If Putin goes ISIS goes.

It's not, but in terms of the ISIS/ISIS-adjacent fuckery, they are closely related financially and religiously. Lot of money and ideology (along with some foot soldiers) flowing out of the radical schools in Saudi Arabia into Africa.

If Syria collapses, I'm assuming Turkey gets heavily involved, and hell, toss in some ISIS-related groups (who are still in Syria).

If Putin goes, Iran loses their best ally (and maybe last?) if Russian dissolves into infighting, and things get interesting in Africa if the Russians pull out (or they go full-on rogue with some oligarch running and funding things).

 

Posted
18 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Prop up who? And India will implode under its own weight.

We've kept countries from collapsing in the past. 

India could end up being part of our counter to China, at least in the short term, and they are thinking more "globally" than perhaps they have in the past.  If we were smart, we'd be trying to move a shit-ton of manufacturing out of Asia to Mexico and South America, but Trump can't think that far ahead.

Posted
6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's not, but in terms of the ISIS/ISIS-adjacent fuckery, they are closely related financially and religiously. Lot of money and ideology (along with some foot soldiers) flowing out of the radical schools in Saudi Arabia into Africa.

If Syria collapses, I'm assuming Turkey gets heavily involved, and hell, toss in some ISIS-related groups (who are still in Syria).

If Putin goes, Iran loses their best ally (and maybe last?) if Russian dissolves into infighting, and things get interesting in Africa if the Russians pull out (or they go full-on rogue with some oligarch running and funding things).

 

How do these impact the US?

 

Posted
6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

We've kept countries from collapsing in the past. 

India could end up being part of our counter to China, at least in the short term, and they are thinking more "globally" than perhaps they have in the past.  If we were smart, we'd be trying to move a shit-ton of manufacturing out of Asia to Mexico and South America, but Trump can't think that far ahead.

Agree on Latin America. There is not a counter to China. Nukes, plus China has Pakistan to cause fuckery. India is hemmed in.



×
×
  • Create New...