- Reaction score
- 7,387
- Points
- 1,260
Whether it happened or not, its this sort of chatter that will inch a country like Poland or South Korea closer to obtaining their own nuclear weapons.Ill take things that didnt happen for $500, Alex.
Trump administration 2024-2028
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
Yup. When the reliable and sane global security order is breaking down, and countries are told to fend for themselves, they will do so. There are a handful of threshold nuclear states who have seen the threats increase and the security guarantees become quite unreliable. Nuclear proliferation would be an unsurprising outcome of America’s foreign policy changes. It would be a costly but entirely rational choice for several countries at this point.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,102
- Points
- 1,040
Well now you know something is definitely off if Alex Jones is calling for Trump to be 25th'd.
www.the-independent.com
And then there's the impeachment push for both POTUS and SecDef.
‘How do we 25th Amendment his a**?’ Alex Jones joins calls to remove Trump over Iran
Former MAGA allies and members of Congress urge Trump’s removal as the president threatens to eliminate Iranian civilization
www.the-independent.com
And then there's the impeachment push for both POTUS and SecDef.
All of it meaningless. The congressional Republicans will only hold the leaders of this administration to account if it decisively threatens them at the midterms. And even there, too many are probably afraid of the MAGA base.Well now you know something is definitely off if Alex Jones is calling for Trump to be 25th'd.
‘How do we 25th Amendment his a**?’ Alex Jones joins calls to remove Trump over Iran
Former MAGA allies and members of Congress urge Trump’s removal as the president threatens to eliminate Iranian civilization
And then there's the impeachment push for both POTUS and SecDef.
Thus far the only meaningful constraints on Trump appear to have remained the courts. I don’t see them being a factor in how Trump and his administration prosecute the war in Iran.
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,238
- Points
- 1,140
To which his administration has shown open contempt for at all levels of the judiciary. To think the courts would constrain him is delusional.
But so far they have. When push comes to shove they generally have abided by the rulings, even while getting all pissy pants about it.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 7,468
- Points
- 1,210
Frankly it shows a long standing pattern, and possibly even SOP of contempt for the courts. Im surprised judges haven't thrown the book at the administration more.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 45,183
- Points
- 1,160
Bye bye RBIO ....
The “rules-based international order” was never a set of neutral rules. It was a story the U.S. told — about itself, its power and its right to bend norms when convenient.
In January, that story finally collapsed when Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called that order what many governments have long known it to be: a useful “fiction,” sustained less by universal law than by American power and selective enforcement.
For decades, when U.S. officials invoked a “rules-based international order,” they were not describing universal principles, but defending a flexible set of rules largely devised in Washington and adjusted whenever American interests required it. Now, as President Trump openly revives territorial expansion and economic coercion as tools of U.S. statecraft, that phrase no longer commands belief, even among America’s closest allies.
Carney, speaking in Davos, did what no major Western leader had previously dared to do: He called the bluff. The “rules-based order,” Carney said, was a convenient illusion — one the West itself knew was only partially true, tolerated for as long as U.S. hegemony delivered enough public goods to make the hypocrisy worthwhile. That bargain, he concluded, no longer works.
The useful illusion of a ‘rules-based order’ is ending
The “rules-based international order” was never a set of neutral rules. It was a story the U.S. told — about itself, its power and its right to bend norms when convenient.
In January, that story finally collapsed when Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called that order what many governments have long known it to be: a useful “fiction,” sustained less by universal law than by American power and selective enforcement.
For decades, when U.S. officials invoked a “rules-based international order,” they were not describing universal principles, but defending a flexible set of rules largely devised in Washington and adjusted whenever American interests required it. Now, as President Trump openly revives territorial expansion and economic coercion as tools of U.S. statecraft, that phrase no longer commands belief, even among America’s closest allies.
Carney, speaking in Davos, did what no major Western leader had previously dared to do: He called the bluff. The “rules-based order,” Carney said, was a convenient illusion — one the West itself knew was only partially true, tolerated for as long as U.S. hegemony delivered enough public goods to make the hypocrisy worthwhile. That bargain, he concluded, no longer works.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 22,047
- Points
- 1,260
WATCH N SHOOT - there maybe some nasty shit rolling out.
Remember the US has a history of assassinating their own leaders...not often but for stuff far less than what Dear Donald has done.