Our Allies Must Abandon America, For Their Own Good : InflectionPointUSA

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Dead right. Specifically normalization of relations with China and Russia. I understand NATO/allies willingness to increase sycophancy to US under Biden (reaction to Trump45), sacrificing their economies for what was really primarily a war on Europe through Ukraine proxy vs Russia, but total sycophancy never gets rewarded.

NATO/EU establishment leadership only knows "liberal rules based order". US approved democracy, and liberal freedoms, is awesome, but it shouldn't be a basis for supremacist war on anyone you declare to be US/CIA unapproved democracies despite the massive propaganda/operations used to force US approved election results.

The most critical step for our allies here is the abandonment of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. To effectuate this, their central banks must begin to dramatically reduce their dollar holdings, shifting reserves to a basket of alternative currencies, while developing new multilateral payment systems that don't depend on American-controlled financial infrastructure.

The key here is to never let the US cripple your nation with sanctions. It is far more important to avoid US market investments, because the perspective of bullying you that "selling stuff to US is taking advantage of the US". Diversify trade through world, especially with nations that can stand up to the US.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Leave me! Save yourselves!!!

[–] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

ABANDON REPUBLICANS

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Nah, we should just take care of ourselves and wait it out.

Americans are not bad people, their actual government is, they'll come around.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I disagree. US allies might need to be prepared to put the US down like a rabid dog.

The rest of the world is not ready for the next fascist dictator to rise in the US. We might never be ready for it. When Hitler rose in power, Germany was defeated and weak. That's not the case in the US.

Also, despite all claims to the contrary from both sides, the US is a democracy. Our government is the government we chose, regardless of how we got there. There are plenty of bad people in the US.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I hate to say it, but US allies could ally themselves with literally every single other country on earth, and still not have the ability to put the US down like a rabid dog. We have the 5 most powerful military organizations on the planet. The best they can hope for is that we have a civil war to depose the dictator, and there isn't too much collateral damage.

[–] Poop@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm curious which war you think the US won last? Won on their own? Not saying their capabilities are not significant and overwhelming, but the finishing the job successfully part has been lacking.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From the US standpoint, they were all successful. "Winning" wasnt the goal, destabilization and installling a "friendly" government has been the goal.

[–] Poop@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree, but I am curious on their opinion. They seem to think 300 million people could take on billions be not destroy themselves and everything else in the process of "winning".

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

We won the last war we fought: WWII.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you were to ask what is the largest, most powerful air force in the world, it should come as no surprise that the answer is the US Air Force.

But what if you were to ask what is the second largest air force in the world? You might expect the answer to be China, maybe Germany, etc. But you would be wrong. The second largest air force in the world is the US Navy.

This is why it's so important that every other country view the US as a threat. It gets even worse if the US were to ally itself with another threat, such as Russia.

Fortunately, all of the developed countries could start a military buildup under the guise of "pulling their own weight"/independence from the bloc without raising alarms among the US fascists.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Strangely, I think allying with Russia actually reduces the threat from the US.

Sort of like if you have two great employees on your team and you hire an idiot you go from getting two employees worth of work down to 1.5 since now they have to spend more time trying to train the idiot and/or fix his mistakes.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

The only hope for the rest of the world if it comes to that is that the current administration is doing so much to damage the US that we may not be as effective when the time comes. "Loyalty to the dictator" is not a good measure of a soldier.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We have the strongest military on the planet, but not even we have the ability to fight the whole world, if it came to that. To even suggest that one nation could fight on so many fronts is absurd. We would get our shit kicked in until we fell back to the mainland US, at which point no country on earth has the amphibious capability to land a large enough beachhead to resist being pushed back into the ocean.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We could probably fight the whole planet, defensively. Blockade the suez canal, the Indian ocean, and the Panama canal. Every single country worldwide collapses in less than a month. It would cripple our economy, but we could put the rest of the world into an unconditional surrender position.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What are you even talking about? We literally had the Suez canal blocked for half a month a couple years ago, and the whole world continued as if nothing had happened. You're sipping from the American Exceptionalism kool-aid a little too much if you think that the US would be able to blockade three of the most important transit locations, two of them guarded by multiple nations with nuclear power, and get away with it.

We absolutely would not win a war against everyone on the planet, even defensively. The idea that India, China, and Russia would just sit aside and "unconditionally surrender" is so laughable that I cannot help but wonder if you're currently under the influence of mind-altering drugs.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sorry this situation assumes that no one uses nukes. With nukes, yeah we can't do it. Without them I'm pretty sure we have enough carriers to shut down world shipping in three places at once.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And even without nukes, you think the whole world combined wouldn't be able to wipe out a few carriers, assuming they didn't just ignore them and take the longer way around? Tell me, in how many wars have modern US carriers fought ships from modern navies? Can you tell me how many anti-ship missiles a carrier and its screen could successfully defend against? What do you think about the report the US Navy released that said, in simulated war games, US naval ships were only able to stop attacks from a drone swarm roughly half the time? Now tell me which world superpower that might be hanging around the Indian ocean has invested billions in drone tech, and just launched their first drone aircraft carrier? A nation that is just one of several that now has drone carriers as warships?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Naval power has been significantly degraded in last couple of years. Ukraine has damaged Russian ships a fair bit away from its coast. Houthis have either damaged or scared off US ships from red sea. Nuclear missiles could always knock out an entire carrier fleet, and there is much less of a taboo for "purely military target", and there is no MAD retaliation justification if the fleet is far away from home country. Taboo is furthermore based on respecting a country/military as being underserved of losing.

The US military strength is exaggerated by reputation. It spends a lot on poor value equipment. Both Russian and US (Israel enhanced version) 5th gen aircraft have very shy use to cost and embarrassment of combat failure. It's debt levels are a threat to US financial stability, and so it was on a path to self destruction anyway.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think you underestimate how many carrier groups we have. We underestimate it most of the time. No. I don't think that the rest of the world currently has the stockpile of munitions necessary to actually take on the US military and win without nukes. We might lose as many as 10 or 11 of the diesel carriers. The nuclear carriers would mostly survive them dumping everything they have at us, with current stockpiles. All told we might go from 24-25 current carriers down to 11-12. More than enough to blockade as long as we want, and shut global trade down. At that point every other military is fucked, because no one else has a blue water Navy.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're out of your mind, and seriously overestimating the defensive powers of a carrier and its screen. There is no way even several carrier groups could blockade just the Indian ocean for a few weeks, even if the only nation that fought back was China. Even if they managed to shoot down everything thrown at it, there is absolutely no chance any several carrier groups combined could stand up to the many thousands of ship killing cruise missiles and drones, let alone traditional aircraft and naval vessels, that China alone could toss at them. They simply do not have the ammunition onboard to support that kind of mission, and no way for supply ships to resupply them fast enough to beat attrition.

Which is why the US is currently refurbishing old bases in the western pacific, so that we might have that ability in the future. The US military is saying we don't have the ability to fight an offensive war against China at this time, but what do they know? Obviously, some random person on Lemmy who has a hard-on for the US knows better, right?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was willing to entertain your views before you resorted to ad-hominem attacks. I'm a former Captain of the USN that is still well respected. Looking at the data that I have had available to me, you are giving Russia and China far too much credit. We are done here.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That’s not what an ad hominem is. You should learn what words mean before you use them.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

An ad hominem attack is a fallacious argument that criticizes a person instead of their argument.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No, an ad hominem is an argument that uses a personal attack to attempt to refute an opposing argument. So, if I say that your argument is invalid because you're a bootlicker, that's an ad hominem.

But if I say your argument is absurd, it has no merit whatsoever and it is nothing more than propagandist fantasy derived from nationalist zeal and a belief in American exceptionalism, and you're deranged for believing in such lunacy, then that's not an ad hominem.

Furthermore, there's the Fallacy fallacy, which states that just because an argument is fallacious, that it doesn't mean that it's a bad argument. There are plenty of ad hominems that are good arguments. For example, saying that nothing that comes out of Trump's mouth is worth listening to because he's a nazi is technically an ad hominem. It's also a good argument, because Trump is a nazi, and nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.