Maybe so but would it be worth the risk to them.
The US would be outraged and rightfully so should such a thing happen
Whether it’s a risk depends on the country. A nuclear armed country could just laugh in our face, and even a fairly strong non-nuclear power isn’t likely to be afraid of us. To be blunt, we are bullies; we attack countries that we believe can’t seriously oppose us, not ones that can bloody our nose.
And if he’s ever dumb enough to visit Iraq without an outright army to protect him, he’ll probably be killed. He’s created far to many people who have nothing to lose.
So tell me Der Trihs which country could bloody the nose of the USA without getting their collective noses splattered all over their chops
If that constitutional amendment could be undone so quickly–Bill Clinton could run again.
Would the results of that contest be as easy to subvert?
I had always understood America’s best values to include respecting the rights of other countries to self-determination, and respecting the rights of human being generally. To be free of stuff like torture in particular. Clearly, my values are at odds with Republican values. yet strangely, I have no shame about it whatsoever, and feel that Republicans and conservatives generally should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Not rightfully, no.
Any country with nukes could grab Bush and perform an Aztec-style human sacrifice using him, complete with international media coverage of the whole thing, and laugh in our face when we complained.
You’re delusional.
In the event a nuclear armed country, say, Pakistan or North Korea, were to kidnap a former POTUS, and execute him, they would be invaded. Quickly. It would be a bloodbath, and it would be a pain in the behind, but it would happen. The only country with the ability to hit us with nuclear weapons is Russia, and possibly France. China too, but they wouldn’t be stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot.
If, on the OFF chance, Blahblahstan kidnapped a former POTUS, executed same, and launched a nuclear attack somehow against the US, they would quickly face the wrath of the WORLD.
Granted, those midguided folks like Der Trihs who feel that it would be a Good Thing for the US to get nuked would be thrilled, but the vast majority of the worlds leaders recognize the horror and incredible threat someone willing to do that poses (and before you can say it, Bush’s Middle East debacle is leaps and bounds below the mindest of someone who would do what you’ve described. If you believe otherwise, there’s no hope for you at all) to everyone on the planet.
No, I’m contemptuous of America. Even without nukes involved, I can’t see America invading a country with a military capable of fighting back. We only get into fights we consider to be of negligible risk. Nukes just push a US invasion against a serious enemy from “very unlikely” to “never happen”.
Unless we invade; then they can hit us because we’ll be right there.
Not if they use it on our invading troops. I expect the majority of the world would be cheering them on.
Well why do you continue to reside here then? Or are you planning on leaving?
You sort of half-inspired me to start this thread with some of your comments:
My friends and family and such are here; why would I leave just because I happen to despise this country ?
It’s not that easy to just move to another country.
I know, I’m not one of those people who when somebody criticizes the U.S. I say they should get the hell out. Based off reading Der Trihs’s past posts I didn’t think his hate of the U.S. was new so I wondered why he would stay here if he hated it so much. Friends and Family are good enough reason as any I suppose.
And there is hardly anywhere in the world where the USA’s influential shadow does not fall to some degree. For good or ill in some areas the President of the US is practically World President. What she or he thinks, says and does impacts all around the world. From trade reform/addressing world poverty, to relations with Islam, the shape and nature of the world economy and avoiding climate catastrophe the USA calls the shots.
At least within its borders he gets some sort of say. The rest of us get dragged along in the slipstream and to varying degrees suffer the consequences.
I very much doubt that Der Trihs votes. Wouldn’t make a difference, in his mindset.
In 1991 we went to war with a country that had the 4th largest military on the planet, full of what we believed were battle hardened vetereans of the Iran Iraq war, and a leader willing to drop nerve gas and mustard gas on our troops.
In 1999 we (and the rest of NATO) launched an air war against Yugoslavia, whom at the time we believed still had modern and up-to-date anti-air systems.
The fact that we did not get “beaten” in those conflicts does not mean that it wasn’t a concern. Somalia did, and Iraq is showing us that we can get our nose bloodied, at least metaphorically.
But in a stand up military confrontation, no, at this point we don’t face anyone that can beat us because nobody that would fight us HAS the ability to beat us. That may be changing, and quickly, but for now. we are still the ONLY Superpower left on the planet.
Reviving this thread from 2007 because I have just read this sobering piece by Matt Gurney on the USA’s standing in the world now, at least among the world’s defense and intelligence community: “We will never fucking trust you again.”
It’s the author’s reflections on what he experienced at the latest Halifax International Security Forum, which is “an annual gathering of senior military officers, defence and intelligence officials from across the free world, and representatives from the media, think tanks, large companies and civil society organizations whose work relates to defence and security issues or in some way seeks to promote and preserve a healthy democratic world.” Normally there would be a significant official attendance from the American government, but:
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to avoid a series of high-profile annual defence summits. That includes Halifax, and others in places like Munich and Singapore, and even inside the United States itself. The reason, according to the Pentagon’s press apparatus, was that, and I swear to God this is the actual quote, such events promote “the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country and hatred for the president of the United States.”
The rest of the piece goes on to discuss the author’s observations of what Americans did and did not (openly or “on vacation wink wink”) attend, and critically, how the rest of the democratic world now regards this country. I prefer not to excerpt more as the article deserves to be read in full, but the headline pretty much says it all. I very much fear that Gurney is correct.
How can the U.S. regain international goodwill?
Sustained effort from two generations of American leaders across both parties.
The goodwill we had was built up during World War 2 until the collapse of the Soviet Union. It wasn’t always uneventful or uncontroversial, but despite changeovers in party control of the Presidency and Congress, U.S. foreign policy was mostly consistent. Even our enemies knew what we’d do and where we were headed.
As long as Trumpists are sowing chaos, no one will trust us. Any agreement with the U.S. will require immediate manifestation of our end of the deal, because there is no expectation we can follow through longer than a single term of Congress. And the only way to remove that distrust is consistency across time and between parties.
So as long as the country remains so deeply divided along partisan lines, with each side existing in its own reality, we are indeed fucked.
“Never say Never.”
Everyone hates the Big Dog, but many of the nations that line up against the US in the UN, are also lining up with the hands out for aid.