Which political party is more likely to spawn WW3? (Poll)

[kyzr]

...a link from 2019:

World War III: Next U.S. Fight May Be in One of These Five Countries

President Donald Trump frequently reminds us that "all options are on the table" in enforcing U.S. policy, could that lead to war in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Ukraine or Venezuela?

www.newsweek.com

Moreover, China—largely a third party during the Cold War—has emerged as the U.S.'s foremost economic challenger, and has answered Russia's calls for closer ties, including in the military realm.

So in 2019 China didn't make the list of threats to start WW3. Has China's threats to take Taiwan moved the needle closer to WW3 now?
North Korea is now making aggressive threats against South Korea. NK should have been on the list.

This thread wants to discuss the probability of WW3 based on which party is in the Whitehouse.

1. If Joe Biden wins a 2nd term: (I don't see Michele Obama or Gavin Newsome replacing Biden so late in the cycle)
Biden's WH is less likely to take action to limit aggressive moves by aggressor nations, like Russia in Ukraine, China in Taiwan, NK against SK, or Iran in the ME. The formation of the BRIC nations has limited the US as far as imposing crippling sanctions on aggressor nations, leaving limited military action as the only punishing action available. The US is NOT the world's policeman. The feckless UN is no help either.

2. If Trump, Nikki Haley, or Ron Desantis win the Whitehouse in 2024:
Would Republican foreign policies be more aggressive toward aggressor nations?
Would the Republican led US make the world safer or would they move the world closer to WW3?

Which party, R or D, is more likely to trigger WW3 after winning the 2024 election?

 

[kyzr]

I pussied out and said WW3 is unlikely due to the economic destruction.

That is more wishful thinking than playing the probabilities.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Has China's threats to take Taiwan moved the needle closer to WW3 now?

No.

China is the only real threat for a World War and it is the last thing they want as they are in it to win the long game economically.

 

[forkup]

...a link from 2019:

World War III: Next U.S. Fight May Be in One of These Five Countries

President Donald Trump frequently reminds us that "all options are on the table" in enforcing U.S. policy, could that lead to war in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Ukraine or Venezuela?

www.newsweek.com

Moreover, China—largely a third party during the Cold War—has emerged as the U.S.'s foremost economic challenger, and has answered Russia's calls for closer ties, including in the military realm.

So in 2019 China didn't make the list of threats to start WW3. Has China's threats to take Taiwan moved the needle closer to WW3 now?
North Korea is now making aggressive threats against South Korea. NK should have been on the list.

This thread wants to discuss the probability of WW3 based on which party is in the Whitehouse.

1. If Joe Biden wins a 2nd term: (I don't see Michele Obama or Gavin Newsome replacing Biden so late in the cycle)
Biden's WH is less likely to take action to limit aggressive moves by aggressor nations, like Russia in Ukraine, China in Taiwan, or Iran in the ME. The formation of the BRIC nations has limited the US as far as imposing crippling sanctions on aggressor nations, leaving limited military action as the only punishing action available. The US is NOT the world's policeman. The feckless UN is no help either.

2. If Trump, Nikki Haley, or Ron Desantis win the Whitehouse in 2024:
Would Republican foreign policies be more aggressive toward aggressor nations?
Would the Republican led US make the world safer or would they move the world closer to WW3?

Which party, R or D, is more likely to trigger WW3 after winning the 2024 election?

As the Ukrainian war shows. Biden was willing to not just impose crippling sanctions, but also extensive military aid. Trump has consistently railed against both.

In fact your assertion that the US is not the worlds policemen is telling. It's precisely because the US has acted as the worlds policemen that no major war has broken out since WW2. Without the US claiming and the USSR believing that the US was willing to go to war to protect it's allies. Europe would have been conquered.

It's the isolationism that Trump is suggesting that is more likely to plunge the World into war. Power abhores a vacuum.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

With bush, o, bidens never ending wars around the globe, its tough to pick one. I'll go with both.

 

[rampart]

...a link from 2019:

World War III: Next U.S. Fight May Be in One of These Five Countries

President Donald Trump frequently reminds us that "all options are on the table" in enforcing U.S. policy, could that lead to war in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Ukraine or Venezuela?

www.newsweek.com

Moreover, China—largely a third party during the Cold War—has emerged as the U.S.'s foremost economic challenger, and has answered Russia's calls for closer ties, including in the military realm.

So in 2019 China didn't make the list of threats to start WW3. Has China's threats to take Taiwan moved the needle closer to WW3 now?
North Korea is now making aggressive threats against South Korea. NK should have been on the list.

This thread wants to discuss the probability of WW3 based on which party is in the Whitehouse.

1. If Joe Biden wins a 2nd term: (I don't see Michele Obama or Gavin Newsome replacing Biden so late in the cycle)
Biden's WH is less likely to take action to limit aggressive moves by aggressor nations, like Russia in Ukraine, China in Taiwan, NK against SK, or Iran in the ME. The formation of the BRIC nations has limited the US as far as imposing crippling sanctions on aggressor nations, leaving limited military action as the only punishing action available. The US is NOT the world's policeman. The feckless UN is no help either.

2. If Trump, Nikki Haley, or Ron Desantis win the Whitehouse in 2024:
Would Republican foreign policies be more aggressive toward aggressor nations?
Would the Republican led US make the world safer or would they move the world closer to WW3?

Which party, R or D, is more likely to trigger WW3 after winning the 2024 election?

i think gen milly kind of tipped our hand. our system will not launch first no matter how overconfident or demented a politician, of any party might be. now, with a proper decision in november, and an effective gag order we may be able to avoid (or at least not be involved in) wwiii for another day.

 

[kyzr]

No.

China is the only real threat for a World War and it is the last thing they want as they are in it to win the long game economically.

Agreed. The Chinese game of "Go"

...is a very long term deeply strategic game of constricting opponents by combining small advantages into a win.

The formation of BRIC countries is one such power gaining advantage. Expanding military bases onto the man-made islands in the South China Sea.

Or buying US farmland near military bases, or sending thousands of Chinese military aged men into the US for unknown purposes...

 

[kyzr]

As the Ukrainian war shows. Biden was willing to not just impose crippling sanctions, but also extensive military aid. Trump has consistently railed against both.

In fact your assertion that the US is not the worlds policemen is telling. It's precisely because the US has acted as the worlds policemen that no major war has broken out since WW2. Without the US claiming and the USSR believing that the US was willing to go to war to protect it's allies. Europe would have been conquered.

It's the isolationism that Trump is suggesting that is more likely to plunge the World into war. Power abhors a vacuum.

1. Trump had NordStream2 stopped with sanctions. Biden lifted them.

On the record: The U.S. administration’s actions on Russia

What has the administration actually done on Russia? Below is a chronological list of its actions and official statements since January 20, 2017. During that period, the administration has taken 27 actions on Russia.

www.brookings.edu

2. Where has Biden acted as the world's policeman? I remember when ISIS spread like wildfire under Obama, and then Trump killed it.
True Biden has given Ukraine military aid, but both parties support that as it weakens Russia's military.

3,. Your claim that "the EU would have been conquered" is nonsense. Russia does NOT want to tangle with NATO.

4. Trump's destruction of ISIS shows that your claim of isolationism is bullshit.

5. One more thing. Biden's moronic withdrawal from AFG got him "held in CONTEMPT" by Britain. Giving bad actors $85b of US military equipment is also stupid.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Agreed. The Chinese game of "Go"
View attachment 885974
...is a very ling term deeply strategic game of constricting opponents by combining small advantages into a win.

The formation of BRIC countries is one such power gaining advantage. Expanding military bases onto the man-made islands in the South China Sea.
View attachment 885977

Or buying US farmland near military bases, or sending thousands of Chinese military aged men into the US for unknown purposes...

When one looks at all the bases we have around China from Japan to Korea to Diego Garcia it is hard to argue we are not both trying to play the same game.

But we will lose because as a country we have lost the capacity for long range planning and actions as each POTUS now starts their term by undoing most things the previous one did regardless of their value.

 

[kyzr]

i think gen milly kind of tipped our hand. our system will not launch first no matter how overconfident or demented a politician, of any party might be. now, with a proper decision in November, and an effective gag order we may be able to avoid (or at least not be involved in) WWIII for another day.

So what is the "proper decision" in November????????

 

[DBA]

No.

China is the only real threat for a World War and it is the last thing they want as they are in it to win the long game economically.

Our enemies, China included, may not even have to lift a finger to see our destruction, particularly if our border remains as it is now. We will implode or they can invade us via the border as opposed to militarily. They can then change our politics and viola, it is over. Sadly, many Americans are to ignorant, spoiled and idealistic to understand the threat.

 

[Votto]

No.

China is the only real threat for a World War and it is the last thing they want as they are in it to win the long game economically.

China has already said they will take Taiwan, so the real question becomes, does that start a war?

China, like Nazi Germany, has a mission to expand.

 

[rampart]

When one looks at all the bases we have around China from Japan to Korea to Diego Garcia it is hard to argue we are not both trying to play the same game.

But we will lose because as a country we have lost the capacity for long range planning and actions as each POTUS now starts their term by undoing most things the previous one did regardless of their value.

our constitution specifically prevents long range planning with its bans on standing armies and its annual budgets and appropriations.

our policies, in a number of areas, are in flux as each election cycle can change policies radically.

ukraine , for example, wins or loses not to the russians in donetsk, but in that november election in the usa.

"whoever has america as a friend, needs no enemies."
madame nhu

 

[kyzr]

When one looks at all the bases we have around China from Japan to Korea to Diego Garcia it is hard to argue we are not both trying to play the same game.

But we will lose because as a country we have lost the capacity for long range planning and actions as each POTUS now starts their term by undoing most things the previous one did regardless of their value.

1. True, both the US and China have extensive military bases around the globe. China is now in Cuba as an example.

2. I'm not sure the US lost the "capacity" for long range planning. With a $27T economy, the US is still the big dog. However, since the US moved so many factories to China, they have moved to the 2nd largest economy. The $34T US DEBT has crimped the US as far as cash to
increase power and influence. China's "belt and roads" program is a very active influence gaining policy.

3. I'm blanking of what foreign policies the next president "undid"? Iran's nuclear deal comes to mind. What others?

 

[rampart]

China has already said they will take Taiwan, so the real question becomes, does that start a war?

China, like Nazi Germany, has a mission to expand.

not saying you are wrong, but china is not exactly waging nazi style blitzkrieg .

it is a good decision on the part of the chinese leaders. meanwhile, they live the good life, and wait.

 

[Votto]

1. True, both the US and China have extensive military bases around the globe. China is now in Cuba as an example.

2. I'm not sure the US lost the "capacity" for long range planning. With a $27T economy, the US is still the big dog. However, since the US moved so many factories to China, they have moved to the 2nd largest economy. The $34T US DEBT has crimped the US as far as cash to
increase power and influence. China's "belt and roads" program is a very active influence gaining policy.

View attachment 885984

3. I'm blanking of what foreign policies the next president "undid"? Iran's nuclear deal comes to mind. What others?

And with US politicians on the bankroll of President Xi, the Chinese know how to exploit government corruption within the US. Just look at all those millions of Chinese dollars given to the Biden family, tax free, no less.

It really is easy.

 

[kyzr]

our constitution specifically prevents long range planning with its bans on standing armies and its annual budgets and appropriations.
our policies, in a number of areas, are in flux as each election cycle can change policies radically.
Ukraine , for example, wins or loses not to the Russians in Donetsk, but in that November election in the USA.
"whoever has America as a friend, needs no enemies."
madame nhu

So why is the US Ukraine's only defender? The EU has the same resources. Let the EU pick up some costs as well.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

2. I'm not sure the US lost the "capacity" for long range planning.

Because with each new president the plans of the previous one are routinely put in to the shitter to appease the base of the new POTUS. This will not get better, but worse as our partisan divide grows.

 

[Votto]

not saying you are wrong, but china is not exactly waging nazi style blitzkrieg .

it is a good decision on the part of the chinese leaders. meanwhile, they live the good life, and wait.

I didn't say it was blitzkrieg.

China is methodical. They have no regime changes, ever.

They are in no hurry, but don't mistake that for a lack of determination to get the job done.

 

[kyzr]

And with US politicians on the bankroll of President Xi, the Chinese know how to exploit government corruption within the US. Just look at all those millions of Chinese dollars given to the Biden family, tax free, no less. It really is easy.

The Chinese have a term for it: "Money Bag Politics".