Amid rising geopolitical tensions, discussions have surfaced about potential economic countermeasures by European NATO nations, Canada, and China, particularly regarding US Treasury securities., Economy, Times Now
… the time to do this shit has long been upon us. Who gives a fuck what they can do, until they do it? As an American, I’m begging you, put up or shut-up.
I didn’t vote for the baby in office, and I would gladly suffer to see his toys taken away by the adults.
I said this in another thread but I’ll say it again, threats are only useful if you hold leverage. If they blow their load, what else can they hold over the heads of the US? They need to threaten, and then if they threat isn’t listened to then they act on it. Doing it now just ensures there’s not much of a punishment left to be dealt, so there’s no reason not to invade. Sure, the economy will collapse, but that would happen either way in the case they act now.
If I hold a knife to you and threaten you with it, you’ll listen. If I just stab you then what reason do you have to listen? Just like nukes, the only use for a threat is in not using it. If you do have to use it then you’ve lost the reason they may have held back.
No one is proposing they rattle their saber. The scale of the threat has long been too great to bother speaking aloud, and putting it into words instead of action would just be laugable.
Again, the “listened to” or no phase is past the horizon, around the curve and honestly several hills and valleys back in the rear-view mirror. A threat that isn’t followed-through on or is spoken only after you’ll obviously never act isn’t even a threat any more; Its a mark of submission.
Nice job contradicting yourself in that second paragraph though. Let me ask you this: Did Trump bother saying we were going to, could, or “should” abduct Maduro in advance?
Did they make this threat before? I never heard it if they did. Yeah, a threat is only good as long as the other party believes you’re going to act on it, so if they did threaten it before then they should. However, again, this isn’t going to prevent anything, except for making them believe your threats are good. What good will come out of them taking this action? (By this, I don’t mean collapsing the US economy, which will hurt a lot of people. I mean, does it prevent harm.)
I don’t believe I contradicted myself. Could you point out how? I’m not sure how abducting Moduro is related to this. However, I do believe he’s been saying we should remove him for a long time, though I think most people ignored it because it would have been seen as crazy, and gets mixed up with all his other insane ramblings. I don’t know the relevance of this question though.
Trump didn’t specify how we would remove Maduro in the same way its pointless for Europe to specify exactly how they could or would retaliate. Its more than enough for there to be multiple options to make them all valid when it comes time to say “we warned you”.
Please don’t confuse my enthusiasm for one option that’s been shown to be possible and devestating, for me saying this is the only option Europe should consider. On the contrary, I’m just wishing they would pick an option that matters and run with it already. All they’ve done is show their belly like a submissive dog.
They don’t even appear to care about plausible deniability any more. Arresting Gaza protestors is just such a good, strong-arm look for going against Trump. Fear of Europe must be why so many churches in my area are flying Israeli flags at the moment.
As for how you contradicted yourself, you said “if the threat isn’t listened to then they act on it”, then went on to claim a threat that has to be followed-through on is worthless. On the contrary, a threat that has been known all-along is rendered moot when you spell it out long after the time for it is past.
Its the threat you have to verbalize that’s worthless. Holding a knife to someone’s throat to threaten another person is not the act of someone with any control over their present situation, and its a threat made-up on the spot that’s easilly invalidated in so, so many ways. That scenario is not applicable to Europe versus the US at all.
As for how you contradicted yourself, you said “if the threat isn’t listened to then they act on it”, then went on to claim a threat that has to be followed-through on is worthless. On the contrary, a threat that has been known all-along is rendered moot when you spell it out long after the time for it is past.
That’s not a contradiction. If you have to follow through on your threat then it failed to achieve its goal. Usually it’s not a desired outcome. It doesn’t gain you a thing. It still needs to be done though or your threats will be ignored.
Its the threat you have to verbalize that’s worthless.
It depends on the context, but usually no. There needs to be clear boundaries where the threat becomes acted upon for it to be effective most of the time.
its a threat made-up on the spot that’s easilly invalidated in so, so many ways.
This is exactly my point. This threat was just made up. It can’t be used retroactively. That’s not how things work. They need to set boundaries, then execute it if the lines are crossed. If you set boundaries that have already been crossed then what are you trying to gain?
You think the boundaries weren’t spelled out? I mean, we all know “international law” is a joke 1st world countries ignore versus their own actions and the rest of the world, but versus eachother? “Don’t fuck with us and we won’t fuck with you” is stupidly over-defined.
The same for the financial enmeshment that sees this threat well-inside the realm of potential reality. Europe never promised not to sell these debts. The fact the US can’t complain about it if they do is part of what makes it a good threat. Are you not familiar with “soft power”, like, at all?
You might have begun to be onto something if this was the only threat in Europes hand, but let’s be real for a moment: the deck is stacked so badly in Europe’s favor towards a half-dozen or so Royal Flushes that come with a free(if unwanted) blow-job, and dozens of other relatively-painless-to-Europe-but-enough-to-Fuck-up-a-US-election-cycle-or-three options, its absurd, so saying “maybe they could, but should they?” is insincere and enabling at best.
Pretend this is a Zoo; The signs say such things as “Please Don’t Feed Pedo-Hitler”, and “Break Glass For Free Dart-Gun in Case of Escaped Pedo-Hitler” … you’re the person hemming and hawing about someone else maybe breaking the glass while escaped Pedo-Hitler stalks a pre-school class. Could you at least get out of the way of the other adults, or are you cool with it being assumed you are happy to see Pedo-Hitler on the wrong side of the barriers?
I wont suffer from this, but ill gladly watch you and my neighbirs suffer! obviously not being serious, but damn thats almost what you sound like lol. If you had some money, suddenly youre an asshole with that mindset is all. My neighbors who cant tough it out shouldnt suffer because you accept a raw deal is all im sayin
You’re funny. You think the US isn’t full of people who wouldn’t notice if things got worse on the whole because of how bad they have it already?
The only one proposing its somehow worse that me and my well-to-do neighbors join them and maybe end-up remembering such a basic concept as Class Solidarity is you.
Depends on the neighbor. If they have a trump flag, fuckem. I literally don’t give a shit anymore. “Oh if you say people should suffer the consequences of their actions you’re somehow in favor of collective punishment” is a braindead take that is only used by people trying to get out of the consequences of their actions.
The people living there in 20 years STILL won’t control their own lands, you mean. If I’m wrong, I might then consider your implication that those people won’t count as Europeans, but to that I would only say “GOOD FOR THEM THEN!”
… the time to do this shit has long been upon us. Who gives a fuck what they can do, until they do it? As an American, I’m begging you, put up or shut-up.
I didn’t vote for the baby in office, and I would gladly suffer to see his toys taken away by the adults.
I said this in another thread but I’ll say it again, threats are only useful if you hold leverage. If they blow their load, what else can they hold over the heads of the US? They need to threaten, and then if they threat isn’t listened to then they act on it. Doing it now just ensures there’s not much of a punishment left to be dealt, so there’s no reason not to invade. Sure, the economy will collapse, but that would happen either way in the case they act now.
If I hold a knife to you and threaten you with it, you’ll listen. If I just stab you then what reason do you have to listen? Just like nukes, the only use for a threat is in not using it. If you do have to use it then you’ve lost the reason they may have held back.
No one is proposing they rattle their saber. The scale of the threat has long been too great to bother speaking aloud, and putting it into words instead of action would just be laugable.
Again, the “listened to” or no phase is past the horizon, around the curve and honestly several hills and valleys back in the rear-view mirror. A threat that isn’t followed-through on or is spoken only after you’ll obviously never act isn’t even a threat any more; Its a mark of submission.
Nice job contradicting yourself in that second paragraph though. Let me ask you this: Did Trump bother saying we were going to, could, or “should” abduct Maduro in advance?
Did they make this threat before? I never heard it if they did. Yeah, a threat is only good as long as the other party believes you’re going to act on it, so if they did threaten it before then they should. However, again, this isn’t going to prevent anything, except for making them believe your threats are good. What good will come out of them taking this action? (By this, I don’t mean collapsing the US economy, which will hurt a lot of people. I mean, does it prevent harm.)
I don’t believe I contradicted myself. Could you point out how? I’m not sure how abducting Moduro is related to this. However, I do believe he’s been saying we should remove him for a long time, though I think most people ignored it because it would have been seen as crazy, and gets mixed up with all his other insane ramblings. I don’t know the relevance of this question though.
Trump didn’t specify how we would remove Maduro in the same way its pointless for Europe to specify exactly how they could or would retaliate. Its more than enough for there to be multiple options to make them all valid when it comes time to say “we warned you”.
Please don’t confuse my enthusiasm for one option that’s been shown to be possible and devestating, for me saying this is the only option Europe should consider. On the contrary, I’m just wishing they would pick an option that matters and run with it already. All they’ve done is show their belly like a submissive dog.
They don’t even appear to care about plausible deniability any more. Arresting Gaza protestors is just such a good, strong-arm look for going against Trump. Fear of Europe must be why so many churches in my area are flying Israeli flags at the moment.
As for how you contradicted yourself, you said “if the threat isn’t listened to then they act on it”, then went on to claim a threat that has to be followed-through on is worthless. On the contrary, a threat that has been known all-along is rendered moot when you spell it out long after the time for it is past.
Its the threat you have to verbalize that’s worthless. Holding a knife to someone’s throat to threaten another person is not the act of someone with any control over their present situation, and its a threat made-up on the spot that’s easilly invalidated in so, so many ways. That scenario is not applicable to Europe versus the US at all.
That’s not a contradiction. If you have to follow through on your threat then it failed to achieve its goal. Usually it’s not a desired outcome. It doesn’t gain you a thing. It still needs to be done though or your threats will be ignored.
It depends on the context, but usually no. There needs to be clear boundaries where the threat becomes acted upon for it to be effective most of the time.
This is exactly my point. This threat was just made up. It can’t be used retroactively. That’s not how things work. They need to set boundaries, then execute it if the lines are crossed. If you set boundaries that have already been crossed then what are you trying to gain?
You think the boundaries weren’t spelled out? I mean, we all know “international law” is a joke 1st world countries ignore versus their own actions and the rest of the world, but versus eachother? “Don’t fuck with us and we won’t fuck with you” is stupidly over-defined.
The same for the financial enmeshment that sees this threat well-inside the realm of potential reality. Europe never promised not to sell these debts. The fact the US can’t complain about it if they do is part of what makes it a good threat. Are you not familiar with “soft power”, like, at all?
You might have begun to be onto something if this was the only threat in Europes hand, but let’s be real for a moment: the deck is stacked so badly in Europe’s favor towards a half-dozen or so Royal Flushes that come with a free(if unwanted) blow-job, and dozens of other relatively-painless-to-Europe-but-enough-to-Fuck-up-a-US-election-cycle-or-three options, its absurd, so saying “maybe they could, but should they?” is insincere and enabling at best.
Pretend this is a Zoo; The signs say such things as “Please Don’t Feed Pedo-Hitler”, and “Break Glass For Free Dart-Gun in Case of Escaped Pedo-Hitler” … you’re the person hemming and hawing about someone else maybe breaking the glass while escaped Pedo-Hitler stalks a pre-school class. Could you at least get out of the way of the other adults, or are you cool with it being assumed you are happy to see Pedo-Hitler on the wrong side of the barriers?
I wont suffer from this, but ill gladly watch you and my neighbirs suffer! obviously not being serious, but damn thats almost what you sound like lol. If you had some money, suddenly youre an asshole with that mindset is all. My neighbors who cant tough it out shouldnt suffer because you accept a raw deal is all im sayin
You’re funny. You think the US isn’t full of people who wouldn’t notice if things got worse on the whole because of how bad they have it already?
The only one proposing its somehow worse that me and my well-to-do neighbors join them and maybe end-up remembering such a basic concept as Class Solidarity is you.
Depends on the neighbor. If they have a trump flag, fuckem. I literally don’t give a shit anymore. “Oh if you say people should suffer the consequences of their actions you’re somehow in favor of collective punishment” is a braindead take that is only used by people trying to get out of the consequences of their actions.
I voted for kamala, and so did my neighbors
I held my nose and voted for her. None of my neighbors did. Your sympathy is misplaced.
Its an indian website
Its not the opinion of any european
Facts ≠ Opinions, although I am going by the title where it says “Can”, rather than “should”. I stated my opinion though.
Maybe Europe would act, if enough former colonies call them cowards.
Well they are cowards, that’s why there are so many “former” colonies. Give it 20 years, Europeans won’t even control their own lands.
The people living there in 20 years STILL won’t control their own lands, you mean. If I’m wrong, I might then consider your implication that those people won’t count as Europeans, but to that I would only say “GOOD FOR THEM THEN!”