alt Hacker News> The US has bombed over a half dozen countries in the past year.
Which ones? I'm sure there's a very good reason for each so let's walk through them with civility.
> The US is led by a vile rapist abomination that openly threatens "annihilation"
Trump is probably a rapist but our justice system has failed to prosecute him. But the memory of justice is rather long. He may yet get his day. Separately yea who cares about the annihilation threats. Iran has been doing that for a long time. If they don't like hearing it maybe they should stop too.
> The US is repeatedly and proudly engaged in wantonly illegal piracy at sea. It boasts about the textbook definition of terrorism.
What examples do you have of wanton piracy?
> The US has done more to encourage nuclear proliferation in the last two years than in all of history.
I'd argue Russia has done more there by invading Ukraine.
> It has taught that everyone needs to get nuclear weapons, and many of them need to be pointed at the US.
No nobody has been taught that. But they have been taught that if they step out of line and don't have enough of a deterrent like North Korea, that if they try and build nuclear weapons they'll be on the receiving end of sanctions, and then if that isn't a good enough incentive we'll come bomb them and stop them. You are welcome.
> It has pushed the notion that might makes right, and if you have the ability you can steal and rampage whatever you want, in a lawless world.
Might does make right though. International law is just some stuff made up largely by western nations and backed by American military power. If you have no will or ability to enforce international law, like, idk, stopping Iran from building a nuclear weapon, then the law is pointless.
> Your claim that the US is holding the gates is absolutely perverse, and your worldview is most certainly some US exceptionalism bullshit.
No, it's not perverse. I just disagree with your point of view.
> This sort of idiocracy garbage utterly infects all corners of the US, and it keeps sloshing to the surface.
Isn't it embarrassing that all these idiots are the dominant force on the planet and you have to cry to them to help you against Russia and they make much more money than your citizens? If you're going to insult Americans like this you should at least have something worth insulting us over. I do think biking culture is way better than driving, but I'm not sure about much else.
I'd argue Russia has done more there by invading Ukraine.
Nope, nobody was talking about getting nukes after the invasion in 2022.
Everybody started talking about getting nukes after: (1) Trump has been threatening to leave NATO and casting doubt about upholding Article 5, so nobody is really sure if the nuclear umbrella extends to Europe anymore; and (2) Trump has threatened to invade Greenland.
Basically, nobody here trusts the US anymore, but politicians are keeping up appearances to race to scale up production capacity of arms, etc.
Trumpists will typically say "but why should the US provide the nuclear umbrella for Europe?" Which is woefully ignorant of history, the whole NATO nuclear sharing arrangement, etc. exists, because the US didn't want European countries like (West-)Germany to have their own nukes.
Isn't it embarrassing that all these idiots are the dominant force on the planet and you have to cry to them to help you against Russia and they make much more money than your citizens? If you're going to insult Americans like this you should at least have something worth insulting us over. I do think biking culture is way better than driving, but I'm not sure about much else.
Sorry, but the arrogance is perplexing. First, European countries contributed a lot more money to Ukraine than the US. Second, when the US, Ukraine, etc. signed the Budapest memorandum, they US implied that they would respond to a Russian attack.
However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond. [...] Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-care-about-ukraine-an...
And this is exactly one of the issues of the US now. It is completely reliable. Make a trade agreement and then on a whim Trump can decide to shred it again.
The funniest case was that Trump wanted to impose tariffs when Denmark wanted to send troops to Greenland... Which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.