Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KTG17 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
KT is another troll, guys. There isn't much to be gained there.

I assume you mean me? What am I trolling about? Quote me.

He can't... he's just getting a rise out being a faux-mod.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Devaluing the renminbi and increase exports seems like the route they might try.

Really? How would you do that when they straight up peg it?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Devaluing the renminbi and increase exports seems like the route they might try.

Devaluing yes, as it does make their products cheaper, but it also makes their own purchases more expensive. So now you have a population with less spending power facing an economic slowdown. And they do import a lot too. Not sure how sustainable that will be.

I really think China has been writing checks with cash it doesn't have. Its like building cities from scratch in the middle of nowhere that no one wants to live in, and counting that towards GDP. Money to build all that had to come from somewhere, and it went to money heaven. Since then China's been playing a shell game with their debt and doing a decent job hiding it. And one of the things I am sure why as to why they want to keep things hidden from everyone is that once people see how bad of shape they are in, or teetering on the edge, people will freak out. Ever notice how China's economic numbers always come in at exactly the right decimal? Its just too staged. Like you said, they want to appearance of everything going according to plan. its speculated that they are hurting bad enough for money that its one of the chief reasons they are willing to open up their banking sector, so others can be sucked in to bail them out of the eventual crash. It wont just be a China issue by then, but a global one.

The Chinese do not want us there, so be wary of them when they open the door and invite us in.

The difference between us and them, and we certainly have our instances of corruption and crime, is that we are generally open about our problems. And they are hard to keep covered. With absolute control, Xi can hide issues until they start breaking the seal and by then it will be too late. I honestly think they are aware of this and that is why you are hearing crickets from them now over Trump's posturing over tariffs. If they had the means and confidence to counter they would.

That is how I see it.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Devaluing the renminbi and increase exports seems like the route they might try.

Really? How would you do that when they straight up peg it?

The renminbi is not pegged, its on a more flexible system, basically a managed float regime. The renminbi was actually held at an artificially high price compared to what it would be on a free float regime, because the CCP wanted the renminbi to become part of the IMF special drawing rights. Trump's ideas on unfair trade are actually outdated, China in recent years has kept their currency higher than it has to be because it suits them, even though that has made exports to the US more expensive. Funnily enough if China wants to compensate for the tariffs it might just free float the renminbi which will then most likely decline in value, making their exports cheaper and boosting them. This wasn't worth it because devaluing the renminbi without the tariffs would have resulted in marginal gains at best as China's growth has been slowing anyway.
But the point is that China could let it to devalue to try and increase exports to countries other than China to make up for the tariff shortfalls. Its a smarter approach then either giving in or retaliating by messing with their reserves/securities.

There are people on this thread who seem to think free trade automatically means job loss for the US.

It's not that simple. It never is. The poster who said that economics is basically a game that we buy into so that we aren't all subsistence farmers is spot on.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Devaluing the renminbi and increase exports seems like the route they might try.

Devaluing yes, as it does make their products cheaper, but it also makes their own purchases more expensive. So now you have a population with less spending power facing an economic slowdown. And they do import a lot too. Not sure how sustainable that will be.

I really think China has been writing checks with cash it doesn't have. Its like building cities from scratch in the middle of nowhere that no one wants to live in, and counting that towards GDP. Money to build all that had to come from somewhere, and it went to money heaven. Since then China's been playing a shell game with their debt and doing a decent job hiding it. And one of the things I am sure why as to why they want to keep things hidden from everyone is that once people see how bad of shape they are in, or teetering on the edge, people will freak out. Ever notice how China's economic numbers always come in at exactly the right decimal? Its just too staged. Like you said, they want to appearance of everything going according to plan. its speculated that they are hurting bad enough for money that its one of the chief reasons they are willing to open up their banking sector, so others can be sucked in to bail them out of the eventual crash. It wont just be a China issue by then, but a global one.

The Chinese do not want us there, so be wary of them when they open the door and invite us in.

The difference between us and them, and we certainly have our instances of corruption and crime, is that we are generally open about our problems. And they are hard to keep covered. With absolute control, Xi can hide issues until they start breaking the seal and by then it will be too late. I honestly think they are aware of this and that is why you are hearing crickets from them now over Trump's posturing over tariffs. If they had the means and confidence to counter they would.

That is how I see it.

Sure, but China is an authoritarian state with some potent nationalism to draw on, the could tough out price increases for a few years.

As for the writing checks, both the US and China have done that and both have supported each other in doing so because its beneficial. Of course China manages it numbers, its still not a free economy. The issue is that letting China collapse in on itself might carry far greater risk than just putting up with their absurd habits, like the world does in regards to US debt (which would have already seen smaller countries crippled by the IMF). Xi's job is now to work hard and push through the massive reforms the Chinese economy needs to gain a more domestic focus. Its going to be so interesting to see if he manages to right the ship.

But China is silent on the tariffs because it just can't impose anymore, the US just exports less to China so there is less to posture with. They have other options, but those aren't directed at the US so why antagonize Trump needlessly, Xi has interacted with his fair share of Trump likefigures to know how to play the game. Domestically the resistance is still being played up in the media. Xi knows this won't be won by a public shouting contest.

 KTG17 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
KT is another troll, guys. There isn't much to be gained there.

I assume you mean me? What am I trolling about? Quote me.

You presented an impossible scenario. You wont believe anybody a out the TPP unless they have read it and then say nobody has read and understood it because it is a 7000 page document.

I dont think anyone will deny that China is engaged in economic gimmickry, they are, but not really in any order of magnitude the US is not, especially with most of the worlds finance moving through US banks, and Tarriffs arent the tool to really address that.

GDP is also always a weird stat. Yeah, empty cities in the middle of nowhere count, but so does rebuilding after Hurricanr Sandy (while the destruction is not subtracted), and the US governments massive debt-funded spending is counted towards GDP as well, but the accounting of that debt into GDP can get all kinds of weird and can also end up counting towards GDP.

Trade between nations is also not mercantilist, its not a zero sum game. If we have a trade deficit with Nation X of $20, but the imports we purchase from them allow us to produce $30 of value in other ways, then we are at a net +10 even with a trade deficit on paper.


Of far more importance for most of us is bad actors in the US. The US is not so open about everything, a lot is hidden in the private sector far more effectively than the Chinese government could ever hope to centrally hide, and the US does effectively nothing to punish private sector bad actors.

The fact that Wells Fargo's C-level execs haven't been put up against a metaphorical wall is unbelievable. The US does almost nothing to punish domestic bad actors. *One* major exec went to prison over the 2008 collapse. Only one guy faced real music over Enron and he died before sentencing.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Devaluing the renminbi and increase exports seems like the route they might try.

Really? How would you do that when they straight up peg it?

The renminbi is not pegged, its on a more flexible system, basically a managed float regime. The renminbi was actually held at an artificially high price compared to what it would be on a free float regime, because the CCP wanted the renminbi to become part of the IMF special drawing rights. Trump's ideas on unfair trade are actually outdated, China in recent years has kept their currency higher than it has to be because it suits them, even though that has made exports to the US more expensive. Funnily enough if China wants to compensate for the tariffs it might just free float the renminbi which will then most likely decline in value, making their exports cheaper and boosting them. This wasn't worth it because devaluing the renminbi without the tariffs would have resulted in marginal gains at best as China's growth has been slowing anyway.
But the point is that China could let it to devalue to try and increase exports to countries other than China to make up for the tariff shortfalls. Its a smarter approach then either giving in or retaliating by messing with their reserves/securities.

Yeah... I stand corrected as I did further research of this.

I can totally see them free float it.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Pence would just be better at achieving his desired goals than Trump is. Unless you want a theocracy that isn't something you should think better of him for.

That might or might not happen regardless. It's a moot point if the apparatus of the state and our international position completely collapses because the guy running it all is a sycophant. Pence might be abhorrent to me, but he won't bring the house crashing down on top of him just to spite his detractors something that seems less and less far fetched with Trump.

That Trump is too much of a garbage fire for the truly nasty bastards clinging to his administration to finally fully ban abortion or homosexuality is a blessing.

Except the President can't do either of those things, and the court picks put forth by Trump aren't that different from what I'd expect from Pence. Court nominations are probably the most normal aspect of Trump's presidency.

This just reveals how empty the liberal opposition to Trump is.

As opposed to empty support of Trump? Cause the only excuse I've ever seen for Trump's ludicrous behavior that doesn't come from his deranged base is "Liberals suck too" which really just begs the question. Liberals don't like him. Non-Trumpite Conservatives don't like him. Why the feth is the later defending him so much, except to just spite the former? I'm not seeing it and that seems a whole lot more empty than hating the guy for being a man-child with no sense of humanity who might just bring the whole house crashing to the ground. Perhaps the only thing empty is blind support of Trump that cares more about spiting the other side, cause I'm willing to accept a far right nut who isn't completely off his rocker cause at least then the country doesn't burn to the ground around me. This whole "the liberals are so shallow" nonsense seems a whole lot more empty to me.

The dude is the head of an administration that's building concentration camps and what you have against him is that he's a lout.

You talk like it can only be one or the other, ignoring that I doubt any other PotUS would be dumb enough to go so far in on that earlier issue as Trump has. Hell any other President would have immediately gone into damage control, backing off the position maybe actually working on a solution to earn bipartisan support or at least pretend to. It might not be perfect but at least there wouldn't be chaos.

How has Trump handled that situation? He doubles down. Flip flops on the issue on an hourly basis, fails to give his own party any direction on the issue by flip-floping on supporting legislation on a almost daily basis, and then brags about how construction of his border wall is going great because he's either that much of a panderer that he'll lie about something that isn't being built or he honestly things it is.

Compared to Trump anything Pence does or doesn't do can be undone down the line (maybe) because Pence isn't going to break the system in half like a fool. Trump meanwhile throws the entire notion of American democracy into question, endangers international relations by making that democracy look insane or foolish.

Describing Russia as "the enemy" is extremely detrimental to Russia-US relations.

The US might not be the cleanest country, but our position in world affairs was stable and reliable. Everyone knew where we stood and in turn where they stood. It was a situation where problems could be addressed if Americans bothered to actually care about them. Unlikely, I mean look who got elected president... but hey ignorance actually can be bliss and at least it doesn't take the world down with it.

In comparison Trump is like a walking bipolar disorder on the national stage. No one knows where the US stands anymore. Not even the vague ideas they have can be relied on, cause who knows when Trump will just make a Tweet insulting another head of state in a casual manner that either doesn't get it, or simply doesn't care.

Trump was elected by Right America to defend them against Left America. As far as they are concerned their existential enemy is their fellow Americans.

There is an intresting note about China economics and currency.
China gold reserves
2008 - 599 ton
2018 - 1842 ton

Russia gold reserves
2008 - 457 ton
2018 - 1928 ton

(Note - US have 8133, then Germany 3371)

Probably nothing special, but increasing that amount of gold - I guess someone saving money for emergency...

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Trump was elected by Right America to defend them against Left America. As far as they are concerned their existential enemy is their fellow Americans.

The estimated time to the next Civil War keeps getting smaller, you know.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Trump was elected by Right America to defend them against Left America. As far as they are concerned their existential enemy is their fellow Americans.

The estimated time to the next Civil War keeps getting smaller, you know.

Yeah, I'm pretty certain I won't live long after the shooting starts. Being a registered Democrat and non-Mormon in Utah isn't going to be good for my health.

 KTG17 wrote:
China's economy is one giant Ponzi scheme, and would no doubt cause issues when it collapses, but oh well. Something has to be done. I think confronting them is great, and I don't doubt the US will come out stronger in the end because of this.

Watch the Bannon interview. He address it. Its a fascinating interview. And it does a great job explaining why Trump got elected. Bannon represents Trump's base.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/07/19/full-interview-former-trump-advisor-steve-bannon.html

Its also interesting the link between towns that have lost factories to China and the rise of the opioid crisis in those areas. Makes perfect sense. I have been to some of those areas and there is nothing going on. Liberals talk about drug treatment or taxing the rich but nothing about getting those jobs back. Those areas are the areas that got Trump elected.

Also:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_156738.htm

All Allies have heard President Trump’s message loud and clear.
We understand that this American president is very serious about defence spending.
And this is having a clear impact.

After years of decline, when Allies were cutting billions,
now they are adding billions.
Before, the trend was down.
Now, the trend is up.
In fact, since President Trump took office, European Allies and Canada have added an additional 41 billion dollars to their defence spending.

And all Allies have committed to raise this number substantially.
So we are stepping up as never before.

Allowing US spending to go down.

Can't say Trump isn't having a positive effect...

Those jobs aren#t going to come back. They need new jobs. Trump just makes things worse. That's all he is cabable of.

Hell if you blame china for lost jobs...here's newsflash, it's automation that kills american jobs

Only trump fanboys(indepenent as if...hard boiled rebublican) can believe trumps policy can help. It won't. It will damage us politically and economically. That's what you get with fool as president

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Trump was elected by Right America to defend them against Left America. As far as they are concerned their existential enemy is their fellow Americans.

The estimated time to the next Civil War keeps getting smaller, you know.

meanwhile



..

but no collusion at all no siree.

 LordofHats wrote:
cause I'm willing to accept a far right nut who isn't completely off his rocker cause at least then the country doesn't burn to the ground around me. This whole "the liberals are so shallow" nonsense seems a whole lot more empty to me.

You're willing to accept a far right nut who's competent because the way he would dismantle democracy and institute fascism wouldn't be so messy. You don't even consider that competent fascists taking over state power would necessarily mean the country burning. That's why liberals are thought of as shallow. They care more about form than they do substance.

Rosebuddy wrote:
You're willing to accept a far right nut who's competent because the way he would dismantle democracy and institute fascism wouldn't be so messy. You don't even consider that competent fascists taking over state power would necessarily mean the country burning. That's why liberals are thought of as shallow. They care more about form than they do substance.

No, we care about substance. The entire pro-Pence argument is one of substance, not superficial appearances. Pence's policies are awful but he's at least capable of maintaining the basic functioning of a stable government and minimizing the damage. Trump's policies are awful in most of the same ways, but Trump is unpredictable. In addition to doing all the bad things that Pence would do Trump is going to keep adding on additional bad things through sheer incompetence. For example, a Pence administration would be much less likely to damage relations with our key allies while gaining nothing in return. A Pence administration would be much more likely to drop the absurd border wall plan as completely impractical from a civil engineering point of view. A Pence administration would likely be more willing and able to make compromises to get things done and understand how the legislative process works. Etc. When you have a choice between a right-wing tyrant and a right-wing tyrant with worse ideological positions and a raging dumpster fire of a government you take the stability every time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, the best option is neither of them but that isn't possible until 2020.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
You're willing to accept a far right nut who's competent because the way he would dismantle democracy and institute fascism wouldn't be so messy. You don't even consider that competent fascists taking over state power would necessarily mean the country burning. That's why liberals are thought of as shallow. They care more about form than they do substance.

No, we care about substance. The entire pro-Pence argument is one of substance, not superficial appearances. Pence's policies are awful but he's at least capable of maintaining the basic functioning of a stable government and minimizing the damage. Trump's policies are awful in most of the same ways, but Trump is unpredictable. In addition to doing all the bad things that Pence would do Trump is going to keep adding on additional bad things through sheer incompetence. For example, a Pence administration would be much less likely to damage relations with our key allies while gaining nothing in return. A Pence administration would be much more likely to drop the absurd border wall plan as completely impractical from a civil engineering point of view. A Pence administration would likely be more willing and able to make compromises to get things done and understand how the legislative process works. Etc. When you have a choice between a right-wing tyrant and a right-wing tyrant with worse ideological positions and a raging dumpster fire of a government you take the stability every time.

That Trump is unpredictable is a blessing because him running around and doing whatever bubbles up into his frontal lobes means that the actual competent people in his awful administration don't have time to breathe. If Trump had a brain that was even just 20% firmer he would be 100% more frightening.

Additionally, I don't think that your grasp of substance is as good as you would like it to be, because an administration that dropped a plan to enclose all the borders with a wall because it was impractical from a civil engineering point of view would come up with a more effective way to enact racist policy. That certainly isn't something I want. If a government is evil, one should hope for instability. You want skilled enemies instead of enemies that are dumber than you. That's, well, self-destructive to say the least. Believing that Pence would enact policy that "minimise the damage" is pure nonsense because his policies would be the damage!

Rosebuddy wrote:
That Trump is unpredictable is a blessing because him running around and doing whatever bubbles up into his frontal lobes means that the actual competent people in his awful administration don't have time to breathe. If Trump had a brain that was even just 20% firmer he would be 100% more frightening.

Except when his random flailing around gets us into trouble because his ideas are stupid. It's not like Trump is going back and forth between good and bad ideas, it's just different varieties of terrible ideas and impulsive stupidity. Pence, for all of his bad policies, at least has a basic understanding that the government needs to function and policies need to be based at least somewhat in reality.

Additionally, I don't think that your grasp of substance is as good as you would like it to be, because an administration that dropped a plan to enclose all the borders with a wall because it was impractical from a civil engineering point of view would come up with a more effective way to enact racist policy. That certainly isn't something I want. If a government is evil, one should hope for instability. You want skilled enemies instead of enemies that are dumber than you. That's, well, self-destructive to say the least. Believing that Pence would enact policy that "minimise the damage" is pure nonsense because his policies would be the damage!

You're forgetting that the racism driving the wall proposals is a Trump thing, not a republican thing. Before Trump arrived the republican party was content to make vague noises about illegal immigration in the direction of the racists while doing absolutely nothing to stop it because their campaign donors benefit too much from immigrant labor. Remove Trump, preferably in an ugly impeachment that discredits everything about him and his followers, and it's quite likely that the republican party goes back to doing nothing but talk (much like the democrats on gun control). And the difference in foreign policy would be immense. Pence would not have allowed the North Korea debacle. Pence would not have strained relations with our allies by insulting them for no apparent gain. And Pence would not share Trump's obsessive need to destroy everything vaguely related to Obama.

If 30% of the US population is willing to accept all of this and fully support Trump after everything that has happened so far, then America has a problem that will not be solved by electing a new leader.

I have to agree with Peregrine.

Pence would presumably follow the right-wing white evangelist Christian agenda against women, gays and non-white people, but he wouldn't carry out the stupid trade and foreign policies.

This seems a less bad option, though still bad of course.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Pence would presumably follow the right-wing white evangelist Christian agenda against women, gays and non-white people, but he wouldn't carry out the stupid trade and foreign policies.

And it should be noted that Pence's ability to push that agenda is going to be limited. For example, he is not going to succeed in overturning gay marriage at the national level when even republican voters are starting to support it and acceptance among moderates is high. And even conservative justices are unlikely to look very favorably on an attempt to push a court case that is nothing more than "our party doesn't like this, let's try again now that we control the court" because it undermines the authority and legitimacy of the court. The most he could reasonably expect to do is push the "states' rights" and "religious freedom" angle and keep the federal government from getting involved when red states do things. It sucks if you're a LGBT person in a red state, but it already sucked there and life in a blue state would go on just fine. And it's not like Trump is an ally on any of that, if the rest of his party tries to push anything. He's just too busy with other stuff to bother with the social issues.

In short: Pence is bad, and would undoubtedly want to do bad things, but he isn't god.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
You're willing to accept a far right nut who's competent because the way he would dismantle democracy and institute fascism wouldn't be so messy. You don't even consider that competent fascists taking over state power would necessarily mean the country burning. That's why liberals are thought of as shallow. They care more about form than they do substance.

No, we care about substance. The entire pro-Pence argument is one of substance, not superficial appearances. Pence's policies are awful but he's at least capable of maintaining the basic functioning of a stable government and minimizing the damage. Trump's policies are awful in most of the same ways, but Trump is unpredictable. In addition to doing all the bad things that Pence would do Trump is going to keep adding on additional bad things through sheer incompetence. For example, a Pence administration would be much less likely to damage relations with our key allies while gaining nothing in return. A Pence administration would be much more likely to drop the absurd border wall plan as completely impractical from a civil engineering point of view. A Pence administration would likely be more willing and able to make compromises to get things done and understand how the legislative process works. Etc. When you have a choice between a right-wing tyrant and a right-wing tyrant with worse ideological positions and a raging dumpster fire of a government you take the stability every time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, the best option is neither of them but that isn't possible until 2020.

I'm generally moderate conservative and I agree with Peregrine on this one. Trump was a horrific option, Pence is marginally better, but still bad. That and, having been part of Trump's WH, is unlikely to ever be elected to the office himself.

 Da Boss wrote:
If 30% of the US population is willing to accept all of this and fully support Trump after everything that has happened so far, then America has a problem that will not be solved by electing a new leader.

Word. I've heard people say that Trump is causing other NATO members to up their defense spending. They're technically not wrong, but it's not because he asked/told them to. Both Obama and Bush did that.
The reason the rest of the western world is increasing their defense spending is that the USA is no longer perceived as reliable an ally as it once was, and with Trump being both unpredictable and the country's politics so deeply divided it let a clown like him rise to the top, they're increasingly looking to be more self-sufficient, militarily speaking.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
If 30% of the US population is willing to accept all of this and fully support Trump after everything that has happened so far, then America has a problem that will not be solved by electing a new leader.

Word. I've heard people say that Trump is causing other NATO members to up their defense spending. They're technically not wrong, but it's not because he asked/told them to. Both Obama and Bush did that.
The reason the rest of the western world is increasing their defense spending is that the USA is no longer perceived as reliable an ally as it once was, and with Trump being both unpredictable and the country's politics so deeply divided it let a clown like him rise to the top, they're increasingly looking to be more self-sufficient, militarily speaking.

And this could lead to a situation where, in the future, the US calls for help from those countries which used to be staunch allies and those countries do not respond.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
If 30% of the US population is willing to accept all of this and fully support Trump after everything that has happened so far, then America has a problem that will not be solved by electing a new leader.

Word. I've heard people say that Trump is causing other NATO members to up their defense spending. They're technically not wrong, but it's not because he asked/told them to. Both Obama and Bush did that.
The reason the rest of the western world is increasing their defense spending is that the USA is no longer perceived as reliable an ally as it once was, and with Trump being both unpredictable and the country's politics so deeply divided it let a clown like him rise to the top, they're increasingly looking to be more self-sufficient, militarily speaking.

And this could lead to a situation where, in the future, the US calls for help from those countries which used to be staunch allies and those countries do not respond.

We will just have to risk that the military Colossus that is Belgium does not help us.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
If 30% of the US population is willing to accept all of this and fully support Trump after everything that has happened so far, then America has a problem that will not be solved by electing a new leader.

Word. I've heard people say that Trump is causing other NATO members to up their defense spending. They're technically not wrong, but it's not because he asked/told them to. Both Obama and Bush did that.
The reason the rest of the western world is increasing their defense spending is that the USA is no longer perceived as reliable an ally as it once was, and with Trump being both unpredictable and the country's politics so deeply divided it let a clown like him rise to the top, they're increasingly looking to be more self-sufficient, militarily speaking.

And this could lead to a situation where, in the future, the US calls for help from those countries which used to be staunch allies and those countries do not respond.

We will just have to risk that the military Colossus that is Belgium does not help us.

By that time you won't be talking to Belgium but the combined EU defence structure.

Talking to? You act like Europe means something militarily. Quiet. Adults are playing big boy empire games.

Considering the "adults" couldn't defeat Afghanistan, a third world country, I'll leave ye to it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Talking to? You act like Europe means something militarily. Quiet. Adults are playing big boy empire games.

On a regional level we do. Outside of there we don't care.