Languish.org

Considering the relative decline of America's influence on the international stage over the last 20 years, what strategy do you think the US of A sould adopt to maintain its present position?




G.

Quote from: Grallon on January 31, 2010, 08:58:16 PM
Considering the relative decline of America's influence on the international stage over the last 20 years

I reject your premise. 

Silly question. America's advantage will, like any country with a mature foreign policy establishment, be in playing the right game in a given situation.

America is just as powerful as ever. ^_^

Quote from: Warspite on January 31, 2010, 09:40:44 PM
Silly question. America's advantage will, like any country with a mature foreign policy establishment, be in playing the right game in a given situation.

Wait... you mean a simplistic one-behaviour-fits-all-situations approach is sub-optimal?

Since the rest of the world is obviously ganging up on us I think we should just ragequit and leave the game.

Quote from: PDH on January 31, 2010, 10:57:33 PM
Since the rest of the world is obviously ganging up on us I think we should just ragequit and leave the game.

Start TKing first.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2010, 11:59:46 PM

Quote from: PDH on January 31, 2010, 10:57:33 PM
Since the rest of the world is obviously ganging up on us I think we should just ragequit and leave the game.

Start TKing first.

Sigh...

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2010, 11:59:46 PM

Quote from: PDH on January 31, 2010, 10:57:33 PM
Since the rest of the world is obviously ganging up on us I think we should just ragequit and leave the game.

Start TKing first.

Polack4Life: WTF
JohnBull69: Stop TKing, mate
LuvMplSyrup: STOP THAT EH
UNCLESAM: fuk u fags i qut

Hardline.  Being the international villain can be a fun role to play, actually.  Plus, I wouldn't mind seeing our 'influence' continue to decline, so everyone can see how fucked up a multipolar world would be.  Maybe at some point, our 'allies' might stop giving us shit for acting according to our national interests.

Quote from: Barrister on January 31, 2010, 09:24:08 PM

Quote from: Grallon on January 31, 2010, 08:58:16 PM
Considering the relative decline of America's influence on the international stage over the last 20 years

I reject your premise.

What you think that America's power has not decline relatively in the wake of it's only serious competitor for influence collapsing?

Quote from: derspiess on February 01, 2010, 01:10:47 AM
Hardline.  Being the international villain can be a fun role to play, actually.  Plus, I wouldn't mind seeing our 'influence' continue to decline, so everyone can see how fucked up a multipolar world would be.  Maybe at some point, our 'allies' might stop giving us shit for acting according to our national interests.

Yeah the only positive about USA's disappearance from the world scene would be the chance to laugh my ass off as all the america-haters get their "just" world and get to fight its wars and economic troubles.

'Decline' (or rather others rise) is inevitable, not pissing everyone off is the way to go.

I vote for unilateral conciliatory.

Quote from: Warspite on January 31, 2010, 09:40:44 PM
Silly question. America's advantage will, like any country with a mature foreign policy establishment, be in playing the right game in a given situation.

This is an internet poll - not a doctorate's thesis you troll. :rolleyes:




G.

I'd vote for a good bout of isolationism. It is time to rebuild Fortress America, and screw everybody else.

Divide and conquer.  For starters, we need to get Le Rosbif hating Le Frogs again.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2010, 08:31:54 AM
I'd vote for a good bout of isolationism. It is time to rebuild Fortress America, and screw everybody else.

here it is
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_O7owq2fSOf8%2FSGZdyooQaUI%2FAAAAAAAAAew%2FNhdq0X90fIg%2Fs400%2Ffortress.jpg&hash=f7eb3c847c9acb93bf075b1c89cf0ad8f46e1561) :nerd:

I think we should be hardline on some issues and conciliatory on others.

But basing a foreign policy around trying to preserve the past is a losing proposition anyway.

Well, the Pentagon answered this question today. Their strategy review for 2010 calls for the US to be ready to fight not only two major conventional wars, but also a crapload of other conflicts of all kinds all over the place and all at the same time.

This ranges from major wars with China and Iran to conflicts in shitty third world dungholes, and includes cyberattacks, fighting terrorism, giving humanitarian aid and even fight resource wars caused by climate change in weird settings.

Needless to say, they'll also ask for a record bugdet increase in 2011.

In other words, the US is going to try and do it all at once.  :showoff:

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2010, 08:31:54 AM
I'd vote for a good bout of isolationism. It is time to rebuild Fortress America, and screw everybody else.

Quote from: Martim Silva on February 01, 2010, 08:50:46 AM
Well, the Pentagon answered this question today. Their strategy review for 2010 calls for the US to be ready to fight not only two major conventional wars, but also a crapload of other conflicts of all kinds all over the place and all at the same time.

This ranges from major wars with China and Iran to conflicts in shitty third world dungholes, and includes cyberattacks, fighting terrorism, giving humanitarian aid and even fight resource wars caused by climate change in weird settings.

Needless to say, they'll also ask for a record bugdet increase in 2011.

In other words, the US is going to try and do it all at once.  :showoff:

Or rather the Pentagon wants to be funded as if we are going to try and do it all at once.  Was the question: how will the Pentagon position itself to increase its funding?

Quote from: Martim Silva on February 01, 2010, 08:50:46 AM
Well, the Pentagon answered this question today. Their strategy review for 2010 calls for the US to be ready to fight not only two major conventional wars, but also a crapload of other conflicts of all kinds all over the place and all at the same time.

This ranges from major wars with China and Iran to conflicts in shitty third world dungholes, and includes cyberattacks, fighting terrorism, giving humanitarian aid and even fight resource wars caused by climate change in weird settings.

Needless to say, they'll also ask for a record bugdet increase in 2011.

In other words, the US is going to try and do it all at once.  :showoff:

Let's start by conciliating some of that humanitarian aid.

Rapid, conciliatory nuclear strikes.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 09:03:07 AM
Let's start by conciliating some of that humanitarian aid.

That's what NGOs are for.  Want to save some starving skinnies? Have a fucking bake sale.

Quote from: Martim Silva on February 01, 2010, 08:50:46 AM
Well, the Pentagon answered this question today. Their strategy review for 2010 calls for the US to be ready to fight not only two major conventional wars, but also a crapload of other conflicts of all kinds all over the place and all at the same time.

This ranges from major wars with China and Iran to conflicts in shitty third world dungholes, and includes cyberattacks, fighting terrorism, giving humanitarian aid and even fight resource wars caused by climate change in weird settings.

Not true, they've abandoned the two war doctrine. This is important so I'm starting a new thread on it.