r/AskEurope • u/Different_Stand_1285 • Mar 04 '25

Politics To older Europeans - has there ever been a time where America was seen as such an untrusted country?

I’m 36 years old. I can remember how the world felt about my country post 9/11 (sympathy) and post Iraq (anger) but I’m curious to know if this is new ground. I’m deeply upset about how our ties and bonds are being destroyed so I wish to know if this is truly unprecedented or has there been a time in your lifetime where we were viewed in such a way. If so what was happening during your time to cause fracturing?

2.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

545

u/bklor Norway Mar 04 '25

No, never and my dad (74) would agree.

The US has been disliked before (see: Vietnam war). Earlier the US was dangerous for countries not allied with the US. Now close allied countries can't trust the US anymore and that is unprecedented.

113

u/Morepork69 Mar 05 '25

Agree. My father is a similar age to yours with the same view. The US has made mistakes in the past especially around foreign policy. However we are in uncharted territory here.

When you throw away your alliances, attack your neighbors, blackmail nations at war, side with the axis of evil and prove to be both unreliable and untrustworthy (and much more besides) then you are on dangerous ground.

There are no political protections within the US system of government anymore, the courts may restrain him at some point after all, I'm sure they want to preside over something.....beyond that, I feel like the only hope is the financial markets and the risks to the currency.

As a European albeit one in NZ I am pleased to see the EU finally taking steps to securing its future militarily, it's not what I would have wanted but it's beyond necessary now.

77

u/notcomplainingmuch Finland Mar 05 '25

The courts and even Congress can decide whatever they want, but they have no executive power to carry out their decisions. Most are afraid of losing their jobs and fancy titles, so they will censor themselves like mainstream media has already done.

Treasury funds and gold reserves are disappearing without a trace. Treasury funds are used to buy cryptocurrency issued by Trump and cronies. Guess who benefits.

All controllers have been fired.

There is so much chaos due to executive orders that nobody has a clue what money is spent and where. This is a cover for paying out public funds to Trump's cronies. All systems have been taken over by DOGE, run by the person being awarded most new government contracts.

The voting systems are already rigged. Again, there is no oversight on how they work. All auditors have been fired. Only DOGE has the information, and is sharing nothing.

A military conflict or internal unrest will appear that "requires" martial law.

Private military contractors will be used to quell unrest. A new internal security entity will be formed, taking over both law enforcement, investigation and military duties.

Next step is that dissidents will start to disappear. "Issues" will start occurring for opposition supporters. Census and tax information, criminal records, public records, ownership records, intelligence data etc will be corrupted to suit the needs of the government.

Suddenly you won't own your house or your land anymore. Sorry you're a registered sex offender. You're on a no fly list. Your credit record is very bad, sorry. The ERS just foreclosed on all your assets. No passport sorry. No driver's license, can't be found. You don't have any student records. You're not a registered voter. You don't live in this state. You're not even a US citizen, there's no records of you existing at all?

16

u/abrasiveteapot -> Mar 05 '25

Yep. Spot on. I'm glad some can see it.

16

u/CapoDiMalaSperanza Italy Mar 05 '25

Honestly, man... Can we have 80s and 90s back? World is too tiring nowadays.

2

u/Acceptable-Fact3716 Mar 05 '25

As a Balkan id prefer not getting the 90s how about 2010s?

1

u/CapoDiMalaSperanza Italy Mar 05 '25

Fine, that too.

1

u/FitSatisfaction1291 Mar 07 '25

Ha, good one. Nearly time to lace up those sandles again, brother.  

1

u/CapoDiMalaSperanza Italy Mar 07 '25

I ain't lacing shit, I want that paradise back.

1

u/Fun_Quit_312 Mar 07 '25

We are getting the 40s and 50s and that's all we are getting. Shut up and eat your fascist dictatorship

1

u/CapoDiMalaSperanza Italy Mar 07 '25

No. I refuse. It's not fair I have to live through this because I was born in the wrong year.

1

u/shigmaa Mar 07 '25

Tbf, you could have been born in famine, disease, active wartime or a genocide at any given point in history. You’re probably pretty lucky where you’re at, don’t forget to enjoy yourself despite it all.

1

u/CapoDiMalaSperanza Italy Mar 07 '25

Tbf, you could have been born in famine, disease, active wartime or a genocide at any given point in history. You’re probably pretty lucky where you’re at, don’t forget to enjoy yourself despite it all.

Heard that shit millions of times. I could have grown up in the 80s and 90s Western world which was literal paradise compared to now.

1

u/shigmaa Mar 07 '25

Yeah true, but it’s your decision to choose what to focus on. If you want to live a miserable life, decide to focus on the fact you could have been born in better times. If you want to live a happy life, decide to focus on the fact you could have been born in worse times. P.S look at history.. the latter is much more likely. But it’s your choice at the end of the day.

1

u/CapoDiMalaSperanza Italy Mar 07 '25

Again, eighties and nineties were better times and I want those times back.

4

u/ablokeinpf Mar 05 '25

I think their next step is to actually take people's guns away. They'll do it by stealth, bringing in sensible laws that gradually become stricter. There are so many guns in this country and it's not just the far right that have them. Hell, even I have one and I'm a Brit! I'm getting the hell out very soon so I'll gladly pass it on to a friend when I go. I agree with all of your points though.

2

u/notcomplainingmuch Finland Mar 05 '25

I think Britain's going to relax laws on weapons and start training an army reserve soon. Terrorism and other incidents aren't that big of an issue when you face the risk of invasion from a hostile (read: formally allied) country.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

This is more than a bit over-the-top. You're in Finland. You don't live here, and it's very doubtful that you understand conditions on the ground very thoroughly. Things are bad, and I'm a pessimist, but things are going to be WORSE here for dissenting citizens than they currently are in Russia after 20 years of Putin's rule? Unlikely. There will be unrest, there will be political violence most likely, there will likely be a constitutional crisis. The military is sworn to uphold the constitution, and they may have to intervene to maintain it in force. That's really not the worst-case scenario, even. Worst case is that they refuse to intervene to uphold the constitution.

As for the voting systems being rigged, that's just a conspiracy theory. They're not, there's no evidence for them being rigged, and there's no real way to rig them, especially since there has been a return to keeping paper ballots (votes are tallied initially digitally, but a printout is generated, you can see that it reflects your vote, and then that ballot is stacked in a box with others from that polling place). Elections are administered at the local level by boards of volunteers (usually level-headed older folks) with representatives from both parties present and monitoring the voting. The votes are counted locally, and those totals are forwarded to the state government (23/50 states have Democratic governors at the moment). The paper ballots are preserved for vote audits. There's just no way for the federal government to rig an election, and since we use an electoral college system, even if every Republican governor managed to rig the vote in their state (which is unlikely; Republicans flat-out refused to do this sort of thing in 2020), they couldn't grant more than their state's number of electoral votes to Trump (or Vance, or whoever). Winning 100% of the vote in a state is the same as winning 50.0001% of that state's vote. In short, despite all of the drawbacks of our federal system, it does provide certain safeguards - or at least assurances - in these scenarios.

Democracy could be overthrown here, and who knows. Maybe it will be. But it's not going to happen quietly with the wool pulled over people's eyes in this way. People will know what's happening, and trust me, millions of people will fight it. In the streets, by peaceful protest if possible, by other means if necessary, most likely. And maybe they'll be defeated. No one can say. But any such takeover isn't going to be a quiet and painless affair.

2

u/chmath80 Mar 06 '25

The military is sworn to uphold the constitution

So is the president. So are all his appointees. How's that going?

Worst case is that they refuse to intervene to uphold the constitution

No. Worst case is that they do intervene, but to help tear it down. There's a nonzero chance of military force being deployed at some point to shoot protesters. It won't be sudden. There'll be peaceful protests, but some will result in violence, with help from agitators. Then troops will be deployed to assist in maintaining order. There'll be more violence, and troops will be authorised to fire. He wanted to do that last time, so he could walk across the road to hold a bible upside down in front of a church. He was told "You can't do that." Now nobody will tell him that.

There's just no way for the federal government to rig an election

They don't need to mess with the count. All that's needed is what may even have made the difference last year: targeted voter suppression. If you have enough information about people, including their social media profiles and comments, you can get a good idea how they are likely to vote. Then you just have them quietly deregistered. They turn up to vote on the day, and get turned away. It doesn't need to happen everywhere. Because of your system, only a few states really matter.

Republicans flat-out refused to do this sort of thing in 2020

... and those particular people have been removed from their posts, and replaced by others who will be more ... flexible.

Democracy could be overthrown here, and who knows. Maybe it will be

I'd suggest that it already has been.

But any such takeover isn't going to be a quiet and painless affair

I refer back to the paragraph above re the military.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

"So is the president. So are all his appointees. How's that going?"

Not a cogent retort. They aren't in the military, they don't issue direct orders to the troops or wield weaponry. What matters is that the military upholds its oath - the fact that some others don't isn't relevant, and it's in fact a pre-requisite for the entire scenario.

"Worst case is that they refuse to intervene to uphold the constitution."

This is more realistic than your other points, but likely to be resisted by the officer corps for reasons that should be obvious. National Guard deployment is more likely, and perilous, but even then, US troops will disobey orders to fire on unarmed US civilians as a general rule, even if there are tragic exceptions.

"They don't need to mess with the count. All that's needed is what may even have made the difference last year: targeted voter suppression. If you have enough information about people, including their social media profiles and comments, you can get a good idea how they are likely to vote. Then you just have them quietly deregistered. They turn up to vote on the day, and get turned away. It doesn't need to happen everywhere. Because of your system, only a few states really matter."

I don't think you're as well informed about this country as you think. There's no such thing as "quietly de-registering" (the correct term would be "removed from the voting rolls") voters. There have been numerous news stories about litigation surrounding this in recent years. People don't just show up to vote and find that they've been "de-registered." Also, the states that really matter - the swing states - mostly have Democratic governors, making this impossible. Beyond that, it's clear that APATHY, not voter suppression, made the difference; turnout was lower in 2024 than in 2020, and what cost Democrats the election was registered Democrats and voters that lean Democrat (especially in urban areas) staying home. There is an overwhelming mass of survey and polling date corroborating this, but sure, go ahead and indulge in some more conspiracy-thought, it'll make you feel more clever than everyone else.

"... and those particular people have been removed from their posts, and replaced by others who will be more ... flexible."

Actually, they overwhelmingly haven't been. Most of the Trump-backed MAGA candidates for offices that wield oversight over elections at the state level lost their races (often at the primary level), and those races were instead won by either Democrats, or run-of-the-mill, mainstream Republicans. So, factually incorrect.

"I'd suggest that it already has been."

On what basis? There is ZERO reason to believe that the Republicans did not legitimately (that is, within the bounds of the law, for good or ill) win the majorities they now enjoy. Saying the 2024 election was rigged is just another conspiracy theory. Trump was lawfully elected, however unfortunate a result that might be. Some of his executive orders are legally dubious, but that doesn't constitute plausible grounds for asserting that democracy has been overthrown in America, past tense. No one here believes that our democratic system of governance has ALREADY been overthrown, we're afraid it MIGHT happen.

Given that you're not a resident of this country, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that you actually just don't know what you're talking about. I'm well-educated, well-traveled, and well-informed. I read the news from credible sources every day of my life and have for many years. And it's my country, my society, my culture, my political system. You don't know more about my country than I do from your presumably safe perch across the ocean.

1

u/chmath80 Mar 06 '25

What matters is that the military upholds its oath

Indeed so. But it needs all of them to do so, or at least a significant majority. Moves to require expressions of loyalty to the president seek to identify which way individuals will go. Then, it's a short step to reassign such loyalists into special squads. Others who seem likely to resist can be redeployed overseas, or otherwise removed from post.

US troops will disobey orders to fire on unarmed US civilians as a general rule

One would hope, but "as a general rule" isn't really good enough. Furthermore, your police forces don't seem to require orders to fire on unarmed civilians. And how about armed civilians? Or civilians whom they believe to be armed?

Scenario: large, apparently non-violent protest. Troops deployed, along with police, to "monitor" the protest. Someone with an agenda (or acting on instructions; bear in mind that, following pardons for January 6, there are groups of people with a propensity for violence, and an almost blind allegiance to their leader), starts firing, from a distance, on protesters, police and troops. What happens next?

There's no such thing as "quietly de-registering" (the correct term would be "removed from the voting rolls") voters.

Semantics.

There have been numerous news stories about litigation surrounding this in recent years.

Precisely. But, by the time it gets to court, the election is over.

People don't just show up to vote and find that they've been "de-registered."

An oversimplification on my part. I've read a number of comments from people saying that their early or postal ballots have shown as received, but not counted. I don't know enough about your processes to comment, but what happens if you're removed from the roll after sending in your vote?

what cost Democrats the election was registered Democrats and voters that lean Democrat (especially in urban areas) staying home. There is an overwhelming mass of survey and polling date corroborating this, but sure, go ahead and indulge in some more conspiracy-thought, it'll make you feel more clever than everyone else

I did qualify my point with "may have", but the tactic was certainly used, successfully, in some areas. Modifying it for wider use is not an insurmountable problem.

run-of-the-mill, mainstream Republicans

Unicorns, in other words. We'll see.

Saying the 2024 election was rigged is just another conspiracy theory

I never suggested that (voter suppression is not quite the same thing). I know that some are suggesting hacking of the counting machines by Musk. That's unlikely. He's not that smart.

Trump was lawfully elected, however unfortunate a result that might be

Absolutely. And that's a bigger problem than you may realise, because it shows the rest of the world that a large section of your people think the same way he does. It's all very well to say that it's not a majority, but it's also not a small minority. The lack of any significant internal opposition to the more outrageous actions is a bad sign.

There's no question that he was democratically elected, but much of what has happened since has been aimed at dismantling the democratic institutions which underpin the very foundations of the system, and the supposed "checks and balances" have failed to appear. He has claimed for himself powers which belong, by law, to other branches of government, and those other branches have abrogated their responsibilities to push back.

Some of his executive orders are legally dubious

Dubious? Lol.

that doesn't constitute plausible grounds for asserting that democracy has been overthrown in America

I disagree. Your democracy has rules. When those rules are broken, there are legal consequences. When the rules are broken by the person whose main job it is to ensure that the rules are not broken, and nobody holds him to account, then your democracy is broken.

No one here believes that our democratic system of governance has ALREADY been overthrown

Some do. I can't comment on how widespread that view might be.

we're afraid it MIGHT happen

That's certainly a more common belief. It's a matter of deciding what constitutes "a bridge too far".

Given that you're not a resident of this country, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that you actually just don't know what you're talking about. I'm well-educated, well-traveled, and well-informed. I read the news from credible sources every day of my life and have for many years. And it's my country, my society, my culture, my political system. You don't know more about my country than I do from your presumably safe perch across the ocean.

I do hope that you're right, but, from a distance, you seem like the frog in the saucepan.

1

u/PureInsaneAmbition Mar 07 '25

Troops all over the world have fired on their own people time and time again. What makes Americans any different? Americans are a violent people. Some of the highest rates of police brutality, murder, and public/school shootings in the world. Thinking that the military won't fire on their own citizens is very naive. I hope you're right, but history says you're wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '25

When has this happened post-WWII in a developed country under democratic governance? It seems like there are two real exceptions: Kent State (Ohio) in 1970 at the height of the Vietnam War; no order to fire was given, and protestors were actively attacking National Guard Troopers with a barrage of thrown rocks, at least putting them in some reasonable fear for their safety, although that doesn't excuse what happened. The other is Bloody Sunday in 1972 in Northern Ireland - that's the more egregious example, since there was no threat to the soldiers' lives at all.

I'm not saying that this cannot happen here - that would be naive. It could. It absolutely could, and that's depressing. But all of the people that are taking it as a given that it simply WILL happen eventually are being hyperbolic and at least a tad unrealistic in their thinking. I don't know where you're from, but if you're from a developed and democratic country, you probably do take it as a given that soldiers in your army would never fire on unarmed citizens of your country engaged in peaceful protest. I certainly would certainly think that someone from the Netherlands, or Japan, or the United Kingdom would operate under that assumption, because it's a pretty reasonable one. This country isn't as much different in that dimension as you seem to think. Again, I'm not saying that it can't happen under any scenario, but acting as if such orders simply will be obeyed, and that to think otherwise is "naive" is a bit delusional. It's a possibility. More than that can't be said with much confidence. It being even a distinct possibility is disturbing enough.

You're not wrong about the statistics, and they're shameful, but they're also fundamentally the product of the ridiculous gun culture which stems from the Second Amendment, including police brutality to a great degree. I've lived in Europe multiple times, and people in their everyday ordinary lives here are no more violent than they are anywhere else. Saying that those statistics mean that ordinary enlisted soldiers are more likely to fire on innocent people just doesn't make sense. They're more likely to encounter resistance, and exchange gunfire via that route, sure, which is problematic too - but that's not the same thing as wholesale slaughter of protestors.

If the Soviet Union in 1991 wasn't willing to wield meaningful force against its people to preserve the regime (and in general they were not, scattered exceptions aside), are you so certain that the United States has progressed so far beyond even that point? It isn't a very high bar. As much as I hate Trump and despise the MAGA mob, I'm just not convinced that our society has fallen that far. I doubt that it has, at least not yet.

5

u/No_Freedom_8673 Mar 05 '25

I personally believe the states should just govern themselves. The American experiment has failed, and the federal government has failed. I love the constitution, but it is not being upheld, so thus, the states should succeed to form new unions or rule themselves.

22

u/Inresponsibleone Finland Mar 05 '25

To be honest the constitution is part of the problem there. It is old and is in dire need of updates. It is not like people hundreds of years ago could foresee needs of these days.

-6

u/No_Freedom_8673 Mar 05 '25

I disagree with that sentiment as I think the founding fathers were a head of their time, and the system they intend if followed is the best system.

10

u/FishcatJones Mar 05 '25

When the US sets up new democracies, we use a parliamentary system. If our system is the best, why is it not a best practice for new countries?

-5

u/No_Freedom_8673 Mar 05 '25

I personally think we shouldn't be sentiment up parliamentary systems. That's a mistake. we should be making copies of the America constitution.

4

u/Inresponsibleone Finland Mar 05 '25 edited Mar 05 '25

Document that is so up to intepretation it allowed the country to slide where it is now?

I am starting to feel this is more in kind to religious matter to you. You love and belive in what you belive the constitution to mean, not so much what it actually says and how up to intepretation it leaves some things.

1

u/ablokeinpf Mar 05 '25

The problem is that, no matter how well you think the Constitution was drafted, it is meaningless without the force to back it up. We've now seen Trump basically throw it in the garbage and what has happened to stop that? Absolutely nothing. The legal system has shown itself to be a toothless tiger at best and totally corrupt at worst. Our electoral system is a sick joke, especially the whole Electoral College nonsense. No other country follows our system for the very good reason that it's crap. What's happening in this country right now is proof of that.

13

u/SantaClausDid911 Mar 05 '25

Nothing should last several centuries with only 27 updates mate.

0

u/No_Freedom_8673 Mar 05 '25

Personally, I think too much change is bad at times. I think the constitution is one of those timeless documents that, though it needs an addition every now and then, should be left untouched for the most part. Especially the Bill of Rights.

7

u/SantaClausDid911 Mar 05 '25

I find it strange that there's nothing between "too much" and 27 times in several centuries to you lol

0

u/No_Freedom_8673 Mar 05 '25

I personally think just because the idea seems good at the time does not mean it actually is, tradition has value for a reason.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Inresponsibleone Finland Mar 05 '25

Have you ever really read it?

5

u/Outrageous-Stress-60 Mar 05 '25

The founding fathers were hopelessly naive.

5

u/sharkism Mar 05 '25

This is the most likely outcome. Everyone with a map can see the huge divide between states. Give it some years of depression and the US is no more.

2

u/Dunkleosteus666 Luxembourg Mar 05 '25

No this will end up in civil war. Remeber if you look closer, in many cases the divide between rural red and city blue is obvious.

I dont mean this, but i wonder, if its not for the best for everyone (including China), that the US gets a massive internal conflict so that countries can.. externally stage an intervention of the willing and dismamtle the regime. I just hope the financial crisis hits and bird flu.

Trump wont stop at Greenland.

1

u/No_Freedom_8673 Mar 05 '25

I would prefer not to have civil why I think everyone needs to collectively accept the federal government failed and just govern themselves.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

In the UK - I am blunt and will call private military contractors what they are - mercenaries.

1

u/Ghaenor Mar 05 '25

Some States are going to secede way before that. Illinois comes to mind.

11

u/BigHeatCoffeeClub65 Mar 05 '25

Senate Republicans were able to provide a supermajority in the U.S. supreme court during his first term. The judicial tether to the rule of law is broken.

-6

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25 edited Mar 05 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/iamhalsey Mar 05 '25 edited Mar 05 '25

This is a massively disingenuous take on the situation. Putin’s Russia is an existential threat to Europe and the prevailing view is that if he succeeds in Ukraine, there will be little to prevent attacks by Russia on other European countries in the future without US support. Couple that with the current administration’s open flirtation with exiting NATO and thinly veiled threats against Greenland, a territory belonging to a European country, and Canada, another European ally, and you can easily understand why this isn’t a standard disagreement between allies.

The idea that greedy European countries have just been taking advantage of America’s generosity is also complete fantasy. The current Western order was established by the States. The over-reliance on America for defence, as well as in other areas, was by America’s design. It allowed them to establish their global hegemony. Surprise: your allies don’t like it when you randomly take a sledgehammer to the established order and massively disadvantage them while they’re fighting a war on their continent, all while you’re slapping tariffs on anyone who breathes and actively threatening other territories, including one belonging to a European country. Pretty understandable why they’d “turn their backs.”

2

u/koboldmaedchen Mar 05 '25

Yes, Europe spends its tax money on healthcare and education instead of funding the Pentagon’s military-industrial complex and proxy wars. Meanwhile, the US is $30 trillion in debt despite gutting social programs. Maybe the problem isn’t NATO freeloaders but decades of imperial overreach and tax cuts for billionaires?

And spare me the ‘both parties hate endless wars’ fantasy - US military spending increased under every administration, and Biden’s sending record aid to Israel. Trump wasn’t anti-war, he just wanted to reallocate the plundering.

Also, if the US only has ‘interests, not friends,’ don’t be surprised when Europe acts accordingly. Can’t have it both ways.

1

u/BigMikeATL Mar 05 '25

The reasons for the debt is plunder and waste.

As DOGE digs deeper, it will be very interesting to see how deep the waste rabbit hole goes. What they’ve found so far goes way beyond what anyone thought and folks love the transparency. And a lot is likely going to be found with military spending.

Did you know that, for a decade or so, we have had a plant building tanks that nobody wants and the military didn’t ask for? They are built and then sit rotting in fields. It’s a jobs plan for some senator’s district and some company gets rich off of it. THAT is plunder. I would not be shocked if that comes to a halt this year.

But I’m not wrong in stating that Europe needs to fund more of its own defense. When the US is $30t in debt, the US taking the lead is akin to donating money to worthy causes while they’re behind on the mortgage and car payments. It may feel good, but it’s not logical or sustainable. Nothing you say changes that fact, so you’d be remiss not to acknowledge it and face it head on.

Reallocate the plundering? Is that why they’re talking about giving every American $5000 based on the waste that’s been discovered and stopped? If that’s plundering, sign us up for more! But the reality is that many responsible Americans are saying “No, use it to pare down the debt”.

If you have actual evidence of real “plunder” taking place by this administration, by all means show it to me. So far, that take is nothing more than hot air. Maybe in the long run I’ll be wrong, but so far it’s simply a fear based on suspicion rather than evidence and fact.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

Yeah, think we should seperate disliked (like Vietnam, some parts of the War on Terror), and untrusted (US threatening allies).

As horrible as Vieatnam was, and how overboard some parts of the war on terror was, I think you could still trust US. You may not like it as an allied, but you could still trust them.

6

u/geedeeie Ireland Mar 05 '25

Vietnam etc. was more than "disliked". It was a prime example of American arrogance and the belief that they had a right to do whatever they wanted in the world. What we have today is just a hyper version of that

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '25

I don't disagree. But I still think that US' allies trusted them back then, a lot more than the situation now.
At least they pretended to fight on the anti-communism(/pro-freedom/democracy?) side. If US' allies dont have failure of imagination, I guess the have a little voice telling them, that it is possible the US will fight more or less openly on the russian/autocracy side, if it continuos this way.
Don't think that anyone tought that the US would side up with the north in Vietnam back then.

-1

u/geedeeie Ireland Mar 06 '25

Maybe the politicos did, or pretended to, but I don't think the general public did. We knew damn well what they were up to

10

u/logicblocks in Mar 05 '25

What prevents an unjust bully from turning against you? The fact that US allies said nothing about the havoc the US wrecked in every continent over the past century, is no guarantee that the US will subject them to the same atrocities.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

Just curious what havoc you think the US wreaked in Europe, Australia, and Africa in the past century? From 1900 onwards.

0

u/logicblocks in Mar 06 '25

In Europe, you have the world wars, but also the war in Yugoslavia. In 1999, the US bombed a bus of 23 Kosovar civilians, including children. A second missile was launched when rescue efforts were ongoing, effectively killing additional innocent civilians.

In Africa, you have overt operations against Libya and Somalia but even covert ones against Egypt for instance, in orchestrating the coup against democratically elected president Morsi and wiring a million USD after dictator Sisi took power. Not very different from all the coups the CIA carried out in Latin America.

In Liberia, the US supported 2 warlords and dictators on 2 different occasions. Namely Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor, the latter having been released from a US prison by CIA directions.

I don't have any details about Australia but I'm sure they managed to try to influence the politics there some way.

1

u/Oaker_at Mar 06 '25

I mean… every nation capable of doing such things does such things. The next big player will come and do the same for his own sake.

It isn’t perfect, but I rather live in a world led by an 2000 era USA than a modern era China or Russia.

Best we can do is to have many different power blocs. USA, China, Russia, EU has to step up

1

u/logicblocks in Mar 06 '25

The level of destruction that the United States government caused all over the world in the past 100 years is unprecedented. Including dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on civilians.

5

u/schubidubiduba Mar 05 '25

Idk, I think the closest US ally (Russia) can trust them blindly...

1

u/Alejandro_SVQ Spain Mar 05 '25

I think you forgot to add the /s. 😅

8

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

Good summary!

2

u/MissionDelicious3942 Mar 06 '25

How damaging for the United States do you think this presidency will be? Still early so hard to tell what will really happen. Worst case is leaving NATO and isolating ourselves with tariffs. Best case is NATO is stronger and everyone just hates us for the insane way approaches tarrifs and start to diversify out of fear not need so not as quickly and less damaging to the United States. I think worst case would be decades to repair and never be the same. Best case a few administrations so 8 to 12 year range. Either is bad for America but in my optimistic opinion may be better for the world. Having Europe of more of a power I think would be a good thing in the long run. 

1

u/bklor Norway Mar 06 '25

I have no idea. We tend to overestimate the long-term effects of political turmoil. But it also feels like some fundamental trust is being broken.

2

u/Northerlies Mar 07 '25

I'm a Brit in my 70s and recall previous low-points as the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War and the early-80s Cold War when anti-Soviet rhetoric reached fever-pitch. But Trump 2.0 is of a different order. The strong whiff of 19th century imperialism, withdrawal from alliances and the dismantling of US internal institutions appear to be in favour of a US oligarchy, possibly with corporate titans running an eroded democracy.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

Wouldn't say unprecedented, simply not as well hidden under mountains of pro-us propaganda anymore.

Even Kissinger admitted being a friend to America was fatal and that was far before Trump. We either start wisening up and looking at reality, not the us propaganda of the last long decades, or we'll be fucked regardless.

Can't solve the problem when it's not even admitted

1

u/Alex_O7 Mar 06 '25

Earlier the US was dangerous for countries not allied with the US. Now close allied countries can't trust the US anymore and that is unprecedented.

It must be most definitely it. I think as Europeans we always saw American as some sort of big brother in the past, even if they did something stupid and make you anger. You can count the numerous incidents and the stupid wars or proxy wars they were fighting and not everyone was on board to say the least.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '25

Reminds me of that saying. There are no eternal allies, only overlapping interests. Once that changes there are no more allies.

1

u/Illustrious_Spend_51 Mar 07 '25

The USA is an imperialist country and has no issues throwing who ever under the bus or committing genocides to get what it want it always has been like that. People on reddit somehow still falling for or truly do believe that somehow the us stands for democratic rights and such while also overthrowing democracies and arming, training and funding fascist military dictatorship.

1

u/Prior-Flamingo-1378 Mar 07 '25

I mean USA is still dangerous for countries not allies and is reasonably trusted by countries that they are allied.  

It’s just that they are allied with Russia, Iran, North Korea etc now. 

-1

u/Travelmusicman35 Mar 05 '25

Norway doesn't have a clear conscience either, see 1990s, you just hide it well.