suds

I'm beginning to wonder if this dividing the world into different spheres of influence does take hold, how it would affect us directly. If we're not part of the U.S., would we become a 'satellite state'? satellite state..... A satellite state is a country that is officially independent but heavily influenced or controlled by another, more powerful country. This term is often associated with countries that were under Soviet influence during the Cold War, such as those in Eastern Europe. (wiki)

The U.S. became the global hegemonic state with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Up until that time, the USSR and the U.S. were both regional hegemonic states in their own spheres of influence. The one good thing the 'cold war' did accomplish was it did prevent the two from engaging in direct hostilities with one another. While the thought of dividing the world into different spheres of influence might not sound at first as the best of ideas, it's not the worst of ideas either.

Why do I have to be either for or against someone? I'm the type of person who doesn't blindly follow no one. I judge people by their actions, and in Trump's case not necessarily on what they say. You likely found my answer confusing because I found your question confusing. And no, you did not berate or attack me.

Excellent piece in the NP by Joe Varner on Carney and this 'new world order' stuff. An excerpt... In Chinese strategic doctrine, a “new world order” is not about reforming globalization. Its real objective is displacing U.S. power, weakening Western alliances, and replacing liberal norms with a hierarchical system built on state control and non-interference that shields authoritarian rule. Beijing enforces this model at home through mass surveillance, censorship, arbitrary detention, and the repression of Uyghurs, Tibetans, Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, and pro-democracy voices in Hong Kong. Abroad, it destabilizes the Indo-Pacific region through military pressure on Taiwan, coercion of Japan and the Philippines, border aggression against India, and the militarization of the South China Sea in defiance of international law. Globally, it projects power through diaspora intimidation, economic coercion, cyber operations and political interference, weaponizing capital and supply chains. Simply put, this is a hegemonic state pursuing its interests at the expense of others, including Canada. When Canadian leaders adopt this framing, they legitimize Beijing’s core narrative as Washington views global competition entering a decisive phase. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/praising-beijings-new-world-order-a-costly-misstep-for-carney-and-canada

A question.... Why can't we build our own Canadian owned and operated auto industry? Canadian companies build buses, trucks, etc., so why can't we build a freaking car or light truck? Lots of other countries do it. It's not exactly like asking someone to build an F-35 from scratch. Or we can keep going on the way we're going now, like throwing billions of dollars and getting on our knees and pleading with foreign companies to come and open up a plant. And then probably end up getting screwed over.

Ok, I can agree with most of that. So the thing is.... do you see him as a 'frontman'? I do not. Do you think China's any different? In my opinion they might be more subtle in doing it, but basically they're doing the same thing by putting pressure on other countries to bend to their will.

I generally try to call things as I see them on these boards. I find if you don't, you end up in these untenable situations where you end up arguing over things you don't actually believe in. Another rule I follow is that when you're wrong and you know you're wrong, admit it, and bow out gracefully. As for Trump, I've always considered him to be a bullshi*ter. Maybe it's part of the art of the deal or whatever, but you can't believe everything that comes out of his mouth. However he is threatening our sovereignty by threatening us with tariffs which he knows threatens our economy. Greenland as I understand it is a self governing part of Denmark (which is a Nato member) making Nato's obligations apply to Greenland as well. And if he ever does decide to invade Greenland, then he becomes a threat to Nato as well.

I don't really see Trump as a 'front man' type of President. He's certainly no Joe Biden. He appoints advisors who think exactly the same way he does. Which in my opinion is not a good thing. Basically, he's just doing the same thing as China's been doing in trying to gain influence in strategic and resource rich parts of the world. Only he's a little more rough around the edges.

Flyer old buddy, what are you confused about? Threatening allies would not be my first choice in getting things done. But if that's what it takes....

Has anyone considered there might be a method to Trump's madness? First he threatened Nato which resulted in greatly increasing defense spending among Nato membership. He threatened to take the Panama Canal by force if necessary which resulted in a new defense and security pact greatly reducing Chinese influence, and giving priority to U.S. warships. Then there's the Venezuela chapter (while still ongoing) is in the process of removing all Chinese and Russian influence in that area as well. Now he threatens to invade Greenland which leads to a number of Nato members offering to militarize which maybe they should have done in the first place. It would be nice to see a contingent of Canadian forces there as well. We don't seem to realize that the world's getting a lot smaller and it is after all right in our own backyard.

There's a saying ..... out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Not quite the same as police using drones as a resource to apprehend criminals. jmo

That sort of describes the world we now live in , doesn't it? As for the drones.... if it makes it easier for those in security or law enforcement to apprehend criminals or catch them in the act, then I have absolutely no problem with it. My problem would be with idi^t neighbours who think they have the right to invade the privacy of others.

The world order is rapidly changing (with or without Trump), falling into different spheres of influence predominantly under Russian, Chinese, and U.S. control. The U.S. recognizing this is why they wanted China out of Panama, and both Russia and China out of Venezuela. China regularly violates International Law with its actions in the South China Sea and yet you seldom hear any complaints about Chinese violations. Russia does the same. The thing about International Law or Rule of Law is that both imply that someone enforces it, which is usually on the international scale.... the U.S. And enforcing it requires a tremendous amount of resources and military involvement which is not cheap. Canada, Greenland/Denmark, and the U.S. need to negotiate some agreement pertaining to national security in the far north. Maybe they could offer the U.S. mineral rights or drilling rights in specific areas to offset costs which might be a good place to begin. We can't do this by ourselves.

I was reading that for a time in the 1950's Venezuela had the world's 4th highest GDP/capita. Today, I doubt that many Venezuelan's who support Maduro or his government are in love with the conditions they're forced to live under. They're simply true believers who are in love with the marxist ideology that's behind it. And that's what makes it so intoxicating and such a threat.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. Only that when one takes into account his leadership, accomplishments, and dedication to country, which spanned over a lifetime.... there are few equals. If one wishes to make a comparison, I would advise them not to do it with someone who is incomparable.

You're not serious are you??????

'Political secularism' is more of a specific term used in defining the relationship between religion and the state. The term 'secularism' as defined in the dictionary is a far more general term. And yes, there are differences between the two as there are with a number of other hyphenated secular terms. I will agree though that if one is going to use the term in describing a political leader then it should be used in the political sense. Ok, so my bad. And I corrected myself in another post after reading one of paxamericana's posts. Anyways, I'm done with this.

According to my Merriam-Webster's..... secularism : indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations. That definition could apply to any of the 3. Political secularism has a slightly different twist to it.

Exactly. There are different brands of secularism. They don't fall under the political category.

The thing is the three are not really 'secularists' when it comes to 'political secularism'. Political secularism for example.... protects religious freedom, protects religion from politics, protects state from religion, and protects the principle of state neutrality. All of which is basically what most western countries have now.

Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all 'secularists'. All saw religion as a threat to their ideologies. Their brand of secularism didn't stop them from murdering millions of their own people. So how did that work out?

Religion has always played a major role in defining culture with its moral codes, ethics, beliefs, and traditions. Christian armies defeated Islamic invaders in 732 at the Battle of Tours under Charles Martel, in what was a pivotal moment in European history. It prevented the Islamization of Europe, and likely even our own. Countries that have dominant religions and cultures are often the most stable especially when it comes to liberal democracies where minority rights are constitutionally protected.

Ok, I can keep an open mind about such things. Has anyone ever denied these accusations? I know it would be the first thing I'd do.

Maybe we should be questioning the morality of the Palestinian leadership which has a hierarchy of billionaires and multi millionaires and not just in Gaza but the West Bank as well. The worse things are, the richer they all get. Maybe that should be addressed before questioning the morality of the Americans and Israelis. When it comes to morality and corruption, there's really no comparison. jmo