[Ntrails]

Why? What warmongering have you seen? What has been done thus far that wasn't broadcasted in the campaign? Where in the campaign was there indication that he'd want to start a war?

I'm not saying it's impossible that trump could be offensive enough to cause an attack on the US which then results in offensive US action - but I've seen nothing to indicate he'll go looking to do so as a matter of policy.

Hyperbole is everywhere at the moment and whilst it makes for pithy comment it detracts from realistic concerns about the outcomes of his policy decisions. By giving people easy excuses to ignore "anti trump" comments (because they're a mixture of valid concerns and silliness) you grant him more freedom.

He is probably less likely to actively pursue conflict with Russia than his alternative, and he's reaffirmed support for NATO (which was no doubt part of the package traded for a non critical stance by the UK PM).

[TeMPOraL]

I haven't seen any warmongering. But what was broadcasted in the campaign I honestly rejected as too ridiculous to be true, and a case of media exaggerating about a candidate they don't like.

But now it turns out that what was broadcasted in the campaign is in fact what the current President means to do, and this is scary. From what I remember from my history lessons, it smells too much of how Hitler started his rule, and I don't recall him saying he wants to invade the rest of Europe either. That only came up after he was entrenched in power and stepped up the internal purges.

Assuming this doesn't happen, there's also a second scenario I fear - the US will say "fuck you Europe" and utterly withdraw, and Russia will get expansionist ideas.

Either way, I don't feel that what's going on leads to a safe and stable life here in Europe. (And that's beside the fact that the same sentiments that led to Trump's victory is also clearly visible in many parts of Europe; with nationalist tendencies on the rise, EU breakup and/or a war in Europe aren't beyond possibility).

Call me paranoid, but I am afraid. Not in a hypothetical way, I actually stress over it and it impares my day-to-day life.

[johnbrodie]

> Assuming this doesn't happen, there's also a second scenario I fear - the US will say "fuck you Europe" and utterly withdraw, and Russia will get expansionist ideas.

This has been one of Trump's points for quite a while now. The USA will no longer subsidize the security of other states, unless there is some method of repayment.

[TeMPOraL]

> unless there is some method of repayment

Maybe I'm naïve, but I thought a stable, prosperous market on the continent dominated by US products makes it worth it for the US.

[devmunchies]

> dominated by US products

I'm in the US and most of the product I use were not manufactured here.

Globalism is better for countries sucking on the US's teet but it is bleeding the US dry. The US can't compete against other countries that have no environmental or wage regulations.

Its like every other country feels entitled to the US's resources or something.

[mistermann]

> Assuming this doesn't happen, there's also a second scenario I fear - the US will say "fuck you Europe" and utterly withdraw, and Russia will get expansionist ideas.

Perhaps Europe should form a military of it's own for protection then?

Snarkiness aside, the nerve of people scolding the US like it's a foolish child while living under the umbrella of its "discount" military protection is a little galling.

[narutouzumaki]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it has been, and is until very recently this very 'umbrella' that the US wishes to spread around the world, as she sees it as advantageous.

Post WW2, both the German and Japanese military were greatly limited, or outright abolished.

The numerous bases of the US around the globe in any country and climate imaginable are not only selfless bastions of people in need - they serve very concrete functions, namely protecting trade routes and political stability in systems that are beneficial to the economy of the US.

[mistermann]

Indeed they are, but they are also extremely beneficial to much of the rest of the world, who repays this debt with insults.

[kirushik]

> Where in the campaign was there indication that he'd want to start a war?

Just as my 2 cents, Mr. Trump definitely stated several times that he wants to re-thinkthe whole NATO, UN and the international security system in general.

I can easily imagine him making the same bold and unprofessional moves as everywhere else. And if that happens, it will definitely open up some new possibilities for international conflict.

[marcosdumay]

He also said he wants to be friendly to Russia and take US troops the hell out of the Mid-West.

But well, promising is easy, and he is not the first to promise those exact things.

[X86BSD]

I think you mean Middle East? The Midwest of the US has not been invaded by American troops. :)

[makapuf]

Well, tell that to the native Americans :)

[X86BSD]

Touche! The first people have a beef you are correct.

[marcosdumay]

Ops. Where did English get East and West from anyway that it became so different from latin languages?

[kej]

From PIE via Proto-Germanic:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=east http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=west

[X86BSD]

Fascinating link, thank you! I know what I will be wasting away the day doing now.

[marcosdumay]

No kidding, "oeste" in Portuguese comes from the same word as in English, but I still mix them up. That's shameful.

Thanks a lot for those links.

[tmalsburg2]

Starting wars has historically been a popular and effective tool for consolidating power within the country. So even if Trump doesn't care much about any particular conflict he might start a war anyway if he feels that his power is threatened.