pear01

People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state to detain, arrest, and potentially deprive citizens of a free country of their life, liberty or property is asinine and shameful.

Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held accountable, and then cry like babies when someone makes videos and mocks them. He could have just sued them directly to recoup his financial losses from them destroying his house over a bs warrant but cops have qualified immunity. The justice system gives him no recourse. They sued him for videos meanwhile his countersuit was thrown out on this basis.

If you support the cops on this I see no reason why one should not conclude you "wholly endorse" the ongoing "law enforcement" assault on free Americans. What principles do you take the nation to be founded on? You realize red coats coming into people's homes under the color of the law is what instigated the war that bought this country its liberty 250 years ago? I fail to see how this is much different, armed goons with guns and badges invading private property that cannot be held accountable. No election he can take part in will reasonably solve this so he can sue in a timely manner, as the unelected justice system has unilaterally decided you cannot sue cops over this. This is anti-American. Go read the bill of rights and tell me it is consistent with the spirit of those hard fought liberties to support the cops on this. I hope if you actually endorse burdens of proof you will at least support local, state and federal representatives who will codify into law a "repeal" of qualified immunity so that cops who fail to meet that burden can be held personally accountable.

Note a case on that count would still need to prevail on the merits. That is how justice is supposed to work. Instead a carve out for law enforcement has been created where you can't even take them to court. Your case is going to get thrown out. The justice system should not be creating this special class of people, with great power and depriving them of the responsibilities common between neighbors in a free society. What they have done is really not unlike the British sending armed men into American cities to violate rights and then insisting they cannot be held accountable in colonial courts as a matter of principle. This is criminal. People should be able to sue police officers. If that makes the cost of waving guns in people's faces more expensive then so be it.

Was it AI generated? If so, should I just delegate my AI to do so?

He doesn't want to have to stand up, turn around and apologize to parents on behalf of an asleep at the wheel Congress again.

At some level I don't blame him. It is also a bit strange how in that act alone he showed more accountability than most of the politicians that were questioning him, never mind most executives. I suppose Josh Hawley wants to be liable for personal lawsuits for his acts of Congress too... people cringe at his "robotic" demeanor but I can't remember the last time someone turned and faced people and apologized like this. Most people asked to do the same (even in front of the same body) never do.

https://youtu.be/yUAfRod2xgI

I'm not offended. I actually appreciate you answering the questions and attempting a good faith reply.

I have some follow-ups.

> Yes! We already do this. Everyone in the EU can freely migrate to another EU country in the Schengen zone.

How about any other ways? When they are in the country? How about vs other non EU immigrants? Should people from MENA be treated differently than people from Israel? From the United States?

You say open borders are not human rights... but you said European antisemites should be allowed to come into Sweden. If you care about open borders and antisemitism so much, would you support a Swedish brexit? You seem to indicate you voted for a party that changed migration laws. Would you also support a party that banned European antisemites? Why is schengen inviolate but not your prior rules on migration or crime?

> The policy now is prevention also.

Meaning what? And on what basis?

> Yes, Israel and its population have shown to be our steadfast partners.

How is Israel a partner to Sweden? So a partner to Sweden is what makes a country Western? Earlier you seemed to suggest it was based on geography but also "behaviors". What behaviors would those be?

Lastly, I understand you think the Nazi analogies are gotchas. You'll have to forgive me. After all, while you take great care in your prior reply to be sensible, your other replies did not convey the same tone. Focusing exclusively on one minority group makes one look very suspicious. It's not like the thought of Nazis comes from nowhere.

You should know it was only last year your "Moderate" minister for migration Johan Forssell was involved in a scandal where his teenage son was pictured giving a Nazi salute, having attended neo Nazi gatherings. This is the same man that blames cultural degradation and parents for the actions of other teenagers, who wants to lower protections for young people and their parents accused of crimes or misconduct... do you not see an irony here?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/11/sweden...

Do you think he should have resigned? Do you not see any nexus between focusing on crime through a racial or ethnic lens and fascism? Do you take the responsibility of any criminal justice system to prove guilt and treat defendants of equal status equally before the law regardless of race, ethnicity, country of origin, .etc seriously?

Are you as surprised as he was, given his rhetoric, that the security services of your country had to inform him his own son was involved in such a group?

It seems to me someone who wants to make broad associations based on neighboring conduct and loosen protections before the law in the name of Swedish values and public safety should at the very least have the decency to resign in such a circumstance. It is deeply ironic to me and I think perfectly captures how I personally feel about the right, from Europe to the United States to Israel...

So in summary, is your position if a MENA teen in Sweden does a Nazi salute, you want them and their family deported? But if the Minister of Migration's son does it, that's fine? You agree with your party it's not a big deal?

Remind me again where antisemitism comes from?

You asked if I want less garbage and trash in my country. I'll settle for less Nazis.

People like you are somewhat amusing. You keep going on and on about how you are Swedish when the right-wing playbook is global, this could easily be a post from any of your ilk anywhere on the European continent or the United States.

Let's even grant you the premise that these statistics are accurate. What do you want to do about it? Deprive people of their rights extrajudicially because of where they come from? Should we treat people from MENA differently before the law? What about a native Swede who is antisemitic? Should they lose some rights? Should we deport people based on place of origin? Is that what the West is based on to you, increasingly arbitrary or national/ethnic access to rights vs a universalist conception of human rights? Or would that be a "third world" degeneration?

What is the West? Are Jewish people synonymous with the West? Was that always the case? You talk about minority protections are Jewish people a majority in Sweden? If not, why do you advocate protections for some minorities and not others? Do you think Jewish people have suffered in the "first world" West? Where does antisemitism come from? Was the Weimar Republic the third world? How about the regime that followed? Should European antisemites be allowed into Sweden? Maybe everyone who enters Sweden should have to pass an ideological test to prove they are sufficiently non antisemitic and appropriately Western? Or maybe you let them in but they have to walk around in special outfits or with a special lapel or label on them so we can be vigilant regarding their whereabouts? Perhaps anyone who commits a crime in Sweden should be deported, as only an anti-western person would exhibit criminal behavior?

What do you want to do about it? Highlighting crime tells us nothing. Every society deals with crime. Most societies have minorities. What separates societies is how they deal with it. So tell us, warden of the West, what you seek to do.

I should know better than to wade into a debate with someone who argues like you. Your comment history does indeed speak for itself. But I will try to debate you in good faith. I look forward to your answers.

Exactly, that is the proof. We are already losing this game. Trying to outspend lobbyists using some kind of crowdfunding sounds interesting at first, but is just restating the same terms on which the game is already rigged, which means you will just lose again.

I think there might be a way to make it work, however you would have to be very aware and plan for a way to not reinvent the same losing dynamics. It might not be possible.

Humorous of you to think they would be against AIPAC.

Gulf states have little to nothing in common with Palestinians. Citizens of most gulf states are born into relative wealth merely by the fact their countries are rich in petrodollars. They build lavish cities and have standards of living (for their citizens) that increasingly put the West to shame. They are "diversifying" from oil by building massive AI datacenters and essentially catering to Westerners who want to live unencumbered by Western pretensions of civic duty, avoid taxes in their home countries, etc. They make deals with the Israelis and have for over a decade now, even if under the table. They buy American weapons, their elites have frequently been educated at the most exclusive British or American universities. They like expensive Italian cars. Money is money.

Meanwhile Palestinians are born poor, in a failed state with no autonomy. Some UAE crypto influencer is yolo gambling away more money than most Palestinian kids will see in their lifetimes. They live under an occupation and have basically no rights in that regard. They are poor. Just google image a picture of Gaza vs the UAE. It just doesn't even compare. Maybe on some level they are both Arabs. But the same rule applies. Money is money.

The gulf state governments gave up on trying to care about them many many decades ago. They realized it was cheaper (and more prosperous) to go along to get along with the United States and Israel. If they hadn't, their capitals might look like Tehran right now. Over the years it became easy to blame other people for the problem - Iran, even the Palestinians themselves. They have long since washed their hands of caring.

Don't conflate the Gulf States with Palestinians, or associate them with anyone on the losing side of anything when it comes to money and power. They are as corrupt and bought-in to this system of wealth/might makes right as anyone.

This assumes enough of the small dollar population agrees on anything to meaningfully compete on the cost of buying.

They may on paper, but of course a lot of money goes to dividing us up come election time. What you are suggesting is no shortcut - it would rather be almost like inventing an alternative political party.

It's called qualified immunity. Many support its repeal. I hope you join them, and convey the same to your local representatives and candidates. Until it is reformed few if any officers or administrators of criminal justice in the United States will ever feel any type of accountability.

Short of video evidence of blatant gun to the back of the head style homicide qualified immunity means most law enforcement officials are never held accountable for their miscarriages of justice. Criminal charges against officers are exceedingly rare. She should be able to sue this detective directly. Of course she can sue the government too, and should. But without any personal consequences for the people carrying out these acts, taxpayers will continue to bail out these practices without ever noticing. Your own government should not be a shield for a police officer who has violated you or your neighbors.

I would think people killed by the machinery of needless wars would appreciate the same fate not falling on others.

You omitted that part out of your quote to do what, imply I don't care about dead drone victims? Because I believe we shouldn't launch wars needlessly?

What point are you trying to make? Should we bomb Toyota dealerships because of all the automobile fatalities? If you disagree should I imply you don't care about dead car crash victims?

What an amazing standard of proof you operate under.

Luckily our legal system more often than not makes it literally illegal to operate under your standard. How many were victims of people like you before they had to codify that principle I wonder. Truly stunning. If only the same level of rigor were enforced for presidents of the United States taking the nation to war. Think of how many more countless lives could be saved.

> It's important to be extremely careful about this kind of "reverse racism" - yes, the point is that the target race is privileged in some way, so it feels more harmless than "regular" racism. But "reverse racism" becomes "regular racism" very, very fast, and the cute shine drops off of it like a rock.

Except it doesn't. White people aren't being rounded up by ICE. White people aren't disproportionately represented in prisons. White people have more space to breathe in America - in effect, to be mediocre - than their peers.

Go watch the deposition tapes. This young man soullessly enjoys demolishing anything DEI aka anything that doesn't benefit or identify with his own race, sexuality or gender. And he does this from a position of power.

Reverse racism is not a thing. Racism is not simply an individual's prejudice. There are two words for a reason. Racism is not merely racial prejudice.

When someone in the federal government creates an exclusive program to erase white history, then that would be reverse racism. When only white people fear the cops as much as other minorities do today that would be reverse racism. When the Supreme Court says if a white person is at a home depot and speaks like a white person ICE has reasonable suspicion to detain them while other races get to go about their business that would be reverse racism.

What isn't cute is your equating childish, powerless online comments with what racism is - which is beyond individual or even aggregated racial prejudice. It is the institutionalization of said prejudice. The old American South wasn't racist merely because white people made mean, petty comments. It was because the entire society was weaponized for the exclusive benefit of the white race. The vestiges of that live on today, and clearly some among us want to take us farther back still.

With everything going on your focus on people calling out his white mediocrity, which frankly, is blatantly obvious and not racist at all is suspect. It suggests you think just pointing out someone's race is itself inherently racist. Which again, demeans the actual meaning of the term.

Also I missed this bit:

> It's now particularly obnoxious, since its usage has largely outgrown the legitimate grievances which inspired it.

That says everything I need to know about you. Here's another term for you to consider: white fragility. No need for a definition, I wager you need only consult a mirror.

I never said a 100% guarantee. You may put words in the president's mouth if you wish, please don't put words in mine.

You aren't answering my questions at all. You are evading them. The argument is clear. This war is not worth the potential cost. Iran was not closer to getting a weapon. Americans are at more risk today than they were yesterday.

Your walk back has now reached its peak.

> There is no intervention though

I mean what to even say to this?

The rest of it is more or less the same. But I want to highlight how you ended, as really that takes the cake. It's a talking point that comes up a lot so I want to call it out.

"The Iranian Regime is not a rational actor". I saw that coming from a mile away. Thanks for finally putting your cards on the table. So now you can inflate the boogeyman to be as big as you wish. Iran isn't rational, they crazy. Time to bomb!

This the refuge of unserious people. It was a rational actor, as terrible a regime as it is/was. The evidence of that is clear. They were a regime/nation-state that negotiated, declared war, sold oil, prioritized their own existence and acted to preserve their own power. Why aren't they rational? Because the Supreme leader wears a fundamentalist outfit? Because his religious fundamentalism comes from a religion that isn't yours? Because they make threats (which they for the most part never carry out)? You know that many times in the past they warn their neighbors (including Israel) of their so-called reprisal attacks ahead of time so they don't cause a booboo miscalculation and accidentally get annihilated? Like how they are getting annihilated now? If they are so irrational why didn't they send off all these weapons at any time before this? Why did they wait to get attacked? How does Israel penetrate so deeply into their command structure if its such an irrational regime? You would think any attempt at infiltration would be confused by the totally crazy irrational society they have. I mean what a nutcase regime. Jeez what a crazy irrational country attacking the countries that attacked them and bombed out their entire leadership or tacitly supported it.

Totally nuts man.

Disappointing. This just means you don't want to have a serious argument. What is clear is the projection, and that there is nothing more to be gained from this exchange. I have tried to argue in good faith this whole time. Have a good day.

What is this supposed to prove? I asked for evidence. This is "the FBI said so" and as another commenter noted, in the vaguest terms possible.

Am I supposed to be impressed by this? "Allegedly aspired" so it's not even a credible plot, the allegation is they have aspirations to do something and that's all we got. We have no information about how they would actually ever carry this out. Jeepers, I'm scared. We're blowing their country to smithereens and they have "aspirations" of doing something back. Shocking. Those police officers must have been positively shaking in their boots.

With what? And the damage caused was what?

The answer: A drone. The damage, little to none.

What a powerful response to an outright attack on their country. This is the capability we are supposed to start a war over?

Sorry it does not follow that politicians in Greece and beyond in Europe were gambling with their citizens lives by entertaining the possibility Iran might launch a drone to crash unceremoniously off-target in Cyprus if their regime was attacked. I don't think anyone in Cyprus cares, actually the only thing this really seems to have kicked off in Cyprus is a protest movement against the American military presence there.

> It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.

These are well-known talking points. Yes in a deal the other side gets something. That's what a deal is. Sorry it wasn't a totally awesome deal like Trump would have totally signed that got us everything we wanted. You have a choice start a war or make a deal. That's basic geopolitics. Instead you seem to want to invent a third option out of thin air - come up with the perfect deal. I don't arrive at the same conclusion because it's ridiculous. I have no reason to believe the administration that negotiated that deal was blatantly incompetent or let Iran off the hook. If they could have gotten a better deal and still avoided war I think they would have. What plausible explanation is there to the contrary? Instead, we have a successor who was also unable to negotiate a better deal, and now war. I'm not sure what point you are making. The idea that the Iranians were really any closer to getting a nuclear bomb is a lie. There is no evidence. Iran has been a weak pariah state that can barely keep its top officials alive. This has been the status quo for decades. The same president who negotiated that deal also unleashed Stuxnet. We already bombed more sites last year. Their leaders and scientists have had constant assassinations over the years. Why do you believe that they were any closer to a bomb a month ago than they were when that deal was signed? And what is your evidence?

> No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.

So the President is lying about the motivations for war? So despite what pours out of his mouth you simply pick the most plausible (or easily defensible) explanation and then say "this is what the war is about"? Why would it be putting his cards on the table? You think it escapes anyone in China that it imports Iranian oil and this creates a problem for them? Or do you mean politics is about lying to your own electorate? I noticed you originally led with the same fear-mongering lie about the reach of Iranian missile capabilities. But now you've retreated to we are doing it to stop oil from getting to China. Maybe you, like the President, know the American people don't want to see their own troops and citizens killed to stop the flow of oil to China? Maybe they can also see that when oil stops flowing to China, gas prices also increase at home? We are spending billions of dollars and lost American lives to increase gas prices at home but hey also in China? Is that your claim?

> Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences.

You can just stop there. This is a lie. It's like the "we will be greeted as liberators" claim in Iraq. I can tell from reading the rest of this that you know very little about this region. I don't mean to insult you it's just such a disingenuous claim and makes this back and forth barely even worth it. You are conflating so many things - pan-arabism with majority/minority conflict or even the notion of having a nation. That's wrong. You think Egyptians don't see themselves as Egyptians because some of them believed in pan-arabism? Wrong. You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?

You also walked back from your original claim again.

You said:

> Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all.

Emphasis on *nothing in common at all*

I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with:

1. Countries that were under the grip of an authoritarian leader. Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.

2. Leaders who are not only authoritarian but flagrantly violent. In the absence of responsible governance, they resort to extreme violence to maintain power, creating cycles of pent up resentment, retribution and fear on both sides. The resentment of the powerless is obvious, however the fear of the powerful is equally as destabilizing.

3. Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state. Once their common enemy is removed (to say nothing of a sizable loyalist faction) and given the lack of existing civic structures with broad buy-in, they often resort to violence. Persians only make up about 60% of Iran. Shia Muslims made up about the same percent in Iraq. I mean truly I have no idea what you are talking about. "They see themselves as one nation" based on what? Literally there have been multiple reports that the CIA is arming a separatist movement as we speak as their "boots on the ground" in Iran. You also ignored so many other cleavages - such as level of religious conservatism, class, geography. You think every person Shia or Persian is the same? Do you think when protestors in Iran were gunned down it was only because they weren't the same religion as the people shooting them? Or the same ethnicity? Do you not realize that the very notion of an identity, religion or ethnicity is itself often a point of contention?

4. In a region with a lot of other unstable states where domestic conflict can quickly spill over and spread across borders. Gee that should be obvious. And how about that in basically the same region as those other examples. Great track record of intervention here. But not this one. Trust me. Even though I'm also lying to you about oil being the cause of the war? Because god forbid I put my "cards on the table" aka a fact anyone with an internet connection can look up?

Why don't you actually answer some of the questions that led me to this long digression with you instead of continuing this constant walk back?

You could answer this:

> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.

Or I guess wait that's not important anymore because it's not really about that... it's about stopping oil from going to China.

So more importantly then, this:

> Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves.

Perhaps the answer to this last question is you are so self-satisfied of the future and of your knowledge of Iran that you don't think it's a gamble? Maybe the price of dead Americans is worth it to stop oil flow to China? Where this started was this self-satisfied extrapolation from Greece, to Europe, to presumably the shores of America? How dare politicians risk lives by allowing this trend to develop, that you somehow saw as inevitable through your powers of clairvoyance. That was your position, right? Somehow we got from that to your supposed knowledge of oil flow grand strategy and Iranian nationalism. So I'm asking, what makes you so confident that this war is worth it? You see no risk? You have no doubts? Could you at least acknowledge the act of war is itself a gamble?

I'd appreciate an answer on that since this back and forth has gone on for a while and I've tried to respond to all the points you have brought up. Thanks

> China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan.

The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. The one the current President tore up because his predecessor was responsible for it.

> Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.

Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.

> Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.

This is simply incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to start. But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.

Great logic. China and America might find themselves at war in the coming years. Should we just get it over with and attack them now? Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door. Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession or economic crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.

Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves. A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.

For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.

Your post is extremely misleading. Shipping drones in a box or whatever they are doing so Russians can use them is completely different from what we mean by projecting power. In many cases the Russians are actually manufacturing the drones themselves based off the Iranian plan. That's not anything like the USA's power projection, where B2s can takeoff in Missouri, bomb Iran and come home without ever landing or even being shot at. I mean it's just not even close.

Launching attacks and having "some hope of success" is weak. And that's what Iran is and has always been, weak.

Yes they launch attacks. Most of these fail. They have nowhere near the level of lethality, precision, force projection and penetration of Israel or the United States.

When are Americans going to learn nationstates and some radical blowing themselves up are two different things? The latter is the threat to Americans here. You don't stop it by blowing up the former. History has always shown in fact that doing that makes the latter problem worse.

And the evidence of this plot and Iranian involvement is what?

A quick Google search yielded nothing in that regard... honestly it just doesn't sound that credible in an age where increasingly anyone can say anything. Why believe such a claim without evidence? Because it was the FBI that said it?

There are tempting targets all over the place. Like in the Middle East itself that Iran can barely hit. Their defenses and their leaders are being blown to smithereens. But you want me to believe they might have a submarine off the coast of California?

Weird of you to neglect to mention the hundreds of dead Iranians, including not only many civilians on their own soil but also layers of the Iranian leadership. Including of course the assassination of the supreme leader. I'm not saying his death is a bad thing. But that would be the most "materially different" part of this time vs "business as usual".

The other reason this is relevant is because it might lead one to reasonably conclude Iranian options for retaliation have already been exhausted.

If they have some capability in reserve what are they waiting for?

It would be pretty dangerous to attribute such a thing (if it ever happened) to Iran without concrete evidence. Some stateside lone wolf nut might claim to be acting on behalf of Iran, but it doesn't make it true. It's pretty easy in America for anyone to get a gun and attempt a murder. It doesn't mean any government provided any meaningful capability, nor should we believe so until confronted with strong evidence.

Indeed. Remember this is the same regime that was insisting their leader was alive and about to make a speech when he had been dead for hours in the opening strikes of the conflict. They said they would sink American aircraft carriers if attacked. Meanwhile, the American president went on TV and stated they've blown through so many layers of leadership they are not sure who they could even reach out to.

Iran can clearly barely defend itself. The idea they will suddenly pull off something meaningful now strains credulity.

One should highlight the best part of this: https://www.toolsforhumanity.com/orb

An orb that scans your eyeballs for "proof of human".

Someone thinking they need 40M to escape the "anxiety about the cost of living" is not just a personal decision. It is either extreme greed or delusional. He makes money doing Roblox he is the "laptop class". If you make 400k per month and can't afford to live something is wrong with you. Let's not conflate parents struggling to support their families with whatever this kid is doing.

For reference a worth of $40M puts you well within the top fraction of one percent of all Americans, nevermind the world. If anything given his age it is probably more likely his wealth will become a liability for him rather than an asset. The trope about people who come into that much wealth that young and it creates problems for them exists for a reason. Staying at his desk cranking out more Roblox products might be the best way to keep him away from becoming the victim of his own success.

Anyway good for him. You're right there is a lot of anxiety out there. On some level he should rightly get as much as he can. But let's not pretend you need millions and millions to be safe. We should be working to change that anyway, not merely celebrating massive outliers. I assume since you care about struggling families so much you support his taxation so some of that money can go to people or communities that are struggling? Or since you seem open the idea he needs 40M to survive perhaps you think the government should keep their hands off?

Why would you say "but economically" in your first sentence?

Is hegemony merely a competition about who can blow up the most people? If you think the Chinese economy doesn't count for anything re force projection because they haven't bombed anyone lately idk what to tell you.

Why doesn't the USA stomp out Russian aggression in Ukraine? Does American force projection only come into play when bombing third world poverty states? Should I thus conclude American hegemony is illusory? Do you think the wars America has prosecuted in the past two decades have made the country stronger?

Simply incorrect. Get a map of modern Europe and Rome at that time. Then plot not only the Roman territory, but also population and flows of commerce. Compare.

It does not map to modern Europe. It encircles the Mediterranean with much of Europe either not included or on the periphery. Most of Europe was to the Romans barbarian hinterland 2000 years ago. Even at its greatest extent you will see Rome was always centered on the Mediterranean. The "West" would have been entirely alienated from said culture had the flame not been kept alive by the East when the West fell.

Europe is not an ancient civilization. It is a continent and politically, an amalgamation.

Most of the "Western" civilizations old enough to attempt comparison with China were not European in the modern sense at all. The classic example is usually Rome, which treated most of Europe as barbarians to colonize and enslave. The engine and wealth of the empire was along the Mediterranean. Ancient Rome was thus really a Mediterranean power not a "European" one. I think you could successfully argue Romans had more in common with other ancient Mediterranean powers or even ancient Mesopotamians than modern Europeans.

As to the rest of your points true enough. It is well known that today's Europeans find themselves in between a rock and a hard place given the current split between American and Chinese hegemony.

I meant during the two world wars, which should have been obvious. The idea you think I know what NYC is but forgot about 9/11 says more about you than I.

Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. If that was the point you were attempting it is incorrect. Not even the current administration is attempting that line of reasoning.

China is also an ancient civilization. Americans view of themselves is highly inflated by the sheer luck of being two oceans away from everyone during both world wars. Save for Pearl Harbor there were no notable attacks on the American homeland. It's a lot easier to be a superpower when the world destroys itself and you step into the breach. Millions of Soviet civilians died on their own homeland. In their own cities. Millions. Most Americans have no idea and can't really comprehend it. Even today a shocking number of Americans don't have a passport and really know nothing about the world beyond their shores. These people are overrepresented in an American Congress that is anti-democratic. People on the coasts, like in New York City are underrepresented in American government. The entire state of New York gets the same amount of senators as flyover states, many of which are welfare states (take more funds than they contribute). This is because in a modern economy what NYC produces is more valuable than what a state with barely any people in the middle of nowhere produces. Yet the middle of nowhere is represented more. It makes no sense.

The current administration is only convincing the world that America is a threat. We live in an age where two oceans offer far less protection than they did when America rose to superpower status. The fact Russian intelligence operatives can so easily infiltrate American political discourse is just one example. Watch any congressional hearing about cyber and you might be forgiven for thinking we have already been invaded. Beating up on third world pariah states impresses no one but the current administration. The United States bombs Iran but blinks at Russia. The administration started a trade war with China then backed off, not one meaningful concession was achieved.

Unless America reverses course fast the decline will only continue. The world will move on. No country is inevitable.