Should the US Use its Diplomatic and Military Power Around the Globe to Ensure America’s Security?

John Bolton and Vivek Ramaswamy debate this timely topic at the Virginia Military Institute, moderated by Tom Rogan. Thank you for everyone who joined and made this event a success!

00:00 - 2:22 - Col. Gray makes opening remarks
2:22 - 8:30 - Jennifer Schubert-Akin, Chairman and CEO, makes opening remakrs
8:30 - 14:12 - Pre-debate poll results
14:12 - 15:30 - Moderator makes opening remakrs
15:30 - 23:00 - John Bolton makes opening remarks
23:00 - 32:00 - Vivek Ramaswamy makes opening remarks
32:00 - 40:40 - current threat of China to our foreign interests and America
40:40 - 50:00 - NATO conditions and alliances
51:30 - 52:00 "You have no idea what you're talking about"
52:00 - 55:00 - The current generation will need to cope with the past generation's decisions
55:00 - 1:00:00 - Taiwan
1:00:00 - 1:10:00 - Afghanistan and a Marxist argument
1:10:00 - 1:20:00 - Security at the southern boarder
1:20:00 - 1:22:00 - Post-debate poll results
1:22:00 - 1:30:00 - Closing remarks

[cadee.]

The fact that Bolton thought he could explain away Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya if only given three more hours is both horrific and comical. This man should never be asked for his opinion again, or he should take his butt and go fight with the troops he advises we should send.

[PhilipWong]

The U.S. imposes its will on the world through fear—via threats of violence, unilateral sanctions, or covert operations. It uses allies to provide political cover for its numerous wars. Most of its clients host U.S. troops and are required to contribute to part of their upkeep.

The concept of being a superpower reflects the Western scarcity-driven, win-lose mindset. At the same time, much of the Eastern worldview (excluding Japan) embraces abundance and win-win cooperation. Pursuing superpower status is costly and unnecessary in a framework focused on shared growth and collaboration.

Scarcity-driven win-lose strategies reflect a narrow, short-term view that assumes limited resources and competition are necessary. In contrast, abundance-driven win-win strategies align with a broader, long-term perspective, recognizing that collaboration leads to greater and more sustainable rewards in a vast, interconnected universe. The universe offers ample opportunities for mutual growth, making win-win strategies more effective in the long run.

The win-win mindset of the Chinese government explains why, despite having a per capita GDP that is less than one-sixth that of the US, we observe them enthusiastically building infrastructures all over the world that raise the standard of living for people in the global majority.

Anywhere in the world, if there is a border dispute, it is usually the result of a line drawn by an Englishman; if it is an internal dispute, it is usually the US fueling it. Difference in implementation of divide and conquer strategy.

Regardless of who is elected president, millions of Americans will continue to enjoy these long-standing benefits of democracy, freedom, and human rights: Economic inequality, persistent inflation, stagnant wages, soaring healthcare costs, a student loan debt crisis nearing $1.7 trillion, and an education system burdened by increasingly unaffordable tuition. Inadequate public transportation, racial inequality, mass incarceration, militarized policing, deteriorating infrastructure, unaffordable housing, homelessness, the opioid epidemic, and rampant gun violence.

The Chinese government denies its citizens—and an increasing number of people in other countries—the chance to experience the "benefits" of the challenges that U.S. citizens face.

Although the United States is the world's wealthiest nation with unmatched military power, it does not prioritize addressing these systemic problems. For many, the normalization of such inequality and hardship has become accepted daily, raising urgent questions about the government's role in fostering a more equitable and just society. When a government allows these persistent issues to remain unresolved, it risks losing legitimacy and trust in the eyes of its citizens.

If a country cannot care for its citizens, its leadership role in global affairs becomes questionable.

If the main duty of a government is the well-being of the majority of its citizens, then the greatest threat to the United States may lie in how it is governed. Instead of prioritizing the welfare of its people, the US meddles in other countries to spread its version of democracy. The question is whether the USA can continue to survive with its version of democracy, not whether it can have any leadership role in the global order.

World's biggest debtor vs the world's biggest creditor. Lawyers are playing Tic-Tac-Toe while engineers are playing GO.

The U.S. is the world's largest debtor, with a NIIP (Net International Investment Position) of -$16 trillion. China (including Hong Kong) is the largest creditor, with a NIIP of $4.3 trillion, followed by Japan, Germany, and Taiwan. The U.S. last had a positive NIIP in 1988 and a trade surplus in 1975. The U.S. debt grows by about $5-7 billion daily, and the trade deficit averages $2-3 billion per day.

Some in the West believe they will continue dominating the world because God is on their side. Their historical success is preordained and inevitable, and their superior culture gave them a moral imperative to intervene in global affairs.

The US and its allies do not recognize the legitimacy of the Godless Chinese government and will use all possible means to change it. China has observed the following pattern in US Foreign Policy. Since WWII, the United States has started 201 wars, overthrew 36 foreign leaders, killed or attempted to kill 50, dropped bombs in 30 countries, and interfered in 86 foreign elections. To make the world safe for democracy, the US has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people in its conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. The CIA was involved in covert operations that resulted in mass killings of communists in over 22 countries, 500, 000 to 2, 000, 000 Indonesian civilians disappeared in 1965-1966.

The 'Arsenal of Democracy' produces 40 percent of the world's weapons. It is a very profitable business model in which other countries buy these weapons to fight each other. The key is maximizing profits without shedding US blood by inducing conflicts between and within countries outside the USA. One client is eager to spend AUD 368 billion to buy a few high-quality used nuclear-powered submarines. This business model's critical components are NATO, QUAD, ANZUS, Five Eyes, AUKUS, and MCC (Mutual Cross-Service Agreement).