> the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns

The U.S. is a sovereign country, and Congress approved all the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for better or worse, and it was bipartisan.

Renaming Department of Defense to Department of War is something like the opposite of doublespeak. It's more honest, isn't it?

> He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump.

No. The entire Gaza situation erupted under Biden's presidency. As did the Ukraine invasion. The Biden presidency was completely powerless to stop any of this from occurring. Biden, the same guy that bumbled through sentences and lost track of topics in the presidential debate and was replaced by his own party's superdelegates in 2024 after he won the state primaries, had nothing to do with this.

> What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is.

There's 185 countries on planet earth. Many of them are run by literal kings and some of them are run by king-like figures. The U.S. absolutely isn't one of them, but when it comes to international politics, the duly elected President is the negotiator-in-chief. This follows in a long history of deal-making, going all the way back to President Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase from France.

Ironically, Denmark itself does have a king!

What irony?

The Danish king has zero power. Yes, he needs to sign the laws. Should he refuse, the next law he would see was his removal.

We have been lucky enough to have reasonable people give up power without bloodshed.

Have a word with the French how it goes if not. Can we find other examples of revolutionary wars? Something more close to home?

I sadly see no irony. None at all.

You love a strong man. A negotiator-in-chief. You think that is a president. Learn from the Germans. They replaced a monarch with a toothless head of state (look how I gracefully avoided the Austrian Painter). Most Americans do not even know the difference between the German President and Bundeschancellor.

What you are arguing for is a litteral king. Call it what you want. You will soon enough find out how hard it is to get rid of cetralized power.

> The Danish king has zero power.

Great, can you just get rid of the role now? What is the point in the role? Why give nobility and all this heritable nonsense even the slightest auspice?

> We have been lucky enough to have reasonable people give up power without bloodshed. > Have a word with the French how it goes if not. Can we find other examples of revolutionary wars? Something more close to home? > I sadly see no irony. None at all.

I don't know what to tell you. America kickstarted the whole monarchal upheaval movement in 1776 and we had to fight the world's largest empire for it with our own guns. It's unfortunate that the French did not have the same success in 1789.

> You love a strong man. A negotiator-in-chief. You think that is a president. Learn from the Germans. They replaced a monarch with a toothless head of state (look how I gracefully avoided the Austrian Painter). Most Americans do not even know the difference between the German President and Bundeschancellor.

No I'm not going to learn from the Germans, there's nothing to learn there. We have been doing democracy for 250 years, longer than anyone, our Presidents have generally been strong men, including General Washington himself. 32 of our 47 presidents have been ex-military. Some notable examples are General Ulysses S. Grant, General Eisenhower, Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, Colonel Thomas Jefferson, Major General Andrew Jackson, Captain Abraham Lincoln, Lieutenant John F. Kennedy, etc etc. In that 250 year time frame, the U.S. conducted war, negotiated expansions of territory, settled conflicts, negotiated treaties, and defeated numerous empires. That could only happen because our Presidents were strong men with strong leadership.

Our duly elected president is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military and the Chief Diplomat. It has always been the case. U.S. Presidents are powerful. It has always been the case.

However, U.S. citizens are also powerful. We have real freedom of speech, not some feckless version of it that europeans flirt with. We have guns to defend our human rights, including our lives, our liberty and our property. We have a robust legal system, 50 independent state governments with broad powers, a bill of rights that can't be overturned except by a large supermajority of states (75%), balances between branches of government, etc.

We have a long deep cultural history of fighting for liberty, it will never be taken from us, you have to understand. We demand strong leaders, because we are strong people. But our leaders know they are in power for a short time. We have Constitutionally limited terms (can't be overturned except by 3/4 of state legislatures and 2/3 of Congress).

We are never arguing for a king. We will never accept a king. But we will also never accept a weak President. Hope you can understand.

> The U.S. is a sovereign country, and Congress approved all the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for better or worse, and it was bipartisan.

Your internal implementation details are not pertinent when something is illegal in international law.

Posts like this makes the mess in the US make a lot more sense.