The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not with this Trump Republican administration, anyway. There were some treaties, that had some effect.
    Not true. I just assign responsibility for stuff to the people on record as most responsible, is all.
    Unlike your ignorant bs:
    Clinton had almost nothing to do with that. The Republican Party was a central player and agent.
    US isolation, which hasn't been seen and probably is not possible in the nuclear age, would not stop proliferation. Treaties and agreements are necessary. Putin is of course abetting proliferation.
    Human civilization, not the species. Even total nuclear war involving every major power would probably not kill everyone.
    Trump's and Putin's added extra risk threatens your freedom and prosperity and probably life - not the species.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    That's complete nonsense. The part of isolationism which would be required from the US would be to accept international law and refrain from any attempts of regime change in other countries. On the same level that they don't want to be regime-changed themselves - which, following Mueller, includes even internet bots of private US firms to try to influence foreign elections simply by expressing their opinions. Nothing forces the US to regime-change other countries, beyond their own aggressiveness and the wish to rob resources of other countries. Why would it be impossible to the US to follow the simply Golden Rule not to do to others what they don't like others doing them? Are Americans inherently evil, so that having nuclear weapons forces them to misuse them for blackmailing those who don't have them, or so?
    Putin abetting proliferation is a propaganda fantasy.
    In the nuclear winter scenario, with the winter lasting long enough, it would probably kill everyone. Without it, the damage of a war between India and Pakistan would remain horrible but local.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Which you claimed the US would "return" to, in your latest display of ignorance.
    And if I can remember, I will remind you of that when you next favor more (Trump) Republican foreign policy.
    You never bring in that "deep state" idea of yours where it belongs in US history - in the realm of authoritarian corporate capitalist agendas.
    Good question. Now look at the answers - they are recorded history. And they do not include Hillary Clinton.
    It's simple recognition of Putin's behavior over the past few years - getting rid of treaties and sanctions, making more weapons, spreading them around, helping others gain access to the technology and materials, etc. Basically, anything for a short term profit.
    Without the side effects, all nuclear wars would be horrible but local. A full scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan - even if it went as "planned", which is vanishingly unlikely - would probably have side effects sufficient to take down the advanced industrial civilizations. The ones in Asia and Europe, at least, would have little hope of avoiding collapse.
    Not "probably", but possibly. That's part of why guys like Trump are such bad news - raising the risk of nuclear war is foolish as well as evil.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    It was, at least, a declared strategy for foreign relations. That such things are often violated in real life is another question. Today it is not even declared, regime change operations against any foreign government not submitting to the US is done openly.
    I never favored Republican foreign policy in itself - the usual suspects of McCain and Co are even more hawkish than Clinton.
    Capitalism was, of course, the consensus in the deep state, not even worth to be mentioned (except for a few anti-capitalist left wingnuts). Then, a deep state rule is automatically authoritarian, given that nobody has elected it. Why should I mention such trivialities? Given that the deep state uses democracy games to hide its rule, it is not authoritarian in the sense that it does not plan to give up this democratic cover.
    Hillary Clinton would have, obviously, liked it when Putin talked about America joking "I came, I saw, she died", not?
    First, Putin did never try to get rid of treaties. It was always the Western side which gets rid of them. Then, making more weapons for Russia was a necessity, given the US rocket defense program with the aim to get first strike capability. The focus of the new weapons was to circumvent the US rocket defense program (so that Russia remains strong enough to retaliate), and defenses - air defense as well as missiles against the US power - aircraft carriers. Russia has not developed anything useful for power projection elsewhere - which is the central issue for the US. This is another point why the Russians were able to do what they have done, with only 10% of the US budget. (The other parts are US corruption and high costs for foreign bases.) Spreading air defense around is a very reasonable way to protect the whole world from US aggression. Last but not least, everybody knows that the US hits only if they are sure to win with essentially no own losses, thus, a reasonable air defense sufficient to shot a reasonable amount of US airplanes is a good thing even for small countries. See Syria: In the past, Israel used Syrian airspace with its own planes without any hesitation, now all they do is to shoot missiles from Israel and Lebanon airspace, despite having F35, and despite the Syrians have only S300 and even this not yet completely implemented. So, this is something affordable for the security of other countries, and it cannot be misused. Essentially, even if the US would be able to steal some of it, so what? Russia does not want to attack the US, thus, good air defense of the US would not be a big problem for Russia.
    I see no evidence for Trump raising the risk of nuclear war in the short term. Instead, being in favor of better relations to Russia and investing money into the development of weapons is a long term approach, and decreases the danger in the short term. And in the long term, as explained: Once the multipolar world is established, and the dangerous transition phase finished, even a fascist US would be not a problem, but something similar to Franco Spain for Europe.
  8. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    "The Democrats have become an anti-Israel party, they've become an anti-Jewish party."

    — Trump
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    As it was by Reagan, and HW, and all the other neocons, including by W&Cheney when they invaded Iraq. You actually believe that shit.
    You supported Trump. I know you did that in ignorance and gullibility, but you did it.
    Because if you kept them in mind, reminded yourself, you might be less gullible about US politics - especially Republican foreign policy and "globalism".
    Today it is of course declared, by Republicans, especially during election campaigns, as it has been for fifty years or more.
    Living and learning about fascism.
    Because "the US" is in control, and never makes mistakes, and is the only aggressive power on the scene. Got it.
    Your eyesight is becoming a standing joke.
    Trump has no long term approaches.
    His short term approach is to create chaos in institutions, so he can seize power. That is where the dangerous transition period comes from, which you also refer to as no increased risk of nuclear war - because you aren't paying attention to what you type, apparently.
    Living and learning about fascism.
    btw: You might want to take another look at Franco's takeover, the multipolar world of fascist governments involved, and what happened next - during the "transition period".

    Trump is not going to destroy US military power - at least, not on purpose.
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, no, I have never even heard someone declaring that the modern US follows an isolationist policy. Isolationism was relevant some 100 years or so before the neocons.
    Yes, I supported Trump, because his foreign policy proposals were different from the Republican mainstream which was even more hawkish. As I supported before Ron Paul, also Republican, but with very different foreign policy proposals.
    LOL. Which of the other candidates has told us that "Assad must go" is illegitimate because it is an evil regime change operation?
    Cheap games.
    So, investing in the development of qualitatively better weapons is something one expects to be finished in a short time?
    The origin of the danger is the transition from the unipolar to the multipolar world. There is always a danger in such transition periods that the losing power starts a war. But if that losing power is in internal trouble, this tends to end in civil wars, not external wars, so that the loser gets internal problems, this is good news for the neighbors. This expectation may be questioned, of course, given that creating an external war may help to unify the nation. I nonetheless expect that the internal split decreases the danger of an external war.
    I might, even if this seems quite unrelated to anything relevant today - if somebody provides interesting information about this, why not.
    I'm quite satisfied if he destroys it by stupidity.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Of course not. We are not talking about serious analysis, we are talking about campaign speeches and the like, in which Republican politicians declare that will be their agenda and policy if elected.
    That's what you said, yep - and if anyone needed proof of your gullibility in the face of US professional propaganda operations, there it is.
    Unless stopped by treaty it will never be finished, until it has destroyed the civilizations engaged in it. That can happen at any time.
    Trump and Putin have blown up the treaties - Trump, apparently, under Putin's influence somehow.
    Especially when the multipolar world is a collection of militarized authoritarian governments, including a couple of nuclear armed fascist ones.
    I'm just mocking your choice of exemplary good outcome from fascist takeovers. WWII.
    By full scale war, in other words. You do realize that's a likely outcome, if Trump's stupidity prevails?
    - - - -
    Meanwhile, in news that surprises nobody:
    And in news that surprises nobody except those gullible enough to think Trump is some kind of "isolationist":
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I use the information available - and it was that all except Trump were massive anti-Russian. There is no risk for me to make the wrong decision, it is only some political interest, that's all. I could as well care more about how Bayern München plays soccer. Thus, no necessity to find out if one of the other candidates simply presents himself as anti-Russian but is in reality even more in favor of an end of the Cold War II with Russia than Trump.
    To blow up this treaty makes sense for the US if they try to oppose the Chinese rockets of this type. The dream would be, of course, to conclude a new contract which includes China. But China will not agree. They cover with these rockets all they really like to cover nearby, in particular, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and all the US bases nearby. So they will tell the US to ..... and to have as many of these rockets as they like.
    The chance of long term survival of humanity is, indeed, quite miserable.
    No, I don't think so. The straightforward stupid way is "more of the same" in the military-industrial complex. More money, even less state control of the results, full-scale corruption, more of the same old weapons presented in a new outlook but not containing any really important progress.
    Do you want to hint that it surprises me? It doesn't.
    BTW, isolationism was not at all about forbidding private companies to make private wars where they like. It was about the state being involved in such war games.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You believed the propaganda from a couple of familiar sources that had fooled you before, and ignored everything else. That's what gullible people do.
    Doing things Putin favors that make nuclear war more likely - short and long term - "makes sense" to you. That has been obvious for a while.
    You mean "Yes, I think so", in other words. After all, Trump is and was clearly the candidate that would deliver more of the Republican Party same in the military industrial complex, and has done exactly that - only with less competence, and therefore greater chances of disastrous error.
    It would, if you ever really thought Trump was more isolationist than other US politicians.
    Yes, it was. How do you think these horrible "regime change" wars get started and fought?
    You apparently have no idea how and why a country like the US launches disastrous wars against its own national interests. You apparently even missed the use of mercenaries in the Afghanistan and Iraq War - the last time a Republican President got his hands on US foreign policy, and made deals with the likes of Erik Prince while expanding the military role of the CIA and related agencies. That was less than fifteen years ago, and it's still in the news - how'd you miss it?
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    You repeat the same stupid accusations over and over, and always without providing any evidence. That's what propagandists do.
    We obviously disagree about what makes nuclear war more likely. Given this disagreement, your attack either makes no sense at all or is simply low level defamation.
    The increase of US military corruption spending was, indeed, what many Republicans want. The disagreement was about foreign policy - which is what interests me. If the US government money is spent in an incompetent way, this does not lead to disastrous errors, except for the US budget. It leads to the costly development of new weapons which give the US military power essentially nothing.
    Afghanistan and Iraq wars got started by the normal way wars between states are started, with the US military attacking the military power of the attacked state. That there were attempts to do a lot of things later with mercenaries is another question. An isolationist would not have started these wars. (The question how far a classical isolationist would have supported state-supported or even state-paid mercenaries as used today by the US, (with Russia following the example) is a different one. They certainly played a big role, especially pirates in naval warfare, and here I'm not aware of what classical isolationists thought about this particular question.)
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    All Republicans, including Trump.
    There was no "disagreement" about foreign policy, except Trump's odd attempts at collusion with Putin - and his incompetence, of course. For starters, Trump doesn't really have a foreign policy per se.
    Yep. I don't make exceptions for Putin, for example.
    Living and learning about fascism.
    Except the need to justify all the new stuff - such as a war. Or as Trump put it: why do we have all these nuclear weapons if we won't use them?
    (It's possible we are still in Afghanistan in part because of the advances in drone technology - the perfect theater for their development, which happened to kick in just as the US reached its opportunity to withdraw).
    Your ignorance of the "normal way" fascists launch wars is well established.
    It wasn't "later".
    All of a sudden we have "classical" isolationists - whatever.
    And then there are US Republican administrations, as under Reagan or W or Trump, who have been setting up paid proxy and paid paramilitary and paid guerrilla forces in their regime change operations for decades.
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    As if you need a war to sell the sheeple today new weapons. It is completely sufficient to invent a Russiagate or Salisbury and the sheeple accept anything
    An interesting possibility, but not really plausible, given that the CIA needs to control the Afghan drug income and the US propaganda does not simply allow to go away. So, this may be one aspect at best.
    Your refusal to give any evidence for what you think is correct is established much better.
    It was after the Blitzkrieg, which was in both wars a quite short period of time.
    Correct. Except that you have forgotten that the Dem administrations have done the same. Kosovo, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, ... Let's not forget Carter supporting the Mujaheddin and Al Qaida in Afghanistan, decades too.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It helps. You certainly need one to sell them the contracting and mercenary services, and they help launder the money.
    No, it wasn't.
    Not the same. Lesser. Much lesser than the Iraq War alone, and not original after Reagan.
  19. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    "The one-sided hatred on these shows is incredible and for me, unwatchable. But remember, WE are number one -- President!"
    -- Trump on late-night comedy/talk shows

    "I never did anything wrong."
    -- Trump
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I agree it helps. But once there is no necessity, one would not risk big wars. As it looks, the US is not ready for an open war neither against NK, nor Iran, nor Venezuela.

    It looks like Trump is satisfied with simply robbing the Venezuelan money in US and UK accounts. That's fine. Ok, it gives some money, but not that much (except if Chaves was stupid to trust US and UK leaving there much more than necessary). But it destroys the US and UK soft power in the financial sector, thus, in the long run, it is fine.
    Wow, iceaura admits even some evil done by Dems. That the Reps are much eviler is what one expects from iceaura.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    There is never "necessity". And yet the wars come.
    Disastrous war is seldom intentional. Trump's intentions are the least of your worries.
    It doesn't.
    But more to the point: You keep welcoming the decline of US soft power, as if US reliance on hard power were in your interest.
    You first. You posted the bullshit.
    Check the historical record of Republican administrations's use of mercenaries, beginning with Reagan. Read a history of Blackwater, founded in 1997 - one of whose founders, Erik Prince, is in tight with Trump as he was with W and the US Republican Party in general.
    As so many dozens of times before - you always seem surprised. Have you forgotten?
    The reality of the situation, yep - my contribution, to the best of my abilities.
    The Trump presidency is a Republican presidency.
    Trump = Republican, Republican = Trump.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I welcome the decline of US soft power because it will exhaust the financial ability of the US to support its hard power.

    Don't forget, a lot of this hard power are fixed costs, for maintaining US bases worldwide and for continuing the wars. If a serious economic crisis hits the US - which is quite possible if the petrodollar crashes - the US would have to reduce its military budget too. Given the large part of these fixed costs, this would probably require also a reduction of these fixed costs, thus, closing foreign bases or ending wars.

    I know that Trump tries hard to reduce these fixed costs by forcing the "allies" (vassals) to pay the costs of their "defense" (occupation). But I doubt this will be successful. Either one leaves these countries the possibility to say "ok, we don't want to pay, feel free to leave" - than those politicians who accept to pay will lose the next elections. Or one does not, but this means the true nature of the US bases becomes obvious - they become open occupation forces.
    The "bullshit" was this: "It was after the Blitzkrieg, which was in both wars a quite short period of time."
    Afghanistan Blitzkrieg: 2 months, in comparison to 2001–present.
    Iraq Blitzkrieg: 21 days, in comparison to 2003-2011.
    Your turn. I give you the ease that you have interpreted this as the claim that mercenaries have not played any role in this Blitzkrieg part, which I think is a quite natural consequence of what these mercenaries have. They are armed, but not heavily armed, thus, they are appropriately armed for the occupation of an already militarily defeated state, but not for combat operations against a not yet defeated army of another state. So, it would be sufficient for you to provide evidence of an important role of the mercenaries in combat operations during these initial periods.

Share This Page