The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

Fighting evil empires has always been a very honorable thing. So I'm proud that I have participated in the fight against communism 1989. And I'm proud now to participate in the fight against the US empire.

You are abetting the political faction in the US that is pushing hardest for empire - the faction that invaded Iraq, that pushed for the bombing of Kosovo, that keeps the US firmly backing Israel in the Middle East regardless of what it does, that attempts to deny even the existence of interfering circumstances such as AGW.

Trump being the exception of a president who has not started a war.

He was trying. W&Cheney tied him up, and then came the virus.
He started right in expanding the drone strikes, building a wall on the southern border, and reneging on treaties - it's just that W&Cheney didn't leave much room.

Internal conflict weakens the US externally. Then, once established, a totalitarian regime will harm the US economically. This will weaken also the US military power.

The US will turn to its military to make up for what it loses economically and socially - and even a much weakened US military, one that loses its big wars, will destroy its targets in the process - look at what happened to Vietnam and Iraq and all the countries around them, when the US lost those wars.

Would be a totalitarian US more dangerous? I doubt.

You err. The totalitarians in the US will probably use nuclear weapons, for example.

The US aim is world rule.

"The US" has no such aims.
Certain political factions within the US have that aim. You are posting their propaganda feed, slandering their opponents, and in all ways available to you helping them take power in the US.

No. The usual trivial error of thinking I believe Western propaganda

You repost it and defend it continually - in matters of domestic US politics, where you have no knowledge or experience of your own, US rightwing corporate authoritarian propaganda feeds are almost all you post.

 

[pjdude1219]

No. The usual trivial error of thinking I believe Western propaganda.

so facts are western proganda?

The US aim is world rule.

no it isn't

Neither Russia nor China want world rule.

if you honestly believe that you are even dumber than i thought. russia has a long history of meglomaniac rulers who want to rule over everyone. hell putins actions are trying to regain control over the places it lost influence over when the USSR fell. as for china perhaps not direct rule but it wants economic dominion over everyone. also one doesn't switch from a brown water to a blue water navy for peaceful reasons. about the only countries that legit have entirely peaceful reasons for having a blue water navy are the US and UK. and considering the debacle the falkands are the UK is debatable. [UOTE]The US starts wars on a regular basis,[/QUOTE] not really. all the recent us wars the spark was someone elses actions.

Trump being the exception of a president who has not started a war.

not for lack of trying. again we have the iranians restraint to thank for that not trump.

Neither Russia nor China have started wars during the last decades.

Russia literally invaded another country less than 5 years ago. russia has been involved in 11 wars in the past 30 years. in almost all of them they have been the aggressor. the sino-vietinmese conflicts ended 30 years ago. also china has been threatening most of its neighbors for years over the south china sea. as usual you flat out rewrite history to push your antiamerican hatred and pro russia propaganda.

 

[Schmelzer]

If you are so self focused as you demonstrate, of course using the "I" all the time makes sense... "I believe....." and just fill in the blanks..

I simply answer the arguments I see. Once the majority of those arguments are ad hominem or simply personal attacks or unbased speculations about me, the answer will necessarily contain a lot of "I". The alternative would be an answer full of personal attacks against you and speculations about your mental state, but this is not my style. If there would be arguments about content, there would be much less "I" in the answer.

oh there is no doubt that you are a true believer in the phrase "power corrupts". The very fundamental of a conspiracy theorist mind set.. yes?

I'm not a "true believer" of whatever. Even for the ideology which I prefer, libertarianism, I have a set of weak places and open problems in my mind. The phrase "power corrupts" is a quite good observation, but nothing close to some absolute truth. A conspiracy mindset is foreign for me. That there is some deep state in the US is IMHO quite obvious, that the Western mass media and now also the Western-controlled social media are under political control is something one can see by evaluating their products and observing there, in particular, consistent lies and distortions. To organize this is not that difficult given the concentration in the mass media sector as well as in the social media sector.

Born of severe oppression by corrupt powers such as the USSR etc...

I would have liked much more freedom, but oppression has not played a role in my personal life. My parents were communists, but not dogmatic, with friends in Slovakia and sympathies for the Prague Spring. Studying mathematics in Russia was high quality, and the university was a place of intellectual freedom in comparison with Germany.

The nature of post cold war trauma is not to be underestimated. ** ( on both sides )
Never knowing when there is going to be a home invasion by men wearing balaclavas and black gear...must be terrifying...

I had no such fears. And there was no base for them.

again there is that fear of power shining through... paranoid speculation as such...

See, the whole paragraph you quoted was simply naming a few facts of what Trump has done and what Obama has done, with the team which takes power now. The only speculation is that that same team will do the same things again. And you turn it, nonetheless, into something about me. And when attack me for being self-focused. It is you who is focused to find paranoia, conspiracy mindsets and other bad things in my person.

but you believe in pink flying elephants so why would I take your beliefs seriously?

It would be, indeed, preferable if you would just ignore them, given that you anyway don't argue about the content of these beliefs but develop wild fantasies about me which have nothing at all to do with me.

Maybe you could learn to seek other opinions because surely you already know your own...

I prefer to seek arguments. Opinions based on nothing are worthless. So I care only about opinions of people who seriously think about questions before expressing opinions.

You are abetting the political faction in the US that is pushing hardest for empire - the faction that invaded Iraq, that pushed for the bombing of Kosovo, that keeps the US firmly backing Israel in the Middle East regardless of what it does, that attempts to deny even the existence of interfering circumstances such as AGW.

No. I preferred Trump as less evil than Clinton, Obama and Co. That the Rep establishment was against Trump was obvious. The division I have seen was between nationalists and globalists. Trump's program was nationalist, the reality some strange and inconsistent compromise, name it as you like. Now the globalists have power again.

The US will turn to its military to make up for what it loses economically and socially - and even a much weakened US military, one that loses its big wars, will destroy its targets in the process - look at what happened to Vietnam and Iraq and all the countries around them, when the US lost those wars.

How one makes up for economic and social losses? How this happens in democracies is clear and well-known: The sheeple support the warmongers, even if they crash the economy and the social system. But in a totalitarian society? Where it does not matter what the sheeple think? In such a society war makes sense only when one can win it and make profit from this, gaining territory/resources and so on. (An exaggeration, given that even totalitarian regimes are not completely independent of popular support, so some part of the democratic motivation for wars remains.)

The totalitarians in the US will probably use nuclear weapons, for example.

But only against much weaker enemies. Think about Venezuela, but not Russia. Not even Iran.

"The US" has no such aims.

Add "elites", "deep state", or "globalists", as you like. They have a lot of power as among the Reps, as among the Dems. In fact, our difference is not that big, except that you seem to present only the Reps as evil and even the worst Dems as somehow more harmless, while I see actually the Reps part not as harmless but as weak, given that the nationalists/Trumpists are sufficiently strong there now.

so facts are western proganda?

Once you name something "fact", it is certainly Western propaganda. (If you sometimes, by accident, simply say some facts, there would be no point to name them "facts", nobody would object.)

also one doesn't switch from a brown water to a blue water navy for peaceful reasons.

Those who have the strongest blue water navy today don't have it for peaceful reasons. That's well-known. A blue water navy is reasonable if you have a lot of trade going through blue water, and if some of those trade routes can be cut by the blue water navy of enemies. Both points are correct for China. They have not forgotten how Japan was treated before Pearl Harbor.

Russia literally invaded another country less than 5 years ago.

Nonsense, as explained many times.

also china has been threatening most of its neighbors for years over the south china sea.

China uses some useless rocks to build artificial island which have a very obvious aim: To protect their own trade routes against US control. The US tries to prevent this, and motivating the neighbors to start diplomatic conflicts about this garbage useless for them is one strategy.

 

[Schmelzer]

total nonsense.. and I can prove it... just by looking around were I live...not a yank in sight, no guns, no oppression...just good 'ole Australian freedom..

You don't even recognize that Australia is already under globalist control.

Think about what matters for the globalists. They want to be able to control the government of the states. Not every detail done by the government is interesting for the global rule. Most of those things they want to control this way will be quite irrelevant for your personal freedom. There is no point of sending yanks with guns - they don't have enough even to control Afghanistan. What matters is that they can force the Australian government to do what they like, what is important for them. That's all.

How this control works? Much of it on a level you don't even know about. Politicians need connections, and connections with the US are important connections. That's quite open. In Germany, there is the Atlantikbrücke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantik-Brücke If somebody has connections with it, it is a US controlled guy, it is that simple. Then, there are established ways to get rid of those politicians who have done something wrong. The media will be informed about something scandalous, and start a media campaign, and this is the end of that politician. And only in exceptional, catastrophic scenarios one has to start something more powerful - a color revolution, and, if even this is not sufficient, a civil war.

And you will not even recognize that the US is behind that color revolution. Because that is a conspiracy theory, your TV tells you.

 

[sculptor]

Question:
Does TRump really believe that had the elections been fair and honest, he would have won re-election?

..............................
Anyone who does not believe that election fraud is now and has been common in this country knows nothing of our history.
That is not in doubt.
What is in doubt is whether or not the election rigging was more common during this recent election.

Your thoughts?

 

[Tiassa]

You could have proven your point by a single link to some Western paper where the impossibility of fraud with mail-in votes would have been shown in some detail.

Actually, even James R is aware of certain affecting points:

1) Sometimes that doesn't actually work with make-believe, because not only is it hard to predict what some random person out in the world will invent, it is often difficult to discern what they're actually on about.

2) No, that doesn't actually work with certain types of fallacious arguments when another advocate intends to keep pushing excrement, anyway.

3) Kind of like the report and its use of the word "entirely", so also is your use of the word "impossibility" problematic: "the impossibility of fraud with mail-in votes would have been shown in some detail". Impossibility is an impossible standard. But this is what easily available resources, such as those provided by the Brennan Center↱, can explain:

Mail balloting is not a newfangled idea; it was already deeply embedded in the American electoral system before the coronavirus hit. In the last two federal elections, roughly one out of every four Americans cast a mail ballot. In five states — Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington — mail balloting has been the primary method of voting. In 28 additional states, all voters have had the right to vote by mail ballot if they choose, without having to provide any reason or excuse. Over time, a growing number of voters have chosen that option. Since 2000 more than 250 million votes have been cast via mailed-out ballots, in all 50 states, according to the Vote at Home Institute. In 2018, more than 31 million Americans cast their ballots by mail, about 25.8 percent of election participants.

Despite this dramatic increase in mail voting over time, fraud rates remain infinitesimally small. None of the five states that hold their elections primarily by mail has had any voter fraud scandals since making that change. As the New York Times editorial board notes, "states that use vote-by-mail have encountered essentially zero fraud: Oregon, the pioneer in this area, has sent out more than 100 million mail-in ballots since 2000, and has documented only about a dozen cases of proven fraud." That's 0.00001 percent of all votes cast. An exhaustive investigative journalism analysis of all known voter fraud cases identified only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012. As election law professor Richard L. Hasen notes, during that period "literally billions of votes were cast." While mail ballots are more susceptible to fraud than in-person voting, it is still more likely for an American to be struck by lightning than to commit mail voting fraud.​

Or, to reiterate a point from another discussion↗: There are multiple states that conduct reliable mail-in elections, and have for years.​

What we know is the affirmative history of our elections. Nor is this obscure history; one need not be a professional analyst, or even an American, to understand the basic facts.

Moreover, given the intelligence and capability we might reasonably presume of such interested advocates, we can reasonably expect they are aware. Where the so-called quantitative analysis↑ labors exclude the inconveniences of reality, so also are you aware of the basic sketch of American mail voting, and what remains mysterious is your decision to set that aside while making a fallacious demand. The report authors seem to be rely on an untenable confusion between infrequency and surprise; the idea that any single link could prove anything to you according to a standard of impossibility is just kind of silly, and toward that, yes there is a reasonable question of why you would set aside the basics in order to make a fallacious demand.
____________________

Notes:

Weiser, Wendy R and Harold Ekeh. "The False Narrative of Vote-by-Mail Fraud". The Brennan Center. 10 April 2020. BrennanCenter.org. 4 December 2020. https://bit.ly/2VG3Hhw

 

[Schmelzer]

Tiassa has made some points arguing that mail-in votes are fine. At least in some states or so. But my argument was about something different:

Think about what the world (except Western propaganda sheeple) believes if Trump claims that mail-in votes can be easily manipulated. It would have been easy for the Western propaganda to prove that this is a fake claim, by describing in detail all the already existing measures which would make a falsification of such votes impossible. But the only reaction I have seen in the Western press was "Trump is lying as usual", without providing evidence for this

So, the argument was not about the safety of mail-in votes, but about the PR disaster, and I have identified the "Trump is lying as usual" ad hominem instead of giving arguments about the content (like the facts provided here by Tiassa) as a part of this PR disaster. The answer was:

Clearly they don't let you read enough of the Western press.

Which suggests that the Western press has written much more than "Trump is lying as usual". Without any support. It could have easily supported with evidence:

You could have proven your point by a single link to some Western paper where the impossibility of fraud with mail-in votes would have been shown in some detail. This should have been easy, given that the claims made by Trump have been widely discussed.

Tiassa makes the point that my response sets the plank quite high:

Impossibility is an impossible standard.

Ok, to make my point I should have used a lower standard. But is it really impossible? One should not forget that to steal an election one needs a lot of faked votes and some organization. To guarantee zero faked votes may be indeed impossible. But to make a large scale organized election stealing impossible is something which could have been reached easily. The measures described in that link would at least prevent some of the possibilities to fake - if implemented consistently in all states.

But, whatever, he has at least given a link to some think tank. Not really mass media, but at least something close enough, and, most importantly, a link arguing about the content.

In fact, a link to some think tank is even more interesting because one can require here some higher standards (not?) A think tank worth to "think" part in its name should have done a better job. Namely, to identify the weak points. This starts with the presentation of various attack possibilities. Not seen there. Once the situation is different in different states, to identify those weak points by state. Not seen there. And to find out what is actually adopted (not "which many jurisdictions are starting to adopt"). At April 10, 2020, an identification of the most problematic weak points would have allowed to change something. So this looks more like nobody was interested to remove those weak points.

Then, there are even quite obvious problems with the arguments too.

As the New York Times editorial board notes, "states that use vote-by-mail have encountered essentially zero fraud: Oregon, the pioneer in this area, has sent out more than 100 million mail-in ballots since 2000, and has documented only about a dozen cases of proven fraud." That's 0.00001 percent of all votes cast. An exhaustive investigative journalism analysis of all known voter fraud cases identified only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012.

This is a quite empty argument. Because voting fraud makes sense only in very special circumstances, and with some organization behind this. What matters is the possibility, not if that possibility has been used in the past. (We can even ignore here that one knows only those cases which have been detected. Those which remained undetected remain unknown.)
Not from the link, but

There are multiple states that conduct reliable mail-in elections, and have for years.

Let's see what this tells us. "Multiple" means how many? Certainly not "all" or "almost all". Because, if this would have been the case, one would write "all" resp. "almost all" instead of "multiple". So there are also multiple states which don't have reliable mail-in elections. Which is already a heavy failure, degrading the US as a whole, once it allows such things, to some banana republic. The link gives nothing better - it lists a lot of measures, but remains silent how many states use these measures. Are the critical swing states among those with reliable or with unreliable mail-in elections? Remains unclear.

With nothing better than these arguments, it makes sense for the mainstream press not to argue at all but to restrict oneself to "Trump is lying as usual".

 

[iceaura]

I simply answer the arguments I see.

In matters of domestic American politics or inconvenient physical reality, you don't. You very seldom address other people's arguments, and then only as the Western propaganda operation you rely on happens to be addressing them.
- - - -

What is in doubt is whether or not the election rigging was more common during this recent election.

Your thoughts?

Whether the rampant and flagrant and apparently effective election rigging that has come to be accepted as normal by US citizens was more "common" this time around is an almost meaningless question.

The main issue is not the existence in abstract of generalized and vaguely referenced rigging attempts, but the origin and scale and effects of the actual rigging attempts that were made in the real world as focused on this election.
Of course this election was subject to concentrated and well-funded and possibly effective rigging attempts by various means criminal and otherwise. But the large majority of them, and by far the most effective, were once again in the service of the Republican Party, Republican candidates for office large and small, the Republican governing agenda, etc, and were of familiar types openly and vigorously employed by the Republican Party and its corporate backers for the last few decades. (How else could a minority Party without majority support among the adult citizenry or voting public, one that repeatedly created disasters and committed horrors whenever it had the opportunity, maintain its hold on the State and Federal governments of the US for decades? )

Both points are correct for China. They have not forgotten how Japan was treated before Pearl Harbor.

They have not forgotten how China was treated by Japan before Pearl Harbor, either - and that, as much as "trade routes", would be on the minds of the phony island builders.

. In fact, our difference is not that big, except that you seem to present only the Reps as evil and even the worst Dems as somehow more harmless, while I see actually the Reps part not as harmless but as weak, given that the nationalists/Trumpists are sufficiently strong there now.

Your silly delusion about Americans like me presenting only the Reps as bad guys comes from your reliance on Republican propaganda for all your information about US politics - to the point of overruling the evidence in front of your eyes, in the case of my posts here (It's especially silly after Presidential campaigns by the likes of Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton - but like the rest of the wingnut crowd you haven't recovered from the brain damage you suffered during Bill Clinton's Presidency).
That's also where you got that foolishness about Trump being somehow not a typical Republican, but instead a "nationalist" or some such nonsense, and the even more foolish fantasy about the existence of "Trumpists" who are not Republicans like those other Republicans. That's the latest line from the Republican Party media feed (see any major American news and punditry outlet) and it's working - you are not unusual in your revision of history, your pretense that the Republican Party was turned into something new and unprecedented in 2016, your inability to recognize the role of corporate capitalism in US foreign war and policy, etc.

There are no "Trumpists". There are Republicans, Trump is their President, and the wealthy corporate interests that market the Republican Party to them (along with a smaller but significant number of Democratic allies) are the most powerful and damaging "globalists" in the US right now. If you were capable of recognizing fascism that would be obvious to you, even as ignorant as you are of US. circumstances - militarized rightwing authoritarians in control of multinational and international capitalist corporations, who willingly sacrifice the national interests of their own country and the good of their fellow citizens for global alliances and personal wealth, are not "nationalists". The Republican Party goes warmongering in the service of its capitalist corporate support - and science denying, economically bullying, coup and revolution starting, freedom destroying, police State installing, etc etc etc. Trump is no different - the US President he resembles most closely is Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile: The difference between me and someone who thinks the unified, controlling, militarized, fundie religion imposing, currently dominant and most powerful "globalists" in the US are weaker than the coopted, allied, and dominated ones is pretty big. When that is merely one aspect of a coherent pattern of reality denial and crass propaganda gullibility by an ignorant foreigner, it becomes a polar opposition. You are complicit with a fascist movement that threatens to take over the most powerful military and oldest democratic government in the world, one that has already turned the natural capitalist corporate lean toward authoritarian and coercive governance into abusive and violent impositions around the globe - childish ignorance and a schoolboy "libertarian" fantasy life do not excuse that.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So, the argument was not about the safety of mail-in votes, but about the PR disaster, and I have identified the "Trump is lying as usual" ad hominem instead of giving arguments about the content (like the facts provided here by Tiassa) as a part of this PR disaster.

A PR disaster of Trumps creation! His incompetence knows no bounds.
The only test that matters is that of the courts and so far Trump has been proven to be lying and will go to extraordinary lengths to support his totally unfounded claim as his self destructive vanity requires him to do.

There is a big difference :
"The vote must be rigged because I lost" -vanity
and
"The vote has been rigged as the evidence demonstrates" - reality

 

[iceaura]

So, the argument was not about the safety of mail-in votes, but about the PR disaster,

The PR assault was Trump and the rest of the Republican media feed lying as usual - two more or less accurate descriptions of one physical event.

What matters is the possibility, not if that possibility has been used in the past.

What matters in reality is what really happened.

One should not forget that to steal an election one needs a lot of faked votes and some organization

Not at all. The Republican theft of Florida's Presidential election in 2000 required very few if any faked votes, for example.
The people who have the means to fake votes easily also have the means to do more effective and much less visible

To guarantee zero faked votes may be indeed impossible.

Zero faked votes is quite common, even in stolen elections - "faking" votes is not how it's done by the organized and professional.

At April 10, 2020, an identification of the most problematic weak points would have allowed to change something.

The weak points of various State's voting and vote counting systems have been quite thoroughly, consistently, and loudly identified for decades now, in the US (see for example "Black Box Voting" and similar organizations https://blackboxvoting.org ).
Informed people in the US take such information for granted, and do not need to see it repeated over and over and over for year after year until the Schmelzer's of this world notice its existence.

If you want to know what happened to the various proposals, lawsuits, legislative initiatives, and so forth, by those attempting to make changes, you can find out easily by reading up on the many websites and accounts and so forth a simple keyword search will hand you. Briefly: the Republican Party and its corporate backers blocked them. The Republican Party does not now and never has wanted to improve the security and validity of the voting systems in the US - all such improvements reduce the chance that a Republican politician will be elected to office.

Because voting fraud makes sense only in very special circumstances, and with some organization behind this.

The massive and lavishly funded century-old effort to suppress the votes of racial, religious, economic, ethnic, and demographic groups more likely to vote against a standard post-Reagan Republican candidate is indeed organized - the only "special circumstances" it needed to make sense to its financial backers and political promoters was the existence of the possibility of representative government being elected to power by majority vote.

 

[pjdude1219]

Once you name something "fact", it is certainly Western propaganda. (If you sometimes, by accident, simply say some facts, there would be no point to name them "facts", nobody would object.)

so you admit your making shit up than? or do you think only you get to decide whats fact? cause you seem like most right wingers decide whats "factual" by what lines up with your ideology and not what evidence says.

Those who have the strongest blue water navy today don't have it for peaceful reasons. That's well-known. A blue water navy is reasonable if you have a lot of trade going through blue water, and if some of those trade routes can be cut by the blue water navy of enemies. Both points are correct for China. They have not forgotten how Japan was treated before Pearl Harbor.

like you don't even know what the term means. and you are wrong the strongest blue water navies are actually for peaceful purposes. the 3 countries that have a rank 1 or 2 nave according to the todd-lindberg classification system use them mainly for free trade purposes. of the rank 3 powers china is perhaps the most aggressive of the 4. in fact the country you naturally label as the most evil is perhaps the most peaceful of the bunch western italy. the other 2 at this rank are russia and india.

Nonsense, as explained many times.

yes your conspiracy theories and defense of war crimes are nonsense. doesn't change the fact russia has invaded other countries and illegaly annexed portions of them.

China uses some useless rocks to build artificial island which have a very obvious aim: To protect their own trade routes against US control. The US tries to prevent this, and motivating the neighbors to start diplomatic conflicts about this garbage useless for them is one strategy.

bullshit. its about interfering with other countries EEZ it has nothing to do with protecting their trade routes. it about pure aggression. you live in a fucked up orwellian fantasy world where peaceful countries are violent and aggressive ones are peaceful. you remind me of another poster who was once here who had the same basic mind set, that the us misdeeds excuses any and all crimes of everyone else. you support war crimes you don't get to lecture anyone on morality when it comes to geopolitics.

 

[Janus58]

Question:
Does TRump really believe that had the elections been fair and honest, he would have won re-election?

His niece seems to think that he really believes this. Not due to any substantial evidence, but because he is psychologically incapable of seeing himself as someone who loses. In his mind, the fact he lost proves fraud.

 

[LazarusLong]

Question:
Does TRump really believe that had the elections been fair and honest, he would have won re-election?

..............................
Anyone who does not believe that election fraud is now and has been common in this country knows nothing of our history.
That is not in doubt.
What is in doubt is whether or not the election rigging was more common during this recent election.

Your thoughts?

Trump put together a team to root out the election fraud after the 2016 election. They found no evidence of fraud and they gave up. This election was more closely watched than any in history. So far, trump is 1-43 in lawsuits. There is no widespread fraud. He doesn’t believe it either. He is using these claims to rack up donations. So far it’s around $180 million.

 

[Schmelzer]

so you admit your making shit up than?

No. Learn to read.

or do you think only you get to decide whats fact?

LOL. Pjdude1219 thinks he can "decide whats fact". As if the facts would have to care about his decisions.

like you don't even know what the term means. and you are wrong the strongest blue water navies are actually for peaceful purposes. the 3 countries that have a rank 1 or 2 nave according to the todd-lindberg classification system use them mainly for free trade purposes. of the rank 3 powers china is perhaps the most aggressive of the 4. in fact the country you naturally label as the most evil is perhaps the most peaceful of the bunch western italy. the other 2 at this rank are russia and india.

As if that classification would matter. Even much less matters your propaganda claim about "peaceful purposes", LOL.

bullshit. its about interfering with other countries EEZ it has nothing to do with protecting their trade routes.

LOL. I bet as China, as their neighbors would agree on a simple compromise, namely the EEZ remains as if these islands were not Chinese, but the 12 miles around these rockets become Chinese territory, if the US would not try everything to prevent such an agreement.

it about pure aggression. you live in a fucked up orwellian fantasy world where peaceful countries are violent and aggressive ones are peaceful.

LOL. It is sufficient to look at the wars started by the US, Russia, China, Iran, to see who is peaceful and who is violent. The Sino-Vietnamese war was, btw, a short reaction against the occupation of Kampuchea by Vietnam. After a few weeks the Chinese declared victory (Vietnam penalized for the aggression) and stopped the war, leaving Vietnamese territory. Similarly small have been border conflicts with the Soviet Union before.

 

[pjdude1219]

No. Learn to read.

i can read just fine. i wonder about you

LOL. Pjdude1219 thinks he can "decide whats fact". As if the facts would have to care about his decisions.

jesus christ the smoking caterpillar from alice in wonderland makes more sense than you do. you are the one casually dismissing facts simply because they are inconvienent to your position not me. i rely on evidence. you should try it some time.

As if that classification would matter.

maybe you should learn what it is before you dismiss it out of hand. the classification is very much the matter at hand.

Even much less matters your propaganda claim about "peaceful purposes", LOL.

its not propaganda its fact. the main usage of the american, british, and french fleets are anti piracy operations and freedom of navigation operations. in fact it is the US navy that is the principle defender of freedom of navigation and the US as an advocate of freedom of navigation dates back to the countries founding. again your insane conspiracy theories aren't fact.

LOL. I bet as China, as their neighbors would agree on a simple compromise, namely the EEZ remains as if these islands were not Chinese, but the 12 miles around these rockets become Chinese territory, if the US would not try everything to prevent such an agreement.

you don't know what an EEZ do you? and no countries aren't going to give up there rights simply because china wants to be agressive.

LOL. It is sufficient to look at the wars started by the US, Russia, China, Iran, to see who is peaceful and who is violent.

can you name me one war the US did not have a legit casus belli? because we've had one every time. some times theyve been shaky but they've always been there. QUOTE]The Sino-Vietnamese war was, btw, a short reaction against the occupation of Kampuchea by Vietnam. After a few weeks the Chinese declared victory (Vietnam penalized for the aggression) and stopped the war, leaving Vietnamese territory. Similarly small have been border conflicts with the Soviet Union before.[/QUOTE] if i meant the war i would have said the war. now who needs to learn how to read. russia and china which you defend as peaceful have been far more aggressive than the US. again the US misdeeds doesn't not excuse the war crimes of others.

 

[Schmelzer]

Pjdude1219 continues to think that crying "fact" makes quite primitive propaganda lies facts.

can you name me one war the US did not have a legit casus belli?

All of them after 1945. With the exception of the Korea war, where the stupidity of Khrushchov allowed the US to get a legal base for their genocidal war. Everything else where at best fakes (Golf of Tonkin), but usually not even the fake would have given a legit casus belli (say, for the Iraq war).

 

[pjdude1219]

Pjdude1219 continues to think that crying "fact" makes quite primitive propaganda lies facts.

maybe you should try refuting what i say instead of childishly calling everything you disagree with propaganda.

All of them after 1945.

bold of you to admit to being such twit.

With the exception of the Korea war, where the stupidity of Khrushchov allowed the US to get a legal base for their genocidal war.

once again you blame the us for what the people you support do.

Everything else where at best fakes (Golf of Tonkin), but usually not even the fake would have given a legit casus belli (say, for the Iraq war).

just because im in a mood and bored imma gonna call your bullshit.

the first indochina war. called to war by an ally in war and in protection of client state. perfectly legit.

korean war. was literally called to war by an ally that was invaded. and was not genocidal.

operation ajax. not legit and the world is still paying for this fuck up.

loatian civil war. protecting a state from foreign interference legit

1958 lebanon crisis. was literally invited in by the president of lebanon

bay of pigs. legit casus belli cuba was trying to set up aggressive act against america in south america but bad idea.

simba rebellion: legit again supporting a client state or invited in

veitnam war. invited in by a client state. the gulf of tonkin had nothing to do with the casus belli and was an excuse to directly get involved militarily. not surprising you got basic historical facts wrong given your entire mind set is based on russian and chinese info wars and your blind hatred of the us.

communist insurgency of thailand: defending a client state legit

korean dmz conflict: again defending an ally

dominican civil war: defending a country from a coup attempt that got other american countries involved in. legit

insurgency in bolivia: invited in so again legit.

cambodian civil war: involved to protect an ally. legit

war in south zaire. again invited in so legit

soviet afghan war: reaction to soviet invasion. legit casus belli but bad idea

operation eagle claw. legit unless you are dumb enough to argue a country has no right to protect its diplomatic core which given some of the arguments ive seen you make i could see you doing.

gulf of sidra incident. literally returned fire when attacked

lebanese civil war: invited in

invasion of grenada: happened at the request of the organization of eastern carribean states. so yeah legit

action in the gulf of sidra.: a response to hostile acts in international waters legit

bombing of libya: again response to hostile actions legit

tobruk encounter: a response to hostile actions legit

invasion of panama: response to a declaration of war legit

first gulf war. legit defending kuwait. ( though iraq did have a legit cassus belli themselves)

as well you get the picture. in almost every case the us had a legit reason to go to war. wasn't always a wise decision. you need to give up your mindless hatred and find some unbiased sources

 

[Schmelzer]

maybe you should try refuting what i say instead of childishly calling everything you disagree with propaganda.

Done often enough, but after the third repetition I stop such things.

Not sure what to do with the long list of one-liners. Let's start with general remarks.

First of all, the question was about wars, not about support for military actions of legit governments against insurgencies. Once this is what is claimed in most of these one-liners, these would be simply not wars in the meaning relevant for international law. For wars, the general situation is quite simple: Once he names it a war, it is an illegal war automatically, given that there was no declaration of war. War without declaration of war is an illegitimate war, and there was no declaration of war by the US after WW II.

Of course, it makes sense to exclude military actions which have been explicitly legitimized by the UNSC. That's why I have excluded the Korea war. Then, I had simply forgotten about the Gulf war which had also a legitimization by the UNSC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678

Let's look now at a few. This one first:

invasion of panama: response to a declaration of war legit

because I have to admit that I have not known that Noriega was so stupid to declare war. Quite strange, indeed. So I have tried to find out about the motivation, and found this:
Quigley, J. (1990). The Legality of the United States Invasion of Panama. Yale Journal of International Law 15:276
So, a US source, thus, plausibly even with pro-US prejudice. We read:

In September 1989, when the newly-installed government took office, the United States refused to recognize it and suspended the importation of Panamanian sugar.32 In October, the United States played a role in encouraging an unsuccessful military coup against General Noriega; 33 in November, the United States military made serious contingency plans to invade Panama. Moreover, on November 30, the United States added an additional economic sanction, refusing to permit Panamanian-registered ships to dock at U.S. ports.34 Since Panama gained significant revenue by allowing ships to use Panamanian registry as a "flag of convenience," this action dealt a major blow to Panama's economy. 35 In response to this sanction, on December 15, 1989, the National Assembly of Panama adopted a resolution stating that Panama and the United States were "in a state of war."'

First of all, this sounds like a polemical description of the de-facto situation, not as a formal declaration of war. But, then, the support of a military coup is already an act of aggression. So, it was the US which started the aggression. The ref. 33 above is to "Bush Aides Admit a US. Role in Coup, and Bad Handling,'N.Y. Times, Oct. 6, 1989, at Al, col. 6", that means, this act of aggression has been admitted by the US side.

The paper itself concludes:

Neither of the two bases the United States asserted to justify its invasion of Panama is adequate. Each falls short of providing a justification under applicable principles of international law. The self-defense claim fails because the United States did not demonstrate that Panama had attacked the United States or was about to do so. The claim based on the Panama Canal treaties of 1977 fails because the treaties do not give the United States a right to intervene against Panama, and even if they did, Panama had not threatened the Canal's operation.

and mentions also the international condemnation:

By a vote of twenty to one - the sole negative vote being that of the United States2 54 - the Organization of American States adopted a resolution which said that members "deeply regret" the invasion,25 5 called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and supported "the right of the Panamanian people to self-determination without outside interference. ' 25 6 The O.A.S. condemned the invasion despite its previous criticism of General Noriega and its efforts to convince him to give up power.
In the United Nations Security Council, a majority voted for a draft resolution declaring that the intervention violated international law, though vetoes by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France killed the resolution.258 The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution, 75-20, to "strongly deplore" the intervention and to demand the immediate withdrawal of United States forces from Panama.259 Clearly, the majority of states considered the action to be unlawful.

This line is especially interesting because it illustrates what this dude considers to be a "legit casus belli".

bay of pigs. legit casus belli cuba was trying to set up aggressive act against america in south america but bad idea.

Facepalm. For that operation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion Wiki is far from neutral, and considered to be heavily prejudiced in favor of Western propaganda, thus, it cannot be reasonably blamed to be anti-Western. So we read here

Recognizing that Castro and his government were becoming increasingly hostile and openly opposed to the United States, Eisenhower directed the CIA to begin preparations of invading Cuba and overthrow the Castro regime.

There is not even a hint for a legitimate casus belli. And therefore even those criminals recognized that the US intervention should be hidden:

The first stated objective of the plan was to "bring about the replacement of the Castro regime with one more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S. in such a manner to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention."

And that dude defends this as legit. I think there is no reason to consider here and now all these other one-liners, I would guess one can find there similar distortions too.

Last but not least, let's consider this:

korean war. was literally called to war by an ally that was invaded. and was not genocidal.

Not genocidal? Let's see what Wiki writes:

The Korean War was among the most destructive conflicts of the modern era, with approximately 3 million war fatalities and a larger proportional civilian death toll than World War II or the Vietnam War. It incurred the destruction of virtually all of Korea's major cities ...
...
On 5 November 1950, General Stratemeyer gave the following order to the commanding general of the Fifth Air Force: "Aircraft under Fifth Air Force control will destroy all other targets including all buildings capable of affording shelter." The same day, twenty-two B-29s attacked Kanggye, destroying 75% of the city. After MacArthur was removed as UN Supreme Commander in Korea in April 1951, his successors continued this policy and ultimately extended it to all of North Korea.[360] The U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, on Korea, more than during the whole Pacific campaign of World War II.[361][362] North Korea ranks alongside Cambodia (500,000 tons), Laos (2 million tons) and South Vietnam (4 million tons) as among the most heavily bombed countries in history, with Laos suffering the most extensive bombardment relative to its size and population.

Destroying "all buildings capable of affording shelter" is, according to that dude, not genocidal.

 

[iceaura]

All of them after 1945. With the exception of the Korea war, where the stupidity of Khrushchov allowed the US to get a legal base for their genocidal war.

First of all, the question was about wars, not about support for military actions of legit governments against insurgencies.

According to the Schmelzer standard even the Vietnam War was legally ok.
The US, like Russia, has had no problem meeting the Schmelzer standard of "legit" or "legal" for its non-war wars - the standard you used to defend Russia's military operations in Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc, on this forum. It's garbage, of course - the US has been very violent and destructive all over the planet, indefensibly - but it's garbage from anyone, not just the US.

LOL. It is sufficient to look at the wars started by the US, Russia, China, Iran, to see who is peaceful and who is violent.

Russia and China have both been quite happy to start wars since recovering from WWII - no point in confusing incapability with morality. Even more to the point, both of those countries have expanded their territory by military conquest even after they became nuclear powers - the US has not done that.

Iran, now, you have a point.

But as is perfectly clear in Iran, and becomes clear with a bit of curiosity and search into the origins and prosecutions of the many other US military ventures, the domestic origin of most of this warmaking is the very US faction whose representation you abet and whose taking of power you welcome.

 

[pjdude1219]

Done often enough, but after the third repetition I stop such things.

calling it propaganda is not refuting it

Not sure what to do with the long list of one-liners. Let's start with general remarks.

there were no one liners.

First of all, the question was about wars, not about support for military actions of legit governments against insurgencies.

actually the question about having a legit cause for war in the US militaries ventures but sure move the goal posts.

Once this is what is claimed in most of these one-liners,

again no one liners. a lone liner is a joke. i don't find violence to be a joke. you seem to.

these would be simply not wars in the meaning relevant for international law.

yes they would.

For wars, the general situation is quite simple: Once he names it a war, it is an illegal war automatically, given that there was no declaration of war. War without declaration of war is an illegitimate war, and there was no declaration of war by the US after WW II.

????????? what does that have to do with a cassus belli?

But, then, the support of a military coup is already an act of aggression. So, it was the US which started the aggression.

you clearly never understood the point being made. i never said the us was never the aggressor., i said that the US always had a legit cause for war. you are embaressing yourself here.

This line is especially interesting because it illustrates what this dude considers to be a "legit casus belli".

i find it more interesting that you don't seem to understand what a cassus belli is.

Facepalm. For that operation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion Wiki is far from neutral, and considered to be heavily prejudiced in favor of Western propaganda, thus, it cannot be reasonably blamed to be anti-Western. So we read here

wikipedia is not biased toward the west. must be great to not have to think and just claim everything against is biased or proganda.

There is not even a hint for a legitimate casus belli. And therefore even those criminals recognized that the US intervention should be hidden:

so you think countries do not have the right to respond to hostile actions against them? and having a legit cassus belli and a war being moral or ethical are 2 different things. if you were as smart and unbiased as you think you are, you are not, you would have realized that when i stated that that Iraq had a legit cassus belli for invading kuwait. which they did.

And that dude defends this as legit.

removing a hostile actor is a legit cause for war. your favor war criminals have literally annexed territory from sovreign nations with less justifaction than the Us had in most if not all of these. I think there is no reason to consider here and now all these other one-liners, I would guess one can find there similar distortions too.

Last but not least, let's consider this:

Not genocidal? Let's see what Wiki writes:

Destroying "all buildings capable of affording shelter" is, according to that dude, not genocidal.

genocide requires intent to destroy a people. there was none of that. i get that you don't deal with reality and think russia invasions of its neighbors is peaceful but truth matters and the bullshit you spout is not truth.