The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

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.

Yep. Now - your evidence?
This will not do, of course:

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.

Military roles and operations that happened are not evidence of mercenary operations and roles that did not.
You need information.

Check the historical record of Republican administrations's use of mercenaries, beginning with Reagan.

- - - -

Or one does not, but this means the true nature of the US bases becomes obvious - they become open occupation forces.

No kidding. Funny how that works.

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

Hard power can be self supporting - that's fascism's SOP. When you can't see fascism coming, that's part of what you can't see.

Putin can see it. How else can Russia, with a kleptocratic economy about the size of Italy's and essentially no soft power, keep its place at the power tables?

 

[arfa brane]

I'm currently trying to deal with feelings of grief and a certain shame, over recent events in my country of birth. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here.

I've come to the realisation that I shouldn't let some Aussie shithead make me feel like that. And I don't believe I'm alone in the sense that Kiwis aren't going to let him do it to them either. We're going to send a big Fuck You to those who think this sort of shit is somehow justified, that we should read, rather than just burn, their supremacist bullshit propaganda.

The white folks do need saving though, from assholes like him; He would best not end up in the general population of whatever prison they put him in.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The fact that Trump appears to soft peddle on the issue is again telling of the fears he has regarding domestic extremism. He appears to be attempting to maintain a neutral stance, which suggest some sort of coercion is being applied. (threat of assassination, civil war etc). He appears to be prepared to trade positive political benefit for white supremacist apolog-ism.

just thoughts...

The white folks do need saving though, from assholes like him; He would best not end up in the general population of whatever prison they put him in.

Given that most of the prison folk and not Germanic Anglo white (as such) he should have a "great " time of it..... ( sarc )

 

[Schmelzer]

Yep. Now - your evidence?
Military roles and operations that happened are not evidence of mercenary operations and roles that did not.

How do you think the evidence for non-existence should look like?

A hint: There is no such animal as evidence for non-existence, and that's why the burden of proof is on the side of those who claim existence.

Hard power can be self supporting - that's fascism's SOP.

It can be - if applied in a way which gives income. Which it gave, say, by preventing Ghadafi from creating an own African gold-based currency, or earlier preventing Hussein from selling oil in Euro. Or forcing essentially the whole world to open their markets to the US. In other words, if applied to create some sorts of soft power. But Trump actually destroys it, instead of enlarging it with hard power. If intentionally or out of stupidity does not matter, what matters is that it happens.

Putin can see it. How else can Russia, with a kleptocratic economy about the size of Italy's and essentially no soft power, keep its place at the power tables?

By resisting the US pressure. For doing this you need hard power - else you end like Ghaddafi. And you need an economy not vulnerable to sanctions, which Russia has. Once you can do it, it gives you some power which is much greater than the pure economy. You can have your own foreign policy, something very difficult for, say, Japan and Germany. And in particular, independence is soft power, even a lot of this, essentially the most important form of soft power.

BTW, if it is Russia which has a kleptocratic economy and not the US, the Russian military based on 10% of the US budget would not be visible at all in comparison.

 

[iceaura]

By resisting the US pressure. For doing this you need hard power - else you end like Ghaddafi. And you need an economy not vulnerable to sanctions, which Russia has.

Russia's kleptocracy is vulnerable to sanctions. That's what the fuss is about, with Mueller etc.
Russia has always depended on hard power.

Once you can do it, it gives you some power which is much greater than the pure economy. You can have your own foreign policy, something very difficult for, say, Japan and Germany.

So more nuke proliferation for Putin's "multipolar" world.
Do you remember objecting to that observation?

But Trump actually destroys it, instead of enlarging it with hard power.

He is enlarging his income, and his familia's. Or trying, anyway - with fascists, there is always simple incompetence involved.
Why are you talking about the "US"? Trump has no particular goals or objectives involving the US itself, as anything other than a means.

How do you think the evidence for non-existence should look like?

A history of Republican Party mercenary involvements showing that they began only after the US assault on Iraq as you claimed - instead of the history I noted (and handed you a link, search terms, etc, so you could become informed).

BTW, if it is Russia which has a kleptocratic economy and not the US

You forget who the Russian kleptocrats are stealing from.

Likewise the Republicans.

 

[Schmelzer]

Russia's kleptocracy is vulnerable to sanctions.

Those with houses in London may be vulnerable. But this is not what Russia cares about.

Russia has always depended on hard power.

In some sense, everybody depends. Either you have hard power or somebody with hard power decides what you have to do. The US empire depends on hard power too. But Russia needs hard power for self-defense, not for robbing other nations.

So more nuke proliferation for Putin's "multipolar" world. Do you remember objecting to that observation?

We will see how long Germany and Japan accept their status as vassals. It looks like Germany decided to fight for North Stream 2. Whatever what Germany and Japan are doing is not Putin's choice, so, why you mention Putin in this context is not clear. The main contribution to more proliferation was the murder of Ghadafi, who was so stupid to stop developing own nuclear weapons.

Why are you talking about the "US"? Trump has no particular goals or objectives involving the US itself, as anything other than a means.

Because it is completely uninteresting how much money Trump grabs. If he grabs more, it is even better, given that everything which is not grabbed can be used to murder innocent civilians all over the world. What matters is the power of the US, given that this power is what murders people.

A history of Republican Party mercenary involvements showing that they began only after the US assault on Iraq as you claimed - instead of the history I noted (and handed you a link, search terms, etc, so you could become informed).

Complete nonsense. My claim was only about the involvement of mercenaries in the Iraq war, resp. the Afghanistan war. That mercenaries have been used earlier in many other wars is a triviality.

You forget who the Russian kleptocrats are stealing from.
Likewise the Republicans.

Kleptocrats steal whatever they can, usually, it is what is controlled by the government, thus, the money tax from their own people. (Except in the Ukraine, where they steal Western credits because nothing else is left to steal, but the West has to give credits because else the fascist rule would collapse. That's why the West tries hard to establish some anti-corruption power in Ukraine. But without success, recently I have read an article that those anti-corruption institutions are already corrupt too.)

And you forgot that the Russian kleptocrats who have stolen a lot of Russian money were in power during the Yeltsin time, but are no longer in power now. You seem to believe yet that completely intransparent "corruption index" of "Transparency [sic - LOL] International". In reality, corruption plays no longer any role in the everyday life of Russians. The fields where corruption plays yet some role is medicine and education. The Yeltsin-time oligarchs have accepted the rules proposed by Putin - you stay out of politics and follow the law, and we forget about the money you robbed in Yeltsin time - and once they are rich enough anyway they have no point to violate this. Of course, fighting corruption in a completely corrupt state, with fixed tariffs for criminals to buy their freedom (30 000 dollar for something worth 1-3 years) is a hard job, but it was done.

 

[Write4U]

Trump is a Demon who stokes the basest emotions in a small but virulent segment of the population.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"The Fake News Media has never been more Dishonest or Corrupt that it is right now. There was never been a time like this in American history...Fake News is the absolute Enemy of our People and our Country itself."
-- Trump

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Trump is a Demon who stokes the basest emotions in a small but virulent segment of the population.

Actually, he's just a spoiled kid who never had to take responsibility for his slanders or mistakes.

 

[iceaura]

Complete nonsense. My claim was only about the involvement of mercenaries in the Iraq war, resp. the Afghanistan war. That mercenaries have been used earlier in many other wars is a triviality.

This was your claim:

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.

It reveals you do not know how those wars started, or anything about the role mercenaries play in US wars, especially the last few launched by Republicans.

Those with houses in London may be vulnerable. But this is not what Russia cares about.

And investments in the US, and so forth. Kleptocrats need safe caches. Putin seems to have made this a priority of Russian foreign policy - he has quite a bit of money at stake himself, of course.

Kleptocrats steal whatever they can, usually, it is what is controlled by the government, thus, the money tax from their own people.

Oil and gas revenues, for example, in Russia's case.

Because it is completely uninteresting how much money Trump grabs.

How and why and where Trump grabs money is his only personal foreign policy - the major difference between his administration and any other Republican one. You were trying to post about Trump's foreign policy, remember? How it was "different"?

But Russia needs hard power for self-defense, not for robbing other nations.

Living and learning about fascism.

Whatever what Germany and Japan are doing is not Putin's choice, so, why you mention Putin in this context is not clear.

He's abetting proliferation, and increasing the risk of nuclear war. Trump is, also. You were supposedly opposed to that, if you recall.
- - -
meanwhile, we mark an anniversary: https://mahablog.com/2019/03/20/sixteen-years/

 

[Write4U]

Actually, he's just a spoiled kid who never had to take responsibility for his slanders or mistakes.

That's about to be changed.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/

 

[Schmelzer]

This was your claim:
It reveals you do not know how those wars started, or anything about the role mercenaries play in US wars, especially the last few launched by Republicans.

This reveals that you have no information which contradicts the one I have given. (Else you would have given at least some hint about the difference.)

How and why and where Trump grabs money is his only personal foreign policy - the major difference between his administration and any other Republican one. You were trying to post about Trump's foreign policy, remember? How it was "different"?

The aims of nationalism and globalism are certainly different, and Trump's foreign policy can be described as a nationalist policy. (To make you happy, one can name the nationalist policy also fascist.) The focus of globalism is not what happens in the US itself, but about global control. The US is only a power base. Instead, nationalism cares only about what happens inside the US, everything out there has to be used to get as much for the US as possible. (Different from isolationism, which rejects foreign involvement, nationalism has no problem with foreign involvement, if it gives some profit for the homeland, and Trump's policy is clearly nationalism.)

Note that as long as the world is unchallenged unipolar, there is no conflict of interest between nationalism and globalism. The global power is anyway used to make a lot of money for the US elite, the globalist as well as nationalist one. Once there was no conflict of interest, Dems and Reps were allowed by the deep state to play the circus named democracy, with some minor, more tactical than strategic, differences in the foreign policy. Once these differences were big enough to make the sheeple think that elections matter, everything was fine.

The conflict appears when the unipolar is attacked, endangered by Russia and China, or essentially already dead. And the conflict is between fighting for the global empire, which is the globalists choice, or giving it up and making the best out of the remaining global power as long as it exists yet, which is the nationalists choice. It is this split which changes the game. As far as elections play a role in the fight which faction gets the power, elections start to matter now. The split between globalists and nationalists (or if you like fascists) was not the one between Dems and Reps - there are certainly a lot of globalists among the Reps, and I'm not sure at all if all the Dems are globalists - who knows, maybe the Dem candidate 2020 will be a nationalist, we will see.

What Trump is doing makes sense if one classifies him as a nationalist. In this case, the globalists are today his political enemy, and he may be even interested to destroy their international power base, which is, in a large part, the US soft power. A nationalist would be more concerned with the hard power and in particular, the one controlled by the US army. The soft power is, of course, useful for nationalists too, but only as a power resource to be used, not as something which has any value in itself, as for the globalists. So, nationalists will be ready to trade that soft power for short term national advantages. If it is lost in such a way, so what - it is nothing they really care about.

Is there some major difference between Trump and former Rep presidents? This is not even a question worth to be considered. What was unproblematic during the unipolar world becomes problematic today, because times have changed. What has not endangered US soft power in the past is endangering it today. This changed simply because there are today some other poles, and other states do not have to submit unconditionally to US pressure. Doing the same thing today will be recognized by much more people as, say, a completely illegitimate regime change operation, as a media campaign full of obvious lies, and even globalist Western politicians may be sometimes forced to object.

Trump's policy is obviously weakening the US globalists power, most of all the soft power. Of course, one can say that former Republican, as well as Democrat, presidents have also made serious errors which weakened the US power. Last but not least, with a civilized US foreign policy the unipolar world would have been fine as for the Russians, as for the Chinese, and would not have been questioned. So, in this sense, Trump's policy can be simply seen as a continuation of the same stupidity of former (Rep as well as Dem) presidents. The decrease in US power has certainly accelerated. But is this caused by Trump's stupidity or simply by a changed world? I think both, and that one has to add that Trump doesn't (and as a nationalist does not really have to) care about the loss of globalists power.

 

[iceaura]

This reveals that you have no information which contradicts the one I have given. (Else you would have given at least some hint about the difference.)

Educating you is not my job.

The aims of nationalism and globalism are certainly different,

The foreign policy aims of the Republican Party have not changed. Trump is a Republican president.

What Trump is doing makes sense if one classifies him as a nationalist.

What Trump is doing makes perfect sense to everyone who sees - as has been obvious - that he is a fascist demagogue who has gained power in the US fascist Party.

Instead, nationalism cares only about what happens inside the US, everything out there has to be used to get as much for the US as possible.

You are omitting the major player: the large international corporation, the wealthy as a class.

(Different from isolationism, which rejects foreign involvement, nationalism has no problem with foreign involvement, if it gives some profit for the homeland, and Trump's policy is clearly nationalism.)

You have moved from isolationism to nationalism, for Trump - that's the right direction. Baby steps. Now think: "capitalist corporation".

Is there some major difference between Trump and former Rep presidents? This is not even a question worth to be considered.

Your entire support for Trump has been based on that silly claim, here.

Trump's policy is obviously weakening the US globalists power, most of all the soft power.

His reliance on hard power, and his diminishment of soft power as a US alternative, is a grave danger.

So, in this sense, Trump's policy can be simply seen as a continuation of the same stupidity of former (Rep as well as Dem) presidents.

Yep. Mostly Rep, though - the big dog was the Republican (Iraq) War, but the Reps have taken the lead in all that stuff since 1980 if not earlier.

I think both, and that one has to add that Trump doesn't (and as a nationalist does not really have to) care about the loss of globalists power.

Trump has appointed the worst of the "globalists" to positions of direct power and authority. Of course he doesn't "care" - he's a fascist demagogue, glory and parades and power and money for la familia is the only "care" he has - but that's what he does and will continue to do as a Republican president.

 

[Schmelzer]

Educating you is not my job.

Making claims about what I know and what I don't know out of your fantasy even less. The name for this is defamation if it is not supported by any evidence.

The foreign policy aims of the Republican Party have not changed. Trump is a Republican president.

In the past, I have not observed much disagreement about foreign policy inside the Reps, With Trump, there appeared an open conflict between Trump and anti-Trumpers among the Reps, and the central point was foreign policy (relations to Russia).

You are omitting the major player: the large international corporation, the wealthy as a class.

Except that there is no such animal as a whole class as a single player. The richest of the capitalists want more state regulation, small firms would prefer free markets. If one thinks that this wish for more regulation is something common - no, it is not, because every big firm wants regulation only in its own favor. Firms which produce in the US have more nationalist interests, those engaged internationally support globalism.

His reliance on hard power, and his diminishment of soft power as a US alternative, is a grave danger.

As long as he does not start to use it, it is not that dangerous. It would be, of course, much less dangerous if he would use it for US infrastructure, but utopia is not an option. But if he builds only more of the same, it does not even increase the probability of war.

Yep. Mostly Rep, though - the big dog was the Republican (Iraq) War, but the Reps have taken the lead in all that stuff since 1980 if not earlier.

To make Russia an enemy again, by bombing Belgrad and extending NATO into the former Warshaw pact, was Clinton's stupidity. W and Obama only continued that stupidity, and Trump was essentially forced to continue it too. The return to old-style colonialism, with own troops occupying other countries, was essentially also started by Clinton in Kosovo.

 

[iceaura]

What Trump is doing makes sense if one classifies him as a nationalist.

Not this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ee0ce4576f2d

I serve as chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, the primary investigative body in the House of Representatives. I have sent 12 letters to the White House on a half-dozen topics — some routine and some relating to our core national security interests. In response, the White House has refused to hand over any documents or produce any witnesses for interviews.

Let me underscore that point: The White House has not turned over a single piece of paper to our committee or made a single official available for testimony during the 116th Congress.

 

[Write4U]

Schmelzer said:
What Trump is doing makes sense if one classifies him as a nationalist.

"Make America great again?"

There was another Nationalist who used to say ; "Deutschland uber alles" .

That was the leader of the German National Socialist Party or NAZI party, Hitler, remember him?

 

[iceaura]

As long as he does not start to use it, it is not that dangerous.

Uh, sure. But he already has, of course.

Except that there is no such animal as a whole class as a single player.

Which is why your error in ignoring it all as a single player is so flagrant.

Making claims about what I know and what I don't know out of your fantasy even less.

So that's settled. We'll continue to stick to your ignorance as displayed here explicitly.

But if he builds only more of the same, it does not even increase the probability of war.

Of course it does. It did before, remember?

To make Russia an enemy again, by bombing Belgrad and extending NATO into the former Warshaw pact, was Clinton's stupidity.

That was Putin's excuse, yes. You have the Party Line down pat.

W and Obama only continued that stupidity, and Trump was essentially forced to continue it too.

Obama was forced, and resisted (pulled back as much as he thought he could, supposedly). Trump redoubled - restored the Republican direction of US foreign policy established by Reagan.

Meanwhile: W threw away diplomacy and invaded Iraq. That was not a continuation of Clinton, that was not Democratic Party anything. And that's the elephant in the room - nothing else is comparable, even if you added it all up and compared it.

Trump has restored that direction - hard power, big military, Saudi Arabia and Israel and essentially nobody else on the US side. Republican foreign policy.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's about to be changed.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/

He's impenetrable. Pure granite personality. All you can do is put him out of our misery.

 

[Mr. G]

Fun to watch all the "really smart people" melt down.

"Silence is revolution carried on by alternative means."

In for the win.

 

[Write4U]

Fun to watch all the "really smart people" melt down.

"Silence is revolution carried on by alternative means."

In for the win.

Yes, so was Hitler, remember that other Nationalist Dictator? Do you understand we are in for a Constitutional crisis?
Everybody loses.