The Trump Presidency

[Jeeves]

in his bizzaro world the us is constantly trying to invade and annex other countries despite the last time the us conquered territory in war was 1898.

!!!!! That's not even half true. One half is the the annexation of territory, which sometimes happens, but is not the only purpose of invasion; the other half is invasion itself, for various reasons, which happens frequently and globally

 

[Write4U]

Schmelzer said: ↑
As less evil than mass murderer Hillary, of course.

You live where the buses don't run, don't you?

Mass murderer, indeed.......

 

[Write4U]

pjdude1219 said: ↑
in his bizzaro world the us is constantly trying to invade and annex other countries despite the last time the us conquered territory in war was 1898.

Last I heard is that many smaller countries love their annexation to the US.
Territories of the United States

are sub-national administrative divisions overseen by the United Statesgovernment. The various U.S. territories differ from the U.S. states and Native Americantribes in that they are not sovereign entities[note 2] (each state has individual sovereignty alongside the federal government; each federally recognized tribe possesses limited tribal sovereignty as a "dependent sovereign nation").[9]

Territories are classified by incorporation and whether they have an "organized" government through an organic act passed by the Congress.[10] U.S. territories are under U.S. sovereignty and, consequently, may be treated as part of the United States proper in some ways and not others.[11] Unincorporated territories in particular are not considered to be integral parts of the United States,[12] and the Constitution of the United States applies only partially in those territories.[13][14][10][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States

I'm sure Cuba would rather be annexed by the US than Russia.

 

[Jeeves]

I'm sure Cuba would rather be annexed by the US than Russia.

That's all it takes to invade a sovereign nation: America's certainty that the victim would rather be raped by the US than its current rival. But, just suppose they'd rather not be invaded at all...

 

[Write4U]

That's all it takes to invade a sovereign nation: America's certainty that the victim would rather be raped by the US than its current rival. But, just suppose they'd rather not be invaded at all...

Oh, I agree. But little countries tend to be annexed by big countries for various purposes. Even big countries are being annexed against their will by Russia, like the Ukraine, but that is usually for strategic, not economic purposes.
Being part of of the US economic circle is usually a beneficial thing to a small country that has something to offer.
Ask the US territories if they would like to withdraw from the US economic umbrella. I bet most like their association. We do not force them to remain US territory and AFAIK, they have a choice of independence. Few, if any, do withdraw . Hawaii became a state.

 

[Jeeves]

But little countries tend to be annexed by big countries for various purposes.

Tends to happen. Might as well benefit us. Moral justification complete.

 

[Write4U]

Did Trump just commit an act of war by flying B52 bombers over the territory of a sovereign nation?

Tends to happen. Might as well benefit us. Moral justification complete.

Who is "us" or "what" that benefits from such an act?

 

[Schmelzer]

So you accept Trump's wholesale violation of international law and custom - much worse than Clinton's record - despite its "worrisome" nature, because Clinton is "more evil" according to the Republican media feed.

Not at all. There is no reason for me to accept anything of what Trump has done. He has, without doubt, violated international law many times. But I compare the results. Clinton's results were starting two wars, Libya and Syria, both have not yet been finished. Biden's record contains also the regime change in the Ukraine which caused a civil war there too, thus, three wars. Trump's record contains no new war.

Trump's worst thing was the Suleimani murder, an exceptionally horrible thing from point of view of international law because it happened on a diplomatic mission. Nonetheless, he did not start a war, but accepted a US based being bombed by Iran as an acceptable retaliation, which showed the world that today even Iran can bomb US bases without being nuked as an answer.

Just for those who paid attention to iceaura's objections that I falsely quote him: I have never used the word "worrisome".

From the point of view of someone who thinks a nuclear armed and highly militarized US would be less dangerous if it were crippled economically and diplomatically,

You have some less dangerous proposal? Let's see if there is some. The nuclear arms of the US will not disappear, as well as those of Russia, that's 100%. Either the US will succeed in reestablishing the unipolar world order, or will finally lose it, or the actual state of confrontation remains forever. The latter is hardly less dangerous. The US will give up its ambition of world rule only if it becomes seriously crippled. So, that's my scenario. There remains the scenario of the US ruling the world again as around, say, 2000. But that means a serious defeat of Russia and China. So, in this scenario we have even two strong nuclear armed powers, both can be considered highly militarized, and they have to be crippled economically. And, according to your criteria, both are ruled by evil forces comparable with fascism. So, the situation of the world would be even more dangerous than if the US would be crippled, given that if that happens with the US, it could be at least under some peace-loving non-fascist Dem rule. All you need is to rename "sleepy Joe" into "peaceful Joe", not?

Whatever, correct me if I'm wrong, the question is what is, in your opinion, the least dangerous variant for the geopolitics of this century.

You don't participate in discussions here. (Reposting Republican media feed bs over and over is not "discussion".)

For a civilized person, this cannot be an excuse for giving up own standards of civil behavior. I don't throw around invectives even in other exchanges of posts, mails and so on. What various of my opponents present here is also far from high standards of discussion, so, let's add for you:

In a civilized society, people will always behave in a civilized way. This includes also their behavior in exchanges which don't deserve to be named "discussions". Ok?

China uses military force to expand its territory. So does Russia. So does Israel. That's about it - the US does not and likely will not (at least, not if the latest Republican corruption is in fact removed from executive power.)

That's misleading, given that the US uses military force to expand its power. It does not implement this power by officially expanding its territory, but, instead, by establishing military bases and by controlling puppet regimes. You try to use this technical question of implementation of power as an excuse for US militarism.
On the other side, it is fearmongering. As for Crimea, as for Tibet/Hong Kong/Taiwan you ignore the historical and national context. They "use military force to expand its territory" sounds like it does not matter at all which territory. Thus, everybody has to be afraid of their aggression, if the US no longer defends them.

But that's nonsense. Assume the US disappears completely, by splitting into Trumpistan and Bidenistan, taking back all soldiers from all bases once they need it in their civil war. So, Russia and China would be the remaining military superpowers. What territories would they take with their military? China would take Taiwan. Hong Kong has been already taken, Tibet too. That's all. Russia would plausibly take Ukraine and Belarus. Not sure Russia about the most fascist Western parts of Ukraine, most Russians would refuse to take them even if offered for free, and would prefer some independent fascist region around Lwow which neither Russia nor Poland want because both despise the Bandera fascists living there. But, ok, in the worst case one can think that it may be possible to incorporate this into Russia. But something else? The whole former Soviet Union? No way. Russia has, essentially, done 1991 the same as GB and France much earlier, namely to throw away its colonies because of the costs for an old colonial system are too high.

The usual "You don't understand" nonsense disposed of.

and your goal of crippling the US politically aligns well with their goal of seizing and holding power (that the US military will be the remaining power center, and enthusiastically backs this Republican agenda, is a fact whose implications you seem to have overlooked).

Ok, let's assume the US cripples politically, splits into Trumpistan, ruled by the military and taking over all the nuclear power and enough ports for taking over the whole navy, and Bidenistan with Hollywood becoming its capital SCNR. What would be the implications?

Trumpistan would be economically much weaker than the US today, first because some economically strong states become part of Bidenistan, then as the Trump-dollar as the Biden-dollar are only local currencies and the world is back to the gold standard. So, it can at best maintain its army. But, given that it is ruled by the military, it can make reliable long-term promises, like defense guarantees, so that it would be possible to make contracts (which is impossible now - nobody can be sure that the US will hold its obligations in whatever contract). Thus, they could sell weapons and security, as proposed by the libertarian model of security firms. The weapon market would be a free market. Already the US is no longer able to force even NATO members like Turkey to buy US weapons. Once Trumpistan will be weaker, it has no chance at all, and all states, even former vassals, will buy simply the best weapons, not necessarily the US weapons because they are no longer obliged to buy them. Trumpistan itself will have a much smaller budget to buy much weapons. Once the military itself rules, and no longer that military-industrial complex, the firms will have to sell weapons to Trumpistan for market prices too, not for corrupt fantasy prices as today. So, these will be hard times for the military industry, but it is reasonable to assume that they can survive this. Working as a worldwide security firm will be a tough job too. As mercenaries, they cannot behave as they actually behave. But, again, this is something they can master too. The main problem is simply to learn how to behave in a civilized world.

So, there exists a reasonable peaceful way of development for a Trumpistan ruled by the military itself. Are there reasonable alternatives? War with the great powers Russia and China would be suicide. Wars with powers like Iran or India would be lost before started. The US aircraft carriers are sitting ducks for Russia and China already today. Russia will sell such weapons to other countries too, and sells air defense already today, so that bullying small nations with their aircraft carriers will work for some time but not forever. Say, even if some Papua cannot afford rockets to destroy US aircraft carriers, some air defense is affordable. And then an US bombing would lead to costs in form of US aircraft shut down. How much of such damage is affordable for the US? Ok, a fascist Trumpistan would not care much about the lives of pilots. But the planes are expensive, and the education of pilots too. And there is not that much to gain in that Papua.

All these are, obviously, rational considerations. One can think that fascists will be irrational. I think wokes will be even more irrational, that's something one could argue about. From an economic point of view, dictatorships will behave economically more rational because they will think about longer time scales. The democratic politician thinks about the next for years, and during election years even about much less, and what happens later is not his problem. The dictator thinks about twenty, forty, sixty years, even more if hereditary. Then, the democratic politician has to think about populist success. He has to make attractive promises to gain power. The dictator, instead, has to deliver. If not successful in reality, he is in big danger of being overthrown by some coup or revolt or so. Both points suggest that dictators may behave more rational. (Recommended libertarian reading: Hoppe, Democracy - the God that failed. )

However: even as lost as you are, the term "warmongering populist" marks an opportunity for you (and thread relevance for me) - do you think you could recognize warmongering populism aiming at power in the US, if you saw it?

I have recognized one such case, Hillary Clinton.

 

[Write4U]

Just for those who paid attention to iceaura's objections that I falsely quote him: I have never used the word "worrisome".

You are a worrisome person...

 

[Jeeves]

Who is "us" or "what" that benefits from such an act?

US oil, hegemony, control the world and all the money in it.

 

[Write4U]

US oil, hegemony, control the world and all the money in it.

I don't believe that the democratic principles on which the US is founded allows for such Plutocratic behaviors , unless the original intent becomes corrupted by greed. Which is the current trend, to be sure.

Explain the 5 principles of democracy.

The 5 principles of democracy could be considered the "consent of the governed", "representative government", "individual rights", "the rule of law", and a "system of checks and balances'.

Democracy has been the cornerstone of American government from its inception in the late eighteenth century. The Founding Fathers rejected monarchy and aristocracy. Democracy is complex, and it is not possible to unequivocally list its five most important tenets, but most modern democracies share certain key characteristics.

First, they have freedom of the press. Without free access to information, it is not possible for the people or voters to carry out their responsibilities. Second, democracies follow the rule of law. The Constitution is the ultimate set of laws in the United States. Most other democracies also have a written constitution.

Finally, democracy is based on ideas promulgated during the Enlightenment in Europe. John Locke, Montesquieu, and other intellectuals laid the foundations for modern democracy—their eloquent concepts influenced the Founding Fathers.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/explain-5-principles-democracy-495984

 

[Schmelzer]

you do know russia is in all those countries too right?

It isn't. It is not in Afghanistan, it is not in Iraq. It is only in Syria, but, different from the US, not as an occupational force stealing oil, but invited by the legal government.

again since you have trouble with this simple fact. the us mistakes and misdeeds do not absolve russia and china of their aggression and war crimes.

That's a triviality. The nontrivial thing is that what you claim are Russian and China's "aggression and war crimes" are mainly US propaganda lies.

the PRC is a rebel faction. it has zero historic right to historically chinese territory. that is taiwans sole purview.

The point being? The Taiwanese think in the same way as the mainland Chinese, they disagree only about who has to rule in China, not that China should contain as the mainland, as Taiwan. Those Taiwanese who support independence support it not because this would be the best solution, but only because they see no chance for their preferred solution.

so war, aggression, and war crimes are ok if you think something is histrorically yours?

Learn to read. I wrote explicitly

I would also prefer if the Chinese would leave Taiwan alone. That's a question where China behaves quite irrational

The point that something was historically yours is, in fact, not unimportant. It explicitly restricts the ambitions, and gives security to those who are not part of such historical territory. Similarly for the argument that those living there are from the same nation. It gives some security to territories where other nations are living. You can do a lot more of evil things if you restrict yourself in your choice of victims (say, to Jews, or pedophiles), so that most people don't feel endangered and will ignore it. That's simply pragmatic, cynical thinking, a la Machiavelli.

 

[pjdude1219]

Last I heard is that many smaller countries love their annexation to the US.
Territories of the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States

I'm sure Cuba would rather be annexed by the US than Russia.

cuba used to be a us territory

 

[pjdude1219]

It isn't. It is not in Afghanistan,

it may have removed its troops which were there fair recently(the afghani president repuked russia for bringing troops in the country in 2010 it is still involved in arming people. you know the thing you hate the us for doing.

it is not in Iraq.

again still involved in arming people

It is only in Syria, but, different from the US, not as an occupational force stealing oil, but invited by the legal government.

wow a genocidial dictator invited them in

That's a triviality.

unsurprising you find facts a triviality

The nontrivial thing is that what you claim are Russian and China's "aggression and war crimes" are mainly US propaganda lies.

what lies. the russian forces in crimea and the chinese invasion of outlying vietmenese territories are facts. russia and china are far more aggressive than the us

The point being? The Taiwanese think in the same way as the mainland Chinese, they disagree only about who has to rule in China, not that China should contain as the mainland, as Taiwan. Those Taiwanese who support independence support it not because this would be the best solution, but only because they see no chance for their preferred solution.

it completely underminds your excuses for why china's aggression is ok

Learn to read. I wrote explicitly

i read just fine. you did write explicitly, you flat out said the PRC is perfectly of with conquering territory simply because it felt it was historically chinese. that you don't like being called out on your bs doesn't mean im mistaken.

The point that something was historically yours is, in fact, not unimportant. It explicitly restricts the ambitions, and gives security to those who are not part of such historical territory. Similarly for the argument that those living there are from the same nation. It gives some security to territories where other nations are living. You can do a lot more of evil things if you restrict yourself in your choice of victims (say, to Jews, or pedophiles), so that most people don't feel endangered and will ignore it. That's simply pragmatic, cynical thinking, a la Machiavelli.

i get you have a raging hard on for autocrats and their warcrimes and hate the west cause it democratic. doesn't change the fact your double standards are obvious and completely bullshit

 

[Write4U]

cuba used to be a us territory

Until when and why not anymore? Moreover, are they better off today than when they were a US territory?

 

[iceaura]

Not at all. There is no reason for me to accept anything of what Trump has done.

Agreed. But you did.

I have recognized one such case, Hillary Clinton.

Now you are claiming to recognize Hillary Clinton as a populist demagogue.

This includes also their behavior in exchanges which don't deserve to be named "discussions". Ok?

People who spread crass propaganda from fascist media feeds are engaging in particularly uncivilized behavior. That would include such bottom-feeding behavior as posting dishonestly altered Hillaryhate videos in support of slanders and lies - a very common behavior among the uncivilized in the US.

But I compare the results.

No you don't. You have no idea what the results of Trump's actions have been or will be. (That is partly because you refuse to see what those actions have been in the first place).

Clinton's results were starting two wars, Libya and Syria, both have not yet been finished. Biden's record contains also the regime change in the Ukraine which caused a civil war there too, thus, three wars. Trump's record contains no new war.

The US Secretary of State doesn't get to start wars, and the involvement of the US in Syria's civil war increased sharply after - not during - Clinton's tenure in Obama's administration. Neither does the Vice President get to start wars, although Biden's support of the Republican invasion and occupation of Iraq - the elephant in the room, by far the most important US military action in the entire area - does count heavily against him.
Trump's record contains multiple abrogated treaties, crippling of diplomacy, and threats of violence including nuclear; it also contains immediate and unmotivated escalation of existing military conflict including the killing of large numbers of civilians using military weapons, attempts to build and fortify border walls while greatly increasing the military capability of police and other law enforcement agencies, abrogation of civil rights in designated domestic zones of military violence and martial law, etc.
And failure is not innocence - although it's true that even if he were capable Trump did not really have enough time or opportunity to start brand new wars from scratch, still his visible inability to do anything requiring organizational skill and executive action does not conceal his escalation of US military violence (and crippling of US diplomatic capability, undermining of US economic influence, general dismissal of all non-military support for US foreign policies).

The point that something was historically yours is, in fact, not unimportant.

The claim that one is entitled to take something by force because one's claimed ancestors once took it by force is of course very important in human affairs - it's just not a legal justification for making war and annexing territory.
You have put great emphasis on such legality, remember?

The nontrivial thing is that what you claim are Russian and China's "aggression and war crimes" are mainly US propaganda lies.

They are recorded events, undeniable in their verifiable occurrence and visible consequences.

It explicitly restricts the ambitions, and gives security to those who are not part of such historical territory.

On your planet of propaganda the claims of the propagandist are not restricted by physical fact, and there is no security for those physically vulnerable to the ambitions of authoritarian empire builders and other organized criminals.
The Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Ukrainians, the Palestinians, the Kurds, are not protected from the ambitions of the leftwing authoritarians of Mandarin China, the rightwing authoritarians of Russia, Israel, or Syria, by paper restrictions on the scope of their myths.

 

[Write4U]

Tends to happen. Might as well benefit us. Moral justification complete.

And of course being under the protection of a big country benefits the little country.
Many countries ask for US protection and/or foreign aid.
After WWII which the US did not start, the Marshall Plan was responsible for the economic restoration of Europe.

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative passed in 1948 for foreign aid to Western Europe. The United States transferred over $12 billion (equivalent to $130 billion in 2019) in economic recovery programs to Western European economies after the end of World War II. Replacing an earlier proposal for a Morgenthau Plan, it operated for four years beginning on April 3, 1948.[1]

The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-torn regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, improve European prosperity, and prevent the spread of communism.[2] The Marshall Plan required a reduction of interstate barriers, a dropping of many regulations, and encouraged an increase in productivity, as well as the adoption of modern business procedures.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

The US really profited from that "occupation".....

 

[iceaura]

Moreover, are they better off today than when they were a US territory?

They are better off in many ways than their neighbors who did not separate themselves from US influence - despite being blockaded by the world's most powerful military and largest economy ninety miles away, and suffering disproportionately from both the collapse of the USSR and the Republican Crash of 2008.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer,
Just curious:
According to news tonight, the Care taker Trump administration has agreed to unilaterally acknowledge Moroccan claims to West Sahara negating decades of effort to find a peaceful solution, as part of a deal to have the Moroccan Government normalize relationships with Israel.
In doing so this action has threatened a tenuous ceasefire between those who seek independence and self determination and the Moroccan Government.
If the ceasefire fails due to Trumps declaration is this not starting a war?
Also his efforts in sidelining the Palestinians may also lead to major confrontation against Israel sometime in the future... Does this count in your mind as potentially starting a war?

Just curious how you reconcile the above with your claims that Trump has not started any wars...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer,
The thing is that it is worth considering that when Trump took office he instigated major trade war with China, the banning of Chinese mobile technology including the arrest of Meng Wanzhou.

Arrested Huawei executive hit with new US charges ahead of extradition. The US Justice Department indicted both Huawei and its chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou for racketeering and conspiring to steal American trade secrets on Thursday
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/...oj-trade-secrets-justice-department-zte-china​

and then ... well uhm ... we suddenly have a new virus sweeping the world allegedly originating from China causing the death of millions, the long term disability of many millions, that may or may not have been instigated by individuals not necessarily acting on behalf of the Chinese government. Certainly at the very least, the Chinese Government's reluctance to prevent the virus from spreading from China could in part be blamed on deteriorating relationship with the West.

Today now we have a trade war going on with Australia/China with massive long term financial implications. IMO Economic war has already been indicated by the Chinese against Australia mainly because we called for an objective inquiry into the source of this deadly pandemic and are an ally of the USA, who do not overly censor our selves when it comes to freedom of press or speech.

All possibly because Trump decided to flame the Chinese with his approach to negotiating with a hammer to make 'merica great again (tariffs) and getting Americans to pay for it
The point being is that wars are started by many different ways and usually not just due to military maneuvering.
Even now civil war is possible in the USA. with, among other things, a consequential impact on international humanitarian aid which will in turn be potentially a cause of war(s) as hungry people fight to survive.

so IMO the jury is still out on whether Trump has started any wars...