Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[FaxModem1]

Good. But now watch while Donald Trump refuses to enforce these sanctions as well, and Republicans still don't impeach him for it.

I like how we're pretending that assassinating a spy is somehow worse than America's multiple wars of aggression in the past couple decades. These sanctions shouldn't be enforced and neither should any others so long as there is a single pig wearing an American uniform in Afghanistan and the people responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan are walking around free.

Do you consider the invasion of Afghanistan unjustified? If so, why? And if that's the case, to what extent is a nation allowed to be attacked by a terrorist group before responding militarily to the nation that shelters said terrorist group and refuses to cooperate?

[The Romulan Republic]

Good. But now watch while Donald Trump refuses to enforce these sanctions as well, and Republicans still don't impeach him for it.

I like how we're pretending that assassinating a spy is somehow worse than America's multiple wars of aggression in the past couple decades. These sanctions shouldn't be enforced and neither should any others so long as there is a single pig wearing an American uniform in Afghanistan and the people responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan are walking around free.

1. No one said anything about whether it was worse, because its irrelevant. One crime does not excuse another, unrelated crime. This is just more Whataboutism, using American misconduct and crimes (real or fabricated) to excuse anything and everything the Kremlin does. Its the favorite card of Kremlin shills, because its the only one you have to play, and it misleads the cynical and the simple-minded with a superficial veneer of fairness. Admittedly, you're a bit less subtle about your intent (arguing that Russia should get carte blanc for any and all crimes because America is just as bad/worse) than most.

Hey, dipshit: if someone gets arrested for murder, they don't get to tell the judge: "I should go free until you also arrest every other murderer in the city".

Also, the war in Afghanistan, unlike the war in Iraq, was a justified response to an act of military aggression against the United States (unless you are a 9/11 Truther). That does not excuse subsequent crimes and incompetence in the course of conducting the war, but the invasion was approved of by pretty much the whole international community, and any other country that had the means to do so would have responded to such an attack in much the same way. The conflation of Iraq and Afghanistan is perhaps the greatest idiocy of the anti-war movement.

So: Either admit that you are a 9/11 Truther, and defend that position, or concede that the war in Afghanistan was a legitimate response to an attack on the United States.

And saying we should lock up every single American soldier who fought in Afghanistan? Are you insane? We didn't even do that to the God Damn Wermacht. So that's your standard? The Kremlin gets carte blanc for all crimes for eternity, until American soldiers are collectively treated more harshly than literal fucking Nazis? Piss off.

2. It was not just "assassinating a spy". It was trying to assassinate a former spy, using chemical weapons, in a manner which was likely to and did cause substantial collateral damage, including the death of at least one innocent bystander (and its pretty much just luck that it didn't kill more). But its nice to know that you will bend the facts to the point of outright dishonesty to downplay an act of chemical terrorism, as long as an enemy of the US did it.

[Ralin]

Do you consider the invasion of Afghanistan unjustified? If so, why?

Of course it wasn’t. It was a war of aggression against a country that has never posed a threat to the United States

And if that's the case, to what extent is a nation allowed to be attacked by a terrorist group before responding militarily to the nation that shelters said terrorist group and refuses to cooperate?

Do you think that Canada is entitled to bomb American cities when Canadian citizens are killed with firearms smuggled in from the US? How about when an American goes on a shooting spree abroad and the US refuses to extradite him?

No one said anything about whether it was worse, because its irrelevant.

It is extremely relevant, because it shows the bankruptcy of America sanctioning any other country for relatively minor crimes when Afghans who weren’t even alive when 9/11 happened are still being murdered by scum fucks who joined the US military looking for a ride through college

One crime does not excuse another, unrelated crime.

It does as far as the United States is concerned.

Admittedly, you're a bit less subtle about your intent (arguing that Russia should get carte blanc for any and all crimes because America is just as bad/worse) than most.

Nah. I’m arguing that America has absolutely no business sanctioning any other country for crimes against international law or some shit while our victims are still being robbed, raped and murdered by da troops.

Hey, dipshit: if someone gets arrested for murder, they don't get to tell the judge: "I should go free until you also arrest every other murderer in the city".

Hey shitwit, are you under the impression that America is entitled to decide how Russia or any other sovereign country is allowed to deal with spies (their own citizen, no less)?

Also, the war in Afghanistan, unlike the war in Iraq, was a justified response to an act of military aggression against the United States (unless you are a 9/11 Truther). That does not excuse subsequent crimes and incompetence in the course of conducting the war, but the invasion was approved of by pretty much the whole international community, and any other country that had the means to do so would have responded to such an attack in much the same way. The conflation of Iraq and Afghanistan is perhaps the greatest idiocy of the anti-war movement.

Liar. Afghanistan never attacked America. Afghanistan does not and never has posed a threat to America. 9/11 was a terrorist attack carried out by a non-state organization. It was no more military aggression than a fucking Mafia hit.

So: Either admit that you are a 9/11 Truther, and defend that position, or concede that the war in Afghanistan was a legitimate response to an attack on the United States.

Admit that you’re a racist piece of crap who thinks that an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack justifies the mass murder of random non-white people or shut the fuck up. Or show footage of Afghan jets dropping bombs on New York, I guess. Good luck with that.

And saying we should lock up every single American soldier who fought in Afghanistan?

If only! But so long as we’re talking about ‘sanctions’ why not start at home and strip them of VA benefits, money for education and any other benefits that Bush’s Willing Executioners are getting?

Are you insane? We didn't even do that to the God Damn Wermacht.

Of course we didn’t. It wasn’t practical. By contrast there’s a ton of things we can do to punish the people who fought Bush’s wars and give their victims some measure of justice.

So that's your standard? The Kremlin gets carte blanc for all crimes for eternity, until American soldiers are collectively treated more harshly than literal fucking Nazis? Piss off.

My standard is that as long as America is occupying Afghanistan or any other country we launched a war of aggression against America doesn’t get to condemn Russia or any other country for a damned thing.

2. It was not just "assassinating a spy". It was trying to assassinate a former spy, using chemical weapons, in a manner which was likely to and did cause substantial collateral damage, including the death of at least one innocent bystander (and its pretty much just luck that it didn't kill more). But its nice to know that you will bend the facts to the point of outright dishonesty to downplay an act of chemical terrorism, as long as an enemy of the US did it.

I like how you pretend that ~chemical~ weapons are somehow scarier and more evil than America’s preferred method of assassination by drone bomber.

Hey, on that note remind me what sanctions were levied on the US for assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki?

[Crazedwraith]

Guys, don't feed the troll.

[The Romulan Republic]

Guys, don't feed the troll.

I'm tempted, but nobody gets to post that I am a racist who "supports the mass murder of random non-white people" without response. Nor will I allow his attempts to defend or downplay the murder of civilians (as long as they're Americans/British people) to go unanswered.

Ralin, for all your claims of moral outrage against Americans crimes, it is abundantly clear that you do not actually care in the slightest about international law, or imperialism, or civilian lives, or any of those things. Because your arguments have made it clear that you have absolutely no problem with the Kremlin murdering innocent civilians in other sovereign countries with chemical weapons, or the Taliban providing support and sanctuary to terrorist groups who murder three thousand Americans, and that you will lie to defend it. You have no principles, no integrity, no concern for civilian lives or national sovereignty- those things are just tools that you use to attack America and defend the Kremlin and the fucking Taliban. You're just another fucking tribalist who thinks "Its okay if my side does it". And you have the unmitigated hypocrisy to call me a racist.

As to your claims about me personally, they are not material to this debate, but I regard them as libelous, and if you said that about me in real life rather than a web forum, I would probably take it to court.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, its very telling that these sorts of condemnations of America always seem to be posted, these days, primarily in topics discussing the Kremlin's crimes.

I mean, people could post a thread specifically about American crimes in Afghanistan, or wherever, any time they want. And that would actually be a worthwhile discussion to have, and we could have it, without it getting all mixed up with the issue of the Kremlin vs. America.

But it seems, these days, that these issues are almost always brought up in discussions about Russia, as a rebuttal to accusations against Russia, or a way to change the topic. Because the people bringing them up, by and large, don't actually care about civilian lives or human rights or national sovereignty as universal principles- they care about them selectively, and as a tool to attack America and defend its enemies.

[Gandalf]

My answer would be that of course no human system or institution is entirely proof against human malice and incompetence, but involving more people in the decision-making process adds some breaks, and at least theoretically reduces the risk of knee-jerk, rash decisions and statements being made (this only works if the leader is not completely surrounded by spineless yes-men who tell him what he wants to hear, or ideological hard-liners who share his attitudes every step of the way).

It also means that if shit does go off the rails, everyone is on the same page and it doesn't blindside the officials tasked with actually carrying out, or cleaning up after, Dear Leader's latest whim. Finally, it reinforces the idea the leader is not an autocrat, but has to act as part of a larger system to which he is ultimately answerable.

Uh, aren't the POTUS comms teams political appointees?

Of course Trump did not emerge in a vacuum- the world is interconnected, and Trump is ultimately a product of many factors in American history and global history (the most pessimistic interpretations of Trumpism would hold that he and his base are ideological successors of both the Confederacy and Nazism/Fascism). Nor would I say that he is entirely unprecedented in American history- Andrew Johnson comes immediately to mind as an example of an overtly racist demagogue who condoned racial violence and ran an utterly dysfunctional administration while committing actions that were arguably treasonous (he ultimately became the first President to be impeached, and was regrettably acquitted by a single vote).

That said, I think it is similarly disingenuous to take examples like slave-holding Presidents in the 18th. and 19th. Century and then conclude that Trump is nothing that unusual, as though the slave-holders of 200 years ago accurately reflect the state of America throughout its entire history.[1] The country has changed a great deal in the nearly 250 years that it has existed- sometimes for the worse, but often for the better. Its never been the utopia that American exceptionalists like to portray it as, but its important to recognize that history of change, particularly now. It illustrates that Trump is not merely one more in an unbroken progression of white supremacist despots, but an active and alarming step in the wrong direction, a potential reversal of past gains that were won at great cost in human lives and suffering. Trump's views and actions would be positively progressive by the standards of the 19th. Century (though had he lived at the time, free of modern constraints, I don't doubt that he would have been even worse than he is). But in the 21st. Century, they represent a regression to things we thought we had moved past.[2]

Also, when people respond to a criticism of Trump by posting an attack on Obama's Presidency and defenders, one that implies (at least to me) that Obama should be viewed in the same light as Trump- it may not be your intent, but it gives the impression that you are trying to change the topic, to deflect from Trump's actions, and/or to normalize them. And even if its not your intent, it can have that effect. Especially since both Trumper and Russian propaganda used and continue to use this tactic extensively, and to considerable effect.[3]

We're probably not going to see completely eye-to-eye on this, but I hope that you can at least understand where I'm coming from on this, and that there are reasons for my arguments beyond simply being a defensive white American.

I hate breaking up posts, so I'll go by the inserted numbers.

[1]: Considering that the name of those early monsters still adorn prominent cities, major monuments, money, and the like, it appears as though the population at large seems cool with them. Statues of Lee and other Confederates have come down, but more popular slave owners stand. When the public disowns them, I'll be happy to exclude them from the continuity. But I'm happy to use a run of presidents since 1945 as yardsticks if that offends you less. Then it'll be a lot of Cold War invocations.

[2]: Exactly. A lot of people lived in the illusion that the US was progressing to some wonderful liberal state. While some places got nicer, the rest got left behind. Then people acted bamboozled when the guy who offered them a solution won.

[3]: I'm not trying to change the topic. They should be viewed in the same light. Obama's record with torture, and torturers, make him pretty horrific. Not to mention his failure to try the previous administration for any of their crimes. Also the attitude of "Drone strikes for whomever my closed courts see fit" wasn't ideal. The difference I see between him and Trump is that Obama was better at managing the images relating to his actions, probably because his violence was targeted abroad and wherever people like Manning were kept. Do you know why I put them in the same light? Because the same system puts them in.

[Crazedwraith]

Trump laughingstock. He was quite literally laughed at by the UN for the boastful start to a speech there, which started 20 minutes late no less.

More seriously the speech condemned Iran in very harsh language.

[mr friendly guy]

You know all those times Trump claimed various countries were laughing behind the US's back? Well he was wrong. They laugh right to your face.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Will bet 100$ he is tweeting about how "Amazing" his speech at the UN and how it was "The best speech every in the history of all presidents"

But yes, Trump was point blanked Laughed at, by the World assembly

[The Romulan Republic]

You've pretty much got it. When asked afterward about the laughter, he apparently said that it was intended to get laughs, and so was a success.

And let me just say, as an American, I'm not terribly bothered by the rest of the world laughing at Trump. I'd be more offended if they were showing him respect.

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGjEH291LxI

Long story short

1. Tariffs cost the US more than Obamacare did. Remember how Trump said Obamacare was too expensive.
2. Despite the tariffs, trade deficit continues to increase.

On another note, RT had a field day pointing out trade deficit with China has hit record highs. But guys, I thought trade wars were easy to win. The purpose of the trade war to reduce the US trade deficit right? Because its apparently bad.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. Trump is sending the debt soaring, and setting us up for recession, while saying he's made the economy great.

[Tribble]

Yeah. Trump is sending the debt soaring, and setting us up for recession, while saying he's made the economy great.

Which will then lead to Republicans cutting social programs even more due to "cost".

Starve the beast any way possible.

[The Romulan Republic]

Starve the beast, and then channel its anger into anti-immigrant mobs.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Starve the beast, and then channel its anger into anti-immigrant mobs.

Straight from the pages of the Nazizeit's best seller.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump threatens to deploy the military to the Mexican border to close the border.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-bor ... -1.4867927

Excerpt:

As some 3,000 Hondurans made their way through Guatemala, attention turned to Mexico, after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Thursday to close the U.S.-Mexico border if authorities there fail to stop them - a nearly unthinkable move that would disrupt hundreds of thousands of legal freight, vehicle and pedestrian crossing each day.

With less that three weeks before the Nov. 6 midterm elections, Trump seized on the migrant caravan to make border security a political issue and energize his Republican base.

"I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught - and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!" Trump tweeted, adding that he blamed Democrats for what he called "weak laws!"

'

Can the President even do that? Just unilaterally deploy the military on American soil and seal the border?

This is Berlin Wall shit. Why is nobody calling this what it is? Dictatorship.

He has also just declared that America will pull out of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia. The US (and Russia) can now build all the nukes they please, I guess. Odds of WWIII just went up.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

He can federalize the National Guard, but not commit the regular US military to domestic law enforcement operations, per the Posse Commitatus Act...unless he declares a state of emergency along the southern US border(and possibly 100 miles inland from said border), in which case he can send in the Marines.

(that was why the 82d Airborne was deployed to NOLA during Katrina, for example)

This is Berlin Wall shit. Why is nobody calling this what it is? Dictatorship.

Because similar excesses have been normalized before Trump even came to power. Even the armed force at the border(In the form of both vigilante activities and overreach by CBP and ICE).

He has also just declared that America will pull out of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia. The US (and Russia) can now build all the nukes they please, I guess. Odds of WWIII just went up.

Given his rhetoric on the campaign trail, especially his professed love of both war and nukes, this was inevitable.

Even if his supporters claim that Hillary would've been the one to kick off WWIII, because Democrat wars.

[TimothyC]

He has also just declared that America will pull out of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia. The US (and Russia) can now build all the nukes they please, I guess. Odds of WWIII just went up.

Calm down for a moment and cut the hyperbole. What the president announced was a withdraw from the INF (Intermediate range Nuclear Forces) treaty. This treaty banned the development of ground based systems with ranges from 500km up to 5500km (5550km is the range specified under the early SALT treaties as the lower limit for ICBMs). Why was there such a treaty? Because in the late 1970s the Soviets deployed SS-20 Saber IRBMs to European Soviet territory. These missiles were seen as offensive in nature, and the US responded with the deployment of ground-launched Tomahawks and Pershing II missiles to Europe, from locations that threatened Soviet forces and strategic sites. The US and USSR response to this was to sign a treaty banning the testing and deployment of missiles with the ranges listed above. The treaty was signed in 1988, and all was good.

Then, in 2008, the Russians started testing of ground launched cruise missiles that violated the treaty. They continued to do so and in 2012/2013, the Obama administration said they were in violation. So the situation continued for years, until President Trump mad the announcement that the US will be withdrawing from said treaty. A treaty that one side is in open and patent violation of isn't worth the paper it is printed on, so this is simply the US deciding not to tie one hand behind its back with the Russians don't.

[Patroklos]

More importantly China is not a part of the treaty, and guess what type of weapon is their favorite gambit for dominating their half of the Pacific?

So we have a treaty that only the US is abiding by which as designed is only theoretically able to help contain half (charitably) of our most serious military threats, and in effect is containing none of them and restraining us.

On the positive side, the reason Russia is resorting to returning to these weapons is because they are increasingly incapable of fielding reliable ICBMs or SLBMs at costs they can afford. These weapons are cheap (compared to ICBMs) and don't require an entire complementary service of the most god awfully expensive vehicles known to man (SSBNs).

[TimothyC]

Also, one thing that in retrospect I wasn't clear on, while the weapons that were being deployed at the time of the signing of the INF treaty were nuclear, the treaty itself is not a nuclear weapons treaty - it is a missile treaty as it limits both conventionally armed and nuclear armed missiles in the range bracket.

[The Romulan Republic]

The President of France is now publicly discussing the need to build a "European Army" for Europe to protect itself from Russia, China, or the United States:

On Tuesday, Macron said Europe needed a real army to reduce reliance ont he United States for defense. "We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America," Macron said on French radio, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Note that he did this just as Trump was coming to honour the 100th. anniversary of the end of WW1. Trump responded by calling it "very insulting", but adding that Europe should pay more for its defense, in typical Trumpian double-speak.

Yes, you read that right- the President of one of our closest allies is now seriously and publicly contemplating the possibility of military conflict between Europe and the United States.

I mean... he's not wrong, I've been saying for a while that Canada needs a mutual defense pact with Mexico, but if anything could having Vladimir Putin rolling on the floor laughing, its this.

[FireNexus]

Vladimir Putin likely is not thrilled with the idea of a European standing army. He could do a “play both sides against the middle” thing, but tends to pay a bit of a butcher’s bill.

With any luck the idea of a Third World War with EUROPE will snap the GOP out of it.

[FireNexus]

More importantly China is not a part of the treaty, and guess what type of weapon is their favorite gambit for dominating their half of the Pacific?

So we have a treaty that only the US is abiding by which as designed is only theoretically able to help contain half (charitably) of our most serious military threats, and in effect is containing none of them and restraining us.

On the positive side, the reason Russia is resorting to returning to these weapons is because they are increasingly incapable of fielding reliable ICBMs or SLBMs at costs they can afford. These weapons are cheap (compared to ICBMs) and don't require an entire complementary service of the most god awfully expensive vehicles known to man (SSBNs).

It doesn’t really restrain us, though. Our intermediate range nukes are submarine-based, so not only are they in striking distance of everyone, but the precise location is hard to know for contingency planning. We’re the ones abiding by the letter of the law primarily because we’re the ones who can afford to do it without fucking up our military readiness.

The treaty gives us a moral and legal high ground, and there is practically no reason for us to deploy land-based intermediate range missiles. Abandoning the treaty doesn’t unshackle is, and it removes our ability to use the levers of the treaty to punish Russia, and China’s unwillingness to join it as a cudgel in our rhetorical war with them.

Not that we have any moral high ground anymore, really.

[The Romulan Republic]

Vladimir Putin likely is not thrilled with the idea of a European standing army. He could do a “play both sides against the middle” thing, but tends to pay a bit of a butcher’s bill.

With any luck the idea of a Third World War with EUROPE will snap the GOP out of it.

I tend to think that those who are susceptible to reason have already jumped ship (far too few, sadly). But who knows, we might peel off a few more. Everybody has their own personal line in the sand, and some people have some pretty weird and even arbitrary boundaries in terms of what is "too far". There are, for example, Republicans who are perfectly fine with locking children in cages or putting a perjurer and probable attempted rapist on the Supreme Court, but still consider themselves patriots and baulk at Russian interference or shutting down the Mueller probe.