Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Highlord Laan]

I hope China calls the pathetic little dickless chimp out and dares the simple minded fuckwit to start something. All so uhmurricuh can get its collective economic dick knocked in the dirt.

Every frothing republicunt that voted for the blithering retard deserves to catch the consequences of their stupidity in the teeth. I'd happily deal with some economic hardship just to see the mouth breathing redneck jackasses squeal.

[The Romulan Republic]

I hope China calls the pathetic little dickless chimp out and dares the simple minded fuckwit to start something. All so uhmurricuh can get its collective economic dick knocked in the dirt.

Given what an out of control narcissist Trump is, and that his most prominent National Security advisor (Bannon) apparently considers a war with China inevitable... doing so might just start WWIII.

I can totally see Trump deciding he needs to have a Chinese plane shot down over the disputed islands to prove his manhood or something, and things snowballing from their.

Every frothing republicunt that voted for the blithering retard deserves to catch the consequences of their stupidity in the teeth. I'd happily deal with some economic hardship just to see the mouth breathing redneck jackasses squeal.

As would I. Hell, I'd like to see every other nation on Earth sanction the US, and I'd like to see citizens refuse to pay their taxes en mass.

What should be avoided (particularly from people in actual positions of power) is posturing that might increase the already uncomfortably high odds of a shooting war.

[Zaune]

If he actually did invade Mexico, would the US actually win?

[Block]

If he actually did invade Mexico, would the US actually win?

Assuming the military went along with it? It'd probably depend on how you define win. Militarily we'd kick the shit out of them in days. Occupation, probably not, since it'd last 4 years at most.

[Elheru Aran]

If he actually did invade Mexico, would the US actually win?

Assuming the military went along with it? It'd probably depend on how you define win. Militarily we'd kick the shit out of them in days. Occupation, probably not, since it'd last 4 years at most.

There is pretty much no question that the US could defeat most militaries around the world, *especially* one so close to home-- supply lines would only be minimally exercised.

But as noted, occupation would be absolutely another matter. But is it a 'defeat' if the forces are withdrawn by a succeeding President rather than being actually kicked out of the country militarily?

[Iroscato]

I can't even begin to think about the political fallout from such an invasion as well - not that Cheeto Supreme would care.

[Block]

If he actually did invade Mexico, would the US actually win?

Assuming the military went along with it? It'd probably depend on how you define win. Militarily we'd kick the shit out of them in days. Occupation, probably not, since it'd last 4 years at most.

There is pretty much no question that the US could defeat most militaries around the world, *especially* one so close to home-- supply lines would only be minimally exercised.

But as noted, occupation would be absolutely another matter. But is it a 'defeat' if the forces are withdrawn by a succeeding President rather than being actually kicked out of the country militarily?

Depends on who you ask. I've been told we've lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite never really losing a significant fight, and pulling out because of fatigue /political considerations.

[Tribble]

Assuming the military went along with it? It'd probably depend on how you define win. Militarily we'd kick the shit out of them in days. Occupation, probably not, since it'd last 4 years at most.

There is pretty much no question that the US could defeat most militaries around the world, *especially* one so close to home-- supply lines would only be minimally exercised.

But as noted, occupation would be absolutely another matter. But is it a 'defeat' if the forces are withdrawn by a succeeding President rather than being actually kicked out of the country militarily?

Depends on who you ask. I've been told we've lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite never really losing a significant fight, and pulling out because of fatigue /political considerations.

Well, in a sense the USA won every battle yet lost the war seeing as they failed to meet their overall objectives (well, public objectives anyways).

It would be kind of funny if the USA invaded Mexico... then tried to make some new states out of it. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Block]

Yeah, at that point it's not really losing a war though, just a shift in priorities.

[Zaune]

But is it a 'defeat' if the forces are withdrawn by a succeeding President rather than being actually kicked out of the country militarily?

On Planet Trump? Hell no. He's probably also foolish enough to consider a short victorious war against an easy target to be a good ratings stunt.

Depends on who you ask. I've been told we've lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite never really losing a significant fight, and pulling out because of fatigue /political considerations.

It's hard to call spending a trillion dollars, losing several thousand soldiers and getting upwards of ten times as many innocent bystanders killed in the process in return for achieving sweet fuck-all a win.

[Gandalf]

The reaction here has mostly been amusement. Turnbull isn't particularly popular, and in Australia people tend not to be as fussed about respect for politicians.

The ambassador to the US has visited the White House.

Buzzfeed wins for best coverage.

[Ralin]

Thinking about it... announcing "We are definitely going to fight a war with China in such and such time"... doesn't that give China a huge incentive to launch a first strike?

No, it doesn't. China has been very consistent about their "No first use policy," and it's safe to assume they are genuine because by all accounts they don't have enough nukes to win a nuclear war with the US or Russia.

Assuming you're still talking about that.

[The Romulan Republic]

I suppose. And I'm well aware that China has a much smaller nuclear arsenal (though still enough to cause extraordinary damage).

But, I don't know, I'm thinking that if China concluded that a war was probably going to happen either way, they might think that striking first would give them the best possible chance. Though I admit I don't know enough about how the Chinese government operates or what its mindset is to say weather that's a really plausible decision for them to make.

[Ralin]

But, I don't know, I'm thinking that if China concluded that a war was probably going to happen either way, they might think that striking first would give them the best possible chance. Though I admit I don't know enough about how the Chinese government operates or what its mindset is to say weather that's a really plausible decision for them to make.

If the Chinese government concluded that war was going to happen one way or another their best option would be to take pains to keep it from spiraling into a larger, non-conventional war and then make sure that war ends with something they can plausibly spin as a victory. The latter they're pretty good at. The former I feel less sanguine about but think they would ultimately do. Because the Chinese government is not composed of stupid people and they don't want to die.

[Ralin]

You think he's smart enough to notice someone insulting him nicely?

He'd probably at least have the sense that he was being made the butt of a joke even if he wasn't sure what it was. And if not someone would point it out to him afterward.

[Gandalf]

Protip for the White House press guy; The PM is named "Turnbull," not "Trumble."

[cosmicalstorm]

I agree with Trump, it was a terrible "deal", unless some kind of handsome payment was made to the US.

To be honest I think Obama knew this would happen, he agreed to it to troll-trap Trump.

Turnbull humiliated for thinking he could outsmart Donald Trump, Andrew Bolt writes
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
February 2, 2017 7:50pm
Subscriber only

Donald Trump ‘upset and angry’ over refugee deal
You have to admire Donald Trump’s powers of perception on our dud PM
Malcolm, Trump isn’t a normal politician
Malcolm Turnbull misled the public on refugee deal
What Trump’s fiery phone call with Turnbull reveals about his presidency

MALCOLM Turnbull thought he could outsmart Donald Trump and trap him into taking 1250 of our boat people.

Huge mistake, and now he’s been humiliated.

There is no surprise that an angry Trump attacked Turnbull in their call at the weekend and hung up halfway through, after just 25 minutes.

What did Turnbull expect?

BLOG WITH BOLT: Read Australia’s most-read political blog

This political disaster was always on the cards from the moment Turnbull announced, on November 13 last year, that he’d signed a deal with then US president Barack Obama to take our boat people detained on Nauru and Manus Island.

That was very dumb because just five days earlier Trump had been unexpectedly elected the next president, having campaigned hard against exactly this kind of thing.

Trump had made it perfectly clear that he was against taking in alleged refugees from jihadist countries without at least “extreme vetting”. Turnbull knew this. In fact, he’d planned to announce his Obama arrangement early this year, but after Trump’s win rushed it forward in an apparent attempt to present Trump with a fait accompli — a done-deal the new President would not dare undo.
There is no surprise that an angry Trump attacked Turnbull in their call at the weekend and hung up halfway through. Picture: Pete Marovich

This was always a high-risk gamble. Turnbull, asked last November whether he’d first checked with Trump, brushed the question aside: “We deal with one administration at the time. There is only one president of the United States at a time.”

Bad call, and now Trump has called his bluff.

Yes, Trump did tell ­Turnbull on Sunday that while he hated the Obama deal, his “intention” was to honour it, but once details of their conversation were leaked to the hostile Washington Post, he was under pressure to dump it instead.

(The Post reporter who got the leak, Greg Miller, insisted to me that it did not come from Trump, or with his agreement.)
This political disaster was always on the cards from the moment Turnbull announced the deal. Picture: Lawrence Pinder

Trump had no choice but to back off. The Post had reported him accusing Turnbull of wanting to send him more “Boston bombers”, and he could hardly now tell the American voters he was happy to take them.

So Trump instead tweeted: “Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”

Turnbull has a very nervous wait now to see if his boat people “solution” will survive. He’s also learned a very hard lesson: don’t try messing with Trump.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... cd85874571

[cosmicalstorm]

I hope Trump is smart enough to back away from the South China Sea thing. It's natural for the Chinese to consider a vast area surrounding them to be their sphere of influence.

If Chinese troops were being stationed on the Mexican border and patrolling close to US shores the US reaction would be rabid.

[Simon_Jester]

You are likely to be disappointed here.

Trump never in his life has had any responsibility for foreign policy. He's used to doing business with people he can threaten to sue if they don't do what he wants. Unfortunately, (to borrow a phrase I read in the news lately)... You can't bully a sovereign nation the way you bully your hotel contractor.

It doesn't work. And Trump is far too old and set in his sleazy, domineering ways to change now. Furthermore, by promoting his own political favorites over the established civil servants and people with real foreign policy experience, he's created a bubble full of yes-men who will affirm his desire to "get tough" and push other countries around.

[Simon_Jester]

I agree with Trump, it was a terrible "deal", unless some kind of handsome payment was made to the US.

Australia is a long-time American ally. The US has an economy and population a dozen times larger than Australia's. If the US is NOT willing to help them handle refugees, then it speaks poorly of the Americans, not of Australia. Sometimes you volunteer to help people, for the sake of maintaining a good relationship. If the US is not willing to be a friend to Australia and use its size and economic leverage in ways that are advantageous to Australia, Australia will have to look elsewhere for partners to solve its problems. Like, say, China.

This is not to the US's advantage.

To be honest I think Obama knew this would happen, he agreed to it to troll-trap Trump.

At precisely what time was the agreement made? We know when Turnbull announced it, but not when the negotiations were handled.

Because I assure you, Obama did NOT know Trump would win the election, before Election Day.

Turnbull humiliated for thinking he could outsmart Donald Trump, Andrew Bolt writes
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun

The only sense in which Turnbull has been 'humiliated' here is that a big fat idiot whined at him about having to honor an agreement made by a previous administration.

I certainly hope that the administration that replaces Trump takes this to heart and feels no obligation to honor the idiotic things that he commits the United States to doing.

The article you linked to is a pathetic spin job.

Turnbull has a very nervous wait now to see if his boat people “solution” will survive. He’s also learned a very hard lesson: don’t try messing with Trump.

Translation: don't try making deals with Trumpolini, because Trump only makes deals Trumpolini expects to personally profit from. And he doesn't believe in building up long-term relationships with people dependent on him, as his marital history illustrates.

This is not a man who is capable of appreciating the value of alliances. He will predictably break them. The only way Turnbull is being 'stupid' here is that he wanted to hope that the US would continue to behave as Australia's ally. The problem is that Trumpolini is in the driver's seat, and Trumpolini has no concept of "this is how the US behaves" aside from "this is how I personally want to behave."

[mr friendly guy]

An article from that idiot Andrew Bolt. Is it really worth reading?

He is already a known liar. No its not just me, its the Australian courts when he was sued for hate speech, it was pointed out he would have won if his claims were true, irregardless of whether its hateful. He is a fucking liar.

*************************************************
cosmicalstorm doesn't seem to understand that allies aren't yes men. You give and take. Australia has jumped upon America's military (mis)adventures without much asking. Yet the US can't even take some refugees MORE than what we can take when they have a much larger population. But then the US couldn't even back us over East Timor. Finally Indonesia caved over that one, no help to Clinton (who was POTUS at that time).

Now I don't particularly like Turnbull, but a deal's a deal and allies help each other. Fortunately for Trump, Australia can't push back, and the conservatives in Australia won't, because they like sucking America's cock. At least the ALP isn't afraid of criticising allies when they think they fucked up. Other countries though, might be willing to push back, cough Russia, cough China, cough cough.

[mr friendly guy]

I am more worried about a possible trade war than a real war, although you never know. I am sure there were hawks like Condellezza Rice wanting to get tough on Russia, yet war totally happened. At the end of the day, if the cost is too much, we don't go to war, and continue the conflict via diplomacy, client states etc. I don't think a real war with China is going to happen. A trade war might, although Trump has apparently backed down from big pharma after meeting lobbyist, so maybe he will back down after meeting lobbyist from big American companies who depend on trade with China. From what I remember reading, such a trade war could cause China's growth to go down by roughly 3 percentage points and the US to go into recession.

[Korto]

Comicalstorm, you're quoting Andrew Bolt as a source? The man's been found a complete fucking liar in court.
For non-Australian's who don't know him (cherish your ignorance, really), here's one opinion.

...He'd know all about catching out journalists for being dishonest, misleading, grossly careless, or picking them up for having factual errors or selective misrepresentation, or distorting the truth or lacking care and diligence, or being gratuitous, cynical, disrespectful, intimidatory, inflammatory, derisive, and not acting in objective good faith, because Andrew Bolt has been found by the courts to have done all those things himself in his own journalism.

For more information, there's RationWiki's page. Suffice to say I feel he would fit right in with Fox, or even the Drudge Report (and they can have him).

When they were first talking about this refugee deal (and they're confirmed, actual refugees, fleeing persecution; "alleged" my arse), I was led to understand it was some kind of swap. The US takes some of ours, we take some of theirs--a typical boondoggle wasting money for political reasons, but if it got some of the poor bastards out, then OK. There seems to be no mention of "swap" now, and apparently Trump's asked just what they get out of it. I can answer that.
1) You get to be known as a country that bloody keeps deals when made (although that may be a novel concept to Trump)
2) You get to do a long time friend and ally a favour, because that's what friends do. Favours for each other. And some time in the future you may ask for a favour, and we would remember that you've helped us out in the past. Because people remember things like that.

I feel the Coalition, and particularly Turnbull, have been really depending on this deal. They've been taking damage for a long time over the camps--expensive, badly run, illegal--and this got a lot of pressure off their backs. If it falls through because Trump reneges, I don't see them forgetting in a hurry.

[Ralin]

From what I remember reading, such a trade war could cause China's growth to go down by roughly 3 percentage points and the US to go into recession.

In my experience many supposedly well-informed people seem to believe that if the Chinese economy doesn't double in size at least twice a decade the entire country will turn into a flaming train wreck of human misery and the worst aspects of the 1930s, the Cultural Revolution and Somalia will be reenacted or something stupid like that.

Whatcha wanna bet that Trump is either one of those people or ends up listening to one of them and concludes that China wouldn't dare challenge him once he starts putting the screws on them?

[Flagg]

As far as I'm concerned, the part where he apparently threatened to invade Mexico is the more troubling of the "Trump being a jackass to other world leaders" stories to come out within the past day or so.

Yeah, I think insulting the Australian government, who themselves are shitheads, is not the appropriate thing to focus on.

No, Trump threatening the President of Mexico with a fucking US invasion because of "bad Hombres down there" is the headline. If it happens I hope the Trump voter families of US soldiers who will come back crippled or dead get a bill, because I'm not going to pay for their rehab/ burial.