Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[ray245]

Probably both are true.

No, not every single act he takes need be (or is) part of a master plan to undermine democracy- but I have yet to see convincing evidence that any major act by Donald Trump is driven by anything other than some form of selfishness. If you explained to him what altruism was, he'd probably say it was for losers.

I don't deny he is driven by selfishness. I think that selfishness is expressed in a very clear-cut, black/white understanding of the world. I think he sees himself as an enlightened autocrat able to get stuff done for the sake of a democracy, and could not legitimately understand why people are opposing his views and ideas.

[Thanas]

Russsian hacker claims FSB ordered him to hack DNC

[mr friendly guy]

Trump's team to negotiate peace for the IvP issue consist of no middle east experts, and consists of real estate and bankruptcy lawyers. Say what?

[AniThyng]

Trump's team to negotiate peace for the IvP issue consist of no middle east experts, and consists of real estate and bankruptcy lawyers. Say what?

The real estate lawyers might actually be relevent, it is a land dispute, no?
/s.

[Thanas]

And his funding of zionist racist shits charities just increases his knowledge of the region. /s.

[FaxModem1]

Newsweek

CHINA TELLS TRUMP 'THIS IS NOT HOW A U.S. PRESIDENT SHOULD BEHAVE' AFTER NORTH KOREA TWEET
BY TOM O'CONNOR ON 12/29/17 AT 12:03 PM

WORLD
CHINA
DONALD TRUMP
NORTH KOREA
OIL
SANCTIONS
SOUTH KOREA

Updated | China has rejected President Donald Trump's accusations that it was illegally supplying oil to North Korea, criticizing Friday the Republican leader's evidence, and his demeanor.

Trump launched the allegation Thursday via a tweet in which he claimed China had been "caught RED HANDED" shipping oil into North Korea, a violation of the strict United Nations Security Council sanctions punishing the reclusive, authoritarian state for its unwillingness to abandon an increasingly powerful ballistic and nuclear weapons program. In response, the ruling Chinese Communist Party's official organ published a commentary questioning the U.S. and South Korea's interpretation of the satellite imagery allegedly showing Chinese ships transferring oil to North Korean boats in the Yellow Sea.


Related: China and Russia Train for War With U.S. If Trump Invades North Korea

ADVERTISEMENT

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

"In the photos, North Korean boats appeared to be linking up with Chinese vessels. These 'Chinese vessels' are not oil tankers and are not large-tonnage. U.S. and South Korean media believe these photos prove China violated U.N. Security Council resolutions to transfer oil to North Korea, but even in the reports it is unclear where the vessels come from or whom they belong to," The Global Times wrote Friday.


"Trump's tweet is one of the strongest responses from the U.S. and South Korea. He concluded that China was caught before the truth was clarified and commented in a strong tone. This is not how a U.S. president should behave," it continued.

RTS1J67O
President Donald Trump (right) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (left) arrive for a state dinner at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, on November 9.
JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS

The claims appeared Wednesday in the South Korean newspaper The Chosun Ilbo, which cited South Korean government sources saying U.S. reconnaissance captured Chinese ships secretly providing oil to their North Korean counterparts about 30 times since October. Just before Trump ran with the claim on his personal Twitter account, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Ren Guoqiang immediately denied the U.S. and South Korea's version of events, saying, "The situation you have mentioned absolutely does not exist." The Chinese Foreign Ministry also dismissed the charges on Friday, blaming "hyped-up media reports."


"The fact is that since August, there have been no records of this ship docking, entering or leaving a China's port. Whether this ship has ever called at other countries' ports is not ours to tell. Therefore, what these reports claimed is not true," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters.

"China has been comprehensively and strictly implementing the Security Council resolutions and fulfilling its due international obligations," she added.

Like the U.S., China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and has voted in favor of sanctions against North Korea, despite being its greatest traditional ally. China too, however, has been deeply critical of the U.S.'s growing military presence and activity in Asia-Pacific, where Washington disputes Beijing's extensive territorial claims at sea and has deployed advanced missile defense systems.


Despite China's denials, South Korean government officials revealed Friday that on November 24 they seized the Hong Kong-flagged Lighthouse Winmore vessel alleged to have delivered 600 tons of refined petroleum to North Korea and the vessel's crew, which consists of 23 Chinese nationals and two from Myanmar, were being held in the southern South Korean port city of Yeosu, the official Yonhap News Agency reported. The crew would be released following an investigation and officials said crew testimonies suggested a Taiwanese company had ordered the oil transaction, according to the South China Morning Post.

Both China and its rival government in Taiwan have said they had no knowledge of the incident or the vessel's seizure.

ChinaNorthKoreaOil
Images dated October 19 depict what the Department of the Treasury says was an "attempt by Korea Kumbyol Trading Company's vessel Rye Song Gang 1 to conduct a ship-to-ship transfer, possibly of oil, in an effort to evade sanctions."
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Since Trump took office in January, he has attempted to adopt a hard-line stance against his North Korean rival, supreme leader Kim Jong Un, who has argued his nuclear weapons were necessary to defend against a potential U.S. invasion. Despite Trump intensifying U.S. military drills and economic sanctions against Kim's government, the young ruler has managed this year to conduct his country's first intercontinental ballistic missiles tests as well as a sixth, by far more powerful, nuclear weapons test.

Both Trump and Kim have earned international criticism for continuously threatening and insulting each other as the crisis escalated on the Korean Peninsula. China and Russia, which shared China's opposition to expanding U.S. military influence in the region, have appealed for calm and urged Trump especially to rescind his administration's warnings that military force could be used to try to disarm Kim's arsenal—something North Korea has promised would be met with nuclear destruction.

This story has been updated with more details about South Korea's seizure of the Hong Kong-flagged vessel alleged to have delivered oil to North Korean boats.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, that won't help. If you tell that think-skinned little prick not to do something, he'll probably just double down.

[Simon_Jester]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Chinese government knows this.

I mean, if you're powerful enough as a nation for Trump to actually need your cooperation (key to step 3), the following sounds amusingly like it might work:

1) We troll Trump into saying nasty shit about us.
2) We then wait a few months until he's forgotten and/or gotten mad about something else.
3) Then wait until he tries to get some kind of agreement with us over something he needs.
4) Say "yeah, we're still mad about that nasty shit you said, we're walking away from the deal unless you throw in XYZ."

There are limits to the effectiveness of this plan, but I can actually see someone trying to follow up on it.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I wasn't sure if this was worthy of its own thread.

Donald Trump has said it is "time for change" in Iran after at least 12 people were reportedly killed in nationwide protests in the country.
State TV reported that 10 people were killed during clashes on Sunday night, while two demonstrators were killed during a protest in western Iran late on Saturday.
It was also reported that security forces had repelled "armed protesters" who tried to take over police stations and military bases.
Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu wished the protesters "success in their noble quest for freedom" and called them "brave" and "heroic".
Protests started in the northeastern city of Mashhad over economic issues and have spread to other cities, with hundreds of people arrested.
The protests are the largest to strike the Islamic Republic since those that followed the country's disputed 2009 presidential election.
The US president tweeted that "Iran is failing at every level", adding: "The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food and for freedom."

Link.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll say what I said in the thread on that- Trump's comments won't help. He has zero credibility, and all his weighing in will do is undermine the credibility of the protesters, and make it easier to dismiss them as just western agitators.

[Simon_Jester]

Would it have been better for him to have said nothing?

[The Romulan Republic]

Would it have been better for him to have said nothing?

Quite possibly, given who's speaking, and the circumstances.

At the very least, he could have avoided making a belligerent statement with an implied threat of American intervention. Though if he was capable of that level of self-restraint, he wouldn't be Donald Trump. Hence why I'd rather he just didn't say anything.

And on that note:

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/2/16843480/t ... tton-tweet

President Donald Trump taunted Kim Jong Un Tuesday night, bragging about his "Nuclear Button" and how it is "much bigger & more powerful" than the North Korean leader's.

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the "Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times." Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

No, ladies and gentlemen, this isn't the Onion. This is the President of the United States, on the eve of a possible nuclear war, Twitter-boasting about how his nuclear button is bigger than Kim Jong Un's.

What the fuck is wrong with this man? He's talking about nuclear war like its a pissing contest.

The only way I can make sense of this, even taking into account his obvious narcicism and sociopathy, is that he must be feeling particularly insecure about the size of Little Donald today. I mean, reading about this, today marked the occasion when it really sunk in that Kim Jong Un may be the more reasonable, mature leader in this situation.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[AniThyng]

Would it have been better for him to have said nothing?

Probably? Liberals being accused of being brainwashed by western ( or Zionist) propaganda or being western stooges is a definite thing in most authoritarian non-western countries.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am actually starting to seriously wonder if a military coup to remove Trump immediately would be the least of many evils, at this point, if those who's lawful duty it is to act as checks on a criminal or lunatic President continue to refuse to act.

[Ace Pace]

I am actually starting to seriously wonder if a military coup to remove Trump immediately would be the least of many evils, at this point, if those who's lawful duty it is to act as checks on a criminal or lunatic President continue to refuse to act.

No. That way leads to madness if you care about the long term. It might save the current U.S. but will inevitably lead to less civil engagement.

[Patroklos]

I am actually starting to seriously wonder if a military coup to remove Trump immediately would be the least of many evils, at this point, if those who's lawful duty it is to act as checks on a criminal or lunatic President continue to refuse to act.

Military coups eh? Please, tell us again how it is Trump that threatens our democracy.

[Simon_Jester]

Trump does threaten our democracy, for reasons I could happily discuss if you're interested; a coup to remove him would also present such a threat.

About the only example I can think of of a society that had a habit of military coups "for democracy" that did not IMMEDIATELY fall into the pit... Hm, it'd have to be Turkey. I can't think of any other examples.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am actually starting to seriously wonder if a military coup to remove Trump immediately would be the least of many evils, at this point, if those who's lawful duty it is to act as checks on a criminal or lunatic President continue to refuse to act.

Military coups eh? Please, tell us again how it is Trump that threatens our democracy.

Like Simon_Jester said, your Dear Leader is a threat to our democracy. So would a coup be.

In the event that Trump decided to start a nuclear war with North Korea, however (particularly if he did so without securing Chinese/Russian cooperation, risking WWIII), then a coup might be considered the least of many extremely shitty options. Given, you know, the choice between "coup" and "the world burns".

Believe me, its not something I want. Nobody sane would want it. I think that in the long-term, it would be far more beneficial to try to make an example of Trump through the appropriate legal channels of impeachment, indictment, trial, and conviction.

[Dominus Atheos]

So in lighter news, this happened:

https://twitter.com/KFC_UKI/status/948525809840656385

McDonald’s leader Ronald just stated he has a 'burger on his desk at all times'. Will someone from his big shoed, red nosed regime inform him that I too have a burger on my desk, but mine is a box meal which is bigger and more powerful than his, and mine has gravy! #nuclearbutton.

[Simon_Jester]

I will eat some Kentucky Fried Chicken now. Though I normally prefer Popeye's.

My wife has joined me in this resolution.

Also, I wish we had Colonel Sanders OR Ronald McDonald as president right now.

[Ralin]

I'm going to say the same thing I said last time Trump and North Korea came up. This is unremarkable other than the fact Trump is doing it and he was cruder and more bombastic about it than others. Threatening enemies and potential enemies with nuclear annihilation is part of how nuclear deterrence works, and for once Trump is entirely right when he says that his metaphorical nuclear penis is much larger than Kim Jong-un's.

When the message is "Attack us or our allies and we will crush you with the vast power of the United States military" it doesn't really matter how nicely you phrase it. And that has always been the underlying message.

[Simon_Jester]

The difference is that when you try to aggressively and abusively grind opponents' faces in the "stay down or we blow your country up" threat, they are far more likely to start wondering if they need to hit first.

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/stat ... 8706251776

This twitter thread by Kurt Eichenwald illustrates what I'm trying to get at.

It can’t happen. The Roman Empire can’t fall. The Soviet Union can’t disintegrate. Nazis can’t rearm. The Titanic can’t sink. Humanity has long blinded itself to reality with the words “It can’t happen.” Each time we've been taught it can.

A nuclear war CAN happen. And we now have a man in control of the world's largest nuclear arsenal who threatens an enemy nuclear power simply because he saw some commentary on @FoxNews that triggered his madness.

We as a nation have come to start ignoring Trump and his megalomaniacal tweets as nothing more than amusing and disturbing ravings. He makes them, we react in horror, and then he says another.

Overseas, though, they don't have the luxury of believing he has a limit. They say out loud what politicians here will not: The United States is led by a man who suffers from a mental illness or a severe paranoid personality disorder. They don't have the comfort - and some of them don't have the smarts - to move on to the next tweet.

Last night, the President of the United States threatened, without rational provocation, a nuclear power with the possibility that he might detonate a hydrogen bomb over their country. Imagine for a moment that Presidents Xi or Putin had sent that same tweet, directed at us. Would we have laughed it off? Would we have said, "oh, that silly man." No. We would have gone to DEFCON 2, possibly DEFCON 1.

When Reagan accidentally made a bombing joke over what he thought was a dead mike, the Soviet Union went on military alert. This was not some accident, where Trump thought people in the room with him would laugh at his "joke." This was a public threat, one leveled Kim Jong Un, an insecure, egomaniacal, unstable tyrant who also happens to have the power to destroy the world. For what purpose?

Threaten a nuclear nation with nukes, they don't back down. If they do, they are at risk of losing their nuclear arsenal based on nothing but "It can't happen." If a nuclear power believes it is at risk of a strike, nuclear strategy dictates you strike first, to take out as much of the other power's arsenal as possible before it is shot at you.

And our President believes this global tipping point, which can be reached in a second, is meaningless? That, to gain more social media followers or brag or satisfy the maniacs at @FoxNews, it is worth destabilizing the nuclear world in a moment that could ultimately lead to a first strike?

...

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm going to say the same thing I said last time Trump and North Korea came up. This is unremarkable other than the fact Trump is doing it and he was cruder and more bombastic about it than others. Threatening enemies and potential enemies with nuclear annihilation is part of how nuclear deterrence works, and for once Trump is entirely right when he says that his metaphorical nuclear penis is much larger than Kim Jong-un's.

When the message is "Attack us or our allies and we will crush you with the vast power of the United States military" it doesn't really matter how nicely you phrase it. And that has always been the underlying message.

Simon_Jester basically said it already, but basically, tone actually matters in political/diplomatic rhetoric. How you say something is important, even if the basic realities are the same either way. If the President's rhetoric gives the impression that the President is an unstable, infantile egotist (however accurate that impression may be), it is to the detriment of American diplomacy. If Trump's rhetoric makes him and Kim Jong Un look like two sides of the same coin on a regular basis, that hurts American interests.

While Trump refuses to have talks with North Korea, South Korea isn't. Its not Kim Jong Un who's being isolated by Trump's behaviour. Its the United States.

And while it is entirely true that Trump has more firepower at his disposal than Fat Kim* (even if he's no more fit to wield it), the fact that he seems to regard nuclear diplomacy as a personal dick-waving/egotism contest rather than a matter of national security is deeply unsettling. Its an insight into the psychology of a man who thinks of everything in selfish terms, and now potentially holds all of our fates in his hands.

Its also an utter embarrassment to the United States, and yet another nail in the coffin of our international credibility, and the credibility of our very system of government.

*See, I can say shit like that, because I'm not President of the United States.

[Ralin]

Lemme focus on a couple points here.

Simon_Jester basically said it already, but basically, tone actually matters in political/diplomatic rhetoric. How you say something is important, even if the basic realities are the same either way.

As a general rule, yes, but

If the President's rhetoric gives the impression that the President is an unstable, infantile egotist (however accurate that impression may be), it is to the detriment of American diplomacy. If Trump's rhetoric makes him and Kim Jong Un look like two sides of the same coin on a regular basis, that hurts American interests.

Do you think Kim Jong-un is an unstable, infantile egotist? Because I don’t. I think he’s an immoral but thus far fairly successful dictator who routinely makes inflated claims for the sake of propaganda that his actual actions fall well short of.
Going to elaborate on this further when I get to Simon’s post, but for now

Fat Kim

*See, I can say shit like that, because I'm not President of the United States.

Can the Vice-President say (accurate) insulting things about Kim Jong-un without risking nuclear war? How about the Speaker of the House? Individual Congressmen? Some prominent media personality without a position in the government? Free speech is a thing in this country, and if Kim Jong-un and his government are so irrational that they’ll fly off the handle and start a nuclear war over Donald Trump saying bad things about them on Twitter then trying to avoid a war with North Korea is a doomed effort.

The difference is that when you try to aggressively and abusively grind opponents' faces in the "stay down or we blow your country up" threat, they are far more likely to start wondering if they need to hit first.

Wonder and then reject it. There are very few scenarios where it makes sense for North Korea to ‘hit first,’ and they mostly involve things like ‘there has been a sudden surge of American troops at bases in South Korea and Japan, they’re clearly gearing up for an invasion and we need to attack them en route.”

Going to skip to what I think is the big flaw with the argument you linked, which is one

Last night, the President of the United States threatened, without rational provocation, a nuclear power with the possibility that he might detonate a hydrogen bomb over their country

The ‘without rational provocation’ part isn’t true. Trump’s tweet was in reaction to Kim Jong-un publicly bragging that he has nuclear weapons and that the metaphorical button to fire them is on his desk!

Two,

Imagine for a moment that Presidents Xi or Putin had sent that same tweet, directed at us. Would we have laughed it off? Would we have said, "oh, that silly man." No. We would have gone to DEFCON 2, possibly DEFCON 1.

YES! If Donald Trump started the year off by publicly declaring that the entire Chinese mainland is within range of America’s nuclear arsenal and that the metaphorical big red button is on his desk and ready to fire at any moment if they get out of line and Xi Jinping responded with some variation of “Cao ni ma, pangzi, we have enough nukes on standby to reduce your country to a flaming rubble if you attack us!” I would consider that a one hundred percent justified response!

Trump’s tweet is crude and threatening. It was written in response to a threat from a country with the capacity to back it up. Under the circumstances some variation of ‘Mine are bigger, you don’t want to go down that road’ is both justified and appropriate because that’s the exact scenario the North Korean government is invoking. It sounds childish to say that it’s okay because they started it but, well, they started it. Better that they get a scary counter threat than become that much more accustomed to tossing around threats of nuclear annihilation all willy-nilly. I’d really, really prefer that someone other than Trump was calling the shots on this one, but this is a case of treating Kim Jong-un and his country like the powerful, dangerous potential threat that they want their enemies to believe they are.

[FaxModem1]

The Independent

United Nations Security Council lectures US ambassador Nikki Haley on purpose of UN after America's Iran demands
Organisation reaffirms support for multilateral nuclear agreement, while Iranian ambassador delivers lengthy history on popular revolt in US

Michael Schwirtz 2 hours ago

Click to follow
The Independent US

Nikki Haley denounced the Islamic Republic as an 'oppressive government'
POPULAR VIDEOS

At least nine crews tackle fire at Bristol University listed building

Barcelona announce £142m Coutinho transfer from Liverpool
Efforts by the Trump administration to marshal a muscular international response to Iran’s crackdown on anti-government protesters appeared to backfire Friday, as members of the UN Security Council instead used a special session called by the United States to lecture the US ambassador on the proper purpose of the body and to reaffirm support for the Iran nuclear agreement.

It was an afternoon of high diplomatic theatre that began with a passionate denunciation of Iran’s “oppressive government” by the US ambassador, Nikki R. Haley, and ended with the Iranian ambassador delivering a lengthy history of popular revolt in the United States — from the violent demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 to the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011.

In the interim, council members did, one by one, condemn the Iranian government’s response during more than a week of protests. As of Friday, more than 20 people had been killed and hundreds had been arrested. The authorities have blocked access to social media and have blamed foreign “enemies” for instigating the unrest, a common refrain at times of upheaval that in this case the government has provided no evidence to support.

READ MORE
Nikki Haley says the world is watching Iran's response to unrest
Be careful who you put your trust in when it comes to Iran protests
What I learned from staying in Iran during the last days of the Shah
Russia warns US not to interfere in Iran's 'domestic affairs'
Iran declares victory against anti-government protesters
In her remarks, Haley said the United States would remain steadfastly behind the Iranian protesters.

“Let there be no doubt whatsoever,” she said, “the United States stands unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves.”

But there was evidence of a mini-revolt brewing within the Security Council chamber, not only among traditional adversaries like Russia and China, but also among close allies like France and Sweden. Many seemed to fear that the outspoken criticism by the Americans was simply a pretext to undermine the Iran nuclear deal, which President Donald Trump has long desired to scrap.

It is not precisely clear what Haley hoped to achieve by convening the session Friday, which was not previously scheduled. Until the meeting began at 3 pm, it was not even certain whether Haley would be able to secure the votes needed to call the session to order.

But even before the session began, France’s ambassador, François Delattre, warned against “instrumentalisation” of the protests “from the outside.”

Speaking before the council, he went further.

“We must be wary of any attempt to exploit this crisis for personal ends, which would have a diametrically opposed outcome to that which is wished,” Delattre said.

He asked rhetorically why the Security Council had not taken up the issue of Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Missouri, which were at times also met with a violent police response.

“The real reason for convening today’s meeting is not an attempt to protect human rights or promote the interests of the Iranian people, but rather as a veiled attempt to use the current moment to continue to undermine” the Iranian deal, Nebenzya said.

Iran protests – in pictures
11
show all
Trump has repeatedly excoriated the deal, which was a signature diplomatic achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama. In October, he refused to recertify the deal, though he left it to Congress to legislate changes to it. (None of the other world powers that signed the deal believes renegotiation is possible.)

This month, Trump will again have to choose whether to continue to waive sanctions, as the deal requires, or chart a more confrontational approach that would further antagonise European allies.

Trump himself conflated the protests with the Iran nuclear deal this week, arguing that financial benefits received by the Iranian authorities as part of the accord had fuelled the corruption that the country’s people were protesting.

At the Security Council on Friday, most members insisted that these two issues were separate.

“It needs to be crystal clear to the international community that the situation in Iran does not belong on the agenda of the Security Council,” said Sacha Sergio Llorenty, the Bolivian ambassador.

Sweden’s representative, Irina Schoulgin Nyoni, concurred: “We have our reservations on the format and timing of this session.”

Such reticence to support the US position is the latest evidence of growing international resistance to the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities, particularly at the United Nations. Last month, a large majority of UN members voted for a resolution denouncing the United States’ decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there.

Haley had to use her veto to block a similar resolution in the Security Council that was supported by every other member.


READ MORE
Iran's Grand Ayatollah accuses foreign powers of meddling in protests
On Wednesday, the US Mission to the United Nations held a cocktail reception for the nine countries that voted against the resolution in the General Assembly, which, aside from Israel, were Guatemala, Honduras, Togo, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.

In a video message played at the reception, Trump thanked the attendees for “standing with the United States.”

He said the vote would “go down as a very important date,” and their support was “noted and greatly appreciated.”

The New York Times

Can I have a Presidential administration that isn't an embarrassment to the world at large? When did that become too much to ask?