Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Broomstick]

I'm not sure how this is related to what I wrote, or if it's even meant to be. I was trying to apply rule of law?

In a nutshell, this is the problem with your question. For international relations, in a very practical sense there's no such thing as the rule of law.

^ This

[Elfdart]

This man is a fucking terrorist. If he doesn't get his way, he will shut down the border (realistically meaning an illegal deployment of the armed forced on the border) and destroy the economy. He is also threatening to cut off humanitarian aid to Central American countries, increasing misery and death and prompting more people to flee over the border, which proves this has fuck-all to do with securing the border- its about spite, about pandering to his white nationalist base, and hurting and killing brown people for the sake of hurting and killing brown people.

I'm not well versed on military law. Can you explain why deploying armed forces to shut down the border is illegal? And I'd like a reference to the specific laws in question.

There's the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which bars the militarization of the border. During Katrina, there was a little wrangling over whether aid being ferried across the border by the Mexican Army violated the treaty, but that was only a hundred or so men and they left after delivering their goods.

It's a moot point because this country seldom if ever honors treaties and Trump has no use for any kind of law, being state, federal or international. With the current courts being stacked with flunkies and outright fascists, I doubt anyone will do much to stop him.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I'm not sure how this is related to what I wrote, or if it's even meant to be. I was trying to apply rule of law?

In a nutshell, this is the problem with your question. For international relations, in a very practical sense there's no such thing as the rule of law.

^ This

More precisely, there's only rule of international law if it serves the self-interests of the major powers.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

This man is a fucking terrorist. If he doesn't get his way, he will shut down the border (realistically meaning an illegal deployment of the armed forced on the border) and destroy the economy. He is also threatening to cut off humanitarian aid to Central American countries, increasing misery and death and prompting more people to flee over the border, which proves this has fuck-all to do with securing the border- its about spite, about pandering to his white nationalist base, and hurting and killing brown people for the sake of hurting and killing brown people.

I'm not well versed on military law. Can you explain why deploying armed forces to shut down the border is illegal? And I'd like a reference to the specific laws in question.

There's the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which bars the militarization of the border. During Katrina, there was a little wrangling over whether aid being ferried across the border by the Mexican Army violated the treaty, but that was only a hundred or so men and they left after delivering their goods.

It's a moot point because this country seldom if ever honors treaties and Trump has no use for any kind of law, being state, federal or international. With the current courts being stacked with flunkies and outright fascists, I doubt anyone will do much to stop him.

I'm embarassed to say I forgot about that treaty. Even if, like every other treaty in US history, it's honored more in breach than in compliance.

[Gandalf]

I'm not sure how this is related to what I wrote, or if it's even meant to be. I was trying to apply rule of law?

In a nutshell, this is the problem with your question. For international relations, in a very practical sense there's no such thing as the rule of law.

^ This

Again, when did I mention rule of law? You said that the US attacking Afghanistan was reasonable, and I wondered about applying that rationale in a different direction. What is your definition of reasonable? Can any aggrieved party launch an attack against parties tangentially related?

[The Romulan Republic]

US military apologizes for, deletes tweet from the United States Strategic Command threatening nuclear war:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/s ... videolhtml

The unified command responsible for the United States’ nuclear strike capabilities drew attention on Monday when it tweeted a message and video that threatened the possibility of dropping a bomb.

In the tweet, which was posted as Americans prepared to celebrate New Year’s Eve and was deleted about three hours later, the United States Strategic Command said the nation was “ready to drop something.” A video that was part of the tweet showed a B-2 stealth bomber soaring across the sky before releasing two GPS-guided bombs that exploded into a giant ball of fire after hitting the ground below.

In the video, which was viewed more than 120,000 times, pulsing music beats in the background as the words “STEALTH,” “READY” and “LETHAL” flash across the screen in white block letters.

“#TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big ball...if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger,” the tweet said, adding the hashtags: “#Deterrence #Assurance #CombatReadyForce #PeaceIsOurProfession.”
United States Strategic Command deleted this tweet after about three hours.


United States Strategic Command deleted this tweet after about three hours.
It was quickly derided on social media. Walter M. Shaub Jr., who resigned in 2017 from his position as the head of the Office of Government Ethics, tweeted a screenshot of the deleted Stratcom message, asking: “What kind of maniacs are running this country?” Other critics called it “a sick, bragging joke” and inappropriate and unamusing. The tweet’s defenders argued that any alarm was overblown.

A spokeswoman for the Strategic Command said the post “was part of our Year in Review series meant to feature our command priorities: strategic deterrence, decisive response and combat-ready force.”

“It was a repost from earlier in the year, dropping a pair of conventional Massive Ordnance Penetrators at a test range in the United States,” she said in a statement that did not elaborate.

About 30 minutes after the statement was issued, Stratcom apologized on Twitter, saying that its “previous NYE tweet was in poor taste & does not reflect our values.”

“We are dedicated to the security of America & allies,” the new tweet added.
The video in the original tweet shows a B-2 stealth bomber dropping a GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The GPS-guided bomb weighs tens of thousands of pounds and is designed specifically to penetrate thick concrete that protects entrenched structures such as underground bunkers and weapon storage sites.

Stratcom is one of the American military’s 10 unified commands. While some of those commands oversee operations in a specific region, like the Middle East or Africa, Strategic Command oversees specific capabilities, such as the Air Force’s bomber wings that can strike anywhere in the world, encrypted communications or the tracking of global weapons of mass destruction.

The military’s misstep was not its first on social media in 2018. In May, the Air Force tried to link fierce fighting in Farah, a city in western Afghanistan that was at the time besieged by Taliban militants, to a debate on the internet. The Air Force deleted that tweet and acknowledged that it, too, was in “poor taste.”

Jesus Fucking Christ. It looks like the Trumpian culture of gunboat diplomacy by tweet is spreading through the armed forces.

[Broomstick]

Again, when did I mention rule of law? You said that the US attacking Afghanistan was reasonable, and I wondered about applying that rationale in a different direction. What is your definition of reasonable? Can any aggrieved party launch an attack against parties tangentially related?

Anyone can attack anyone... that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

A pissant country like Afghanistan attacking a major power is fucking stupid. It has nothing to do with law or justice. It's like jabbing a tiger or a bear with a pointy stick. No matter how good the reason for doing so it's a stupid act and the jabber is likely to suffer far worse consequences than the jabbee.

You're trying to apply reason and law in an area were neither usually applies.

As far as "tangentially related" - there was reason to believe the Taliban was sheltering someone very much wanted by the US government. That's called aiding and abetting, it's not "tangential" at all. They were asked to surrender bin Laden or the US military was going to come in and do their best to take him. They said no, we're not giving him up. The US military moved in. Wow, big surprise, that.

Really, I don't get what you don't get about all that.

[Gandalf]

So does the US have the right to just invade anyone who harbours people wanted by US authorities? Can others attack the US for similar reasons?

[FaxModem1]

So does the US have the right to just invade anyone who harbours people wanted by US authorities? Can others attack the US for similar reasons?

Welcome to International politics and the rule of carrying the big stick. The best thing we have in international conflict enforcement is the UN, and the top 5 countries in the world are Security Council members with Veto power. If you want something better, than you need international relations that's less like the equivalent of a societal 'state of nature'.

Other countries can try to invade the US and their allies, unless they know they'd be slaughtered. Unless countries are willing to cede sovereignty to an international body to police their actions(which they usually aren't), they can do whatever they want unless they fear the consequences of others.

Though, this is why the UN has been a partial success. International(between 2 or more countries) wars have gone down tremendously since World War 2, while intranational(within 1 country) wars have increased, due to the respecting of borders and international borders.

[SCRawl]

So does the US have the right to just invade anyone who harbours people wanted by US authorities? Can others attack the US for similar reasons?

This point seems to keep sliding past you for some reason, but I'll state it again: the concept of a "right" doesn't really exist with respect to international relations. I know that you're not a stupid person, so I assume it's just that the idea offends your sensibilities.

Let's try this. You have a home somewhere, presumably, and you have stuff in your home. I do too. If I decide that I want to come into your home and do whatever I want with your stuff, even if I'm able to overpower you and take your stuff, you can call the police and they'll either capture me or kill me during or after the fact. You have a right to be secure in your person and your home (including your stuff in your home), and there exists an entity (the police, as an arm of the government) which will either prevent me from doing so or punish me after the fact, effectively upholding that right. If the police all decide to quit, or at least stop protecting people and their property, and I decide that your stuff looks pretty good to me, there are only a few things that will stop me: my restraint (or my fear of retribution), you, and your neighbours. I have no right to your stuff, but if you can't stop me, and your neighbours won't stop me, and I won't stop myself, well, I'm going to have your stuff.

Now, in the above scenario, replace the two of us with two nations, and that's basically what international relations are like. There are no police, there really are no rules save for what we mutually decide to enforce, and those are subject to the whims of the entities who are carrying the biggest sticks.

[Ralin]

So does the US have the right to just invade anyone who harbours people wanted by US authorities? Can others attack the US for similar reasons?

You've hit on the part everyone doesn't want to explicitly say. Morality, international laws and norms, etc those are all very important as justifications when America and company does things. The same doesn't apply in reverse. If I declared that the few thousand Americans who died on 9/11 had it coming as punishment for decades of harmful policies by the US in the Middle East and other parts of the world TRR and Broomstick would immediately condemn me for condoning the murder of civilians, which is much worse than killing soldiers in specific contexts agreed upon by the US and other countries or killing civilians as the unavoidable and predictable consequence of fighting a war around them. Start talking about Iraqis bombing American cities in retaliation for us raping their country and everyone goes all Game of Thrones/realpolitik and sneering about how the stupid it is for a small pissant country to attack the mighty US and hey morality just doesn't apply to this sort of thing because no one can force America to follow it so what's your point even?

Universal human rights and international law are and always have been ideological weapons in the service to Euro-American imperialism. Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.

[Broomstick]

So does the US have the right to just invade anyone who harbours people wanted by US authorities? Can others attack the US for similar reasons?

Bin Laden wasn't merely "wanted" by the US authorities, he was believed to have engineered a successful attack on the US resulting in thousands dead. That's a little different than typical espionage cases. Or going after a rapist like Roman Polanski - he's a wanted man, too, but not worth starting a war over, or even sending a SEAL team after him.

If I recall, at the time no one was disputing or protesting the US going after the culprits of the 9/11 attack other than folks like the Taliban who were at least tangentially involved and in danger of harm's way.

And sure, anyone can try to attack the US ... but there are consequences for doing do. Expecting the US to sit back and tolerate attacks is ludicrous.

[Broomstick]

Ralin, do not presume to speak for me. Do not do that again.

But to make it clear - I condemn the killing of civilians regardless of who is doing it. I've certainly criticized my own country on this forum, I'm nowhere near a "my country right or wrong" patriot you seem to think I am. I most certainly called bullshit on the "justification" for invading Iraq.

But NO country can tolerate an actual attack on its own soil. Insisting that the US is immoral for responding as any other nation would do if they possibly could is hypocrisy on your part and just demonstrates what sort of bigot you are - anything American/Western is automatically bad, everyone else good, regardless of actual conduct.

[The Romulan Republic]

You don't rabidly hate all things America and automatically defend all actions by its opponents, therefore in Ralin's book you are just a racist imperialist who supports the murder of civilians (which is bad in this context because said civilians aren't filthy Americans), and he will feel absolutely entitled to put words in your mouth. Believe me, I've been there.

[Ralin]

Ralin, do not presume to speak for me. Do not do that again.

I was goddamn summing up something you just said on this same page.

But to make it clear - I condemn the killing of civilians regardless of who is doing it. I've certainly criticized my own country on this forum, I'm nowhere near a "my country right or wrong" patriot you seem to think I am. I most certainly called bullshit on the "justification" for invading Iraq.

You condemn the results, but the causes? The causes are good. As long as even American left-wingers are attached to the idea that we could somehow have a kinder, gentler War on Terror that makes the world a better place without causing orders of magnitude more suffering than whatever it was that set us off if only Bush wasn't so stupid or the Republicans weren't so bad there will always, always always be another Iraq or Afghanistan.

But NO country can tolerate an actual attack on its own soil. Insisting that the US is immoral for responding as any other nation would do if they possibly could is hypocrisy on your part and just demonstrates what sort of bigot you are - anything American/Western is automatically bad, everyone else good, regardless of actual conduct.

America is no more like any other country than white is just another ethnicity. There's nothing hypocritical for condemning American wars or myriad social problems and not condemning other countries for superficially similar acts because because America's history and disproportionate military and economic power makes them different.

Because there was no possible way that America could invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 without causing the mass death and suffering. 'Not supporting' the murder of civilians means nothing when you support thinking that will inevitably lead to the same damned result.

[Gandalf]

You've hit on the part everyone doesn't want to explicitly say. Morality, international laws and norms, etc those are all very important as justifications when America and company does things. The same doesn't apply in reverse. If I declared that the few thousand Americans who died on 9/11 had it coming as punishment for decades of harmful policies by the US in the Middle East and other parts of the world TRR and Broomstick would immediately condemn me for condoning the murder of civilians, which is much worse than killing soldiers in specific contexts agreed upon by the US and other countries or killing civilians as the unavoidable and predictable consequence of fighting a war around them. Start talking about Iraqis bombing American cities in retaliation for us raping their country and everyone goes all Game of Thrones/realpolitik and sneering about how the stupid it is for a small pissant country to attack the mighty US and hey morality just doesn't apply to this sort of thing because no one can force America to follow it so what's your point even?

Universal human rights and international law are and always have been ideological weapons in the service to Euro-American imperialism. Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.

The weird part of the sudden realpolitik wanking going on is that it's all based on rational state actors. What happens if an NGO of angry Iraqis take it upon themselves to try and right the scales? Will everyone take it in stride as they expect their country's victims to do?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

They'll be treated as a terrorist organization, I'd imagine, hunted down by the US and its allies, perhaps even by the Iraqi government themselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, by the Iraqi government as well, because governments kind of depend on this whole "monopoly of force" thing. No government wants private citizens going around killing people without its sanction (note: this does not include cases where they do have state sanction but the state pretends that they don't for the sake of "plausible deniability").

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Yeah, by the Iraqi government as well, because governments kind of depend on this whole "monopoly of force" thing. No government wants private citizens going around killing people without its sanction (note: this does not include cases where they do have state sanction but the state pretends that they don't for the sake of "plausible deniability").

The organization formerly known as Blackwater, for example.

[The Romulan Republic]

Blackwater were mercenaries hired by the US government, so they don't really fit either example I listed. They weren't acting (at least generally) without the permission of the US government (which means the US government has a level of responsibility for their actions), so they don't count as private citizens waging war outside government authority, but neither were they being secretly backed by the government to maintain plausible deniability. They were just another government-hired mercenary group in the long history of mercenary groups, unless I'm missing something.

[Gandalf]

So does the US have the right to just invade anyone who harbours people wanted by US authorities? Can others attack the US for similar reasons?

Bin Laden wasn't merely "wanted" by the US authorities, he was believed to have engineered a successful attack on the US resulting in thousands dead. That's a little different than typical espionage cases. Or going after a rapist like Roman Polanski - he's a wanted man, too, but not worth starting a war over, or even sending a SEAL team after him.

That's still wanted. You can add the word "very" in front if that helps you.

If I recall, at the time no one was disputing or protesting the US going after the culprits of the 9/11 attack other than folks like the Taliban who were at least tangentially involved and in danger of harm's way.

Your point being?

And sure, anyone can try to attack the US ... but there are consequences for doing do. Expecting the US to sit back and tolerate attacks is ludicrous.

But expecting Iraq (and other victims of US foreign policy) to sit back and tolerate attacks is totally awesome?

[K. A. Pital]

Blackwater were mercenaries hired by the US government, so they don't really fit either example I listed. They weren't acting (at least generally) without the permission of the US government (which means the US government has a level of responsibility for their actions), so they don't count as private citizens waging war outside government authority, but neither were they being secretly backed by the government to maintain plausible deniability. They were just another government-hired mercenary group in the long history of mercenary groups, unless I'm missing something.

So would you be okay if Black Waters of Iraq, an organization of patriots, took revenge on the US for bombing and invading their country in a war of aggression (an international crime against humanity as set by the precedent at Nürnberg)? (With deniability of course)?

If not, why?

[SCRawl]

But expecting Iraq (and other victims of US foreign policy) to sit back and tolerate attacks is totally awesome?

You know what would be totally awesome? If there weren't any superpowers, if countries dealt fairly with each other, if no nations ever tried to use force or intrigue to advance their interests. Even better: there are no nations, and we all act to make things better for everyone. But they don't act that way. So why do you keep asking the same question based on the premise that they do, or at least should? We know that they should, but wishing for nations to behave themselves hasn't ever worked.

[FaxModem1]

Blackwater were mercenaries hired by the US government, so they don't really fit either example I listed. They weren't acting (at least generally) without the permission of the US government (which means the US government has a level of responsibility for their actions), so they don't count as private citizens waging war outside government authority, but neither were they being secretly backed by the government to maintain plausible deniability. They were just another government-hired mercenary group in the long history of mercenary groups, unless I'm missing something.

So would you be okay if Black Waters of Iraq, an organization of patriots, took revenge on the US for bombing and invading their country in a war of aggression (an international crime against humanity as set by the precedent at Nürnberg)? (With deniability of course)?

If not, why?

Are you conflating informing someone of something the same as being okay with something? Because you seem to think that the two are the same.

[The Romulan Republic]

Blackwater were mercenaries hired by the US government, so they don't really fit either example I listed. They weren't acting (at least generally) without the permission of the US government (which means the US government has a level of responsibility for their actions), so they don't count as private citizens waging war outside government authority, but neither were they being secretly backed by the government to maintain plausible deniability. They were just another government-hired mercenary group in the long history of mercenary groups, unless I'm missing something.

So would you be okay if Black Waters of Iraq, an organization of patriots, took revenge on the US for bombing and invading their country in a war of aggression (an international crime against humanity as set by the precedent at Nürnberg)? (With deniability of course)?

If not, why?

If the Iraqi government was at war with us, Iraqis would be justified in attacking American soldiers/military targets (but not random civilians), and Iraq would have the right to send mercenaries over here to fight us. Iraqis would not be justified in launching an attack on the US and murdering a bunch of Americans to get revenge for things that happened years ago.

Same thing applies in reverse. I support the use of force by any nation in only two situations: as a response to/defense against an attack (this does not mean "revenge attacks for things that happened decades ago", because then no conflict would ever be over), or to intervene to stop acts such as genocide or slavery.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here, besides your desperate need to find reasons why its justified to kill Americans, or your desire to catch me in a contradiction.