Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Ralin]

Regardless, this request was significantly more specific than you made it out to be.

Article: Last year the Trump administration asked Pentagon for a war plan to use if they decided to attack Iran. This is shocking.
Me: I'm not surprised the Trump administration asked the Pentagon for a war plan. That's what they do. How is this shocking? It doesn't even seem to have been Trump who ordered it.

What...part of this do you consider vague?

[The Romulan Republic]

On CNN now: Dems discussing subpoenaing Trump's interpreter at the Putin meetings, after revelations that Trump confiscated the interpreter's notes and forbad him to talk about what was discussed, even to other high ranking members of the administration. They may also subpoena Rex Tillerson, who was present at one of the meetings.

[SCRawl]

On CNN now: Dems discussing subpoenaing Trump's interpreter at the Putin meetings, after revelations that Trump confiscated the interpreter's notes and forbad him to talk about what was discussed, even to other high ranking members of the administration. They may also subpoena Rex Tillerson, who was present at one of the meetings.

Couldn't President Trump simply assert executive privilege? I mean, assuming there wasn't some sort of criminal conspiracy, isn't this sort of thing what it's for?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

He will certainly try.

[Civil War Man]

Couldn't President Trump simply assert executive privilege? I mean, assuming there wasn't some sort of criminal conspiracy, isn't this sort of thing what it's for?

IANAL, but the analysis I've heard is that asserting executive privilege would fall flat because a third party (Putin and his entourage) was present at the meetings.

[The Romulan Republic]

Couldn't President Trump simply assert executive privilege? I mean, assuming there wasn't some sort of criminal conspiracy, isn't this sort of thing what it's for?

IANAL, but the analysis I've heard is that asserting executive privilege would fall flat because a third party (Putin and his entourage) was present at the meetings.

Ultimately, I suppose, that's something for the Supreme Court to decide. If I had to guess, I'd say it would be 5/4 against in the current court, with Justice Roberts choosing to maintain the current balance rather than sanction a major expansion of executive power, while if RBG is gone and Trump gets another Justice in, it would be 5/4 in his favour.

[The Romulan Republic]

McCabe: Trump refused to believe reports from his intelligence organizations that NK had conducted a missile test, because Putin had told him NK didn't have that capability:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/02/1 ... -intel.cnn

[The Romulan Republic]

So Trump met Kim Jong Un again today. But thanks to Cohen, Trump's borderline-treasonous bid to win a Nobel Prize diplomacy received virtually no news coverage.

[Lost Soal]

Its receiving plenty of coverage now.....

..that the talks have collapsed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Guess Trump didn't suck Dear Leader's dick hard enough (or vice versa).

I just hope he doesn't use this as a pretext for some more saber rattling to distract from Mueller and Cohen. I can just see him thinking "They'll never impeach a war time President."

[Gandalf]

So Trump met Kim Jong Un again today. But thanks to Cohen, Trump's borderline-treasonous bid to win a Nobel Prize diplomacy received virtually no news coverage.

Borderline treasonous?

[The Romulan Republic]

So Trump met Kim Jong Un again today. But thanks to Cohen, Trump's borderline-treasonous bid to win a Nobel Prize diplomacy received virtually no news coverage.

Borderline treasonous?

Remember the last time he met Fat Kim, when he made major concessions to, praised, and reiterated the propaganda of a country the US is still technically at war with for almost nothing in return?

The US Constitution defines treason as levying war against the United States, or offering aid and comfort to its enemies.

[Gandalf]

Still at war with? The US hasn't been at war since the forties. If you want to play the technicalities game, be better at it, because that's a really important term.

[houser2112]

Technically, I suppose the US is not at war with DPRK, since Congress never declared war. The Korean War was a "military engagement authorized by a United Nations Security Council Resolution and funded by Congress", but that's really splitting hairs.

[Broomstick]

Which is why everyone calls that "extended military engagement that was authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution and funded by appropriations from Congress" the Korean War - it's much less of mouthful, and it's splitting hairs to say it wasn't really a war.

[K. A. Pital]

So Trump met Kim Jong Un again today. But thanks to Cohen, Trump's borderline-treasonous bid to win a Nobel Prize diplomacy received virtually no news coverage.

Borderline treasonous?

Remember the last time he met Fat Kim, when he made major concessions to, praised, and reiterated the propaganda of a country the US is still technically at war with for almost nothing in return?

The US Constitution defines treason as levying war against the United States, or offering aid and comfort to its enemies.

So wait, Trump was bad for backing off a course that leads to a potential nuclear war and millions of dead people in Korea?

WHAT?

There are millions of bad things to say about Trump. But is this really the angle you want to push?

[Broomstick]

TRR does tend to strangle the good because it's not the perfect he wants.

[Ralin]

So wait, Trump was bad for backing off a course that leads to a potential nuclear war and millions of dead people in Korea?

WHAT?

There are millions of bad things to say about Trump. But is this really the angle you want to push?

You have to understand Stas, if we let the Kim dynasty get its fat fingers on a legitimacy stockpile they'll be able to put it in their missiles and a few years down the line they'll be a hundred times more dangerous.

[Ace Pace]

So wait, Trump was bad for backing off a course that leads to a potential nuclear war and millions of dead people in Korea?

WHAT?

There are millions of bad things to say about Trump. But is this really the angle you want to push?

The course that was mostly generated and hyped by Trump?

[K. A. Pital]

The course that was mostly generated and hyped by Trump?

True. But he is not being criticised for that, he is criticised for backing down. Baffling.

[Gandalf]

Technically, I suppose the US is not at war with DPRK, since Congress never declared war. The Korean War was a "military engagement authorized by a United Nations Security Council Resolution and funded by Congress", but that's really splitting hairs.

Yeah, but if you want to go down the road of calling "US forces engage with people a lot" a war, then US governmental engagement with its domestic populace really raises some questions given (among other issues) the rates at which minorities are shot by police.

Also, consider the exhorbitant powers of the US government in wartime. I wonder what Kent State wpuld have looked like under proper wartime powers?

[houser2112]

We're talking about foreign wars; why are you bringing up minorities being shot by police and Kent State, neither of which involved US forces (domestic police forces and the Ohio National Guard, respectively)? While domestic police forces and the Ohio NG are obviously American, they are not "US forces", which any American would interpret to mean the federal armed services.

Anyway, slippery slope much? While the war/not-war line could be debated to be on the near side of "Korea, 1950" if one was willing to not split hairs, I don't think anyone would say it's all the down to "Kent State, 1970".

[Broomstick]

Technically, I suppose the US is not at war with DPRK, since Congress never declared war. The Korean War was a "military engagement authorized by a United Nations Security Council Resolution and funded by Congress", but that's really splitting hairs.

Yeah, but if you want to go down the road of calling "US forces engage with people a lot" a war, then US governmental engagement with its domestic populace really raises some questions given (among other issues) the rates at which minorities are shot by police.

I'm perfectly OK with difficult questions being asked. The problem is that Congress does not seem to be comfortable with that. Among other groups.

[Gandalf]

We're talking about foreign wars; why are you bringing up minorities being shot by police and Kent State, neither of which involved US forces (domestic police forces and the Ohio National Guard, respectively)? While domestic police forces and the Ohio NG are obviously American, they are not "US forces", which any American would interpret to mean the federal armed services.

Anyway, slippery slope much? While the war/not-war line could be debated to be on the near side of "Korea, 1950" if one was willing to not split hairs, I don't think anyone would say it's all the down to "Kent State, 1970".

Foreign wars have domestic consequences. Ask the citizens of Japanese ancestry interred during WW2, or people charged under the Sedition Act during WW1.

[The Romulan Republic]

Borderline treasonous?

Remember the last time he met Fat Kim, when he made major concessions to, praised, and reiterated the propaganda of a country the US is still technically at war with for almost nothing in return?

The US Constitution defines treason as levying war against the United States, or offering aid and comfort to its enemies.

So wait, Trump was bad for backing off a course that leads to a potential nuclear war and millions of dead people in Korea?

WHAT?

There are millions of bad things to say about Trump. But is this really the angle you want to push?

That is a ridiculous and downright offensive strawman. Especially since I think you know quite well that I do not and will never support any course that is likely to lead to a nuclear war.

Has it ever occurred to you that there are options besides "go to war with North Korea" and "Publicly kiss Kim Jong Un's ass while selling the US and its allies' interests for little or nothing of substance in return?" In short, has it occurred to you that there is a difference between "negotiation" and "concession"?