Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[K. A. Pital]

But what has Trump conceded? He only stopped military drills that were little but provocative acts. Is this „kissing ass“? Who was „sold“?

I want to understand what is going on inside your head.

[The Romulan Republic]

But what has Trump conceded? He only stopped military drills that were little but provocative acts. Is this „kissing ass“? Who was „sold“?

I want to understand what is going on inside your head.

Unilaterally stopped joint drills, IIRC, throwing an ally under the bus. Also, all nations conduct military drills. It isn't a "provocation" just because Fat Kim says it is.

Also repeating Kim's propaganda and publicly fawning over him to a degree far above and beyond the needs of diplomacy.

[K. A. Pital]

Under which bus? South Korea is a heavily militarized state that, of all modern weapons, lacks only its own nuclear deterrent. What happens to South Korea or its military without the drills? Literally nothing.

Try harder, this is not where CNN and Fox sound bites will be accepted as arguments.

What else? Saying something positive about a party you are negotiating with is not making anyone worse off, either.

[The Romulan Republic]

Under which bus? South Korea is a heavily militarized state that, of all modern weapons, lacks only its own nuclear deterrent. What happens to South Korea or its military without the drills? Literally nothing.

Try harder, this is not where CNN and Fox sound bites will be accepted as arguments.

What else? Saying something positive about a party you are negotiating with is not making anyone worse off, either.

1. As bad as CNN sometimes is, it is not remotely comparable to the cesspit of white nationalism that is Fox, so spare me the "Both Sides" crap.

2. Whether you feel that the exercises are necessary or not does not change the fact that nations normally hold military exercises, and that it is not appropriate to unilaterally withdraw from a multi-nation operation without consulting with or informing one's partners, especially if it is for the benefit of an enemy nation.

3. You continue to ignore that there is a difference between being diplomatic, and praising someone constantly.

4. Your refusal to acknowledge my arguments does not constitute a failure on my part to make them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, this story broke yesterday:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5010654/trum ... clearance/

U.S. President Donald Trump ordered his chief of staff in May to grant his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner a top-secret security clearance, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
It said senior administration officials were troubled by the decision, which prompted then White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to write an internal memo about how he had been ordered to give Kushner the top-secret clearance.
WATCH: Jared Kushner’s ‘top secret’ security clearance downgrade possibly due to foreign business ties (2018)


The White House counsel at the time, Donald McGahn, also wrote an internal memo outlining concerns raised about Kushner and how McGahn had recommended against the decision, it said.
The Times said the memos contradicted a statement made by Trump in an interview with the newspaper in January that he had no role in Kushner’s receiving his clearance.
Asked about the report, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said: “We don’t comment on security clearances.”
READ MORE: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner stand to profit from a developer tax break they pushed for
Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Kushner’s attorney Abbe Lowell, said in an email that White House and security clearance officials last year asserted that Kushner’s clearance was “handled in the regular process with no pressure from anyone.”
“New stories, if accurate, do not change what was affirmed at the time,” Mirijanian said.
More to come.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the shittiest President of them all?

[Ralin]

Unilaterally stopped joint drills, IIRC, throwing an ally under the bus. Also, all nations conduct military drills. It isn't a "provocation" just because Fat Kim says it is.

It pretty much is in context. North Korea has a very long and consistent record of holding that the joint drills in question are a provocation and taken as a threat by their government. Given that they are at least in part dry runs for an invasion of North Korea I tend to agree with them. By itself that might not be a reason to cancel them, but in the past year or so Kim made a joint declaration (or whatever the term is, I forget) with South Korea's president about their intent to resolve the state of ongoing hostility between their countries. One of the things they agreed to was to avoid provocative acts, and given that as mentioned above the North Korean government has cited these joint drills as something they consider a provocation for quite some time now both parties had to have understood. This wasn't a treaty or anything, it wasn't binding, but it was presented as a good faith outline for how to improve relations.

What I'm saying is that any genuine attempt to improve relations and bring peace to the Korean peninsula that doesn’t boil down to commanding North Korea to submit to America and the ‘international community’ should involve not actively doing things the North Korean government considers a threat. So I’m going to echo Stas in asking exactly what benefit you think these joint military drills have that outweigh that.

Also repeating Kim's propaganda and publicly fawning over him to a degree far above and beyond the needs of diplomacy.

Kim Jong-un is awesome and the rightful leader of North Korea. America’s joint drills with the South Korean military are a needless provocation and should be ended. I hope he retains and continues to expand his country’s nuclear arsenal to decrease the chance of an American presidential administration invading North Korea a la Iraq. If Trump lifted all sanctions on North Korea and normalized diplomatic relations with them tomorrow without getting a single concession in return that would be a good thing.

Am I guilty of treason now on account of having offered ‘aid and comfort’ to America’s enemies?

[The Romulan Republic]

Unilaterally stopped joint drills, IIRC, throwing an ally under the bus. Also, all nations conduct military drills. It isn't a "provocation" just because Fat Kim says it is.

It pretty much is in context. North Korea has a very long and consistent record of holding that the joint drills in question are a provocation and taken as a threat by their government. Given that they are at least in part dry runs for an invasion of North Korea I tend to agree with them. By itself that might not be a reason to cancel them, but in the past year or so Kim made a joint declaration (or whatever the term is, I forget) with South Korea's president about their intent to resolve the state of ongoing hostility between their countries. One of the things they agreed to was to avoid provocative acts, and given that as mentioned above the North Korean government has cited these joint drills as something they consider a provocation for quite some time now both parties had to have understood. This wasn't a treaty or anything, it wasn't binding, but it was presented as a good faith outline for how to improve relations.

"North Korea says they're provocation" does not mean that they are or should be suspended, unless you are arguing that we should treat Kim Jong Un's statements as gospel and conduct our foreign policy accordingly (which admittedly is not a position I would put past you).

What I'm saying is that any genuine attempt to improve relations and bring peace to the Korean peninsula that doesn’t boil down to commanding North Korea to submit to America and the ‘international community’ should involve not actively doing things the North Korean government considers a threat. So I’m going to echo Stas in asking exactly what benefit you think these joint military drills have that outweigh that.

So in other words, we are the aggressors unless we immediately submit to all of Kim Jong Un's demands. Got it.

What benefit the drills do or do not have is in any case irrelevant to the fact that it is a betrayal of our allies to unilaterally withdraw from them without discussing it with them or notifying them, in order to placate a mutual enemy.

Kim Jong-un is awesome and the rightful leader of North Korea. America’s joint drills with the South Korean military are a needless provocation and should be ended. I hope he retains and continues to expand his country’s nuclear arsenal to decrease the chance of an American presidential administration invading North Korea a la Iraq. If Trump lifted all sanctions on North Korea and normalized diplomatic relations with them tomorrow without getting a single concession in return that would be a good thing.

Am I guilty of treason now on account of having offered ‘aid and comfort’ to America’s enemies?

No, just a troll.

Trump's words were in his capacity as President, conducting diplomacy with NK, and potentially have actual influence on policy. They were also only part of a pattern of favoring and pandering to NK.

You are just a useful idiot blathering on the internet.

[Ralin]

"North Korea says they're provocation" does not mean that they are or should be suspended, unless you are arguing that we should treat Kim Jong Un's statements as gospel and conduct our foreign policy accordingly (which admittedly is not a position I would put past you).

…Yeah, it pretty much does mean they are. No one is in a better position to state what the North Korean government considers a provocation than Kim Jong-un. Nor is this something new; the North Korean government has made it clear that they consider it a deliberate threat for decades now. And speaking as an American I agree with them. Could you explain how why you believe these joint military drills are not provocative and otherwise threatening to North Korea?

So in other words, we are the aggressors unless we immediately submit to all of Kim Jong Un's demands. Got it.

What benefit the drills do or do not have is in any case irrelevant to the fact that it is a betrayal of our allies to unilaterally withdraw from them without discussing it with them or notifying them, in order to placate a mutual enemy.

It doesn’t matter whether the drills have any benefit, we should keep provoking the country we’re theoretically trying to negotiate peaceful relations with to…what? Look strong? Pretend that South Korea depends on our protection? Yeah, I’m totally okay with saying America is the aggressor here for not submitting to Kim Jong-un’s demands when those demands are things like ‘not holding deliberately threatening war games’ or ‘stop pressuring North Korea to disarm crucial parts of their country’s arsenal that would leave them vulnerable to an American invasion’

The South Korean government already stated their willingness to end said drills. They backed away from that out of what was probably a desire not to rock the boat with the US.

PS, North Korea isn’t my enemy or an enemy of the United States in any legal sense. And the legal sense is the only one that matters here given that we’re talking about crimes and also because the alternative means you can say the same about any country you please without it being possible to prove or disprove it.

No, just a troll.

Trump's words were in his capacity as President, conducting diplomacy with NK, and potentially have actual influence on policy. They were also only part of a pattern of favoring and pandering to NK.

You are just a useful idiot blathering on the internet.

Hah.

So to recap, the President of the United States doesn’t have the right or authority to favor the leader of North Korea or to make concessions while conducting diplomacy without consulting/receiving permission from the South Korean government or getting some undefined concessions in return.

Yeah I’m with Stas here. By all appearances you oppose peace and normalized relations with North Korea if it doesn’t come loaded down with repeated declarations that North Korea is BAD AND NOT LEGITIMATE or some shit to the point of making any positive change in the status quo impossible.

[K. A. Pital]

But North Korea dismantled its missile launch site in exchange for the drills suspension.

TRR, is that not good will on part of the negotiating party? And if not, why not?

Why should the drills not be stopped, if the agreement centers on mutual deescalation?

I just want to understand.

Neither is there „fawning“ that would be atypical for the US. The US praised eg Sukharto in Indonesia at the time it invaded East Timor. I find Trump‘s words about Kim much less objectionable, neither do they cause any harm to anyone.

In North Korea, anti-American public demonstrations have been suspended and there had been a general ease on constant anti-American propaganda for internal NK consumption. If anything, Trump contributed to Kim softening his stance on the US.

I just want to see what exactly is wrong from a standpoint of human harm. Who is harmed? Who was harmed?

[FaxModem1]

A Moment to Remember

Trump Solemnly Lays Wreath At Site Where He Would Have Died During Vietnam War If He Weren’t Rich
Tuesday 2:21pmSEE MORE: DONALD TRUMP

HANOI, VIETNAM—Tearing up as he described the courage he would have had no choice but to summon had he not been born into a life of luxury, President Trump reportedly took time Tuesday before the North Korea summit in Hanoi to travel south and lay a wreath at the spot where he would have died in the Vietnam War if he weren’t rich. “Today we recognize those who, like myself, would have been forced to make the ultimate sacrifice had they not come from wealthy families who could call in a favor from a doctor friend and get exempted from the draft,” said Trump, speaking for several minutes about the death he would have faced if he had been unable to afford an elite education and, instead of receiving college deferments, had been conscripted to fight in a conflict in which more than 58,000 Americans died. “I would have died bravely with my fellow soldiers right here in this field had I not had a father who could pull some strings and make sure I never had to do anything like that. So today, I reflect upon and honor all those who were able to avoid service, especially those who received a medical deferment from a podiatrist who rented office space from their dad.” Trump went on to announce that a new monument would be erected on the National Mall in Washington to honor all affluent survivors of the Vietnam draft.

[Crazedwraith]

Yeah, The Onion. Very funny.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But North Korea dismantled its missile launch site in exchange for the drills suspension.

TRR, is that not good will on part of the negotiating party? And if not, why not?

The missile launch site that North Korea dismantled was one that had already been more or less completely mothballed years ago. The dismantling was all for show, it didn't in any real way impinge upon what missile capabilities they have. In fact, evidence suggests that they have been actively expanding their sites at other locations. So, no, this did not represent any good will on the part of the negotiating party, in fact precisely the opposite.

[Gandalf]

To repeat a joke I've seen thrown about this week in relation to the summit failure in Hanoi:

What do McCain and Trump now have in common?

They've both been shot down over Vietnam.

[The Romulan Republic]

But North Korea dismantled its missile launch site in exchange for the drills suspension.

TRR, is that not good will on part of the negotiating party? And if not, why not?

The missile launch site that North Korea dismantled was one that had already been more or less completely mothballed years ago. The dismantling was all for show, it didn't in any real way impinge upon what missile capabilities they have. In fact, evidence suggests that they have been actively expanding their sites at other locations. So, no, this did not represent any good will on the part of the negotiating party, in fact precisely the opposite.

Pretty much this.

To repeat a joke I've seen thrown about this week in relation to the summit failure in Hanoi:

What do McCain and Trump now have in common?

They've both been shot down over Vietnam.

Hah!

[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".

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

You're moving the goalposts, but I'll humor you. While Kent State was tangentially related to the Vietnam WarMilitary Engagement Authorized By Congress, what war is the domestic police racial issue related to?

[K. A. Pital]

The missile launch site that North Korea dismantled was one that had already been more or less completely mothballed years ago. The dismantling was all for show, it didn't in any real way impinge upon what missile capabilities they have. In fact, evidence suggests that they have been actively expanding their sites at other locations. So, no, this did not represent any good will on the part of the negotiating party, in fact precisely the opposite.

Are we talking about Sohae launch grounds? They were still actively used for rocket engine tests as of 2017, IIRC.

How was this “for show” when, to take this as an example, rocket engine test stands are critical to indigenous rocket development? No test stands - no new engines - much harder to improve ICBM propulsion, if at all possible.

The idea that the DPRK should terminate all its missile emplacements at once was never floated, as far as I know.

[Gandalf]

You're moving the goalposts, but I'll humor you. While Kent State was tangentially related to the Vietnam WarMilitary Engagement Authorized By Congress, what war is the domestic police racial issue related to?

Clearly someone (you, because you seem to be a bit slow here) missed my original point. If you'd read my original post, you'd see my original question. A common refrain in these discussions is an appeal to the idea that if sufficient violence maketh a war, then why can one not apply that rationale towards the US domestic arena and look at police forces set against its minority populations?

Though your post does have me thinking about how much it can be tied to the violent campaigns of genocidal expansion which cleansed the Indigenous populations in favour of a white supremacist state. I wasn't even thinking of tying that to a foreign conflict, so thanks for the inspiration.

[houser2112]

You're moving the goalposts, but I'll humor you. While Kent State was tangentially related to the Vietnam WarMilitary Engagement Authorized By Congress, what war is the domestic police racial issue related to?

Clearly someone (you, because you seem to be a bit slow here) missed my original point. If you'd read my original post, you'd see my original question. A common refrain in these discussions is an appeal to the idea that if sufficient violence maketh a war, then why can one not apply that rationale towards the US domestic arena and look at police forces set against its minority populations?

A populstion of one does not constitute "common" to me, but you go for it. I "missed" your point because most people don't consider domestic disturbances "war" until they escalate to what would rightly be called a civil war.

Though your post does have me thinking about how much it can be tied to the violent campaigns of genocidal expansion which cleansed the Indigenous populations in favour of a white supremacist state. I wasn't even thinking of tying that to a foreign conflict, so thanks for the inspiration.

Yay for me.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are we talking about Sohae launch grounds? They were still actively used for rocket engine tests as of 2017, IIRC.

How was this “for show” when, to take this as an example, rocket engine test stands are critical to indigenous rocket development? No test stands - no new engines - much harder to improve ICBM propulsion, if at all possible.

The idea that the DPRK should terminate all its missile emplacements at once was never floated, as far as I know.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Yes, it will impact North Korean military capability if they take their various missile sites offline. That's self-evident. The issue is whether or not the sites that they ARE taking offline actually represent significant sites, as opposed to mere demonstrations meant to appease Western audiences while they continue with active military activities at other sites. All of the sources I am seeing at the moment are indicating that the latter is true, though admittedly these are all coming from Western sources like the New York Times, so perhaps may be taken with a grain of salt. I'm in a hurry so can't do an exhaustive search for sources, but here is one I found quickly.

[K. A. Pital]

Basically: engine tests are critical for an ICBM program.
https://www.38north.org/2018/07/editor073118/

(BTW my view is, it should be accepted the DPRK is a nuclear power and people should go about living their lives as before; the DPRK should not disarm itself because doing so is worthless, see Iraq...)

[LaCroix]

Update: NK is already rebuilding these test sites. As if they were just waiting to do so after the meeting fails...

And with bigger equipment.

Looks like the master negotiator had been sold a teardown in order to do a necessary upgrade as a dismantling.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or as Trump calls it, Making America Great Again.

[mr friendly guy]

Obviously Kim Jong Un read the art of the deal, while Trump forgot all about it.

[Gandalf]

Obviously Kim Jong Un read the art of the deal, while Trump forgot all about it.

Maybe the guy who ghostwrote it wasn't around?

Then again, it's not like Kim got to his position by being an idiot, either. It's one thing to inherit the title, it's another thing to not be reduced to a puppet under a huge and established military class.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump is now threatening to completely close the border with Mexico by next week, if Mexico does not end all illegal immigration:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Friday repeated his threat to close down the border between the United States and Mexico, but this time he noted he would act next week if Mexico doesn't step up.

"If Mexico doesn't immediately stop ALL illegal immigration coming into the United States throug (sic) our Southern Border, I will be CLOSING the Border, or large sections of the Border, next week," he tweeted.

Trump, in Florida on Friday afternoon, said he could close the border to trade for a "long time" and insisted the US had run out of detention space for undocumented immigrants.

"We have the weakest, most pathetic laws," the President said, threatening to close the border if two current caravans of migrants cross into the US.

"We have run out of space. We can't hold people anywhere. Mexico can stop it so easily," he added.

Trump's comments follow a period in which the Department of Homeland Security and border officials have said their resources have become strained.

Earlier this week, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said the "breaking point has arrived" for the US immigration system.

Over the last two weeks, Customs and Border Protection announced that they will be releasing migrants in Arizona, as well as the Del Rio sector and Rio Grande Valley region of Texas. And more people are expected to be apprehended at the border in March than any month since 2008, CBP says.

So far, the plan Department of Homeland Security says it will commit to is pulling some officers from legal ports of entry to help with the influx of migrants crossing illegally. This plan will not fully close ports on the southern border as of now.

In a Friday statement announcing the move, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said there is a "cascading crisis" at the border and "the system is in free fall."

The Department of Homeland Security is moving officers from its ports to help with the mission between ports, which will result in slow downs, a senior Department of Homeland Security official told reporters.

But the official said full closure of ports of entry is "on the table."

"It's short at the moment of full closure of any port, we will continue to operationally assess what is needed. But I think what the President is making clear, is with these numbers, if we have to close ports to take care of all of the numbers who are coming, we will do that, so it's on the table," the official said. "But what we are doing is a very structured process based on operational needs to determine how many additional personnel we can pull from other duties to address the crisis between the ports."

The official said the Department of Homeland Security is "looking at it from an operational perspective" and that the Department of Homeland Security secretary will make a "recommendation accordingly to the President."

The Justice Department declined to comment on the legality of closing the border or any portion of it, as described in the President's tweet. The Justice Department also declined to comment on whether the Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion.

The Department of Homeland Security official said collaboration with Mexico and shifting resources might start to stem the flow.
However, part of the crisis at hand appears to be the number of individuals and families seeking asylum in the US. Often times, asylum seekers will cross illegally into the US awaiting to be found and processed by a border agent. More personnel between ports of entry may allow more visibility to catch these migrants once they've crossed, but it's unclear whether their presence will make them more likely to avoid crossing in the first place.

It's also unclear whether the closure be limited to individuals crossing into and out of the US. If it includes cross-national trains and trucks importing and exporting goods with Latin America, a closure could pose a major threat to international commerce.

Robert Perez, deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, told "CNN's Right Now with Brianna Keilar" on Friday that the closure of ports of entry would have "pretty severe" consequences.

"It's Customs and Border Protection at every port of entry. Nearly 400 million travelers a year, $2.3 billion worth of trade, nearly 30 million trucks, rail cars and cargo containers every year," Perez said. "And so, there (will be) a severe impact and this is important to understand because ... what is so important to understand is that the crisis is so severe right now, we are literally trying to save lives."

The President seems to be hinting at news to come during a border press event in the coming weeks, at least that's what he told Fox News host Sean Hannity earlier this week.

"In two weeks, I'm going to a location, it's going to be in California. Believe it or not, they were begging us to build in San Diego, begging us to build a wall. And we're just in the process of completing a major stretch of many miles of wall. And we're going to have a news conference there just to show people that ... it's really good stuff," Trump said.

He also teased the visit at a rally in Michigan on Thursday.

But Trump has threatened to close the southern border prior to Friday's ultimatum, and he hasn't exactly followed through with it.

Trump tweeted in December that the US will be "forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Obstructionist Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall & also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with." But he didn't close the border then.

And last November, a major US-Mexico border crossing in San Diego was closed for hours after a group of hundreds of migrants on the Mexican side rushed the border area, leading US Border Patrol agents to fire tear gas at the group.

The President said at the time that "if we find that it's uncontrollable" or it gets to a point where "our people are going to start getting hurt, we will close entry into the country for a period of time until we can get it under control."

"The whole border. I mean the whole border," Trump said.

But again, he didn't make good on the threat at the time.

CNN's Geneva Sands, Priscilla Alvarez, Kevin Liptak, Jessica Schneider, Emanuella Grinberg and Mariano Castillo contributed to this report.

Aside from the obvious fascism of unilaterally closing the border to pander to racists, this would massively fuck over the economy and the lives of many law-abiding people along the border.

There's also the fact that he's putting the responsibility on the Mexican government to end all illegal immigration. Why do I feel like the next step will be to threaten military intervention in Mexico when they fail to do the impossible? After all, Trump and his ilk have frequently characterized immigration as an "invasion". If they're holding Mexico's government responsible for it, its not a big leap from their to a casus belli.