We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Trump & International politics


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#1 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,606 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted Today, 01:34 AM

I'm sure this went over bigly ...


  • LawrenceA and film lover 293 like this

#2 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,538 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:15 AM

How so?   By asking them to pony up that 2% of GNP for NATO (Germany the richest country in the EU is at 1.2%).

 

If you mean that bogus accusation against the British intelligent service,  that was a major goof but European leaders are smart enough to know that Trump lies and therefore they don't view it as serious (but still it was a really dumb thing for the Trump admin to even imply).

It is not about Europe paying more, but how Trump goes about it.  And the fact that it is not as simple as he makes it sound.

One thing to remember is that Western Europe, and the US, really does not want a strong German military.  The Franco-Prussian (German) War, WW  I, WW  II are still remembered.

Another factor is that the US did not want the European countries to become too strong militarily so they would not be tempted to go to war with each other.

Additional issue is that since the US presidents and military always insist on being in charge of everything, why shouldn't US pay a larger percentage?  The other NATO members provide 78% of GNP to NATO.  It is hard to press other, poorer nations when we brag about the fact that we are the richest, most powerful nation in the world.

The US also has a huge, very successful defense industry to support our vast military.  The US economy and defense contractors benefit immensely from the weapons of war that we sell to our "allies" and other nations.

Not to mention, we want the next war to be fought in Europe or the Middle East, not in New York or California or Mississippi.

 

(NEW)Another factor is it is in our military interest to station troops in Europe.  One example is the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy.  It is much easier to deploy it to a hotspot from there than it is to fly it from Ft. Bragg, NC.  Of course, being airborne and a separate brigade, it requires US Air Force planes and personnel for support as well as its own support units.  Which gives it a large presence in Italy compared to the Italian military.  

And don't forget the US fleets in the Mediteranean and elsewhere.

 

Basically, NATO funding/participation is a complex issue and best left for the diplomats in DOD and Dept. of State to quietly negotiate with our "allies."

The problem is that Trump, Bannon, Tillerson, et. al. do not understand this. 

So, Trump should keep his mouth shut and quit offending our allies.


Edited by TheCid, 19 March 2017 - 03:03 PM.

  • mr6666 likes this

#3 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,317 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:24 PM

It appears Trump and his appointees are declaring virtual war on European allies.  That should go over well.

 

How so?   By asking them to pony up that 2% of GNP for NATO (Germany the richest country in the EU is at 1.2%).

 

If you mean that bogus accusation against the British intelligent service,  that was a major goof but European leaders are smart enough to know that Trump lies and therefore they don't view it as serious (but still it was a really dumb thing for the Trump admin to even imply). 



#4 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,538 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 18 March 2017 - 04:57 PM

It appears Trump and his appointees are declaring virtual war on European allies.  That should go over well.



#5 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,606 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 17 March 2017 - 05:36 AM

Tillerson is over in the Asiatic region rattling the old war sabre in North Korea's direction.  Will nuclear war be Donald Trump's way of deflecting the news and taking the heat off of the investigations into his affairs?  Millions of people vaporized to protect the Donald's behind?  That would certainly change the news cycle.


  • mr6666 likes this

#6 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,538 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 22 February 2017 - 10:28 AM

Well there is another side to this and that is the fact that there is NOT one Palestinian government \ representative and that one of the sub-groups, Hamas, is unwilling to recognize Israel's right to exist.      

 

While I'm not pro-Israel,  if the Palestinians would form one government that recognized Israel's right to exist I would quickly move to being anti-Israel.

Appears to me that the solution is for the Palestinian Authority (AKA Palestinian State) to separate from Hamas and Gaza Strip and come to an agreement with Israel.  As I understand it, the PA recognized Israel's right to exist some time back.

Let Gaza remain under Hamas or Israel could just "give" it to Egypt and let it be their problem.

One major problem is that 61%+ of West Bank is under Israeli control, including all of Jeruselem.  

Vautrin is correct in that linking Gaza to PA/West Bank works politically and as propaganda for Israel, especially current government.

As for sanctions, that would be unlikely or so limited as to be ineffective.  South Africa was a whole different scenario from what we have in Israel.

Not to mention that the Trump administration is totally out of its depth on this issue, which has existed since 1948, if not earlier.


  • Sepiatone likes this

#7 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 21 February 2017 - 11:19 PM

The Israeli economy couldn't sustain such a boycott.   Note that some USA companies and institutions would also join the boycott.   This is what made South Africa change their POV.    

 

But yea,  it is very doubtful Hamas is going to recognize Israel and that is what makes them such suborn fools.   For Israeli to just focus on the PA doesn't make sense to me.    What would that lead to?  A two state solution that doesn't deal with Gaza will not bring about peace.

It would be practical to make an agreement with the PA and really forget

about Hamas. There are no settlements in Gaza and Hamas is really a

minor threat. But linking Hamas to the PA allows the Israelis to use

whatever Hamas does or says as an excuse not to deal with the PA.


  • TheCid and Bogie56 like this

Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#8 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,317 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 21 February 2017 - 07:52 PM

Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. And if they did, guess who

would come to the aid of Israel? The good old USA. As it's very doubtful

that Hamas is going to recognize Israel in the near future, why not concentrate

on the PA, especially as there are no longer Israeli settlements in Gaza.

 

The Israeli economy couldn't sustain such a boycott.   Note that some USA companies and institutions would also join the boycott.   This is what made South Africa change their POV.    

 

But yea,  it is very doubtful Hamas is going to recognize Israel and that is what makes them such suborn fools.   For Israeli to just focus on the PA doesn't make sense to me.    What would that lead to?  A two state solution that doesn't deal with Gaza will not bring about peace.



#9 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 21 February 2017 - 05:50 PM


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#10 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 21 February 2017 - 05:49 PM

I believe if the Palestinians did what I proposed the EU would sanction Israel.  e.g. Cutoff all trade with Israel similar to what happened to South Africa (which is the model Israel is following as it relates to apartheid). 

Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. And if they did, guess who

would come to the aid of Israel? The good old USA. As it's very doubtful

that Hamas is going to recognize Israel in the near future, why not concentrate

on the PA, especially as there are no longer Israeli settlements in Gaza.


  • TheCid likes this

Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#11 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,317 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 21 February 2017 - 05:02 PM

Right now it's pretty much irrelevant what the Palestinians say or do.

The long term goal of Israel is to make a true Palestinian state in

the West Bank untenable. 

 

I believe if the Palestinians did what I proposed the EU would sanction Israel.  e.g. Cutoff all trade with Israel similar to what happened to South Africa (which is the model Israel is following as it relates to apartheid). 



#12 HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:27 PM



#13 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:07 PM

Well there is another side to this and that is the fact that there is NOT one Palestinian government \ representative and that one of the sub-groups, Hamas, is unwilling to recognize Israel's right to exist.      

 

While I'm not pro-Israel,  if the Palestinians would form one government that recognized Israel's right to exist I would quickly move to being anti-Israel.

Right now it's pretty much irrelevant what the Palestinians say or do.

The long term goal of Israel is to make a true Palestinian state in

the West Bank untenable. 


  • TheCid and Princess of Tap like this

Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#14 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:05 PM

And let US taxpayers fund the cost of their defense program.  Not to mention coming to their aid in the event of an attack from other nations.

Israel would only accept a one-state solution if  Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims were not allowed to vote or participate in government.

 

Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer, had an interesting column on this: "Trump should bush-up on one-state, two-states."

Yes, that's why the one state solution is pretty much a joke.

Our local paper has a Trudy Rubin column every once in

a while, but not very often. I'd say the conservative/liberal

"balance" in columnists is about 80% to 20%.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#15 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,317 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 21 February 2017 - 12:00 PM

And let US taxpayers fund the cost of their defense program.  Not to mention coming to their aid in the event of an attack from other nations.

Israel would only accept a one-state solution if  Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims were not allowed to vote or participate in government.

 

Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer, had an interesting column on this: "Trump should bush-up on one-state, two-states."

 

Well there is another side to this and that is the fact that there is NOT one Palestinian government \ representative and that one of the sub-groups, Hamas, is unwilling to recognize Israel's right to exist.      

 

While I'm not pro-Israel,  if the Palestinians would form one government that recognized Israel's right to exist I would quickly move to being anti-Israel.



#16 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,538 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:00 AM

Many of the foreign policy types always say that the status quo can't

continue, that something has to change, but the Israelis have no problem

with the status quo. No two state solution and more Palestinian land

being grabbed until any meaningful Palestinian state is pretty much

impossible. Their plan is the old lawyer's one--delay, delay, delay.

And let US taxpayers fund the cost of their defense program.  Not to mention coming to their aid in the event of an attack from other nations.

Israel would only accept a one-state solution if  Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims were not allowed to vote or participate in government.

 

Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer, had an interesting column on this: "Trump should bush-up on one-state, two-states."


  • Princess of Tap likes this

#17 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,814 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:50 PM

Several years ago, the Jews in Israel became very concerned because the birth rate was tending to favor the Arabs and Muslims who were citizens of Israel because they lived there.

They want a one state solution where the Jews are in total control of the government and private sectors.  Just as the Republicans in US want a nation controlled by wealthy WASPs. 

Many of the foreign policy types always say that the status quo can't

continue, that something has to change, but the Israelis have no problem

with the status quo. No two state solution and more Palestinian land

being grabbed until any meaningful Palestinian state is pretty much

impossible. Their plan is the old lawyer's one--delay, delay, delay.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#18 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,606 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:47 AM

While defence secretary James Mattis visits Iraq to assure them that they are not there to 'seize their oil' as Trump said they should have done and may still do 'the next time' the Swedish government has tweeted Trump that they will be happy to explain their immigration policy and situation to him if he is interested.  It is appalling that Trump has criticized the Swedish government for helping refugees.  Again, Trump is hoping for horrible acts of terrorism to occur to legitimize his anti-immigrant position.  CNN pointed out that there was an act of terrorism in Sweden recently but it was perpetrated by white supremacists.  But it is doubtful that Trump meant that act of terrorism.

Today is also the day that the British Parliament debates whether to rescind the invitation to Trump for the State visit with the Queen.  Close to two million people signed a petition wishing the government to cancel this visit.  It is highly unlikely though that Appeaser May will withdraw the invitation as she is already on shaky ground.



#19 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,538 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 17 February 2017 - 05:35 PM

I think the Trumpster is quickly becoming an exhausted tired old man.  "One State .. Two State .. Three State (shrug) What's the difference?"

Hey, give the guy a break.  He is doing good to even know that Israel is a state and where it is.  Probably still does not know where Palistinians are.



#20 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,538 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 17 February 2017 - 05:33 PM

Israel is not interested in a one state, two state, or three

state solution. It is interested in a apartheid state solution. 

Several years ago, the Jews in Israel became very concerned because the birth rate was tending to favor the Arabs and Muslims who were citizens of Israel because they lived there.

They want a one state solution where the Jews are in total control of the government and private sectors.  Just as the Republicans in US want a nation controlled by wealthy WASPs. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users