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
282 replies to this topic

#181 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,535 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 27 January 2017 - 07:47 AM

Thanks to Trump, the Doomsday Clock Advances Toward Midnight

https://www.nytimes....night.html?_r=0

 

It hasn't been this dangerously close to midnight since 1953.  Is this what Trump supporters wanted when they wished to return to the 'happier' times of the 50's?

Trump has to go.



#182 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,904 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 02:02 AM

Just heard this on shortwave.

 

Trump to cut funding to the U.N.

 

http://nymag.com/dai...of-the-u-n.html

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ding-to-un.html



#183 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,535 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 26 January 2017 - 05:31 AM

Trump has reiterated his desire to bring back good ole torture.  He's tough.  Maybe he would be willing to do a charity boxing match with De Niro.



#184 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,535 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 25 January 2017 - 09:19 AM

Trump's taking the oil, spoils of war comment made at CIA HQ the day after his inauguration has gone over like a lead balloon in Iraq and the middle east.


  • TheCid likes this

#185 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,804 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 January 2017 - 04:22 PM

Just saying that we cannot be totally uninvolved in what is happening in the rest of the world.  It will come back to haunt us in the long term.

Actually, I am opposed to US trying to militarily or covertly accomplish regime change anywhere.  We have failed at it so many times.

But, that does not mean that "calling" for regime change and even supporting it non-militarily precludes a country from being involved in discussions, meetings, etc. to resolve issues in other countries.

US "called" for regime change in South Africa and many other places, such as Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, South America, etc.

The theory to which I refer is your call for the rebels to put down their arms and follow the rule of law of the Syrian government.  In 1776 that would have meant that American rebels surrender to the British and abide by the laws as established in London.

If France had not supported regime change in America, there would not have been a USA, at least not for many years to come.

 

My call for the Syrian rebels to put down their arms and agree to a peace deal is NOT a theory but a tactical suggestion based on the state of affairs in the country TODAY.      The rebels have NO chance of removing Assad since they have little military support from any foreign country.     Turkey has made a deal with Russia and is part of the countries activity participating in the peace talks, and the west is missing in action and is NOT going to provide what it would take for the rebels to even have a 20% chance of removing Assad;  tens of thousand foreign ground troops, a no fly zone with offensive air support and lots of military hardware (since all of these would likely lead to a conflict and possible war with Russia).



#186 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,602 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 24 January 2017 - 09:07 AM

I'm not following you and what theory are you talking about?????

 

Anyhow,  are you saying you support the neo-con POV related to regime change,  especially in the Middle-East?      

Just saying that we cannot be totally uninvolved in what is happening in the rest of the world.  It will come back to haunt us in the long term.

Actually, I am opposed to US trying to militarily or covertly accomplish regime change anywhere.  We have failed at it so many times.

But, that does not mean that "calling" for regime change and even supporting it non-militarily precludes a country from being involved in discussions, meetings, etc. to resolve issues in other countries.

US "called" for regime change in South Africa and many other places, such as Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, South America, etc.

The theory to which I refer is your call for the rebels to put down their arms and follow the rule of law of the Syrian government.  In 1776 that would have meant that American rebels surrender to the British and abide by the laws as established in London.

If France had not supported regime change in America, there would not have been a USA, at least not for many years to come.



#187 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,804 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 23 January 2017 - 05:25 PM

Interesting, good thing we didn't subscribe to that theory in 1776 in America.  Not to mention France not supporting our "regime change."

 

I'm not following you and what theory are you talking about?????

 

Anyhow,  are you saying you support the neo-con POV related to regime change,  especially in the Middle-East?      



#188 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,535 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 23 January 2017 - 05:17 PM

To me the USA should stay out of the latest peace talks.   This makes it 100% clear to the rebels that we are NOT there for them.   This will hopefully lead to them putting down their arms and agreeing to follow the rule of law as defined by the Syrian government.  No foreign government that have previously called for regime change should be part of the peace talks.

 

Hey if Trump was too busy to attend perhaps they should have sent Eric.



#189 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,602 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:54 PM

To me the USA should stay out of the latest peace talks.   This makes it 100% clear to the rebels that we are NOT there for them.   This will hopefully lead to them putting down their arms and agreeing to follow the rule of law as defined by the Syrian government.  No foreign government that have previously called for regime change should be part of the peace talks.

Interesting, good thing we didn't subscribe to that theory in 1776 in America.  Not to mention France not supporting our "regime change."


  • Princess of Tap likes this

#190 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,804 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 23 January 2017 - 02:21 PM

After Trump AND his supporters made a big fuss over Obama's mishandling of Syria, Trump has declined the invitation to be involved in the latest peace talks.  Why?  They can't get it together to attend.

 

To me the USA should stay out of the latest peace talks.   This makes it 100% clear to the rebels that we are NOT there for them.   This will hopefully lead to them putting down their arms and agreeing to follow the rule of law as defined by the Syrian government.  No foreign government that have previously called for regime change should be part of the peace talks.



#191 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,535 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 23 January 2017 - 05:13 AM

After Trump AND his supporters made a big fuss over Obama's mishandling of Syria, Trump has declined the invitation to be involved in the latest peace talks.  Why?  They can't get it together to attend.


  • TheCid likes this

#192 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,602 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 21 January 2017 - 06:17 PM

I guess it comes down to who those the opponents are.   As for countries I would say only Iran and Syria.   

 

Israel is ranked 14th in military strength.  Iran isn't in the top 20 (and Credit Suisse includes only the 20 strongest militaries).   Syria's military is weak due to the civil war.

 

Of course if one includes Pakistan, ranked 11th,  as an opponent that changes things.

"Opponents" historically:  Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE.  Egypt used to be one, but I guess may not be now.  Not sure where Jordan fits in now. Also if you include Arab and Persian (Iran) vs. Israel or Muslim vs. Israel it gets real complicated. Then you can now add Palestian State.

Could go back and look at previous wars to see who took up arms against Israel.



#193 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,804 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 21 January 2017 - 05:55 PM

Not necesarily, but supposedly "keeping the balance" is the rationale for our military aid. Guess it depends on how you interpret the strength of their opponents.

On paper, the opponents are far superior in personnel, aircraft, tanks, etc.  They just can't fight as well or coordinate their efforts.

 

I guess it comes down to who those the opponents are.   As for countries I would say only Iran and Syria.   

 

Israel is ranked 14th in military strength.  Iran isn't in the top 20 (and Credit Suisse includes only the 20 strongest militaries).   Syria's military is weak due to the civil war.

 

Of course if one includes Pakistan, ranked 11th,  as an opponent that changes things.



#194 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,602 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 21 January 2017 - 05:47 PM

Did you mean reduce military aid to Israel to keep the balance,  because clearly Israel has a stronger military than their neighbors, combined (excluding Egypt).

Not necesarily, but supposedly "keeping the balance" is the rationale for our military aid. Guess it depends on how you interpret the strength of their opponents.

On paper, the opponents are far superior in personnel, aircraft, tanks, etc.  They just can't fight as well or coordinate their efforts.



#195 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,804 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 21 January 2017 - 05:44 PM

At this point it appears that Russia, Iran and maybe Turkey are close to resolving the issue. Bashar al-Asad will remain in control for foreseeable future.

One thing I learned in all the training I had on Middle East was that the West will never understand it.  Nor are we likely to actually influence it for very long.

This is not to say we should not be involved, but we really, really need to know our limitations.  In addition, to accepting that they do not live or think like us and resent our trying to impose our beliefs on them.

Maybe Trump will be right on this (amazing!).  Try to make the best deal we can for the US, but stay the hell out of it as much as possible.

For me, this would also mean backing off on Israel as well.  Provide military aid sufficient to keep the balance, but stay out of the politics or the region.  Actually, after 60+ years not sure what our national interest is in keeping Israel viable.

 

Did you mean reduce military aid to Israel to keep the balance,  because clearly Israel has a stronger military than their neighbors, combined (excluding Egypt).



#196 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,602 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 21 January 2017 - 05:37 PM

Excuse me?  No no fly zone.  No bombing campaign.  Sure they supplied arms but trump fan was suggesting that Obama was a failure for not going into Syria with troops. Anyway, one last time.  I don't know what the answer is and it is all Trump's problem now or maybe he'll just ignore it too.

At this point it appears that Russia, Iran and maybe Turkey are close to resolving the issue. Bashar al-Asad will remain in control for foreseeable future.

One thing I learned in all the training I had on Middle East was that the West will never understand it.  Nor are we likely to actually influence it for very long.

This is not to say we should not be involved, but we really, really need to know our limitations.  In addition, to accepting that they do not live or think like us and resent our trying to impose our beliefs on them.

Maybe Trump will be right on this (amazing!).  Try to make the best deal we can for the US, but stay the hell out of it as much as possible.

For me, this would also mean backing off on Israel as well.  Provide military aid sufficient to keep the balance, but stay out of the politics or the region.  Actually, after 60+ years not sure what our national interest is in keeping Israel viable.



#197 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,804 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 21 January 2017 - 02:56 PM

Excuse me?  No no fly zone.  No bombing campaign.  Sure they supplied arms but trump fan was suggesting that Obama was a failure for not going into Syria with troops. Anyway, one last time.  I don't know what the answer is and it is all Trump's problem now or maybe he'll just ignore it too.

 

Clearly the west supported regime change in Syria.   The problem was that the west took a half-A approach about it;  mostly just talk and light on action.   Of the 3 general options;   stay completely out,   fully support the rebels and take out the regime within weeks \ months,   or  a half-a approach the half-A one causes the most deaths and destruction. 

 

I do agree that if US policy was decided by the GOP (e.g. say Romney had won in 2012)  it wouldn't have been much different than Obama's policy with regards to Syria.  Yea,  maybe a little more use of force but still not enough to take out Assad in a few weeks \ months.    Therefore a long deadly and destructive civil war.

 

I highly recommend that article in the Times about how the west should get involved to assist refugees and reduce deaths but NOT regime change.   (sorry I don't have a link).       E.g. a regime involved in a civil war is a lot more likely to work with countries trying to provide aid to civilians when those counties make clearly they are not pushing for regime change.


  • Bogie56 likes this

#198 HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,325 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 10:21 AM

Excuse me?  No no fly zone.  No bombing campaign.  Sure they supplied arms but trump fan was suggesting that Obama was a failure for not going into Syria with troops. Anyway, one last time.  I don't know what the answer is and it is all Trump's problem now or maybe he'll just ignore it too.

https://en.wikipedia...yrian_Civil_War

 

Worth reading



#199 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,535 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 21 January 2017 - 10:12 AM

 

Wow, that's out there.

 

I was just responding to your statement that seemed to suggest that the US did not get involved in regime in Syria, like they did in (Iraq/Libya). The US was involved in regime change in Syria from the beginning, it was almost a carbon copy of Libya.

 

 

Excuse me?  No no fly zone.  No bombing campaign.  Sure they supplied arms but trump fan was suggesting that Obama was a failure for not going into Syria with troops. Anyway, one last time.  I don't know what the answer is and it is all Trump's problem now or maybe he'll just ignore it too.



#200 HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,325 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 09:52 AM

Your point?  The U.S. criticized Russia for taking Crimea but did not retaliate with force.  That seems analogous with what you are saying about Syria.  

Wow, that's out there.

 

I was just responding to your statement that seemed to suggest that the US did not get involved in regime in Syria, like they did in (Iraq/Libya). The US was involved in regime change in Syria from the beginning, it was almost a carbon copy of Libya.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users