mr6666

Trump & International politics

336 posts in this topic

Ohio governor John Kasich warned that the current trend toward U.S. isolationism may result in global conflicts on the order of the two World Wars.

 

In the op-ed, Kasich warns that U.S. international relations, including treaties and alliances such at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are beginning to unravel.

 

The Republican governor says that it appears that history is repeating itself, and our society is showing similar signs to those that preceded both World War I and World War II, writing:....

 

Kasich points the finger at Trump and his proposed policies and incoming administration for weakening international alliances. And he specifically points out Trump’s coddling of Russia....

 

"But history, always eager to relive its past, foretells what happens when our international alliances are taken for granted and left to decay, despite the rise of increasingly dangerous aggressors....."

 

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/01/12/john-kasich-makes-major-global-conflict-announcement-prepare-to-be-extremely-angry/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio governor John Kasich warned that the current trend toward U.S. isolationism may result in global conflicts on the order of the two World Wars.

 

In the op-ed, Kasich warns that U.S. international relations, including treaties and alliances such at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are beginning to unravel.

 

The Republican governor says that it appears that history is repeating itself, and our society is showing similar signs to those that preceded both World War I and World War II, writing:....

 

Kasich points the finger at Trump and his proposed policies and incoming administration for weakening international alliances. And he specifically points out Trump’s coddling of Russia....

 

"But history, always eager to relive its past, foretells what happens when our international alliances are taken for granted and left to decay, despite the rise of increasingly dangerous aggressors....."

 

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/01/12/john-kasich-makes-major-global-conflict-announcement-prepare-to-be-extremely-angry/

 

This is Uge news in Europe and of course Chi-Na.  Trump is really coming across as a dangerous inadequate buffoon.  Dangerous in the sense that hundreds of millions of people might easily perish because of his gigantic ego and inability to grasp complex international issues.  We can thank the wall of meat crowd for this threat.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Uge news in Europe and of course Chi-Na.  Trump is really coming across as a dangerous inadequate buffoon.  Dangerous in the sense that hundreds of millions of people might easily perish because of his gigantic ego and inability to grasp complex international issues.  We can thank the wall of meat crowd for this threat.

if your way is the right way then why is syria such a mess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if your way is the right way then why is syria such a mess?

 

My way?  Syria?  I'm not sure of your point?  I was posting a response to Kasich's criticism of Trump.  I confess that I have no idea what is to be done or even could have been done about Syria.  It's beyond me.  The U.S. gets involved in middle eastern countries with the idea of regime change (Iraq/Libya) and it does not work.  They don't get involved in a middle eastern country like Syria and that doesn't work either.

Your proposal of U.S. involvement in Syria is hypocritical.  It would mean going toe to toe with the Russians who Trump is buttering up to.  Unless of course you wanted the U.S. to join in on the bombing of playgrounds, schools and hospitals just for the heck of it.  So I would say your response has nothing to do with my post about Trump being a world-stage buffoon as pointed out by John Kasich.  And anyway, if Obama has made a mistake does that then take the heat off of Trump?  It's his ball game now and as he has said "Only I can fix it."

So are you going to give him the same amount of rope you gave to Obama before you realize how you have been duped?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My way?  Syria?    They don't get involved in a middle eastern country like Syria and that doesn't work either.

 

Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War

2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said president Assad had “lost legitimacy.”[88] On 18 August 2011, Barack Obama

We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."[

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War

2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said president Assad had “lost legitimacy.”[88] On 18 August 2011, Barack Obama

We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."[

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

 

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.  Anyway, I believe I said i have no idea what the answer is and Obama probably felt the same way.

Trump has all the answers.  Only HE can fix it.  Indiscriminate carpet bombing was something he proposed.  He can compete with Assad to see how many kiddies he can slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us