Hey Ogg

[bellisarius]

I'm launching this thread off of the below post you made in Dolf's UK protest thread so that maybe we can have a real discussion.

Post 121

Showing him love? Yes, there are, and not just because he is President of the USA on the eve of the 75th anniversary of D-Day.

Some of us think that President Trump is addressing the world's problems in a different but effective way.

I plan to cover several subjects along the way but I thought that his foreign policies would be of more interest to you and other non-US citizens.

China;

Everyone in the developed world tripped all over themselves to do business with China starting in the 90's. We (the royal we) turned a blind eye to their theft of intellectual material and their 'dumping' to gain market share. The first red flag was when Clinton allowed them to gain the technology to make their ICBM's work. Bush came along and got them to agree to crack down on the technology theft, they didn't. Then Obama got the same agreement, same result. Over a year ago Trump got them to agree to severely restrict the manufacture and export fentynyl. The Mexican cartels freaked and started to crank up their own labs, waste of money on their part. Chinese fentynyl is still pouring into the US. The point being that they've 'agreed' to everything and enforced nothing. Trump is inflicting pain now. Yes, those entities that invested in China to garner the scraps from their table are going to suffer too, tough shit. Perhaps they shouldn't have sold their soul so easily.

NATO;

Trump is right on this one too. NATO has become a joke. When the Soviet Union folded at the beginning of the Clinton admin. there was this big discussion about what to do about NATO? The answer was to refocus it as an 'economic' entity. (I'm still wondering exactly how that was to work?) The various members forgot about their military and pissed the money away on various political pork barrel projects. Trump has called NATO out on that and the Europeans don't like it. Only the UK, and possibly France, have a military worthy of the title today. The truth hurts at times.

N. Korea;

Trump is playing 'good cop, bad cop' with them. He dangles a carrot and they bite, a bit, then go back to testing if he's serious. This is going to be a drawn out process. You can't get much deeper in an economic shit hole than N. Korea already is so sanctions are of little value. What rocket boy wants is 'security assurances.' And what that means is that we're going to support his regime. Rocket boy knows that the liberalization of N. Korea means the end to him and his dynasty, he's not stupid. And we are put in the unenviable position of supporting a repressive dictatorship if we agree. Rocket boy likes the power and the adulation (even if it is forced and phony) so merely giving him safe haven isn't going to cut it. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama merely paid the "Dane Geld" with no tangible results. Trump has changed the game for better or worse. Doing the same thing over and over again hasn't worked.

Iran;

As I stated in the other thread, we, the US, have NO treaty with Iran. Without an act of law (congress) or a formal treaty (also congress) no president can obligate future presidents to what amounts to a personal agreement. Iran is hell bent for leather to reestablish the Persian Empire only this time under Sharia law. They are the single largest bank roller of terrorism world wide. In many respects they are no different than N. Korea in that they actively pursue a policy of cult like leader worship and seem to have no problem destituting their own people to fund said terrorism. Cutting off their source of funds is precisely the correct action to take.

Virtually all of our recent past presidents have stood at the podium waving pieces of paper and proclaiming "peace in our time" and the paper is barely worth being used to light a cheap cigar. Trump is playing a risky game, but every one else played the 'diplomatic' game to no avail. Diplomacy only works if all parties act in good faith and the appeasement of bullies only emboldens them.

 

[Wordsworth]

I don't claim to be versed in foreign secretary matters, but better you lot rattle the cages than we. You've longer sticks.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I don't claim to be versed in foreign secretary matters, but better you lot rattle the cages than we. You've longer sticks.

Redneck translation: I would have been one of the throng cheering Chamberlain and his scrap of paper.



Churchill was too much of a "radical" for my tastes...

 

[ishtat]

China is the big issue, the others are all relatively minor in comparison. I don't think that China is going to take the tarriffs threat too seriously yet. A command economy with no rule of law can ignore popular feeling which even a Trumpian democracy cannot.

The Communist party in China and the US Senate both have to agree to all negotiated treaties, and both have histories of stepping back - as the Chinese recently did.

The only thing the Chinese will respect is a direct threat. Absent any rule of law they will break any and every agreement.

China can be brought to its knees, a US aircraft carrier at the Northern and of the Malacca Strait and another at the Sourthern end would have the power to cut off 90% of China's oil imports and 60% of her export trade. That's a big card to play and would throw financial and oil markets into turmoil - but what will make the Chinese regime stick to any agreement except an existential threat?

 

[SpeareChucker]

This is why they are building a road through hostile territory...


They have forever been looking east as opposed to the ocean.

 

[bellisarius]

I think that the Chinese people have become accustomed to a higher standard of living, and so have the government bureaucrats. Further, a very large number of their higher ranking military have their fingers in that economic pie. How many will be willing to sacrifice their personal fortunes to further the 'cause'? It's going to be difficult for them to manage.

Yes, we could blockade them but that is an act that might as well be accompanied by an declaration of war. No one wants to go down that road.

 

[SpeareChucker]

99.9% of them are willing to pledge their efforts to the good of the whole.
They will be good players as long as the order is in place even
if the pie has to shrink a bit...

 

[bbx56]

Trump speaks in language we all speak in,

We wont be a PIGGY BANK, we wont be USED

The ELITE hate him for that......

 

[bbx56]

British Anti-Trump Protesters Assault Elderly Man in MAGA Hat…
Classy.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9221553/sure-donald-trump-uk-visit-london-protest-nazi-milkshake/


this is NOT a one off....

and ITS never CONDEMNED....why is that?

 

[phrodeau]

America’s drug problem is caused by Americans. It doesn’t matter who the suppliers are.

 

[oggbashan]

China is the big issue, the others are all relatively minor in comparison. I don't think that China is going to take the tarriffs threat too seriously yet. A command economy with no rule of law can ignore popular feeling which even a Trumpian democracy cannot.

The Communist party in China and the US Senate both have to agree to all negotiated treaties, and both have histories of stepping back - as the Chinese recently did.

The only thing the Chinese will respect is a direct threat. Absent any rule of law they will break any and every agreement.

China can be brought to its knees, a US aircraft carrier at the Northern and of the Malacca Strait and another at the Sourthern end would have the power to cut off 90% of China's oil imports and 60% of her export trade. That's a big card to play and would throw financial and oil markets into turmoil - but what will make the Chinese regime stick to any agreement except an existential threat?

US aircraft carriers stopping Chinese trade on the high seas would echo the events that led to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. It would be a declaration of war by the US, who has declined to attack China directly in the Korean and Vietnam wars, despite China's massive support of the forces fighting the US.

 

[zipman]

China: I have no problem with tariffs against China to protect intellectual property rights. However, I think it is beyond disgraceful that Trump either doesn't know how tariffs work or is lying and telling the public that China is paying them when it is US businesses and consumers paying it.

NATO: Total bullshit. NATO had already committed to up the amount spending by 2024 to 2%. Trump has lied repeatedly about NATO funding or is too ignorant to understand how it works. Probably both. All he has done is embolden Russia by causing strains on our most importance international alliance. I remember right wingers complaining that Obama had done this (even though he hadn't). Bottomline his leadership on this has been disgraceful.

North Korea: Total failure based on the fact that Trump has done nothing but gave Kim Jong Un a huge win by not only meeting with him but publicly praising him. This has been a colossal failure.

Iran: Again, went back on an agreement, screwed over our allies and it has done nothing to change the dynamics. What he has done is weakened the word of the United States.

 

[bbx56]

^^^Insane!

Iran NEVER signed the agreement, so there is NO agreement

NATO increasing 2% in 5 yrs? Been saying that for yrs, and not doing it, Trump says NOW....

 

[Luk]

China: I have no problem with tariffs against China to protect intellectual property rights. However, I think it is beyond disgraceful that Trump either doesn't know how tariffs work or is lying and telling the public that China is paying them when it is US businesses and consumers paying it.

NATO: Total bullshit. NATO had already committed to up the amount spending by 2024 to 2%. Trump has lied repeatedly about NATO funding or is too ignorant to understand how it works. Probably both. All he has done is embolden Russia by causing strains on our most importance international alliance. I remember right wingers complaining that Obama had done this (even though he hadn't). Bottomline his leadership on this has been disgraceful.

North Korea: Total failure based on the fact that Trump has done nothing but gave Kim Jong Un a huge win by not only meeting with him but publicly praising him. This has been a colossal failure.

Iran: Again, went back on an agreement, screwed over our allies and it has done nothing to change the dynamics. What he has done is weakened the word of the United States.

/Thread

 

[Rightguide]

I'm launching this thread off of the below post you made in Dolf's UK protest thread so that maybe we can have a real discussion.

To all of this I will add, every time the Democrats and their allies in media defy and oppose the lawful authority of the President, continue the groundless impeachment narrative, they strengthen the hand and will of our enemies to resist negotiation.

 

[Rightguide]

^^^Insane!

Iran NEVER signed the agreement, so there is NO agreement

NATO increasing 2% in 5 yrs? Been saying that for yrs, and not doing it, Trump says NOW....

Iran had an agreement with the media and the Democrat Party.

 

[HisArpy]

To all of this I will add, every time the Democrats and their allies in media defy and oppose the lawful authority of the President, continue the groundless impeachment narrative, they strengthen the hand and will of our enemies to resist negotiation.

They've gone beyond resisting and impeaching, they are now actively on the side of our economic opponents with Biden telling Mexico yesterday that Trump won't impose the tariffs and that he has a history of bluffing.

Meanwhile the USMCA treaty sits in the House with no scheduled vote.

Despite the doom and gloom predictions, I believe China will eventually come to heel. Their leadership is invested internationally and when that sours they get hurt. Their people also need goods they can't get elsewhere as easily as from the US. These are big economic forces that the leadership has to take into account.

NK isn't so positive an outlook. There I think regime change is really the only option. No one really wants to go that way, which is why I think Trump is trying to negotiate something, but Kim is mentally unstable and that's unhealthy in both the long and short run for any lasting agreement.

NATO is changing. I think most of the NATO countries got the message and understood it. What most people think is NATO "objecting" to Trump's requirement that they live up to their agreement is nothing more than the observable political turmoil which is happening everywhere around the globe.

Iran is doing what Middle East factions do. Thumping their chests while loudly proclaiming that they're invincible. A few "raids" with easily captured prizes support that chest thumping. Overall it means nothing. As for their nuke program, Israel can defend itself and isn't adverse to attacking sites in Iran when they believe their national security is at risk. Nuke sites are definitely on the list of targets and if Iran objects militarily, people have to realize that Iran is surrounded by forces who are allied against such. Iran's best path forward is to stop acting the way they are.

 

[Rightguide]

They've gone beyond resisting and impeaching, they are now actively on the side of our economic opponents with Biden telling Mexico yesterday that Trump won't impose the tariffs and that he has a history of bluffing.

Meanwhile the USMCA treaty sits in the House with no scheduled vote.

Despite the doom and gloom predictions, I believe China will eventually come to heel. Their leadership is invested internationally and when that sours they get hurt. Their people also need goods they can't get elsewhere as easily as from the US. These are big economic forces that the leadership has to take into account.

NK isn't so positive an outlook. There I think regime change is really the only option. No one really wants to go that way, which is why I think Trump is trying to negotiate something, but Kim is mentally unstable and that's unhealthy in both the long and short run for any lasting agreement.

NATO is changing. I think most of the NATO countries got the message and understood it. What most people think is NATO "objecting" to Trump's requirement that they live up to their agreement is nothing more than the observable political turmoil which is happening everywhere around the globe.

Iran is doing what Middle East factions do. Thumping their chests while loudly proclaiming that they're invincible. A few "raids" with easily captured prizes support that chest thumping. Overall it means nothing. As for their nuke program, Israel can defend itself and isn't adverse to attacking sites in Iran when they believe their national security is at risk. Nuke sites are definitely on the list of targets and if Iran objects militarily, people have to realize that Iran is surrounded by forces who are allied against such. Iran's best path forward is to stop acting the way they are.

Many on the left are certifiable domestic enemies, seditionists all. They can be thankful John Adams, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, or FDR isn't President.

Totally agree with the rest. It's being reported Iran is very close to an atom bomb. Every President in recent memory has sworn they wouldn't allow that to happen, but I'm afraid we can expect the Democrats to protect the Iranians when the time comes to stop them.

 

[HisArpy]

Many on the left are certifiable domestic enemies, seditionists all. They can be thankful John Adams, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, or FDR isn't President.

Totally agree with the rest. It's being reported Iran is very close to an atom bomb. Every President in recent memory has sworn they wouldn't allow that to happen, but I'm afraid we can expect the Democrats to protect the Iranians when the time comes to stop them.

I believe that if Iran develops nuclear capability and attacks Israel, the House, as it's currently constituted, would refuse to support a declaration of war while Trump is in office.

That is how badly they will resist Trump.

 

[Rightguide]

I believe that if Iran develops nuclear capability and attacks Israel, the House, as it's currently constituted, would refuse to support a declaration of war while Trump is in office.

That is how badly they will resist Trump.

You're probably right, they seethe with antisemitism as we speak and many including some here would probably love to see Israel and it's present generation of Jews roasted in the nuclear oven.

 

[HisArpy]

You're probably right, they seethe with antisemitism as we speak and many including some here would probably love to see Israel and it's present generation of Jews roasted in the nuclear oven.

Even beyond that, if China were to invade and seize Hawaii, the D's would resist Trump's order to defend the Islands.

Because Trump.

 

[Luk]

Many on the left are certifiable domestic enemies, seditionists all. They can be thankful John Adams, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, or FDR isn't President.

Totally agree with the rest. It's being reported Iran is very close to an atom bomb. Every President in recent memory has sworn they wouldn't allow that to happen, but I'm afraid we can expect the Democrats to protect the Iranians when the time comes to stop them.

So when Iran creates the bomb and no other president in history allowed them to do that, it's the Dems fault?

 

[phrodeau]

Iran is committed to not developing nuclear weapons. The same can't be said of Israel.

 

[Rightguide]

Even beyond that, if China were to invade and seize Hawaii, the D's would resist Trump's order to defend the Islands.

Because Trump.

Yep, another Pearl harbor would serve us right in their minds.

 

[Rightguide]

Iran is committed to not developing nuclear weapons. The same can't be said of Israel.

How the fuck do you know, have you spoken to their anti-west leadership? Did you just get out of a meeting in Tehran?