Decency, Trump and Obama.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-06-2017, 08:10 PM)Dill Wrote: After WWII, the US helped set up a system of treaties (NATO, SEATO etc.) and economic measures (World Bank, IMF) designed to prevent the world from ever falling back into the cataclysm of a world war.  And so far that has worked, turning our former enemies into staunch allies.


The economies of many countries depend upon these treaties and measures for stability.  To say that they would no longer be depending upon us doesn't sound good for either them or the US. 

Bring military considerations into the discussion, a goofy leader becomes more troubling, for the US as well as those other countries.  Many committed Trumpsters love to hear Trump talk tough about existing or potential US enemies. But a large part of US power post WWII has come from its ability to gain consent and cooperation from many countries.  E.g. Bush 41 put together a coalition of 31 states to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991. Obama got most of the world to buy in to Iran sanctions, and then a treaty to reduce their nuclear threat signed by France, Russia, China and Great Britain. The US brokered peace between Pakistan and India during the Kargil war in '99, insisting that Pakistan remove the Nukes it was positioning in Kashmir, likely averting a nuclear conflagration. That would have been bad for the world, including the US, not just Pakistan and India.

China is right now a surgent power, both economically and military, and challenging the US in the Pacific Rim. Would this be a good time to create a vacuum to enable their expansion?  And with a nuclear-capable North Korea on that rim, which also has a goofy leader? 

In my never going to happen scenario, we don't need the consent and cooperation of other countries militarily because we aren't going to be doing anything militarily.  We have a defensive military, and what goes on between other countries is between them.  Let someone else deal with China and N Korea if they so choose.  

[*michaelsean*]

(03-06-2017, 07:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Does the US depend upon those other countries economies, defense, and quality of life?

Free trade is fine.  Just no more policeman.  

[hollodero]

(03-07-2017, 10:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Free trade is fine.  Just no more policeman.  

I'm not completely opposed to this. a) Trump is right about one thing (as were Obama/Kerry), European countries need to step up their defense spending. b) It's not like your policing work did that much good in recent centuries.

Just, which extremes can that principle reach? You won't abandon Israel, for example. North Korea is a threat to your country. You'd still want to fight a war on terror should terror manifest itself again.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-06-2017, 08:10 PM)Dill Wrote: After WWII, the US helped set up a system of treaties (NATO, SEATO etc.) and economic measures (World Bank, IMF) designed to prevent the world from ever falling back into the cataclysm of a world war.  And so far that has worked, turning our former enemies into staunch allies.

I'm not so sure that's the actual reason.  Global trade, and the adoption of capitalism in large measure even in places like China. 

Maybe the US being the lone super power has a lot to do with it.  But it was capitalism that brought down the wall and the USSR.  Japan emerged into a major economic power, but still very much dependent on the US economy.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-07-2017, 10:38 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not completely opposed to this. a) Trump is right about one thing (as were Obama/Kerry), European countries need to step up their defense spending. b) It's not like your policing work did that much good in recent centuries.

Just, which extremes can that principle reach? You won't abandon Israel, for example. North Korea is a threat to your country. You'd still want to fight a war on terror should terror manifest itself again.

The war on terror should be fought here.  By that I mean we take military savings and we sink it into better screening of things coming in through our ports for instance.  Plus a lot of people say terrorism is a direct result of our intervening in the Middle East. If they are correct, then our no longer intervening should dramatically reduce the threat of terrorism.

As far as N Korea, what exactly are they going to do?  

[BmorePat87]

(03-07-2017, 10:38 AM)hollodero Wrote: North Korea is a threat to your country. 

Not as much as they say. At best, they could try to smuggle something into our country, but they won't have the capabilities of hitting the US for years. Their satellite program could be a cover for a missile program, but that system requires hours of preparations. 

[hollodero]

(03-07-2017, 10:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm not so sure that's the actual reason.  Global trade, and the adoption of capitalism in large measure even in places like China. 

There were measurements called the Marshall plan, which helped us a great deal... you elevated us so we can become strong trade partners. This was direct financial aid worth an today's equivalent of 130 billion (it were more than 13 billion at the time). 
Without that, all follow-ups would have been less efficient.

(03-07-2017, 10:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The war on terror should be fought here.  By that I mean we take military savings and we sink it into better screening of things coming in through our ports for instance.  Plus a lot of people say terrorism is a direct result of our intervening in the Middle East. If they are correct, then our no longer intervening should dramatically reduce the threat of terrorism.

Alright, that line of thinking makes sense.

(03-07-2017, 10:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: As far as N Korea, what exactly are they going to do?  

Probably nothing. But they could reach your east coast with their missiles soon enough.

What about Israel

[JustWinBaby]

(03-07-2017, 11:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: There were measurements called the Marshall plan, which helped us a great deal... you elevated us so we can become strong trade partners. This was direct financial aid worth an today's equivalent of 130 billion (it were more than 13 billion at the time). 
Without that, all follow-ups would have been less efficient.

Sure, that plays into my points about "it's the economy, stupid".

But as far as NATO and the UN and others contributing to stability, about the only thing I see they've done is issue sanctions, which only serve to condemn people to poverty.

Do they go hand-in-hand with the economic alliances?  Maybe.  I just don't think there are many cases of countries going against their self-interest for the "greater good".

[*michaelsean*]

(03-07-2017, 11:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: There were measurements called the Marshall plan, which helped us a great deal... you elevated us so we can become strong trade partners. This was direct financial aid worth an today's equivalent of 130 billion (it were more than 13 billion at the time). 
Without that, all follow-ups would have been less efficient.


Alright, that line of thinking makes sense.


Probably nothing. But they could reach your east coast with their missiles soon enough.

What about Israel  

I think it's West Coast, but that would be suicide.  The guy is nuts, but I don't think he wants to die.

someone else will have to deal with Israel-Palestine.  Or perhaps we could broker a deal as our last hoorah in international meddling.  

I don't fault us for trying.  It's just time to let someone else have a go if it's necessary.

[*michaelsean*]

Oh and we will bequeath the UN Headquarters to Austria. It's a win-win. You guys get added revenue, and all the people who work for the UN get to live like kings in say Vienna. Seems like a pretty nice place to live if someone else is paying for it.

[hollodero]

(03-07-2017, 11:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think it's West Coast, but that would be suicide.  The guy is nuts, but I don't think he wants to die.

East Coast! Alternative geography! Everything's upside down.
(Damn... embarrassing... )

You're probably right. I see only one minor problem with your plans. They are all very virtual.
Remember, you "have to start winning wars again"...

(03-07-2017, 11:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh and we will bequeath the UN Headquarters to Austria.  It's a win-win.  You guys get added revenue, and all the people who work for the UN get to live like kings in say Vienna.  Seems like a pretty nice place to live if someone else is paying for it.

Yay! The UN would be very welcome, we indeed already have a place called UNO City here. 
And Vienna was voted Nr. 1 worldwide for quality of living several years in a row now. True story. So the UN guys would probably really feel great here. I just hope they don't mess with our ranking.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-07-2017, 11:58 AM)hollodero Wrote: East Coast! Alternative geography! Everything's upside down.
(Damn... embarrassing... )

You're probably right. I see only one minor problem with your plans. They are all very virtual.
Remember, you "have to start winning wars again"...


Yay! The UN would be very welcome, we indeed already have a place called UNO City here. 
And Vienna was voted Nr. 1 worldwide for quality of living several years in a row now. True story. So the UN guys would probably really feel great here. I just hope they don't mess with our ranking.

I wouldn't be all that embarrassed about geography on a mostly American board.  For us the world is 50 states, and then there's some land on the other side of the oceans.    

Oh your rankings will tank.  

[Rotobeast]

(03-07-2017, 11:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: Probably nothing. But they could reach your east coast with their missiles soon enough.

Have a look at their failed long-range missile tests.

Do you think they they are so incompetent as to barely get them off of the ground ?
Those failures are not mistakes.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(03-05-2017, 06:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: So now a new high, or low, is reached yet again, when Trump blamed Obama for wiretapping him and called him a "sick guy". Please share your thoughts on that one. Especially - what should be the consequence if these accusations are indeed baseless and Obama did not order such a thing.

I am a Trump supporter because I don't care what size papers he puts in folders, if KMart stops carrying his daughter's products, or if he agrees to use steel already purchased to build pipelines; however, this is the 3rd issue in his short Presidency that I take issue with. The first 2 being his remarks toward the press and the Judicial Branch 

If these claims are found to be untrue then I hope congress recommends him for Presidential Censure. As I have said, as an outsider he is doing a lot of on the job training; however, he needs to learn there are boundaries.

[Griever]

(03-07-2017, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am a Trump supporter because I don't care what size papers he puts in folders, if KMart stops carrying his daughter's products, or if he agrees to use steel already purchased to build pipelines; however, this is the 3rd issue in his short Presidency that I take issue with. The first 2 being his remarks toward the press and the Judicial Branch 

If these claims are found to be untrue then I hope congress recommends him for Presidential Censure. As I have said, as an outsider he is doing a lot of on the job training; however, he needs to learn there are boundaries.

if Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob was an impeachable offense...

[Dill]

(03-07-2017, 10:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm not so sure that's the actual reason.  Global trade, and the adoption of capitalism in large measure even in places like China. 

Maybe the US being the lone super power has a lot to do with it.  But it was capitalism that brought down the wall and the USSR.  Japan emerged into a major economic power, but still very much dependent on the US economy.

I disagree that "capitalism" brought down the USSR. Otherwise I agree with you about the importance of global trade.

In fact, your point agrees with mine in this respect.

All those treaties and economic measures were instituted to create economic as well as political stability, to prevent depressions (seen as one of the major causes of WWII). The system was designed to be very different from that system alliances which, for example, led to WWI. It was to facilitate the global trade you reference above, in such a way that formerly belligerent populations benefitted from it. The whole point of the IMF was to keep trade deficits from destabilizing states, leading to the return of fascism. Charles Hull, one of the leading lights of Bretton Woods, thought that currency manipulation by Hitler and Mussolini played a role in pre-war trade imbalances. Hence the emphasis on an international currency system pegged to gold and the US dollar.  So the goal was an international liberalization of economic policy.

Another goal was to incorporate potential future enemies like Japan and Germany--economically as well as militarily.
The thinking was that if the populations of former belligerents had a prosperous economy and liberal, representative government, then fascist-style governments would be unlikely to take root again.

Military alliances like NATO secured a "the free world" of capitalist trade from the "socialist block" of the Warsaw Pact and China/N Korea. Another round of treaties in the 70s and 90s has integrated this block piecemeal into the world economy, with some stability.

This system of treaties and international economic institutions didn't prevent some large scale wars--India-Pakistan, revolutions in China and Vietnam--but we haven't had a world war since '45. The people who put this system together were thinking long term--what was the world to look like 10, 20 or 50 years after WWII? They did not want a repeat!

[Dill]

(03-07-2017, 10:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: In my never going to happen scenario, we don't need the consent and cooperation of other countries militarily because we aren't going to be doing anything militarily.  We have a defensive military, and what goes on between other countries is between them.  Let someone else deal with China and N Korea if they so choose.  

That was the popular argument before WWII.  Then "defense" turned out to require "offense."

What if China and N Korea want to deal with the US?

You noted that much of the terrorism the US currently faces follows from its actions in the Middle East.
I believe that to be correct. But it won't stop now because the US decides to withdraw from world affairs. And conflicts there have tremendous potential to disrupt the global economy.

I am guessing that the difference between our views is that 1) you see the US economy as relatively independent of the global economy, and 2) you believe major conflicts in the Middle or Far East would have no appreciable effect on the US, either directly (crippling US trade, destroying foreign assets)or indirectly (e.g., by crippling allies and trade partners, creating the basis for a future existential threat).  

Where do you see the world in 10 or 20 years? Do you envision a constriction of US trade (and the US economy) in a world economically and militarily dominated by other powers--perhaps some coalition of China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, or perhaps a reconfigured EU? Would it be fair to say that you don't see the potential for a future existential threat forming anywhere, or that even if there is, nothing we can or should be doing about it now?

  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-07-2017, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am a Trump supporter because I don't care what size papers he puts in folders, if KMart stops carrying his daughter's products, or if he agrees to use steel already purchased to build pipelines; however, this is the 3rd issue in his short Presidency that I take issue with. The first 2 being his remarks toward the press and the Judicial Branch 

If these claims are found to be untrue then I hope congress recommends him for Presidential Censure. As I have said, as an outsider he is doing a lot of on the job training; however, he needs to learn there are boundaries.

So no problem with the President accusing Obama of tapping his phones based upon media reports rather than information from any of the US intel agencies He has already publicly alienated?

[hollodero]

(03-07-2017, 07:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So no problem with the President accusing Obama of tapping his phones based upon media reports rather than information from any of the US intel agencies He has already publicly alienated?

He already said he does have a problem with that.

[*bfine32*]

(03-07-2017, 07:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So no problem with the President accusing Obama of tapping his phones based upon media reports rather than information from any of the US intel agencies He has already publicly alienated?

Did you read what I wrote?