Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know they are not in NATO.  My question is why do we treat countries in NATO differently than other countries?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "begging the question"?  There is no logic to the argument "We treat NATO countries differently because they are NATO countries".

Would someone else take this for me? 

I don't know how else I can explain why we demand countries in NATO follow a NATO pledge, but we don't other countries.

Somebody please show a little rationality. 

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 11:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why so divisive? I thought we agreed entering into a deal with Russia is a good thing if it is best for your country. What did I miss? 

I don't think it is a good thing.  That is why I have always complained about us being in bed with Saudi Arabia.  All I said is that we have no right to condemn Germany because we are doing the exact same thing.

You, on the other hand, think Trump is justified in complaining about Germany making a deal with Russia at the same time you say no one could complain if Trump did the exact same thing.

So basically we disagree on BOTH points.  How you saw any common ground there is beyond me.


Letting Trump tell you what to believe is reducing your ability to think logically.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think it is a good thing.  That is why I have always complained about us being in bed with Saudi Arabia.  All I said is that we have no right to condemn Germany because we are doing the exact same thing.

You, on the other hand, think Trump is justified in complaining about Germany making a deal with Russia at the same time you say no one could complain if Trump did the exact same thing.

So basically we disagree on BOTH points.  How you saw any common ground there is beyond me.


Letting Trump tell you what to believe is reducing your ability to think logically.

So you agree with Trump. Hell that's better than us having common ground. 

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 11:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would someone else take this for me? 

I don't know how else I can explain why we demand countries in NATO follow a NATO pledge, but we don't other countries.

Somebody please show a little rationality. 

No one else can help you. I am asking why we treat NATO countries differently.  Look up "begging the question" and then get back to me.

You are just talking in circles.  I ask why NATO countries deserve to be treated differently and your only answer is "NATO countries deserve to be treated differently.  You can't assume a conclusion is correct in order to validate that conclusion.

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 11:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you agree with Trump. Hell that's better than us having common ground. 

No I don't agree with Trump.

Trump thinks the rule only applies to Germany and not the United States.  We are in total disagreement.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I don't agree with Trump.

Trump thinks the rule only applies to Germany and not the United States.  We are in total disagreement.

You clearly stated that you don't think the German-Russian pipeline is a good idea and so did Trump. Why do you insist on being so divisive? 

[hollodero]

(07-11-2018, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Aren't there some European countries looking at nuclear? I thought I read that somewhere. Putting mini-reactors buried in backyards. 

Yeah there are some, I couldn't go into detail without lieing or doing more research. I know France has some reactors, Germany has quite a few, also UK, many Eastern countries. 15% of energy consumption in the EU stems from nuclear power plants (that one I know). About that miniature reactors, I heard that too, but wouldn't know of any tangible plans.

Nuclear has a really bad reputation still, Chernobyl was a bit of a traumatic experience, and Fukushima warmed that feelings up. Merkel immediately took back her pro-nuclear stance and started talking an exit afterwards. As if we had Japanese earthquakes. But ok.

Yeah, that means more oil and gas, which is a) more pollution and b) more dependence on Russia, though I wouldn't want to know about the shady deals going on regarding getting the Uranium either. I'd enforce alternative sources, but that one got killed in harsh economical weather.

The dependence on Russia is especially bad in my book. What points do sanctions have if we make an exception for all the stuff we really want from them.

[hollodero]

(07-11-2018, 11:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no logic to the argument "We treat NATO countries differently because they are NATO countries".

Of course there is logic to it. You handle partners in an alliance differently than countries you're less close with. Expect different things from them. Want them to commit to agreements you made with them.

I say that while at the same time believing Trump is totally overblowing that particular 2% point. But still, what NATO partners agreed upon doesn't concern Japan, but said NATO partners.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one else can help you. I am asking why we treat NATO countries differently.  Look up "begging the question" and then get back to me.

You are just talking in circles.  I ask why NATO countries deserve to be treated differently and your only answer is "NATO countries deserve to be treated differently.  You can't assume a conclusion is correct in order to validate that conclusion.

Silence from the rest of the forum leads me to believe they follow your logic. 

Why do we not demand countries outside of NATO follow the pledge that countries in NATO made and the answer "Because they are not in NATO" begs the question. Not sure you truly understand what begs the question is; but I assume others in the forum do. 

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 11:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You clearly stated that you don't think the German-Russian pipeline is a good idea and so did Trump. Why do you insist on being so divisive? 

Because I care about the truth.  It is not being "divisive" to call Trump out on his hypocrisy. And I don't agree with his position that the US is entitled to do things that other countries can't. 

Why would you defend Trump for complaining about Germany making a deal with Russia and then say that no one could complain if Trump did the exact same thing?  Why would you support contradictory positions like that?

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2018, 12:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: Of course there is logic to it. You handle partners in an alliance differently than countries you're less close with. Expect different things from them. Want them to commit to agreements you made with them.

I say that while at the same time believing Trump is totally overblowing that particular 2% point. But still, what NATO partners agreed upon doesn't concern Japan, but said NATO partners.

My apologies. 

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2018, 12:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Silence from the rest of the forum leads me to believe they follow your logic. 

Why do we not demand countries outside of NATO follow the pledge that countries in NATO made and the answer "Because they are not in NATO" begs the question. Not sure you truly understand what begs the question is; but I assume others in the forum do. 

The question is "Why do we treat NATO countries differently".  There is no logic to the answer "Because we treat NATO countries differently".  That is circular logic.  It is a classic example of "begging the question".  

You can't answer a question by just repeating the question in the form of a conclusion.

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2018, 12:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The question is "Why do we treat NATO countries differently".  There is no logic to the answer "Because we treat NATO countries differently".  That is circular logic.  It is a classic example of "begging the question".  

You can't answer a question by just repeating the question in the form of a conclusion.

I haven't repeated the question. I have clearly stated because we are in an alliance with them; that is why we treat them differently. Why shouldn't I expect every woman except for the one I've entered into an alliance with be giving me head as I type this?   

But as I've said (Hollo aside) others follow your logic. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-11-2018, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't know, do you? Seems earlier you were unaware it could be liquefied. I'd assume we have safety measures in place if we shipped to 28 countries last year without incident.

As to "worthwhile". That's debatable. I've already said Germany's elected official should do what she thinks is best for her country. 

This all seems like a very expensive process. I mean, converting natural gas to liquid form, loading it aboard specialized ships, shipping it across an ocean without incident, unloading it and converting it back to gas form and probably now transporting that over pipelines. That doesn't seem real efficient or cheap. But it would be worthwhile to force a country in which we have a longstanding mutal defense agreement with to buy this product because a couple of rich dudes in America will get richer from it? Hmmm...

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2018, 12:15 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: This all seems like a very expensive process. I mean, converting natural gas to liquid form, loading it aboard specialized ships, shipping it across an ocean without incident, unloading it and converting it back to gas form and probably now transporting that over pipelines. That doesn't seem real efficient or cheap. But it would be worthwhile to force a country in which we have a longstanding mutal defense agreement with to buy this product because a couple of rich dudes in America will get richer from it? Hmmm...

Guess you'd have to bring that up with the 28 countries we exported to last year.


But that aside: Are you OK with Germany entering into the pipeline agreement with Russia? 

[GMDino]

(07-12-2018, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess you'd have to bring that up with the 28 countries we exported to last year.


But that aside: Are you OK with Germany entering into the pipeline agreement with Germany? 

I suppose so.

(I just wanted to respond to something we agreed on.   )*

































*This is a light hearted joke about an obvious simple error. It is not to be taken seriously or personally. Nor does it imply any kind of weakness or problems by the original poster. The joke is noted by the use of the ninja smiley.

[Bengalzona]

(07-12-2018, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess you'd have to bring that up with the 28 countries we exported to last year.


But that aside: Are you OK with Germany entering into the pipeline agreement with Russia? 

I thought Germany and Russia had already built that pipline years ago? Is this a new thing?

If it's a new thing, I'd probably frown about it.

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2018, 12:43 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I thought Germany and Russia had already built that pipline years ago? Is this a new thing?

If it's a new thing, I'd probably frown about it.

Yes, Nord Stream 2 is a new thing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-11-2018, 01:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well of course it's not rational. I merely meant to say that there is resistance to an armed Germany, and it's still a significant resistance, though of course not compared to the former century. But still. Wanting them to spend more on military is a shift, and it takes time to adapt to that shift. The 2% suggestion isn't decade-long old, it stems from 2014... now if Germany had used a lot of money immediately to buy lots of tanks and rockets and stuff, imagine the reaction. Take Lucie's reaction by half... still a pretty strong reaction.

Fair enough.  I lived in Europe when de-nazification was still in effect, I can understand the concern.

Quote:Still, I am in favor of the 2% and yeah it's about time Europe took their defense in their own hands. Regarding US troops and defense. I don't think it's their main reason of existence. The US has bases everywhere in the world, often in countries that don't need protection from foes. These bases are just that, bases. For starting operations, places to retreat, places to organize operations from, a troop reserve etc. etc. Defending Germany is something I don't see among the top reasons. If it were about that, troops wouldn't be what's needed (rather anti-aircraft and such things).

The Us has bases in most nations to defend that nation and often surrounding nations.  The bases are also there by invitation, with the possibly exception of Okinawa.  Force projection is part of defense.  The best defense is a good offense and all.  Additionally, attacking said nation is also an attack on US troops, which is an attack on the US, essentially a deceleration of war against the United States.

Quote:I don't refute that, but that's far from the only reason. Another one being that a former boxer believed it would be wise to revolt against a vastly corrupt, but democraticly legitimized government. Without having any plan beyond that, leading to turmoil, chaos and actual Nazis running homeland security (or something like that) and lots of other things. The opportunity created for Putin was far from being Obama's sole fault.
Europeans encouraging the boxer and his accoplices has a lot to do with it also. They all failed, Obama sure not excluded.

I already mentioned the extreme strategic importance of the black sea fleet port.  The main point being that Putin knew he could get away with it as the west would do nothing of substance to stop him.

Quote:Like what?

Complete economic strangulation (which Europe wouldn't do because then they'd have to pay the US more for liquefied natural gas for heating), total asset seizure of all foreign Russian investments, blanket denial for all Russian businesses and citizens from accessing western financial services, limited to escalated military direct military action.  Putin wasn't willing to risk a real war over the Crimea, he was willign to risk the west wouldn't do anything of real substance.  he was correct.

Quote:Far more akin, yes, but hardly the same thing. Saddam was a decade-long US ally looking for the promised reward for leading a war. Putin is no such thing.

No, Saddam was the enemy of my enemy.  Hardly the same thing as our ally.  Don't try and play blame the US for the Kuwait invasion, you normally do a good job of not being stereo-typically European.  

Quote:Yes it is, and I don't blame him for the annexion, of course not. I do blame him for obviously taking the position that this is done and no longer worthy of consideration or any kind of backlash. As if Putin just sat that one out. I disagree with that position.

It is done.  The time to take action on it has passed and then some.  So the question remains, where do we go from here?

Quote:I don't know. If it were up to me, I'd probably take a hard look at banning the oligarchs from doing business in the west. Also I'd think about a global initiative against the cyber threats. Thiungs the TRump adminstratin doesn't even consider (also Germany and others, it's not solely Trump's fault)
What I'm most certainly against is trying to be cozy with Putin. That's the wrong way to treat him, and I'm not really willing to change my mind on this. I also think it's wrong to let Crimea be Crimea just because that wasn't Trump's fault, and I'm also against ignoring the Russian propaganda attacks, like Trump seems to be willing to do. Is that unfair to say? He states he believes what Putin says, after all.

If you think anything short of military intervention will free Crimea from Russian control at this point your delusional.  The time for economic action has passed and then some.  China has provided Russia with far too many back doors for them to really effect them now anyways.

Quote:I have a slightly different take on that. I don't see Russia as a Chinese vassal state

Neither does Russia.

Quote:, and I think the Chinese are too smart to treat them as such.

Not overtly, no, at least not for the time being.

Quote:If any, the Chinese are now in business with Russia due to the western sanctions, and they are closer now. And what could one do against that? Lifting the sanctions and letting Pution do whatever he pleases just so he likes us better than China is not the way to go. Not in my book, anyway.
(If Obama had suggested that course of action, you'd have quite a lot of things to say about that, and so would I.)

Lifting sanctions would never be the first step.

Quote:Do you have an answer to your question (how to proceed)? Would tht really be to lift the sanctions and try a softer approach? I couldn't quite figure out your exact position here.

I've answered this before but I'll do so again.  Cease eastward expansion of NATO.  While it is essentially harmless the Russians have a visceral reaction to it and perceive it as rubbing the cold war loss in their faces.  Meet with Russia and introduce the idea of gradual cooperation and support.  Let Russia, slowly, into the West's "boys club" which they've wanted to be a part of since the 1800's.  Privately remind them of China's huge shared border with Russia and the Chinese "historical claims" on much of Siberia.  Remind them how China deals with historical claims a la the South China Sea.  Essentially do what we should have done upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, pick them up off the ground brush of their shoulder, grasp their hand, pat them on the back and go get a drink with them.  Russian psychology is tremendously wrapped up in being taken seriously and seen as an equal.  Start to give them that.  Russia is an easy country to understand, they are obsessed with being relevant, let them be.  Essentially, politically seduce them.  It's very doable and no one has ever tried it before.  They don't like the Chinese, let them not hate us to the point that they remember this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-11-2018, 11:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: As I said, many of the complaints were that we didn't do "more".  What "more" is no one wants to say other than sanctions were not "enough".  I suppose they want a war?  when the folks who talk about start signing up I'll support that option.

See my response to hollodero above.

Quote:Yeah...remember when the right went on and on about the "Obama apology tour"?  That was good times.  Not that Trump bending over every time Putin is mentioned is the same though.  

All seriousness aside Obama did not have a great track record with foreign affairs.  He also wasn't as "limited" as Trump is so the prospects of his "tough talk" doing anything is just folly.

That's a very long way of saying I'm correct, but kudos to you for getting there.

Quote:Except it is just a "defense" when it is compared to Obama.  There is nothing given about Trump's own policies or results that is used to defend him.  Just that Obama was bad too.  I offered example as support of my contention that Obama was harder on Russia than Trump and why it wasn't seen as enough by some.

Trump supporters say: He does things his way...which is better than Obama.  That's it.

I've provided a defense for the approach and I describe it in much more detail above.

Quote:Again, give us an alternative.  

Some might call diplomacy "weak".  Some think an unthinking "man" who makes deals out of thin air is "strong".  When I see results we can compare them.

Weak like when Trump met with Kim?

Quote:Fact is at least something was done without the POTUS siding with Russia over our allies.

Find me a scenario where Trump sided with Russia over our allies, i.e. an ally lost an argument against Russia because of Trump.

Quote:Fact is Trump is "limited" in is abilities and his defenders simply toss that aside because Obama didn't do "enough".  That's just an excuse.

Obama was limited in his abilities as well, as you just admitted.  Every POTUS shares this trait.  Trump is an unusual and unorthodox POTUS, he has the ability to make inroads others wouldn't attempt, much like Nixon going to China.  It may not work out, it doesn't mean the idea is wrong on its face.