new lines on the map

[Benton]

I know all the chatter right now is about the POTUS and how he either hasn't wrecked the country yet or how he's started, but something else interesting is coming about.

since the end of WWII, allies and cooperative agreements have mostly been the same. Three quarters of a century and a few major conflicts along the way, but few changes (relatively) to lines on maps, or the lines between allies.

could that be changing?

the populist movement has changed things, notably weakening the EU and, if trump follows through on pledges, the U.S. pulling back globally, cooling relations with Mexico, turkey, and other long time allies among naTO.

curious for others thoughts. Are we looking to open doors with relationships that either cooled or never warmed up, or are we just pulling back after 100 years of expanding globally?

[*bfine32*]

Perhaps we are looking for form other allies. Perhaps a "Super Alliance" of US, Russia, Great Britan. While limiting our coperation with Saudi Arabia and China. We need for China to be motivated to work "with" us and not for them. China controls North Korea and we need that to be a bargainning chip. You want to just the Super Alliance, disavow NK. Saudi you want us to go back to buying some of your oil, cambat terrorism in your region and take in refugees.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(01-28-2017, 11:16 AM)Benton Wrote: I know all the chatter right now is about the POTUS and how he either hasn't wrecked the country yet or how he's started, but something else interesting is coming about.

since the end of WWII, allies and cooperative agreements have mostly been the same. Three quarters of a century and a few major conflicts along the way, but few changes (relatively) to lines on maps, or the lines between allies.

could that be changing?

the populist movement has changed things, notably weakening the EU and, if trump follows through on pledges, the U.S. pulling back globally, cooling relations with Mexico, turkey, and other long time allies among naTO.

curious for others thoughts. Are we looking to open doors with relationships that either cooled or never warmed up, or are we just pulling back after 100 years of expanding globally?

That's a terrific question.  Most of the American foreign policy was left over from the Cold War and people in DC are hesitant to change.  The US isn't pulling back globally per se; I understand President Trump wants lots of trade but he wants trade to be one-on-one with other nations, not the sweeping multinational deals we've made since just after WW2.

[*bfine32*]

(01-28-2017, 12:44 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: That's a terrific question.  Most of the American foreign policy was left over from the Cold War and people in DC are hesitant to change.  The US isn't pulling back globally per se; I understand President Trump wants lots of trade but he wants trade to be one-on-one with other nations, not the sweeping multinational deals we've made since just after WW2.

He's a business man. He'll most likely look for tdeals that best serve the US interest, regardless which country gets mad.

[Benton]

(01-28-2017, 12:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps we are looking for form other allies. Perhaps a "Super Alliance" of US, Russia, Great Britan. While limiting our coperation with Saudi Arabia and China. We need for China to be motivated to work "with" us and not for them. China controls North Korea and we need that to be a bargainning chip. You want to just the Super Alliance, disavow NK. Saudi you want us to go back to buying some of your oil, cambat terrorism in your region and take in refugees.

I haven't looked at the numbers (I just had this thought last night during an injury time out), but ot would be interesting if we started moving away from opec (Saudi control) and started getting oil from Russia, a significant exporter. I dont like the idea of being dependant on another super power, but if its an equitable dependency, then it could get us out of the me. Which would solve a lot of problems.

(01-28-2017, 12:44 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: That's a terrific question.  Most of the American foreign policy was left over from the Cold War and people in DC are hesitant to change.  The US isn't pulling back globally per se; I understand President Trump wants lots of trade but he wants trade to be one-on-one with other nations, not the sweeping multinational deals we've made since just after WW2.

that's one area I think trump can be beneficial. It seems like a lot of our policy is just "well, its been this way for a while, so...." Instead of, what's working for both of is? How can we make it work better?

[Belsnickel]

Article from the Independent today quotes a senior Chinese official saying war with the US is looking more practical, and that information is spreading throughout the Chinese military. Going to be interesting to see if this is just bloviating or not.

[*wildcats forever*]

(01-28-2017, 11:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Article from the Independent today quotes a senior Chinese official saying war with the US is looking more practical, and that information is spreading throughout the Chinese military. Going to be interesting to see if this is just bloviating or not.

This raises the question of how well do we consider consequences, whether intended or simply unanticipated. Of course we have little or no idea of how much thought is put into an issue when the news of 'whatever' action is being reported. To me it seems Nations of the World are currently a little more politically sensitive than normal, and this volatility is a bit unpredictable at best. Traditionally such an environment has dictated a lower profile than what current events have yielded.

Take this step toward isolationism in recent days, and imagine which countries are rejoicing and which ones are getting a little skittish, if not scared. It could lead to some long-term headaches few believed probable, with costs inestimable at the moment. I'm truly concerned.

[BengalHawk62]

(01-28-2017, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He's a business man. He'll most likely look for tdeals that best serve HIS interest, regardless which country gets mad.

fixed it

[xxlt]

(01-28-2017, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He's a business man. He'll most likely look for tdeals that best serve the US interest, regardless which country gets mad.

But as a business man, he never looked for deals that best served his company's interests, he looked for deals that best served his personal interests. This is why no US bank will lend him money, no Wall Street fund managers would invest in a Trump company, and no individual investor with an ounce of sense would invest in a Trump company. Look for him to handle this job the same way - not what is best for the country, but what is best for Trumpythetiger. Remember, he's grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat!

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-30-2017, 10:39 AM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: fixed it

(01-30-2017, 02:49 PM)xxlt Wrote: But as a business man, he never looked for deals that best served his company's interests, he looked for deals that best served his personal interests. This is why no US bank will lend him money, no Wall Street fund managers would invest in a Trump company, and no individual investor with an ounce of sense would invest in a Trump company. Look for him to handle this job the same way - not what is best for the country, but what is best for Trumpythetiger. Remember, he's grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat!

Name one POTUS that didn't have America's interest and looked out for their own on the back burner?

You can't, and we all know it in the back of our minds, so it's getting silly to keep repeating yourselves.

[xxlt]

(01-30-2017, 03:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Name one POTUS that didn't have America's interest and looked out for their own on the back burner?

You can't, and we all know it in the back of our minds, so it's getting silly to keep repeating yourselves.

I urge you to find a new supplier. You most know someone, in the back of your mind. We all do. It is silly to keep paying good money for drugs that make you post such nonsense. There is good product out there, whatever your drug of choice. Seek it out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-28-2017, 11:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Article from the Independent today quotes a senior Chinese official saying war with the US is looking more practical, and that information is spreading throughout the Chinese military. Going to be interesting to see if this is just bloviating or not.

If that's their attitude better to do it now than to wait for them to get stronger.  As of right now they'd get their ass kicked.  A few territorial concessions to Putin in Northern China would all that was needed to ensure their neutrality in such a conflict.  Please note that I am not at all advocating for this scenario and would greatly prefer that it never reaches armed conflict.

[Dill]

(01-28-2017, 11:16 AM)Benton Wrote: I know all the chatter right now is about the POTUS and how he either hasn't wrecked the country yet or how he's started, but something else interesting is coming about.

since the end of WWII, allies and cooperative agreements have mostly been the same. Three quarters of a century and a few major conflicts along the way, but few changes (relatively) to lines on maps, or the lines between allies.

could that be changing?

the populist movement has changed things, notably weakening the EU and, if trump follows through on pledges, the U.S. pulling back globally, cooling relations with Mexico, turkey, and other long time allies among naTO.

curious for others thoughts. Are we looking to open doors with relationships that either cooled or never warmed up, or are we just pulling back after 100 years of expanding globally?

I can't say what the US is "looking for " right now. But I do think it helpful to distinguish long term trends that are underway and will continue no matter who is president from trends begun or accelerated by the Trump presidency.

E.g., China was/is growing in military and economic power no matter who is president of the US. Challenging them or working with them helps them either way. Challenging them diplomatically and militarily does not help the US that I can see, though cooperating with them extends US power and influence. The TPP was a chance to counter Chinese economic power on the Pacific Rim and in South Asia. Not any more.  China's ability to plan long term and maintain stable relations with trade partners is an advantage we can no longer match.

Over the short term, Trump's disruption of trade with Mexico and others will not last, in part because I don't think Trump will last and in part because hostility is in the interest of neither country.  But I see three areas where he can do lasting damage that no one will be able to repair.

1. Russia has few friends in the international community (for good reasons) and its expansion is limited in part by US alliances and in part by its Italy-sized economy. Playing the US to roll back NATO would accomplish Putin's goals, which include redrawing many lines along the borders of fledgling NATO members. Trouble between the US and China also helps, removing an effective counterweight.

2. The Iran treaty. If Trump manages to blow that, the US ability to accomplish international goals with partners like China, Russia, France and Germany will be greatly damaged. Permanently, I think. Why would any of those countries sit down with us for years to work up important treaties with buy in from all stake holders when unstable domestic US politics can throw a Trump into office?  Within Iran, the authoritarian counterparts to our own Trumpsters would overpower the "failed" moderates and set Iran on course to nuclear power. We will not be able to work with them again for generations, if ever. This would be far more destabilizing to the Middle East than ISIL. The US would be seen most actors in the region as unstable and unreliable.

3. North Korea/Pakistan. I am lumping these two together as serious nuclear crises waiting to happen. Each is unstable for different reasons--NK has the most unstable leader in the world; in P the three way dysfunction between civilian gov., Military, and intel agencies is complicated by fundamentalism in country and their hysteria over India. Each has been kept in check by a complex balance of US led diplomatic alliances, aid, and military might. Each is capable of triggering a real war with real consequences--not the JV action we see with ISIL.  Trump brings a similar instability to the world's most powerful military and the lynchpin in the alliances which check these countries. Were either to meltdown, the US response has the power to manage the damage locally but not the leadership.

But the long term damage is that his behavior will push other countries to strengthen trade and military ties with each other, uncouple their currencies from the dollar, and develop their own means of "world policing".  US power will be counterbalanced by large regional alliances (economic and military) in Europe and East Asia which will be deemed more stable. The US will become a trade partner with exactly that level of influence in these regions.