Trump and the risk of war
"And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people".
://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/23/trump-freezes-federa...
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contract...
Even more pessimistic than me!
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-twilight-of-the-liberal-world-order/
two and half minutes to midnight......isn't it exciting.
After midnight, we gunna let it all hang out.
The old doomsday clock.
Only been set at less than 11:45 once in its whole 70 years.
The closest it's been to midnight was 1953 when it was 11:58 .....when nothing evil or dangerous occurred.
About as accurate a predictor of crisis as the books of Nostradamus.
But don't let that derail the hype.
Blindboy that article is one of the biggest pieces of shit I've ever read.
The whole "America the saviour has done what it's done for the benefit of freedom and liberalism..."
Crikey Moses, can you really sit there and solemnly nod whilst reading that?
So an American ship sailing through international waters gets targeted by a Chinese frigate illegally and responds in a manner of self defence that it's entitled and the conflict that potentially may arise is evidence that Trump is a madman.
Even though the US containment of Chinese expansionism has been evolving for a decade previous to Trumps inauguration.
And without any reference to the sanity or vainglorious, self promoting and hyper nationalistic power plays being undertaken by Xi Jinping in an effort to perpetuate his political career.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trump-could-do-something-mad-and-prov...
View the headline through that lens and ask yourself about the state of the Western media that they'd side with a war bound totalitarian Communist regime rather than Trump .
Humanity insanity.
Blowin, it's funny because I haven't seen any kind of unreasonable bias in the two articles you've provided citing an unfair bias against trump.
That one a piece about a retired and fully decorated pommie general saying he's concerned old mate doesn't have the temperament to deal with geopolitics, is pretty newsworthy. Not the least because he's mates with trump's advisors. If we take him at his word on that, iit's plausible he's picked up some sort of vibe from them that the fella doesn't have a clue how to manage conflict. And that's a problem for all of us.
The right or wrong of China or the US is immaterial in that article, the analysis of trump by a relatively senior military fella regarding the president's capacity to manage conflict and geopolitics is newsworthy. And to be fair, the media didn't make up that hypothetical, an English army man did. You gotta wonder, maybe in the status quo of geopolitics right now, you don't fire up after one minor incident but rather let it slide and calm things down.
That wouldn't be siding with China that would be siding with diplomatic convention.
The point being Benski , that if the paper was concerned about a war eventuating with China from the hypothetical they put forward....then how and why did they come to the conclusion that Trump could have possibly been the provocateur when the US warship was sailing in waters that are deemed by maritime law to be freely navigatable and the aggression of the Chinese government led to A : the whole concept of US impropriety by being in freely navigatable waters and B : The fact that the Chinese frigate attacked the US ship.
Then when the captain of the US ship responds in SELF DEFENSE without any directive from the president it's viewed as being a result of Trumps unhinged mental state.
Why no recognition from the paper that the entire scenario arose through Chinese imperialist ambition ?
The issue of media bias comes not from the viewpoint of the Pommy General, but rather that the paper elected to promote that view without the counterpoint of the reality of the situation.
As for diplomatic convention - when does the onus fall on China ?
If not after their ship has been sunk in international waters after initiating an unprovoked attack on a foreign vessel , then when ?
Appeasement.
I get the point you're making but if a general puts forward a hypothetical, not the paper, I'll take his word as to the appropriate response under diplomatic/geopolitical convention. Talk softly and carry a big stick etc. Presumably the point is that a response to that act of sinking the Chinese ship would be considered an over reaction. And he doesn't expect trump to be able to manage that, to chin it off, as he put it.
That's a noteworthy view. And I don't think he is absolving China in the hypothetical, just recognising that each player has the chance to escalate or deescalate the situation at all times. All foreign powers test each other and being trigger happy isn't necessarily a winning response. That seems to be the guy's point.
Should the paper have found an opposing view for the sake of appearing unbiased? Maybe but I think it's fair to ask what the point would be of that. Retired general says he thinks trump is trigger happy, another disagrees and says he'll be ok.
So which headline did the paper run with - general backs Trump of general disputes Trumps approach ?
My point isn't regarding the Generals point of view , although military commanders should not be thought of as perpetually apolitical , it's that the paper promotes that view.
A story describing the backing of Trump wouldn't get a start.
They went with the headline that they knew would make you click on it frustration at the shitty journalism and blindboy click on it because he would agreed with the probable content.
A win-win...trump should take note ;-)
PS. Definitely agree the general ain't apolitical. He's pushing his own agenda for sure.
benski, show me an analysis of Trump's policies that does not suggest an increased risk of a major war. Anywhere but breitbart or Murdoch is fine.
Benski wrote "Not a war monger like Hilary, wasn't that what you guys said?"
Who said Trump wasn't a war monger? What "guys" are you speaking of?
Good lord blind boy you need to stop reading all these "independent" analysis and look at the actual situation before & after Trump was inaugurated. The situation at hand was not of his creating and has existed for some time now. Every international incident can be interpreted that way if that's what the media feel like doing as they get to relay the context depending on their mood at the time, a point which blowin mentioned earlier.
For the record, the TPP deal which Trump canned on day one and has been supported by Rudd, Gillard, Abbot, Turnbull not to mention Obama & Hillary was designed in part to contain China's influence. This could have been seen as a prelude to war if the media felt like it but nope not a whisper to be seen anywhere.
Sheepdog, you asked "Who said Trump wasn't a war monger? What "guys" are you speaking of?"
Just a facetious post based on the initial vibe directed at blindboy when he dared suggest there was an increased risk of war under trump.
Who was creating that vibe? I don't recall specifically.
Blindboy, I'm not trying to suggest or argue anything in particular about his policies but I agree that his generally bombastic nature and approach to diplomacy doesn't augur well for the rest of us.
Benski writes "Just a facetious post based on the initial vibe directed at blindboy when he dared suggest there was an increased risk of war under trump."
Well....... Facetious as it may be ( and kudos for that that lol), you are a man of science and logic, right? So.... Just a few things for you to mull over;
How can there be an increased risk of war when the USA is at war? When we are at war? Just like in "1984", the war is all the way "over there', so perhaps we forget about the RAAF sortes. We are at war, Benski... Probably also masked by all our other wars on obesity and sugar etc..
The chance of MORE war? The chance of new wars? Possibly.... The media wants it.... That'll get the clicks going.....
Trump cant LOGICALLY be called a war monger until he starts a war... he can't be called a war monger for continuing Obamas and Hilary's mess..... When he starts 1, 2, 3 wars like Hilary, yes, we can call him a war monger.....
At this stage, he is an antagoniser.
I don't disagree with you there sheepdog. Reckon they only thing I'd say is that he's continuing Bush's mess. Who was probably continuing someone else's himself.
Here's a little ditty for everyone from Franti ,that you probably know, about the war for oil, a war for gold, a war on terror, a war on drugs....etc
from boingboing -- https://boingboing.net/2017/01/30/was-this-weekend-a-trial-ballo.html
"Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States," writes Yonatan Zunger on Medium. The "administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored."
Combining all of these facts, we have a fairly clear picture in play.
Trump was, indeed, perfectly honest during the campaign; he intends to do everything he said, and more. This should not be reassuring to you.
The regime’s main organizational goal right now is to transfer all effective power to a tight inner circle, eliminating any possible checks from either the Federal bureaucracy, Congress, or the Courts. Departments are being reorganized or purged to effect this.
The inner circle is actively probing the means by which they can seize unchallenged power; yesterday’s moves should be read as the first part of that.
The aims of crushing various groups — Muslims, Latinos, the black and trans communities, academics, the press — are very much primary aims of the regime, and are likely to be acted on with much greater speed than was earlier suspected. The secondary aim of personal enrichment is also very much in play, and clever people will find ways to play these two goals off each other.
The Americans are turning in on themselves. Time to invade. This time, the Tea will get delivered.
Always wondered how long it'd take before someone tried taking over the powerful tranny community.
I bet you have, you old fruit, you.
The tranny community must prevail !
I couldn't stomach the thought of fighting the straight community, but what are the options if Chook is right ?
You try running in these heels .
Well played.
Bravo! Well, unless you're a "tranny" I s'pose. Yew!
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-era...
Just thought id post that here. im not sure if anyone mentioned that yet.
Groundswell, the article points out that this is the second child of al Awlaki killed by american special forces....
"Karen Greenberg, director of Fordham University's Center on National Security, said the girl's death will be a boon to al Qaeda propagandists.
"The perception will be that it's not enough to kill al-Awlaki — that the U.S. had to kill the entire family," she said."
The face of war..
Great post sheepy!
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/wikileaks-vault-7-dump-rei...
Another war that Trump inherited from peace-lovin obama?
Remember this? It was a while ago...
http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2017/845-an-impeacha...
erm...
After tacking briefly toward a softer tone, Trump’s speech reinforced the course that he has set—a strategic momentum that, left unchanged, stands a growing chance of leading to war. John Brennan, the former director of the C.I.A., recently estimated the odds of this chance becoming a reality at between twenty and twenty-five per cent. Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, assesses the risk as closer to fifty per cent. In the Times, on Sunday, Nicholas Kristof noted these estimates and observed, “Yet we’re complacent: Neither the public nor the financial markets appreciate how high the risk is of a war, and how devastating one could be.”
New Yorker today
For me the risk of Trump starting a war is very real especially if his poll number continue to fall, his legislative agenda continues to stall and republicans up for mid term election next year continue to argue against the extremes of his agenda.
Trade war
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-will-no-longer-be-taken-advantage-of-on-t...
Whether he follows through or not.....it's nice to hear someone publicly voice the truth.
I really don't want to defend trump again. As it truly is my wish that the democrats would finally get their shit together so I don't have to sit through anymore painfully grating foriegn speaches from the trump.
Considering the on going denial from the democrats this week that ain't gonna happen anytime before... say ...err.... maybe 2021 at best, so deal with trump it is.
On obama's first day induction for trump to the whitehouse he said the most pressing and urgent issue for trump would be dealing with a nuclear north korea.
Considering that, I really cannot see this north korea thing being much different regardless of who is in power.
So rather then have the same old same old circular arguments re. trump warpig / not warpig, maybe blindboy or guysmiley could offer some suggestions on how trump could possibly avoid this confrontation, especially considering that presidents from both parties have failed to slow this process over a period of decades leading to where we are now.
A little war seems somewhat inevitable, unless kim jung something sees sense and backs down
and it does appear it will be just a little war, thanks to some serious schmooozing with xi
And where are we now?
NK developing nukes, so is Iran. Pakistan, India and Israel have them and in all cases against international conventions.
Should Trump declare war against all of these countries?
Why wouldn't NK want nukes when they see how Uncle Sam treat(s)ed Iraq and other parts of the middle east.
Want these countries to stop developing nukes, then engage with them and stop Uncle Sam being the dickhead sheriff ... in Trump's case that will most likely be too much to ask.
I actually think its hypicritical to deny them nukes, but good luck with that argument
That international convention is looking pretty shakey atm. No thanks to australia
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/04/18/trump-o...
But last week, after a chemical weapons attack against civilians reportedly perpetrated by the Assad regime, Trump ordered airstrikes against three Syrian government targets in concert with allies Britain and France and, noticeably, a world war didn’t start.
Before missiles were launched, the Pentagon warned Moscow through already established “deconfliction” channels that strikes were imminent, and subsequently, no Russian assets were hit. Russia vigorously protested the action against its client state — one in which it has an air and a naval base — but retaliation was entirely verbal, consisting of the usual diplomatic double talk at the United Nations, after this initial statement by Russia’s ambassador to the United States:
There is a lot in that article that is, at the very least, historically dubious. That said, it's basic argument is sound. The risk of Syria triggering WW3 is minimal, which is bad luck for the Syrians. If the risk was serious, the major players would be working much harder to end it.
Trump and the threat from North Korea 60 minutes
They all play for the same team BB even Assad. Same with Lil Kim and Putin. We are being played by our masters who will simply go underground when its time for Albert Pikes WW3. Here I would suggest reading Revelations and also look at the End Times timeline for the coming Tribulation. Time to open the good book friends. Him who hath ears should hear now. Matthew 24.
Matthew
Chapter 24
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Quint commentary: The Hilina Slump tsunami theory fits well about here)
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
"Jim's Rant For The Day" Quint? Really? That's an all time low in credibility. I'm still waiting for the smiting of fellow servants and the weeping and gnashing of teeth ........ I mean with the price of dental work these days I hope they keep the gnashing to a minimum.
@Quint Please tell me that was just a cut and paste?
Really dude your just making your religion look bad.
So to the big question. What exactly does Putin know that has Baby Donald sucking up quite so hard? Certainly enough to cost him the Presidency, probably enough to bankrupt him. I think it is a reasonable assumption, given the way Baby D has leveraged deals before, that it involves shit loads of very, very dirty money being laundered through assets whose true ownership is hidden. Think golf courses in Scotland for starters.
Wild swings in the dark BB.
Maybe true but even a stopped clock tells the right time twice per day.
Wild swings in the dark? Well if so there are plenty of insiders making the same call. Do some reading.
Are these the same learned insiders who squeal that, any day now, Trump will be impeached?
The same ones who cry that Trump is the biggest threat to world peace that we've ever seen, and nuclear war with North Korea is a foregone conclusion?
Yep there's plenty of reading to be done, virtually all of it with a degree of political and ideological bias which obliterates measured discussion.
Keep swinging that bat BB, one day you'll crack one to the boundary and you'll have the crowd on its feet.
Two minutes to midnight !!!!!!!
Andy, impeachment may not be inevitable. If you go back far enough you can probably find I claimed that it was. I over-estimated the responsibility of the Senate Republicans and under-estimated their opportunism in areas such as abortion rights and immigration. Trump is certainly the biggest threat to world peace for a long long time. The reason for this is that every potential opponent in a major war has, for a long period, perceived the US as a threat. Many people, for some reason, find this difficult to believe. My best guess is that we have all been brought up in an ocean of self-glorifying US propaganda via TV, movies, music etc. and fail to recognise that not everyone in the world has been living in the same bubble. The US is the dominant military power and has a history of aggression against weaker nations. Try viewing that from Russia, China or North Korea and you may understand how destabilising an unpredictable US President, like Trump can be. Previous Presidents, managed to send consistent and coherent messages to rival powers about what they considered acceptable. They may have backed down from time to time but they never reversed course or suddenly upped the ante. Trump is dangerous precisely because he has no consistent position on anything and therefore is so easy to misread. In reading in these areas the assumption is that various people and organisations have different biases. Read widely, consider it all in context and formulate a view.
Part One.