In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 19 2017 03:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't really know what you mean by saying that we have a severe case of stockholm syndrome. You've used that phrase on many occasions but I either feel like you don't know what the phrase means or that you don't understand US-euro relations.
You have a severe case of Stockholm syndrome in how hilariously willing European governments are to lap up with little complaint any of the stupid shit that our less likeable presidents - Bush II and Trump in this case - will throw out, and then continue to crawl back to the US as soon as they offer the mildest tidbit of kindness.
Yes, it is of course partially a result of dependence; the US is far more powerful than any individual European nation and there is not all that much they can do about it. But it is still fun to watch the way European mainstream leaders contort themselves into trying to distance themselves from Trump but not the US, after being Obama's greatest cheerleaders - in a funny see-saw of how American leadership is viewed.
Still really don't think the phrase makes sense. It's no hostage situation. I can agree that we were strongarmed into joining the 'coalition of the willing' wrt to the invasion of Iraq, but the UK and Poland were the only European countries to actually supply troops to the invasion force.
The alliance between western Europe and the US has existed because it has been considered mutually beneficial. This holds true for a vast majority of the european population. Stockholm syndrome isn't a phrase used to describe say, a child's love for an absent or alcoholic parent (where you could argue that the normal loving parent is the sane american president while Bush and Trump is what happens during a seriously bad bender), it describes the seemingly irrational positive feelings held towards someone holding you hostage. This isn't even close to an accurate description of US-Euro relations. And I realize that analogies don't have to be perfect for them to make sense, but this one is not nearly good enough to warrant being employed at the frequency you use it. ;p
Ok, if we use the Wikipedia definition:
Stockholm syndrome is a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity.
It's fair to say that that's not exactly right. I might more accurately describe it as "battered woman syndrome"
Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is a mental disorder that develops in victims of domestic violence as a result of serious, long-term abuse. BWS is dangerous primarily because it can lead to what some scholars say is "learned helplessness" – or psychological paralysis – where the victim becomes so depressed, defeated, and passive that she believes she is incapable of leaving the abusive situation.
which is sometimes used interchangeably with Stockholm syndrome.
The analogy I would use is that the US is the alcoholic husband who is abusive during periods of long drinking but more measured when he isn't drinking. Europe is afraid to leave, partially because they don't have all that much else they can run away to. And he pays the bills so it's hard to flee. And Europe develops into a situation where in times of drinking it just tries to meekly wait for it to pass (enduring beatings and random controlling behavior) while being cheerful and happy during the more sane periods.
Of course the analogy never translates perfectly to international relations. But it's a good way to describe how pathetic the desire to just wait it out - even though there is zero indication that this is a trend that will pass - looks. So I think it's worth using as appropriate to describe the contortions that European leadership goes through to stand by the US and wait through Trump, even though they will have to keep doing that forever.
But that really isn't a problem. I trust our leaders to realize that the US has this Jekyll/Hyde thing going on, and plan accordingly. That means mitigating the problems of the Hyde phases, and getting reasonable things done during the Jekyll phases.
I don't really see why you claim this to be a bad thing (except that it is, of course, better for russia if the US and europe never work together). One can have perfectly fine deals with nations that are not always perfect. Sometimes the US is weird. We can deal with that. Sometimes russia annexes its neighbours because it can, and we still have treaties with them. The point is being aware of these things before you do any treaties, and calculate the risks. Then use those calculations to make treaties that are beneficial even if the US has their insane phase once again.
Sometimes the US is weird, sometimes other countries do something you don't like and you still have to deal with them. The difference is that Europeans only talk about the US in such grand terms - as this glorious guarantor of peace in Europe that has stood for 70 years. And yet it occasionally goes insane, like a guardian who occasionally comes by and beats you.
They never use the exact terms of "the US makes Europe peaceful" but it's an obvious implication of heaping praise upon US-centric alliances and projects and speaking about how important they - and by extension the US - are.
Usa and Europe are in the same boat,and when there are people in the same boat they sometimes bicker with each other but swimming in the ocean is not really a good alternative.
On April 19 2017 06:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: When is the last time a German Chancellor said anything of that sort?
Well you could start with Merkel praising NATO while not really wanting to pay their two percent. The US is making their freedom more free by stepping in where Germany falls short.
On April 19 2017 06:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: When is the last time a German Chancellor said anything of that sort?
Well you could start with Merkel praising NATO while not really wanting to pay their two percent. The US is making their freedom more free by stepping in where Germany falls short.
I don't see how that fits into the chain of discussion; i.e. it doesn't appear to be a counter to what was said, it looks more like another line of argument entirely.
setting aside the wohle unsoundness of the ol' 2% issue; which has been addressed at length already.
On April 19 2017 06:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: When is the last time a German Chancellor said anything of that sort?
Well you could start with Merkel praising NATO while not really wanting to pay their two percent. The US is making their freedom more free by stepping in where Germany falls short.
When was the last time NATO got involved in a joint conflict again? Who asked for help and did Germany show up?
As tensions mounted on the Korean Peninsula, Adm. Harry Harris made a dramatic announcement: An aircraft carrier had been ordered to sail north from Singapore on April 8 toward the Western Pacific.
A spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command, which Harris heads, linked the deployment directly to the “number one threat in the region,” North Korea, and its “reckless, irresponsible and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.”
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters on April 11 that the Carl Vinson was “on her way up there.” Asked about the deployment in an interview with Fox Business Network that aired April 12, President Trump said: “We are sending an armada, very powerful.”
U.S. media went into overdrive, and Fox reported on April 14 that the armada was “steaming” toward North Korea.
But pictures posted by the U.S. Navy suggest that’s not quite the case — or at least not yet.
A photograph released by the Navy showed the aircraft carrier sailing through the calm waters of Sunda Strait between the Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Java on Saturday, April 15. By later in the day, it was in the Indian Ocean, according to Navy photographs.
In other words, on the same day that the world nervously watched North Korea stage a massive military parade to celebrate the birthday of the nation’s founder, Kim Il Sung, and the press speculated about a preemptive U.S. strike, the U.S. Navy put the Carl Vinson, together with its escort of two guided-missile destroyers and a cruiser, more than 3,000 miles southwest of the Korean Peninsula — and more than 500 miles southeast of Singapore.
Instead of steaming toward the Korea Peninsula, the carrier strike group was actually headed in the opposite direction to take part in “scheduled exercises with Australian forces in the Indian Ocean,” according to Defense News, which first reported the story.
Neither the Pacific Command nor the Pacific Fleet responded immediately to requests for comment. On Monday, Cmdr. Clayton Doss, a Pacific Fleet spokesman, said only that the USS Carl Vinson and its escorts were “transiting the Western Pacific.” He declined to give a more precise location except to rule out the waters around South Korea or Japan.
As tensions mounted on the Korean Peninsula, Adm. Harry Harris made a dramatic announcement: An aircraft carrier had been ordered to sail north from Singapore on April 8 toward the Western Pacific.
A spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command, which Harris heads, linked the deployment directly to the “number one threat in the region,” North Korea, and its “reckless, irresponsible and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.”
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters on April 11 that the Carl Vinson was “on her way up there.” Asked about the deployment in an interview with Fox Business Network that aired April 12, President Trump said: “We are sending an armada, very powerful.”
U.S. media went into overdrive, and Fox reported on April 14 that the armada was “steaming” toward North Korea.
But pictures posted by the U.S. Navy suggest that’s not quite the case — or at least not yet.
A photograph released by the Navy showed the aircraft carrier sailing through the calm waters of Sunda Strait between the Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Java on Saturday, April 15. By later in the day, it was in the Indian Ocean, according to Navy photographs.
In other words, on the same day that the world nervously watched North Korea stage a massive military parade to celebrate the birthday of the nation’s founder, Kim Il Sung, and the press speculated about a preemptive U.S. strike, the U.S. Navy put the Carl Vinson, together with its escort of two guided-missile destroyers and a cruiser, more than 3,000 miles southwest of the Korean Peninsula — and more than 500 miles southeast of Singapore.
Instead of steaming toward the Korea Peninsula, the carrier strike group was actually headed in the opposite direction to take part in “scheduled exercises with Australian forces in the Indian Ocean,” according to Defense News, which first reported the story.
Neither the Pacific Command nor the Pacific Fleet responded immediately to requests for comment. On Monday, Cmdr. Clayton Doss, a Pacific Fleet spokesman, said only that the USS Carl Vinson and its escorts were “transiting the Western Pacific.” He declined to give a more precise location except to rule out the waters around South Korea or Japan.
Lolwut (could be a misunderstanding but looks like a heaping of stupid).
I'm thinking they just didn't bother to waste the money of moving the fleet up there - the threats were all they needed for what they were trying to do. I do actually think some of Trump's FP moves are well considered. Probably coming from the McMaster/Mattis wing. I think this is one of them.
I could see some of these things being the same options put up on a drawing board in front of Obama, which he declined in favor of something more conservative/cautious.
EDIT: if the fleet was actually supposed to go up to NK then it's a different story
I wouldn't be surprised if it was done deliberately. It's not likely in my mind that Mattis would get his force's positions wrong. Trump, maybe. Trump's said repeatedly that he's not going to advertise his plans beforehand. His favorite game to play is the game of misdirection.
On April 19 2017 09:07 TheFish7 wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if it was done deliberately. It's not likely in my mind that Mattis would get his force's positions wrong. Trump, maybe. Trump's said repeatedly that he's not going to advertise his plans beforehand. His favorite game to play is the game of misdirection.
he can't advertise his plans beforehand because he doesn't actually have plans. and all the real players on the international stage would've known where the carrier group actually was. it's a carrier group, it's too big to hide. and china would've told NK where it was most likely.
misdirecting the american people doesn't seem useful; and NK wouldn't have actually been misdirected about where the carrier group was.
TEXAS - The results of an annual poll released Tuesday reveal how Texans feel regarding immigration.
The Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit, non-partisan group, conducts and releases the results of their poll annually. The 2017 poll was conducted April 3 through April 9 and queried 1,000 adult Texans. The Texas Lyceum said Tuesday that this was the first year that the poll covered the issue of immigration.
The results of the poll revealed that Texans believe that immigration is the number one issue facing the state and nation, but 62 percent of Texans polled said that immigration helps the United States more than it hurts. The younger the respondent was, the more positively they viewed immigration.
Sixty-one percent of Texans opposed President Donald Trump's proposal to build a wall on the border of the United States and Mexico in order to stop illegal immigration. Additionally, 62 percent of those polled responded, "no," to the question, "Do you want (Trump) to deport millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S.?"
in that article I couldn't find a link to the underlying study. did anyone else find one? if not, I dislike things that reference a study, but have no link which enables me to checkup on the study and its methodology/findings, especially given how sloppy reporting can be about science (counting statistics in science)
The ships are still going to korea,they are expected to arrive next week I think. They just had to finish some already planned exercises first. This is not such a big issue as people make it out to be.
On April 19 2017 10:09 pmh wrote: The ships are still going to korea,they are expected to arrive next week I think. They just had to finish some already planned exercises first. This is not such a big issue as people make it out to be.
pretty sure that doesn't change it's mockability; or the oddity of saying it's truly important to take action on, but you're not taking the action now, but merely putting it next on the queue. or that it's poor messaging. hard to be totally sure without doing a double check of course. also, i'm not sure people are making it out to be a huge issue, so much as another trump stupid thing.
Trump took a few things that people cared about - immigration, isolationism (during the campaign at least), counter-terrorism, trade deals - to the extreme. Maybe he's not better on policy than Obama but Obama was not particularly popular on policy.
Trump and Obama have one thing in common: Both promised the moon to get elected, but what they've delivered felt/ feels more like Uranus....
Obama promised and delivered colossal healthcare reform. Trump promised to repeal said reform and did not yet.
EPT
