|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26031 Posts
On October 14 2019 03:38 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2019 04:56 Wombat_NI wrote:
It’s a complete shitshow. Perhaps the military and intelligence hawks had too much influence in previous administrations, but the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction so that all this expertise is being ignored on the whims of a narcissistic lunatic. I hesitate to even view it as 'the pendulum swinging the other way". Having a plan that goes against "the military and intelligence hawks" is not the same as having no plan at all. Having an agenda that runs counter to prevailing Bush/Obama Era doctrine is potentially reasonable, operating purely on whim without a long-term plan is completely unreasonable. Operating with a plan that I disagree with is better to me than operating with no plan at all.
Well that too, absolutely agree.
|
One of his latest tweets:
We have become a far greater Economic Power than ever before, and we are using that power for WORLD PEACE
Meanwhile, Erdo Khan destabilizes the region. He can push further into Syria with the excuse of isis being back on the loose because he freed them while trying to get rid of them, or some equally kafkaesque explanation.
Do you guys think Trump will be able to pull off a spectacular escape followed by a tweet where he resigns? I'm actually afraid for him being lynched after his term with how many of his own peeps he's pissing off. Speaking of lynching,
+ Show Spoiler +come play a game of mafia, 2-4 spots left to fill and you are encouraged to smurf under his name. At least you can pretend to be him being lynched.
|
On October 12 2019 08:03 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 23:53 brian wrote:On October 11 2019 22:35 Nouar wrote:On October 11 2019 19:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On October 11 2019 18:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2019 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2019 06:29 Lmui wrote:
The US is shitting away any chance of co-operation in the middle east. It's caused shitshows in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Having the Kurds assist is the most politically sensible decision. It involves a group which is trusted by the local populace, shares the same values as the foreign power (US), and a common goal (fight ISIS). It's the cheapest investment to achieve power in the region.If this doesn't get reversed in the next few days, I'd expect the GOP to fully break with Trump on Syria.
It was just a braindead decision by Trump I still firmly believe that if Democrats win in 2020, the world will be like: "So, that was fucked, but if you make systematic changes to make your system less volatile, we're cool", everyone will move on and clean up the pieces. Some damage can't be undone, but Trump is so unique that I don't think it is difficult for people to understand Warren/Biden/Sanders would immediately cancel tariffs and stuff like that. Trump is weird. No one else is. If we are able to show the world we learned from our mistakes, I really think we'll be welcomed back. Remember this is pretty much what happened after Bush. The world collectively went 'ok, this was just an anomaly, America is back to being our reliable ally and friend'. Only for 8 years later to go even more bat shit crazy. I'm not so sure you will find the world as forgiving the 2nd time. Sure publicly they will smile and pat the US on the back in front of the camera's but behind closed doors I think the cat is out of the bag and the world known America can go crazy every 4/8 years at random and cannot be relied upon beyond the current President. i think the world would be more forgiving, because the entire world wants to believe that america has their shit together again. every country in the world is literally rooting for it and if they see it happen theyll probably try their hardest to keep that as the status quo. if america votes in another retard down the line the rest of the world would probably lose faith again, but honestly i dont think most people lose faith in the american government, because eventually things will get better again. its the american people that become a mockery and become targets of insults, memes, laughter etc for letting another idiot in again. i mean americans are "half jokingly" considered to be the dumbest people in the world already. when a meme like that follows an entire countrys population it isnt for no reason Not half-jokingly. I will only trust the US again if Trump is beaten by a huge margin, more than 60%. Which won't happen. So that means I have to root in my head that nearly 50% of American voters either don't care about the world and are selfish bastards, or are complete idiots willing to elect anybody that lies convincingly enough (cause it doesn't get worse than a billionaire born millionaire telling to poor people he gets them). Thus I cannot trust it won't happen again, so I cannot trust the promises of the US long term. this seems a bit of an over reaction, bearing in mind the man lost the popular vote. he only took 46% in 2016. 40% doesn’t seem even remotely unrealistic. which ignores entirely motivations for voting trump don’t need to boil down to stupidity, the reasons certainly aren’t binary. he was the only republican nominee. you’ve destroyed nuance in an area that probably calls for it, and seem to not have the proper perspective of reality in framing it anyway. if nothing changed in the 2020 election, then i could understand the sentiment. This is missing the point. It's not about blame or unfairly tarring all Americans for the republicans' issues, it's just cold realpolitik. The US has been Jekyll/Hyde for some time now, but the Hyde version is getting worse and worse, and has probably started doing meth. Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Trump and his policies at the next election means we'll likely be doing this dance again in 8 years, and if that's the case the US simply cannot be trusted as a long-term partner. That's it. It's not Jekyll's fault, it just is.
Absolutely true.
It was very, very obvious that Trump was a very, very bad choice for a president to anyone outside of the US. It was also very obvious that Bush was a very bad choice as a president. The simple matter of fact is that you cannot trust the US for more than 4-8 years anymore. It doesn't matter that the US would like this to be different, and it doesn't matter what reasons people had for electing Trump beyond stupidity. (They were still bad reasons, because WTF, can you not take a look at this guy and see that you do not want that as your president? That almost anyone else would be a better choice?)
From the outside, the US is no longer a reliable partner. So anyone wanting to make a treaty with you better make sure that there is some clause in it that makes sure that when you randomly break that treaty after your next Trump's gut tells him that the treaty is bad for the US, they still profit. Nations with leverage can probably get away with clauses that the US needs to do X if they break the treaty unilaterally. Nations without leverage just need to be sure that the treaty is so good for them right now that they still profit if it randomly breaks away.
Also, people will simply be far less likely to trust you. Will the next kurds in the next syria ever want to ally with the US? No. They would be insane to do so. They will choose someone else, and suddenly you can no longer further your interests. Because they know that the word of the US is worth nothing. The US does not keep its treaties. And everyone knows this now.
|
On October 14 2019 06:01 Simberto wrote:
Absolutely true.
It was very, very obvious that Trump was a very, very bad choice for a president to anyone outside of the US. It was also very obvious that Bush was a very bad choice as a president. The simple matter of fact is that you cannot trust the US for more than 4-8 years anymore. It doesn't matter that the US would like this to be different, and it doesn't matter what reasons people had for electing Trump beyond stupidity. (They were still bad reasons, because WTF, can you not take a look at this guy and see that you do not want that as your president? That almost anyone else would be a better choice?)
From the outside, the US is no longer a reliable partner. So anyone wanting to make a treaty with you better make sure that there is some clause in it that makes sure that when you randomly break that treaty after your next Trump's gut tells him that the treaty is bad for the US, they still profit. Nations with leverage can probably get away with clauses that the US needs to do X if they break the treaty unilaterally. Nations without leverage just need to be sure that the treaty is so good for them right now that they still profit if it randomly breaks away.
Also, people will simply be far less likely to trust you. Will the next kurds in the next syria ever want to ally with the US? No. They would be insane to do so. They will choose someone else, and suddenly you can no longer further your interests. Because they know that the word of the US is worth nothing. The US does not keep its treaties. And everyone knows this now.
Alliances are made out of necessity, not luxury. The US doesn't have to be a perfect "reliable partner," just the most reliable one of the choices given.
|
Yes. Maybe in some situations you are still the only possible partner. But in those situations where you are not, there are other options. And the way the US is currently acting, you will quite often NOT be the most reliable partner. And that means more people will choose someone else.
|
Remind me who are the current militarily and economically strong governments in the world, that also won't either abandon you or strictly use you as long as you're useful. EU, Russia, and China all have something to offer, but if the US walks into the room to offer assistance, you're going to use the US first and rely on the others as backstops/contingency.
|
Do you think the Kurds would agree there nowadays? Do you think they might not have chosen Russia or China or Assad or Iran or anyone else if they knew what they know now when they had the choice? They chose you, and now they are fucked.
I think you are greatly overestimating how attractive the US is as a partner nowadays. Yes, you are strong. And you used to be reliable, which meant that you were a good partner. Nowadays, you are just strong. Which means that you are a bad partner, and people will take a worse deal from someone that they know will stick around for more than 4 years. Unless they are very certain that they will only need you until your next election.
Some people might still take the gamble on you if they are desperate. But you will have to offer a far better deal to get them to do that, and a lot of people who would have trusted you 20 years ago will not trust you now. That is simply what happens if you go Mr. Hyde every few years and do random unpredictable shit.
|
But those other countries do the same kind of thing the US just did. China will drop you like hot potato if you allow anyone in power to criticize them. Russia will only give assistance if it serves their immediate purpose, primarily if the "West" considers you the enemy. EU will promise to back you and then send medical staff and their protection, but have no forces to give you combat training or arms, and instead of taking refugees into the central and northern EU countries, they'll complain that you didn't follow protocol and deport you back or send you to countries struggling economically already.
If you're in need of critical international assistance, you were hosed since forever in terms of allies. The US has never been a "super hero," just a super power. It has the potential to be better (and many people in the US now are demanding it be better), and at times it has been, but Trump/GWBush aren't really as much of an abnormality that makes it less trustworthy, but rather a reversion to the mean.
|
Norway28706 Posts
What did the Kurds do that triggered the american betrayal?
I agree that China and Russia are not going to give unconditional help. But they don't say they will support you, ask you to do x, you do x, for then them to stop supporting you. This situation is americans failing to deliver upon a promise. It's a straight up betrayal that results in the guys that believed you getting killed. It's the kind of thing that will taint american foreign relations for decades. There's a reason why you see military personnel say stuff like 'I am ashamed for the first time in my career'.
|
On October 14 2019 06:14 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2019 06:01 Simberto wrote:
Absolutely true.
It was very, very obvious that Trump was a very, very bad choice for a president to anyone outside of the US. It was also very obvious that Bush was a very bad choice as a president. The simple matter of fact is that you cannot trust the US for more than 4-8 years anymore. It doesn't matter that the US would like this to be different, and it doesn't matter what reasons people had for electing Trump beyond stupidity. (They were still bad reasons, because WTF, can you not take a look at this guy and see that you do not want that as your president? That almost anyone else would be a better choice?)
From the outside, the US is no longer a reliable partner. So anyone wanting to make a treaty with you better make sure that there is some clause in it that makes sure that when you randomly break that treaty after your next Trump's gut tells him that the treaty is bad for the US, they still profit. Nations with leverage can probably get away with clauses that the US needs to do X if they break the treaty unilaterally. Nations without leverage just need to be sure that the treaty is so good for them right now that they still profit if it randomly breaks away.
Also, people will simply be far less likely to trust you. Will the next kurds in the next syria ever want to ally with the US? No. They would be insane to do so. They will choose someone else, and suddenly you can no longer further your interests. Because they know that the word of the US is worth nothing. The US does not keep its treaties. And everyone knows this now. Alliances are made out of necessity, not luxury. The US doesn't have to be a perfect "reliable partner," just the most reliable one of the choices given.
Hard to imagine why a local force would be willing to engage in a large scale ground offensive with our backing if they're just going to be betrayed. Especially in a situation where we've been propping up a given group for years- even if the initial decision to do so was terrible, there's now a status quo from which you cant just cut and run. Cutting and running is what obama did in iraq. And the Kurds are also a key faction in iraq, which is even more reason not to betray them in syria.
The only proof you need that trump has no clue what hes doing in syria is that he first agreed to withdrawal so that Turkey could carry out a long planned invasion, and then he pretended that he never approved the invasion.
|
On October 14 2019 07:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2019 06:14 aksfjh wrote:On October 14 2019 06:01 Simberto wrote:
Absolutely true.
It was very, very obvious that Trump was a very, very bad choice for a president to anyone outside of the US. It was also very obvious that Bush was a very bad choice as a president. The simple matter of fact is that you cannot trust the US for more than 4-8 years anymore. It doesn't matter that the US would like this to be different, and it doesn't matter what reasons people had for electing Trump beyond stupidity. (They were still bad reasons, because WTF, can you not take a look at this guy and see that you do not want that as your president? That almost anyone else would be a better choice?)
From the outside, the US is no longer a reliable partner. So anyone wanting to make a treaty with you better make sure that there is some clause in it that makes sure that when you randomly break that treaty after your next Trump's gut tells him that the treaty is bad for the US, they still profit. Nations with leverage can probably get away with clauses that the US needs to do X if they break the treaty unilaterally. Nations without leverage just need to be sure that the treaty is so good for them right now that they still profit if it randomly breaks away.
Also, people will simply be far less likely to trust you. Will the next kurds in the next syria ever want to ally with the US? No. They would be insane to do so. They will choose someone else, and suddenly you can no longer further your interests. Because they know that the word of the US is worth nothing. The US does not keep its treaties. And everyone knows this now. Alliances are made out of necessity, not luxury. The US doesn't have to be a perfect "reliable partner," just the most reliable one of the choices given. Hard to imagine why a local force would be willing to engage in a large scale ground offensive with our backing if they're just going to be betrayed. Especially in a situation where we've been propping up a given group for years- even if the initial decision to do so was terrible, there's now a status quo from which you cant just cut and run. Cutting and running is what obama did in iraq. And the Kurds are also a key faction in iraq, which is even more reason not to betray them in syria. https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1183355787462221824The only proof you need that trump has no clue what hes doing in syria is that he first agreed to withdrawal so that Turkey could carry out a long planned invasion, and then he pretended that he never approved the invasion.
No, the proof you needed there was convincing the Kurds that dismantling the defences they had that kept them safe from Turkey would get them a better reception at the negotiating table with them.
|
On October 14 2019 08:08 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2019 07:51 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2019 06:14 aksfjh wrote:On October 14 2019 06:01 Simberto wrote:
Absolutely true.
It was very, very obvious that Trump was a very, very bad choice for a president to anyone outside of the US. It was also very obvious that Bush was a very bad choice as a president. The simple matter of fact is that you cannot trust the US for more than 4-8 years anymore. It doesn't matter that the US would like this to be different, and it doesn't matter what reasons people had for electing Trump beyond stupidity. (They were still bad reasons, because WTF, can you not take a look at this guy and see that you do not want that as your president? That almost anyone else would be a better choice?)
From the outside, the US is no longer a reliable partner. So anyone wanting to make a treaty with you better make sure that there is some clause in it that makes sure that when you randomly break that treaty after your next Trump's gut tells him that the treaty is bad for the US, they still profit. Nations with leverage can probably get away with clauses that the US needs to do X if they break the treaty unilaterally. Nations without leverage just need to be sure that the treaty is so good for them right now that they still profit if it randomly breaks away.
Also, people will simply be far less likely to trust you. Will the next kurds in the next syria ever want to ally with the US? No. They would be insane to do so. They will choose someone else, and suddenly you can no longer further your interests. Because they know that the word of the US is worth nothing. The US does not keep its treaties. And everyone knows this now. Alliances are made out of necessity, not luxury. The US doesn't have to be a perfect "reliable partner," just the most reliable one of the choices given. Hard to imagine why a local force would be willing to engage in a large scale ground offensive with our backing if they're just going to be betrayed. Especially in a situation where we've been propping up a given group for years- even if the initial decision to do so was terrible, there's now a status quo from which you cant just cut and run. Cutting and running is what obama did in iraq. And the Kurds are also a key faction in iraq, which is even more reason not to betray them in syria. https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1183355787462221824The only proof you need that trump has no clue what hes doing in syria is that he first agreed to withdrawal so that Turkey could carry out a long planned invasion, and then he pretended that he never approved the invasion. No, the proof you needed there was convincing the Kurds that dismantling the defences they had that kept them safe from Turkey would get them a better reception at the negotiating table with them.
Wow I hadn't read about the deal that made the Kurds dismantle defenses near Turkish border. That makes this whole thing extremely sinister.
It's telling how bad the situation is that the SDF now quickly agreed to give Assad free reign to enter the area with the Syrian army, because it's a preferable bitter pill then the Turkish alternative. They give up their hard fought autonomy in days because the threat is so big. Looks like big win for Assad/Russia, though it depends on how boldly Turkey will continue now
So now the US forces still in Syria have to deal with Assads forces marching up from the south. And there's obviously some bad blood between them. It will be an interesting retreat.
|
On October 14 2019 09:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2019 08:08 Gahlo wrote:On October 14 2019 07:51 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2019 06:14 aksfjh wrote:On October 14 2019 06:01 Simberto wrote:
Absolutely true.
It was very, very obvious that Trump was a very, very bad choice for a president to anyone outside of the US. It was also very obvious that Bush was a very bad choice as a president. The simple matter of fact is that you cannot trust the US for more than 4-8 years anymore. It doesn't matter that the US would like this to be different, and it doesn't matter what reasons people had for electing Trump beyond stupidity. (They were still bad reasons, because WTF, can you not take a look at this guy and see that you do not want that as your president? That almost anyone else would be a better choice?)
From the outside, the US is no longer a reliable partner. So anyone wanting to make a treaty with you better make sure that there is some clause in it that makes sure that when you randomly break that treaty after your next Trump's gut tells him that the treaty is bad for the US, they still profit. Nations with leverage can probably get away with clauses that the US needs to do X if they break the treaty unilaterally. Nations without leverage just need to be sure that the treaty is so good for them right now that they still profit if it randomly breaks away.
Also, people will simply be far less likely to trust you. Will the next kurds in the next syria ever want to ally with the US? No. They would be insane to do so. They will choose someone else, and suddenly you can no longer further your interests. Because they know that the word of the US is worth nothing. The US does not keep its treaties. And everyone knows this now. Alliances are made out of necessity, not luxury. The US doesn't have to be a perfect "reliable partner," just the most reliable one of the choices given. Hard to imagine why a local force would be willing to engage in a large scale ground offensive with our backing if they're just going to be betrayed. Especially in a situation where we've been propping up a given group for years- even if the initial decision to do so was terrible, there's now a status quo from which you cant just cut and run. Cutting and running is what obama did in iraq. And the Kurds are also a key faction in iraq, which is even more reason not to betray them in syria. https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1183355787462221824The only proof you need that trump has no clue what hes doing in syria is that he first agreed to withdrawal so that Turkey could carry out a long planned invasion, and then he pretended that he never approved the invasion. No, the proof you needed there was convincing the Kurds that dismantling the defences they had that kept them safe from Turkey would get them a better reception at the negotiating table with them. Wow I hadn't read about the deal that made the Kurds dismantle defenses near Turkish border. That makes this whole thing extremely sinister. It's telling how bad the situation is that the SDF now quickly agreed to give Assad free reign to enter the area with the Syrian army, because it's a preferable bitter pill then the Turkish alternative. They give up their hard fought autonomy in days because the threat is so big. Looks like big win for Assad/Russia, though it depends on how boldly Turkey will continue now So now the US forces still in Syria have to deal with Assads forces marching up from the south. And there's obviously some bad blood between them. It will be an interesting retreat.
Yeah, the whole situation is a whole extra level of fucked.
|
There is no way this was trumps own idea. I'm fairly convinced this withdrawal was putin telling trump what to do and him doing what he's told. The way this was all timed is too perfect.
|
Im not too familar with american politics but aside from gathering media attention on the situation and possibly harming future relations with other countries is there no "punishment" or something for agreeing to support the kurds and then just abandoning them? Is this UN issue to deal with? And what type of actions could the UN do?
As far as i see, big countries answer to no one
|
On October 14 2019 12:09 Shock710 wrote:
Im not too familar with american politics but aside from gathering media attention on the situation and possibly harming future relations with other countries is there no "punishment" or something for agreeing to support the kurds and then just abandoning them? Is this UN issue to deal with? And what type of actions could the UN do?
As far as i see, big countries answer to no one
Small countries also answer to no one. In principle anyway, because in practice it's very relative. This is generally referred to as sovereignty.
The UN doesn't exist to guarantee promises between countries are kept.
|
On October 14 2019 11:10 hunts wrote:
There is no way this was trumps own idea. I'm fairly convinced this withdrawal was putin telling trump what to do and him doing what he's told. The way this was all timed is too perfect.
Yes, this withdrawal reminds me very much of his previous withdrawal declaration he made that ended up causing Mattis to resign. In that case it turned out it happened within a week or two of Trump having a phone call with Putin. Even in that case, the Republicans and the media immediately argued against the withdrawal, but it seems unlike that time, he hasn't caved to pressure to reverse course this time. In both cases, when he called for withdrawal of troops, it was in a way that analysts quickly figured out would benefit Russia.
|
On October 14 2019 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
Alliances are made out of necessity, not luxury. The US doesn't have to be a perfect "reliable partner," just the most reliable one of the choices given.
This is a good way to build alliances that last for the immediate future. It's an awful way to build political capital for the longer-term. There are benefits to being a good ally rather than just the least shitty option.
Arguably the only reason the US was able to drag so many of its allies into its ill-fated ventures in the last 20 years is by cashing in on all the political capital for the preceding 50. We didn't make friends in continental Europe by being the "less shitty" ally through WW2 and the Cold War. That political capital is starting to run very thin, and it's going to take a lot of work to build it back up again.
|
Norway28706 Posts
Yea, the Marshall plan was a fantastic piece of political work. Iraq war kinda extinguished it as political capital, though, but with Obama, you almost got back to where you used to be. Trump however is gonna require something exceptional to undo.
|
I think the decision to invade Iraq did much more damage to American credibility in military matters than Trump's actions, and that as Drone said was almost undone at the end of Obama's presidency, so I wouldn't be surprised if people forgot about leaving the Kurds on their own in one or two years. Trump's words are just words, they won't have the same impact as having soldiers from your country die in a war started by Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
