Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

[IFocus]

Duddddeee....... you use to be coool.

Lutz is a big boy and he knows I'm an ass. No matter how heated everyone perceives the conversation to get, I can think his opinion is wrong and say its wrong. He can respectively do the same.
I'm going to learn some from him and he from me. It's not pick factional sides and only agree with our team.
Its also not personal. I like lutz and the way he thinks.

Mo all good, my family don't think much of my humor either

 

[Macquack]

Israel and Saudis have power and can fight a war proper if it's against unarmed women, rock slinging kids... basically anyone's that unarmed are pretty much of no match for them.

Like your style Luutzu. Had to have a good laugh at that comment even though it is actually true.

 

[basilio]

Duddddeee....... you use to be coool.

Lutz is a big boy and he knows I'm an ass. No matter how heated everyone perceives the conversation to get, I can think his opinion is wrong and say its wrong. He can respectively do the same.
I'm going to learn some from him and he from me. It's not pick factional sides and only agree with our team.
Its also not personal. I like lutz and the way he thinks.

Great. Delighted to hear you are such respectful debaters.

Which makes me even more surprised /disappointed when you chose to denigrate my acknowledgement by saying he was wrong with a lot of it.

What is too difficult about saying you disagree with his analysis.?

As to my comments on why I am not so wrapt in your international analysis.
1)

US has way more soft power leverage with the world then China will ever have. China may move ahead in some areas but I don't see them taking the world mantle.

This statement is just so dated. If you want to that the US has historically had respect, economic influence, diplomatic influence, sway in international forums I'd agree. And in that context China had limited influence.
But in 2018 ? Trump has trashed the US brand through the EU, the Americas, Canada, the Middle East and really everywhere except Russsia, Poland, Hungary, Russia and maybe some other emerging right wing regimes. China on the other hand has unrolled its belt and braces development juggernaut around the world. In terms of soft power I suggest China has more influence than many recognise

2)

I agree that Obama really dropped the ball on the world stage. He was viewed as a joke by Russian and Chinese counterparts.

I wouldn't waste my time trying to improve on Luutzu methodical assessment of President Obamas international strategy and successes - which Trump is currently trashing. Read em again.

As to foreign policy, Obama's Team America got a few things right. Trump kinda screwed all that up and the future will either see Chinese hegemony or WWIII.

First, Obama made peace with Iran. Letting its oil flows out for more Western goods to flow in. That takes away its incentives to sell and deal with only China and Russia, particularly China and its appetite for oil.

That also kept one part of the Middle East on friendlier terms. Which is good and allow you room to liberate the other 7 countries in the region.

Trump now screwed that up. Picking fights with Russia, upsetting the Europeans whose corporations can't make money with Iran... and being forced to buy oil/gas that's from approved sources at 3x the costs!

That and upsetting more Arabs with that Jerusalem move; going to upset a few more with the planned Golan Heights giveaway... and now letting that Yahu going around Europe talking war with Iran. As in, direct wars, with boots on the grounds and stuff. Whose boots? Not Israelis that's for sure.

So, in opening a couple of fronts in Europe and Middle East. Making life harder for the European "powers" to both keep their plebs happy with lower energy prices, costs of living... but demanding that they upped their "contribution" to military build-ups against the evil Russians...

All that while the Pivot to Asia... I don't know, Darwin? A few CIAs scaring Duterte? Hoping the Chinese put so many buildings and hardware on those islands it'll just sink into the ocean?

Then there's the TPP... it was supposed to permit Western corporations making crap load of profit at the expense of both its own plebs and those in China. All for one and one against the Chinese. But it's a bad deal and so Australia and NZ will have to lead the effort.

Domestically... Jesus Christ. Giving everybody but the poor and working class more money than they know what to do with while cutting every possible dime that support education, feeding kids and seniors, sick and disabled.

You're not supposed to take the "war on poverty" literally like that.

MoXjo you seem to have strong militaristic streak in your arguments. Basically you suggest the US should bash or bully the world into submission. Even when a country is trying to get their own way generally more subtle and thoughtful strategies are effective. The overt bash and bully approach loses friends and seriously risks uncontrollable outcomes - trade wars, hot wars, finance wars. The stakes are so high.....

This wasn't President Obamas approach. It is Donald Trumps.

 

[Tisme]

Israel and Saudis....

I hope you don't mind me redacting all the bits that are subjective, but as you can see luu, it's much neater.

Here's something that is objective:

"During the eight years between Iraq’s formal declaration of war on September 22, 1980, and Iran’s acceptance of a cease-fire with effect on July 20, 1988, at the very least half a million and possibly twice as many troops were killed on both sides, at least half a million became permanent invalids, some 228 billion dollars were directly expended, and more than 400 billion dollars of damage (mostly to oil facilities, but also to cities) was inflicted, mostly by artillery barrages."

 

[luutzu]

Israel is ranked 16 out of 136 armed countries. Stat breakdown is here. Their army isn't ragtag. They have some of the best trained soldiers in the world, airforce and navy.

As Bruce Lee said to O'Hara, boards don't hit back.

I didn't say Israel's military doesn't have the hardware... was saying that hardware doesn't do you any good if you don't know how to use it against another properly armed military with equally equipped and trained command structure.

So they can very easily bomb the heck out of Gaza and Hamas, brutalise unarmed Palestinians. But when they face another organised military force, they tend to get their azzes handed to them.

There's that 1967 6-Day war where they thought the Arabs were walkovers so decided to take God's promise into their own hands. What happened?

There's that team up with France to take the Suez Canal "back" for France against the Egyptian... 1950s? Yea alright, Uncle Sam told them to back off or else! So it weren't all the Egyptian's effort that stopped them.

Israel has the nukes and Uncle Sam. So it won't be pushed into the seas as its warrior kings like to claim. Unless the enemy wants the entire middle east being nuked too.

But on conventional warfare against a sovereign power, Israel hasn't really had much victory beside terrorists with homemade explosives and unarmed protesters.

That's why it's been pushing the US to go to war with Iran. But then I supposed it's always better to have other people fight and die for you cause so if Uncle Sam's admin doesn't mind it...

 

[luutzu]

View attachment 87756

China looks boxed into me. Even Vietnam was pissed that china is arming the islands.

Wasn't the US navy visiting Vietnam recently as well. China isn't gaining much ground on soft power. Its trying by giving out huge loans for infrastructure, from micro nations to majors. It's not working to the degree that they thought.

China have been chained in since 1949. Through a series of what US planners called "island chains".

It's only the past, maybe, decade that China saw its opportunity to break those chains. Opportunity came because, among its rising economic power... the US is a bit busy in the M.E., Europe. It's been doing small ops in Africa; getting back into its old neighbourhood of S/America.

Theoretically, geographically... China should have a very hard time protecting itself, let alone projecting its power abroad. What with a while bunch of countries surrounding it.

Continental US has what, Canada, Mexico... maybe Cuba as enemies?

With its global footprint, the US is overstretched whereas China could focus its aggression locally, take those easy wins with hardly a shot fired.

Then further abroad, they lend money, make trade, sell goods on credit... then whenever they feel like it, they'll upped their terms, call their loans in. Can't repay? Sell your assets. Don't want to? We'll do this and do that to protect a legitimate financial claim.

That's nothing new though. Just copying what the IMF such is doing to, among other countries, Greece.

---------

Yes, VN lets the US visit. They also let the Russian visited too. That's just being polite and keeping your options open.

But sooner or later smaller countries like VN will have to pick a side. If they don't, there'll be another "civil war".

 

[luutzu]

Like your style Luutzu. Had to have a good laugh at that comment even though it is actually true.

Thanks Macquack and Basilio. I'm more used to insults than compliments so not sure what to say

 

[luutzu]

I hope you don't mind me redacting all the bits that are subjective, but as you can see luu, it's much neater.

Here's something that is objective:

"During the eight years between Iraq’s formal declaration of war on September 22, 1980, and Iran’s acceptance of a cease-fire with effect on July 20, 1988, at the very least half a million and possibly twice as many troops were killed on both sides, at least half a million became permanent invalids, some 228 billion dollars were directly expended, and more than 400 billion dollars of damage (mostly to oil facilities, but also to cities) was inflicted, mostly by artillery barrages."

That's not really objective though.

It left out the bits where another indispensable foreign power was doing the supply runs. Ahem.

Chomsky was saying how if you look at the charges laid out against Saddam by the US (aka "International communities")... Saddam crime spree seem to only began when the US and its allies stopped talking to him.

You know, Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hands in Baghdad and stuff like that.

 

[luutzu]

Like your style Luutzu. Had to have a good laugh at that comment even though it is actually true.

I guess they accidentally follow the Art of War? Picking off easy, defenceless soft targets is how you win every battle.

Yea, not funny though is it. Kinda funny in a wrong sort of way

-----

I'm not sure how those kind of scare tactics affect the average Israeli's psyche.

The Saudis... they're just happy they've finally get a chance to use all those tens of billions of US hardware they've bought but don't know how to use until recently. It's Yemen, the poorest country in the region but I guess you got to start small.

With the Israeli... for the guys at the planning sessions, they're alright with playing the victim, self-defend card. But for those who didn't get clearance for the memo, it can't be good to live under constant "threat" of being pushed into the seas; those history lessons about the Holocaust and a long history of victim-hood.

 

[moXJO]

Great. Delighted to hear you are such respectful debaters.

Which makes me even more surprised /disappointed when you chose to denigrate my acknowledgement by saying he was wrong with a lot of it.

What is too difficult about saying you disagree with his analysis.?

As to my comments on why I am not so wrapt in your international analysis.
1)


This statement is just so dated. If you want to that the US has historically had respect, economic influence, diplomatic influence, sway in international forums I'd agree. And in that context China had limited influence.
But in 2018 ? Trump has trashed the US brand through the EU, the Americas, Canada, the Middle East and really everywhere except Russsia, Poland, Hungary, Russia and maybe some other emerging right wing regimes. China on the other hand has unrolled its belt and braces development juggernaut around the world. In terms of soft power I suggest China has more influence than many recognise

2)

I wouldn't waste my time trying to improve on Luutzu methodical assessment of President Obamas international strategy and successes - which Trump is currently trashing. Read em again.


MoXjo you seem to have strong militaristic streak in your arguments. Basically you suggest the US should bash or bully the world into submission. Even when one is trying to getting your own way generally more subtle and thoughtful strategies are effective. The overt bash and bully approach loses friends and seriously risks uncontrollable outcomes - trade wars, hot wars, finance wars. The stakes are so high.....

This wasn't President Obamas approach. It is Donald Trumps.

I'll expand later in more detail.
I'll throw this out to keep the discussion going.

1 where do you think china has more influence.
Is Trump liked in asia?
Hey lutz guess who loves him most.
Under Obama the middle east were all talking to Russia.

2. Sometimes he gets it other times he doesn't.
Obama was viewed as weak by many. Lutz is playing right around the issue and changes the original question over and over to fit the mold.
Was Obama viewed as weak on action - yes. Weak at diplomacy - no.

3. Obama wasn't exactly the change he promised. He did do well with negotiations, but even then they didn't amount to a lot.
Trump might be a one trick pony. All stick. We have to wait and see. He needs an Asia strategy or at least keep them engaged. He may very well end up doing a lot worse. But he has the fear of other countries if they push too hard. To early to tell but he better get a move on.

 

[moXJO]

]

As Bruce Lee said to O'Hara, boards don't hit back.

I didn't say Israel's military doesn't have the hardware... was saying that hardware doesn't do you any good if you don't know how to use it against another properly armed military with equally equipped and trained command structure.

So they can very easily bomb the heck out of Gaza and Hamas, brutalise unarmed Palestinians. But when they face another organised military force, they tend to get their azzes handed to them.

There's that 1967 6-Day war where they thought the Arabs were walkovers so decided to take God's promise into their own hands. What happened?

There's that team up with France to take the Suez Canal "back" for France against the Egyptian... 1950s? Yea alright, Uncle Sam told them to back off or else! So it weren't all the Egyptian's effort that stopped them.

Israel has the nukes and Uncle Sam. So it won't be pushed into the seas as its warrior kings like to claim. Unless the enemy wants the entire middle east being nuked too.

But on conventional warfare against a sovereign power, Israel hasn't really had much victory beside terrorists with homemade explosives and unarmed protesters.

That's why it's been pushing the US to go to war with Iran. But then I supposed it's always better to have other people fight and die for you cause so if Uncle Sam's admin doesn't mind it...

You didn't skip a few wars there did you?
Or are we downplaying and rewriting history ?

If you have the ability to nuke your enemies out of existence, then pretty sure you are in the big league.

 

[moXJO]

China have been chained in since 1949. Through a series of what US planners called "island chains".

It's only the past, maybe, decade that China saw its opportunity to break those chains. Opportunity came because, among its rising economic power... the US is a bit busy in the M.E., Europe. It's been doing small ops in Africa; getting back into its old neighbourhood of S/America.

Theoretically, geographically... China should have a very hard time protecting itself, let alone projecting its power abroad. What with a while bunch of countries surrounding it.

Continental US has what, Canada, Mexico... maybe Cuba as enemies?

With its global footprint, the US is overstretched whereas China could focus its aggression locally, take those easy wins with hardly a shot fired.

Then further abroad, they lend money, make trade, sell goods on credit... then whenever they feel like it, they'll upped their terms, call their loans in. Can't repay? Sell your assets. Don't want to? We'll do this and do that to protect a legitimate financial claim.

That's nothing new though. Just copying what the IMF such is doing to, among other countries, Greece.

---------

Yes, VN lets the US visit. They also let the Russian visited too. That's just being polite and keeping your options open.

But sooner or later smaller countries like VN will have to pick a side. If they don't, there'll be another "civil war".

So we agree that China is currently boxed in or?
Lutz you give me history lessons on stuff I already know and originally (and briefly) answered with that I forget what I was arguing against.

So we are both on the same page:
China currently contained.
For me yes. US will need to really work Asia over the next decade.
Agree that China is on the verge of breakout.

We need to clear some of these points up.

 

[luutzu]

]

You didn't skip a few wars there did you?
Or are we downplaying and rewriting history ?

If you have the ability to nuke your enemies out of existence, then pretty sure you are in the big league.

No, if you can nuke your neighbours you're just a more serious terrorist, suicide bomber.

You're only in the serious league when you can drop a couple, survived without a scratch... get to march in demanding the enemy's unconditional surrender then rewrite history to your liking.

There's only a few countries in the world that could do that. US, UK, France, China, Russia. Maybe Australia if we could borrow a couple

India and Pakistan going nuclear would be suicide. Same with Israel.

I'm not saying Israel is militarily weak, just that its capabilities are more of a defensive nature... well, aggressive against weaker neighbours, but that's about it. That and its specialities are more surveillance, crowd/riot controls rather than taking on well armed, properly organised and mobilised armies - you know, armies you find in most countries who aren't completely broke.

Israeli military industries were set back a bit under Obama. Just before he left office he signed that $30B+ over ten years military aid to Israel? Used to be that some of those aids are permitted to be spent on Israeli's own industries... but Obama stopped that and only "give" it if the goods are purchased from US manufacturers.

 

[wayneL]

There we go bas, now ain't that better (discussion and debate) than telling someone to xxxx off?

 

[luutzu]

So we agree that China is currently boxed in or?
Lutz you give me history lessons on stuff I already know and originally (and briefly) answered with that I forget what I was arguing against.

So we are both on the same page:
China currently contained.
For me yes. US will need to really work Asia over the next decade.
Agree that China is on the verge of breakout.

We need to clear some of these points up.

Yea, China's currently boxed in but are on the verge of breaking out.

But as Basilio was saying, if I remember right, no country should really boxed any country in. The best you could do is not let its influence overwhelm yours; and not let its rise mean your destruction.

You can't really boxed a country the size of China in anyway. Trying to do so will just lead to wars.

And if we're lucky, as in the few of us who aren't in Asia... those wars will be contained within Asia and does not go nuclear. But with modern tech, the military can destroy practically everything without the need to go to midnight.

So the US should learn to share the world with the other big boys. History seem to show that they don't like to share.. in which case they, yea, should have been working hard in Asia some years ago.

But then that's not really true either as it suggests that the US haven't been working in Asia to contain China when it has since ever.

There's the Korean War; The Vietnam War to stop that domino. There's the Suharto clan in Indonesia until the 90s; the Phillipines.

All of those countries, except for S/Korea, have gotten their independence. S/Korea is about to make that chain a bit weaker with this plan to unify with their lost brother.

So maybe US influence in Asia/Pacific have been on the retreat for quite a few decades now.

I guess there's still Australia and New Zealand. We white brothers are sticking together no matter what though

 

[moXJO]

No, if you can nuke your neighbours you're just a more serious terrorist, suicide bomber.

You're only in the serious league when you can drop a couple, survived without a scratch... get to march in demanding the enemy's unconditional surrender then rewrite history to your liking.

There's only a few countries in the world that could do that. US, UK, France, China, Russia. Maybe Australia if we could borrow a couple

India and Pakistan going nuclear would be suicide. Same with Israel.

I'm not saying Israel is militarily weak, just that its capabilities are more of a defensive nature... well, aggressive against weaker neighbours, but that's about it. That and its specialities are more surveillance, crowd/riot controls rather than taking on well armed, properly organised and mobilised armies - you know, armies you find in most countries who aren't completely broke.

Israeli military industries were set back a bit under Obama. Just before he left office he signed that $30B+ over ten years military aid to Israel? Used to be that some of those aids are permitted to be spent on Israeli's own industries... but Obama stopped that and only "give" it if the goods are purchased from US manufacturers.

You ignored Russia supporting egypt and Syria over decades. Why did the US get involved again?
Israel don't do defence. They go offensive. Pound for pound their Special forces are at the top tier from what I have seen.
They have continued battle experience around the region. Maybe dig a bit deeper regarding the wars and capabilities.

 

[basilio]

There we go bas, now ain't that better (discussion and debate) than telling someone to xxxx off?

And indeed it is!!
Now if we could juuuusst translate this newfound discussion and good will to the global stage...

Nah. I'll just go to bed.
Cheers !

 

[luutzu]

You ignored Russia supporting egypt and Syria over decades. Why did the US get involved again?
Israel don't do defence. They go offensive. Pound for pound their Special forces are at the top tier from what I have seen.
They have continued battle experience around the region. Maybe dig a bit deeper regarding the wars and capabilities.

I heard of Russian interests in Libya and Syria. Don't know anything about them in Egypt though.

I don't think they'd be in Egypt. The French, then the Poms, then the US kinda control Egypt for quite a long time. I think they've only lost control of it to the Nazi for a bit during WWII.

Why does the US want to get involved? The world's their oyster I guess

I think it's part of their plan to be the sole global power after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's according to Dick Cheney's memo anyway.

But the move into Libya and Syria is more than just NATO pushing the commies back behind its iron curtain. It has to do with lotsa oil too.

Qaddafi was quite chummy with the US under Bush Jr. He had a crush on Secretary of State Condi Rice... there are rumours that he had posters of her, writing love letters and stuff. Crazy dude that guy.

But he was convinced off of his attempt at WMD. It wasn't going anywhere anyway so he figured why not if it win him friends.

Then he figured friends don't mind if he get off the petro dollar. So he made plans to. Then boom! Evil tyrant have to go. "We came. We saw. He dies. Ah ah ah ha ha ha" - Hilary Clinton


So with Qaddafi lynched, ISIS and warlords run and divvy up Libya. The Russians left.

Its only remaining port in the Med is in Syria. Hence its defence of Assad.

Why did the US go into Syria? Freedom?

Kerry told the US Senate that the Saudis and UAE offered to pay for the whole thing if the US help them rid of a tyrant and free their people.

Why do things for free when you're good at it right? [The Joker].

Why did the Saudis and UAE wanted Assad out? Oil pipelines.

They were thinking of economy of scales and efficiency. Bypassing the Suez, directly into Europe.

Russia says no because it would compete with their export. Assad says no because Russia says no.. and because the other guys want him ousted.

------------------

I'm of course no Israeli military expert or such. Just know bits and pieces from their few wars with the Arabs. Beside conquering the Palestinians, they didn't have much success with any other states really.

There were those incursions into Lebanon. But heard from Finkelstein that they didn't managed to go in very far. Managed to kill a few thousand villagers on the border but once the Lebanese got a few truckloads from Tehran, they pushed the Israeli back pretty well.

Yea, I'm sure their Mossad and other secret service, elite unit, are top notch. But you can't fight wars with those units though.

You can have selected people taken out. But taking on an entire country's military forces... for that you need big brother.

Big brother under Trump is quite willing. Hence Bibi's current tour of Europe.

 

[moXJO]

Yea, China's currently boxed in but are on the verge of breaking out.

But as Basilio was saying, if I remember right, no country should really boxed any country in. The best you could do is not let its influence overwhelm yours; and not let its rise mean your destruction.

You can't really boxed a country the size of China in anyway. Trying to do so will just lead to wars.

And if we're lucky, as in the few of us who aren't in Asia... those wars will be contained within Asia and does not go nuclear. But with modern tech, the military can destroy practically everything without the need to go to midnight.

So the US should learn to share the world with the other big boys. History seem to show that they don't like to share.. in which case they, yea, should have been working hard in Asia some years ago.

But then that's not really true either as it suggests that the US haven't been working in Asia to contain China when it has since ever.

There's the Korean War; The Vietnam War to stop that domino. There's the Suharto clan in Indonesia until the 90s; the Phillipines.

All of those countries, except for S/Korea, have gotten their independence. S/Korea is about to make that chain a bit weaker with this plan to unify with their lost brother.

So maybe US influence in Asia/Pacific have been on the retreat for quite a few decades now.

I guess there's still Australia and New Zealand. We white brothers are sticking together no matter what though

In a perfect world.



I don't think people realize how violent other countries are though. Or how far people will push if its left unchecked. People degenerate fast.

The US do a lot of bad.... a lot. But imagine if Russia, or China were calling the shots.
What if Germany wasn't contained, or Japan. Those countries evolved into something a lot safer now. They did go through a lot of pain and self reflection.

I think china is almost at that level. Might not have a choice anyway.
Russia has a way to go yet.

 

[moXJO]

I heard of Russian interests in Libya and Syria. Don't know anything about them in Egypt though.

I don't think they'd be in Egypt. The French, then the Poms, then the US kinda control Egypt for quite a long time. I think they've only lost control of it to the Nazi for a bit during WWII.

Why does the US want to get involved? The world's their oyster I guess

I think it's part of their plan to be the sole global power after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's according to Dick Cheney's memo anyway.

But the move into Libya and Syria is more than just NATO pushing the commies back behind its iron curtain. It has to do with lotsa oil too.

Qaddafi was quite chummy with the US under Bush Jr. He had a crush on Secretary of State Condi Rice... there are rumours that he had posters of her, writing love letters and stuff. Crazy dude that guy.

But he was convinced off of his attempt at WMD. It wasn't going anywhere anyway so he figured why not if it win him friends.

Then he figured friends don't mind if he get off the petro dollar. So he made plans to. Then boom! Evil tyrant have to go. "We came. We saw. He dies. Ah ah ah ha ha ha" - Hilary Clinton


So with Qaddafi lynched, ISIS and warlords run and divvy up Libya. The Russians left.

Its only remaining port in the Med is in Syria. Hence its defence of Assad.

Why did the US go into Syria? Freedom?

Kerry told the US Senate that the Saudis and UAE offered to pay for the whole thing if the US help them rid of a tyrant and free their people.

Why do things for free when you're good at it right? [The Joker].

Why did the Saudis and UAE wanted Assad out? Oil pipelines.

They were thinking of economy of scales and efficiency. Bypassing the Suez, directly into Europe.

Russia says no because it would compete with their export. Assad says no because Russia says no.. and because the other guys want him ousted.

------------------

I'm of course no Israeli military expert or such. Just know bits and pieces from their few wars with the Arabs. Beside conquering the Palestinians, they didn't have much success with any other states really.

There were those incursions into Lebanon. But heard from Finkelstein that they didn't managed to go in very far. Managed to kill a few thousand villagers on the border but once the Lebanese got a few truckloads from Tehran, they pushed the Israeli back pretty well.

Yea, I'm sure their Mossad and other secret service, elite unit, are top notch. But you can't fight wars with those units though.

You can have selected people taken out. But taking on an entire country's military forces... for that you need big brother.

Big brother under Trump is quite willing. Hence Bibi's current tour of Europe.

One of the famous air battles between Israel and Russia was due to egypt. It was over the Suez canal from memory. Israel gave the Russians a spanking in that dogfight as well.