Trump's strong So. China Sea message

[mamooth]

So, idiot move by Trump.

China won't back down. Trump either goes to war with China, or he looks weak in front of the whole world

This is why smart leaders don't make such absolutist proclamations.

 

[Tehon]

So, idiot move by Trump.

China won't back down. Trump either goes to war with China, or he looks weak in front of the whole world

This is why smart leaders don't make such absolutist proclamations.

It's reckless for sure.

At least he hasn't drawn any red lines yet.

 

[Coyote]

Trump sent China a strong, unequivocal message that the South China Sea is international waters and will be treated as such and that the USA will take whatever measures necessary to protect our interests and the interests of the international community against Chinese aggression in the region.

Is this like stopping Hitler at Munich?

I thought Obama was the warmonger bringing us to the brink with Russia

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, idiot move by Trump.

China won't back down. Trump either goes to war with China, or he looks weak in front of the whole world

This is why smart leaders don't make such absolutist proclamations.

It's reckless for sure.

At least he hasn't drawn any red lines yet.

ITs only wreckless if the Chicoms want to smother their homeland in nuclear radiation to slowly kill the very few that would survive.

IF a conventional war comes, and it is possible it could be one, we would win it easily. The power multiplier of our technology is still way ahead of the Chicoms for whom this stuff is all new.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I thought Obama was the warmonger bringing us to the brink with Russia

Would you describe the situation in Syria, Libya and the eastern Ukraine as more peaceful?

 

[Coyote]

I thought Obama was the warmonger bringing us to the brink with Russia

Would you describe the situation in Syria, Libya and the eastern Ukraine as more peaceful?

You're blaming Ukraine on Obama now?

Seriously - Trump supporters were screaming about how Obama and Hillary were leading us to war with Russia. Trump's actions - are more likely to do that because they are far less thought out. I was listening to an interview with Robert Gates, the smarter thing is to under go military exercises in the area demonstrate that it's an open shipping region.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're blaming Ukraine on Obama now?

Yes, for a lack of focused policy and refusing to equal the playing field giving the Ukrainians anti-tank rockets. I think if Obama had simply told Russia that we would supply advanced arms to the Ukraine, Putin would have backed off. I think the best solution is to have a UN committee set up a plebicite for the areas along the border of the Ukraine and let them go whither they would as long as the election is fair and accepted by both sides.

Seriously - Trump supporters were screaming about how Obama and Hillary were leading us to war with Russia.

Well, I think the argument that they were making was that the rhetoric was leading to bad relations and could set the stage for war, along with the fact that if Hillary got her "no fly" zone over all Syria, the Russians would have gone to war. We have no right to declare a no fly area over another sovereign country

Trump's actions - are more likely to do that because they are far less thought out.

You assume that. He most likely has had people on his payroll studying the situation, war gaming it and making recommendations to him.

That is how delegation of authority and responsibility works, isnt it? That is one of Trumps most successful traits.

I was listening to an interview with Robert Gates, the smarter thing is to under go military exercises in the area demonstrate that it's an open shipping region.

The problem with that is military history shows us cases where military exercises were a pretext to get invasion forces deployed forward along the border and was a precursor to war. That is why the North Koreans shit their pants every time we do war exercises with South Korea.

 

[Coyote]

You're blaming Ukraine on Obama now?

Yes, for a lack of focused policy and refusing to equal the playing field giving the Ukrainians anti-tank rockets. I think if Obama had simply told Russia that we would supply advanced arms to the Ukraine, Putin would have backed off. I think the best solution is to have a UN committee set up a plebicite for the areas along the border of the Ukraine and let them go whither they would as long as the election is fair and accepted by both sides.

Seriously - Trump supporters were screaming about how Obama and Hillary were leading us to war with Russia.

Well, I think the argument that they were making was that the rhetoric was leading to bad relations and could set the stage for war, along with the fact that if Hillary got her "no fly" zone over all Syria, the Russians would have gone to war. We have no right to declare a no fly area over another sovereign country

Trump's actions - are more likely to do that because they are far less thought out.

You assume that. He most likely has had people on his payroll studying the situation, war gaming it and making recommendations to him.

That is how delegation of authority and responsibility works, isnt it? That is one of Trumps most successful traits.

I was listening to an interview with Robert Gates, the smarter thing is to under go military exercises in the area demonstrate that it's an open shipping region.

The problem with that is military history shows us cases where military exercises were a pretext to get invasion forces deployed forward along the border and was a precursor to war. That is why the North Koreans shit their pants every time we do war exercises with South Korea.

Actually...when it comes to Ukraine, I think what he did was by far the wiser choice - sanctions. They're hurting Russia. It would not be in our best interest to start arming groups in the Ukraine and escalating another conflict.

I seem to remember that when NK acted up under Bill Clinton, he sent out extra ships to cruise around and put pressure on them, and it worked.

I have reservations about Trump having people on payroll giving advice ... or, more appropriately, that he's listening to anything. The reason is this - he's barely into office, and he's mouthing tweeting off. I know of no president that when it comes to complicated situations, like our relations with China - that doesn't take time to think through and discuss options. It's not a crisis. 3 days in office is not enough time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually...when it comes to Ukraine, I think what he did was by far the wiser choice - sanctions. They're hurting Russia. It would not be in our best interest to start arming groups in the Ukraine and escalating another conflict.

I think sanctions only hurt the population of a country and the Elites get by unfrayed generally. They are horribly unjust ways of using statecraft.

Enabling the Ukraine to defend itself, while that is a concept alien to most liberals these days, it is usually the best way of handling these kinds of situations instead of making the Ukraine dependent on the good will of the USA.

 

[Coyote]

Actually...when it comes to Ukraine, I think what he did was by far the wiser choice - sanctions. They're hurting Russia. It would not be in our best interest to start arming groups in the Ukraine and escalating another conflict.

I think sanctions only hurt the population of a country and the Elites get by unfrayed generally. They are horribly unjust ways of using statecraft.

Enabling the Ukraine to defend itself, while that is a concept alien to most liberals these days, it is usually the best way of handling these kinds of situations instead of making the Ukraine dependent on the good will of the USA.

Sanctions put pressure on the government to change. Look what happened when we armed anti-soviet forces in Afghanistan...kind of backfired. Vietnam was started in a similar fashion. Getting sucked in to an armed conflict by proxy with Russia just doesn't seem good imo. It's already happening in Syria.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am really not trying to pick an argument with you or be some kind of prick. But I disagree with several of your premises here.

Sanctions put pressure on the government to change.

But at what cost in civilian lives? They are not the ones making the decisions and I doubt that there is a lot of pressure in Russia against Put due to this. I suspect the majority of Russians just find it the primary reason why the economy isnt working. Without sanctions it would be obvious it was Putin's fault instead.

Look what happened when we armed anti-soviet forces in Afghanistan...kind of backfired.

I dont think it backfired at all. Leaving the Stingers assuming that the batteries going dead would prevent their use, THAT was a bad decision that is backfiring.

Our arming and training the Afghan people to be able to drive the Soviets out led to a generally improved situation, IMO, because the Soviet Union is no longer in Afghanistan. I wish we were not either.

Vietnam was started in a similar fashion.

South Vietnam would still be independent had the Democrats not canceled our logistical support to them, an obligation we had to the under the Treaty of PAris that we signed.

We abandoned an ally to die for partisan politics.

Getting sucked in to an armed conflict by proxy with Russia just doesn't seem good imo. It's already happening in Syria.

Not sure how you see this as *us* getting sucked in when all we are doing is deploying a handful of men and selling them weapons.

The trick is sticking to the original plan and not getting in deeper, which we have successfully done before in Greece in the 1950s and other places a well.

 

[Tehon]

ITs only wreckless if the Chicoms want to smother their homeland in nuclear radiation to slowly kill the very few that would survive.

Brilliant, lets irradiate the planet and kill millions upon millions of people over who gets to control an amount of resources sitting off the coast of China. It's not worth it brother.

IF a conventional war comes, and it is possible it could be one, we would win it easily. The power multiplier of our technology is still way ahead of the Chicoms for whom this stuff is all new.

And what about our special economic relationship with China due to our trade imbalance? You know, the one that the TPP was meant to address. Has anyone given that any thought? Early indicators say no, the very definition of reckless.

 

[Tehon]

You're blaming Ukraine on Obama now?

Absolutely, the whole situation in Ukraine was kicked off by the coup, which was aided by Obama's State Dept. Pressuring Russia was by design, and done under Obama's watchful eyes. There is no one else to blame.

 

[Coyote]

You're blaming Ukraine on Obama now?

Absolutely, the whole situation in Ukraine was kicked off by the coup, which was aided by Obama's State Dept. Pressuring Russia was by design, and done under Obama's watchful eyes. There is no one else to blame.

How about blaming Russia for it's millitary intervention and it's annexation of Crimea...which was done by design.

 

[JimBowie1958]

ITs only wreckless if the Chicoms want to smother their homeland in nuclear radiation to slowly kill the very few that would survive.

Brilliant, lets irradiate the planet and kill millions upon millions of people over who gets to control an amount of resources sitting off the coast of China. It's not worth it brother.

No, lets not.

My point is that the Chicoms are not stupid and dont want to smother the planet in radiation any more than we would. If nukes get launched by one side, all sides will launch as well in response. Therefore logically no one will launch to begin with. If we have a war start, it will begin conventional and it will end conventional.

The only exception to that is if we announce that we are not going to accept anything other than unconditional surrender. That would be a mistake, painting the Chicoms into a corner where launching nukes could make sense to them as an act of desperation. Nuclear armed governments can only be changed from within, not by warfare and conquest.

IF a conventional war comes, and it is possible it could be one, we would win it easily. The power multiplier of our technology is still way ahead of the Chicoms for whom this stuff is all new.

And what about our special economic relationship with China due to our trade imbalance? You know, the one that the TPP was meant to address. Has anyone given that any thought? Early indicators say no, the very definition of reckless.

Loss of trade to China, while a harsh loss to the economy will be one of the minor effects compared to cities that will likely get bombed, etc. If a war starts the enemies of the USA will only do so if they either feel they have no choice or if they feel like they have the advantage militarily and they probably would if they initiate a war.

But while most countries have cultures that brandish their most modern weaponry in public parades and speeches, etc, the Anglo culture is exactly the opposite. We hide our military capabilities, even from the historical record sometimes. We do not take pride in military capabilities because we want market share, not conquest. It is hard to sell goods to bombed out cities, no?