Words of Advice:

"We have it totally under control. It's one person coming from China. It's going to be just fine." -- Donald Trump, 1/22/2020

“We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here..and isn't it refreshing when contrasting it with the awful presidency of President Obama."
-- Trump Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, 2/25/20

"I don't take responsibility for anything." --Donald Trump, 3/13/20

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Monday, September 4, 2017

Donald Fucking Trump Continues to Poke Our Friends in Their Eyes

Over the weekend, North Korea may have detonated a hydrogen bomb (what the SF guys call a "fusion bomb").

So, what does our Anacephalic-in-Chief do? He is about to kick off a trade war with South Korea.

How does this make even a picogram of sense, geopolitically? At a moment where there is a need, if not more than ever, to unite the world against North Korea, Trump's expressing joy at the prospect of shivving an ally.

I suspect that every nation that regards itself as an ally of the United States is now rethinkng that. With Trump at the helm, the U.S. is proving to be both mercurial and unreliable. The word of the U.S. is no longer any good. Trump treats international agreements and treaties as he treated his business deals and contracts: Pieces of paper to be torn up at his whim.

Anyone who trusts in the promises of Donald John Trump is a fucking fool.

The leaders of other nations, great and small, are not fools.

27 comments:

B said...

Not to say you are wrong in the above statements....


But where the fuck were you during Barry's reign? He quite possibly did more to alienate our allies than any other three presidents.

Or did I miss your posts then?

(and the thing is, the South Koreans need us more than we need them....)

Dark Avenger said...

Please show how Obama alientated our allies, B. Links please.

Tod Germanica said...

So our last remaining ally is Saudi Arabia? trump's idiocy (or is it treason directed by Putin?) hurts the USA, sure, but probably helps the rest of the world resist American hegemony since trump has made it clear we have no more allies, just foreign rapist countries out to screw us.
So our policy now is maximum division and hatred for all (except Russia). trump's coming trade war with Mexico and China will make it crystal clear we are at war with the entire world (except Russia). It looks to me like Putin's cheap investment in Donald J trump, Manchurian president, is paying off nicely.
It'll be interesting to see if the GOP remains invertebrate and allows a paid traitor to continue to be a foreign agent being run by Moscow. But for now treason prevails in DC.

Anonymous said...

B,

Accusation and snark do not further the conversation. And, furthermore, providing cover for Trump's actions by attacking Obama and CM for supposedly not doing "something", is disingenuous.

Why don't you tell us what you really think of Trump? No more halfhearted, wishy-washy, maybe his is wrong comments. Or is that vote you cast too painful to admit to now?

3383 said...

The linked article refers to renegotiating or ending a trade deal that may have contributed to a worsening of our trade imbalance with South Korea. This isn't quite what I expected from the post.
Other point could be; is the deal a bad one for the USA? how bad does a trade deficit need to be? are we not exporting because we don't make that much, and should we put tariffs on goods that US companies make offshore? and could Trump time this better?
Although there may never be a good time wiht North Korea around.

dinthebeast said...

What I read about the agreement was that it wasn't the best deal for the US on its face, but that was an acceptable price to pay for the stability it fostered in that part of the world.
In other words it was more than the zero-sum, one dimensional campaign bullshit that Fergus is trying to pass off as foreign policy.
And for those who would say "screw them, let's just look out for ourselves" how are you liking the hydrogen bomb?
This wasn't hard, as foreign policy goes: Kim has used every "provocation" from the US he could get as an excuse for furthering his nuclear weapons program, saying "We are being threatened and have the right to protect ourselves" to all of the other state actors who are trying to talk him out of doing so.
All it required was someone who 1) had control of their public reactions to Kim's taunts, 2) had a working state department and listened to the people there who actually know what they're doing, and 3) wasn't so far gone into malignant narcissism that they could no longer separate doing their job from defending their identity.
Fergus failed on all three counts.
I sure hope he doesn't lose his shit and get twenty million people killed for no fucking reason at all.

-Doug in Oakland

Comrade Misfit said...

The only ally that Obama may have annoyed would have been Israel. Israel often seems to treat the U.S. as its lackey and Obama clearly wasn't willing to go along. In response, Netanyahu openly allied with the GOP.

But other than them. nothing comes to mind.

B said...

Britain, Germany, France. Israel. Japan.

And that was in his first term.

Keaaukane said...

How does Netanyahu feel about supporting someone who openly sides with Nazis? Kinda ironic, don't ya think?

B said...

DITB: SO it is Trumps fault that NK has a Bomb? Really? They just whipped one up from scratch in what? 8 months? Really?

Even you cannot think that.

He's been building the infrastructure for YEARS...Probably with help from either China or SA.

CenterPuke88 said...

B.,

Britain - No

Germany - Nein

France - Non

Israel - Yep

Japan - Nope

1 outta 5, still better than Donnie.

dinthebeast said...

B: I read that it was most likely Pakistan, but I don't have any evidence to support that.
They aren't as stupid or crazy as some would have you believe, and are very aware of the geopolitical shifts that have occurred each time a country has made any test of the advance of their nuclear technology.
Look what it did for the Soviets, the exact thing that Kim wants, it put them on an equal footing with the US politically, when they had no other avenue to such standing.
And as bullshit of an excuse as it is, the "provocation" excuse is the one they're using, and a competent state department together with a president who knows what a state department is for could contain that strategy, and a president who tweets taunts in response to Kim's goading might as well be sending atomic engineers over there to help him finish the job, because it gives him cover to defy all of the other nations who would want him to stop.
I don't believe they CAN be stopped from getting usable nuclear weapons. And they certainly don't have any incentive to stop trying, so it's a matter of dealing with fucking reality and figuring out how we'll get along with them. Some people used to call it "diplomacy" and it has proven itself effective in many difficult and similar situations.
Or we could start a war with them and get twenty million South Koreans killed.
A normal president, even a sort of dim one like George W. Bush wouldn't be causing us to wonder about what they were up to about this, but Fergus really needs to juice his poll numbers to stay in office, and putting anything at all past him on the grounds that "he would never do that" has so far proven to be a 100% losing strategy.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

D: INteresting. Have to think about your last.

CP: Yep, to all of 'em.

Ten Bears said...

You are mistaken, boy, at best illinformed.

That Vancouver, Portland and San Francisco are on the short list of potential targets, regardless the degree of outside probability, seems to have been, ahhh... overlooked.

Be quicker than suffocating in our own flatulence.

bmq215 said...

B, when're you gonna realize that if you want to be taken seriously you've gotta be able to provide evidence for your assertions? Otherwise people are just gonna keep laughing at you.

So, of course, I'll end with my usual request: please provide factual sources for how the Obama administration alienated all five nations. Or go quiet, as you usually do when someone makes that request.

3383 said...

Doug- I disagree that the North Koreans are rational, at least in how they think other nations will react and what they want in the end. After all, nobody but nobody would want to attack their sorry asses if they did not threaten and back up those threats with frequent acts of war against South Korea.
They don't react to "provocations", they create their own just fine.
The Soviets/ Russians have been regarded as equal since WW2. Their nukes were icing on the cake, and although they like to act very aggressively (invade and stay, see Warsaw Pact) they didn't seriously consider taking on the world.
Most importantly, competent State Departments hav been trying to "contain"/ deal with NK.
It hasn't worked.

dinthebeast said...

I disagree that it hasn't worked. But I'm not of the opinion that they need to be told what they can say, and I have heard some people whose opinions I trust, such as Lawrence Wilkerson, who has experience dealing with them, say that it's a grave mistake to treat them as if they are not rational.
And yes, he creates the provocations, I said that above, and he does so to give himself cover in pursuing his nuclear program in the face of all of the countries who want him to stop. In this he has found his dream partner in our president, who provokes him by tweet almost daily.
The Soviets were never in the same economic league as the US, and most of the things we were supposed to be scared of them about turned out to be propaganda. Russia has a similarly sized economy to Italy. I wouldn't have wanted to share a border with them, but as we didn't, they only gained the nominal equal footing they claimed with us after they tested their first nuke, and seemed for a while to be ahead of us in missile technology.
Kim wants one thing above all else: to maintain his power in North Korea. He can be negotiated with. We have to be ready to actually negotiate,though, not just show up and tell him what he has to do. There are indeed concessions that could be used to bargain him away from the worst of his hostilities, and that has to be preferable to the mass carnage that would ensue were we to try some military strike aimed at making his nukes go away.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

Odd how y'all want links from me, but you never provide your own.

Use Google, if your memories are that short.

CenterPuke88 said...

Well then B., we await your links.

3383, the problem is you are using the wrong standard for rational. By their own terms the North Koreans are quite rational, in that they have no intention of attacking the United States. However, they have noted the following:

1) The Soviet Union collapsed by the U.S. did nothing to Russia because they had nukes.

2) The U.S. maintains relationships with India, Pakistan and Israel, all have nukes.

3) Libya abandoned a nuke program and the U.S. overthrew the government.

4) Iran threatens to develop nukes and the U.S. negotiates.

We must also remember, we are still at war with North Korea. No peace was ever agreed to, so this is simply an extended truce. The North Koreas are playing the long game, knowing that eventually U.S. focus will drift from South Korea and they can reunite the Koreas. Meanwhile, they use their actions to demand concessions and aid to hold on until this happens.

Let's review the Korean War, shall we. The U.N. forces were almost expelled from Korea, then fought back to almost take over the entire peninsula, only to have the Chinese intervene. So what makes you think for a minute that China would accept a South Korean takeover of North Korea? The South Koreans know this, as do the North Koreans, which is why the North knows that China will never turn on them unless they threaten China's stability. As it is, China's influence in the region is increased due to North Korean actions, so China is perfectly happy to give lip service to reigning in North Korea while laughing at the U.S.

Now, back to the issue of H-bombs and ICBM's. While the North Koreans had no ability to strike the U.S., the Chinese were more wary of the North Korean actions, because atomic or nuclear weapons would be used in theater. Now that the U.S. is threatened, they see that the U.S. is now constrained from attacking North Korea physically, and since the weapons are no longer restricted to the theater they are less of a threat to them. The North Koreans have no intent of attacking the U.S., but they will throw everything they can if the U.S. takes physical action against them. Remember, the U.S. threatened to wipe out their country in the 50's, and openly discussed the use of nuclear weapons in Korea. Their fear is rational, but don't mistake press statements and bluster for policy and intent. A regime with many weaknesses must make itself appear strong within the country, and does so by appearing threatening without the country. They play to the pride of the Korean people, reminding them of the invading Americans and those allies, the dastardly Japanese.

Comrade Misfit said...

Not my job, or anyone else's to research another person's suppositions. If a person makes a supposition or claim and doesn't back it up with a link to some source, then the reader can make their own call as to whether or not to put any credence in the assertion.

Plus, I'll consider the source link, as well. For me, a link to Breitbart is as credible as a link to Der Sturmer.

Dark Avenger said...

B, you're the one who made the claim, so you need to demonstrate evidence for that claim.

bmq215 said...

B, you may find this helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy).

This is basic stuff, if you're gonna sit at the big kids table you've gotta understand the rules. Otherwise you'll just continue to get (metaphorically) patted on the head.

CenterPuke88 said...

OK B., here's a little light reading that disproves your thesis:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/as-obama-years-draw-to-close-president-and-u-s-seen-favorably-in-europe-and-asia/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/global-approval-rating.html

See, was that so difficult?

B said...

OK:

http://israel-commentary.org/tag/quick-count-of-us-allies-obama-has-deliberately-alienated-since-he-took-office-whos-next/

Yes, it is a partisan source. Yes, it is no less partisan than the ones you posted.

You just found some you agree with.

Dark Avenger said...

You found one commentator, B. That's hardly the data mine you suggested a little Googling would reveal.

Reading it, however

But, he threw Saudi Arabia under the bus!

He returned the "treasure bust" of Churchill

Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.

Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.

News outlets have debunked this claim time and again. First, back in 2010 the National Journal reported that “the Churchill bust was relocated to a prominent spot in the residence to make room for Abraham Lincoln, a figure from whom the first African-American occupant of the Oval Office might well draw inspiration in difficult times.” And just in case anyone forgot, just last year the AP reported that President Obama “replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln, and moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.”

In case these news reports are not enough for Mr. Krauthammer and others, here’s a picture of the President showing off the Churchill bust to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House residence in 2010.


https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/07/27/fact-check-bust-winston-churchill

Eric Holder didn't go abroad after the Charlie Hebbo attack, spitting on our allies.

Weak tea, B. What the Chinese call white tea.

CenterPuke88 said...

Let's see, B., The Pew Research Center is hardly partisan. The Washington Post is, in your opinion, partisan...c'est la vie.

So, my partisan source matches yours and my non-partisan think tank study blows your shit outta the water. I sank your battleship.

Comrade Misfit said...

OK, I think we'll call this one.