Trump

[Olterin]

[...]Do we want to be perpetually punishing those who seek to protect themselves from us and apply their own agenda on the world stage? Or, do we lead by example, eliminate our own nukes, end our dominion over others, and start building an actual human family, where it would be inconceivable for any of us to use such weapons upon each other?

I have been a (mostly?) silent follower of this thread so far, but this is a point, though going off-topic, that I feel needs to be responded to. See, there are several examples in history of nations deciding to abolish their armed forces to pursue peaceful coexistence with their neighbors - most notably, the polish-lithuanian commonwealth (though I forget the dates) and the short-lived Ukrainian Republic of 1918. What happened was that their neighbors decided that those countries were now free lunch.

The point here is, we as a species are nowhere near being peaceful enough to warrant nuclear disarmament, and quite honestly, I don't see a good way out of the situation we're in. Because as long as there is even one nuclear-armed country in the world that does not subscribe to the idea of full nuclear disarmament due to wishing to promote their interests and (apologies for the terminology) imperialist foreign policies, that country will abuse the hell out of whoever decides to get rid of their own nuclear arsenal. One present-day example: Putin's Russia, and maintaining a military presence in Moldova (and those pesky tourists in Ukraine). A military intervention against these actions is inconceivable due to Russia's nuclear arsenal, and this is the position any similar government/regime/leader will want to be in. So as you can hopefully see, it is unwise to unilaterally proceed with nuclear disarmament.

Now, with that said, one does not need to pursue nuclear disarmament to pursue all those other things. However, once again, the situation is difficult in that as long as there is even one "player" on the map who does pursue dominion over others (and there most likely will be for quite some time yet), withdrawing from global politics of this kind is unwise since it would weaken the strategic position of the country in question. And once again, I do not know of a good solution to this problem

[Retiredman]

Just got scarier..

CNN)Saudi Arabia will develop nuclear weapons if Iran does the same, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi's defense chief and heir to the throne, said Thursday.
"Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible," he said in an interview with CBS News.

They have the resources to build a few.

[Observe]

Just got scarier..

CNN)Saudi Arabia will develop nuclear weapons if Iran does the same, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi's defense chief and heir to the throne, said Thursday.
"Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible," he said in an interview with CBS News.

They have the resources to build a few.

And they will build them as soon as possible; regardless of what Iran does. If you were Saudi Arabia leadership, you too would want a bomb.

Again, either we do everything in our power to be hypocrites, or we let nations do as they may. Reminds me of the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike.

[felter]

I hate making long posts but here goes.

SO much to talk about in such a short time, not going to bother quoting.

No I'm not going to ignore him just because he likes Trump on the contrary I'm interested to hear what he has to say and why, but saying that so far I'm not too impressed so far.

You cannot compare crooked Trump with anyone else. The man has had over 1200, yes twelve hundred or 1 thousand 200 law suites filled against him over the years. He also currently has around 40 new law suites since becoming the president. If it wasn't for the presidency he probably would have went to jail for Trump university for fraud, but that cost him $25 million which he fought against having to pay. The other names you mentioned come nowhere near him and that's adding them all together.

voting for Trump is not a reason to continue to support him. I even said back before he was elected that I would vote for him, I certainly wouldn't have voted for Clinton but I did say the reason I would vote for Trump was because, I thought it would be pretty hilarious to see him as president, and so far he has not disappointed me on that, the man is a total joke and will go down in history as being the worst US president of all time.

Which leads onto the next point how dare anyone use Trumps name in the same sentence as JFK, of course it would be okay to compare their two assassinations but seeing as Trump has not been assassinated (yet). As for him given up his wages that is a joke, he said it and they had to force him to do it when it came time for him to do it. Not just that, have you seen what or who he is giving those wages to, transportation and a federal grant program that is expected to get $1.5 billion from the government and why infrastructure, why the hell would you give $100k to that cause when it is in need of $21 billion. I would be more impressed if he gave to something that needed the cash, like some kid who is knocking on deaths door and needs the cash to save their life or some respectful charity organization, but to use it to pay for some pot holes getting filled in.

Not just that, he is being taken to court for charging people money to meet up with him at mar-a-lago, $120k a time. Something like 15 people do that and he has made his wages back for the presidency. Then you have his hotel in Washington which he is also being taken to court over, as it is being used to lobby him from foreign internationals making him even more than his lost wages.

Then you also have the $4.25 million that went into the stormy slush fund for presidential favours, that has disappeared but is suspected at least some of it, probably most of it landed in Trumps bank account. So don't even come up with but Trump is giving his wages away, that was just a publicity stunt to fool the people who support him and it looks like it worked.

I'm not going to talk about nukes but I'll say this, what Trump and and his cohorts are saying, are lies and fake news.

[Santi]

Personally, I think Iran has the bomb, and so does North Korea.

You do not spend decades developing nuclear capabilities and the ballistic means to deliver them at a crippling cost to your country, so at the last minute you give them up.

In my opinion, it is a case of how to bring this new nuclear armed countries into the fold of current nuclear treaties and more importantly, to try to limit the amount of Nuclear weapons that they can produce and potentially sell to other countries. Main objective being to put them under the watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency to keep track of their nuclear activities.

Lots of countries can have nuclear capabilities in a matter of days, but are happy to avoid the international scrutiny and all the faff that comes with it.

Which leads onto the next point how dare anyone use Trumps name in the same sentence as JFK

Well, they both were womanizers and they both took the USA to the brink of Nuclear War. I am not sure about the last point to be honest, it is true that there were some mean tweets between Trump and Kim Jong-un, but how that translated into "the closer that the USA has been to Nuclear conflict" escapes me.

[Mightysword]

I'm not going to talk about nukes but I'll say this, what Trump and and his cohorts are saying, are lies and fake news.

Funny thing, since AFAIK in the last few pages when we have been talking about Nuke, I don't think anyone have been talking about what Trump and his cohorts are saying

And they will build them as soon as possible; regardless of what Iran does. If you were Saudi Arabia leadership, you too would want a bomb.

Of course they want one, I mean ... who wouldn't? Especially you have several arc nemesis next door? Do you think Japan wouldn't want one? Or South Korean? Or Isareal? Or Egypt? How many countries engage in active conflict now? 2 dozens, 3 dozens?

Currently there are 7 countries with nuclear weapon, 8 if you count Isarel's ambiguity as one. And that is a GOOD things, the fact that you can still only count the number of nation with Nuke on your fingers despite its lure and temptation when the weapon was introduced almost 80 years ago. And that's because afford have been in place to actively discourage nations to profligate it, one way or another, sometime through incentive, sometime through intermediation.

Yes it would be nice if we can live in a nuclear free world, but since that's not possible any time soon, I choose a world where that weapon is as limited as possible comparing to one where everyone who want one can have one, and I don't care for what reason. If you think a world where everyone can run around with a nuke will be a better world than the one we have now, than I don't think the priority is straight. And you know what, for every additional country that has nuke, we get further and further from that dream of a nuclear free world.

[Santi]

Not just that, he is being taken to court for charging people money to meet up with him at mar-a-lago, $120k a time. Something like 15 people do that and he has made his wages back for the presidency. Then you have his hotel in Washington which he is also being taken to court over, as it is being used to lobby him from foreign internationals making him even more than his lost wages.

Can you please provide any links regarding those court proceedings?

[Golden_Gonads]

As a matter of interest, did Trump ever actually sign his business over to a blind account as he was supposed to? He said he had, when in fact he hadn't, and... I've heard nothing since.

Many of Trump's decisions seem motivated solely by money. I mean he tweeted yesterday about how he's trying to help Chinese toelcom company ZTE, who were (according to wikipedia) found guilty last year of selling tech to North Korea and Iran - Indeed, their current state is largely due to US sanctions because of that...

[Bishop149]

Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Or a more detail read:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/hi ... eaties.htm

Generally speaking the executive branch can do pretty much whatever it likes in regard to foreign policy.

The misunderstanding here is the Executive is the ONLY one who has the power to negotiate, Congress is not allowed to do that.

Thank you, that was informative.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/se ... votes-deal

So if I understand this correctly, Obama never got the votes to make this binding under international law but conversely it's opposition in the Senate also didn't gain the votes to make their opposition in anyway effective.
So it just kinda muddled along, effectively in force but not officially.

I do like this 2/3 majority thing meaning that one party doesn't ever just have carte blanch (unlike here in the UK where separation of powers is a lot more blurry and usually rendered obsolete by FPTP anyway) but its seems this kind of deadlock has its risks as well. . . . such as what happened here.

As a matter of interest, did Trump ever actually sign his business over to a blind account as he was supposed to? He said he had, when in fact he hadn't, and... I've heard nothing since.

No, and in not doing so committed an impeachable offence and breach of the constitution on his very first second in office. . . it has not been corrected since.
I think this is the real danger of Trump, his behaviour in office encompasses SO many things that at best could be described as "unorthodox" and at worst could be called "flagrant corruption of the highest order" that they all get swept under the rug. . . . who cares about yesterdays paying off of a pornstar in light of today's falsification of medical records etc.
If even 25% of his crap becomes "normalised" within American politics then the US is doomed.

[Morkonan]

My question here is, who is the we and why do they have a say in it? Who elected the US (or any other country) to define who can and who cannot develop whatever type of arsenal? So from where I stand I think you either get rid of ALL nukes and then go ahead and say people cant have them, or stop being a hypocrite. Its OK for the US, Russia and whatnot to hold everyone else hostage? Dont think so.

MFG

Ketraar

That's a good point.

But, I'd also like to say that despite having enough nukes to turn the World into a microwave, it hasn't happened. There have been several wars and conflicts in the histories of nuclear powers without them using their arsenals, even in a limited fashion. Even countries like Russia, with a doctrine that calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons hasn't used them in its conflicts. India and Pakistan, long in conflict, haven't used them. France, the UK, haven't even considered the prospect. Israel? Everyone thinks they have something, but they've never used anything, either in all their conflicts.

Yes, during the "Atomic Age" when everyone was digging "fallout shelters" we all thought the world would be over tomorrow with the press of a button. But, that didn't happen.

It's still an issue, of course. It's a dangerous one. But, the nuclear states are "dealing with it." We're all still "dealing with it." It's a military and diplomatic issue that is on "another level" than most world affairs. Maybe, one day, it will no longer be an issue? Maybe we'll all figure out that nuclear weapons threaten everyone, not just a nation's enemies.

But, despite them being around for so long, they haven't been used in anger since their inception in WWII.

With a nation's rhetoric and penchant for conflict as well as supporting what many other nation's consider to be terrorist groups... Could one be so confident that Iran would not use such a weapon, even after they have publicly stated they would blow Israel off the map? If they or Iraq had nuclear weapons during their wars, what do you think the result would have been?

Yes, everyone should get rid of them, except for a small number to help us fight against alien invasions or threatening asteroids or giant undersea monsters... But, if a nation is developing nuclear weapons, it may be that the most important thing isn't the weapon, but the nation's foreign policy and its interactions with others.

...It's like seeing a psychopath that's been screaming "I GONNA KILL ALL OF YOU, GIVE ME A GUN!", you decide since you also own a gun, it's only fair that he should be given one too ... else you risk being called a hypocrite?

[Bishop149]

Personally, I think Iran has the bomb, and so does North Korea.

Iran certainly has the technology to build one, all they might be missing is sufficient enriched materiel which was what the deal was primarily about preventing them acquiring. I must admit all this arguments about the dangers of a nuclear armed Iran would hold a little more water if Israel wasn't sitting on enough nukes to turn the entire middle east to glass should they ever felt seriously threatened. . . . in a serious contender for the worlds worst kept secret.

Annnnnd whilst we're on that topic.
41 dead so far . . . . almost certainly more to follow.
All utterly needless, the embassy move is little more than an excuse for Trump and Netanyahu to chum around on stage for a day and talk about what bestist buddies they are, nothing more substantial than that.

We now witnessing EXACTLY why no other US President ever did it.
Well done you big orange cretin.

[Ketraar]

With a nation's rhetoric and penchant for conflict as well as supporting what many other nation's consider to be terrorist groups...

Well if we are fair and not wanting to legitimise any sort of groups that invoke violence, the term "terrorist group" has a middle-eastern connotation, but from where I stand I dont see much difference between the behaviours of States like Israel, Saudi, Russia, US among many others that influence groups within other states, many such states are the ones that people call terrorists.

Many regime changes in south America and the middle-east have Nato fingerprints all over it. This is obviously nothing new as nations try to make gains by meddling in other states affairs since there are civilizations, but lets call them all out and not create this notion that some have some sort of moral licence to impose ways of life on others by bulling thee into submission (or worse). Influence is all good and dandy but do it in the open and consistently and not chance ideology depending on how much profit it will gain.

For example, related to tariffs, I'd gladdy agree to high tariffs for countries that do not apply the basic human rights and basic working conditions, in fact I'd just ban any commerce with countries that dont have the same basic laws as we do related to environment and the like. Why impose progressive laws here to then just move production to places where others get exploited and the air polluted?

Sorry for the rant, but this is what gets me the most, its the inconsistency and hypocrisy, I cant stand it.

MFG

Ketraar

[UniTrader]

For example, related to tariffs, I'd gladdy agree to high tariffs for countries that do not apply the basic human rights and basic working conditions, in fact I'd just ban any commerce with countries that dont have the same basic laws as we do related to environment and the like. Why impose progressive laws here to then just move production to places where others get exploited and the air polluted?

Thats a point i agree... and i would also add stuff subvented by the foreign state to this (for this basically a tariff which aims to negate the Subventions from the other state, not more, not less) - because permanently selling under your own production/aquiration cost is also against our laws here, and its no diffrent imo when its sponsored by a state.

but we are drifting away from the topic... so to add to it i suggest a little Poll:

What will Trump say this thursday to mueller?
A) The Truth
B) His Truth
C) Hillary was it
D) You are fired
E) I have to ask Uncle Putin first
F) I plead the fifth
G) I plead the third
H) Sausages

multiple choices possible

[Morkonan]

...Sorry for the rant, but this is what gets me the most, its the inconsistency and hypocrisy, I cant stand it.

Those are honest words and I understand them.

But... When a group or nation specializes in inspiring terror to induce change by purposefully killing innocent people, that's a bit different than what we would call, if such a term exists, "acceptable" in war.

Yes, nations have, at one time or another, attempted to influence or even induce regime change in other countries.

But, these are not all the same thing. Morally, ethically? That's even difficult to answer sometimes.

Could you tell what it was if you saw it? Could you tell the difference?

You can "know" what terrorism is when you see it and it is not "war" or some sort of state-sponsored political action.

Can states be guilty of "terrorism?" Yes.

...What will Trump say this thursday to mueller?

Uh, what's happening on Thursday? !!

A) The Truth
B) His Truth
C) Hillary was it
D) You are fired
E) I have to ask Uncle Putin first
F) I plead the fifth
G) I plead the third
H) Sausages

multiple choices possible

I) I don't understand the question.

"Your name, Mr. President. What is it?"

"Well, if you're going to try to railroad me by asking trick questions..."

[Bishop149]

Imagine being such a spectacularly awful person that the headline below seemingly lauds an accomplishment.

Trump visits first lady in hospital for second straight day

[Retiredman]

As a matter of interest, did Trump ever actually sign his business over to a blind account as he was supposed to? He said he had, when in fact he hadn't, and... I've heard nothing since.

Many of Trump's decisions seem motivated solely by money. I mean he tweeted yesterday about how he's trying to help Chinese toelcom company ZTE, who were (according to wikipedia) found guilty last year of selling tech to North Korea and Iran - Indeed, their current state is largely due to US sanctions because of that...

This is one area where I raise a red flag. Seems Trump want to fast track the telcom back into business. Then his group gets a 300 million contract from the Chinese.
Ding
ding
ding

He either serve as President in interest of the people or he runs his business.
Not both.
If the latter, then anything Mueller can come up with is nothing on what
he does with that telcom.
In my book that is out the door faster than the door can hit you in the ass.
And maybe some hard time in a 8 by 10 cell.

[Morkonan]

...And maybe some hard time in a 8 by 10 cell.

It's not impossible... Though, I would think that any investigation may stop short of that, considering the damage it would do to the office of "The President." Trump's already doing that sort of damage, sure. But, if he's sitting in jail, it's going to be a constant reminder to the rest of the world that... we suck. (As if they didn't already have that opinion.)

The good thing about that, if it happened? It'd show that our justice system has no fear and doesn't play favorites. Alternatively, though, even if it's a righteous charge, if it's pushed too hard by opposition parties, like the Democrats, even any true justice arising from it would seem tainted and would come under constant criticism of being "political."

So, if he did go to jail for something or at least was convicted, it may ultimately be a long-term lose/lose situation for the US. It's just not "good" no matter how anyone looks at what's going on now or prognosticating for a possible future.

IMO, in all honesty, we can trace just about all of this crap back to our kneejerk halphazard and fumbling responses to 9/11. But, that's a topic for another thread, considering how big it would be.

[BugMeister]

sorry, Mork but I disagree entirely..
the complete opposite is more likely to be the case
the world would be greatly relieved to see justice prevail in this matter

- it is rapidly becoming a matter of serious international concern..
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... un-gaddafi

- tact has never been something Trump considers to any degree
- his diplomacy skills are equally deplorable..

[- unrelated..??]
- we in the UK are also grappling with the Cambridge Analytica's involvement in voter manipulation:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... before-mps

- strange days, indeed..

[Morkonan]

sorry, Mork but I disagree entirely..
the complete opposite is more likely to be the case
the world would be greatly relieved to see justice prevail in this matter

Which part do you "completely disagree with?"

- it is rapidly becoming a matter of serious international concern..
...
- tact has never been something Trump considers to any degree
- his diplomacy skills are equally deplorable..
...

Agreed.

Trump doesn't seem to know what the whole "Libyan Model" was about... He doesn't understand. That's not surprising, but it's troubling that he insists on demonstrating his ignorance in public.

Khadaffi saw the growing need-for-action in the US after 9/11 and decided he wanted to be sure nobody would use it as an excuse to come stomp his face in, so he turned belly-up and renounced all WMDs and begged everyone to "come and see." OK, fine, since you're being so compliant, we will ignore you and, might, just might, even open up a little trade. Have a nice day, unless you do something so egregiously terrible we have to start paying attention to you, again.

Issue solved until the "Arab Spring" which just dumped too many opportunities for upheaval in Libya.

The same "promise" of a gradual return to somewhat normal relations could easily be extended to DPRK and KJU in return for his abandoning WMD. No problem - Everyone would be much happier just worrying about massed artillery pointing at the most populous city region on Earth...

Then, Trump steps into the room and feels the need to open his pie-hole and slap a big "I SAID SOMETHING" sticker on it...

Just... just... simply fookin' stoopid. He turned the conversation from "If you do something positive, we will too" to "YOU'LL END UP LIKE KHADAFFI "CAUSE I'M RUNNING FOR TEH OFFISE OF TEH PRESIDENCY! Make 'Murica Great Again! Crooked Hillary!"

<ahem> "Mr. President, you're already the President."

"WAT? I won?"

[BugMeister]

the 25th could be invoked..
there's one heck of a lot of evidence for Drumpf's idiocy..