Possible US President Trump, what possible consequences?

[Ihoe]

 

<snip>

This is just my opinion and I could be wrong, but I think that as America's relationship with Saudi Arabia continues to deteriorate, America will slowly move toward an informal alliance with Iran. But slowly is the big word, it will take time.

 

Just curious but when is the last time we have had demonstrations where we burned the Iranian flag and chanted 'Death to Iran" ...never....and the last time the Iranians have done the reverse..a week ... a month?

US and Iranian foreign policy interests are antithetical to each other so if by 'time' if you are thinking in geological terms then maybe.

 

 

Well, I've seen Americans burning the American flag recently. It has become a symbolic object I suppose. Either way both sides that burn flags are a very vocal radical minority who have bullied the spineless authorities through fake moral high ground pressuring methods.

 

I mean, Why the hell are Americans holding Mexican flags to protest against Trump? Symbolic protest or just Rome falling again? If they are proud of their Mexican heritage so much, what the flying f*** are they doing in america in the first place?

 

I'm not American, but this freak show of a presidential race is quite terrifyingly interesting. From far away. Like really far away.

[Aurielius]

<snip>

I seriously don't think someone would go to war over an island, especially with China and in 21st century... I'd go so far even to say that US basically holds PRC by the balls with Tibet and Taiwan. Few years back there were some "independence uprisings" in Tibetian territories, when China went on new currency talks with trade partners IIRC, which conveniently failed. That's not even considering, how US can pull licences on production from China, so they won't be able produce good as they can today and go to global market, and in that scenario, I'd say EU and US will be hit hard, but will recover, though I have no idea how China could recover from that. And as a sidenote: currently banks of PRC hold more $ currency than US does, which means US have all possibilities to pull their strings, so why would anyone even consider war in this case?

 

Regarding RF, can you please elaborate on their current foreign policies? No sarcasm implied, I'm seriously curious for some info on that, because I fail to imagine how exactly does Russia expand, I mean there are NATO Missile Defence systems basically standing on RF borders, and RF has... how many military bases over the world now?

 

Considering command, I might be very wrong, but in case of serious disaster, I don't think either Trump or Clinton would be capable of making such decisions, I think Pentagon would take over and Presidents' role would be only nominal.

 

And no, I don't think simple air/ground war would be possible, because of the fact that no country in the world has enough power to stand against fullscale NATO invasion, so that would be nukes or certain defeat, not many options, aye?

 

It's not the island in itself that is important, it's the resources in the area that would appropriated by asserted national sovereignty that are.

If one thinks that a bank balance will curtail a conflict then there is not much to discuss....since resources in one form or another have been the root cause of most wars.

 

The Philippines recently filed a claim with the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea in a bid to stop China from enforcing its self-proclaimed region of influence. China has now said it will not abide by whatever ruling the court advances. The only difference between current Chinese and ex Imperial Japanese Imperialism is patience.

 

From a NATO perspective the RF is trying to resurrect the territorial borders of the old USSR. A missile defense system needs to be 100% effective , a saturation attack only needs to be 10% successful.

 

As for US C&C our military still advises\ defers to the President not the other way around. The President has to make the hard calls not the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

You drastically overate the offensive power of NATO since in reality we are only talking about the creditable offensive modern armed forces which belong to the US, UK and France. No one has ever successfully invaded from the west in all of Russian history....a lesson taught at West Point, Sandhurst and Saint Cyr. So assertions that NATO has territorial ambitions is somewhat of a Putin spin not reality.

 

"Only the dead have seen the end of war"- attributed to Plato

[MajKrAzAm]

Well, I've seen Americans burning the American flag recently. It has become a symbolic object I suppose. Either way both sides that burn flags are a very vocal radical minority who have bullied the spineless authorities through fake moral high ground pressuring methods.

 

I mean, Why the hell are Americans holding Mexican flags to protest against Trump? Symbolic protest or just Rome falling again? If they are proud of their Mexican heritage so much, what the flying f*** are they doing in america in the first place?

 

I'm not American, but this freak show of a presidential race is quite terrifyingly interesting. From far away. Like really far away.

 

 

Young males with foreign flag sucker punching citizens exercising their first amendment rights -- Media: obviously Donald Trump's fault.

[Signette]

 

It's not the island in itself that is important, it's the resources in the area that would appropriated by asserted national sovereignty that are.

 

If one thinks that a bank balance will curtail a conflict then there is not much to discuss....since resources in one form or another have been the root cause of most wars.

 

The Philippines recently filed a claim with the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea in a bid to stop China from enforcing its self-proclaimed region of influence. China has now said it will not abide by whatever ruling the court advances. The only difference between current Chinese and ex Imperial Japanese Imperialism is patience.

 

From a NATO perspective the RF is trying to resurrect the territorial borders of the old USSR. A missile defense system needs to be 100% effective , a saturation attack only needs to be 10% successful.

 

As for US C&C our military still advises\ defers to the President not the other way around. The President has to make the hard calls not the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

You drastically overate the offensive power of NATO since in reality we are only talking about the creditable offensive modern armed forces which belong to the US, UK and France. No one has ever successfully invaded from the west in all of Russian history....a lesson taught at West Point, Sandhurst and Saint Cyr. So assertions that NATO has territorial ambitions is somewhat of a Putin spin not reality.

 

"Only the dead have seen the end of war"- attributed to Plato

They'll have to come to an agreement, no other way around. This may be another attempt of China to trade for something, and US not pressuring them about this may be a sign that they don't care too much... for now. It's too early to say something accurate about this, but I'm sure it simply can't lead to war.

 

I fail to see any steps of RF to claim any territories and "resurrecting" long dead USSR. Even if there were any, economy is not even half as strong to carry out something like that, and another starvation with complete economical breakdown this nation simply won't survive. I think Putin knows that. In case you mention Crimea it's a very weak argument, because there are absolutely no foreign policy ambitions behind it, only internal presidents' rating boost. And trading entire western Ukraine for this small piece of land, well... I don't think it was beneficial resource-wise for RF in any particular way.

 

I wouldn't argue about Military system of US, but after watching George W. Bush, as he holding book upside down while informed about 9/11 terrorist attack, and his face... didn't really put any trust into the idea that President is one calling the shots.

 

Regarding NATO, in case of an agression from RF territory, in theory, I don't think any member of alliance would hesitate or refuse to take action against it. I'm not talking about real possibility of NATO invasion, I'm just confused about NATO even considering scenarios like this.

 

After the Cold War, German unification, and withdrawl of Soviet Troops, US made a promise to not expand to the East, which after they accepted 12 East Europe countries into alliance... As for agression, we can list here Vietnam, Afganistan (which still burns), Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Missile Defense systems appearing closer and closer to RF borders, makes one wonder, who's really on offensive? What Washington is trying to protect itself from? Or do they preparing for something and to be able to actually deflect saturation attack as the reaction?

 

It all seems like nonsense, but still carries some bad vibe to it. I mean, to be rational, US simply solves their own problems with these conflicts, both political and economical. And Russia does basically same thing in Caucasus and Ukraine, and noone really should interfere with ones business, but the difference is, RF doesn't even try to expand with military, on contrary, many bases got shut down and forces withdrawn. Sometimes they send some troops to protect their own business (like in Syria) and that's it. On the other hand, why US keep accepting members in NATO and expand borders is the question, because any war with "big" countries is completely out of perspective, noone will get any benefits from it, and all can quickly go out of control into total disaster for both sides...

Edited June 8, 2016 by Signette

[HeyYou]

 

 

It's not the island in itself that is important, it's the resources in the area that would appropriated by asserted national sovereignty that are.

 

If one thinks that a bank balance will curtail a conflict then there is not much to discuss....since resources in one form or another have been the root cause of most wars.

 

The Philippines recently filed a claim with the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea in a bid to stop China from enforcing its self-proclaimed region of influence. China has now said it will not abide by whatever ruling the court advances. The only difference between current Chinese and ex Imperial Japanese Imperialism is patience.

 

From a NATO perspective the RF is trying to resurrect the territorial borders of the old USSR. A missile defense system needs to be 100% effective , a saturation attack only needs to be 10% successful.

 

As for US C&C our military still advises\ defers to the President not the other way around. The President has to make the hard calls not the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

You drastically overate the offensive power of NATO since in reality we are only talking about the creditable offensive modern armed forces which belong to the US, UK and France. No one has ever successfully invaded from the west in all of Russian history....a lesson taught at West Point, Sandhurst and Saint Cyr. So assertions that NATO has territorial ambitions is somewhat of a Putin spin not reality.

 

"Only the dead have seen the end of war"- attributed to Plato

They'll have to come to an agreement, no other way around. This may be another attempt of China to trade for something, and US not pressuring them about this may be a sign that they don't care too much... for now. It's too early to say something accurate about this, but I'm sure it simply can't lead to war.

 

I fail to see any steps of RF to claim any territories and "resurrecting" long dead USSR. Even if there were any, economy is not even half as strong to carry out something like that, and another starvation with complete economical breakdown this nation simply won't survive. I think Putin knows that. In case you mention Crimea it's a very weak argument, because there are absolutely no foreign policy ambitions behind it, only internal presidents' rating boost. And trading entire western Ukraine for this small piece of land, well... I don't think it was beneficial resource-wise for RF in any particular way.

 

I wouldn't argue about Military system of US, but after watching George W. Bush, as he holding book upside down while informed about 9/11 terrorist attack, and his face... didn't really put any trust into the idea that President is one calling the shots.

 

Regarding NATO, in case of an agression from RF territory, in theory, I don't think any member of alliance would hesitate or refuse to take action against it. I'm not talking about real possibility of NATO invasion, I'm just confused about NATO even considering scenarios like this.

 

After the Cold War, German unification, and withdrawl of Soviet Troops, US made a promise to not expand to the East, which after they accepted 12 East Europe countries into alliance... As for agression, we can list here Vietnam, Afganistan (which still burns), Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Missile Defense systems appearing closer and closer to RF borders, makes one wonder, who's really on offensive? What Washington is trying to protect itself from? Or do they preparing for something and to be able to actually deflect saturation attack as the reaction?

 

It all seems like nonsense, but still carries some bad vibe to it. I mean, to be rational, US simply solves their own problems with these conflicts, both political and economical. And Russia does basically same thing in Caucasus and Ukraine, and noone really should interfere with ones business, but the difference is, RF doesn't even try to expand with military, on contrary, many bases got shut down and forces withdrawn. Sometimes they send some troops to protect their own business (like in Syria) and that's it. On the other hand, why US keep accepting members in NATO and expand borders is the question, because any war with "big" countries is completely out of perspective, noone will get any benefits from it, and all can quickly go out of control into total disaster for both sides...

 

Crimea? Ukraine? if not part of a 'war of expansion', what is it?

[Signette]

@HeyYou

Well, I've already stated rather clearly about Crimea and Ukraine. It's hardly an expansion, as I mentioned, entire wester Ukraine basically belongs to US...

[HeyYou]

@HeyYou

Well, I've already stated rather clearly about Crimea and Ukraine. It's hardly an expansion, as I mentioned, entire wester Ukraine basically belongs to US...

The rest of the world sees it a bit differently.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

@HeyYou

Well, I've already stated rather clearly about Crimea and Ukraine. It's hardly an expansion, as I mentioned, entire wester Ukraine basically belongs to US...

The rest of the world sees it a bit differently.

 

 

Rupert Murdoch sees to that for sure.

[Aurielius]

 

 

@HeyYou

Well, I've already stated rather clearly about Crimea and Ukraine. It's hardly an expansion, as I mentioned, entire wester Ukraine basically belongs to US...

The rest of the world sees it a bit differently.

 

 

Rupert Murdoch sees to that for sure.

 

No, it's a view that is shared by most NATO members not all of which have Murdoch media to contend with. Otherwise why would we stage 'Operation Anaconda' ?

Which is the first major exercise of this magnitude in 25 years...directly modeled on a RF incursion into NATO's eastern flank.

[Rabbit1251]

So, now President Trump intends to deport the Native Americans. Probably back to India. I've never been to India before. What's it like?

 

 

The Rabbit