Possible US President Trump, what possible consequences?

[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.

 

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.

 

 

'Call it what you want'. We are all too blame, for everything.

[Aurielius]

<snip>

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.

 

 

'Call it what you want'. We are all too blame, for everything.

 

Well I guess you have crystallized your world view in a sentence. You may subscribe to a transcendent inherited 'Mea Culpa' but I do not.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

<snip>

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.

 

 

'Call it what you want'. We are all too blame, for everything.

 

Well I guess you have crystallized your world view in a sentence. You may subscribe to a transcendent inherited 'Mea Culpa' but I do not.

 

 

I would say that I must likewise subscribe to a transcendent inherited 'salvation', or denial... or even sheer chaos. But I suppose none of this detracts from the inevitability of self-actualisation.

[Aurielius]

@sunshinenbrick

If this was an exercise in neo liberal philosophy I would accept to your self identified philosophy without issue. However we are debating Realpolitik where facts on the ground usually motivate national interests. I will concede that the east / west split of world views is subjective to perceived national identity, which is why the potential for military confrontation is escalating not diminishing in both Eastern Europe and the South China Sea. You do not need two sides to start a war..only one is required to light the fuse. To paraphrase Mark Twain in current geopolitical terms " The news of demise of the Cold War are greatly exaggerated"

[Signette]

Few fun facts:

To start real, massive war, you need lots of money and firepower. The only organization in the world which has that amount of money and arms is Nato, plus entire US war budget is way bigger than Russian full federal budget.

 

The only thing keeping RF economy is gas & oil trade, which for some very awkward and unimaginable reason didn't get sanctioned after "aggressive conquest of the world to resurrect USSR". Curious, huh?

 

The only thing keeping Chinese economy afloat is stuffing it with business from wealthy countries running by blatant slave labour. If licenses get pulled and country get isolated, it won't survive on internal market alone, and even if it mirculously will, US currency can be lowered or raised on stock market, leading to convenient changes in economy which may very well lead to it falling apart.

 

Regarding Ukraine and so called RF "expansion", 5 billion dollars have been invested in this "revolution". It has been voiced by Victoria Nuland who participated in these events.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=447

Also, since april 2014, Hunter Biden joined the Board of Directors in Burisma Holdings in Ukraine.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-vice-president-bidens-son-continues-to-buy-gas-assets-in-ukraine/5505300

Funny, eh? Isn't it a bit far from US borders to hold such positions? Still not believing Crimea was a trade off with US? And US would allow Putin to pull off something like that for free?

 

There can be said many more things like that, which makes war threats of any other country to US just laughable.

 

Regarding military training, it's hard to say why and for what reason that could be launched, because you simply cannot be prepared for something that massive, no training can cover threats that may rise during conflict.

 

And returning to Trump discussion, considering facts mentioned above, I personally fear not even a little bit for increasing tension in the world, because I believe neither Hillary nor Donald would be able to influence foreign policy in such ways, but I'm genuinely curious about changes in internal policy once any of these candidates becomes president.

 

Have to add, I'm not sure if many are aware of this, but having one big evil enemy across the ocean, which you have to pose as the mortal threat, which serves as very convenient scape goat and can blamed for all disfunctions and failing of internal policy, telling herd... err, I mean population, something like: "if not for those infernal devils there, our country would be wealthiest and happiest in the world, and to fight them, we need to empty your pockets". Well, you get the idea... and to be honest, I'm often baffled by how well it works.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Signette

[Aurielius]

Less Fun Facts

 

1- You do not need a lot of money to start a war but you do need a lot of money to win one. The method is called War Bonds.

Whether the creditors will live long enough to collect their dividends is another matter.

 

2- Training...just what do think the most recent major war games were for? They are geared to prepare NATO for their most probable opponent.

Only the RF believes in the fantasy that they are fooling anyone by denying they have incognito troops in eastern Ukraine.

 

3- The RF is not a phantom enemy and last time I checked has a very credible arsenal, meantime the Chinese are doing their best to build a first class navy.

All the while we whittle our forces down to pre WW2 levels.

 

4-That you do not believe in the power of the Presidency..well that's something I cannot fix. The Cuban Missile Crisis might be history to you but some of us remember the night we held our breath to see if WW3 would start the following day. The difference between Peace and War was JFK, so Presidents matter.

 

Last but not least, this has gone far astray of the discussion of candidates, I doubt that you have been swayed in the least and the probability of converting me to your viewpoint is in negative integers. My first post stated my views within the topic's parameters....that you do not agree...I can live with that.

[RGMage2]

My understanding of American foreign policy is admittedly limited, but I am under the impression it is still guided by The Wolfowitz Doctrine and The Project for the New American Century. Which essentially aims to retain America's position as the sole Superpower in the world, and advocates taking pre-emptive action against any other nation that might rise up to some day challenge American global dominance.

 

The people who are pushing this see the world as a giant chess board and themselves as players in The Great Game; they are not looking 5 to 10 years into the future, more like 50 to 100 years. They are not overly concerned with the Russia of today, it is the Russia of the future that frightens them. How this relates to Ukraine is their belief that a Russia someday reunited with Ukraine would have the population, industry, and resources to again become a true global superpower, where as a Russia permanently separated from Ukraine could never again rise to such a position.

 

American policy toward both Russia and China is Containment, or in other words box them in and keep them down. The problem I believe is that it isn't going to work. There is a natural ebb and flow to our world, as great powers rise and they fall, and other great powers rise in their place. When you try to resist the changing of the guard that is when you get a war and probably a nuclear exchange. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime so I'm not overly concerned, but the prospect of anything approaching a 100% effective anti-ballistic missile shield on Russia's borders will probably lead to Orbital Nuclear Weapons platforms over our heads, currently prohibited by treaty, but treaties can be broken just like when America withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

 

How this relates to a Trump presidency is the belief that Trump might clean out the neo-conservatives from the State Department, which might delay a nuclear 3rd world war by a hundred years. I think it is more likely that if he tries to remove them he will be killed

[MajKrAzAm]

The good news is that neocons are being unmasked as liberals primarily devoted to an aggressive foreign policy on behalf of you-know-who.

 

Not only does Trump reject bedrock neocon foreign policy, he rejects the bedrock neocon/liberal cultural doctrine of the propisition nation. He embraces nationalism and rejects neocon globalism.

Trump has called out the neocon policy of the past 25 years. Right now, Hilary Clinton represents a continuation of the neoconservative consensus.

[Signette]

Less Fun Facts

 

1- You do not need a lot of money to start a war but you do need a lot of money to win one. The method is called War Bonds.

Whether the creditors will live long enough to collect their dividends is another matter.

 

2- Training...just what do think the most recent major war games were for? They are geared to prepare NATO for their most probable opponent.

Only the RF believes in the fantasy that they are fooling anyone by denying they have incognito troops in eastern Ukraine.

 

3- The RF is not a phantom enemy and last time I checked has a very credible arsenal, meantime the Chinese are doing their best to build a first class navy.

All the while we whittle our forces down to pre WW2 levels.

 

4-That you do not believe in the power of the Presidency..well that's something I cannot fix. The Cuban Missile Crisis might be history to you but some of us remember the night we held our breath to see if WW3 would start the following day. The difference between Peace and War was JFK, so Presidents matter.

 

Last but not least, this has gone far astray of the discussion of candidates, I doubt that you have been swayed in the least and the probability of converting me to your viewpoint is in negative integers. My first post stated my views within the topic's parameters....that you do not agree...I can live with that.

1. Those creditors must be assured of inevitable victory, they simply won't go for such high risks. But that's irrelevant because, as I mentoned before:

a. In nuclear war can be no winners.

b. Sway of military power is too high in NATO favor, so any air/ground/navy war is out of the question.

2. Probably training too, for what is a mystery. In my humble opinion for new Middle-Estern conflict. But most importantly money making for giant mil. corps. And I never denied Russian military in eastern Ukraine, it was funded war, I already mentioned it, very lucrative for both sides.

3. US navy is still superior to Chinese with military bases in half of the world. How many bases do China have in the world? Fearing that PLA will have superior military one day is a pipe dream, they probably won't need it, when if they get it.

4. It was different, US wasn't so powerfull then, and USSR leaders were uneducated, wild and unpreduictable. What would you excect from low class worker or framer becoming a leader? Modern RF authorities are pragmatists. Only thing they care about is incomes and self stability. Every single one of Russian Presidents' group has property and huge accounts in foreign banks (Switzerland, USA + unknown offshores). You might also wanna have a read on economy minister Kudrin, who withdrew biggest part of Stabilization Fund of RF into US in 90s, for purposes not to be stolen inside country (which was rather smart idea, because everyone knows that RF money are safest in US banks). So I woudn't go chasing ghosts of the past in our age.

 

I'm not trying to alter anyones' viewpoints, but there are obvious some things that need clarification, and I guess it's not all that simple like all head-to-head as media often leading us to believe.

 

 

How this relates to a Trump presidency is the belief that Trump might clean out the neo-conservatives from the State Department, which might delay a nuclear 3rd world war by a hundred years. I think it is more likely that if he tries to remove them he will be killed

Well now, that's interesting...

Edited June 17, 2016 by Signette

[HeyYou]

War profiteers don't want anyone to have a clear advantage. That shortens the war, and reduces profits. They like wars that drag on, so they can sell arms to both sides, and make huge piles of money.