US Foreign Policy

Discussion of current events
User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:46 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:51 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
The only reason why there aren't yet common European armed forces is that France and the UK still think that they need their own armed forces to back their foreign policies.
Well, have not this proven to be true in practice? :)
No. The Malvinas incident and playing second fiddle to the US can hardly be seen as "policies" at all. The UK still dreams of an empire long gone, with the military tasks such empire imposed on them.
It's a bit odd that you'd select an example of the UK successfully repelling an invasion of its territory as a reason that they don't need armed forces.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Milo » Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:50 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:46 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:51 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
The only reason why there aren't yet common European armed forces is that France and the UK still think that they need their own armed forces to back their foreign policies.
Well, have not this proven to be true in practice? :)
No. The Malvinas incident and playing second fiddle to the US can hardly be seen as "policies" at all. The UK still dreams of an empire long gone, with the military tasks such empire imposed on them.
It's a bit odd that you'd select an example of the UK successfully repelling an invasion of its territory as a reason that they don't need armed forces.
And what does the 'Crimea incident' prove about Russia?

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:19 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:46 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:51 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
The only reason why there aren't yet common European armed forces is that France and the UK still think that they need their own armed forces to back their foreign policies.
Well, have not this proven to be true in practice? :)
No. The Malvinas incident and playing second fiddle to the US can hardly be seen as "policies" at all. The UK still dreams of an empire long gone, with the military tasks such empire imposed on them.
It's a bit odd that you'd select an example of the UK successfully repelling an invasion of its territory as a reason that they don't need armed forces.
They do. On an pan-European context. But rescuing the Malvinas would hardly justify having large armed forces. Of course, if you happen to have a large force in order to protect the global European interests, you might as well use it in a situation like the Malvinas. My criticism of British military policies has to do with the fact that the British military is being used in places like the ME - in support of American, not British, interests - and in quasi-colonial adventures like the Malvinas and Northern Ireland. Which prevents the UK joining European armed forces dedicated to defending European (and thus British) interests.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:39 am

The Good News About the Trump Presidency: Stupid Can be Good!

by The Saker

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-good-news ... n-be-good/

(...)

Just as we can sincerely thank President Obama for pushing Russia and China into each other’s arms, we can now all thank Nikki Haley and Trump for uniting the resistance to the state of Israel and the entire AngloZionist Empire. I can just about imagine the jubilation in Tehran when the Iranians heard the good news!

But the good stupid does not stop there. The fact that the US elites are all involved in a giant shootout against each other by means of investigations, scandals, accusations, talk of impeachment, etc. is also a blessing because while they are busy fighting each other they are much less capable of focusing on their real opponents and enemies. For months now President Trump has mostly ruled the US by means of “tweets” which, of course, and by definition, amount to exactly nothing and there is nothing which could be seriously called a “US foreign policy” (with the exception of the never-ending stream of accusations, threats and grandstanding, which don’t qualify). There are real risks and opportunities resulting from this situation

Risks: when nobody is really in charge, each agency does pretty much what it wants. We saw that during the 2nd half of the Obama Presidency when State did one thing, the Pentagon another, and the CIA yet another. This resulted in outright goofy situation with US allies attacking each other in Syria and Iraq because they all reported to different agencies. The risk here is obvious: for example, when US diplomats made an agreement with Russia in Syria, the Pentagon torpedoed it the very next day by attacking Syrian forces. The recent attacks on the Russian Aerospace Forces base in Khmeimim (and the latest drone attack on that same base) would exactly fit that pattern. The Russians have been complaining for months now that the US are “non-agreement capable” and this can clearly be a problem and a risk.

Opportunities: when nobody is in charge then the AngloZionist Empire cannot really bring its full force against one specific target. Think of a car or bus in which all the passengers are fighting each other for the control of the steering wheel. This is bad for them, but good for everybody else as the only place this car or bus is headed for is the ditch. Furthermore, since currently the US is, at various degrees, threatening no less than 9 countries (Afghanistan, Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan, China) these threats sound rather hollow. Not only that, but should the US get seriously involved in any type of conflict with any one of these countries, this would open great opportunities for the others to take action. Considering how the US elites are busy fighting each other there and threatening everybody else there is very little change that the US could focus enough to seriously threaten any of its opponents. But this goes much further than the countries I mentioned here. There is a French expression which goes “when the cat’s away, the mice will play” and this is what we might see next: more countries following the example of the Philippines, which used to be a subservient US colony and which now is ruled by a man who has no problems publicly insulting the US President, at least when Obama was President (Duterte seems to like Trump more than Obama). There have already been signs that the South Koreans are taking their first timid steps towards telling “no” to Uncle Sam.

I am not trying to paint a rosy picture of the situation, which is bad, no doubt about that. Having ignorant fools in charge of nuclear weapons is not good, by definition. But I do want to suggest two things: first, that no matter stupid Trump is, Hillary would have been infinitely worse and, second, that there are also some good aspects to the current vacuum of power in Washington, DC.

If we can agree that anything that weakens the AngloZionist Empire is a good thing (including for the American people!), as is anything which brings its eventual demise closer, then there is a lot to be grateful for the past year. The Empire really began to crumble under George W. Bush (thanks Neocons!), and that process most definitely continued under Obama. However, Donald Trump is the one who truly given this process a tremendous acceleration which has, I think, brought it to a qualitatively new level. The risks ahead are still tremendous, but so far the Empire is losing and the Resistance to it is still winning. And that is a very good thing.
Most of you will disagree with this analysis, but I find it quite interesting, from a Russia's point of view.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Doc » Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:39 am

Breaking: Kim Jong Un has less than four months to live

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... ile-launch

Japan issues false alarm over missile launch, days after Hawaii alert gaffe
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:00 pm

The Opinion of a Former British Diplomat

Sputnik spoke to former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to ask whether any further US involvement in the Syrian conflict is only likely to exacerbate division in the country, thus perpetuating the war.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested on Wednesday that the Trump administration would be taking on an open-ended military commitment to Syria as part of a stated strategy to prevent the regrowth of Daesh and to forge a new 'solution' that hopes to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power.

Sputnik: The US — under both the Obama and Trump administrations — has long framed its objective in Syria rather narrowly to the defeat of Daesh. Now that the terrorist group's so-called caliphate is effectively gone, and there are forces in the country — such as the Syrian Arab Army — capable of destroying any possible Daesh resurgence, why does the US need to remain?

Peter Ford: Well it doesn't is the simple and obvious truth. In its own eyes, it needs to remain because Trump is being accused of having lost Syria to the Russians. This is, quite simply, now a power play by the US to show that it still has influence in Syria and the wider Middle East, and it's part of the US power game against Iran. It has nothing to do with removing terrorism from Syria, nothing to do with humanitarian issues, nothing to do with democracy in Syria. It's quite simply arm wrestling that the United States wishes to engage in with Russia or any other power that dares to question, in the slightest way, American pre-eminence in the world.

Sputnik: How do you see the potential long-term presence of US forces in the country hindering any effort to reunify Syria in the future?

Peter Ford: This appears to be part of the US plan: precisely to prevent Syria being stabilized as a unitary sovereign state. It has been a long-term goal of the United States going back at least forty years, and now they see a way of partially implementing it: encouraging the formation of a Kurdish statelet in the north and northeast. There is no way that this can help to stabilize Syria. In fact, I would characterize the US policy — now openly more or less avowed by Tillerson — as the continuing destabilization of Syria. Given that America cannot impose its will in terms of regime change, it's settling for what it sees as the next best thing, which is to keep Syria constantly destabilized.

Sputnik: And finally, what does international law have to say about the US first of all even being in Syria, and secondly maintaining a presence there, uninvited by Damascus?

Peter Ford: What the Americans are doing is completely flouting international law. It is a gross breach of international law to maintain a presence on the territory of a member state of the United Nations, which has a seat in New York, which is recognized by most countries around the world. It is totally illegal to maintain a military presence without the express permission of the host government. But America plays by different rules. In the American playbook might is right for America. America is a scofflaw, an international scofflaw and has been in many instances, not only Syria.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2018 ... ign-state/
Although this is an interview conducted by Sputnik, the person interviewed is a former UK ambassador to Syria, which means he knows what he is talking about. But some people prefer to think that the US is only trying to establish a "democratic" regime in Syria...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests