US Foreign Policy

Discussion of current events
User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:03 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:39 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:55 am

In other words, you take the side of Russia, China, Iran and N Korea against the US in a confrontation. According to the human rights index, the US is free country. Those four countries are not free.

Thanks for proving me right. Like most leftists, you are on the side of evil regimes.
The only side I am on, is the side of Europe (and particularly Southern Europe). What I am against is US imperialism, and I hope Russia, China, North Korea and Iran will be the tools to end American hegemony. Their regimes are indifferent to me and are a problem only to the respective peoples.
In other words, if half the world has to live under authoritarianism so that Europe can be shed of not having to pay for its own defence, you're fine with that.

Like I said, believe that nonsense if you want, but if so then never talk about freedom ever again, because you don't believe in it at all.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 1761
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:32 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:10 pm

He has come out to say he supports their protests and affirms their right to peaceful protests.
A motherhood statement!

Words are cheap Cassowary. Hot air from a grandstanding politician an even more debased currency.

Politics is a funny business and is rarely all that it seems to be on the surface. The fact that Trump (leader of Iran's "great Satan", the USA) publicly endorsed their right to protest; in a place like Iran that would be politically like the kiss of death for the protests. It would have placed the protesters in the position of appearing to be traitors to their country if they persisted in their activity. Many of the protestors themselves would have likely seen it that way too.

I do not believe that it is coincidental that after Trump spoke up the protests quickly folded.

Trump would have done the protestors a bigger favour by keeping his big mouth tightly shut.

The fact that he did not is further evidence that US foreign policy is being conducted by a clueless dope.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1718
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by cassowary » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:46 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:39 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:55 am

In other words, you take the side of Russia, China, Iran and N Korea against the US in a confrontation. According to the human rights index, the US is free country. Those four countries are not free.

Thanks for proving me right. Like most leftists, you are on the side of evil regimes.
The only side I am on, is the side of Europe (and particularly Southern Europe). What I am against is US imperialism, and I hope Russia, China, North Korea and Iran will be the tools to end American hegemony. Their regimes are indifferent to me and are a problem only to the respective peoples.
The US is protecting Europe against Russia. The US is protecting S Korea and Japan against N Korea. The US is protecting Taiwan against China. Russia, N Korea and China do not have human rights according to the link on human right indices I gave you above. If the US loses, Europe, S Korea, Japan and Taiwan loses their freedom too.

The fact you prefer someone like Fatty Kim, who murdered his own brother, and Putin whose surrogates invaded Ukraine to best the US tells me all I need to know about you and probably most leftists. You are evil people.

neverfail
Posts: 1761
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:48 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:03 pm

In other words, if half the world has to live under authoritarianism so that Europe can be shed of not having to pay for its own defence, you're fine with that.
Europe is not a unitary state of one mind. Would French troops ever want to serve under a German commander-in-chief. Would Germans want to entrust their defence security to a Frenchman?

If the Germans were to unilaterally carry the full cost of their nation's defence; without any doubt it would instigate a competitive arms race by the French who still do not trust them. Then the smaller fry would join in - just like before the World Wars.

The politics of Europe are plain wrong for any integrated European military defence policy.

The Europeans are arguably more dangerous to each other than the Russians are to them. That, not the cost, is the more likely reason why they prefer to entrust their collective defence security to an outsider non-Europe neutral like the Americans.

Jim the Moron
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:18 am

"The Europeans are arguably more dangerous to each other than the Russians are to them."
Much truth in that - look at history . . .

". . . an outsider non-Europe neutral like the Americans."
If indeed the Americans are "neutral" regarding Europe, then why have they squandered untold billions of $'s on the ungrateful Europeans? The US needs to be truly "neutral" and leave Europe to its own devices.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:48 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:03 pm

In other words, if half the world has to live under authoritarianism so that Europe can be shed of not having to pay for its own defence, you're fine with that.
Europe is not a unitary state of one mind. Would French troops ever want to serve under a German commander-in-chief. Would Germans want to entrust their defence security to a Frenchman?

If the Germans were to unilaterally carry the full cost of their nation's defence; without any doubt it would instigate a competitive arms race by the French who still do not trust them. Then the smaller fry would join in - just like before the World Wars.

The politics of Europe are plain wrong for any integrated European military defence policy.

The Europeans are arguably more dangerous to each other than the Russians are to them. That, not the cost, is the more likely reason why they prefer to entrust their collective defence security to an outsider non-Europe neutral like the Americans.
Only a non-European would say something like that. 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. It's an illusion, but one difficult to overcome. For the rest it would be relatively simple to assign 50% of each country's armed forces to Europe, with the rest left in reserve for strictly national purposes. Those 50% would be more than enough to create a credible force, properly equipped and trained to defend common European interests. Who would command such forces is irrelevant. To give you one example, the EU naval task force in the Mediterranean has already been, for a while, under the command of a Portuguese admiral. The real problem is defining a common foreign and defense policy for Europe. Once that has been achieved, common armed forces would be a minor problem. And no. Europeans are not at all dangerous to each other. We may have been incapable of reaching consensus on matters like foreign policy and defense, but the idea that we could ever fight another war among us is preposterous.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1078
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Milo » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:37 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:48 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:03 pm

In other words, if half the world has to live under authoritarianism so that Europe can be shed of not having to pay for its own defence, you're fine with that.
Europe is not a unitary state of one mind. Would French troops ever want to serve under a German commander-in-chief. Would Germans want to entrust their defence security to a Frenchman?

If the Germans were to unilaterally carry the full cost of their nation's defence; without any doubt it would instigate a competitive arms race by the French who still do not trust them. Then the smaller fry would join in - just like before the World Wars.

The politics of Europe are plain wrong for any integrated European military defence policy.

The Europeans are arguably more dangerous to each other than the Russians are to them. That, not the cost, is the more likely reason why they prefer to entrust their collective defence security to an outsider non-Europe neutral like the Americans.
Only a non-European would say something like that. 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. It's an illusion, but one difficult to overcome. For the rest it would be relatively simple to assign 50% of each country's armed forces to Europe, with the rest left in reserve for strictly national purposes. Those 50% would be more than enough to create a credible force, properly equipped and trained to defend common European interests. Who would command such forces is irrelevant. To give you one example, the EU naval task force in the Mediterranean has already been, for a while, under the command of a Portuguese admiral. The real problem is defining a common foreign and defense policy for Europe. Once that has been achieved, common armed forces would be a minor problem. And no. Europeans are not at all dangerous to each other. We may have been incapable of reaching consensus on matters like foreign policy and defense, but the idea that we could ever fight another war among us is preposterous.
So show us an EU state that says so.

neverfail
Posts: 1761
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am

Only a non-European would say something like that.
Well, I am a European in the sense that 1. I am a paler skinned Caucasian (sometimes still referred to as a white man :) ) and 2. I live in a country that can trace its heritage back to a European country and beyond that more broadly to Europe. But that I was not born and raised in Europe then you are right Sertorio.
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? :)
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
For the rest it would be relatively simple to assign 50% of each country's armed forces to Europe, with the rest left in reserve for strictly national purposes.
Since the armed forces of the various European countries are very unequal in size, cost and sophistication, their would unerringly be squabbles over who foots the bill.

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
Who would command such forces is irrelevant.
Highly relevant Sertorio; in case you have never heard of politics.
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
The real problem is defining a common foreign and defense policy for Europe.
Has this not always been the case? Look at how Europe was the seat of World Wars One and Two - not to mention countless wars fought on and from your subcontinent since time immemorial.

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
And no. Europeans are not at all dangerous to each other. We may have been incapable of reaching consensus on matters like foreign policy and defense, but the idea that we could ever fight another war among us is preposterous.
Too smug for my liking Sertorio! You must believe in them myth of progress.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:38 am

Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:37 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:48 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:03 pm

In other words, if half the world has to live under authoritarianism so that Europe can be shed of not having to pay for its own defence, you're fine with that.
Europe is not a unitary state of one mind. Would French troops ever want to serve under a German commander-in-chief. Would Germans want to entrust their defence security to a Frenchman?

If the Germans were to unilaterally carry the full cost of their nation's defence; without any doubt it would instigate a competitive arms race by the French who still do not trust them. Then the smaller fry would join in - just like before the World Wars.

The politics of Europe are plain wrong for any integrated European military defence policy.

The Europeans are arguably more dangerous to each other than the Russians are to them. That, not the cost, is the more likely reason why they prefer to entrust their collective defence security to an outsider non-Europe neutral like the Americans.
Only a non-European would say something like that. 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. It's an illusion, but one difficult to overcome. For the rest it would be relatively simple to assign 50% of each country's armed forces to Europe, with the rest left in reserve for strictly national purposes. Those 50% would be more than enough to create a credible force, properly equipped and trained to defend common European interests. Who would command such forces is irrelevant. To give you one example, the EU naval task force in the Mediterranean has already been, for a while, under the command of a Portuguese admiral. The real problem is defining a common foreign and defense policy for Europe. Once that has been achieved, common armed forces would be a minor problem. And no. Europeans are not at all dangerous to each other. We may have been incapable of reaching consensus on matters like foreign policy and defense, but the idea that we could ever fight another war among us is preposterous.
So show us an EU state that says so.
States don't "say" things. Politicians do. With the exception of the 50% quota for the European armed forces - which is an idea of mine - what I have stated corresponds very much to the views of several politicians in Europe. Maybe not the majority, but I believe they will get there.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » 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.

As to France, faking old style colonial interventions in Africa, with the remnants of the Foreign Legion, is rather pathetic. And interventions like the one in Lybia, more than pathetic is criminal.
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
For the rest it would be relatively simple to assign 50% of each country's armed forces to Europe, with the rest left in reserve for strictly national purposes.
Since the armed forces of the various European countries are very unequal in size, cost and sophistication, their would unerringly be squabbles over who foots the bill.
Like everything else in Europe, one pays proportionally to GDP.
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
And no. Europeans are not at all dangerous to each other. We may have been incapable of reaching consensus on matters like foreign policy and defense, but the idea that we could ever fight another war among us is preposterous.
Too smug for my liking Sertorio! You must believe in them myth of progress.
It's the simple truth. With the exception of the Balkans charade - which most Europeans rejected - no way we would fight again among ourselves. For instance, the idea alone of Portugal ever fighting again its traditional enemy - Spain - is a joke.

Post Reply