Extreme by our standards, not theirs.
I guess we can drastically cut military spending in that case.
So what happens to the money we saved? Where’s the money we saved from withholding military aid to Pakistan for instance. What about all the rest? Is it being put back into the economy? Is it being used to build and fix roads, bridges, infrastructure or being used to line some politician’s pockets? I haven’t seen any benefits from withholding that money, have you?
So what about the second part of the question? Are the Chinese going to be the policemen of the world now and how will they respond if their people are attacked in a terrorist attack abroad?
While some Uyghurs were radicalized and have even provided a Salafi brigade in the Syrian Civil War, that was only an excuse to the CCP.
(it really is weird seeing jihadi videos in Mandarin Chinese)
It’s first and foremost a question of supranational identity. The modern incarnation of the Celestial Empire doesn’t like it when their subjects pledge loyalty to some community or deity that doesn’t answer to the Chinese Communist Party.
For example, the Catholic Church. The Vatican signed an agreement last year with China allowing the CCP to appoint bishops (!) but it hasn’t stopped the anti-catholic campaigns.
The sinicisation campaign began last February, with new regulations on religious activities. The destruction of churches, crosses, paintings, etc. began in Henan, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia and spread to Zhejiang, Jiangxi and other provinces.
Since the Sino-Vatican agreement was signed, the pace of destruction has increased. According to various observers, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and the United Front – which are in charge of religious activities – have launched a campaign to wreck the agreement.
The CCP also regularly freaks out over the Dalai Lama and Tibet. Now, imagine their stance towards Islam, a religious-political system that directly preaches submission to God, adherence to the community of believers (the Umma) and rejection of infidel laws. For China it doesn’t get any more subversive than that.
Also, it’s worth noting that around a third of Uyghurs look very Caucasian, meaning that their oppression can be very unsettling even for Western liberals.
1 Like
We didn’t. That’s why it’s so weird that we’re caught in a loop of boosting defense spending and bleeding global presence. Hellava thing, eh @treco?
We would need to actually withhold it first. At the moment we’re just spending it (more) elsewhere
1 Like
They may respond but they aren’t setting up concentration camps in other countries.
1 Like
None of here have ever been in a national security negotiation.
Only some here have ever been in a multi million (or more) dollar transactional negotiation.
Likely none have been in a negotiation involving a potentially violent outcome.
So show me how a country, president, ambassador, etc can negotiate without exhibiting both tact (in the form of give/take) tempered in varying degree, with negative inducement.
Because in the real world, that’s how it is.
You want to induce with strictly force, it’s called the Soviet Union.
You want to induce mostly with tact, it’s called NATO or NAFTA.
You want to come on this site and act like any President can DICTATE to another military heavy (hint China, Russia, and none others) - then you are only proving you have neither experience nor knowledge, of any level of negotiation.
I know you without exception hate Trump to your core. But he is the first president in decades to either reach out to Russia/Iran/N Korea or call out China/EU.
You don’t like it? So what. You can not back with any empirical evidence that it is better to allow China: to continue to steal the r/d and manufacturing of the entire world, while enlarging their military capability, and attempting to eliminate US dollar hegemony. Nor do you have evidence disproving the wisdom of seeking to integrate militaristic nations back into playing nicely in their neighborhoods. Nor even to get our own allies to get their own jobs, rather than wait on us to send them a check.
Are there mistakes, tactical blunders, and outright deceptions occuring between these negotiations? Well you acknowledge this, and 100% of the time it is US, Trump, his supporters, his lackeys, those who don’t like him but approve of his strategy… think that is really true?
If your answer is yes, knowing deep down that no entity gives something for nothing, without duress - have a nice day discussing how you would/could kick ass.
And OT.
I think we should decapitate N Korea, for loppar or whomever’s reason.
The nation is brainwashed and a rabid dog.
Though l never think that will happen.
Trump is the first president in decades to reach out to Russia, China, North Korea, Iran…?
This really is the United States of Amnesia. History didn’t start with Trump’s election, your earliest memory, Fox News, or the internet.
Did you approve of Obama’s negotiations with Iran?
But of course when Obama reached out to Iran, it was criticized that he flew billions to them in unmarked bills in total secrecy even though the treaty to do so was signed by many international members.
First thing Trump did was back out of several international agreements, the Iranian one included. It makes our future negotiations with any nation meaningless if the next elected president can basically scrap an established treaty on a whim. Our word on a global scale is worthless thanks to Trump.
How, exactly were Obama’s negotiations with Iran any better or worse than Trump meeting with the leader of North Korea? In Trump’s case, he couldn’t even get a treaty, any treaty signed. At least Obama got them to the table and had an actual agreement you could hold in your hand. Last time I read, North Korea still has nukes pointed at us. So explain what Trump’s meeting accomplished.
And as far as the China trade war goes…yes it’s terrible what the Chinese are doing, but how, exactly has the trade war helped? A steel mill across our border in Pa is on the verge of closing because of them. (NLMK Steel). Not to mention the farmers who are going bankrupt because of them. It seems the Chinese actually has something one would call “a plan” to reach out to other countries, other markets, something Trump obviously did not do since my taxpayer money is now being spent to prop up failed farms thanks to the genius Trump.
Those are actual reasons why I don’t agree with our great leader as is my right as an American citizen under The Constitution of the United States of America.
1 Like
“the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it.” - George Orwell 1984.
1 Like
What do you think are the primary reasons that China and Russia have upscaled so heavily since Trump became POTUS? Serious question. Total coincidence?
Wot?
(How did he reach out to Iran)
(Do you actually think reaching out to NK did anything except grant them a global stage?)
Given the trade war is yet to achieve anything here, we’re looking at a current negative with no payout. The old status quo would have been better, given we’ve haven’t seen a slow, but increase, of that trend.
What are the reasons you think we haven’t seen any cost savings from supposedly doing this yet? Why such drastic increases if the goal is a pullback?
(Oh, boy…)
You are WAY off, @Treco…
He may be the first to do all of the Public Dick Waving towards these entities ("Look at me! I am TOUGH, and know how to DEAL!!! I am the FIRST!!!).
Every other President has chosen to do both their Diplomacy and negotiations in ways that weren’t tweeted or required continuous public adulation.
Too bad he didn’t think anything through or come up with a plan first. He could have gotten the best economists in the country as advisers before embarking on the Trade War but obviously did not because “trade wars are easy to win”.
We should have had other nations lined up to begin importing goods from to bypass China. That strategy seems to be working well for the Chinese.
The world is playing us for fools.
Three words: Iran Nuclear Deal
A conciliatory approach by Obama didn’t work. Maybe grovelling and ritual acts of submission by Trumpkins to Putin will?
Like Afghanistan and Iraq?
I suppose your feverish brain is conjuring images of socialist Europeans idling on their five week summer vacations waiting for Uncle Sam’s check to clear.
The lion’s share of the foreign military aid funds goes to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel and Egypt.
If Trump did this exact thing all the usual suspects on this site would be screaming what a moron he is.
It has nothing to do with the policies or treaties or trade wars. It’s simply the fact that it’s Trump’s policies or treaties or trade wars. Orange man bad!!!
It’s also funny how Obama and Hillary reaching out to Russia via the Russian reset is considered diplomacy, but when trump reaches out he’s considered a Russian asset and Putin stooge.
Yes other presidents have tried to negotiate with countries like Russia, and nothing ever came of it. So I guess Trump should just keep doing what every other administration has tried even though it didn’t work? If Trump flies pallets of cash to Iran will they change their ways? Or only if the EU agrees with him? God forbid we have a president who actually tries something different to actually accomplish the goal rather than go from the same failed playbook of past presidents.
Negotiate from a position of strength like Trump?
Or go on a worldwide apology tour telling the world how crappy America is like Obama?
Like I said, for some, history started when Trump was elected.
JFK sure looked like a pussy when he backed down to the Russians.
1 Like
Are you new to this site? What about the 8 years spent blasting Obama for everything he did?
Why is it okay to criticize Obama & not Trump?