The Trump Presidency

[smartcooky]

Or am I just being too liberal and wishy-washy in being amazed and disappointed that we can, collectively, put people on the Moon, eradicate some illnesses, treat others very well and improve life in many ways, yet we can't seem to find ways to solve many differences that don't involve blowing the crap out of large groups of people?

In an ideal world, I agree, but it only works if both sides are willing to solve their differences that way, if at all.

In the real world, there are people/groups of people who will take advantage of your liberal wishy-washyness; they see it as a weakness to be exploited for their own gain. These people only understand "blowing the crap out of" things/people. If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.

[Geordie]

[The founding fathers] were afraid that a single person would be more likely to act for foolish or selfish reasons.

Foolish; selfish, hmm. That reminds me of someone, his name's on the tip of my tongue....

[Jason Thompson]

If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.

Seriously? Sorry, but that attitude just seems to set up the whole problem in the first place. I have less of a problem with the idea of retaliation to an actual attack, but boy do I have a big problem to anyone who answers the question: 'why did you attack that person/town/country' with: 'well, they'd attack me some day so I thought I'd better do it first'.

It was put humorously by Dave Allen decades ago when he told the story of his father telling him when he went to school that there will be someone there who'll want to hit him. That's a bully. All bullies are cowards, so if you hit him first he'll run away. Within a week he was expelled for being a bully, going around hitting everyone first before they could hit him!

I think it's ridiculous to try to justify actually killing a bunch of people on the grounds that one day they will kill you. Really? When the first world war began every combatant believed, adamantly, they were waging a defensive war. Some a defence against actual invasion, some a defence against perceived future threats, but all believed they were defending their homes and all believed that right and god was on their side. Someone has to be the first to say 'actually, there's no point in killing and blowing things up, or we'll just end up with thousands of people getting slaughtered for the sake of capturing a few miles of blasted mud with nothing useful left standing on it', or we end up... well, we know how that ended up.

Anyway, my point was not to suggest how things should be done, but to point out how sad it is that we have advanced so much but still resort to sabre rattling and destructive action to show off our might rather than finding other ways to settle differences that don't involve the collateral damage of innocent deaths. However either side feels about it, surely everyone can recognise that destructive conflict is not in anyone's interests? I don't have a solution, but that doesn't mean I can't be dismayed about it or feel that people in positions of power should be doing their damndest to find that solution rather than making sure we all have the capability to blow up entire countries, just in case, and every so often blasting a little chunk of one of them just to make sure they get the message.

[Glom]

God was on all their sides. But as the Professor said, perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything.

[gillianren]

[The founding fathers] were afraid that a single person would be more likely to act for foolish or selfish reasons.

Foolish; selfish, hmm. That reminds me of someone, his name's on the tip of my tongue....

Yeah, can't imagine who.

I'm generally disdainful of people who say "the Founding Fathers thought," or similar.  The example I tend to give is that if Alexander Hamilton'd said the sky was blue, three guys at least would've gone to the window.  But I think it's quite clear from the remaining notes we have about the Constitutional Convention that preventing a Trump-like figure is exactly why the Constitution spells out the kinds of checks and balances it does.

[smartcooky]

If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.

Seriously? Sorry, but that attitude just seems to set up the whole problem in the first place.

Jason its not an "attitude" is reality

Do you really think there was any possibility of negotiating with Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930's? I mean, really?

On September 30, 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned to England from the Munich Conference. On the tarmac at Heston Aerodrome, West London, he waved a piece of paper about, and said "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time". He might as well have used it to wipe his arse for all it was worth....in less than 12 months Hitler's invaded Poland and soon after, the war began. Hitler never had any intention of honoring that agreement. He just used the delays yo build up his forces.

Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?

[Zakalwe]

Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?

It's a tricky one. We used to say that we couldn't negotiate with the IRA too. Or ETA.

[Glom]

The question is could ISIS ever get war weary as the IRA did? And would we be able to offer anything? Putting an end to the Protestant Ascendency redux, which had been going on in Northern Ireland since partition, was something quite valuable that made the IRA able to think they had gotten something.

[gillianren]

As a general principle, though, not every first strategy should be "bomb them first."  We've managed to go quite a long time without bombing North Korea.  Stalin was awful, but bombing the Soviet Union would have been worse for more people than not, no matter what Churchill thought, especially once nuclear weapons became a possibility.  His people would have been better off without him, to be sure, but stalemate did happen between his regime and the US.

[twik]

Forgive my political naivety, but isn't allowing the President to act unilaterally when it comes to military action against any other country because there's too much risk of the plans being leaked if Congressional approval is sought solving the wrong problem? Might even be advantageous if military plans were leaked on all sides, since that would effectively create a military stalemate where no actual shooting or bombardment would happen because everyone knows and is prepared for it, thus rendering it pointless.

Or am I just being too liberal and wishy-washy in being amazed and disappointed that we can, collectively, put people on the Moon, eradicate some illnesses, treat others very well and improve life in many ways, yet we can't seem to find ways to solve many differences that don't involve blowing the crap out of large groups of people?

Well, yes, it might be advantageous if all sides leaked equally. But it's unlikely that we could get North Korea or even Russia to have the relatively tolerant approach to leakers that the Western countries have.

[smartcooky]

Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?

It's a tricky one. We used to say that we couldn't negotiate with the IRA too. Or ETA.

You can't really make that comparison.

The IRA was strictly a local group that attacked the British in Ireland and in England.
The ETA were similar but were based in the Basque Country and attacked the Spanish and the French.

Neither group...

► used brainwashed members with no fear of death as suicide bombers
► declared war on the rest of the world
► had tens of thousand of followers world-wide traveling to Ireland/Basque Country to join in the fight
► had followers world-wide carrying out terrorist acts.


The IRA were always willing to negotiate, its just that what they wanted (a unified Ireland and the British out of Ireland completely) was totally unacceptable to the British. It was the British Government who refused to negotiate.

Likewise, ETA wanted independence for the Basque provinces of Álava, Biscay and Gipuzkoa (in Spain) and Labourd, Basse-Navarre and Soule (in France). and were willing to negotiate for it. Neither France or Spain were willing to have talks.

ISIS, on the other hand, are totally uninterested negotiating. They have no a specific aim beyond controlling the rubble pile that is their patch of ground. They appear to be an angry horde of insane individuals who routinely murder people over what they wear, what they say and what they believe. They consider anyone who is not of their unique form of Islam has no right to be alive. Every single one of us non-believers; you, me, everyone on this forum, in all our respective countries, is Infidel, and is therefore marked for execution. We all have targets on our backs.

Negotiation with groups of this type of mentality and holding this kind of belief system, is impossible. There are only two things you can do;

1. Put yourself behind an impenetrable wall and hope that it really is impenetrable.

2. Wipe them out before they wipe you out.

[AstroBrant]

I know I'm coming in late in this discussion, but I thought I should go on record.

I have never been a very "political" person -- at least not until Trump was nominated. I was shocked that there were enough Americans with so little regard for their government and so much contempt for facts, decency, integrity, intelligence, maturity, professionality, and competence as to actually put someone like that in a presidential race. Clinton was not a great candidate, but Trump was a nightmare. I was horrified when he was elected. I feel this marks the death of the American democratic ideal. I fear that the world will never view my country with respect again. What's worse, this could result in unprecedented international catastrophe. At the very least it validates all the worst kind of thinking that we find so commonly among conspiracy theorists, woo-woos, religious fundamentalists, and political extremists. For a long time, regarding such types, I've been saying, "These people serve on juries?? Vote?? Have children?? Drive cars??"

Well, now we see the results. Idiocracy is officially here. 

Since the election, my online time has been dominated by this frightening situation. It has caused me to neglect my video-making. In November, I was in the middle of a video response to a flat Earth video, and haven't touched it since. I really must get back to that.

Speaking of which, I've been asking several flat-Earthers if they were Trump fans. I'd really love to know how much of a correlation there is.

I know I will lose some friends over this. That's sad.

[Peter B]

If you don't do it to them first, they will eventually do it to you.

Seriously? Sorry, but that attitude just seems to set up the whole problem in the first place.

Jason its not an "attitude" is reality

Do you really think there was any possibility of negotiating with Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930's? I mean, really?

Yes, I think there was. Hitler was an opportunist - he kept pushing as long as he thought he'd face no opposition. Remember, when he gave orders for the army to reoccupy the Rhineland, they included the condition that if the French army made any move the German forces were to immediately abandon the reoccupation.

Had Hitler been faced by a united front of nations he would have been unwilling to risk war, because up to 1940 Germany simply didn't have the military strength to fight a two-front war. It wouldn't have removed Hitler from power but it would have kept peace in Europe (with the ongoing possibility of a military coup removing Hitler).

On September 30, 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned to England from the Munich Conference. On the tarmac at Heston Aerodrome, West London, he waved a piece of paper about, and said "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time". He might as well have used it to wipe his arse for all it was worth....in less than 12 months Hitler's invaded Poland and soon after, the war began. Hitler never had any intention of honoring that agreement. He just used the delays yo build up his forces.

But so did the British and French. It's worth considering the difference to the RAF an extra year of rearmament allowed.

The Polish invasion was only possible because someone else had managed to negotiate an agreement with Hitler. Had the British and French been serious about an agreement with Stalin (and forced the Poles to come along with them) Hitler wouldn't have had a hope of invading Poland. As it was German forces were being rushed over to the Western Front even before the conquest of Poland was complete.

Do you think ISIS can be negotiated with... really?

Yes. Everyone has their price.

Consider that for all their bluster about destroying old monuments they're actually making a fair amount of money from the sale of antiquities on the black market. So they're perfectly happy to compromise their principles if there's money involved. And once money is involved it's simply a matter of working out the most effective way to spend money in such a way as to ruin the organisation from the inside.

Let me give a couple of examples. Back in the 10th century, in that part of the world, the Byzantine Empire was fighting against a particularly skillful Muslim general named Sayf Ed-Dawla. But the Byzantines were also skilled in winning wars without having to do much fighting. So, for example, one year the local Byzantine general, John Curcuas, sent bags of gold with letters addressed to senior subordinate generals of Sayf. The letters thanked these men for their assistance. Curcuas then arranged for the letters and gold to fall into Sayf's hands. Sayf had his subordinates arrested and interrogated to find out what assistance they'd given to Curcuas. They'd done nothing wrong, of course, but the interrogations and loss of trust meant that Sayf's planned campaign for that year had to be abandoned.

Similarly, one of the methods used to defeat the Huk Rebellion in the Philippines in the early 1950s involved offering rewards for the capture of various leaders, but offering lower rewards for the highest-ranked leaders. This led to internal bickering between the various leaders over who thought themselves the most significant.

[Zakalwe]

^^All of the above.

If your favourite, or only, tool is a hammer then all problems look like nails.

[Peter B]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-14/nothing-unpredictable-about-dangerous-north-korea/8444778

Here's an interesting assessment of North Korea, which pretty much tallies with comments I've made in the past over at UM about the current leadership of that delightful country.

...the Kim regime is dangerous, brutal and petulant but if anything, predictable.

= = = =

Incidentally, on the issue of whether you can negotiate with terrorists, another example I read about was a method used by the US military occupying forces in Iraq to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda: they set up a Sunni self-defence militia and invited any local Sunnis to join, no questions asked.

They were paid a small allowance - small in Western terms, but enough money that members of the militia didn't need to work. The result was that large numbers of Al Qaeda members deserted that organisation to join the militia, patrolling their communities alongside American troops they'd been shooting at only weeks before. The number of AQ attacks went down, the militia were respected by their community, and the cost in terms of salaries was far smaller than the cost of sending hundreds of resented American soldiers in to patrol the communities.

Of course, it raises a bunch of questions: What did the American soldiers think of walking the streets with men who'd probably been responsible for the deaths of their own comrades? Was it moral or ethical to take such a mercenary stand in relation to people who'd previously sworn their opposition to the USA?

But this is the problem you get when you treat a group or a country as some sort of eternal enemy and pre-emptively rule out any possibility of negotiation. For one thing, when circumstances dictate that you do have to negotiate with them then you look like a hypocrite (think of the various Western hostages in Lebanon back in the 1980s whose eventual liberation relied on American negotiations with their supposed arch-enemy Iran). For another thing becoming too doctrinaire or belligerent when speaking about a current enemy makes it that much harder to back down later if you need to ask for their assistance. Consider the way Admiral Bill Halsey spoke during World War Two about Japanese people in general, and consider that if his attitude had permeated the American occupation forces in the years after the end of the war, it would have been that much harder to use Japan as a staging post for American and allied forces in South Korea.

That's why, in terms of foreign relations, I think it's better to be a guarded pragmatist - you never know when today's enemy might be a useful ally.

So in that regard (with both North Korea and Syria) I'm fairly positive about Rex Tillerson as Trump's Secretary of State.