US Politics: Redefining National Security

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

The good news is that the speed and virulence of the reaction seems to have completed knocked Trump for six. He clearly expected some hand-wringing and complaints, not being bombarded with calls from allies telling him to knock it off, mass demonstrations across the country and the threat of retaliation from other countries. His last statement was bizarrely contrite by his standards, but he's not backed down yet.

There needs to be unambiguous clarity on what's going on. Britain has been told officially by the US Foreign Office of a set of rules which states that people don't need to worry if they have green cards, or if they're coming from a country other than one of the seven (even if they're from one of those countries) or if they have dual nationality. But the actual border checks are still stopping people on all of those basis.

Bad news is that next time they do something on this scale, they'll know to be prepared for it.

 

You have rather read a bit much into that in Mein Kampf, as he did criticise Britain a lot for its relationships with Japan and the USA. Britain was a country Hitler felt he "could do business with", but he didn't understand that the dodgy stuff Britain has done - the treatment of Ireland and South Africa, among others - was not the result of any widespread ideological belief in racial supremacy but because of an overwhelming attitude of laissez faire economics and indifference to suffering until someone in Surrey got upset over it and organised a petition, at which point the policy would rather rapidly be booted out the door no matter how profitable it was (see how relatively painlessly Britain outlawed slavery compared to the United States). He drastically overestimated the British desire for fascism and really, really did not understand why Britain stayed in the war when all hope appeared lost. By the time he got to 1940 and Churchill and Halifax told him to go fuck himself (after the peace offer after the fall of France), his attitude to Britain had dramatically changed and he was heard screaming that he planned to deport the entire male population of the country as slaves.

Hitler's relative well disposition towards the UK might be explained by Britain invading Russia for no readily discernible reason after WWI, and his belief that there was a hatred of Communism in Britain that he could work with. Oddly that might have worked (Churchill hated Stalin possibly more than Hitler, even when he was allied to him) if British public opinion hadn't been partially swayed by pro-Communist stories of the Spanish Civil War.

 

 

Only if you forget that Russia was in play as an ally of Britain and especially France in 1938. It's one of the reasons Munich happened, Poland refused to give Russian troops free passage across their territory (for extremely understandable reasons, as came to pass anyway), Britain and France decided not to pressure Poland into acquiescing and Stalin pointed out that he couldn't effectively invade Germany by sea and air, so the realistic threat of military reprisals against Germany evaporated.

 

The state of the German military in 1938 was not particularly impressive. The real behemoth of mass war industrialisation and the creation of the resulting war machine didn't really starting kicking in until later in 1939, and when Britain and France declared war the Germans had a real fear of them attacking the Ruhr because they couldn't defend that region and attack Poland simultaneously. They were baffled when the British and French declared war and then didn't do anything for almost nine months.

 

That's all a bit off-topic though. Isn't it about time we had another WWII thread?

I made one. It is called Historical Help: Munich 1938. You are quoted in the OP. Can you paste your post there?

Sorry for the derail.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Government doesn't equal country, I think he was talking more about globalist elites of both parties that form government right now. If so, he has my full support.

Reading comprehension fail. 

[Fragile Bird]

5 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

There is a big difference between a total sovereign default and just doing it against the debts to a specific country. That said, considering China only owns about 5% of US gov. debt the entire problem is a bit of a non issue anyway. China could dump all their American bonds on the market and it still probably wouldn't make too much of a difference. 

China only has 5.4% of the debt in large part because the US Goverment purchased so much of its debt through the quantitative easing, an alternative to but essentially the same as printing money. The total debt is $19.9 T,  and the largest portion is owed to Social Security, $2.8 T, which is why Republicans talk about the coming crisis in social security and the need to cut benefits. They don't see how it's going to be paid back.

The two biggest foreign debt holders are Japan and China, with $1.1 T and $1.04 T respectively.  Ireland, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg are #3, 4 and 7, holding a total of $756 B. They are assumed to be basically surrogates for sovereign funds that don't want to be identified. So if China dumped it's bonds, and the world's sovereign funds are already up to their necks, what country is going to step in? As I said, interest rates could be manipulated up, meaning the US would have a heck of a lot more interest to pay. Add to that the fact if all kinds of imported goods go up by a chunk of money, inflation will come roaring back.

I recently read an interview with the world's most successful long term bond investor, and he points out the velocity of money is at a long term low, 1.44 times, which indicates that interest rates should continue to remain low for a long time. But other investment houses are warning of the possibility of a disruptive Black Swan event occurring under Trump, meaning all bets would be off about where the US economy and maybe the world economy go.

[sToNED_CAT]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The good news is that the speed and virulence of the reaction seems to have completed knocked Trump for six. He clearly expected some hand-wringing and complaints, not being bombarded with calls from allies telling him to knock it off, mass demonstrations across the country and the threat of retaliation from other countries. His last statement was bizarrely contrite by his standards, but he's not backed down yet.

Of course they expected minor demonstrations (that's what they were), threats of retaliation and "allies" lecturing. Why should he back down? Even if the restrictions against green card holders are repealed, most important parts of ban should stay. In few months it will become an acceptable part of US foreign policy and everybody will adapt to new reality.

[Ormond]

23 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Of course they expected minor demonstrations (that's what they were), threats of retaliation and "allies" lecturing. Why should he back down? Even if the restrictions against green card holders are repealed, most important parts of ban should stay. In few months it will become an acceptable part of US foreign policy and everybody will adapt to new reality.

Nope. You greatly underestimate the constituency for helping refugees from countries like Syria among Americans, as well as the opposition to a ban which directly uses someone's religion as a criterion for whether or not they enter the country. "Everybody" is just NOT going to "adapt to the new reality". If the executive order stays in place as now written -- even with the green card holders ban rescinded -- there will be continuing demonstrations. This is the issue that will galvanize the "liberal" religious community to mobilize in a way not seen since the anti-segregation demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s. This is not going to be meekly accepted and adapted to.

[ThinkerX]

As has become my habit this past year or so, I have been reading the 'comments' sections of various political articles.

Past day or so, I have been paying especially close attention to the comments in those pertaining to the 'Moslem Ban' (for want of a better term.)

The vast majority of those comments are supportive of President Trumps actions on this matter.

Make of that what you will.

[Werthead]

Quote

Of course they expected minor demonstrations (that's what they were), threats of retaliation and "allies" lecturing. Why should he back down? Even if the restrictions against green card holders are repealed, most important parts of ban should stay. In few months it will become an acceptable part of US foreign policy and everybody will adapt to new reality.

Well, it's illegal under the 1965 laws which mean that people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of the country of origin, and it arguably breaches the Constitution. Trump can actually simply sidestep that issue using the same laws used to limit Cuban immigration, but that means going through Congress and getting them to rubberstamp it.

So if it stays in place, it's going to be through Trump bowing down and working with the Republicans in Congress to do it, which he could have done in the first place but presumably didn't because he thought it'd make him look weak. But getting one of his first motions, and his first big campaign promise, shot down in the courts is going to make look a lot weaker.

What's really idiotic about this is that if it wasn't for this shitstorm, people would probably all be talking about the commando raid Trump ordered in Yemen which wiped out a bunch of Al-Qaeda terrorists, which actually does make look more serious about tackling Islamic extremists at the source (although it doesn't fit the "Trump won't be fighting wars in other countries" narrative either).

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I think Altherion's wrong strategically. If Trump had just ordered a moratorium on refugees, there'd be some handwringing, and that's probably be it. But by banning entry of permanent residents, he's associated the moratorium on refugees with banning of people like Luol Deng or Mo Farrah.

Now maybe Steve Bannon's playing the long game and hoping that one of the refugees let in will commit an act of terror, but in the short term, it seems like a blunder.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Serious question. How bad does this have to get before the Generals step in?

Open warfare in the streets or a coup by a different group (the executive branch, some random alliance of intelligence and security agencies, etc.). They are unlikely to step in otherwise because it would almost certainly result in open warfare in the streets. Unlike most (though not all) countries, the US has a significant number of civilians armed with fairly decent (albeit semi-automatic) weapons, National Guard units specific to each state (which have more serious weapons) and a tradition of distrust for the government as old as the country. Furthermore, it's not at all obvious that if some generals got together and tried this, the entirety of the armed forces would follow them. The US military is huge, but it is decentralized: there are various services and commands and the only people at the top of the pyramid are civilians (the President and the Secretary of Defense).

Long story short, I wouldn't bet money on it.

[The Anti-Targ]

And a lot of people in the military support, for the most part, what Trump is doing, I imagine.

[LongRider]

I'm no fan of the Koch brothers but here's this:

Quote

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. — Leaders of the influential Koch network on Sunday expressed opposition to President Trump's ban on refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, saying the executive order is not in keeping with their aims to build a free and open society.

“We believe it is possible to keep Americans safe without excluding people who wish to come here to contribute and pursue a better life for their families,” said Brian Hooks, the president of the Charles Koch Foundation, who is co-chairing a weekend conference of donors who help finance the Koch operation.

“The travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive,” he added. “Our country has benefited tremendously from a history of welcoming people from all cultures and backgrounds. This is a hallmark of free and open societies.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/koch-network-condemns-trump-ban-on-refugees-and-immigrants/?utm_term=.6b0a98822153

[Squab]

11 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

banning of people like Luol Deng or Mo Farrah

Mo Farrah is not a dual National. He is British and does not hold a Somalian passport.  Deng is also British but I dont know if he is a dual national.  Theon Maker is a dual national (Aus and South Sudan) and made it back into the states from Toronto. I'm having a lot of trouble working out whether dual nationals are allowed to enter, can anyone tell?

I understand green card holders are fine to enter as well. Didn't John Kelly do something about this?

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

I think the Bannon white nationalist folks wanted a return to law and order.  The 80's were a terrible time for that.  

 

Well of course, that was more the LA Law period of time.

[Mexal]

The contrast...

 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I'm no fan of the Koch brothers but here's this:

This is really amusing: the corporatist GOP types have nowhere to go. Trump gave the vast majority of their base a better alternative so they're trying to move towards the corporatist liberals... but the latter have hated them for decades and aren't going to stop now.

[Tempra]

SCOTUS nominee possibly coming tomorrow.  God help the poor soul who is about to feel the wrath of the mob.

 

http://www.abc-7.com/story/34374356/white-house-supreme-court-choice-could-be-announced-monday

[Dr. Pepper]

Oh yes, sky fairies help the person who is almost surely being selected because he will likely vote against the civil rights and liberties of Americans.  

[Fragile Bird]

Good grief, I just read Trump chose National Holocaust Remembrance Day to sign the executive order creating the temporary ban on entry.

I wonder what genius thought that one up.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Serious question. How bad does this have to get before the Generals step in?

Civilian control is deeply engrained in the US Military.  I doubt a coup would be successful without a complete collapse and disillusion of the US.

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Good grief, I just read Trump chose National Holocaust Remembrance Day to sign the executive order creating the temporary ban on entry.

I wonder what genius thought that one up.

The White House also failed to mention Jews or anti-semitism in their Holocaust Remembrance Day Statement.  It's hard for anyone to deny that this was all deliberately done.