impeachment stupidity

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Gotcha - sorry, I don't speak anything other than English well enough to have a discussion like this. I'll assume bigotry wasn't what was intended.

Yes, geopolitical interest. Like any other nation, no. You might say any other nation´s government would act alike being in the position of US government, and I would possibly agree.
Forgive me, but this is simply not true. Every nation has geopolitical imperatives. This is why, generally speaking, nations pursue more or less the same interests as leaders and administrations come and go. These are long-term imperatives, not short-term ones. And, of course, dramatic upheaval events like WWII can of course change these dramatically.

Every government from every nation acts in their own self-interest. We may hope that the self-interest of the government aligns with the self-interest of the governed, but that is not always the case. 

Whose geopolitical interest? The wellbeing of the US people? I don´t think so (and I could go on about why, for now just briefly telling where I´m coming from). I rather think it is in the geopolitical interest of big economic entities, to sustain an ideology of everlasting growth and maybe a notion of "greatness", the imperial thought.
Depends on how you slice it. If we step back pretty far from this, try to divorce ourselves from emotion and look at this as if we were an alien or outside observer... nothing the US has done in the post-WWII era has been completely, wholly irrational. Yes, errors, but no inexplicable acts. The US has one simple geopolitical imperative: defend the mainland of the US by maintaining maritime supremacy, military, and economic projection of power. They're interrelated. And in a post-9/11 world, the Global War on Terrorism fits this precisely. Our activity in the ME is an extension of this. Our actions against the USSR in the Cold War, including successful and failed proxy wars match this. Our current somewhat belligerent stance against China matches this.  This has been good for the people of the United States by almost any measure. And what's more, good for the world. The second half of the 20th century will likely be considered some kind of pax-Americana in history books... it is one of the most peaceful times, globally, in the recorded history of the world.

You can do these kind of geopolitical studies for every nation.

British Isles: Island provides for natural defense, maritime supremacy is a key to protecting the island proper.

Germany: little natural defense, defending itself requires projection east or west  and securing deepwater maritime access.

Russia: natural defense-in-depth to the east, defense-in-depth of the heartland requires projection of power into the European plain (i.e., Eastern Europe) and south into the Caucasus mountains. Very little deepwater port access, making Crimea / Sevastopol a key geopolitical target.

Etc., etc., etc. When you look at things this way, many actions of the past few centuries are logical, and you can even predict behavior of nations to some degree. Throw energy into the mix and you can understand almost every conflict from WWII on.

I don't think America makes sense as an empire. She is not a conqueror. Go to Normandy and you'll see the quote: "If ever proof were needed that we fought for a cause and not for conquest, it could be found in these cemeteries. Here was our only conquest: all we asked was enough soil in which to bury our gallant dead." America is, however, a hegemon, and acts as such.

This is why you have no problem with saying America is "responsible". You're identifying the responsibility with a part who has the means to actually effect change. But this is untenable. America is not responsible for the world writ large simply because she can in theory address each individual problem. The reality is we lack both the resources and the will to handle all the problems, and perhaps even the things that are in our rational self-interest go without doing at times because of this.

it would be sophism and even cynicism in the context of my experience. And a crime in the context of international law btw., if that still matters -or has ever mattered- to anyone.
To me all those great power wielding men (U.S. or otherwise) are to put it with Bukowski "just another swinging dick".
They don´t even get the destruction they cause and don´t care.
I´m refusing to argue about this as a matter of political strategy. The Kurds are just plowed under because it´s just too annoying and looks not like a good investment atm to help them. Nothing to do with young american soldiers.
I think this is both true and false. First, "international law" is a bunch of horsecrap. Nothing done in the ME has been done unilaterally - including this latest foray in Syria. The SDF has been supported by France, the US, Germany and I'm sure others. You want to criticize, criticize policy, not people. Because these policies extend from before and after current administrations in multiple nations.

Yes, I believe there are power-hungry people in positions of power. I think there are people who absolutely put their own self-interest above that of their fellow citizens, and certainly above other people in the world. But this is always the case, and it is true in every country, every nation, every city.

Most people have absolutely no contextual frame of reference for this conflict. The current Kurdish struggle in the Middle East dates back to WWI. The outburst today is simply the outrage du jour. This immediate issue of the Kurds in Syria go back to the Obama Administration's actions when we began to supply arms directly to Kurdish elements of the SDF.

Here's a link from 2016 where the White House is talking about directly arming not only SDF but YPG.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161031120226/http://aranews.net/2016/09/us-sending-arms-kurdish-led-sdf-syria-turkeys-erdogan-outraged/

Of note:
...the White House will most likely push through directly arming the SDF.

“They will, but the question is to what end. It’s logical to expect the US directly arming the Kurds to encourage them to move towards Raqqah and redirecting them away from areas north of Aleppo, which could bring them in conflict with Turkey,” he said.

The move will likely be opposed by Turkey.

“By giving them [Kurdish fighters] weapons, you’re endangering our future,” Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Bloomberg News.

So what do we do? The Syrian civil war is not our fault, it is not our problem. We meddled. We got involved - the "why" is to project power away from the US mainland to disrupt bad actors (i.e., ISIS / Daesh) - but the fact is this isn't our fight. And right there, three years ago!! the outcome was easily seen.

But we didn't "use" the Kurds. This is illogical. We armed them, we trained them. We provided them support, apparently including fighting with them.  When you stop providing support, you don't harm people. If you fall on hard times, and I give you $10 a day for food, and then one day I can't any more, have I abandoned you? Betrayed you? No.  No, the US helped the Kurds and frankly I'd be extremely surprised if we aren't still arming them.

I agree with you: war is hell. But it is a given, we live in a fallen world filled with bad, mean people who want to do bad, mean things to others. The answer is to do what is best, what is right.  I admire that you're not arguing about this as political strategy, but I think 99% of others are.
 
Trump's big scary letter to Erdogan: 



    Dear Mr. President:

    Let’s work out a good deal! You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people, and I don’t want to be responsible for destroying the Turkish economy—and I will. I’ve already given you a little sample with respect to Pastor Brunson.

    I have worked hard to resolve some of your problems. Don’t let the world down. You can make a great deal. General Mazloum is willing to negotiate with you, and he is willing to make concessions that they never would have made in the past. I am confidentially enclosing his letter to me, just received.

    History will look upon you favorably if you get this the right and humane way. It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don’t happen. Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!

    I will call you later.


This is diplomacy?  This is our President?  This is a grown-up??????

 
There are still those who think he plays 3D chess. It seems very unlikely to me.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Jacques Abbadie (most likely, not Lincoln, to whom it is widely but incorrectly attributed).
 
The pinnacle of eloquence, is it not?  ;D

I think its hilarious.

On the other hand, we're getting a rare opportunity to see how the sausage is made. I don't have a doubt in my mind that President Obama's or President Bush's diplomatic missives were more eloquent - probably also went through six rounds of speechwriters.  At least here we have verbiage we don't have to parse... for better or worse, this is crystal clear. This isn't 3D chess. This is very straightforward.

Reading the tea leaves here I think Erdogan was probably going to do something one way or another.  At that point you have an option: dare him to shoot at US troops, or say this is somebody else's problem (SEP). The US and Turkey were on a crash course over the SDF since this began. I think President Trump concluded this is an SEP.

Guess we'll see what happens, whether Mr. Trump really can make good on crippling the Turkish economy. Erdogan is a bad guy anyway, right? Best outcome here is two birds one stone: get US out of Syria, and maybe even knock Turkey down a peg. Worst outcome is a big war in the ME - but even then hopefully it's one the US can watch rather than be involved in.
 
The old joke is that Americans learn geography from fighting wars.

A new version of that joke is that Americans now learn civics and constitutional law from recent opposition political maneuvers.  8)

JR
 
hodad said:
Trump's big scary letter to Erdogan: 



    Dear Mr. President:

    Let’s work out a good deal! You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people, and I don’t want to be responsible for destroying the Turkish economy—and I will. I’ve already given you a little sample with respect to Pastor Brunson.

    I have worked hard to resolve some of your problems. Don’t let the world down. You can make a great deal. General Mazloum is willing to negotiate with you, and he is willing to make concessions that they never would have made in the past. I am confidentially enclosing his letter to me, just received.

    History will look upon you favorably if you get this the right and humane way. It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don’t happen. Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!

    I will call you later.


This is diplomacy?  This is our President?  This is a grown-up??????

We've forgotten how to do political letters...

IE:

Sultan Mehmed IV to the Zaporozhian Cossacks:

As the Sultan; son of Muhammad; brother of the sun and moon; grandson and viceroy of God; ruler of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Upper and Lower Egypt; emperor of emperors; sovereign of sovereigns; extraordinary knight, never defeated; steadfast guardian of the tomb of Jesus Christ; trustee chosen by God Himself; the hope and comfort of Muslims; confounder and great defender of Christians - I command you, the Zaporogian Cossacks, to submit to me voluntarily and without any resistance, and to desist from troubling me with your attacks.

--Turkish Sultan Mehmed IV

The Cossacks' reply came as a stream of invective and vulgar rhymes:

Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!

O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil's kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are thou, that canst not slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil shits, and your army eats. Thou shalt not, thou son of a whore, make subjects of Christian sons; we have no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck thy mother.

Thou Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw thine own mother!

So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won't even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we'll conclude, for we don't know the date and don't own a calendar; the moon's in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day's the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!

- Koshovyi otaman Ivan Sirko, with the whole Zaporozhian Host.
 
Haha yes. Or the famous exchange between Philip of Macedon and Sparta:

"If I invade Lakonia you will be destroyed, never to rise again"

And their reply:

"If."

8)
 
Emoluments.  It's in the Constitution.

WaPo:
Trump has awarded next year’s G-7 summit of world leaders to his Miami-area resort, the White House said

E mol u ments.
 
hodad said:
Emoluments.  It's in the Constitution.

WaPo:
Trump has awarded next year’s G-7 summit of world leaders to his Miami-area resort, the White House said

E mol u ments.
I told you politics was teaching constitutional law to the public...  ;D

Emoluments clauses are hard to enforce and the Fourth circuit recently dismissed an emoluments case filed by Washington DC and state of MD, against President Trump for foreign and state government visitors staying at his Washington hotel.  (The case was dismissed due to lack of standing to claim damages, so keep trying guys).

Since President Trump does not even accept a salary (in fact he can't just not take a salary, so has to donate it back to charities each quarter). The claims that he is ginning up business for his hotels seems like chump change.

JR

PS: President Trump should pardon President Obama for breaking the emoluments clause by accepting the >$1M Nobel Peace prize.  (Press Obama reportedly donated that prize money to charity.)
 
JohnRoberts said:
PS: President Trump should pardon President Obama for breaking the emoluments clause by accepting the >$1M Nobel Peace prize.  (Press Obama reportedly donated that prize money to charity.)

I don't think the Nobel Foundation qualifies as a "King, Prince, or foreign State".
 
JohnRoberts said:
I told you politics was teaching constitutional law to the public...  ;D

Emoluments clauses are hard to enforce and the Fourth circuit recently dismissed an emoluments case filed by Washington DC and state of MD, against President Trump for foreign and state government visitors staying at his Washington hotel.  (The case was dismissed due to lack of standing to claim damages, so keep trying guys).

Since President Trump does not even accept a salary (in fact he can't just not take a salary, so has to donate it back to charities each quarter). The claims that he is ginning up business for his hotels seems like chump change.

JR

PS: President Trump should pardon President Obama for breaking the emoluments clause by accepting the >$1M Nobel Peace prize.  (Press Obama reportedly donated that prize money to charity.)
The Washington Hotel case is back on by the way...

The FULL US court of appeals has agreed to rehear the case since it was dismissed by three republicans (one appointed by trump)...

 
JohnRoberts said:
I told you politics was teaching constitutional law to the public...  ;D

Emoluments clauses are hard to enforce and the Fourth circuit recently dismissed an emoluments case filed by Washington DC and state of MD, against President Trump for foreign and state government visitors staying at his Washington hotel. charities each quarter). The claims that he is ginning up business for his hotels seems like chump change.

Just because something is hard to enforce doesn't mean it isn't wrong or unconstitutional.  I think it's fair to say the emoluments clause is especially hard to enforce because of lack of precedent.  Certainly every president in my lifetime has made the effort to comply--Carter, Obama, Clinton, the Bushes, Nixon--even Dick Cheney as VP did not flout the emoluments clause. 

Trump is making millions off of foreign govts. and corporate interests who book rooms in his hotels (sometimes not even staying in them) in an attempt to curry favor with his administration.  That doesn't include the millions spent on his weekend golf trips. 

You may or may not have noticed that one of the Appeals Courts just recently said it would rehear one of the emoluments cases (the first dismissal was by a 3-judge panel; now the case will be heard by the full court.) 

To paraphrase Brandeis:  We may not be able to get a conviction on emoluments, but we know it when we see it. 

You see it, you know it.  Excusing it because it's hard to bring charges on is weak.
 
living sounds said:
JohnRoberts said:
PS: President Trump should pardon President Obama for breaking the emoluments clause by accepting the >$1M Nobel Peace prize.  (Press Obama reportedly donated that prize money to charity.)
I don't think the Nobel Foundation qualifies as a "King, Prince, or foreign State".
I think JR might be on to something. Clearly there was a quid pro quo here. In exchange for the Nobel medal, Obama was expected to promote peace around the world. How diabolical!
 
Sometimes I think President Trump might be intentionally trolling the opposition to keep them off balance.  ::)

I don't give him that much credit, but he does pretty much dominate the news cycle, for better and worse, often distracting from his own messaging. 

JR
 

Latest posts

Back
Top