Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump Wins

Recommended Posts

It's nice to tease a bear from the window or so some say, I wonder what will happen if the bear becomes really **bleep** off? 

Is Trump going to be vindictive or....... bear24_8kb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, bigger fish than a TV parody show will put him in his place...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/one-china-policy-non-negotiable-beijing-official-warns-trump/article33625996/

So far, Beijing has reiterated its refusal to negotiate on Taiwan and to push for positive co-operation between the two sides, though state-run media have run several strongly worded editorials attacking Trump.

Chinese political observers on Sunday said they expected Beijing’s response to change once Trump is inaugurated next week.

“Trump has not taken office yet, so he is an ordinary person now,” said Shen Dingli, a professor of international relations at Fudan University. “Therefore, there’s no need for China to take his remarks seriously or further respond to what he said.”

Tang Yonghong, a professor at Xiamen University, said that China needed to convince Trump that “if he wants to make money from the Chinese mainland, he must be a friend of China instead of being an enemy.”

 

Highlighting is my emphasis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China, Russia, Iran and others have had their way geopolitically for eight years now and we should expect some push-back from them going forward following the change in the American leadership.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't all of Russia's territorial gains taken place during the Obama years?

When a geopolitical 'red line' became little more than a talking point, was it unrealistic to expect that the opposition would sense weakness and move to take advantage of the situation?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever notice that every armed conflict in the last 40 years has come under a Republican?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Haven't all of Russia's territorial gains taken place during the Obama years?

When a geopolitical 'red line' became little more than a talking point, was it unrealistic to expect that the opposition would sense weakness and move to take advantage of the situation?

 

 

The Russians took advantage of the fact that Obama was bringing home the troops as the people wanted after all those years of unjustified war under Bush.

As well, the savings therein helped reign in the U.S. deficit, much to the chagrin of the Military Industrial complex.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to add to acsidestick's post Boestar, Obama will be the first 2 term president that had not a single day when he wasn't at war.

Of course he has a Nobel peace prize so there's that...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't that fall under the heading of more 'fake news'?  How long was that little distraction they called the Cold War anyway...  ;)

In any case, a new batch arrives Friday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, here's another bit of news:

Clinton Global Initiative to shut down, lays off 22 as donations dry up

‘You see foreign governments who had pledged tens-of-millions of dollars pulling their donations’

The Clinton Global Initiative has terminated 22 employees and will soon become another casualty of the 2016 election season.

“This [group] wasn’t just for charitable ends,” Brian Morgenstern, vice president for the Manhattan Republican Party, told the network. “As the initiative is closing its doors, you see foreign governments who had pledged tens-of-millions of dollars pulling their donations now that Hillary Clinton will not be the president. That shows a lot of people that this was more than just a charity. This was a way for the Clintons to network and really peddle influence due to their positions in leadership.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/16/clinton-global-initiative-lays-off-22-as-donations/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seeker said:

Clinton Global Initiative to shut down, lays off 22 as donations dry up

But, But, the lefties denied that these 'donors' were buying influence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fido said:

But, But, the lefties denied that these 'donors' were buying influence.

You might think that since she didn't get elected she would have lots of extra time to devote to her charity.  Of course it's hard to run a charity when nobody, for some unknown reason, wants to donate anymore.  What a farce.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re wars, no outright winner here but the Democrats come out slightly better:

Tuesday Jul 19, 2016 · 3:56 AM PDT
 
 
TAGS
Share this article
 

Listening the Bob Dole speak last night, I was reminded that one of the recurring debates between Democrats and Republicans is which party is responsible for starting more wars.

Democrats have a stereotype of Republican politicians as jingoistic warmongers, while Republicans like to point out that Democratic presidents presided over the bloodiest wars of the 20th century.

But, Democrats point out that those big wars were mostly situations where the US was attacked and was perfectly justified in using force to defend itself.

Beyond the conflicts we remember, there are literally dozens of smaller wars, incidents, conflicts, occupations, invasions, and armed interventions, a few undertaken for high-minded reasons, but just as many launched out of gross venality. Democrats are responsible for some of these adventures, but Republicans are responsible for just as many or more.

So, who’s right? Which party is more likely to start wars? Which party is more likely to continue or end them?

Using the source of all wisdom, Wikipedia, I looked up all military incidents involving the US since 1861, when the first Republican president was sworn into office.

en.wikipedia.org/…

I then totaled the total number of years that each conflict ran, rounding up — even if the actual hostilities just lasted for a few weeks or months — to get “war years”. Each year of each open conflict counted as one “war year.” If the nation had two or more different wars going simultaneously, it could accrue multiple war years in a single year.

In total, I counted 200 war years over a 156 year period.

I then looked at the broad reasons for each conflict and determined whether it was a “defensive” war or an “offensive” war.

A war counted as being defensive if the US was attacked without provocation, and where the US didn’t actively provoke a war through imperialistic or aggressive behavior, or had previously attempted to use diplomacy to avoid war. A war also counted as being “defensive” if the US was operating as part of a broad humanitarian or military alliance under the auspices of NATO, the UN, or similar international body. Other types of wars counted as being “offensive.” Obviously, my criteria for “offensive” and “defensive” were subjective.

I deliberately ignored wars against Native Americans, since those were bipartisan in nature, and by including them I would have vastly skewed the total number of “war years” in favor of Republicans who dominated the White House during the late 19th century. It’s worth pointing out that Democrats and Democratic Republicans, who dominated the presidency prior to the US Civil War, would have skewed the ratio of war years right back to parity had I included pre-Civil War Indian wars.

I also ignored conflicts which didn’t directly involve US military forces, but which did involve CIA assets such as the 1956 coup in Iran, or 1980s-era aid to Nicaraguan “contra” rebels. Several “wars” on the list, such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion and operations in Thailand, are borderline cases, since they mostly used covert assets, or just used US military assets in a support role.

Cold War operations short of war also had to be ignored since they were another example of bipartisan policy.

In all, I counted 56 “war years” of Defensive Wars, and 144 “war years” of Offensive Wars.

Defensive Wars: US Civil War (4 years), Garza Revolution (1), Rio de Janeiro Affair (1), Mexican Border War (10), World War I (2 — for the US), World War II (4 — for the US), Korean War (4), Multinational Force in Lebanon (3), Gulf War (2), Somalia (4), Bosnian War (2), Kosovo War (2), War in Afghanistan (13), Libyan Intervention (1), War on ISIL (3).

Offensive Wars: US Expedition to Korea (1), Las Cuevas War (1), San Elizario Salt War (1), Second Samoan Civil War (1), Spanish-American War (1), Philippine-American War (3), Moro Rebellion (14), Boxer Rebellion (3), Negro Rebellion (Cuba) (1), Occupation of Nicaragua (21), Occupation of Haiti (19), Occupation of Dominican Republic (8), Sugar Intervention (3), Russian Civil War (3 — for US), Lebanon Crisis (1), Bay of Pigs (1), Simba Rebellion (1), Dominican Civil War (2), Vietnam War (9), Communist Insurgency in Thailand (18), Shaba II (1), Invasion of Grenada (1), Tanker War (2), Invasion of Panama (2), Intervention in Haiti (2), Invasion of Iraq (9), War in NW Pakistan (13), War in Afghanistan (2015-present) (2).

Next, I totaled up the number of years since 1861 that each party has held the White House. Things get a bit weird because Andrew Johnson was actually a Democrat and tried to govern as one once Lincoln was assassinated. (He was elected with Lincoln as part of a bipartisan National Unity ticket.)

This worked out to 156 years of presidents, 71 years of Democrats, 85 years of Republicans, or 45.5% Democrats, and 55.5% Republicans.

I then determined who was president during a particular war. If the war lasted long enough to be a bipartisan affair, I divided the number of war years based on the number of years that each party was in the White House while the war went on.

There have been 93 War Years under Democratic presidents, for 46.5%.

There have been 107 War Years under Republican presidents, for 53.5%.

While the raw numbers seem a bit bad for Republicans, the percentages work out to be about the same time as each party has held the White House, and are actually being a bit damning for Democrats since they were very slightly more likely to be engaged in a “war year” while in office.

 

Breaking things out:

There have been 30 “defensive” Democratic war years, for about 15% of the total.

There have been 25 “defensive” Republican war years, for about 12.5% of the total.

There have been 64 “offensive” Democratic war years, for about 32% of the total.

There have been 81 “offensive” Republican war years, for about 40.5% of the total.

So, Democrats are very slightly more likely to have been involved in “defensive” wars — wars launched in response to blatant acts of war, or sanctioned by a broad political alliance for humanitarian or political reasons .

Republicans are more slightly likely to have been involved in “offensive” wars — wars of imperialism, or wars launched without reasonable attempts to deescalate a political conflict.

There is no question that Democrats have been in power during the three big, “defensive” wars of the 20th century — the World Wars and Korea. Democrats are also responsible for starting and escalating the Vietnam conflict; the US’s first big “war of choice” since WW2.

That said, Richard Nixon actually presided over the Vietnam conflict for a longer period of time than Kennedy/Johnson did.

Furthermore, the Republican party must bear responsibility for being the party in the White House during the US Civil War, especially since that war was essentially triggered by Southern reaction to Republicans gaining power. It remains, in terms of military deaths, the bloodiest war in US history.

Republicans also take the blame for the Spanish-American War, and most of the subsequent conflicts in the Caribbean and the Philippines,  which were entirely products of Republican imperialist policies.

Since WW2, Democratic presidents have been slightly less likely to order unilateral invasions of other countries, but their record is far from perfect, particularly during the Cold War.

Where Democrats are involved in “offensive wars”, they often “inherit” them from prior Republican administrations. For example, Franklin Roosevelt inherited US occupations in Nicaragua and Haiti from Republican administrations, Clinton inherited the Somalia crisis from Bush I, and Obama inherited the Iraq debacle from Bush II.

In some cases, Democratic presidents “wind down” these conflicts. In other cases, they escalate them (infamously, Kennedy allowing Eisenhower’s Bay of Pigs plan to go forward). Historically, the trend is to wind things down, although this is typically due to economic reasons, like the Great Depression or the Great Recession, or political expediency, rather than any great desire for peace.

So, neither party can take credit for being the party of peace, but Republicans are a slightly more likely — at least historically — to engage in aggressive wars of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maverick, I had deleted my post soon after posting and left yours without context.  I researched a bit more to verify its accuracy and am reposting it in its entirety. ACSidestick

Boestar,

What's your point?

Ever notice that WW1, WW2, The Korean War, And Vietnam all were started by Democrats?

WW1-    Franklin D Roosevelt- Democrat

WW2-    Franklin Roosevelt- Democrat

WW2-    Harry Truman - Democrat

Korean War - Harry Truman - Democrat

Vietnam War -  John F Kennedy Democrat, Lyndon B Johnson - Democrat ( Dwight D Eisenhower-Republican stirred the South East Asia pot prior to Kennedy drafting troops, boots on the ground warfare) Nixon and Ford, both Republicans spent administrations trying to extricate US from Vietnam.

Rwanda, Clinton Democrat " His self admitted biggest failure

Sent the first cruise missles attacks into Afghanistan  and the Sudan in retaliation for US embassy attacks by non other than OBL. Clinton -Democrat

Orders Cruise missile strikes against Iraqi intelligence HQ Clinton Democrat

Order Operation Desert Strike against Iraq and Saddam Hussein Clinton- Democrat

Bombing of World Trade Center One-Clinton Democrat

Bombing of USS Cole in Yemen - Clinton Democrat

I would wager that far more young lives have been wasted by Democrats than Republicans since the formation of the United States.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fbi-kremlin-probe-20170118-story.html

The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.

The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very interesting commentary re US President Elect Trump.

Viewpoint: The 'delicious spectacle' of President Trump

18 January 2017 Last updated at 22:19 GMT

The inauguration of Donald Trump as president of the US is on Friday.

What does he represent? What might his presidency bring? In the first of two very personal viewpoints for BBC Newsnight, Roger Kimball, art critic, social commentator and editor of the magazine The New Criterion, says the moral panic needs to stop.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38664788

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38664789

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACsidestick......so you didnt read Malcolms post...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A commentary re how President Trump may influence the US Military.

Opinion: Under ‘High-Beta’ Trump Presidency, Anything Could Happen

Jan 20, 2017Steven Grundman | Aviation Week & Space TechnologyIN
What does the administration of Donald Trump portend for defense policy? Will it increase the defense budget? Will it change the size, structure and disposition of military forces? Will it cancel important acquisition programs? For now, the best answer to these questions and others surrounding defense policy is “maybe.” After all, Trump’s campaign was largely bereft of careful policy prescriptions for defense, and the transition has done little to dampen the volatility of expectations.

So wide is the range of possibilities for the Trump administration and so uniform their distribution that it would be foolhardy to make predictions. Indeed, in response to friends, colleagues and clients who ask my views about how Trump may change the Pentagon, I hew to the simple refrain, “Anything could happen.” Or, as an investor put it to me, “Trump’s promises to be the ‘high-beta’ presidency” (beta being the measure of a stock’s volatility, although the analog to molecular biology and treatment of hypertension may be equally apt). 

In the face of such abject uncertainty, I have abandoned forecasting in favor of a watch-this-space posture of vigilant discernment of leading indicators of change. These are the signposts I will be following as the new administration’s choices unfold: 

Defense spending. How will the Trump administration’s proposals for total (i.e., “base” plus “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)”) discretionary Pentagon budget authority in 2017 and 2018, as measured in current dollars, compare to the Obama administration’s plans for those two years? For 2017, the Obama administration has requested a total of $589 billion ($524 billion base + $65 billion OCO). For 2018, it planned a base budget of $557 billion, to which my baseline adds an estimate for OCO of $62 billion (the three-year trailing average), for a total of $619 billion. As the new administration unveils its defense spending plans, I will regard deviations from the $1.208 trillion sum of the outgoing administration’s plans for 2017 and 2018 as the key indicator of the direction and pace of change in defense spending.

Force posture. What will be the U.S. force levels in Afghanistan? Last summer, President Barack Obama reset to a level of 8,400 the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. That decision marked the second time in a year the Pentagon had prevailed upon the White House to slow the pace of troop withdrawals from the country, which it had hoped to reduce to a small “embassy presence” before leaving office this month. Despite relegation to the back pages of the news, Operation Freedom’s Sentinel remains the single largest contingency operation driving the deployment of U.S. forces abroad. Consequently, how the Trump administration regulates the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan will offer a leading indication of its approach to force posture. That U.S. forces in Afghanistan work alongside approximately 6,000 NATO personnel also amplifies the resonance of the defense-posture signal we should be hearing in President Trump’s Afghanistan policy.

Acquisition. What will be the unit cost of the F-35A variant that results from negotiations beginning this month over low-rate, initial-production Lot 10, which is expected to produce about 90 aircraft of all three variants beginning in 2018? Although Trump’s Twitter contretemps with Boeing and Lockheed Martin probably reflect a preparation of the battlefield over defense spending rather than procurement policy, the single measure of acquisition on which he has focused his attention—cost—may well serve as an early test of whether acquisition is in for a change. F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan went on record in mid-December with his expectation that Lot 10 will “come down in price . . . somewhere on the order of 6-7%” compared to Lot 9. Achieving that reduction implies a unit cost in Lot 10 of $95 million for just the Air Force variant. Achievement of F-35A unit prices in Lot 10 substantially below (or above) $95 million could well signal that the new president’s acquisition alchemy may bring real change in how the Pentagon buys weapons. 

One thing we do know for sure: Donald Trump is a master of the political narrative, and the story of public policy counts far more than those with an inductive train of mind might care to admit. It is all the more reason, therefore, that we whose livelihoods and businesses rely on gaining insight into defense policy need meaningful signposts to distinguish the tale from the truth.   

Steven Grundman is the principal of Grundman Advisory and Lund Fellow at the Atlantic Council. His views are not necessarily those of Aviation Week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this