Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: What's Going on in the Americas? (Read 261731 times)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #775 –
Funny. Reading some of the posts above one can get the impression that starting with 2017-20-2 the USA will be the first state on earth without a foreign policy. :D
This is stupid and also false.
Whatever the USA is, one thing is for sure - it's not a Banana Republic where long term geostrategic interests are redefined after each presidential election.
Therefore it makes little difference if the new President is an actor, a blowjob addict, an alcoholic or a pussy grabber.

Geostrategic interests are planned by long hand and pursued along decades, till achieved.
However during decades some things may change and the policies have to be adjusted to those changes. Such a change was the rise of the Dragon. China had an insignificant role for Zbigniew Brzezinski 40 years ago.
The dream of a monopolar world aka New World Order where the USA defines exclusvely the rules of the game won't vanish anytime soon even if Pokemon will be elected next as US President.
ATM there are only two significant players reluctant to such a monopolar world, namely China and Russia. The relationship between the two weren't the best in the past. However during the last decade the USA, through its foreign policy managed to drive Russia into China's arms. For the moment it's a win-win situation for both, China and Russia. Not so for the USA.
Trump is no more Putin's puppet than Obama was Xi's puppet.
There are at best different approaches how to deal with those two reluctant countries who dare to question the New World Order imposed by the USA.
The "carrot and stick" approach applied to China didn't work as expected.
Now Trump might apply this approach to Russia and 'concentrate' on the Dragon. Only problem, neither Xi nor Vlad are naive...

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #776 –
Quote from: krake on
Geostrategic interests are planned by long hand and pursued along decades, till achieved.

American (very-)long-term foreign policy (namely, the Monroe Doctrine, roughly summarised "this hemisphere belongs to the United States") is not something to be achieved, but to be kept watch over.

This said, every new president in the United States makes his own little doctrinal declaration when he takes office. It's always basically the same Monroe Doctrine re-written, these days expanded to cover the entire globe and can be summarised as "United States protects its interests whenever wherever and our interests are whatever we say they are."

Of course US has a long-term foreign policy, but this does not negate the fact that Trump has none. Edit: Are you suggesting that when Trump assumes office, he will automatically inherit the goals, policies, experience and wisdom of the previous presidents? He might adopt a little, if he listens to his schoolers well, but the campaign showed he does not learn. He did pretty much everything that a presidential candidate must not do, and the fact that he won by this "strategy" gives Trump additional reason to do whatever he likes, never listen to anybody.
 

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #777 –
Quote from: ersi on
Are you suggesting that when Trump assumes office, he will automatically inherit the goals, policies, experience and wisdom of the previous presidents?
Wisdom of the previous presidents???
Whos wisdom are you referring to?
- W's wisdom for setting the Middle East on fire? Wonder how big the benefit of it will be for the USA in the long term. For now the only profiteer seems to be Iran... So what would be the next wisdom? Bombing Iran?
- BO's wisdom responsible for the mess created in Lybia and Syria? It seems that the only pillars of his wisdom were droning and regime changes. His foreign policy was a total mess.
The only geostrategic success was the staged putsch in the Ukraine. However the Ukraine managed to get rid of Crimea and apart of that the game there isn't over yet. Wonder for how long the bankrupt Ukraine will be kept alive with billions of €€€ by 'devoted' European allies...
So, whos wisdom are you referring to?

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #778 –
Quote from: krake on
Wisdom of the previous presidents???
Whos wisdom are you referring to?
Exactly. I meant it ironically :)

And meanwhile I read up on the US doctrine stuff too. Decades ago when I read Kissinger's Diplomacy, it left the strong impression as if those doctrines were a real thing, an actual agreed agenda or policy documents with each president. Now, looking at Wikipedia, it appears it's a journalistic fiction or an ex post facto concoction of political historians. So you'd better talk about US long-term policy keeping the irony in mind.

Politicians want to leave the impression as if their policies were a rational or fixed or agreed thing. They are not. They are a delusion. Unfortunately they are a delusion of reality-changing sort. With Trump it's blatantly clear his head is like an empty bucket. No policies whatsoever, just random talk. And that guy will have the power to actualise whatever wanton whims may hit him. They will be wanton whims of a president, but this does not mean they are a policy.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #779 –
@Ersi
- You are overestimating the powers of the president. There is also a Senate there.
- You are underestimating the powers of the deep state.

As for geostrategic continuity over decades - a short look at a map depicting US military bases abroad will tell you more than Wikipedia would ever do. Their number increased continuously irrespective of US presidents in charge.

BTW, "pivot to Asia" is a term coined by the BO administration. Trump probably won't use that term but his provocative behavior toward the Dragon even before entering office might give a clearer picture of what that term basically means. The nondiplomatic wording of it could as well be "meddling in Asia".

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #780 –
Quote from: krake on
@Ersi
- You are overestimating the powers of the president. There is also a Senate there.
- You are underestimating the powers of the deep state.
You are underestimating what the US president can do when his party is in the majority in the House and Senate. For example, there was no rational justification to attack Iraq or even Afghanistan, but there was no force to prevent it. Also, the record surplus didn't become record deficit just so, but again because there was no force to prevent it.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #781 –
Quote from: ersi on
You are underestimating what the US president can do when his party is in the majority in the House and Senate.
Only when his party is in the majority in the House and Senate.
That means that he has the consent of a majority and he is not acting on its own.
That's pretty the same like in Germany or other European countries.
If the chancellor has the neccessary majority he/she can wave through everything.
The mantra is - you have elected us and by doing so you gave us the mandate to do anything we consider neccessary. Period. 
That's actually what happens most of the time everywere.

Quote from: ersi on
For example, there was no rational justification to attack Iraq or even Afghanistan, but there was no force to prevent it.
Not the best example to say the least.
As far as I recall most democrats were also for attacking Iraq. Same applies for Afghanistan.
Additionally there was also a coalition of the willing representing several countries...
So where from would you have expected the force preventing it to come?
As for rational justifications, they are most of the time a matter of perspective. If you kill somebody you are a murder and if you get caught you'll end up behind bars. If you flatten a district by dropping a bomb you get a medal for being a hero.
Believe me or not - geostrategic interests, new miltary bases, petrodollars or pipelines might qualify for some as rational justifications.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #782 –
Quote from: krake on
That means that he has the consent of a majority and he is not acting on its own.
That's pretty the same like in Germany or other European countries.
If the chancellor has the neccessary majority he/she can wave through everything.
The mantra is - you have elected us and by doing so you gave us the mandate to do anything we consider neccessary. Period. 
That's actually what happens most of the time everywere.
Actually, it's not like that everywhere. Most European countries have a multi-party system (3+) as opposed to two-party system.

The difference is significant, because in Europe it's hardly ever that a party (and the prime minister candidate of that party) wins the absolute majority. Therefore after the elections, the prime minister candidate (usually, but not always, whose party won the most seats in the parliament) begins coalition negotiations with other parties in order to form the government. In those negotiations, each coalition member concedes some points in their platform. This is a serious check on what the prime minister can do before he has even done anything.

In US, there is no such check. Whoever wins, wins regardless what is going on in the Congress, because Congress has no role in choosing the next president or shaping his agenda.

Another thing, in Europe, if the government is unable to push through their own budget proposal in the parliament, it means victory for the opposition's budget proposal, and the government MUST obey that budget. Mostly, this is such a painful thing to do that the government ordinarily resigns in such a situation. When has US government resigned in such a situation? Never. And never will. Their procedures are much messier and, if the president does not get the budget of his liking, they will simply spend like they did last year.

Clinton and Obama, even though mostly faced with the majority of the opposing party in the congress, never stepped down, whereas W had free reign and was able to swiftly bring about financial ruin from the starting point of record surplus. Given a (current) European political system, W would not have been so free to spend, on self-started wars no less, and Clinton and Obama would have had to consider resignation merely for not getting their budgets approved.

Moreover, in Europe after parliamentary elections we have a president (head of state) who APPOINTS the guy who will head the coalition negotiations to form the next government. Usually the guy is the leader of the party who won the relative majority in the parliamentary elections, but not necessarily. There are exceptions. In US, there are no such exceptions, because the winner becomes both president and prime minister in one person. Without anybody to stop him.

The situation is particularly surreal with Trump right now. He made the dirtiest campaign ever. He kicked out every campaign manager who tried to coach some decency in him. Not only did he behave like total scum against his opponent, but he behaved like total scum agains a lady. And then he won. Which apparently means Americans love it when you threaten, smear, and interrupt a lady. So, right now he thinks he did everything right, he thinks everybody loves him exactly as he is, and since we know that he has no political or constitutional checks to hinder him, he can indeed do whatever he pleases.

In Europe, dictatorship requires a Hitler who'd proceed as follows: 1. Physically lock away unwanted members of parliament. 2. Let the remaining members of parliament vote for constitution-altering laws and give extraordinary powers to the prime minister. 3. Done. In America, dictatorship for (at least) four years is guaranteed by the constitution, if you get elected the way Trump did, having the majority of seats in the congress already waiting for you. This dictatorship can be extended indefinitely if you can pull the strings like F.D. Roosevelt.

Quote from: krake on
Quote from: ersi on
For example, there was no rational justification to attack Iraq or even Afghanistan, but there was no force to prevent it.
Not the best example to say the least.
As far as I recall most democrats were also for attacking Iraq. Same applies for Afghanistan.
If we go by party line, democrat opinion was irrelevant because republicans were in (narrow) majority. But yes, democrats were in favour of the wars too. This only means that US Congress can be thoroughly duped and brainwashed. It's just a matter of getting them into the right emotional state.

Quote from: krake on
Additionally there was also a coalition of the willing representing several countries...
Such as Estonia and Poland, where the people and the government/parliament were diametrically opposed on the issue. Some issues are inherently class issues and remain so.

Quote from: krake on
So where from would you have expected the force preventing it to come?
Nowhere. That's what I have been saying.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #783 –
Both Krake and Ersi have interesting point of views about America.
Both are wrong but it doesn't matter.

A wrong European opinion, seems to be much better than a right American one...  :bandit:
Welcome to post modernity.
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #784 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
A wrong European opinion, seems to be much better than a right American one...  :bandit:
I'd very much welcome an American opinion here. A well-formed and informed opinion, not a partisan spout.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #785 –
Oak and Sang are out of town.



Let's see whose opinion will last.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #786 –

Quote from: ersi on
I'd very much welcome an American opinion here. A well-formed and informed pinion, not a partisan spout.

There has been one,

Quote from: Barulheira on
Expecting to find something about "what's going on in the Americas", I always find posts about the expectations on the next Trump administration. They should deserve a thread on their own.

But now, since I casually happen to live in the Americas, I'd like to add the following:

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #787 –
Thanks to SmileyFaze, there's a new thread well suited to this discussion.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #788 –
Quote from: jax on

Quote from: ersi on
I'd very much welcome an American opinion here. A well-formed and informed pinion, not a partisan spout.

There has been one,

Quote from: Barulheira on
Expecting to find something about "what's going on in the Americas", I always find posts about the expectations on the next Trump administration. They should deserve a thread on their own.

But now, since I casually happen to live in the Americas, I'd like to add the following:
That's American, but South. If there's a thread for it, it's this one.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #789 –
Quote from: ersi on
That's American, but South. If there's a thread for it, it's this one.
Agreed, jax!
@Barulheira: I don't think everyone would agree with your estimation of Lula's successes… :)
To remind you'all:
Quote from: Barulheira on
We already know how it works. Lula hadn't had any significant political background, and the expectations on his new administration as President of Brazil were quite disturbing. On the first weeks of his administration, it became clear that it wouldn't be as bad as it was being expected.

Now, several years after it finished, we've become aware that it was really disastrous.
And I specially like your preface (admittedly prompted by ersi's comment…but I'll take it as "stand alone," since that's how it's usually used! :) ) "We already know how it works": Indeed we do. The previous administration is responsible for all the failures of the current administration! :)
Convenient, for elected officials; not so much, for anyone else…
(But when you elect a union organizer and official you have to expect a certain level of corruption, no? :) If you don't think so, you are ill-educated.)
So: How are things going in Brazil, now that Lula is out? (You know: Things like who's in, what's changed and what are the plans being touted?)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #790 –
Who cares?
But, since you asked:
Technically, we still are under Lula's administration. Some months ago, his successor (Dilma Rousseff) was impeached and her vice-president (Michel Temer) is in charge. Summarizing, the bunch of usual corrupts is in charge again, replacing the new bunch of leftists corrupts that has been in charge since 2003.
When everything gets worse along an administration for so much time, you can't blame the previous administration. The whole country is broken. The government gets taxes as hell, and still it has no money to afford basic public services. It can't afford even the social programs it has created itself to diminish poverty.
The FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games sucked public money for no good use, feeding corrupts and letting the people unassisted.
And there's much more.
The government blamed the worldwide economic crisis for all that. Remarkably, the country entered the crisis when all around the world it was gone.
My remark around Lula × Trump was to remind everybody that there's good reason to fear.
Thanks for asking.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #791 –
The Clinton Global Initiative foundation is closing its doors.

It's funny to see how the incoming money is drying out as soon as it becomes clear that there will be no Clinton in the power center.
So far about those 'charitable donations' offered by corporations and foreign governments.
BTW, among the top foreign donators I'm aware of, were the Saudis with $25.000.000, Germany with $5.000.000 and Norway with 20.000.000 (NOK).

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #793 –
From the source you gave:

Quote
In August 2016, with less than 90 days before the upcoming presidential election, the Clinton Foundation announced that it will stop accepting foreign donations if Clinton is elected.
AFAIK Clinton wasn't elected.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #794 –
You confuse the Clinton Foundation with the Clinton Global Initiative. The latter is being shut down, as intended.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #795 –
By quoting your own source you are telling me now that I'm confusing the foundations. That's funny.
Is "The Observer" also confusing the foundations?
The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative

BTW,
   
Quote
The Clinton Global Initiative was created in 2005 to serve as a networking platform for the Clinton Foundation.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #796 –
The Clinton Global Initiative is being shut down, as intended. There are no indications of any change of direction for the Clinton Foundation.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #797 –
Quote from: ersi on
That's like in the United States then - a single president can ruin the country in a couple of years (like W went from Clinton's historical record surplus to record deficit).
I did take a look, just out of curiosity.  ;)
US national dept amounted 5,7 trillion USD at the beginning of G.W.Bush's presidency.
G.W. Bush managed to almost double those 5.7 trillions to 10,6 trillions.
B. Obama did a nice job as well managing to almost double those 10,6 trillions to 20 trillions (2017 January 18 - $19.961.467.137.973,64).

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #798 –
Quote from: krake on
Quote from: ersi on
That's like in the United States then - a single president can ruin the country in a couple of years (like W went from Clinton's historical record surplus to record deficit).
I did take a look, just out of curiosity.  ;)
US national dept...
Debt is a different thing than budget surplus/deficit. In short, you didn't look at the right number. But nice try. Try again.

Here's a little something to help you out https://www.economics21.org/files/pdfs/commentary/08_20_2012_FederalSurpluses.pdf

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #799 –
The US and Europe went in opposite direction after the crisis of 2007. Europe opted for austerity and the US (and China) for loose money. It is pretty clear that the European approach ended up more costly.

That said, debts will have to be paid eventually. It wasn't clear whether Hillary Clinton would follow her husband's debt-cutting turnabout, but the candidate the US eventually ended up with is estimated to increase the debts significantly more, if his program is to believed. That it probably isn't, but he is fond of tax cuts, very expensive programs, and getting reelected in four years' time, so I don't think much debt reduction will be on the agenda.