Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Al_U_Card]

Be it Castro and the casinos in Havana (sugar too) or the Taliban and restricting opium, wherever the money is, just point the military and pull the trigger.

We have alt-left and alt-right but in an alt-reality, JFK survived and was followed by his brothers with peace in Vietnam, the Middle-east and a strong Russian ally, the Chinese didn't stand a chance...

[Winstonm]

Perhaps this helps explain Trump's reluctance to disagree with Putin and Russian interests.

Self-described white nationalist Matthew Heimbach, who said he identifies as a member of the alt-right, has praised Putin's Russia as "the axis for nationalists."

 

“I really believe that Russia is the leader of the free world right now," Heimbach told Business Insider in a recent interview. "Putin is supporting nationalists around the world and building an anti-globalist alliance, while promoting traditional values and self-determination."

[kenberg]

Every war is different, I start by acknowledging that. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn from history.

 

Imo, a big part of what went wrong in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people If I understand the situation correctly, the Afghanistan government does not have the support of the Afghan people. It seems impossible to stabilize a country if the enlivenment i government (spell checker apparently caught but misguessed whatever misspelling I committed) not supported by the people. I am not as opposed to the use of military force as some are, but the military should not be asked to do the impossible. I am more than willing to learn why I don't properly understand the situation.

[Al_U_Card]

Every war is different, I start by acknowledging that. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn from history.

 

Imo, a big part of what went wrong in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people If I understand the situation correctly, the Afghanistan government does not have the support of the Afghan people. It seems impossible to stabilize a country if the enlivenment is not supported by the people. I am not as opposed to the use of military force as some are, but the military should not be asked to do the impossible. I am more than willing to learn why I don't properly understand the situation.

The history of that part of the world is quite edifying. Even Alexander the Great gave up on them quickly.

A military is able to:

-combat an enemy military

-oppress an "enemy" (including one's one country)

-provide support to the forces of law and order

-provide manpower and expertise in times of need

-intimidate adversaries

 

JFK, in the early 50's. wrote a cogent treatise on the French Indochina situation and concluded that no amount of force could defeat an enemy that was the people. The same situation would appear to apply in Afghanistan.

[RedSpawn]

The history of that part of the world is quite edifying. Even Alexander the Great gave up on them quickly.

A military is able to:

-combat an enemy military

-oppress an "enemy" (including one's one country)

-provide support to the forces of law and order

-provide manpower and expertise in times of need

-intimidate adversaries

 

JFK, in the early 50's. wrote a cogent treatise on the French Indochina situation and concluded that no amount of force could defeat an enemy that was the people. The same situation would appear to apply in Afghanistan.

Cogently said as usual.

 

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/07/19/privatizing-the-war-in-afghanistan

 

Also, why are we privatizing the Afghanistan War with 5,500 profiteers, I mean, private contractors, but socializing the war losses of:

• Disability,
• Death,
• Disease,
• Debt, and
• Destruction

to John Q. Public?

 

Wall Street Journal: The MacArthur Model for Afghanistan — "Afghanistan is an expensive disaster for America. The Pentagon has already consumed $828 billion on the war, and taxpayers will be liable for trillions more in veterans’ health-care costs for decades to come. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died there, with more than 20,000 wounded in action. For all that effort, Afghanistan is failing. The terrorist cohort consistently gains control of more territory, including key economic arteries. It’s time for President Trump to fix our approach to Afghanistan in five ways."

[Al_U_Card]

Cogently said as usual.

 

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/07/19/privatizing-the-war-in-afghanistan

 

Also, why are we privatizing the Afghanistan War with 5,500 profiteers, I mean, private contractors, but socializing the war losses of:

• Disability,
• Death,
• Disease,
• Debt, and
• Destruction

to John Q. Public?

It work(s)ed for the financial sector, so why not the Armed Forces? I expect that those 5,500 are both corporations (people?) and donors to campaigns, one way or the other. Cui bono.

[Winstonm]

Every war is different, I start by acknowledging that. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn from history.

 

Imo, a big part of what went wrong in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people If I understand the situation correctly, the Afghanistan government does not have the support of the Afghan people. It seems impossible to stabilize a country if the enlivenment i government (spell checker apparently caught but misguessed whatever misspelling I committed) not supported by the people. I am not as opposed to the use of military force as some are, but the military should not be asked to do the impossible. I am more than willing to learn why I don't properly understand the situation.

I am in the same boat with you. It is a reason I enjoyed reading The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew Bacevich as he wrote at length about the limits of what our military can accomplish.

[mike777]

Every war is different, I start by acknowledging that. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn from history.

 

Imo, a big part of what went wrong in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people If I understand the situation correctly, the Afghanistan government does not have the support of the Afghan people. It seems impossible to stabilize a country if the enlivenment i government (spell checker apparently caught but misguessed whatever misspelling I committed) not supported by the people. I am not as opposed to the use of military force as some are, but the military should not be asked to do the impossible. I am more than willing to learn why I don't properly understand the situation.

 

 

It does seem possible to do this...when I look at history what it takes it a bloody, ruthless war, call it a bloody civil war. Often the extreme answer may be the only answer, assimilate or be exterminated or face endless conflict.

 

See Russia, See China, See America, see Vietnam.

 

We can look to Afghanistan and see what....endless conflict going on century after century..

 

The argument regarding Afghanistan seems to be we fight them there or we fight them here. The problem is many reject this binary choice but don't seem to persuade enough people of a viable third option.

 

I suppose many look to Vietnam as the answer....we stopped fighting...one side won and we did not have to fight them on the beaches of California.....If we just go home we wont have to fight them in NY.

[Al_U_Card]

It does seem possible to do this...when I look at history what it takes it a bloody, ruthless war, call it a bloody civil war. Often the extreme answer may be the only answer, assimilate or be exterminated or face endless conflict.

 

See Russia, See China, See America, see Vietnam.

 

We can look to Afghanistan and see what....endless conflict going on century after century..

 

The argument regarding Afghanistan seems to be we fight them there or we fight them here. The problem is many reject this binary choice but don't seem to persuade enough people of a viable third option.

 

I suppose many look to Vietnam as the answer....we stopped fighting...one side won and we did not have to fight them on the beaches of California.....If we just go home we wont have to fight them in NY.

The only way to "win" the war on terror. Stop terrorizing the breeding grounds of reprisal. Declare amnesty for all "combattants" and withdraw all personnel (military and covert) from that part of the world. Impossible to go "too far" in this approach. Every further such step would be one in the right direction. Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

[mike777]

The only way to "win" the war on terror. Stop terrorizing the breeding grounds of reprisal. Declare amnesty for all "combattants" and withdraw all personnel (military and covert) from that part of the world. Impossible to go "too far" in this approach. Every further such step would be one in the right direction. Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

 

ok but what part of the world do we withdraw from? Asia and Africa...?? You are very vague..

[Winstonm]

The only way to "win" the war on terror. Stop terrorizing the breeding grounds of reprisal. Declare amnesty for all "combattants" and withdraw all personnel (military and covert) from that part of the world. Impossible to go "too far" in this approach. Every further such step would be one in the right direction. Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

 

This is actually a quite arrogant declaration of exceptionalism, as if whatever the U.S. decides upon will be automatically and unilaterally adopted by our enemies.

 

I'm not nearly so certain of our greatness. Perhaps this enemy has a mind of his own.

[Al_U_Card]

ok but what part of the world do we withdraw from? Asia and Africa...?? You are very vague..

Every American military base in any region where terrorists "come from". The NSA is very aware of these areas as they are the same ones that provide the resources so coveted by the corporatists. Trump was against intervention but once he saw the real Zapruder film....err I meant the intelligence, he is adopting the best survival strategy. At least it appears that his intention is to eventually leave....once all the terrorists are killed...

[Al_U_Card]

This is actually a quite arrogant declaration of exceptionalism, as if whatever the U.S. decides upon will be automatically and unilaterally adopted by our enemies.

 

I'm not nearly so certain of our greatness. Perhaps this enemy has a mind of his own.

And when that enemy comes after all that is good and wholesome in the US, then the military will be able to defend the country from their attentions. Meanwhile, terror attacks kill fewer than auto accidents. WTH, declare the border a "militarized zone" and station all the armed forces in bases along that frontier. The US has been after a new frontier for some time now.

[mike777]

Every American military base in any region where terrorists "come from". The NSA is very aware of these areas as they are the same ones that provide the resources so coveted by the corporatists. Trump was against intervention but once he saw the real Zapruder film....err I meant the intelligence, he is adopting the best survival strategy. At least it appears that his intention is to eventually leave....once all the terrorists are killed...

 

very vague.

 

for starters closing a base does not withdraw all of our military force or all of our covert forces for starters think air and sea coverage from afar. Do you want to only close a base and if so what bases?

 

If you want all military and covert which I assume means spies and flying robots for starters.....you are being very vague.

 

also you seem to be unaware that one region terrorists come from is called the Usa, another region is called europe

[Winstonm]

And when that enemy comes after all that is good and wholesome in the US, then the military will be able to defend the country from their attentions. Meanwhile, terror attacks kill fewer than auto accidents. WTH, declare the border a "militarized zone" and station all the armed forces in bases along that frontier. The US has been after a new frontier for some time now.

 

That might work if countries were closed societies but the world doesn't work that way. For better or worse, we are all interdependent and have to work with one another rather than hiding in a shell.

[Zelandakh]

Every American military base in any region where terrorists "come from".

You want to remove the military from America itself? Are you aware of the numbers for terrorism in America since 9/11?

[Al_U_Card]

You want to remove the military from America itself? Are you aware of the numbers for terrorism in America since 9/11?

So, more than are killed in auto accidents? Priorities? The war on crime, drugs and now terror. Reminds one of that saying about doing the same thing and expecting a different result.... Deal with the real cause to get a better result.

[Al_U_Card]

That might work if countries were closed societies but the world doesn't work that way. For better or worse, we are all interdependent and have to work with one another rather than hiding in a shell.

Restraint is not hiding, is it? As far as the way the world works, you would think that we would have learned something by now. What we are learning is that the same old methods continue to only benefit the same old rich and powerful people. Continue to argue about using their method to fix our problems and you shouldn't expect any difference.

[Al_U_Card]

very vague.

 

for starters closing a base does not withdraw all of our military force or all of our covert forces for starters think air and sea coverage from afar. Do you want to only close a base and if so what bases?

 

If you want all military and covert which I assume means spies and flying robots for starters.....you are being very vague.

 

also you seem to be unaware that one region terrorists come from is called the Usa, another region is called europe

I meant to say that we could use robots, instead, for everything...better?

[Winstonm]

Restraint is not hiding, is it? As far as the way the world works, you would think that we would have learned something by now. What we are learning is that the same old methods continue to only benefit the same old rich and powerful people. Continue to argue about using their method to fix our problems and you shouldn't expect any difference.

 

Simplistic answers and sloganeering do not solve problems of a complex and complicated world.

[mike777]

I meant to say that we could use robots, instead, for everything...better?

AIAI

 

 

to be fair we already use robots, flying killer robots, AI robots to attempt to track radical Islam. Call it early Skynet or whatever....)

 

would not be surprised if robots come to bbo in some form or another in the next few years and we might not even object

 

See Singularity

[ldrews]

Simplistic answers and sloganeering do not solve problems of a complex and complicated world.

 

Didn't you just do that? Sloganeer, that is.

[Al_U_Card]

Didn't you just do that? Sloganeer, that is.

Shhhhhh! We mustn't disturb sleepwalkers... I just saw that the RNC has 2x the donations of the DNC, most of which are under $200 and from the heartland. You can't fool all of the people all of the time ;)

[Zelandakh]

So, more than are killed in auto accidents?

Sorry? Your logic amazes me. Tell me, are more Americans killed by auto accidents or by foreign terorists?

 

By all means make tackling auto accidents a priority but using this figure to argue the point for a group that has killed even fewer Americans seems bizarre in the extreme. Either you think numbers of deaths matter, in which case tackling native terrorists should be a higher priority, or the number killed in auto accidents is irrelevant in the matter of terrorism.

[RedSpawn]

From What's the Deal, Mr. Trump? by the NYT Editorial Board:

President Trump promised he’d make so many great deals that we’d all get “tired of winning.” He’s certainly left Americans feeling worn out, but not because of any transactional whirlwind.

 

In reluctantly signing a bill last week imposing sanctions on Russia that he cannot lift without congressional review, Mr. Trump complained that it “makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people” and that “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking.”

 

The legislation is actually proof that Congress has learned not to trust Mr. Trump to strike good deals and has seen quite enough of his negotiating skills.

 

Six months in, Mr. Trump can’t get legislation passed on anything much bigger than naming a post office. Indifferent to negotiating with Democrats and ham-handed in dealing with Republicans, he’s getting rolled on the major promises of his campaign — health care, infrastructure, taxes and jobs.

 

...

 

This is the man who opened his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal,” by boasting: “Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.”

 

Providing reliable health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans could have been the biggest kick of Mr. Trump’s life.

 

A week before his inauguration, Mr. Trump said he had a plan “very much formulated down to the final strokes” to provide “insurance for everybody.” In the same interview, he promised to negotiate lower drug prices, “just like” he’d forced Lockheed Martin to produce cheaper F-35 fighter jets.

 

In fact, Lockheed let Mr. Trump take credit for negotiating F-35 cost savings that were already in the pipeline. He caved on his promise to empower the government to negotiate lower drug prices — an effort Democrats support — after a single meeting with big pharmaceutical makers.

 

And then he kicked the whole “complicated” health care deal to Republicans in Congress. After months of Trump promises of “a beautiful picture” on health care, the seven-year Republican crusade to end Obamacare seems to have come to its own end.

 

The $1 trillion infrastructure overhaul Mr. Trump promised is another big deal that Democrats like, but he has yet to take their calls. He’s promoting a sweeping package of tax cuts, but there aren’t many details to go on there, either.

 

“We hope to get taxes and then infrastructure,” he said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal not long ago. “And then I’m going to do a very big — we’re doing very big trade deals, and we’re looking forward to that. But we want to do, ideally, this first. You know, a lot of people said you should have started with taxes or you should have started with infrastructure. Well, infrastructure, I’ll actually have bipartisan support, and I can use infrastructure to carry other things along. So I don’t want to waste it at the beginning, if that makes sense.” (bold and underline mine)

 

No, it didn’t.

 

Things make more sense if we remember that despite his gilded penthouse and branded country clubs, Mr. Trump has had a business career filled with questionable deals that almost ruined him and led to multiple bankruptcies.

 

Where the hell are our infrastructure projects since China and Russia seem to be getting along just fine even with our economic sanctions against Russia for their alleged federal election meddling?

 

http://thebricspost.com/russian-industrial-town-gets-direct-rail-link-with-china/#.WZ25rj596po

 

In a boost for Russia-China trade ties, a new freight train service began Sunday, linking Russia’s Perm with Golmud in Qaidam Basin, northwest China’s Qinghai Province.

The train, loaded with containers of chemical, left China through the Alataw Pass in Xinjiang, and will pass Kazakhstan before reaching Perm, a Russian industrial city of a million people.

 

The trip covers about 6,360 kilometers and takes 10 days. Officials said transporting goods by train is about a month faster than by ship.

 

The new freight route is also part of China’s New Silk Road plan.

 

President Xi Jinping has championed what China formally calls the “One Belt, One Road” or OBOR, initiative to build a new Silk Road linking Asia, Africa and Europe, a landmark program to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure projects including railways, ports and power grids.

 

Beijing’s top economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said on Thursday that 69 countries, from Ukraine to South Korea, have signed cooperation agreements with China on the joint development of the Belt and Road Initiative.

 

According to the NDRC, more than 4,000 cargo train trips have been made to ferry goods from China to Europe, with the trains passing through 31 cities in 12 European countries.

 

A freight route linking China’s eastern coast and London started operating earlier this year