Trump II

[Schewe]

Ok, now Trump has Venezuela in his sights...

Trump threatens Venezuela with unspecified 'military option'

BEDMINSTER, N.J. - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday threatened military intervention in Venezuela, a surprise escalation of Washington's response to Venezuela's political crisis that Caracas disparaged as "craziness."

Venezuela has appeared to slide toward a more volatile stage of unrest in recent days, with anti-government forces looting weapons from a military base after a new legislative body usurped the authority of the opposition-controlled congress.

"The people are suffering and they are dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary," Trump told reporters in an impromptu question and answer session.

The comments appeared to shock Caracas, with Venezuela's Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino calling the threat "an act of craziness."

The White House said Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro requested a phone call with Trump on Friday, which the White House appeared to spurn, saying in a statement that Trump would gladly speak to Venezuela's leader when democracy was restored in that country.

So, is Trump threatening to send US troops to Venezuela to restore order? North Korea and Syria aren't enough to keep Trump busy?

[pegelli]

Here's a question for our European friends.  If  war  breaks out with North Korea, will European NATO countries honor Article 5 and send troops to support us on the Korean peninsula?

Article 5 is about collective defense, not collective offence.
But even in US offensive missions other NATO countries have supported the US so I think you can guess the answer.
But even if they do you'll find it too small because we spend too little on defense, we can't do right in your eyes anyway, so why ask the question?

[Alan Klein]

Article 5 is about collective defense, not collective offence.
But even in US offensive missions other NATO countries have supported the US so I think you can guess the answer.
But even if they do you'll find it too small because we spend too little on defense, we can't do right in your eyes anyway, so why ask the question?

NK has threatened attacks on Guam, a US territory.  If they sent missiles, even if unarmed,  we could consider that at attack and invoke Article 5 and ask for assistance. 

As an aside, NATO attacks against Kosovo was offensive in nature.  They didn't attack any NATO country first, I don't believe. 

I was thinking that Trump recently reversed his negative position on NATO.  He sent additional troops and strongly re-stated America's support of Article 5, that we would defend Europe.  I wonder if he had NK and Article 5 in mind? 

I'm curious what Europe thinks of the situation in NK and their nuclear arming? 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Ok, now Trump has Venezuela in his sights...

Trump threatens Venezuela with unspecified 'military option'

[...]

So, is Trump threatening to send US troops to Venezuela to restore order? North Korea and Syria aren't enough to keep Trump busy?

It's all very predictable, and I've said it earlier, a populist will create outside enemies in order to unite the homefront around their leader.

But at the same time, one needs to keep an eye on what is really happening. North Korea has baited Trump into a justification for the North Korean military developments to fend off such aggressive enemies as the USA. A similar thing happens with Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro (also a populist) now has an outside enemy allowing the home front to unite around their president (thus making a solution even more difficult).

But of course, one needs to understand that Venezuela is all about oil, which is now cheaply being bought up by Russia in large quantities to cover the Venezuelan National debts. Just like the singling out of  Qatar, which is a huge natural gas exporter and thus a competitor to the USA's efforts to create a dependency on the USA from countries bordering Russia, like Poland and Turkey, to name just two NATO partners. Most of what we've seen as foreign and domestic policy making, hinges on the USA's oil and coal dependency (for consumption and trade). That's how limited the horizon looks to Trump, short term financial profit.

Cheers,
Bart

[scyth]

NK has threatened attacks on Guam, a US territory.  If they sent missiles, even if unarmed,  we could consider that at attack and invoke Article 5 and ask for assistance. 

flashback = http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/08/08/page/28/article/hawaii-lacks-nato-coverage-if-attacked

As an aside, NATO attacks against Kosovo was offensive in nature.  They didn't attack any NATO country first, I don't believe. 

NATO agression againt Serbia and change of borders in Europe using military force.

[Robert Roaldi]

This should make Alan happy: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/08/11/trump-policy-voting-gas-retirement-rule-000499.

[Alan Klein]

This should make Alan happy: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/08/11/trump-policy-voting-gas-retirement-rule-000499.

It's funny that the liberal media complained that Trump was taking 17 days off to be on vacation at his Bedminster NJ golf resort.  If only we were so lucky that he spent the time only playing golf.  We all could use the break. 

[pegelli]

NK has threatened attacks on Guam, a US territory. 

And the long term US government policy position (from way before Trump) is that the Korean peninsula should be "one country" and that the North Korean regime should be ousted.
So since the cease-fire the NK government has considered the US a hostile power, probably not unjustified. Only Tillerson (a wise man in my book) is starting to back away from that, but his boss is not listening.

If the US government would have accepted the status quo after the cease-fire I wonder what the the NK situation would look like today.

Playing the "world police" is a tricky game, and I wonder where anybody would get the authority to military intervene in Venezuela.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

.... And this is the fellow we have trying to negotiate our way out of war with North Korea?

Indeed, negotiations are the answer, 20+ years of negotiations have worked wonders so far:

[Rob C]

Isn't the problem that NK wants to reunite the original country his way?

[Alan Klein]

And the long term US government policy position (from way before Trump) is that the Korean peninsula should be "one country" and that the North Korean regime should be ousted.
So since the cease-fire the NK government has considered the US a hostile power, probably not unjustified. Only Tillerson (a wise man in my book) is starting to back away from that, but his boss is not listening.

If the US government would have accepted the status quo after the cease-fire I wonder what the the NK situation would look like today.

Playing the "world police" is a tricky game, and I wonder where anybody would get the authority to military intervene in Venezuela.   

The Korean War started when the North supported by the Soviet Union and Communist China invaded the South.  The UN agreed to defend the South.  America and other countries supported that and fought in the war.  There was an armistice but never a peace treaty.  Officially, a war is still in force.

As Slobodan showed in his post, the US made an attempt to reduce tensions and made a treaty with NK that they violated in secret producing nuclear weapons.  They've been sanctioned by the UN for that but here we are.    Do we have a right to defend ourselves against a country that has produced nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against us with threats after they violated an agreement they made with us? If we don't do something, will that only encourage the Japanese, South Koreans, and others to develop nukes too?  Will the situation get worse as time goes on?  Or can we just ignore the NK's and their nukes, and not worry?  Who's got a magic ball?

Venezuela, no we shouldn't get involved.   On the other hand, the same was said about Serbia-Kosovo and looked what happened there.   It's a shame what's going on to the Venezuelans, a nice people who are going to lose their freedom like the Cubans did.

[Alan Klein]

Isn't the problem that NK wants to reunite the original country his way?

That's true.  That's why there are American forces still in South Korea defending it.  The interesting thing is that NK by developing it's nuclear offense to protect its regime and country may have actually created the tensions where a war happens.  If they just followed the nuclear agreement to not develop, no one would even care about them or consider them a threat.  His regime would be safer.  The law of unintended consequences.  It happens to the "bad" guys too. 

[scyth]

a nice people who are going to lose their freedom like the Cubans did.

and by freedom you mean Batista ? because that is what was there before Castro brothers 

[scyth]

If they just followed the nuclear agreement to not develop, no one would even care about them or consider them a threat. 

Saddam and Muamar didn't... case in point - rabid american dog respects only a nuclear fist

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Saddam and Muamar didn't... case in point - rabid american dog respects only a nuclear fist

That's why Trump failed again when he took North Korea's bait/provocation, instead of trying a more collaborative approach together with partner stakeholders in the region.

China doesn't like North Korea, but it's 'better' than having the USA (or South Korea backed by the USA) at its borders. Same goes for the Russian Federation. Trump's disruptive 'diplomacy' with China doesn't help either. Tillerson is trying to do some damage control, but that's difficult with a president who doesn't follow the rules of the game.

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

But all is a show. Every country or agglomeration of them is a show. As in showbiz.

In the end, it comes down to the biggest guy with the biggest stick facing off the lesser guys with the lesser sticks. The problems arise when nobody can agree who is Alley Oop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz6IpmmYSXA

Always so.

Rob

[pegelli]

Isn't the problem that NK wants to reunite the original country his way?

I think both sides want to reunite the original country, and it has been the stated policy of the US to support the South in doing so. So why do we find it OK if one side arms up while the other isn't allowed to do the same? Just asking, I don't know the answer (other then the Alley oop logic). I also rather not see everybody nuke up, but NK doesn't have the largest or most potent arsenal (by a long shot)

[Chris Kern]

That's why Trump failed again when he took North Korea's bait/provocation, instead of trying a more collaborative approach together with partner stakeholders in the region.

Ironically, the Trump Administration was getting very favorable press here—and praise from foreign policy veterans of previous administrations representing both major political parties—for its role in assembling unanimous support for the Security Council resolution imposing additional sanctions on North Korea.  Nikki Haley and the career staff of the U.S. mission to the United Nations performed as well as anyone could have hoped in the behind-the-scenes negotiations that precede Security Council votes of this kind.

That's all been drowned out now by the clamor over Trump's bellicose comments.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I think both sides want to reunite the original country, and it has been the stated policy of the US to support the South in doing so. So why do we find it OK if one side arms up while the other isn't allowed to do the same? Just asking, I don't know the answer (other then the Alley oop logic). I also rather not see everybody nuke up, but NK doesn't have the largest or most potent arsenal (by a long shot)

Indeed, but how threatening with "Fire and Fury" is going to achieve anything positive is something that only Trump's Psychiater can figure out.

Trump is also very careless in mentioning nuclear options, unaware of what that might trigger in opposing forces.

Here are some of his referrals to the nuclear arsenal.

December 28, 2016  Commentary: With Trump, nuclear brinkmanship is back
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apps-nuclear-commentary-idUSKBN14H145

"With barely a single working day left until Christmas, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump appeared to unexpectedly announce an intensified nuclear arms race. "

Apparently, he thought that sheer numbers counted and childishly wanted to beat Russia.


January 15, 2017:  Trump says wants nuclear arsenals cut 'very substantially'
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-arms-idUSKBN14Z0XS

"When asked about the prospect of a nuclear arms reduction deal with Russia, Trump told the newspaper in an interview: "For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.” "

Somebody probably told him that the cost of maintaining the nuclear arsenal would be prohibitive, so now he wanted to cut the arsenal. In fact, that would be a wise thing to do, it would cost less, and after all, the weapons delivery systems are more important than sheer numbers of warheads. And there are still way more than required to take out all major cities of the opponent, which should be enough of a deterrent.


August 9, 2017:   Trump says U.S. nuclear arsenal stronger than ever
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-trump-idUSKBN1AP1DQ

QUOTE  "My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before," he wrote on Twitter. "Hopefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!"

Now it was his first order to renovate and modernize ..., and all the time I was thinking that putting Hillary Clinton in jail, no wait, building a wall, no wait, Coal miner's jobs, no wait, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the U.S., no wait, what was it exactly that was his first order??? It was an "Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", signed within hours of taking office. Whell,  that went well ...

Pompous bluster does not convince more intelligent opponents, like the North Korean leadership. Just look at Kim's approval rating from his people (and he is only the figure head of the powers in charge...).

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

and by freedom you mean Batista ? because that is what was there before Castro brothers 

Yeah.   So the Cubans didn't have freedom then either.   What's your point?