Politics

kbd512 · 2025-03-07 03:46:14

Trump's tariffs are a tax on US consumers. They are not a tax on Canadian exporters. I cannot see this being good for anyone, least of all the US. Tariffs on China make some sense, as North American producers need to replace Chinese imports before Mother Nature calls time on the Chinese economy. But tariffs on Canada and Mexico? One is a bulk commodity producer that the US needs smooth economic relations with.

Tariffs have been applied to American products imported into Canada, China, and Mexico for many decades longer than President Trump has been in office. Please explain why tariffs applied to American products imported into Canada, China, and Mexico are a good thing, and somehow not a tax levied against Canadian, Chinese, and Mexican consumers.

Is there any "greater magic" by which tariffs are a good thing when imposed upon American-made products imported into other countries, but bad when America imposes tariffs on products from countries that have historically applied a multitude of tariffs to American-made products?

That last part about tariffs on China "making sense", really doesn't make any sense if we're being completely logically consistent, but some members on this forum are not being logically consistent. They want preferential rules applied to their country, but take no issue with applying tariffs to other nation they're competing against. Is that type of inconsistency is a "special form" of consistency?

Maybe, just maybe, tariffs are being used by President Trump to protect American workers from foreign governments that are allowed to sell their products into America without tariffs, while their governments turn right back around and imposes significant tariffs on American made products, knowing full well that the end result will be the transfer of wealth of Americans to foreign countries. That was the reasoning used by foreign countries for their application of tariffs to American-made products. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander, or it's not good at all and needs to stop.

The US needs lumber, heavy oil, uranium, rare earths.

There is no actual shortage of those materials here in America, only the willpower to go after them. Democrat Presidents have repeatedly denied offshore drilling and mining permits to American businesses to open new mines here in America. It's time for that practice to end. We have enough Lithium in two deposits to bury all other global producers of Lithium. Democrats want EV mandates, so let them live next to some Lithium mines. They're going to become like President Biden from chronic exposure, but at least they won't have to remember how to drive their self-driving car. If those materials are all-important, then they should be extracted here in America by American labor, with American environmental regulations applied to the extraction processes. That way, no other nation can claim they're being exploited by America.

Mexico is industrialising fast, with a reasonably skilled, middle income workforce. The US needs Mexico as a manufacturing economy, able to fill the price points that US labour is too expensive for. A well integrated NAFTA could do most of what China does today. But none of that works without easy cross-border trade between all three countries.

Our Democrats just imported at least ten million people with which to create a new low-skill manufacturing economy here in America, and Mexico helped them do it. In the very near future, most manufacturing jobs will be done by robots, which require no sleep, take no lunch breaks, are paid no wages, do not go on strike after their demands for increased wages cannot be met without bankrupting the company, and only require electricity to continue producing. $25K for a robot that will never miss a day of work is peanuts compared to paying for a human worker. Necessity is the mother of all invention.

But none of that works without easy cross-border trade between all three countries.

What I just described is how commerce is going to function everywhere in the world, inside of the next 20 years or so. Every nation produces their own materials, goods, and services, locally, and only trades with foreign countries when they absolutely cannot create a locally-sourced like-kind substitute. Fewer things get produced in aggregate because it's not necessary to produce as many things when they're made to a higher quality standard and aren't deliberately designed to break. That tends to drive down over-consumption, which Democrats constantly tell me is a bad thing. You'd think they'd be happier about what President Trump is doing to achieve their stated climate policy objectives, but I guess they only meant consumption is bad when someone else is allowed to do what they do, even though that still doesn't make any sense. They talk a lot, spend a lot of other peoples' money, and accomplish nothing. It's part of their charm.

Europeans constantly criticize Americans for consuming too much. Now we're going to consume a lot less foreign-made products, hopefully none in the very near future. Does all the hysteria over President Trump reducing over-consumption by Americans mean we that Europeans actually want us to continue acting like Americans? I want some logical consistency, please and thank you.

If all the container ships filled with goods made in Asia or Europe or Canada and Mexico stopped arriving at American ports tomorrow, it would force Americans to prioritize what our true "needs" are, and then work towards "wants" after we reestablish local production. I can only dream of that day right now, but if Americans want a return to prosperity, that is what we must do.

I haven't purchased an article of clothing since before COVID started, and some of my clothes are older than my children. If I ever do need a new shirt or pair of pants, then I'll see what's available at the local thrift store. If that's not an option, then I'll buy whatever was made here, or learn to make do without. I spent the first half of my working life living out of a bag. Regardless of what I may want, I lost nothing of value by doing that. I may not be "fashionable" by European or coastie liberal standards, but I have more money in my pocket by refraining from purchasing anything I don't truly need.

People from my parents' generation spent their entire lives bankrupting everyone with their excess, but now it's time to pay for their excess, and pay we must, because we want a better future for our children. I'm not upset at them because they were never raised to know any better. At the same time, they gave us lots of great technological advancements, and were very industrious workers, so I chalk up the over-expenditure of public money to a misadventure borne of lack of reasoning about what it would lead to.

We're going back to a multi-polar world where America will only be one major player amongst many- Europe Union, Russia, China, India, Japan, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. That way the rest of you can blame yourselves or each other, rather than America, whenever something doesn't go your way. If you choose to start another world war due to the lack of maturity of your leaders, that's on you. We're bowing out of the superpower game because we're not wanted or needed in our current role. Now there are real consequences to an ill-advised war, so think carefully about who you give power to.

Void · 2025-03-07 09:36:02

kdb512 said:

Our Democrats just imported at least ten million people with which to create a new low-skill manufacturing economy here in America, and Mexico helped them do it. In the very near future, most manufacturing jobs will be done by robots, which require no sleep, take no lunch breaks, are paid no wages, do not go on strike after their demands for increased wages cannot be met without bankrupting the company, and only require electricity to continue producing. $25K for a robot that will never miss a day of work is peanuts compared to paying for a human worker. Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Very true. And we have young people while Canada apparently lacks them. That means a Market, which many nations do not have.

I am not desiring to be mean, RobertDyck, just to speak logic.

I was a bit uncomfortable about the resort to tariffs but now have had an insight about it.

Of taxes, income, property, sales, and tariffs, it seems to me that tariffs are like a sales tax. To some degree, this is a more fair tax for Americans. A necessity, like food, might be affected negatively, but it but most Americans, including me could lose some pounds. And if we do have hungry people we could stock food shelves for the poor, (Not Food Stamps, I think).

And if it is a tariff that is proportional to what is applied to the USA in the form of tariffs, and tricks, I think that is rather a good way to try to do it.

Beyond food, beds, water, and a few other things for most Americans spending is a choice. So, if the price of something is high, we can either make a cheaper copy internally or just do without.

If full self-driving cabs show up many people will likely not even bother to have a car in the future.

As for Ukraine/Russia, I guess Solomons solution might apply but in this case, we let the baby get cut in half, because it appears to be a Siamese twin. That is not us cutting the baby in half, rather we don't oppose it.

The stipulation that nation borders may not be change was ended when NATO gleefully took Kosovo from Serbia.

The story about Canada western oil can have interesting features as well. I believe that we export naphtha to Canada as a dilutant for Tar sands???
The Quebeckers will not let you do a pipeline to the East, and BC is similar. I would be happy if BC would allow a pipeline to the pacific. That could be helpful for our west coast, and for East Asia.

It is stupid for us to be involved in the unneeded annoyance of Russia. If we do a sort of Norad type of thing with them, then that could reduce our chances of getting nuked, at least by the non-Russians.

As for Russian oil and Natural Gas, our desire is to have cheap energy. With the Saudi, Russia, and North American sources, the price can go down, this will help inflation. If the Alien oil tries to run our oil out of business, we can apply tariffs. It would raise the price of oil, but would help to supply tax money that we could do things with like feed the hungry, and give them schools and stuff.

Canada was previously a Romanoid Intrusion into a Pseudo-Siberian population. This actually could balance out in a way favorable to the core of the North American continent. I am guessing that you will indeed be played with using Tariffs. There are a great number of games in that.

In reality it might have been possible to lockstep the USA and CANADA into a mutual Tariffs Shell. But then we would likely insist that cross border tariffs be mutual. That may not suit Quebec.

As for Steel, Aluminum, Cars and other potential war materials, it seems that the Europeans and Canada have been giving hostile signs to things that would have benefited America.

That gives us less incentive to play nice.

And I do intend that that be taken as logic, not hate.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-07 11:33:41)

Void · 2025-03-07 21:38:56

I am not a money whizz, and I am not trying to be cruel. But I have seen some information which may be of value for others.

It seems the web indicates that American Tariffs, would cause the dollar to rise in value.

Knowing that something might happen may be helpful to some who may be able to respond in a manner that would help their self.

https://www.marketplace.org/2025/01/06/ … he-dollar/ Quote:

“A tariff, it’s going to raise the U.S. dollar price of, say, something like Chinese goods inside the U.S. But what simultaneously is going to happen is the U.S. dollar is going to strengthen against the RMB, the Chinese currency,” Mitchener said.
That’s because the price of the dollar adjusts quickly to any signal of where tariffs are headed.

And I kind of sort of think I might understand, or not.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-07 21:43:35)

kbd512 · 2025-03-08 14:29:40

Void,

Food prices for ordinary Americans will be least affected by import tariffs because most Americans are not purchasing expensive imported food, alcohol, and tobacco products. As far as President Trump's tariffs are concerned, if tariffs make every nation maximally independent of other nations, then I consider that a worthwhile result. There's less incentive to attack your neighbors when your nation is not dependent upon any other nations for energy, goods, or services. Co-dependence, on the other hand, is a weakness that inevitably leads to conflict. Almost everyone holds the false belief that trading partners don't attack their trading partners. America, China, India, Iran, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and various other former European colonial empires are prima facie examples where that belief is directly falsified, and within living memory in most cases.

America and the United Kingdom traded with Iraq and Iran. We've attacked each other at various points in modern history (since the industrial revolution started, in living memory in several cases). Spain has attacked Mexico. Russia and Turkey trade with each other. Russia sells weapons to Turkey. Not more than 10 years ago, Turkish fighters shot down Russian fighters which crossed into their airspace from Syria. This tit-for-tat style of attack has been going on since empires existed. Inexplicably, some of us have been duped into believing it's abnormal for this kind of thing to happen.

The US military should maintain bases in territory that America owns, but nowhere else. If any allied nation expects American military forces to show up en masse to defend them, then they either build and maintain military bases for that purpose, or we don't show up. Collective defense is either a mutual beneficial arrangement, or it isn't. If America is spending most of the money to provide collective defense, it's not a mutually beneficial arrangement.

I don't want a wildly lopsided power dynamic between American leaders and leaders of other countries, because that also leads to conflict. If we are to maintain military alliances with other nations, then those alliances should be predicated upon shared values and nothing else. I'm not a spokesman for our military industrial complex, so if that means they sell fewer weapons, I really don't care. Weapons production should be based upon local requirements and technical know-how, which every nation should be individually responsible for providing. I don't want other nations to solely rely upon America for a credible defense against a surprise attack from other major powers, because that means America inevitably becomes militarily involved in local or regional conflicts to prevent allied nations from living with the aftermath of inexcusably poor defense procurement and deployment of forces policies.

We told the Europeans to start spending more on their own defense for 25 years, which they utterly failed to do until President Trump came along. It started as a very polite request under President Bush Jr, and ended with an outright demand under President Trump. They didn't want to spend their public money on defense because they wanted public health care and other costly welfare programs. I understand their motivation, but the US cannot provide guaranteed defense of allies unless we have the most massive military in the entire world, which then leads to arrogant American neocon politicians thinking they have some sort of "right" to start wars. They have no such right. Any war America fights from this point forward should be formally declared and funded by Congress, because it's their responsibility to do so.

Void · 2025-03-08 20:32:03

I notice quite a bit of sensible thinking in your post, by my evaluation of it.

I am not sure if Canada has as full a spectrum of food stuffs. I noticed on Utube that some Canadians were wishing their leaders would not retaliate against America as much by putting tariffs on foods from the USA. As it may be harmful to the common people in Canada who are already struggling. A tariff on food would be a sales tax on food, which perhaps for common items should not be done.

I do think that tariffs instead of federal income tax could be a preference for us at this time as there is a degree of choice as to if you really want to buy a certain item or could do without it. Income tax perhaps gives less economic choice to reduce the tax you might pay.

Also, it may very well bring more production inside of the tariff walls. With the advent of extreme automation, including humanoid robots, this seems like a clever business move.

And we may either get lower prices from the producers outside of the tariff walls, while paying our taxes as well, or buying product within the tariff walls, if the outside producer cannot give a low enough price.

Many of the "Democrats" at this time represent an archaic remnant from the now last dead turning, and now we seem to be free to navigate the new turning to actual benefits and even fairness which was impossible in the last few decades.

The so-called Europeans seem to be a great disappointment, not their poor commoners who have to obey, but their incompetent leadership. We seem to have shed ours now, the incompetence level is better, so far.

Like the Democrats in the USA, the leadership in Canada appears to resemble European wannabees. They should not wannabe, in my opinion.

We tried very hard to assist the Europeans in Union, but the burden was too much. I thought for a while that the Russians could be brought in, but it did not work out. We did not have the means to stitch the two together, and I feel that damaged us. We did not have enough unity force to lend them. They seem careless, just about determined to go to a bloodbath yet again.

So, I do think that we want a core of nation vision, that nation though, encompasses more than some may suppose.

Should the British fail to improve, we may have to continue on without them. It is like a zombie infection, we were sick, but we somehow found some method to repel it, it seems.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-08 20:50:02)

RobertDyck · 2025-03-08 22:28:07

First, no, Canada will not create an exception for foods from the US. Canada will have to get fresh produce from Mexico. The Prime Minister has asked citizens to just not buy orange juice. Population has increased a lot in southern Ontario. There is a "green belt" where development is not supported to happen. Some people who live there don't understand why, but southern Ontario is south of the 49th parallel. The city of Windsor is as far south as northern California. Toronto is 43°40' which is equal to Oregon. Many fruits and vegetables will grow in southern Ontario or the Okanagan Valley of BC that will not grow elsewhere in Canada. Canada will have to re-emphasize agriculture there.

The way to stop this is to end tariffs. Attacking America's allies is really stupid. Under the US Constitution, Congress has authority to impose tariffs, not the President. A law does allow the president to do this should a drug issue exist. There isn't one, it's just a justification. In 2023, 2 pounds of fentynal was siezed at the Canadian border, and 23 pounds in 2024. The US border siezed 21,900 pounds total in 2024. The US exports more illegal drugs to Canada than the other way. The Canadian government did so more to protect the border, since Trump wanted it so much. A total of 1/2 ounce of fentynal was seized in January, crossing into the US. And migrants: more illegal migrants enter Canada from the US than the other way. But Trump wasn't satisfied, he said nothing Canada does will prevent the tariffs. That is a confession this has nothing to do with drugs or migrants.

Steel and aluminium: tariffs are only legal if Canada threatened to cut off supply. Canada never did any such thing. These tariffs are illegal, it's time for Congress to act. Assert Congressional authority as stated in the Constitution. Repeal the bills that authorize the President to impose tariffs under any circumstance. Require him to get Congressional authority. And for Canada and Mexico: just deny.

Void · 2025-03-09 05:24:40

Thank you for giving a different point of view Robert.

I am interested in this both for the legal process and for the process control that might encourage or discourage the Aquisition and generation of wealth for a nation.

You may be correct to assume that I have a certain amount of ignorance in the legal process. However, I am equally interested in process control. I did a lot of it in my working life.

As for Legal, you caused me to take a look on the internet: https://www.csis.org/analysis/making-ta … ew-tariffs Quote:

Making Tariffs Great Again: Does President Trump Have Legal Authority to Implement New Tariffs on U.S. Trading Partners and China?

I have read part of it, and it does support the idea that Congress and the Courts could put a counterpressure on the President if they desired. But it appears that in actual history past practice has given the President a lot of power to act, provided the rest of the government does not choose to oppose the President's actions.

Generally speaking, politics around economics tends to be wishy-washy and rather fishy as well, as odors in Denmark.

On to process control. I have enjoyed a greater understanding now:

1) Tariffs or sales tax. Tariffs apply only to international borders it seems, I believe that states don't have the right to impose them on other states. Sales taxes can be local to a city, and I suppose they must not be so large that they encourage shopping to go to another location. (That last part is reliant on a business sense not a legal sense).

2) Income taxes of course can be Federal and State and often are.

3) Property and access taxes, seem to depend on the ownership of property, or access to a service. Property Taxes are generally on real estate, and I think are illegal for the federal government to use.

So, if you need tax money to satisfy a common interest or necessary function in a society, you have to pick and choose how you want to structure taxes.

But the use of Tariffs by a country like the USA are not illegal or perhaps immoral.

Certain potential to control the war related goods, for self-defense of a country do seem to have weight in my mind. Steel, Aluminum, and heavy manufacturing for instance.

The general contempt that the world has for our people and our nation created a hostile potential, I believe. While it has been possible to work with the residuals for the British Empire, or other empires that have somewhat fallen or have evolved, there is a lack of decency apparent, by the eagerness for hate from some of these. The concern for the intent of the King to protect his cultural heritage is reducing trust for that royal institution.

Rumors are that he may have converted to an alien religion. If so, then he and his institution might be a deep danger to the USA. The British hold up some of the institutions, that we value but many world religions intentionally openly claim to be hostile to them. For instance, one type of church has openly said that it is not a Democracy. And that is OK, as long as they give to Ceasar that which is Ceasars. But another religion that is not like that absolutely wants to have all the power. The alignment of the USA with post Empire entities in part requires a trust, and I think we are feeling uneasy. Foreign partners will not be valued if they make themselves a conduit for hostile alien entities to get to us.

It seems to me that it is not correct to assert that the USA does not have the moral right to use tariffs. A trade partner also is right to not like it, and to retaliate in kind at least if they want to. However, a sudden intentional stoppage of something like electric power seems to me to be another thing. A contract to supply and allow passage will have been violated.

However I have read the postings of Canadians, and it appears that pipelines that pass though the USA supply petroleum products to Eastern Canida. Pipeline #9??? And as I recall, we also supply, natural gas to Eastern Canida.

As for Oil, it seems true that the USA imports a lot of it, but we also export lots of finished products. And yes, it is a nice thing for the USA and for Canadian Producers, that Canadian Oil can flow into the USA, as BC and Quebec will not so far allow additional pipeline construction to either ocean.

I can say, I have very little emotional response to this situation. I am not in realty able to set the rules of play or be a referee. I am along for the ride, but can have opinions and develop them to change.

Thanks for the conversation.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-09 06:03:37)

RobertDyck · 2025-03-09 10:18:29

Void: a couple points. Ronald Reagan insisted Canada establish a free trade agreement with the US. This has been good and bad. Many Canadian businesses were out-competes, putting them out of business. However, free access to the US market has allowed some Canadian companies to thrive. The annoying problem is we keep hearing American companies complain loudly when Canadian companies succeed, but they don't care when they enter Canada and put Canadian companies out of business. Now Trump is that same problem ramped up.

The US is not able to produce enough oil to satisfy the American market. Period. It doesn't matter how much you "drill baby drill". Expanding oil production in the US will allow new wells to replace old wells that are running dry. That will have the overall effect of maintaining production rate. The US was a net exporter of oil during World War 2, but wells ran dry, the US has had to import for a very long time, at least since the early 1970s. Fracking has allowed extraction of oil from deposits previously inaccessible. Basically oil depots that haven't finished "cooking", but do have some oil. The oil that is there is very high grade, but it's limited. All the easy to get oil is gone, what's left is the hard to get stuff. Canada harvests tar sands aka oil sands. Also hard to get, because bitumen has to be separated from the sand. George W. Bush pushed an initiative to make North America oil independent. A combination of new oil from fracking together with oil from Canada and Mexico would satisfy the entire US market. This would eliminate importing overseas oil, most especially from Middle East countries and other dictatorships. Ending American interests in unstable countries means war there would not affect the US, so the US could simply not get involved. Furthermore, American money from buying that oil funded weapons in those wars. Starving them if money starves them of weapons. But Greenies in California didn't like Canadian oil:"it's too icky!!!" So Joe Biden reduced imports from Canada, resumed imports from the Middle East and dictatorships. If Trump was smart, he would resume George W.'s initiative, make North America oil independent.

RobertDyck · 2025-03-09 10:31:46

Yes, oil pipeline #3 carries oil from Alberta to the Chicago area. Pipeline #9 connects just outside Chicago, passes north of Detroit into Canada, then connects to oil refineries in southern Ontario and Montreal. A spur off Line #9 goes north up Michigan, under the river to Sault St. Marie, Ontario. That's the only refinery in northwest Ontario. Line #9 was going to extend further from Montreal to Quebec City, but that part was never finished. Due to Canadian politics. Technically the refinery is across the river from Quebec City in Laval, but whatever. Laval still receives crude oil via ship.

Void · 2025-03-09 10:51:10

Reagan was a long time ago. We were locked into our Romanoid allies. The Red block was very dangerous.

I think this present era is about the re-emergence of a more American identity, as the last immigration bubble from Europe has been absorbed, assimilated, and also passed on. I believe the prior immigration waves were more those who did not enjoy how Romanoid cultures were run.

While Europe has become more inclusive to non-Romanoid peoples. Unity is insufficient, and instead of them being able to absorb the northern and eastern peoples, they tried to go to war with them and hoped to ride America as if a war horse to conquest them. The unity of the greater European peoples has failed, and the USA, has far less reason to need to seek alliance with the Romanoids.

So, as we pull back into ourselves, you should not be surprised, if we wake up and say, "And you are?". I don't think it has to be too rugged. Probably you should take a chill pill and not get too excited about it.

Reagan had contempt for in inland people anyway. The Romanoid influx, on the coasts tended to think they were "the all in all of everything". But they were able to avoid blowing up the planet.

As for Oil, my understanding is that the USA is currently a net energy exporter.
Biden being a Romanoid, was eager to stifle American production with the camouflage of environmentalism. This might allow importers to make money.

The Romanoids have a tendency to step on the smaller people, while they are also eager to set up a patronage system. They do not desire well rounded citizens but rather would like to foster broken people that they can rule over easily. Hair Shirts for thee but not for me sort of.

https://www.enerdata.net/publications/d … years.html

Anyway, the arrangement where Canada is a source of our imports is a good one, as otherwise we would have to change our refineries, and Canadas resources might go to waste.

It is a good deal for both, it seems to me. The previous administration wanted very poor citizens I believe, and I think this new one wants prosperity.

Deindustrialization of the west appears to have been a goal, of many forces in the world, and not all of them external to the USA. The desire to create a royal ruling class and then to starve out the rest of the people to make them obedient.

It appears to me that the USA is not going to have it that way, and will use blunt instruments if necessary to let others know that.

I am afraid things might be a bit rough while these things get sorted out.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-09 11:05:04)

RobertDyck · 2025-03-09 13:23:08

Roosevelt proposed the US to prevent war from ever happening again. It's too bad he didn't live to see V-E Day, or creation of the UN. The US proposed the US dollar bemused for world money exchange, and other countries accepted that since it was backed by gold. But Nixon abolished the gold standard. Fiat currency has left the economy unstable.

But more relevant is peace. After WW2 the US had the world's largest navy, so volunteered to patrol the oceans to eliminate piracy. This enabled world trade. Before that, nations required resources to manufacture their own goods. For an industrial economy, a nation required iron ore, coal, and food. If it only had 2, no industry. But with global trade, a nation only required one valuable commodity and could specialize. The US got very rich, the richest economy that has ever existed in human history. But in recent years the US has specialized it's navy with aircraft carrier groups. Patrolling for pirates requires a large number of smaller ships: frigates, destroyers, and/or corvettes. Piracy has resumed in certain areas. Furthermore, the US protected it's allies, preventing strong countries from bullying weaker ones. The age of empires using military to take land and resources from other nations ended. But now the US got bored, doesn't want to do that anymore. This is dangerous. War to take resources was the norm throughout recorded history, for at least 5,000 years, possibly more. We had an unprecedented period of global peace and prosperity. It may not have seemed so, there were many small regional wars, butajor powers did not fight against each other. And a strong empire absorbing smaller nations stopped.

Other nations pointed out the US has a military far too large and powerful. The US military budget was larger than the next 28 countries combined, and 25 of them were allies. The 3 countries with large military budgets who were not allies were China, Russia, and North Korea. The world tried to tell the US they appreciate the protection, but cut it down to something reasonable. The US didn't because military contractors didn't want their revenue reduced. So it became the military-industrial complex.

Now the US doesn't want to do that anymore. Bored. Europe has a much larger military than many Americans think. Europe didn't need to increase spending, the US needed to just unilaterally cut. Close US military bases in western Europe, focus on eastern Europe. China is a threat, but does the US needed based in Australia? Sure, Japan and Taiwan need protection from China. But rather than focus on what's needed, cutting to size, the US lost focus. Military contractors wanted to maintain spending.

Now Ukraine needs help. I could go over that again, but you're aware. You can't claim Europe hasn't done their part. Europe provided far more support to Ukraine than the US. No one country, but Europe as a whole. Trump doesn't understand that, but he gets many things wrong. Being isolationist at the beginning of WW1 didn't work, nor the beginning of WW2. It would have cost less to intervene as soon as Russia invaded Crimea, honouring the Budapest Memorandum. But we're here. Stopping now will return the world to the age of wars. If Russia wins in Ukraine, it means WW3. Because Russia WON'T stop there. Other lesser powers will see a bully can get away with it, so will attack their weaker neighbors. Venezuela has already threatened Guana, demanding a territory that's 2/3 the land area of Guana.

Terraformer · 2025-03-09 16:31:32

Lots of muttering about blocs and countries building their own Starlinks right now. And other essential defense infrastructure/industries.

Now, here's the thing. Britain left the EU, and Canada is understandably wary of America. Forming a CANZUK defense and space alliance with Australia and New Zealand is the obvious bloc for us, if we're back to that sort of international politics. It would be resource rich whilst also being technologically highly capable, especially if funding is made available.

kbd512 · Yesterday 11:58:44

RobertDyck,

America didn't "get bored" playing global policeman, America "got poor". There's a difference. It's amazing how someone with more than enough information to figure out what's going on can contort the situation to mean what he wants it to mean, rather than what it actually means.

Other nations pointed out the US has a military far too large and powerful. The 3 countries with large military budgets who were not allies were China, Russia, and North Korea. The world tried to tell the US they appreciate the protection, but cut it down to something reasonable.

Since the EU's military budget will now match America's annual military budget, all the leaders in Europe disagree with your assertion. You are not remotely qualified to determine what is or isn't reasonable. Your beliefs reflect having lived your entire life sheltered from the very ugly reality of life elsewhere in the world, where China or Russia or North Korea or Iran is your nextdoor neighbor.

Europe has a much larger military than many Americans think. Europe didn't need to increase spending, the US needed to just unilaterally cut. Close US military bases in western Europe, focus on eastern Europe.

If Europe has such a strong military, why does America need to maintain any military bases in Europe at all?

China is a threat, but does the US needed based in Australia?

The US maintains 3 facilities in Australia that host seasonal military exercise participants:
Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt
Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap
Robertson Barracks

Could we close those facilities?

Sure. How would we conduct military exercises with the Australians without them, though?

Marines have to be housed somewhere if they're going to be involved in an exercise spanning six months.

94% of all US personnel stationed overseas are deployed to only 10 countries:
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Italy
United Kingdom
Bahrain
Spain
Turkey
Norway
Belgium

The total head count for forward deployed forces varies between 150,000 and 200,000.

We could bring all those people home, but to what end? Merely to send them back out for their annual exercises with partner nations? If they're going to be there for 6 months anyway, what sense does that make?

We had an unprecedented period of global peace and prosperity. It may not have seemed so, there were many small regional wars, butajor powers did not fight against each other. And a strong empire absorbing smaller nations stopped.

Post WWII wasn't peaceful anywhere in the developing world. Whether you blame local dictators, economic circumstances, or America for that undeniable fact, the simple fact remains that there was nothing but war following WWII if you lived in the developing world. The wars were no longer on the doorsteps of major colonial powers because that is what the US sought to end with Bretton-Woods, but war as a way of life never went away. Ask someone who lives in Africa or Southeast Asia how "peaceful" the latter half of the 20th century was.

We're trying something new here. We're going to try to get along with Russia, rather than constantly antagonizing them. For all practical purposes, after China becomes comfortable invading their neighbors, we're going to need Russia and India to help contain them. You may think this is a matter of secondary importance to the war in Ukraine, but the entire world will think differently if their entire supply of advanced microchips is cut off in 2027.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 14:01:02

kbd512 wrote:

America didn't "get bored" playing global policeman, America "got poor".

Yes they did. Government must always chose priorities and focus. America's military became unfocused, involved with regional conflicts, no longer focused on maintaining global security. They (you're not in government) forgot about piracy and it's threat to global trade. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush gave General Norman Schwarzkopf the order to have a clear military objective before going in. Do NOT get bogged down like Vietnam. But Congress insisted on establishing a no-fly zone and continuing to interfere after the first Persian Gulf War. That became exactly what President Bush said not to do. That drained resources, because fighting piracy isn't "sexy".

kbd512 wrote:

Other nations pointed out the US has a military far too large and powerful.

You served in the military, so you should know better than that. But apparently not. During times of peace, drastically reduce military spending, focus on economy. When under imminent threat from an invader, you rapidly ramp up. The US built West Point to train a corp of highly skilled army officers. The US Constitution forbids maintaining a permanent standing army. The idea is officers can recruit and train civilians to become an effective fighting force very quickly. In fact, Congress must pass a bill every year to renew "emergency" preparations to be allowed to maintain an army. Canada used to do that. Canada's army was shrunk down to 3 regiments each with numbers roughly equal to 2 battalions. But Canadian army training is equivalent to US Marine training, and every enlisted soldier is trained for the next rank above his/her current position. The reason was if a major conflict on the order of World War 2 were to break out, Canada could enact conscription (the draft). Every current soldier gets a promotion by one rank, and privates are filled with new recruits who just completed basic training. This would balloon each regiment from roughly 2 battalions to 2 divisions each. Roughly; I'm over simplifying corp structure. There's one command "division" that's Canadian equivalent to the Pentagon, then 4 divisions of infantry, a division of tanks, etc. When Donald Trump was President the first time, the Canadian army started recruiting to fill all divisions. Now it's almost at full capacity, and the Canadian military is on a crash recruitment program to complete filling its ranks. Stop and think about that for a moment. This means Canada treats the Trump presidency as a dire threat equivalent to a World War.

In Europe, their military strength was far more than most American's think. And your comments make me believe, you didn't realize how strong they were either. But Europe had also reduced strength to maintain security in peacetime. The UK had 4 ballistic missile submarines with multiple sea-launched ballistic missiles carrying a total of 120 nuclear warheads. Part of their orders are if the UK is destroyed, they are to retaliate by completely destroying Russia. Mutual Assured Destruction. The UK also has 6 attack submarines. All UK submarines are nuclear powered. The UK has other nuclear warheads, total 225 including submarine warheads. Wikipedia isn't going to list what they're all for. France also has nuclear weapons. I could go on about European conventional weapons.

Russia has started their attack. They intend to capture all of Ukraine. No, they won't be satisfied with Crimea plus 4 eastern oblasts. Russia has explicitly stated their intent to take all of Ukraine. Once they have it, they will do what they did for the invasion of February 2022: force-conscript all Ukrainian males between age 15-55 who do not have a Russian passport, and any who did have a Russian passport but worked in a job the Russian's did not consider vital infrastructure. Yes, Russia conscripted artists and journalists. One week after the initial invasion, they increased the age range to 65. They will do it again, this time starting with ages 15-65. New recruits will be required to invade Poland. Or will they attack Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia first? Russia will take all of them, the only question is which first. Russia will also take Moldova, a strip of Romania between Moldova and the Carpathian mountains, and Finland. They also stated their intent to take East Germany including Berlin. If they succeed in that, do you really think they'll stop there? Stalin wanted the whole world. Russia has fought with Sweden in the past; what is now Saint Petersberg was originally part of Sweden.

So yes, now is the time to bulk-up the military.

kbd512 wrote:

If Europe has such a strong military, why does America need to maintain any military bases in Europe at all?

In western Europe, it doesn't. Focus should be eastern Europe. It's a concern Trump closed the military base in Greece. Putin ordered Trump to close it because that base has a port used to receive weapons destined for Ukraine. Why is Trump taking orders from Putin?

kbd512 wrote:

Australia ... Could we close those facilities? ... How would we conduct military exercises with the Australians without them, though?

Canada does not allow the US to have a military base on Canadian soil. As a result of the War of 1812. Bases in Canada for the DEW line were operated by Canadian personnel. Obviously it's been updated, what exists now I'm not sure. But early warning bases in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland are integrated, data shared between Canada and US. I believe the base in Greenland is owned/operated by the US, but not those in Canada. Joint military exercises are conducted on Canadian military bases. Australia could do the same.

kbd512 wrote:

94% of all US personnel stationed overseas are deployed to only 10 countries:
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Italy
United Kingdom
Bahrain
Spain
Turkey
Norway
Belgium

I'm saying they're needed in Japan, South Korea, and eastern Europe. Turkey? Hmm, probably leave that one.

The total head count for forward deployed forces varies between 150,000 and 200,000.

kbd512 wrote:

We could bring all those people home, but ... annual exercises with partner nations? If they're going to be there for 6 months anyway

An exercise does not take 6 months.

kbd512 wrote:

Post WWII wasn't peaceful anywhere in the developing world.

And you think it's acceptable for China, Russia, and now Trump's America to use all the military might of a modern world power to conquer, subjugate, annex, and treat neighbors as resources?

kbd512 wrote:

We're trying something new here. We're going to try to get along with Russia, rather than constantly antagonizing them. For all practical purposes, after China becomes comfortable invading their neighbors, we're going to need Russia and India to help contain them. You may think this is a matter of secondary importance to the war in Ukraine, but the entire world will think differently if their entire supply of advanced microchips is cut off in 2027.

I would like peace with Russia as well. Pandering to them will not work. It's been tried, many times. Russia treats a "ceasefire" as a way to trick their opponent to stop fighting. Then Russia backstabs them with a surprise attack. There have been 200 talks resulting in 20 ceasefires in Ukraine between the invasion of Crimea in 2014, and the full invasion of February 2022. And there's the ceasefire Russia signed with Chechnya in 1997, resulting in invasion in year 2000.

If Russia gets to keep any portion of Ukraine, they will take everything that was every part of the Soviet Union, or a vassal state of the Soviet Union (Warsaw Pact), as well as anything that was part of the Russian Empire under the Tzars. Putin filed a document with the international community explicitly saying so. When the rest of the world sees that Russia is allowed to keep what they take, other dictators will invade their weaker neighbors. As I said, Venezuela has already stated their intent to invade Guyana. Don't think it'll stop there.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 14:14:24

Want peace in Ukraine? Here are terms.

remove all Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. borders before 2014. No exceptions.
return all Ukrainian POWs
return all Ukrainian abducted children
Ukraine will be a full member of NATO
Ukraine will join EU

Points for negotiation:

Russian generals should be surrendered to Ukraine for trial for war crimes. But as a concession, allow Russia to keep them.
Russia should pay for all war damages. As a concession, allow Russia to just not pay.
Nuclear weapons will not be stationed on Ukrainian soil. However, NATO will station troops and conventional weapons to ensure Russia doesn't invade again.
Ukraine will return territory they occupy in Kursk oblast. But only after Russia leaves Ukrainian territory.
Russia will be allowed to remove all weapons and equipment from Crimea, including equipment of their navy bases.
release all sanctions against Russia
release frozen bank accounts (over 2/3 of that money is in Brussels)

The last point is much more important to Russia than you realize. If they don't get that money back, their banking system is going to collapse. When their banking system collapses, their economy will collapse. When that happened in 1917 and 1991, their country ceased to exist. Will this result in a coup? Will Putin be incarcerated, or executed?

kbd512 · Yesterday 18:29:48

RobertDyck,

America's military became unfocused, involved with regional conflicts, no longer focused on maintaining global security.

The entire reason we went to the Middle East to begin with was at the behest of the British, who reminded us of our obligation as allies to support their attempt to retake Kuwait. If America was unfocused on global security, according to you, then what does that say about the Europeans who demanded that America be there to begin with? America took Europe's and China's energy security concerns "too seriously"?

The bulk of the oil from Kuwait went to Europe or Asia by the time Gulf War II rolled around, not America, contrary to media blather. We did not buy our oil from Kuwait or Iraq. We were indeed "after the oil", but not for America, for our allies. The entire time the "No Fly Zone" was being enforced over Southern Iraq after Gulf War I, the Iraqis were taking pot shots at American patrol fighters using their remaining SAM batteries. That means they deliberately broke the cease fire agreement after Gulf War I. This breaking of the cease fire agreement happened about once per week. If Saddam never intended to abide by the terms of the cease fire, then we should've continued our push to take Baghdad.

What was the end result?

Factions inside Iraq fought a civil war and then a war against ISIS. Iraq remains an independent country with democratically elected leadership, to this day. That was the end objective, which was accomplished with military force and the willingness of the Iraqi people to not travel back down the same road that gave them Saddam. It was never pretty, but it worked.

Afghanistan never "worked out" because the people we recruited into the Afghan National Army never had any intention of making it work.

During times of peace, drastically reduce military spending, focus on economy. When under imminent threat from an invader, you rapidly ramp up.

You need a real world education in logistics. As far as rapidly ramping up production is concerned, there is no such capability to do that anywhere in the western world, specifically because we followed the policy you're advocating for after the Cold War ended. The policies that were effectively forced upon our military and the logistics apparatus that feeds it is part of the very same "alternative reality" that prevents the European Union from doing anything effective to fight back against Russia. War against peer level adversaries is a numbers game. Short of using nuclear weapons, if the enemy outnumbers you 10-to-1, then it doesn't matter how advanced your military is, because it won't be effective enough to achieve much more than a stalemate.

America has 12 aircraft carrier battlegroups on paper. In reality, we have 4 that are capable of operational deployment at any given time, all of which are stationed in entirely different parts of the world. The reason we only have 4 carriers available goes right back to basic logistics. All warships built and employed from WWII onwards follow a distinct repair, training / workup, and then operational deployment cycle. If you attempt to skip any of the phases of that cycle, there should be no expectation that the crews are even modestly prepared for combat against a competent enemy.

2 carrier battlegroups were required to provide 24/7 air support over Afghanistan, a nation with no organized military to speak of, which covers a land area about the same size as Texas. Therefore, deploying only 2 aircraft carriers against China, a nation with a very large military, spread across a land area nearly identical in size to the US, is an utterly ridiculous idea, even if there are no losses or significant hits to any of the available ships.

In Europe, their military strength was far more than most American's think. And your comments make me believe, you didn't realize how strong they were either.

Your comments make me think you've never paid attention to how long it takes to move a division of men and machines anywhere inside of Europe.

The UK had 4 ballistic missile submarines with multiple sea-launched ballistic missiles carrying a total of 120 nuclear warheads.

The UK would have 1 mission capable sub carrying ICBMs deployed at any given time, possibly 2 during a surge. You may believe otherwise, but you're still wrong.

Canadian army training is equivalent to US Marine training, and every enlisted soldier is trained for the next rank above his/her current position.

That's great, but the US Marine Corps is 6 times the size of the entire Canadian Army. The Canadian Army totaled 730,000 during WWII. Our Marine Corps had to grow to the same size as our active duty Army is today, during WWII. You can't accomplish that in six months. If the shooting started with China tomorrow, the rate at which the Corps can grow / replenish losses depends greatly upon how many Marines are already available to train their replacements. It's a logistics problem. Today's US Army is more than 15 times the size of the Canadian Army, or 30 times the size when you include all the reserve troops, who have seen more deployments to war zones than the active duty force in many cases. We don't employ reserve troops the way other militaries do. If you join the Army National Guard, you're getting deployed to a war zone at some point during your 8 year contract, probably by choice because that means you're getting combat pay. 70% of the Marines who fought in WWII were part of the reserves.

It's a concern Trump closed the military base in Greece. Putin ordered Trump to close it because that base has a port used to receive weapons destined for Ukraine. Why is Trump taking orders from Putin?

Souda Bay remains an active American naval base. Cite your sources or stop the nonsense.

Joint military exercises are conducted on Canadian military bases. Australia could do the same.

US military bases are located where they are in Australia because that's where Australia wants them. You're welcome to argue the point with the Australians.

An exercise does not take 6 months.

According to the Australian military web pages it does. Again, your argument is with Australia, not the US. Go tell the Australians how long military exercises are supposed to take.

And you think it's acceptable for China, Russia, and now Trump's America to use all the military might of a modern world power to conquer, subjugate, annex, and treat neighbors as resources?

What I want and the way the world actually works are two very different things.

I would like peace with Russia as well.

Russia has already indicated what their terms are for peace. We promised the Russians that NATO would not expand one inch eastward from Germany after the Soviet Union fell. We've reneged on that promise at least 20 times, and we continue to antagonize them by suggesting that Ukraine will join NATO. The Russians don't want NATO-aligned nations on their borders. They made that crystal clear from the end of the Cold War to the present day.

Don't think it'll stop there.

If Canada and the EU think they have the military might turn back the Russian Army, then there should be a lot less talking and a lot more doing.

kbd512 · Today 07:12:34

RobertDyck,

Attempting to admit Ukraine into NATO will ensure that the war with Russia continues. That was the entire stated reason for starting the war. The rest of the nonsense thrown out by Putin about rebuilding the Russian empire was merely his personal beliefs, which are not germane to the primary issue Russia has with having NATO countries on their borders. If Putin was gone tomorrow, the Russians would still be fighting in Ukraine to prevent NATO's eastward expansion, because that's a national priority for them. You have to separate national geopolitical issues from specific personalities in government. If all political parties are after the same objectives, then it's no longer about who's in charge, because regardless of who presently holds power, their strategic objectives are congruent. This is the same as thinking you're going to get a night-and-day different Soviet Union under Kruschev vs Stalin. It's the same Soviet Union with a different person in charge. There will be some reshuffling of national priorities, but not on major contentious issues.

All that oil and gas that was headed to Europe is now headed to China. If you think the Russian economy will collapse if Russian oligarch money in Brussels is not released, then you should be able to tell us why the Russian economy hasn't collapsed already. Peter Zeihan told us that the Russian oil and gas industry would collapse after the winter froze all of it in the pipelines leading to Europe. We blew up the Nordstream pipelines, but output of Russian oil and gas basically hasn't changed much over the past several years, because it's being redirected to China and India. Peter clearly didn't account for that possibility. Since Europe is an unreliable customer compared to China, Russia is not going to redirect the output back to Europe after the fighting stops, which means their source of income is stable, so they can continue producing weapons until they run out of raw materials. I wouldn't count on Russia running out of Iron, wood, and chemicals to make weapons.

Maybe it's time for a reality check on how "integrated" Russia actually is into the global economy. I don't think there is any integration to speak of. You can only take Russia's internationally-held money one time, and then it's no longer a bargaining chip. Now they view the West / NATO as thieves, in addition to being duplicitous on the matter of eastward NATO expansion. You're removing the incentive they have to negotiate, which means you're either going to militarily defeat them, or they overrun over Ukraine in due time.

So, then, short of using nuclear weapons, how does the EU intend to defeat the Russian Army?

Where are all those divisions of men and equipment to be supplied by the EU, and why are they not already amassed on the border of Ukraine?

They either don't exist, the Europeans are unwilling to use them, or they're not able to be used for the aforementioned logistical reasons.

How many operational tanks can France, Germany, and the UK send into Ukraine for combined arms maneuver warfare?

How many artillery pieces are available for support?

How many combat coded jets are available to support the ground maneuver element, and what vulnerability do they have to Russian SAM systems unless the very first missions are SEAD, rather than support?

I think you'll be shocked by how few are ready to be used.

RobertDyck · Today 11:56:19

Before Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, Ukraine would never have been allowed in NATO. EU yes, but not NATO. Joe Biden talked about it, but joining NATO requires unanimous agreement by all current members. Both Hungary and Germany would never have allowed it. But after the full-scale invasion of 2022, NATO has decided to accept Ukraine. Decision is already made.

Before 2014, Russia rented land in Crimea for naval bases. Now Ukraine will never allow Russia any presence on Ukrainian soil.

Before 2024, Russia tried to convince all former members of the Soviet Union to join the Eurasian Union. Modelled on the EU. Ukraine held a referendum, overwhelmingly Ukrainians voted to join the EU. Ukraine could have traded with both, acting as arbitrage between them. East Ukraine sold military equipment to Russia. Now Ukraine will have nothing to do with Russia, and certainly won't sell weapons, ammunition or military equipment to Russia.

Invasion has caused the opposite of everything Putin claimed this war is about. It was really really stupid.

And don't tell me what Putin would accept. It's not up to him. He ordered invasion causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. He's a murderer and terrorist. Russia cannot sustain this war long term. Russia's banking system will collapse late this year, next year latest. Just keep the sanctions in place. If you want the war to end sooner, convince Trump to impose even stiffer sanctions. In 1917 and 1991 when Russia had a major economic collapse, their country ceased to exist. If Putin wants to remain president of Russia, he better give up soon. Dictators don't have a retirement plan. When Russia overthrows Putin, where would he take refuge? Who would take him in?

kbd512 · Today 12:21:08

RobertDyck,

Invasion has caused the opposite of everything Putin claimed this war is about. It was really really stupid.

Putin is stupid... What a wonderfully reductive bit of logic that allows you to ignore his / Russia's rationale for invading. You're just barely playing checkers with your reasoning. Putin is playing chess.

And don't tell me what Putin would accept. It's not up to him. He ordered invasion causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. He's a murderer and terrorist.

Russia gets a vote on which military organizations their nextdoor neighbors are allowed to join. You arrogantly think their opinions are irrelevant, but the entire reason there are hundreds of thousands of dead people, is that their opinions do matter.

Russia cannot sustain this war long term. Russia's banking system will collapse late this year, next year latest. Just keep the sanctions in place.

If Russia's banking system does not collapse, what's the next bit of economic and geopolitical sophistry you're going to tell yourself to paper over the fact that your arguments aren't congruent with reality?

If you want the war to end sooner, convince Trump to impose even stiffer sanctions.

What else do you think the US can sanction?

Everything that we feasibly could do to economically weaken Russia was already done by President Biden's administration. It didn't work. It strengthened Russia-China alliance, however temporary that may be, but achieved little else.

In 1917 and 1991 when Russia had a major economic collapse, their country ceased to exist.

I'm sorry, but Russia very much did still exist after the Tsar was deposed (1917) and the Soviet Union (1991) dissolved. You're attempting to reimagine modern history as it never was. Russia, the nation, was very much still present after both of those events.

If Putin wants to remain president of Russia, he better give up soon. Dictators don't have a retirement plan. When Russia overthrows Putin, where would he take refuge? Who would take him in?

If he does not "give up", then what? You'll talk about him some more? Write a strongly worded letter?

You believe that Putin's intentions for what will become of Russia are not widely held by other Russians. This is based on what?

Let's say you get your wish and Putin does get overthrown. What kind of person will take his place? Can you even imagine that he might be more ruthless and cunning and violent, rather than less, or is that beyond your ability to contemplate?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#2776 2025-03-07 03:46:14

Re: Politics

#2777 2025-03-07 09:36:02

Re: Politics

#2778 2025-03-07 21:38:56

Re: Politics

#2779 2025-03-08 14:29:40

Re: Politics

#2780 2025-03-08 20:32:03

Re: Politics

#2781 2025-03-08 22:28:07

Re: Politics

#2782 2025-03-09 05:24:40

Re: Politics

#2783 2025-03-09 10:18:29

Re: Politics

#2784 2025-03-09 10:31:46

Re: Politics

#2785 2025-03-09 10:51:10

Re: Politics

#2786 2025-03-09 13:23:08

Re: Politics

#2787 2025-03-09 16:31:32

Re: Politics

#2788 Yesterday 11:58:44

Re: Politics

#2789 Yesterday 14:01:02

Re: Politics

#2790 Yesterday 14:14:24

Re: Politics

#2791 Yesterday 18:29:48

Re: Politics

#2792 Today 07:12:34

Re: Politics

#2793 Today 11:56:19

Re: Politics

#2794 Today 12:21:08

Re: Politics

Board footer