Author Topic: The Joe Biden Thread  (Read 6721 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Montgomery

  • The Box
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 724
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: The Joe Biden Thread
« Reply #300 on: October 27, 2020, 05:51:40 pm »
As a Canadian, I'd have to say Trump is a pretty bad choice.

You could be right, but chances are we'll discuss the pros and cons here.

His trade wars are harming countries (like Canada) that are supposed to be allies. (They are also harming the U.S. too...) His cutbacks in various forms of 'soft power' increases the possibility of future conflicts.

I am of the opinion that there can be no harm done to Canada if we start to quickly diversify our trade relations away from the US. As other countries do that, and they are already, the US will be forced to fall into line with us in free and fair trade. There's no way to beat a blackmailer in working with one. I have little feeling for the US being hurt in trade relations with other countries. And the world has M.A.D. to fall back on for it's safety from US aggression.

His cutbacks on programs that deal with disease prevention mean an increased chance of future pandemics. And his attempts to withdraw troops from parts of the middle east lead to a flareup that displaced thousands of people (not exactly a canada-specific problem but still one that should be of concern.)

The increased chance of future pandemics is a point worth considering but could be a necessary trade-off for other considerations. I would suggest that only good can come from a US withdrawal from all ME countries. That would minimize the death toll, as opposed to prolonging the slaughter. And also consider the great probability that the US has no intention of withdrawing from the ME. It's not going to give up it's share of the wealth and just willingly award the spoils to Russia, China, or other big oil consumers. As we speak, Russia is close to bringing peace to Syria, while the US continues to promote more war. Also, consider that we all should know that Trump will lose all his incentive to deny the virus after the election.

The U.S. is no longer a trustworthy ally, and countries can expect that even if they come to some agreement with the U.S., it might not be honored.

My point on trade relations with the US!

Well, Russia and China do benefit from having Trump around. Trump is Putin's puppet, and  his general screw-ups have left a power vacuum that China and Russia are very eager to fill.

Yes! We have as much chance of being right about that as we have with being wrong. The jury is already in on Russia of course and there's really no reason why it would be different with China.

However, what benefits China and/or Russia does not necessarily benefit Canada (or the U.S. for that matter).Ummm... so?

What benefits China is unmistakable not beneficial to the US but I don't see any negatives with China. As for security from within Nato, there's probably more danger in being aligned with the US. China can be trusted to not be a military aggressor and even if they were, we have M.A.D. for another 75 years most likely. Military aggression by the US will become a thing of the past. For large and powerful countries such as Russia and China because of M.A.D. For small countries such as Venezuela or Iran, because they all will become proxies under the wings of the nuclear powers. Just like Israel.

First of all, wars are not the only thing that can be a problem for the world. Widespread famine, diseases, abusive dictatorships, environmental problems, etc. can often cause just as much death as your average war. And lets face it, Trump's record on these is not exactly favorable.

Speaking on how that pertains to Trump, it appears we are in agreement. I go a little further and suggest that the Democratic party has talked the hawkish talk on Russia. And as for Biden's military posture? I don't believe he would be allowed anymore than just one more opinion added to the US foreign policy going forward. No more and no less.

Secondly, the fact that Trump has not engaged in any armed conflict does not make him any better at Biden.

Of course not, they're all Americans.

After all, he Obama/Biden administration was not particularly militaristic, and I doubt that Biden would suddenly decide to start dropping bombs on random countries. (I could also point out that while Trump hasn't started any wars, under his administration Drone strikes have increased, and oversight has decreased compared to the Obama administration.... not a good combination in my opinion.)

I agree, and I believe we have a better chance of being right on that as opposed to wrong.

The fact that there hasn't been a war break out in the past 4 years probably has more to do with luck than anything.

My position on that is somewhat different. First, Russia is back now and the US's window of opportunity in the world has been slammed shut! And China is up now as a powerful ally in forces that oppose US military expansionist tactics. Secondly, the countries that the US wishes to conquer and control are also clients of the other nuclear powers here mentioned. I'm suggesting that Iran and Venezuela, for examples of oil rich countries, are considered out of bounds by US hawks. It's too late for the US to do more damage and slaughter for economic gain.
I would also be curious what you consider a "war of aggression". Something like Gulf War 2 could certainly be classified as such... But what about Afghanistan? (I'm sure most people would consider it justified given that the U.S. was attacked from people operating from there.)

Seriously on Afghanistan, with all due respects to your obviously being in touch with reality. An attack by 19 Saudis is the justification for a war that's gone on for 19 years? Seriously? Is there not an abundance of evidence that 911 is being used for US justification for their war? Is there any doubt that Russia and China would now have the opportunity of being invited into Afghanistan as a counter force to US aggression?

How about Libya? (The U.S. did engage in bombing there, but the U.S. were certainly not the instigators.) Or are you assuming that any war the U.S. fights in is automatically a "war of aggression", regardless of the underlying context?

Petty much! But I'm always open to hearing the counter argument which makes Russia or China to blame.

Russia may not be a threat in the way of "Large scale invasion/occupation". But that does not mean that they are not a problem....

That's something I can't relate to in the least. Russia is a struggling new democracy that is being set back by US sanctions and dirty tricks no matter what it tries to do. (further discussion might happen on this point)

They certainly have used their military against neighboring countries.... Afghanistan (back when i was the USSR), Ukraine, etc. And even if they are not a military threat, they certainly have disrupted other countries in other ways.... such as interfering in various elections (most famously the U.S. 2016/2020 elections, but also possibly the 2017 french election, the 2014 Ukraine election, and possibly Brexit)

Yes, Afghanistan when they were the USSR, and when there was a Cold war struggle happening between the US and the Soviet Union, among others. Point to mention would be the struggle by the US for Vietnam, against the other side's struggle to unite that country under communism. And the Ukraine because of US ambitions to bring that country into the Nato fold and encroach further on Russia's borders.

Russia should not be considered an ally, nor a country that should be trusted.While I don't think China would have any interest in a large-scale war against the U.S., they may decide to flex their muscles and act against Taiwan, or expand their sphere of influence in south east asia. And they have had their recent skirmishes with India. They have used a lot of resources to build their own stealth jets (with data that had been stolen from the F35 program, part of which Canada funded.)

I'm not aware of any reason why Russia shouldn't become a nation that is accepted as an ally.

I haven't really formed a firm opinion on China's willingness to chance reuniting the two China's. I understand completely their ambitions but I feel this is another situation where M.A.D. would be too risky at this point in time. Rather, I see perhaps a possibility of China trading off it's gains throughout the world to the US for China's control of it's sphere of influence. China practically owns Cuba and it's sympathies now, and will undoubtedly be into a negotiating position in the foreseeable future as concerning missile installations. Just as the US was forced to trade off their missile installations in Turkey for Russia's missile installations in Cuba. I doubt you don't know the real story on that!

p.s. the Crimea was a happy status quo situation until the US (nato) tried to take a bridge too far, and consequently got the Crimea stuffed right up nato's ass. Putin/Russia had no choice! Russia would never sit back and allow the loss of it's vital interests in Crimea.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 06:05:04 pm by Montgomery »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.