Trump..... (The Sophistry Thread)

[pink poodle]

Not made up, listen to the video johnny out up. Japanese navy was keen on future invasion, army said they couldn't, so they decided against it - this was after the bombing of Darwin had started.

Second, this information is post war, so Australian defences didn't know what the Japanese plans were, and there was no reason to think the Japanese had decided against invasion in the latter half of 42. Curtin seemed to believe an invasion was a real risk.

If you are saying there was propaganda that Australia had actually been invaded, then that's another matter of course, but invasion was a real risk at the height of the Japanese.

I see you're not familiar with the mixing of true and facetious...my butt hurts.

The history that we are presented (and don't we love hindsight? Let's not forget that same history tells us the emperor and his family played no leadership role in the war and we're thus not tried for war crimes) with shows that Japan did not implement a plan to invade Australia. They were pretty eager to prevent Australia being used as an allied launching ground and supply depot by allied forces though. It would seem probable that there would be control room discussion of the idea, they probably had a lot of ideas about how to progress the war. It would also be very probable that our government and people would've been very worried about invasion. PNG is not very far away.

And for some reason there is the emancipation thing...somehow replacing one empire with another and brutalising the local population was a good thing? Given what was happening in China and other occupied parts of East Asia you could hardly blame the people here not being too keen on an invasion!

 

[bikeyoulongtime]

Just gonna conflate a whole bunch of topics here, because shit - the internet!

firstly on topic: Trump jumps the shark. again: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ly-list-immigrant-crimes-sinister-deportation

why is this a bad idea? exactly why the author says so - the game plan is to wrongly conflate 'immigrant' and 'criminal'. It's an exercise in propaganda and very likely projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).

Now not-on topic. What would handholding hippies do facing an invasion? Here's a short sketch: Firstly see the conditions for an invasion coming a long way off and prevent the actual event from occurring. This might happen a number of ways. Remember, in order to invade, an ordering body must have a compliant mass of humans who do not question why they are doing what they are doing - which means that whoever is holding the guns and prepared to go shoot some evil 'those other people' has been seriously indoctrinated. Modern communications help a lot here.

While this is being done, and if it looks like failing - organise. Learn the language and customs of the invading country as fast as possible (not for compliance - see below). Distribute and harden communications networks. If an invasion occurs it is of utmost importance to black out an invadee such that an invader controls the information stream. A lot of handholding hippies have 1337 haxx0r sk1llz that can ensure information is never controlled in that way. Track intended landing points, camera the shit out of them, get a volunteer welcoming committee to go out and prepare a culturally-appropriate welcome. Essentially disarm the propaganda that the invading people have been fed. And make sure the world can see what transpires. if all the volunteers get shot, send another team. Suicidal? maybe. Effective? even if 5% (unusually hight for a population) of the invaders are complete psychopaths, how long until the rest get sick of gunning down unarmed resistance? How long until the residents of the invading country apply enough political pressure to stop?

Finally, if these substantial barriers are still not enough - when an invader comes to my place, say hi in their native language, ask them in and offer a (whatever is the thing they would offer a distinguished guest), sit down, and talk. There's a very good chance that while they might be armed to the teeth, they're actually not a psycho - but have been fed misinformation about whoever they are invading.

Might not work, but hey, bombing the shit out each other doesn't work so well either - might as well try to be smart about it. Ghandi was eventually assassinated, but not before changing the world. Wars are not about guns and bombs anymore, there's no 'killer app weapon' to win a war - not even nukes.

 

[johnny]

Not only is this a very hard-hitting oped but it's in a major and credible Murdoch owned conservative daily. This will have the White House rattled (not sure about Trump though). They won't be able to label WSJ as fake news.




A President’s Credibility

Trump’s falsehoods are eroding public trust, at home and abroad.

March 21, 2017 7:28 p.m. ET
1677 COMMENTS
If President Trump announces that North Korea launched a missile that landed within 100 miles of Hawaii, would most Americans believe him? Would the rest of the world? We’re not sure, which speaks to the damage that Mr. Trump is doing to his Presidency with his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.

The latest example is Mr. Trump’s refusal to back off his Saturday morning tweet of three weeks ago that he had “found out that [Barack] Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory” on Election Day. He has offered no evidence for his claim, and a parade of intelligence officials, senior Republicans and Democrats have since said they have seen no such evidence.

Yet the President clings to his assertion like a drunk to an empty gin bottle, rolling out his press spokesman to make more dubious claims. Sean Spicer—who doesn’t deserve this treatment—was dispatched last week to repeat an assertion by a Fox News commentator that perhaps the Obama Administration had subcontracted the wiretap to British intelligence.

That bungle led to a public denial from the British Government Communications Headquarters, and British news reports said the U.S. apologized. But then the White House claimed there was no apology. For the sake of grasping for any evidence to back up his original tweet, and the sin of pride in not admitting error, Mr. Trump had his spokesman repeat an unchecked TV claim that insulted an ally.

The wiretap tweet is also costing Mr. Trump politically as he hands his opponents a sword. Mr. Trump has a legitimate question about why the U.S. was listening to his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and who leaked news of his meeting with the Russian ambassador. But that question never gets a hearing because the near-daily repudiation of his false tweet is a bigger media story.

FBI director James Comey also took revenge on Monday by joining the queue of those saying the bureau has no evidence to back up the wiretap tweet. Mr. Comey even took the unusual step of confirming that the FBI is investigating ties between the Trump election campaign and Russia.

Mr. Comey said he could make such a public admission only in “unusual circumstances,” but why now? Could the wiretap tweet have made Mr. Comey angry because it implied the FBI was involved in illegal surveillance? Mr. Trump blundered in keeping Mr. Comey in the job after the election, but now the President can’t fire the man leading an investigation into his campaign even if he wants to.

All of this continues the pattern from the campaign that Mr. Trump is his own worst political enemy. He survived his many false claims as a candidate because his core supporters treated it as mere hyperbole and his opponent was untrustworthy Hillary Clinton. But now he’s President, and he needs support beyond the Breitbart cheering section that will excuse anything. As he is learning with the health-care bill, Mr. Trump needs partners in his own party to pass his agenda. He also needs friends abroad who are willing to trust him when he asks for support, not least in a crisis.

This week should be dominated by the smooth political sailing for Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and the progress of health-care reform on Capitol Hill. These are historic events, and success will show he can deliver on his promises. But instead the week has been dominated by the news that he was repudiated by his own FBI director.

Two months into his Presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump’s approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn’t show more respect for the truth most Americans may conclude he’s a fake President.

Appeared in the Mar. 22, 2017, print edition.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-presidents-credibility-1490138920

 

[johnny]

Just gonna conflate a whole bunch of topics here, because shit - the internet!

firstly on topic: Trump jumps the shark. again: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ly-list-immigrant-crimes-sinister-deportation

why is this a bad idea? exactly why the author says so - the game plan is to wrongly conflate 'immigrant' and 'criminal'. It's an exercise in propaganda and very likely projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).

Now not-on topic. What would handholding hippies do facing an invasion? Here's a short sketch: Firstly see the conditions for an invasion coming a long way off and prevent the actual event from occurring. This might happen a number of ways. Remember, in order to invade, an ordering body must have a compliant mass of humans who do not question why they are doing what they are doing - which means that whoever is holding the guns and prepared to go shoot some evil 'those other people' has been seriously indoctrinated. Modern communications help a lot here.

While this is being done, and if it looks like failing - organise. Learn the language and customs of the invading country as fast as possible (not for compliance - see below). Distribute and harden communications networks. If an invasion occurs it is of utmost importance to black out an invadee such that an invader controls the information stream. A lot of handholding hippies have 1337 haxx0r sk1llz that can ensure information is never controlled in that way. Track intended landing points, camera the shit out of them, get a volunteer welcoming committee to go out and prepare a culturally-appropriate welcome. Essentially disarm the propaganda that the invading people have been fed. And make sure the world can see what transpires. if all the volunteers get shot, send another team. Suicidal? maybe. Effective? even if 5% (unusually hight for a population) of the invaders are complete psychopaths, how long until the rest get sick of gunning down unarmed resistance? How long until the residents of the invading country apply enough political pressure to stop?

Finally, if these substantial barriers are still not enough - when an invader comes to my place, say hi in their native language, ask them in and offer a (whatever is the thing they would offer a distinguished guest), sit down, and talk. There's a very good chance that while they might be armed to the teeth, they're actually not a psycho - but have been fed misinformation about whoever they are invading.

Might not work, but hey, bombing the shit out each other doesn't work so well either - might as well try to be smart about it. Ghandi was eventually assassinated, but not before changing the world. Wars are not about guns and bombs anymore, there's no 'killer app weapon' to win a war - not even nukes.

Much of this was tried and failed in the lead up to WWI. Industrial workers all over Europe and the Americas were going to go on strike to disable the ability to provide for the war effort, they were global and they were organised. Still failed.

"Hand-holding Hippes" with language skills went to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion to speak with Sadam's people and to try and get things worked out. They were "put up" around critical infrastructure and not allowed to move from these areas because their "safety couldn't be guaranteed". Many of those who could get out did as soon as they worked out that they were being used as human shields.

 

[pharmaboy]

I see you're not familiar with the mixing of true and facetious...my butt hurts.

.

Yeah well, missed that - you sure it shouldn't be feacetious in context?

 

[bikeyoulongtime]

Much of this was tried and failed in the lead up to WWI. Industrial workers all over Europe and the Americas were going to go on strike to disable the ability to provide for the war effort, they were global and they were organised. Still failed.

'were going to'? or 'did'? That's an important distinction. However - bombing the shit out of everyone has failed multiple times, but we still do it

"Hand-holding Hippes" with language skills went to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion to speak with Sadam's people and to try and get things worked out. They were "put up" around critical infrastructure and not allowed to move from these areas because their "safety couldn't be guaranteed". Many of those who could get out did as soon as they worked out that they were being used as human shields.

Wasn't Iraq the country being invaded in the scenario? ...and given that no amount of talking can ever provide evidence of things that don't exist... hmm. In my scenario it works the other way around - ie Iraq sends people to the US.

...but actually you're right - in that scenario no amount of handholding would have worked. The domestic political pressure approach was applied (~600k Australians alone on the streets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War), but completely ignored by mendacious politicians who should still be tried for war crimes. I'm not defending Saddam - but there was no need to invade Iraq and we still see the geopolitical consequences. Of which Trump is probably one.

Having said that, I don't think we should discount that the world is changed. Normal people have vastly less faith in politicians. Information can be quickly amassed and disseminated far more easily (although Australia is trying hard to prevent that: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ttle-to-control-australias-telecommunications). People are becoming more fearless in calling out the bullshit. Overall, I'm positive about the future!

 

[pink poodle]

Much of this was tried and failed in the lead up to WWI. Industrial workers all over Europe and the Americas were going to go on strike to disable the ability to provide for the war effort, they were global and they were organised. Still failed.

"Hand-holding Hippes" with language skills went to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion to speak with Sadam's people and to try and get things worked out. They were "put up" around critical infrastructure and not allowed to move from these areas because their "safety couldn't be guaranteed". Many of those who could get out did as soon as they worked out that they were being used as human shields.

I'm thinking he means more like Belgium or Manchuria in WW2...Nanking/Nanjing didn't really offer much of a military resistance when the imperial army arrived.

Yeah well, missed that - you sure it shouldn't be feacetious in context?

Its a cocktail of joy.

 

[Asininedrivel]

if all the volunteers get shot, send another team. Suicidal? maybe. Effective? even if 5% (unusually hight for a population) of the invaders are complete psychopaths, how long until the rest get sick of gunning down unarmed resistance? How long until the residents of the invading country apply enough political pressure to stop?

Finally, if these substantial barriers are still not enough - when an invader comes to my place, say hi in their native language, ask them in and offer a (whatever is the thing they would offer a distinguished guest), sit down, and talk. There's a very good chance that while they might be armed to the teeth, they're actually not a psycho - but have been fed misinformation about whoever they are invading.

Wow, you really are an idealist aren't you? Not giving you shit*, I think it's quite laudable. But I have found some flaws in the above, which I shall now point out.

The tactics of pacifism and appeasement were very prevalent in the lead up to WW1 (as Johnny has pointed out) and also WW2. In fact you could argue the entire Western World was hell bent on either preserving peace at all costs or ambivalent isolationism in the late 1930s. As a collective mantra, it was a dismal failure.

In terms of rolling out the welcome mat in an attempt to bloodlessly disarm your invaders - it depends entirely on who you're facing. First wave invasions could either be highly trained units or cannon fodder. If you get the former, a division of standing army or elite special forces yes your average Strayan is probably much better off putting the kettle on than rooting around for a handy .22. However, if it's the latter - an untrained, undisciplined, brainwashed-with-propaganda rabble of uneducated young men (possibly the most dangerous group of thing on the planet)? No thanks. Your welcome wagon will have its wheels blown off sharpish, followed by everything else in the immediate vicinity.

Finally I must divert a smelly bypass route from reality check creek directly into your idealistic pond of tranquility - how are you going to convince your average sun-burnt Aussie in this vast wide brown land of ours that that bunch of alarming looking funny sounding foreign people with lots of hurty killy looking things is a collective group to be embraced and welcomed in an attempt to disarm them? As far as I'm aware, most invading armies over the years have not found killing unarmed and pacifist natives to be too much of an ordeal.

*ok I kinda am because internet but we'll pretend I'm not

 

[Asininedrivel]

I'm not defending Saddam - but there was no need to invade Iraq and we still see the geopolitical consequences. Of which Trump is probably one.

One of the most intriguing "what ifs" (to a political/history nerd like me anyway) was how the Arab Spring would've effected Iraq if we hadn't invaded. Would the regime have collapsed a la Libya or locked down into bloody fratricide like Syria? Would we then have had the green light to invade (under the UN's R2P Principle), holding the moral high ground AND nicking all their oil for ourselves under a veil of humanitarianism?

Or would there have even been an Arab Spring if the hornets nest of Iraq wasn't kicked over and smashed? Would Saddam have died of natural causes pre-Arab Spring (he wasn't in the best shape) and his psychotic son Uday taken over, possibly plunging the region into chaotic instability anyway? Would the GFC have happened? Would anything have happened?



My head hurts

 

[johnny]

'were going to'? or 'did'? That's an important distinction. However - bombing the shit out of everyone has failed multiple times, but we still do it

They didn't, that's the point.

Their goal was to make war impossible, it was a little bit linked to Marxism in that the newly industrialised workers figured they would be doing all the fighting and dying for the landed/capital classes. They figured that if the factories stopped working and the workers refused to fight each other then war would become impossible. The problem here (and I'm not expert on these matters so forgive me if I'm not 100% accurate) was that once war started, even just a little bit, those workers were relying on workers in the other countries to stand by their commitment and be shot or imprisoned by their own government rather than go to war. That's a lot of trust to put in people who may have a change of heart when faced with the noose, firing squad or bundled up and put on a two way range - like it or not - as many Russians were. If you make the wrong choice you could go to prison for your convictions AND be partly responsible for opening the door to an invading force.

Again, I'm not 100% on why it failed but it wasn't for lack of trying. They were organised, they were international and there were millions of them. Still failed.

Wasn't Iraq the country being invaded in the scenario? ...and given that no amount of talking can ever provide evidence of things that don't exist... hmm. In my scenario it works the other way around - ie Iraq sends people to the US.

Not the perfect comparison, I know. What I was trying to illustrate was that you may have the best intentions and even the best outcome in mind for everyone involved. However the armed and organised have the power and evidence is that when in power people tend to use if for their own personal (national, ideological, etc) gain. To face war with pacifism is a hell of a risk that doesn't have a great track record of succeeding.

Having said that, I don't think we should discount that the world is changed. Normal people have vastly less faith in politicians. Information can be quickly amassed and disseminated far more easily (although Australia is trying hard to prevent that: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ttle-to-control-australias-telecommunications). People are becoming more fearless in calling out the bullshit. Overall, I'm positive about the future!

No, the world is the same.

For evidence look at the Vietnam war, major uprisings in the streets for an outcome that many claim was that the US won the war in Vietnam but lost the war at home. There was a massive groundswell against the War and the military industrial complex - hell, the term "military industrial complex" was coined by a sitting US President who was warning against the relationship of military and industry! The only difference from today is the changes to media. However that is not some kind of panacea. Those "for war" also have access to the same media channels as those for peace - I think we're all familiar with "fake News", "Alternative Facts", etc. The outcome I expect from the current information wars is media/information fatigue. People will decide that they can't trust what they read (just as they did in the 1950/60s) and simply stick to a few chosen sources that reinforce their beliefs.

How many times have you heard "never again"?

One of the most intriguing "what ifs" (to a political/history nerd like me anyway) was how the Arab Spring would've effected Iraq if we hadn't invaded. Would the regime have collapsed a la Libya or locked down into bloody fratricide like Syria? Would we then have had the green light to invade (under the UN's R2P Principle), holding the moral high ground AND nicking all their oil for ourselves under a veil of humanitarianism?

Or would there have even been an Arab Spring if the hornets nest of Iraq wasn't kicked over and smashed? Would Saddam have died of natural causes pre-Arab Spring (he wasn't in the best shape) and his psychotic son Uday taken over, possibly plunging the region into chaotic instability anyway? Would the GFC have happened? Would anything have happened?

It would have occurred because the pressures in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria all existed exclusive of the 2003 invasion. The BS that came out of the remnants of the Bush admin that 2003 set the Arab Spring in motion are pretty farcical. I'd say that this was a case of modern communication having a real effect on the world. We know that they used social media to organise but it was also a medium of discontent for years and not just social media but digital coms. As an anecdotal example, the factories of Guangdong (the mass factories of China) saw a huge change and loss of control due to mobile phones. When one factory gave a pay rise the employees would text message friends in other factories to inform them, they'd all take their phones to the boss and demand the same or they will quit to go get a job in the other factory. Digital communications caused slow change to become waves of change that were used as a mode of collective bargaining..., or better put, mass leverage. Greater and faster coms allow people to better communicate grievances and become connected with those who share that grievance and to organise. That's part of the lead up to the Arab Spring and explains why oppressive govts such as China disallow Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. They create their own similar platforms that they can more easily monitor and control.

I think that if the Arab Spring hit Saddam's Iraq you would have seen some pretty strong panic regards where his (fabled) WMDs might end up. Just as you would see if Iran turned to shit or if/when Damascus falls. Pretty compelling reasons for foreign interventions when groups like IS might get their hands on the serious stuff.

 

[Asininedrivel]

Awwwww....poor widdle Trumpy wumpy's repeal of Obamacare failed. Miserably.

I thought he was meant to be an amazing closer of deals? Such deal. Many closing.

Enjoying all the photos of Sean Spicer looking confused and sad.

 

[B Rabbit]

I'm so sick and tired of all the winning

 

[link1896]

 

[Ponchoatdirtworks]

Awwwww....poor widdle Trumpy wumpy's repeal of Obamacare failed. Miserably.

I thought he was meant to be an amazing closer of deals? Such deal. Many closing.

Enjoying all the photos of Sean Spicer looking confused and sad.

I do wonder what positions Sean Spicer will be able to apply for in Post-Trump America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[silentbutdeadly]

I do wonder what positions Sean Spicer will be able to apply for in Post-Trump America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reality TV cooking show...

 

[johnny]

Walker extra in the walking dead. Already has the dead eyes and pasty skin for it.

 

[stirk]

I didn't think the US President had the power to order an act of war on another country without additional authorisation from the US Congress, seems there is some grey area and misunderstanding even in the US about the powers granted to the President.

From the NYTimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/military-force-presidential-power.html?_r=0

This tweet from Trump indicates he has a very short memory.

Quoted: Notably, in 2013, when President Barack Obama appeared to be on the verge of striking Syria for using chemical weapons, Mr. Trump embraced Mr. Paul’s view, writing on Twitter: “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.”

And now the US is sending military toward North Korea.

What can possibly go wrong.

[video=youtube;-EcLCRrYZjQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EcLCRrYZjQ[/video]

 

[John U]

Saw that. With Trump things that he said or did previously have little influence on what he does now, especially when the now stance is to his benefit.

 

[pink poodle]

Saw that. With Trump things that he said or did previously have little influence on what he does now, especially when the now stance is to his benefit.

Trump is bigger than that. He is able to put his personal perspectives aside and focus on what is good for the presidency and stability. A stability best achieved through re-election.

 

[DJninja]

I didn't think the US President had the power to order an act of war on another country without additional authorisation from the US Congress, seems there is some grey area and misunderstanding even in the US about the powers granted to the President.

From the NYTimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/military-force-presidential-power.html?_r=0

This tweet from Trump indicates he has a very short memory.

Quoted: Notably, in 2013, when President Barack Obama appeared to be on the verge of striking Syria for using chemical weapons, Mr. Trump embraced Mr. Paul’s view, writing on Twitter: “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.”
]

America is the law.