45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 7)

45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 7)

Author
Discussion

Byker28i

20,511 posts

164 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Russians and turks to divide up Syrian Zone

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with his Russian counterpart to discuss dividing influence in Syria as U.S. troops pull out and a five-day halt to a Turkish offensive comes to an end, with both Ankara and Moscow seeking to capitalize on a rebalancing of power in the region...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/erdogan-seeks-putins-...

Byker28i

20,511 posts

164 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
The donald is calling his impeachment inquiry a lynching

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!

4:52 AM - 22 Oct 2019

Byker28i

20,511 posts

164 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Erdogan is claiming there are hundreds of Kurdish fighters remain near to Syria’s northeast border despite a U.S.-brokered truce demanding their withdrawal and Turkey could resume its offensive in the area when the ceasefire expires.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-...

Byker28i

20,511 posts

164 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Whilst U.S. forces that crossed into Iraq as part of a pull-out from Syria do not have permission to stay and can only be there in transit, the Iraqi military said on Tuesday.

The Iraqi statement contradicts the Pentagon’s announcement that all of the nearly 1,000 troops withdrawing from northern Syria are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against Islamic State militants and “to help defend Iraq”.

A senior U.S. defense official later clarified that the situation was still fluid and plans could change.

“All U.S. forces that withdrew from Syria received approval to enter the Kurdistan Region so that they may be transported outside Iraq. There is no permission granted for these forces to stay inside Iraq,” the Iraqi military said in a statement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-...


So they didn't even ask to enter another country, just mass pulled out?

Byker28i

20,511 posts

164 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
As always trump decides to muddy his own criminal activity by claiming others have done it also



donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/clintons-close-ties-to-putin-deserve-scrutiny … (deleted now, but this was the url)

Eric Mc

107,922 posts

212 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Byker28i said:
As always trump decides to muddy his own criminal activity by claiming others have done it also

[thumb]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHfj3N8WwAEO3dF.jpg[thumb]

donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/clintons-close-ties-to-putin-deserve-scrutiny … (deleted now, but this was the url)
The logic of a (not very smart) five year old.

Byker28i

20,511 posts

164 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
In the days after President Donald Trump paved the way for Turkey to invade Syria, several of his closest allies went to the White House — twice — to try to change his mind, according to four people familiar with the meetings.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News analyst, first walked the president through a map showing Syria, Turkey and Iraq on Oct. 8, pointing out the locations of oil fields in northern Syria that have been under the control of the U.S. and its Kurdish allies, two people familiar with the discussion said. That oil, they said Keane explained, would fall into Iran's hands if Trump withdrew all U.S. troops from the country.

Keane went through the same exercise with Trump again on Oct. 14, this time with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at his side, according to four people familiar with the meeting. Keane displayed a map showing that nearly three quarters of Syria's oil fields are in the parts of the country where U.S. troops are deployed, the people familiar with the meeting said. They said that Graham and Keane told the president that Iran is preparing to move toward the oil fields and could seize the air space above them once the U.S. leaves.

The president seemed "resigned" to leaving a small number of American troops in northern Syria to keep control of the oil, according to a person who was present.

Before showing Trump the map, Keane and Graham joined the president to listen in on his phone calls with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and with Gen. Mazloum Kobani Abdi, the leader of the Kurdish forces aligned with the U.S., people familiar with the call said. Graham helped arrange the call with Mazloum.

The episodes shed light on how the latest twist on Trump's orders of a Syria withdrawal — that the U.S. needs troops there to "secure the oil" — emerged. Trump's comments in recent days about the need for U.S. troops to secure oil fields in Syria have raised questions about where the idea came from and fueled widespread confusion about what the president's mission is for American forces deployed there

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/graham-fox-n...

hidetheelephants

15,074 posts

140 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Byker28i said:
Despite Trump's vow to end ‘endless wars,’ there are now more troops in the Middle East than when he took office and he has continued the mission for tens of thousands of others far from the wars of 9/11.

No wars have ended, though, and more troops have deployed to the Middle East in recent months than have come home. Mr. Trump is not so much ending wars, as he is moving troops from one conflict to another.

Tens of thousands of American troops remain deployed all over the world, some in war zones such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and — even still — Syria. And the United States maintains even more troops overseas in large legacy missions far from the wars following the Sept. 11 attacks, in such allied lands as Germany, South Korea and Japan.

Although deployment numbers fluctuate daily, based on the needs of commanders, shifting missions and the military’s ability to shift large numbers of personnel by transport planes and warships, a rough estimate is that 200,000 troops are deployed overseas today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeas...


In response to Iranian attacks and provocations since May, the Pentagon has deployed about 14,000 additional troops to the Persian Gulf region, including roughly 3,500 to Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. Those forces include airborne early warning aircraft, maritime patrol planes, Patriot air and missile defense batteries, B-52 bombers, a carrier strike group, armed Reaper drones and other engineering and support personnel.
The troops that have been hastily withdrawn from the kurdish bit of Syria are not going home, just hopping over the border into Iraq.

Tartan Pixie

1,312 posts

94 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Byker28i said:
In the days after President Donald Trump paved the way for Turkey to invade Syria, several of his closest allies went to the White House — twice — to try to change his mind, according to four people familiar with the meetings...
Here's a crazy idea, how about the US military and state department come up with an exit strategy for the president to follow instead of trying to convince him to go against his election pledge to end the forever wars then being surprised when he tells them to go do one?

Obama was elected on a platform of trying to get out of middle east wars, as was Trump and in 2020 we may well see this same policy put to the American people again. By 2020 we will have had twelve years of the populace and president trying to disengage from the middle east and there is still no sign of an exit strategy?

It's easy to laugh at Trump being shown strategy on big bits of coloured card, however is it really Trump's failure if all those bit of card show is American troops holding hostile territory for an unspecified length of time with no way to leave and no path towards a long term resolution?

When the president says he wants out of a war it is the job of senior military and diplomats to provide him with options and strategies for doing so. If no such options are given to the president then the failure lies squarely with the secretary of state and the joint chiefs of staff.

JonChalk

2,416 posts

57 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Tartan Pixie said:
Here's a crazy idea, how about the US military and state department come up with an exit strategy for the president to follow instead of trying to convince him to go against his election pledge to end the forever wars then being surprised when he tells them to go do one?

Obama was elected on a platform of trying to get out of middle east wars, as was Trump and in 2020 we may well see this same policy put to the American people again. By 2020 we will have had twelve years of the populace and president trying to disengage from the middle east and there is still no sign of an exit strategy?

It's easy to laugh at Trump being shown strategy on big bits of coloured card, however is it really Trump's failure if all those bit of card show is American troops holding hostile territory for an unspecified length of time with no way to leave and no path towards a long term resolution?

When the president says he wants out of a war it is the job of senior military and diplomats to provide him with options and strategies for doing so. If no such options are given to the president then the failure lies squarely with the secretary of state and the joint chiefs of staff.
Get out? And leave all that lovely oil to just float around to the highest bidder? That may not be America? And used to fund anti-US strategies instead?

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nu...

The U.S. needs Middle East oil, or it's population will revolt. Until such time as the US populace is (more) energy self-sufficient, they really daren't leave.

Oh, and Trump loves energy inefficiency - he'd be much happier if everyone was driving around in US-made 6 litre V8s with 120hp. Damn those Japanese and Europeans and the desire for fuel efficiency (and reliability) taking US jobs.

Byker28i

20,511 posts

164 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
William taylor has been testifying to the impeachment inquiry.

Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday of intense efforts by administration officials to secure politically-motivated investigations of Trump’s rivals in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president and critical military aid, according to sources in the room for the testimony.
William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement

Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described “how pervasive the efforts were” among Trump's allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.

Taylor also described the extent to which military assistance to Ukraine and a potential White House meeting with Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart were tied to those investigations, the source added.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/22/willi...

Byker28i

20,511 posts

164 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Oh this is brilliant, how have I not known about this before...

Someone is selling flip flops with trumps alternative opinions on each shoe, where each contradicts the other biggrin

https://www.presidentflipflops.com/

NRS

15,060 posts

148 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
JonChalk said:
Tartan Pixie said:
Here's a crazy idea, how about the US military and state department come up with an exit strategy for the president to follow instead of trying to convince him to go against his election pledge to end the forever wars then being surprised when he tells them to go do one?

Obama was elected on a platform of trying to get out of middle east wars, as was Trump and in 2020 we may well see this same policy put to the American people again. By 2020 we will have had twelve years of the populace and president trying to disengage from the middle east and there is still no sign of an exit strategy?

It's easy to laugh at Trump being shown strategy on big bits of coloured card, however is it really Trump's failure if all those bit of card show is American troops holding hostile territory for an unspecified length of time with no way to leave and no path towards a long term resolution?

When the president says he wants out of a war it is the job of senior military and diplomats to provide him with options and strategies for doing so. If no such options are given to the president then the failure lies squarely with the secretary of state and the joint chiefs of staff.
Get out? And leave all that lovely oil to just float around to the highest bidder? That may not be America? And used to fund anti-US strategies instead?

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nu...

The U.S. needs Middle East oil, or it's population will revolt. Until such time as the US populace is (more) energy self-sufficient, they really daren't leave.

Oh, and Trump loves energy inefficiency - he'd be much happier if everyone was driving around in US-made 6 litre V8s with 120hp. Damn those Japanese and Europeans and the desire for fuel efficiency (and reliability) taking US jobs.
Old news. America is almost an oil exporter thanks to shale oil. They're currently limited by the production facilities rather than costs too, so at some point when the new pipelines are built they'll be able to produce even more. Invading to get cheaper oil doesn't make sense now. If anything it'd be to limit others producing oil to push prices higher. However Syria has such limited reserves it's pointless in terms of influencing the oil price on a big scale. The only thing I can think of for a few seconds of thinking is either protecting oil to stop others producing it for some reason (for example ISIS/ Iran links/ Syrian government who US was trying to get rid of), or if there is some way Trump can profit from it personally (nothing clear now).

There is basically no good way out of the Middle East mess for the US. As TP said it's been on the cards for a while, but whenever someone tries to do it then often it creates a vacuum that just gets filled up by enemies again (Iraq and ISIS, Afghanistan and the Taliban even now). It's somewhat ironic there has been so much complaints about the US (and us) missing around in the middle east, yet when someone does something to stop it (very badly!) it's a bad thing. And ironically it's one of the few areas he's probably a better option than Clinton would have been with her much more pro-war stance.

JonChalk

2,416 posts

57 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
NRS said:
Old news. America is almost an oil exporter thanks to shale oil.
Don't disagree with most of the rest of your post, but you don't import 9M barrels per day, if you're self-sufficient.

NRS

15,060 posts

148 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Byker28i said:
Despite Trump's vow to end ‘endless wars,’ there are now more troops in the Middle East than when he took office and he has continued the mission for tens of thousands of others far from the wars of 9/11.

No wars have ended, though, and more troops have deployed to the Middle East in recent months than have come home. Mr. Trump is not so much ending wars, as he is moving troops from one conflict to another.

Tens of thousands of American troops remain deployed all over the world, some in war zones such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and — even still — Syria. And the United States maintains even more troops overseas in large legacy missions far from the wars following the Sept. 11 attacks, in such allied lands as Germany, South Korea and Japan.

Although deployment numbers fluctuate daily, based on the needs of commanders, shifting missions and the military’s ability to shift large numbers of personnel by transport planes and warships, a rough estimate is that 200,000 troops are deployed overseas today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeas...


In response to Iranian attacks and provocations since May, the Pentagon has deployed about 14,000 additional troops to the Persian Gulf region, including roughly 3,500 to Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. Those forces include airborne early warning aircraft, maritime patrol planes, Patriot air and missile defense batteries, B-52 bombers, a carrier strike group, armed Reaper drones and other engineering and support personnel.
A huge percentage of those troops are likely to be part of the soft power influence of the US. Less about conflict and more about keeping their sphere of influence in different areas/ to counter others. Just look at what China is doing around the world to give them more breathing room from any attacks etc. It's what's been done by basically all the presidents before Trump, and nothing new. What is new is he has avoided any new military conflict in the middle east - different from Bush and Obama before him (so far). One of the few positive areas of his presidency.

NRS

15,060 posts

148 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
JonChalk said:
NRS said:
Old news. America is almost an oil exporter thanks to shale oil.
Don't disagree with most of the rest of your post, but you don't import 9M barrels per day, if you're self-sufficient.
That's not net - net is 2.3 MMb/d, the equivalent of 11% of total U.S. petroleum consumption and the lowest percentage since 1957. Petroleum is a lot of different stuff, so you'll want different types of oil/products, hence importing so much but also exporting a buncg too. And as mentioned the supply is infrastructure limited, so once those pipelines get approval/built there'll be even higher volumes produced in the US most likely.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petrol...


Tartan Pixie

1,312 posts

94 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
JonChalk said:
Get out? And leave all that lovely oil to just float around to the highest bidder? That may not be America? And used to fund anti-US strategies instead?

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nu...

The U.S. needs Middle East oil, or it's population will revolt. Until such time as the US populace is (more) energy self-sufficient, they really daren't leave.

Oh, and Trump loves energy inefficiency - he'd be much happier if everyone was driving around in US-made 6 litre V8s with 120hp. Damn those Japanese and Europeans and the desire for fuel efficiency (and reliability) taking US jobs.
A fair point however I don't see how that aim is going to be achieved by by forcing a state of constant warfare on the local population until America is so hated that they are forced to leave.

Look at Iraq, was all that blood and treasure spent by America so that Iran could greatly increase their influence there while Americans count down the days until the Iraqi government boot them out for being foreign invaders? Do we think Afghanistan is going any better?

This is what the results of the forever war strategy have so far brought.

Imagine we had gone in to Iraq with a reconstruction plan designed to bring prosperity to the population and make Iraq an investment that would in the long term be a financial net positive for both America/UK and Iraq.

All those Iraqi army vets would have had no need to join ISIS, stunting the terror group at birth and potentially averting the Syrian war altogether. Iran's route in to the Iraqi parliament through patronage networks tied to reconstruction would be unavailable to them because their path is blocked by American money and reconstruction. When the Arab spring comes around people are waving American flags because they see how the lives of Iraqis are being improved by investment funds that are tied to improved government and judiciary.

We know this type of foreign policy works because we saw it across Eastern Europe with the colour revolutions. Recently the citizens of Ukraine started waving European flags and then went and fought the Russians, all for the promise of better governance and better lives. Perhaps Iranians might be inclined to do the same if they could look to a prospering Iraq across the border?

I don't think it's the middle east that Americans have spent the last three elections trying to leave, it's the wars, expense and cycle of destructive behavior that people don't like. IMO that could all be avoided by going back to the successful foreign policy playbook that Bush decided to rip up.

Edited by Tartan Pixie on Tuesday 22 October 21:05

NRS

15,060 posts

148 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Tartan Pixie said:
NRS said:
Thanks for that. Started listening to it, but run out of time now so will continue later. Recently I've been listening to stuff by Mark Blyth, and very interested to see what seems to be a good background/prediction as to how Trump (and the other swings to left/right "extremes") have got into power. Will try and find a good one for the thread later.
The guest was way out of my league, I can just about understand the supply and demand dynamics of oil but once he got in to how futures and reserves affect prices I sat in front of google for a few minutes and then decided fek it, even though this is my area of interest there are people out there who know far more than I do.

If I understood him correctly then he's saying the risk premium based on reserves accessible to the market leaves oil underpriced by about $15 a barrel but I can't for the life of me follow his methodology. Either I'm too dumb to get it or he's got so much information asymmetry on me that I can't see it but I struggle to see the mechanism by which oil (brent) is going to move out of the $60 lower limit set by OPEC and the $80 limit set by America.
I'm also not an expert, some some of it is above my head too! My understanding is he disagrees with most people being worried towards the overcapacity side - so for example with the Saudi attack then due to there still being a decent inventory balance any short term spike can be absorbed by the inventories (the whole reason in having them) so the price jump was short lived. Whereas he was worried they'd run out of inventory too quickly/there would be more attacks, so you should pay more for the oil futures to cover the risk (you create an agreement to sell a certain amount of oil for a certain price, no matter what actually happens).

For futures you can win or lose, but it gives you a known cost and secures the supply from what I understand. So for example some companies had agreements up in the $100 plus during the high oil price for say 2 years, and the oil supplier would have done well as they would keep getting $100 even when the price collapsed. But some shale oil producers also panicked and signed deals at say $40 when the price was low for a couple of years, which meant they were actually losing money when it went back to $50 (a 20% price difference, so significant). And the paper money basically acts as a multiplier on the real oil, so can create it's own effects that become disconnected from the real price on a shorter term period (so someone might think they are too exposed to the price going up, so counter that with certain options etc). That goes more into an area I'm not so secure in - but in a basic sense I think it's to stop yourself going bankrupt if you get your bet on the way the price will go very wrong.

So either the interviewee is "wrong", or the market is being irrational as it does in many different cases (say general market forgetting risk before the Global Financial Crash). Or both! Probably depending on what time scale you look at. In the short term the attack in Saudi has been shown to be a blip rather than a big long term risk, so currently the general market is right... But all it takes is a war in a big supplier for example, and then we'll see a jump. But those kind of things are hard to predict, and to take it back to Trump it seems like he is less interventionist militarily, so probably people view that as a smaller risk than previous presidents.

I think the

NRS

15,060 posts

148 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Tartan Pixie said:
Look at Iraq, was all that blood and treasure spent by America so that Iran could greatly increase their influence there while Americans count down the days until the Iraqi government boot them out for being foreign invaders? Do we think Afghanistan is going any better?

This is what the results of the forever war strategy have so far brought....

I don't think it's the middle east that Americans have spent the last three elections trying to leave, it's the wars, expense and cycle of destructive behavior that people don't like. IMO that could all be avoided by going back to the successful foreign policy playbook that Bush decided to rip up.
It's even bigger than that. 9/11 was a black swan event which has lead to a chain of events that is part of the reason for the rise of the right wing in Europe. Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq, which created the issues there, and then triggered the Arab Spring. That resulted in a bunch of civil wars such as Syria, which then resulted in the big refugee/migrant movement into Europe, which has resulted in the rise of the right wing in many European countries. And for example is giving Turkey power against Europe ("don't piss us off or we'll release 3.5 million refugees towards you"). And is still playing out now.

R1 Dave

6,943 posts

210 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Byker28i said:
As always trump decides to muddy his own criminal activity by claiming others have done it also



donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/clintons-close-ties-to-putin-deserve-scrutiny … (deleted now, but this was the url)
Am I missing something or is that post dated 2016?