Trump 2.0 official thread

M

Michael90

Junior Member
Registered Member
uguduwa said:
You are making a wrong assumption here. The US didn‘t want India to be a subordinate vassal state like Japan, SK or EU. As long as India wasn‘t vehemently against western interests, they were satisfied. US was also happy to use India‘s distrust of China to find some common ground. There was a reason why American diplomats tirelessly worked in the past 25 years to build a relationship with India. It‘s one thing when a giant country of India‘s size stays neutral towards the US vs if it opposes the US. Also the young people being westernized means that there would have been a chance that India in the future becomes more western in its outlook. You have older generstion not very fond of the west because of colonial hangover. But in the end of the day, we can safely ignore this possibility because Trump has destroyed any hope of India being friendly towards the west for the next 50 or so years.

Now when it comes to Trump, he doesn‘t have a strategy and doesn‘t have a clue of what he is doing. He‘s a childish, incompetent, unqualified clown who happens to lead the most powerful country on earth thinking that his reality tv show antics work for global politics. This dynamic would never not be weird to me. His first term wasn‘t much of a disaster, only because he was surrounded by qualified people at the time but this time it‘s different so you would see this administration running things to the ground and handing over global leadership to China.
Click to expand...
That means you dont really understand US foreign policy doctrine and how the US sees herself and her role globally. This is not a trump thing, its a policy that has been built in US political and generational paradigm for almost a century starting first with WWI and solidifying itself after WWII. The US sees herself (and they still are) the world's preminent sole superpower. So any power who rises to form a sort of pole of their own and with enough economic weight is a threat go the US, doesnt matter if it was the soviet Union in the 50s to late 80s or Japan in the 80s to 90s and China today. So it is or will be the same with India, since India herself is a rising power with her own distinct interest as we have seen in the past.

One thing India actually agrees with China is that they want a multipolar world(i.e a world not dominated by the US alone) , india has said it publicly time and time again for decades now, maybe you dont pay attention but some do. Lol So there is a fault line here between both sides. The US seeks to have India as a counterbalance to China using their border dispute as a catalyst which is the right policy, however the US wants a India that is pliable to the US and can be used as such, but India is aware of that and doesn't adhere to that at all. If anything India regards the border issue with China as a biliteral issue between both countries and they want no third party involvement as they recognise what is at play here.

So India's issue with China depends on India and the situation itself, it has no influence from the US. India just want to use US apprehension about China to her benefit which is quite smart, and India was also open to attracting Chinese investments on her territory as well, it was only the Galwan bloody clash which made India pause and review her relations with Chinese investment/involvement, else without that clash, Chinese companies will have had as much or even more presence in India today than even the US. So this shows India/China relation depends on both countries not a third party. So india will make hwr decision irrespective of the US on thus, depending on how India/China come to an agreement on the border issue, which is the only major roadblock to their relationship. India will not side with China whether the US force trade concessions or not, India and China have even deeper disagreements from the border issue to Pakistan. Until that is addressed(which i dont see happening at all) then India knows they need the US even more than the US does not just economically but also strategically as a counterbalance. So i think its the right time to demand concessions from India.
 
A

abenomics12345

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Palmer had come up with an idea that sounded crazy and unrealistic, even for him He wanted to get DOD rebranded to "The Department of War" When he first explained it, it honestly sounded kind of unhinged. At the time, no one thought this was feasible or that it even made sense. But he wasn't being whimsical or jingoistic, he had very specific objectives Here's what the rebrand was meant to accomplish: (1) Deterrence The credible threat of war with America is one of the greatest forces for peace in the world. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" is a Latin saying meaning "if you want peace, prepare for war." There is no saying meaning "if you want peace, prepare for defense." (2) Transparency A more honest name makes clear to Americans what their money is being used for, without obfuscation or apology, and without indulging the stigma unfairly attached to warfighters. (3) Clarity of purpose Vague language leads to mission creep. Everything from food aid to hurricane relief to making streets safer can be "defense." An unambiguous name also signals resolve to adversaries. You can't win defense, but you can win wars, and that's what we intend to do. (4) Morale During the DOD era, America lost or stalled out in more wars than we've won. During the original Department of War era, no American ever lost a major war, unless you count losing to another American. The name isn't causal of course, but returning to the classic "brand" of the US armed forces is like Cracker Barrel returning to its old logo. It evokes a better era. (5) Objector repellent One of the best parts of Anduril's brand is that it is attractive to the kind of people they want to hire, and abhorrent to the kind of people they want to avoid. The Department of War similarly helps filter out anyone squeamish about the mission before they ever join the organization. With this clear strategic rationale, Palmer spent the next couple years making the case to people ranging from military officers to policymakers to senior government officials. He started before the 2024 election even got going, and the new administration ultimately got onboardsu As with many things (including Anduril itself), if you have a clear goal and conviction, are willing to look a bit crazy, lay the groundwork, and keep at it, maybe for years...it might just end up happening And that's what it looks like when Palmer sets his mind to something and wills it into existence
Click to expand...

Turns out the origin of Department of War came from this. Palmer. Of course.
 
T

Thecore

Junior Member
Registered Member
uguduwa said:
You are making a wrong assumption here. The US didn‘t want India to be a subordinate vassal state like Japan, SK or EU. As long as India wasn‘t vehemently against western interests, they were satisfied. US was also happy to use India‘s distrust of China to find some common ground. There was a reason why American diplomats tirelessly worked in the past 25 years to build a relationship with India. It‘s one thing when a giant country of India‘s size stays neutral towards the US vs if it opposes the US. Also the young people being westernized means that there would have been a chance that India in the future becomes more western in its outlook. You have older generstion not very fond of the west because of colonial hangover. But in the end of the day, we can safely ignore this possibility because Trump has destroyed any hope of India being friendly towards the west for the next 50 or so years.

Now when it comes to Trump, he doesn‘t have a strategy and doesn‘t have a clue of what he is doing. He‘s a childish, incompetent, unqualified clown who happens to lead the most powerful country on earth thinking that his reality tv show antics work for global politics. This dynamic would never not be weird to me. His first term wasn‘t much of a disaster, only because he was surrounded by qualified people at the time but this time it‘s different so you would see this administration running things to the ground and handing over global leadership to China.
Click to expand...
You don't understand the perspective of American empire. Either you are subordinate or you are insubordinate. It's black and white to them. I've mentioned here before multiple times, that if the US were truly ruthless and contemplative of historical material context, they would come to the realization that all their pontificating of "what could have been" had they simply not allowed China to ascend via the WTO, investments and lack of disruption/infiltration on their part and strangled them in the crib when they were weaker 20 years ago is now again presenting itself with India. The opportunity to do to India what they should have done to China is within grasp today. India is signalling that they are not willing to be completely subordinate so the question now is will the US take action to smother the metaphorical baby with the metaphorical pillow in this current limited window of opportunity? Seems like it's trending in that direction.
 
Last edited:
U

uguduwa

New Member
Registered Member
Michael90 said:
That means you dont really understand US foreign policy doctrine and how the US sees herself and her role globally. This is not a trump thing, its a policy that has been built in US political and generational paradigm for almost a century starting first with WWI and solidifying itself after WWII. The US sees herself (and they still are) the world's preminent sole superpower. So any power who rises to form a sort of pole of their own and with enough economic weight is a threat go the US, doesnt matter if it was the soviet Union in the 50s to late 80s or Japan in the 80s to 90s and China today. So it is or will be the same with India, since India herself is a rising power with her own distinct interest as we have seen in the past.

One thing India actually agrees with China is that they want a multipolar world(i.e a world not dominated by the US alone) , india has said it publicly time and time again for decades now, maybe you dont pay attention but some do. Lol So there is a fault line here between both sides. The US seeks to have India as a counterbalance to China using their border dispute as a catalyst which is the right policy, however the US wants a India that is pliable to the US and can be used as such, but India is aware of that and doesn't adhere to that at all. If anything India regards the border issue with China as a biliteral issue between both countries and they want no third party involvement as they recognise what is at play here.

So India's issue with China depends on India and the situation itself, it has no influence from the US. India just want to use US apprehension about China to her benefit which is quite smart, and India was also open to attracting Chinese investments on her territory as well, it was only the Galwan bloody clash which made India pause and review her relations with Chinese investment/involvement, else without that clash, Chinese companies will have had as much or even more presence in India today than even the US. So this shows India/China relation depends on both countries not a third party. So india will make hwr decision irrespective of the US on thus, depending on how India/China come to an agreement on the border issue, which is the only major roadblock to their relationship. India will not side with China whether the US force trade concessions or not, India and China have even deeper disagreements from the border issue to Pakistan. Until that is addressed(which i dont see happening at all) then India knows they need the US even more than the US does not just economically but also strategically as a counterbalance. So i think its the right time to demand concessions from India.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that you know more than the professionals of department of state who have been trying to court India for the past 25 years? There is no way to know the outcome of this work because the 47 destroyed it and I would reiterate that this administration has absolutely no strategy or thinking behind what it is doing. Attributing some 4D chess thinking to this administration is meaningless. It just takes its decisions based on the mood of a senile incompetent unqualified idiot and the yes men he surrounds itself with.

Now when it comes to China, it stands to gain a lot by getting India to its side. Pakistan is just a failed state that doesn‘t have much value and it wouöd even be an annoyance because of all the security threats its neighbors have to face.

For India, it helps at the moment that it plays a little brother role towards China or the US, before it reaches a certain level of development. Other than Pakistan, India is also not very interested in military adventurism.
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
uguduwa said:
Now when it comes to China, it stands to gain a lot by getting India to its side. Pakistan is just a failed state that doesn‘t have much value and it wouöd even be an annoyance because of all the security threats its neighbors have to face.
Click to expand...
It won't happen that easily, if India wants to materially change relationship with China it needs to hand in what we call "投名状", an act of public demonstration of commitment that would in itself shut the door on them changing ship again in the future and flip flop back to the US side.

North Korea demonstrated it by sending troops to Kursk and openly selling ammo to Russia, thus everyone can be highly certain they won't flip flop. Iran did not and even now Iran is open to negotiation with US. That's why Kim gets the VVVIP treatment in Beijing and Pezeshkian is almost transparent.
 
U

uguduwa

New Member
Registered Member
Thecore said:
You don't understand the perspective of American empire. Either you are subordinate or you are insubordinate. It's black and white to them. I've mentioned here before multiple times, that if the US were truly ruthless and contemplative of historical material context, they would come to the realization that all their pontificating of "what could have been" had they simply not allowed China to ascend via the WTO, investments and lack of disruption/infiltration on their part and strangled them in the crib when they were weaker 20 years ago is now again presenting itself with India. The opportunity to do to India what they should have done to China is within grasp today. India is signalling that they are not willing to be completely subordinate so the question now is will the US take action to smother the metaphorical baby with the metaphorical pillow in this current limited window of opportunity? Seems like it's trending in that direction.
Click to expand...
This kind of thinking is dying in US politics startkng from Obama administration. It was Obama that called the US a pacific power and started pulling back from Europe and the Middle East. I am going to ignore whatever Trump is doing because there is no point of attaching any value to what a moronic clown is doing based on the mood he wakes up with.

Prior to this mess, there was a steady deepening f India-US relations. There is even substantial people-tp-people interaction betwwen the twp. Indians despite making barely 1% of the US population, have a fairly high number of people in prominent positions. Hell a half Indian woman came close to being the 47th president. If this trend continued, you would have seen a relationship between India and the US akin to EU-USA. All of that was destroyed by a bunch of unproductive deplorable bunch of morons driven by hate and fear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top