tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44122535879744485352024-02-07T11:55:47.299-08:00The Stienberg Sentinel Where the ideas and essays of the Stienberg Brothers can be seen.Stienberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16186576710561312616noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4412253587974448535.post-12283136861845176492018-03-16T04:29:00.002-07:002018-03-16T04:29:26.875-07:00Wages of Deficit I have in the past noted that <a href="http://the-m-at.blogspot.ca/2017/03/lies-damned-lies-and-trump.html">Donald Trump is a compulsive liar</a>. He lies about the most inane things and is almost ridiculously blase about it. The most recent, which hits close to home and may have a direct impact on my country, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43418892">is his claims regarding</a> the trade <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/after-trumps-misleading-remarks-to-trudeau-canada-restates-the-facts/2018/03/15/c4ee54ee-286a-11e8-a227-fd2b009466bc_story.html?utm_term=.96f20464f06d">deficit with Canada</a>. The reports seem to indicate that Trump not only made up a spurious fact regarding his own nation's trade deficit with mine, but that he simply did not know, or care to know, what the actual state of affairs was. This despite now for over two years making broad sweeping statements at rallies, on Twitter, and in interviews, regarding the supposed "unfairness" of foreign trade with the United States.<br />
<br />
While I have made no secret of my dislike for Donald Trump as an individual, I must ask, how can Trump expect international observers to take their him seriously? How can foreign leaders expect Trump to negotiate in good faith with them?<br />
<br />
The simple answer is, they can't. Trump will not, and does not, work in good faith either with members of his own administration or international leaders who are his <i>allies</i>. The man seems incapable of either being honest, or even doing rudimentary research into the effects of his own policies, or the ground which they are supposed to stand on when debated by policy makers.<br />
<br />
What is baffling, utterly baffling, about this recent exchange, is that the lie makes no sense. In no circumstances does it even seem reasonable. Its not compelling fodder for a political campaign, it isn't a reasonable position to remain in ignorance of, and it isn't even a clever negotiating tactic considering how easy it is to disprove. He just bluntly said this to a foreign leader, and his countries closest neighbor and ally, and had it easily disproved.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/974276383051583488">He then waffled on </a>whether he was wrong by stating that "almost all" countries have a trade deficit with the US, even though <i>that</i> specific statement was wrong. This isn't the first time Trump has made this claim, but it was the first time he was so bluntly called on it while talking to the head of state of the nation he's been misrepresenting like this.<br />
<br />
The short term damage is repairable, as a new blunder from the Trump White House happens nearly weekly, but in terms of renegotiating NAFTA as he wants in the long term, it is iffy any other leader will see him as negotiating in good faith or reasonably. He's just sacked his Secretary of State, has been caught totally making something up and blithely continued with it, and seems utterly unwilling to compromise on his mistake. That is not a recipe for creating a sense of good will or confidence with any of the NAFTA partners, who may be better served simply waiting out any attempts at negotiation he proposes.<br />
<br />
For other world leaders, it should simply be taken as Gospel that Trump has no clue what he is talking about, and that his representatives don't even represent his views to the world. The unfortunate effect this may have on his foreign policy remains to be seen, but I can only repeat something I have said before, Donald Trump cannot be trusted.Stienberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16186576710561312616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4412253587974448535.post-58898080149817973952017-06-03T14:48:00.004-07:002017-06-03T14:48:55.435-07:00Conservative Insurgency: The Struggle to Take American Back 2009-2041 and our own 2016<br />
Now I originally wrote this review on my other blog, way back in November just as Trump was coming to power (doesn't that seem like forever ago?) but I was looking back and felt it seemed important to re-post it here.<br />
<br />
The reason why is that I think that much of the conciliatory tone which many were pressing for after Trump had won, is unfortunately vanishing into the ether of rabid partisanship. This should be disappointing for many reasons, not in the least because most Americans, left and right on the aisle, have many issues which they are all on the same side for. The nonsensical health care plan which hurts Trump's own supporters ought to be a priority for both sides to fight against. His ongoing scandal with Russia should be investigated and examined critically. The recent pull out from the Paris Climate Accord is troubling, and we should all be looking at how it effects us.<br />
<br />
The slide back into partisanship should be something to be avoided, not encouraged! It's only by building bridges and understanding that we can understand each other, and more importantly, prevent the kind of ridiculous political gridlock and bickering that has gummed up politics for 8 years south of the border.<br />
<br />
In that vein, I implore people to read this piece, and think about what the other side sees when they look at issues. It may not be pretty to some, but understanding is the first step in communication.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
-----<br />
<br />
So yesterday, on November 9th 2016, I woke up to something a year ago I would have laughed off as impossible, and utterly unrealistic. However, much to my own shock, Donald J. Trump has won the American election with a surprising cascade of victories in key battle ground states. Some people are horrified by this news, others are elated, but one thing is certain, Trump's victory was divisive.<br />
<br />
However, on the 8th I began reading a book I purchased on Kindle so many years ago on a lark. That novel was <i>Conservative Insurgency: The Struggle to Take American Back 2009-2041</i> by right wing novelist Kurt Schlichter.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhewsuMtyHo-HltvXxriJoKJ3uyYdcVSNySRg8BeL2Vy-nmDuqeWTeBDSPa6r9OXDNeEMvIJyGyOabcR6eeJjZdeFUJrikRxTvcekUnDwXTC3oRuJzeSo1yQiaxSNChKX2KJVaMgiD5lPv8/s1600/Conservative+Insurgency.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhewsuMtyHo-HltvXxriJoKJ3uyYdcVSNySRg8BeL2Vy-nmDuqeWTeBDSPa6r9OXDNeEMvIJyGyOabcR6eeJjZdeFUJrikRxTvcekUnDwXTC3oRuJzeSo1yQiaxSNChKX2KJVaMgiD5lPv8/s400/Conservative+Insurgency.jpg" width="265" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
What originally attracted me to it I cannot recall other than it had a catchy cover and comparisons to World War Z's writing style. It has the writing style down pat, but hardly as compelling a story. In brief, it is, since its 2014 publish date, it is now a piece of alternate history wherein "constitutional conservatives" are launching a long campaign of taking back their country through a political and cultural campaign against the nebulous forces of 'progressives' and 'liberalism' and to re-institute "the conservative vision of the Founders" against progressive dominance as exemplified by a two term President Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
During this re-read I was struck by the uncanny similarities between many of the ideas espoused by these fictional characters, and the real life supporters of Donald Trump. Such were the similarities that I could not get many of them out of my head. So I thought that one interesting way to comment upon the unexpected events of our own time was to look at the ideology and methods that let this happen through the fictional lens of a novel.<br />
<br />
In the novel itself it discusses a "cultural war" being waged against the forces of liberalism, and many would say that this is true today from one side of the political aisle. Most of the view point characters in the novel themselves express that they are trying to win their country back from the forces of the unpatriotic liberals. In order to do that, they set out to detach themselves from an ineffective GOP, wage a cultural war to make 'constitutional conservatism' more palatable to the masses by showing them that it is the <i>liberals</i> who are the racists, the <i>liberals</i> who don't support women, and the <i>liberals </i>who support big government and spying on the American people. Make of these claims what you will of course, but the book is all about attempting to show that these ideas of small government conservatives are palatable to people because they encourage personal liberty and freedom versus the liberals who just hunger for power for powers sake. And that the "progressives" will just use slander and lies to discredit and dismiss conservatives as "racists" and "bigots" who can be safely ignored in public discourse.<br />
<br />
Ironically the book manages to hit on a number of points which are rather pertinent both in understanding the outcome of the recent election, and in hopefully understanding the common ground that can be found to lessen the division brought about by the election.<br />
<br />
For instance, in the novel it discusses the idea of banding together with 'pot culture' as a symbol of personal freedom which is a means of taking away a section of people who would vote Democrat by passing laws which allow the freedom of choice in the matter and remove the burden that smoking or growing pot on the justice system. This is heralded as a step forward in forging a consensus around 'conservative' values. In real life though, during this election California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada all passed legislation which would legalize marijuana, and so did the states of Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota. So there may be something in the idea that this can bridge gaps. Rather than the false equivalency supported by the novel that "Right leads to freedom, left leads to tyranny."[1]<br />
<br />
The novel also manages to hit an interesting number of highlights on the campaign which propelled Trump to power. For instance it discussed that due to the new conservative presidency there was a "border wall" which stopped illegal immigration and prevented millions of unregistered voters from supporting the Democrats.[2] This rather succinctly foretells Trumps long term (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI">and impractical</a>) promise to construct a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, and his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/01/donald-trump-vows-to-deport-millions-during-first-hour-in-office-in-hardline-speech">promise to deport millions of illegal immigrants</a>. This was the mean and potatoes of Trumps speeches from near the beginning, and one which seems to have meshed nicely with the views of enough Americans to propel him to power.<br />
<br />
There is also touched upon the ideological feeling that global warming is a hoax [3a,b]. This seems to be a popular position as well, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/17/fox-news-inner-struggle-with-climate-misinformation">one cultivated by Fox news</a>, and one happily espoused by Donald Trump,<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/"> who at one point called it a Chinese hoax.</a> This has been something he has campaigned on getting off of, and most specifically to remove the United States from various global warming related treaties.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja0qPO7AVhcB6pnaVOD08UKfgo6okuP-KGrOe56Tg-k3DBlphijNT6wL7B8gOp6NQ2wktP1HoQtUJ6bGYZH62ENhY6RpZ0e4xjxg__pNgcXUdv5ofhCcapIGEB3C5IPr0rz6OBHbZ0vRx8/s1600/trump-china.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja0qPO7AVhcB6pnaVOD08UKfgo6okuP-KGrOe56Tg-k3DBlphijNT6wL7B8gOp6NQ2wktP1HoQtUJ6bGYZH62ENhY6RpZ0e4xjxg__pNgcXUdv5ofhCcapIGEB3C5IPr0rz6OBHbZ0vRx8/s400/trump-china.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
However, there are two important points which I think the novel addressed which were very important in explaining the rise of Trump to the White House.<br />
<br />
The first is that the novel is constantly harping on the GOP as not standing for 'conservative values' or not standing for the voters. That is something I believe the novel had right then, and is most certainly something the United States electorate agreed on in elevating Donald Trump to the Republican front runner. A political outsider, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Involvement_in_politics.2C_1988.E2.80.932015">he has floated the idea of running for president since at least 1988</a>, and he has never had any political experience, and compared to the insiders like Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz he was a breath of fresh air. However, he and the novel made the point that the GOP itself is not speaking for its own constituents. There was a feeling of frustration with the GOP establishment and one which we have seen has been fed since the rise of the Tea Party in 2008. The frustration voters must have felt as they saw their jobs disappearing and <a href="http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/21-facts-about-americas-failing-infrastructure-that-will-blow-your-mind">infrastructure crumbling</a>[4], all against the backdrop of both a party elite which did not care about them, and an opposition which routinely mocked, marginalized, and discarded them.<br />
<br />
That dovetails into a second point that these people were by and large reacting to a culture <a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/">which regularly abuses and disregards them</a>. That is to say, this is a rural vs urban divide, as David Wong eloquently articulates in his own article. In the novel though, this is presented as a great media gap of the "liberals" disregarding anyone who is conservative as 'racist, bigoted, or stupid' and simply writing them off as a lost cause. In the novel, as in real life, this is something that frustrates and alienates. In real life of course this is a problem where media has merely worked to portray these rural, culturally conservative folk as backwards and bigoted people who are best consigned to the dust bin of history. Calling half of your opponents base '<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/10/hillary-clinton-trump-supporters--bigoted-deplorables">bigoted deplorables</a>' is hardly engineered to garner either sympathy for you, or your policies.<br />
<br />
As outlined in the <a href="http://www.cracked.com/podcast/trump-country-what-media-doesnt-want-you-to-know/">excellent Cracked podcast on the subject</a> this pattern of alienating a dismissing the people who supported Donald Trump and his policies, both by targeting them indirectly, and their candidate, merely served to strengthen the movement that rallied behind him. This was a direct reaction to eight years of Democrats in the White House, a Republican Party which had become out of touch with its own base, and fear of an uncertain future. Yes, these people are afraid, and concerned about their future. 59 million Americans did not just out themselves as closet racists. Dismissing them as such is counterproductive, much like this novels attempt to dismiss all liberals as power hungry hypocrites who follow a morally bankrupt ideology all for the sake of enriching themselves. It's merely a recipe for creating a toxic environment in social and political discourse.<br />
<br />
When one examines how close this election was, with Hillary winning roughly 47.7% of the popular vote to Trump's 47.5%[5] then we can see that creating a further gulf between the people on both sides of the aisle should probably be avoided.<br />
<br />
Though allow me to address one thing here. Just because people who voted were Trump were not themselves bigots, does not mean Trump did not rise to power on a wave of bigotry and he was not bigoted. <a href="http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/whos-happy-trump-won-klan-nazis-anti-immigrant-activists-worldwide/">Because boy</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-many-bigoted-supporters/2016/04/01/1df763d6-f803-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html">did he ever.</a> Trump has legitimized some disgusting attitudes and prejudices (<a href="http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/21-heartbreaking-things-happened-people-color-one-day-trumps-win/">which we can already see having a negative impact</a>) that give lie to the idea racism and sexism are not a problem, and ones that, in my humble opinion, make him unfit to govern in Washington in the 21st century. His supporters were willing to overlook this though (much like supporters of Bill Clinton overlooked his sex scandals, and like many have overlooked Obama's poor record with expanding the NSA and drone warfare) because he brought them hope that they finally had someone willing to listen to their concerns.<br />
<br />
Though let me be clear, just because someone voted for Trump <i style="text-decoration-line: underline;">does not mean they're beliefs, concerns, and fears for the future are invalid.</i> It means that they voted for someone who they felt would address their concerns with what they see as the slow collapse of their country. Simply labeling all these people as bigots and racists and shutting their voices out is so destructive to long term reconciliation that I think such an idea should be rejected out of hand. The future voters need to be building bridges and trying to bring each other together to accomplish more, much as the novel here describes doing (but not in the way the author would like of course) in order to accomplish things that will truly make the United States great again.<br />
<br />
There is a reason why rather than professing doom and gloom, commentators who had savaged Trump were able to speak through their disappointment and push for reconciliation between the two divided sides. They don't want a country split into two armed camps. They want a nation which will be stronger. Even Trump himself was asking for unity in his acceptance speech. Hell as David Wong said, <a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/dont-panic/">Don't Panic</a>. There is no reason to fear Trump will usher in a fascist empire, and even if he wants to roll back the clock on civil rights, he has to go through the voters first. Even if he does, he can't stay in office forever, and everything awful he might accomplish (or try to accomplish) can be undone. It's a democracy, the voters can push back!<br />
<br />
Now why am I, a Canadian, writing about this?<br />
<br />
Being honest, I think Trump is unfit for the office he has been elected to hold. However, he is the elected president of the United States. <a href="http://globalnews.ca/news/3051049/what-president-donald-trump-will-mean-for-canada/?sf41755293=1">Everything he does will effect my country</a> and many of his campaign promises may be devastating in the short term, or even in the long run if you compare his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3mYrOnq2Z4">health</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgicDQHbV3M">tax</a> plans.<br />
<br />
He has promised to make American great again. So did another man:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFmDYAPYOTUrr_XUlf2IeOH59QneOB3l8E4f55Y2iwxj_CRoN7I4-vvZbCOV-JCEexn2h9Qqn1HzEi-jYaNPl-Umo0kdkPlnb_Bhw0QM7_Wf4THRecHndWJmunqELLoEw3ZUQ4kEMl0xhA/s1600/Trump+and+Reagan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFmDYAPYOTUrr_XUlf2IeOH59QneOB3l8E4f55Y2iwxj_CRoN7I4-vvZbCOV-JCEexn2h9Qqn1HzEi-jYaNPl-Umo0kdkPlnb_Bhw0QM7_Wf4THRecHndWJmunqELLoEw3ZUQ4kEMl0xhA/s400/Trump+and+Reagan.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
The Reagan years left a legacy of voodoo economics, enormous government debt, and an AIDs epidemic. And he campaigned on similar emotional appeals to fears and hopes.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
It is my hope that Trump will be a blip on the map, a last hurrah for ugly populist rhetoric in the United States. He may have though, broken the traditional way politics is carried out, upsetting the political apple cart and letting more diverse candidates into the system and forcing the parties to listen to their constituents needs, and not tell them what they need. This has positive effects in the long run as it may shake up the system and allow new blood in.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
In conclusion however, I know many people are hurting, confused, and shocked. But remember, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVD7yWe-LrE">there is hope</a>. My prayers are with my neighbors to the south and I encourage every one to hold on. We are in what the Chinese call, interesting times. Thankfully, times much less interesting than the ones portrayed in the novel mentioned above.</div>
<br />
------<br />
<br />
1] Schlichter, Kurt. Conservative Insurgency: The Struggle to Take America Back 2009 - 2041 (Kindle Location 1910). Post Hill Press. Kindle Edition.<br />
<br />
2] "Of course, we’ve deported a fair number and with the border wall up there’s no more tidal wave coming north." Schlichter, ibid, (Kindle Locations 1131-1132).<br />
<br />
3a]"The guy who was into global warming? Remember that scam? It’s freaking six degrees outside!”<br />
Schlichter, Kurt. ibid, (Kindle Locations 2044-2045).<br />
<br />
3b]"Al Gore made a fortune off the global warming swindle—" Schlichter, ibid, (Kindle Locations 556-557).<br />
<br />
4] Yes, the article is rather nakedly partisan, but it has one of the most succinct descriptions of the total failings of the American infrastructure I could find.<br />
<br />
5] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where_winner_lost_popular_vote">Making this the 5th time this has happened in US history.</a> As of time of writing these numbers are accurate.<br />
<br />Stienberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16186576710561312616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4412253587974448535.post-10845991852883313412017-04-07T20:24:00.000-07:002017-04-07T20:24:37.466-07:00Is America at war with Syria?<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">by: Nicholas Stienberg</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Last night, President Trump authorized the use of force against a Syrian airbase from which the Assad regime was allegedly launching chemical weapons attacks (I say allegedly because trying to scrape truth out of the cauldron of the Syrian Civil War and its grisly carnival of war crimes and factionalism is like trying to nail water to a wall at present). This brings us to a very big question: Is America at war?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is an important question in how it relates to foreign relations. In Iraq or eastern Syria when fighting ISIL, the US has clear groundwork to hit targets as they are enemy territory. In Libya, NATO enforced and a UN sanction allowed them to carry out air operations against the government of Gaddafi. While domestically it was considered shaky, as Obama was essentially allowing for armed intervention without the consent of elected officials, internationally it was legal under the law. In this instance, what is the justification for such attacks and what does it mean for Syrian situation? </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Obama avoided putting his hat into the ring for a number of reasons. First, their original attempts to train and arm rebels to help overthrow the Assad regime failed miserably. Support for getting involved at all with the civil war was low enough already, the American citizenry was wearying of the Middle East and its constant drain on the US, but the clear failure of the administration to even promote US interests killed any potential political support it might have had. Secondly, the Russians got involved in supporting the Assad regime, as he was a regional ally and the Russians had a vested interest in protecting their naval base at Tartus. Thus, for American military might to be used in Syrua was just asking to further antagonize an already</span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: calibri; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">VERY</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> antagonized Russia. Thus throwing the American hat into the ring right now is a very concerning move.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">War crimes against civilians are horrific tragedies, no matter when and where they happen, but what President Trump did was a clear violation of international law, and sets a dangerous precedent. The beginning of this century was no stranger to the US flagrantly flaunting international law; it was after all the invasion of Iraq and subsequent destabilization of the Middle East and North Africa which led to the conditions we now see. However, the blatant use of force against a nation which has not attacked the US, has not declared war on the US, and is currently being protected by one of the US’s long-time rivals is dangerous, but may also inspire said rival.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We know that Trump at least warned the Russians so that Russian military personnel who may be present at the base would hopefully not be hit. So, for all those who feared Trump had flown right off the handle, at least give him that. He gave advance warning to Russia so as to avoid turning this into an even bigger incident than it already is. But what does Russia or China or Iran take away from this? When the biggest power on the block starts launching cruise missiles at states whom they aren’t even at war with, they’ll notice. For the Russians, what is to stop them from launching missiles onto Ukrainian bases if word ever got out that Ukrainian forces killed civilians? What’s to stop China from intervening in the domestic situation of the Philippines? One would hope international law, but sadly it seems international law just isn’t fashionable these days.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is hardly surprising that in the aftermath of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, other countries started flouting the law as well. If America can do it, what is stopping us? So Russia has flexed its muscles by curb stomping American allies like Georgia, or seizing territory from states in grey zones like Ukraine. China is constructing artificial islands to hold territory along its Nine Line Zone, and arguably create fleet bases to challenge American supremacy in the region as China rearms. Now they have been given excuses to use force if a country does something they don’t like. While Russia can expect more sanctions if they do it, what can be done to China? </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As Trump’s foreign policy with these countries seems to run the gamut from surprisingly soft on Russia to statements about blowing up spy boats, while threatening China with a trade war to a recently more conciliatory tone, it is yet to be predictable what the next year in foreign relations will bring. With North Korea, Syria, and Ukraine being the sensitive spots for conflict within the world right now, these actions undertaken by the US can be seen as dangerously short sighted for giving lie to the idea that international law, and subsequently the UN, hold any meaning for current or emerging powers.</span>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06802172158719407614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4412253587974448535.post-46582898842039692252017-04-07T07:50:00.001-07:002017-04-07T07:50:56.640-07:00WelcomeWelcome to the Stienberg Sentinel. Here is a blog dedicated to exorcising the pesky thoughts of the Stienberg twins who just think too much and need to write more. This is a blog solely dedicated to our opinions and ideas, so really I should caution you to enter at your own risk!Stienberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16186576710561312616noreply@blogger.com0