Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

[GRG55]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

One of the things a really good corporate CEO does is select people for the senior appointments with a deliberate intent to create constructive tension in the boardroom.

I sense some of this going on in Trump's selections and his process.

There are a number of reasons for doing this, including a) you avoid surrounding yourself with "yes men/women, b) you can never be a lazy CEO and disengage under the guise of delegation, c) it is the ONLY way to both generate constructive change ideas AND test their validity in debate before implementing them, d) it is messy, it can be loud, it can look like dissent and even chaos, but once a decision is taken it will be supported unconditionally and the inner circle will make it work, or die trying.

Governments aren't corporations, so the jury is out as to how well this is going to work. But the accusations that these appointees are uniformly unqualified or unprepared for government seems unsupportable to this outside observer.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

I might add that as I see it, from what one may glean from the news here in the UK, Trump is setting the scene for an attempt to bring down the CCP and as such he has read his history and does not have any intention of getting into a war, (even if only of words), on more than one front. By the way; did anyone across the pond, just a few days ago, watch America's Coming War on China produced and directed by John Pilger?

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-c...om-john-pilger

https://vimeo.com/112833864

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

I might add that as I see it, from what one may glean from the news here in the UK, Trump is setting the scene for an attempt to bring down the CCP and as such he has read his history and does not have any intention of getting into a war, (even if only of words), on more than one front. By the way; did anyone across the pond, just a few days ago, watch America's Coming War on China produced and directed by John Pilger?

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-c...om-john-pilger

https://vimeo.com/112833864

I took a quick look at Pilger's thesis.
Seems over-wrought to me.

He presents the true facts that the US has prepared for war with China, and then concludes that those preparations mean the US will start a war with China.
It simply does not follow.
The U.S has prepared for war with everyone, especially the large and strong nations.
By "prepared" I mean positioned people and equipment, built bases, performed exercises, and drawn up battle plans. Truly prepared.

Pilger also seems to rest his case strongly on the neocon view that any nation that might become strong needs to be pushed down.
That actually is the neocon view of things, but it doesn't always mean war.
In my lifetime the neocons have acted the bully - they fight wars with the weak, not with the strong.

[jk]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

In my lifetime the neocons have acted the bully - they fight wars with the weak, not with the strong.

and we still manage to lose.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

and we still manage to lose.

Very true
Our founders warned against "military adventures" but the neocons just can't resist.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

Very true
Our founders warned against "military adventures" but the neocons just can't resist.

does anybody else here believe the neocons (including the Democratic Party variation on that theme) have had their day, and are sufficiently discredited that a less adventurous, more isolationist USA may start to show itself?

Or is the "essential nation in our world order" belief so deeply ingrained in the national DNA there is no escape?

[shiny!]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

does anybody else here believe the neocons (including the Democratic Party variation on that theme) have had their day, and are sufficiently discredited that a less adventurous, more isolationist USA may start to show itself?

It depends on whether or not they manage to invalidate the election (Trump and isolationism) and put HRC in the oval office. Discredited or not, it doesn't look like they have any plans on relinquishing control.

Or is the "essential nation in our world order" belief so deeply ingrained in the national DNA there is no escape?

Is it really in the national DNA, or just in the rulers' DNA?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

does anybody else here believe the neocons (including the Democratic Party variation on that theme) have had their day, and are sufficiently discredited that a less adventurous, more isolationist USA may start to show itself?

Or is the "essential nation in our world order" belief so deeply ingrained in the national DNA there is no escape?

I agree, GRG55, the neocons or some other variety of war hawks will always be around.
I do hope they will continue to slowly be diminished.

War pays well politically because, sadly, voters reward it, they see making war and threatening war as a good characteristic of a strong leader.
And war pays handsomely in dollars. The $2 trillion spent on the Iraq war were income to companies, and they will always encourage war.

But back to Chris' original topic of war with China - we are not that crazy yet (I hope).
Maybe another Grenada or Bosnia, but not China.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

It depends on whether or not they manage to invalidate the election (Trump and isolationism) and put HRC in the oval office. ...

I don't see any scenario that would put Hillary into office.
The electors and the House of Representatives are free to pick any qualified person if they control the outcome.
They have no obligation to pick the runner-up.
Both groups are heavily republican and would be expected to replace Trump with some other republican.

[jk]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

I agree, GRG55, the neocons or some other variety of war hawks will always be around.
I do hope they will continue to slowly be diminished.

War pays well politically because, sadly, voters reward it, they see making war and threatening war as a good characteristic of a strong leader.
And war pays handsomely in dollars. The $2 trillion spent on the Iraq war were income to companies, and they will always encourage war.

But back to Chris' original topic of war with China - we are not that crazy yet (I hope).
Maybe another Grenada or Bosnia, but not China.

cold war with china.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

cold war with china.

You could be right there, jk.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

I agree, GRG55, the neocons or some other variety of war hawks will always be around.
I do hope they will continue to slowly be diminished.

War pays well politically because, sadly, voters reward it, they see making war and threatening war as a good characteristic of a strong leader.
And war pays handsomely in dollars. The $2 trillion spent on the Iraq war were income to companies, and they will always encourage war.

But back to Chris' original topic of war with China - we are not that crazy yet (I hope).
Maybe another Grenada or Bosnia, but not China.

China last week announced that if the ongoing debate in the US administration regarding Taiwan independence continued, they will attack Taiwan.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/15/china-plan-taiwan-force-trump-call-state-media?CMP=share_btn_tw

China should plan to take Taiwan by force after Trump call, state media says

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

I agree, GRG55, the neocons or some other variety of war hawks will always be around.
I do hope they will continue to slowly be diminished.

War pays well politically because, sadly, voters reward it, they see making war and threatening war as a good characteristic of a strong leader.
And war pays handsomely in dollars. The $2 trillion spent on the Iraq war were income to companies, and they will always encourage war.

But back to Chris' original topic of war with China - we are not that crazy yet (I hope).
Maybe another Grenada or Bosnia, but not China.

You all need to go back and read Gold Warriors, America's search for Yamishita`s Gold by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave. From that it is crystal clear the US has a group totally dedicated to the destruction of communism. They have almost unlimited funding. Does Trump owe them for some past favour?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

China last week announced that if the ongoing debate in the US administration regarding Taiwan independence continued, they will attack Taiwan.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/15/china-plan-taiwan-force-trump-call-state-media?CMP=share_btn_tw

China should plan to take Taiwan by force after Trump call, state media says

Thanks Chris.
While that would be a tragedy, it would not be the U.S.starting a war with China like Pilger discusses.

[bpr]

Re: Trump's Appointments May Not Be What Some Fear

One of the things a really good corporate CEO does is select people for the senior appointments with a deliberate intent to create constructive tension in the boardroom.

I sense some of this going on in Trump's selections and his process.

There are a number of reasons for doing this, including a) you avoid surrounding yourself with "yes men/women, b) you can never be a lazy CEO and disengage under the guise of delegation, c) it is the ONLY way to both generate constructive change ideas AND test their validity in debate before implementing them, d) it is messy, it can be loud, it can look like dissent and even chaos, but once a decision is taken it will be supported unconditionally and the inner circle will make it work, or die trying.

Governments aren't corporations, so the jury is out as to how well this is going to work. But the accusations that these appointees are uniformly unqualified or unprepared for government seems unsupportable to this outside observer.

This is a really interesting perspective I haven't heard. I haven't made too much of his appointments because I don't think he would really listen to them anyway.

I think it's extremely unlikely that any kind of war happens with US involvement, unless the "non-intervention" (appeasement, whatever you want to call it) led to untenable situations.

If my family was in Taiwan, or Kazakhstan, or Georgia, or another former Soviet state I would seriously consider relocating before the burly neighbors decide they need elbow room for a pipeline or something. Trump's not likely to step in; but, then again, Obama didn't do much about Crimea.