US Steel & Aluminum Tariffs

[Albany Rifles]

Snapper & WAB_OOE,

Please watch your tone.

Both of you are getting too close to the line.

[Ironduke]

"This is Radio Free Canada broadcasting to our friends in the American Resistance..."

The poutine has extra cheese.
The poutine has extra cheese.

The beaver is wearing flannel.
The beaver is wearing flannel.

The loon is off the water.
The loon is off the water.

The curling ice is melted.
The curling ice is melted.

I gotta make a run for the border
I got a hunger only poutine can stop
I know exactly what I'll order
Two poutine, moose ribs, and a Blue Labatt

[Officer of Engineers]

If you cannot see that Putin's ambition is to cause splits in the 'Western' alliance and that Trumpkin has delivered that for him, which is blindingly obvious for all with eyes, I am not going to educate you.

You have nothing to educate me about. If you want blinding obvious, read the comics. The G6 refused to consider the G8 and that is something that should be screaming in Putin's ear. The alliance will stand up against Putin with or without the US.

First of all, nothing happened except an exchange of words. The G7's communique is worthless used toilet paper, as in all communiques. It ain't treaties. 2ndly, Trump has a point that the Europeans are producing way too much steel with tax incentives that tanatmounts to an unfair trade practice only to sell to the Americans.

So, these are trade disputes that Trump, correctly or incorrectly, wants addressed. Trump believes in America First, everyone else be damned. If you are no benefit to him, he will throw you under the bus, including wives. He's not abandoning the alliance but he's no alliance leader and he doesn't pretend to be. He's forcing the rest of the alliance to step up and start treating the US the due she's deserve instead of a money pit. When the alliance gets through all of this, and it will, it will emerged stronger and frankly wealthier - without Russia in the mix.

So, if you think Putin is dancing for joy over this, your amateur eyes ain't seeing what he's seeing.

[astralis]

You have nothing to educate me about. If you want blinding obvious, read the comics. The G6 refused to consider the G8 and that is something that should be screaming in Putin's ear. The alliance will stand up against Putin with or without the US.

First of all, nothing happened except an exchange of words. The G7's communique is worthless used toilet paper, as in all communiques. It ain't treaties. 2ndly, Trump has a point that the Europeans are producing way too much steel with tax incentives that tanatmounts to an unfair trade practice only to sell to the Americans.

So, these are trade disputes that Trump, correctly or incorrectly, wants addressed. Trump believes in America First, everyone else be damned. If you are no benefit to him, he will throw you under the bus, including wives. He's not abandoning the alliance but he's no alliance leader and he doesn't pretend to be. He's forcing the rest of the alliance to step up and start treating the US the due she's deserve instead of a money pit. When the alliance gets through all of this, and it will, it will emerged stronger and frankly wealthier - without Russia in the mix.

So, if you think Putin is dancing for joy over this, your amateur eyes ain't seeing what he's seeing.

to the extent that Putin is dancing for joy, it is because the US President sees the world in similar terms as he does: transactional, with the post-WWII international order as worthless.

Trump very clearly sees little, or less than little, value in alliances. he views alliance obligations as a straight burden on the US, with no upside.

look at the stuff that Trump is currently bickering with France/Germany/UK/Canada about. you're talking tariffs at the 3% level, which is ridiculous to torch alliance relationships for. how much money have the other alliance members plowed into NATO or even their own defense, for all of Trump's bellowing?

Trump is currently testing the boundaries by which other international members wish to bandwagon with the US as opposed to balance against the US. he's doing this by burning the trust, credibility, and relationships that previous Presidents have built up since the establishment of the system. and he's doing this for little more than personal domestic political gain.

[Officer of Engineers]

Trump is currently testing the boundaries by which other international members wish to bandwagon with the US as opposed to balance against the US. he's doing this by burning the trust, credibility, and relationships that previous Presidents have built up since the establishment of the system. and he's doing this for little more than personal domestic political gain.

Oh please. Bush Jr's Iraq War already proved the transactional nature of the alliance. Reagan had to fly around France to bomb Lybia. And no one gave a rat's ass for British, Canadian, and French troops in Yugoslavia. No one re-enforced American, the British, and Canadian combat operations in Afghanistan even when we Canadians begged for it. Let's not forget the fiasco that was the Kosovo War with 16 vetoes over combat operations.

Trump only shined a light on this. He certainly did not create it.

[astralis]

Bush Jr's Iraq War already proved the transactional nature of the alliance.

precisely the opposite. Bush Jr's Iraq War proved exactly how much other nations were willing to sacrifice for an American foreign policy goal because of the strength of the alliance.

for instance, what was the kickback for the UK throwing in 45K troops into Iraq in the face of enormous domestic political opposition? hell, South Korea rotated some 8K peacekeepers despite Iraq having exactly how much direct effect on SK national security?

[Officer of Engineers]

precisely the opposite. Bush Jr's Iraq War proved exactly how much other nations were willing to sacrifice for an American foreign policy goal because of the strength of the alliance.

And France actively blocking UNSC actions. The Coalition of the Willing was nothing more than a cheerleading squad with zero interest in helping American policy until it was time for the spoils of war.

for instance, what was the kickback for the UK throwing in 45K troops into Iraq in the face of enormous domestic political opposition? hell, South Korea rotated some 8K peacekeepers despite Iraq having exactly how much direct effect on SK national security?

What was the UK kickback? Having a say in Iraq's future. And I remind you the big hoopla when Bush Jr suggeested that only those countries who acted in the war should have contracts in Iraq, causing many to send peacekeeping troops to have a say in that money.

[astralis]

i dunno, col, this interpretation seems to be imputing that the entire Coalition of the Willing were all just mercs on the American paycheck.

which is essentially the Trumpian view of allies.

[Officer of Engineers]

i dunno, col, this interpretation seems to be imputing that the entire Coalition of the Willing were all just mercs on the American paycheck.

As I've stated. Nobody came to our rescue in Yugoslavia (British, French, Canadian) nor Afghanistan (American, British, Canadian). People in uniform tried to skirt the issues to help as much as possible but the Capitals leave me little doubt as to why they sent the troops in the first place.

which is essentially the Trumpian view of allies.

As opposed to puppet troops? Since when was Kosovo a strategic American interest? Or Obama got pissed off the Brits did not follow him into Syria?

I much prefer Trump's view over Obama. If he wants us into war, it better be damned worth our while and not just because the messiah said it's the right thing to do.

[Ironduke]

Full article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1JA353

Exclusive: Mexico studies tariffs on billions of dollars of U.S. corn, soy

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico could strike at $4 billion in annual imports of U.S. corn and soybeans if President Donald Trump escalates a trade spat with new tariffs, officials told Reuters this week, and it is studying how to reduce the pain of such a move.

Earlier this month, Mexico swiftly retaliated when Trump imposed metals tariffs, hitting dozens of American imports including steel, apples and pork.

But it held back from the most lucrative class of U.S. farm products: grains, especially feed corn and soybeans, used to fatten Mexico’s cows, hogs and chickens.

Imposing such tariffs would be a last-ditch option hitting at U.S. corn farmers’ top export market, and such a move would hurt Mexico’s own industry. But it has already been increasing its imports of grains from suppliers like Brazil and Argentina that could enable it to lessen the impact.

“This issue is one for phase two,” said Bosco de la Vega, who heads Mexico’s main agricultural lobby, the National Farm Council. He said tariffs on grains were discussed at a June 4 meeting he attended at Mexico’s Economy Ministry, which is in charge of trade. Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo was present at the meeting, he said.

“Intentionally, it was left for a major crisis phase,” said de la Vega.

He said any move against grains would aim at the U.S. corn belt, mentioning states such as Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska, all of which voted for Trump in the 2016 election.

Raul Urteaga, director of international trade for Mexico’s agriculture ministry, said Mexico “right now” was not targeting U.S. grains, but declined to rule out such a move in the future and said Mexico was looking for alternative suppliers.

An official with Mexico’s Economy Ministry would not say whether or not officials were studying duties on U.S. grains, and referred back to the retaliatory tariffs announced earlier this month.

The decision not to impose the measure during that retaliation was taken to retain options at the negotiating table as trade talks continue and to avoid hurting the Mexican consumer with higher prices, a trade source familiar with the matter said.

High on Mexico’s list of worries is Trump’s decision to launch a national security investigation into tariffs on auto imports, which could hammer Mexico’s $67 billion auto industry.

“That’s why we’re preparing,” de la Vega said.

[Ironduke]

it better be damned worth our while and not just because the messiah said it's the right thing to do.

I also prefer it when casus bellum aren't based on Jesus or Mohammed, etc. coming to political leaders in their sleep in visions and dreams, telling them to go to war.

There are plenty of other pretexts for war that are bad or even worse, and while people have the right to believe what they want, it's been 250 or 300 years since the Enlightenment. Political leaders ought not to use religious appeals to sell a war to the masses.

[Officer of Engineers]

I also prefer it when casus bellum aren't based on Jesus or Mohammed, etc. coming to political leaders in their sleep in visions and dreams, telling them to go to war.

There are plenty of other pretexts for war that are bad or even worse, and while people have the right to believe what they want, it's been 250 or 300 years since the Enlightenment. Political leaders ought not to use religious appeals to sell a war to the masses.

There are never any good reasons to goto war but there may be worst reasons not to goto war. All I asked of my leaders is that they think long and hard before committing to war and have the courage of conviction to see to victory.

[Ironduke]

Breaking news....

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/14/news...ffs/index.html

Trump approves tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods

President Donald Trump has given his approval to proceed with tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese exports, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

An announcement is expected on Friday. The president's green light came after a meeting Thursday with top economic officials, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

The move represents a dramatic escalation of global tensions on trade just as Trump has picked fights with allies Canada, the European Union and Mexico over steel and aluminum.

Beijing previously said it would respond to American tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese exports with retaliatory tariffs on $50 billion of US products such as cars, planes and soybeans.

[Ironduke]

There are never any good reasons to goto war but there may be worst reasons not to goto war. All I asked of my leaders is that they think long and hard before committing to war and have the courage of conviction to see to victory.

Agreed.

[astralis]

As opposed to puppet troops? Since when was Kosovo a strategic American interest? Or Obama got pissed off the Brits did not follow him into Syria?

I much prefer Trump's view over Obama. If he wants us into war, it better be damned worth our while and not just because the messiah said it's the right thing to do.

sounds good but only on the surface. i much prefer imperial brush wars, even shitty imperial brush wars like Iraq or Kosovo, than the potential wars of great power competition.

especially a great power competition where we've isolated all of our allies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...bbe_story.html


Trump’s America does not care

by Robert Kagan June 14 at 3:48 PM

Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He writes a monthly foreign affairs column for The Post. He is the author of the forthcoming book “The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World.”

Since the end of the Cold War, it has widely been assumed that U.S. foreign policy would follow one of two courses: Either the United States would continue as primary defender of the international order it created after World War II, or it would pull back from overseas commitments, shed global responsibilities, turn inward and begin transitioning to a post- *American world. The second approach was where U.S. foreign policy seemed headed under President Barack Obama, and most saw the election of Donald Trump as another step toward withdrawal.

It turns out there was a third option: the United States as rogue superpower, neither isolationist nor internationalist, neither withdrawing nor in decline, but active, powerful and entirely out for itself. In recent months, on trade, Iran, NATO defense spending and perhaps even North Korea, President Trump has shown that a president willing to throw off the moral, ideological and strategic constraints that limited U.S. action in the past can bend this intractable world to his will, at least for a while.

Trump is not merely neglecting the liberal world order; he is milking it for narrow gain, rapidly destroying the trust and sense of common purpose that have held it together and prevented international chaos for seven decades. The successes he is scoring — if they are successes — derive from his willingness to do what past presidents have refused to do: exploit the great disparities of power built into the postwar order, at the expense of the United States’ allies and partners.

At the core of that order was a grand bargain. To ensure the global peace that Americans sought after being pulled into two world wars, the United States became the main provider of security in Europe and East Asia. In Europe, the U.S. security guarantee made European integration possible and provided political, economic and psychological safeguards against a return to the continent’s destructive past. In East Asia, the American guarantee ended the cycle of conflict that had embroiled Japan and China and their neighbors in almost constant warfare since the late 19th century.

The security bargain had an economic dimension. The allies could spend less on defense and more on strengthening their economies and social welfare systems. This, too, was in line with American goals. The United States wanted allied economies to be strong, to counter extremism on both the left and right, and to prevent the arms races and geopolitical competitions that had led to past wars. The United States would not insist on winning every economic contest or every trade deal. The perception by the other powers that they had a reasonably fair chance to succeed economically and sometimes even to surpass the United States — as Japan, Germany and other nations did at various times — was part of the glue that held the order together.

This bargain was the foundation of a liberal world order that benefited all participants, including the United States. But it left the United States’ allies vulnerable, and they remain vulnerable today. They count on the American security guarantee and on access to the United States’ vast market — its prosperous consumers, financial institutions and innovative entrepreneurs.

In the past, U.S. presidents were unwilling to exploit this leverage. They believed the United States had a stake in upholding the liberal world order, even if it meant abiding by or paying lip service to international rules and institutions to provide reassurance. The alternative was a return to the great-power clashes of the past from which the United States could never hope to remain uninvolved. To avoid a world of war and chaos, the United States was, up to a point, willing to play Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians’ ropes, in the interest of reassuring and binding the democratic community together. Europeans and others may have found the United States selfish and overbearing, too eager to use force and too willing to pursue its goals unilaterally, but even President George W. Bush’s America cared about them, if only because Americans had learned through painful experience that they had no choice but to care.

The United States’ allies are about to find out what real unilateralism looks like and what the real exercise of U.S. hegemony feels like, because Trump’s America does not care. It is unencumbered by historical memory. It recognizes no moral, political or strategic commitments. It feels free to pursue objectives without regard to the effect on allies or, for that matter, the world. It has no sense of responsibility to anything beyond itself.

Is this what the American people want? Maybe. Many these days call for greater realism and less idealism in U.S. foreign policy. Here it is. Trump’s policies are pure realism, devoid of ideals and sentiment, pursuing a narrow “national interest” defined strictly in terms of dollars and cents and defense against foreign attack. Trump’s world is a struggle of all-against-all. There are no relationships based on common values. There are merely transactions determined by power. It is the world that a century ago brought us two world wars.

The United States’ adversaries will do well in this world, for Trump’s America does not want war. It will accommodate powers that can harm it. It will pay them the respect they crave and grant them their spheres of interest. Those that depend on the United States, meanwhile, will be treated with disdain, pushed around and used as pawns. At times, they will be hostages to be traded for U.S. gain. The United States and the postwar liberal order protected them and helped them prosper, but it also left them vulnerable to any American leader willing to offer them up as sacrifices to appease aggressors. That is a kind of realism, too.

The United States rejected this approach to the world after 1945, choosing instead to take a broad, “enlightened” view of its interests. It built and defended a world order premised on the idea that Americans would be safe only if democratic and liberal values were safe. It regarded its interests and ideals as intimately bound together, its democratic alliances as permanent. But that was a choice. The United States, with all its great power, could have gone in a different direction. Now it appears to have done so.