Changes

:Apparently, both Trump and Bolton denied planning on withdrawing, though Trump did indicate he wants to eventually leave: [http://thehill.com/policy/defense/386190-white-house-rejects-nyt-report-about-reducing-troops-in-south-korea][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/04/john-bolton-new-york-times-report-reducing-troops-south-korea-utter-nonsense/][http://thehill.com/policy/defense/386217-trump-troop-withdrawal-from-south-korea-not-on-the-table] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:59, 4 May 2018 (EDT)

:Apparently, both Trump and Bolton denied planning on withdrawing, though Trump did indicate he wants to eventually leave: [http://thehill.com/policy/defense/386190-white-house-rejects-nyt-report-about-reducing-troops-in-south-korea][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/04/john-bolton-new-york-times-report-reducing-troops-south-korea-utter-nonsense/][http://thehill.com/policy/defense/386217-trump-troop-withdrawal-from-south-korea-not-on-the-table] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:59, 4 May 2018 (EDT)

Would it be appropriate to respond militarily if a globalist organization like the EU forced one or more of our allies to surrender control of their militaries to unelected bureaucrats who have the capacity to use those armies to enforce that organization's policies? Would it be appropriate to consider such an event to be an act of aggression against those allies? --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 14:42, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Would it be appropriate to respond militarily if a globalist organization like the EU forced one or more of our allies to surrender control of their militaries to unelected bureaucrats who have the capacity to use those armies to enforce that organization's policies? Would it be appropriate to consider such an event to be an act of aggression against those allies? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 14:42, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

=== Syrian strikes ===

=== Syrian strikes ===

Quick question. Why are the Syrian strikes listed as achievements? If all they end up doing is empowering Sunni jihadists AND, as the front page of this wiki indicates, they have no moral justification, shouldn't they be listed as failures, as the lack of replacements for Obama holdovers currently are?  --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 10:04, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Quick question. Why are the Syrian strikes listed as achievements? If all they end up doing is empowering Sunni jihadists AND, as the front page of this wiki indicates, they have no moral justification, shouldn't they be listed as failures, as the lack of replacements for Obama holdovers currently are?  --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 10:04, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

:This wasn't an easy decision to make, but Trump apparently chose the most limited option -- the airstrikes only his three targets directly involved with the chemical weapons program, and they did not hurt Syrian military capabilities in any other way (and they didn't even destroy the entire chemical weapons stockpile). They sent a message on using chemical weapons on innocent people while not doing anything to weaken the Syrian government's position in the war and not doing anything to militarily confront the Russians. And while many conservatives opposed the strike, some like Sebastian Gorka (who is not a neocon) supported them. It wasn't easy to decide where to put this, but with it all considered, I think there's a much better case for listing it as an achievement (and I still mentioned that many conservatives opposed the move in order to tell the whole story). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

:This wasn't an easy decision to make, but Trump apparently chose the most limited option -- the airstrikes only his three targets directly involved with the chemical weapons program, and they did not hurt Syrian military capabilities in any other way (and they didn't even destroy the entire chemical weapons stockpile). They sent a message on using chemical weapons on innocent people while not doing anything to weaken the Syrian government's position in the war and not doing anything to militarily confront the Russians. And while many conservatives opposed the strike, some like Sebastian Gorka (who is not a neocon) supported them. It wasn't easy to decide where to put this, but with it all considered, I think there's a much better case for listing it as an achievement (and I still mentioned that many conservatives opposed the move in order to tell the whole story). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

::While it appears that fears of WWIII haven't been realized (yet), I am still concerned about Sunni jihadists. Although ISIS has been (almost) totally defeated, another wannabe Sunni caliphate is rising: Turkey, under the leadership of Erdogan. Right now, Erdogan is playing a double game. He's remaining in NATO and calling for Assad's ouster, but has also entered into a pact with Russia and Iran to allow his troops to have a presence in Syria (against Assad's wishes) in order to expel American influence from the region. His end goal is to make sure US-Russian relations are as bad as possible while his own country keeps its relations with them as friendly as possible. That way, while the US and Russia are going at it, he can expand his caliphate south towards Mecca.  

::While it appears that fears of WWIII haven't been realized (yet), I am still concerned about Sunni jihadists. Although ISIS has been (almost) totally defeated, another wannabe Sunni caliphate is rising: Turkey, under the leadership of Erdogan. Right now, Erdogan is playing a double game. He's remaining in NATO and calling for Assad's ouster, but has also entered into a pact with Russia and Iran to allow his troops to have a presence in Syria (against Assad's wishes) in order to expel American influence from the region. His end goal is to make sure US-Russian relations are as bad as possible while his own country keeps its relations with them as friendly as possible. That way, while the US and Russia are going at it, he can expand his caliphate south towards Mecca.  

::These strikes seem to play right into Erdogan's hands. US-Russia relations are now worse than ever, while both remain friendly to Turkey due to Erdogan's double game. And in the end, Sunni jihadists come out victorious. --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 14:33, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

::These strikes seem to play right into Erdogan's hands. US-Russia relations are now worse than ever, while both remain friendly to Turkey due to Erdogan's double game. And in the end, Sunni jihadists come out victorious. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 14:33, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

:::It's obviously debatable, and I won't argue it further. When debatable achievements like this come, I try to note both sides of the arguments while still weighing whether the good outweighed the bad (or vice-versa).

:::It's obviously debatable, and I won't argue it further. When debatable achievements like this come, I try to note both sides of the arguments while still weighing whether the good outweighed the bad (or vice-versa).

:::Not related to the above, I'm saving these articles on Syria here, for future reference: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-realist-syria-strategy-1523915612][http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/04/19/inspectors-unable-access-chemical-weapons-attack-site-syria/][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/13/trump-administration-confident-assad-regime-used-chemical-weapons-to-terrorize-syrian-civilians/][http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/04/13/nikki-haley-russia-support-assad-real-threat-peace-security/][https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/us-syria-strike-sarin-certainty/index.html] (articles on earlier incidents: [http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/04/20/israel-says-assads-forces-still-chemical-weapons/][https://www.apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5][https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-has-no-evidence-of-syrian-use-of-sarin-gas-mattis-says][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/u-s-mattis-says-concerned-about-syrias-potential-use-of-sarin-gas-idUSKBN1FM1VJ][https://www.voanews.com/a/mattis-syria-sarin-gas/4236413.html]) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:54, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

:::Not related to the above, I'm saving these articles on Syria here, for future reference: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-realist-syria-strategy-1523915612][http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/04/19/inspectors-unable-access-chemical-weapons-attack-site-syria/][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/13/trump-administration-confident-assad-regime-used-chemical-weapons-to-terrorize-syrian-civilians/][http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/04/13/nikki-haley-russia-support-assad-real-threat-peace-security/][https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/us-syria-strike-sarin-certainty/index.html] (articles on earlier incidents: [http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/04/20/israel-says-assads-forces-still-chemical-weapons/][https://www.apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5][https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-has-no-evidence-of-syrian-use-of-sarin-gas-mattis-says][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/u-s-mattis-says-concerned-about-syrias-potential-use-of-sarin-gas-idUSKBN1FM1VJ][https://www.voanews.com/a/mattis-syria-sarin-gas/4236413.html]) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:54, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

== Peace with Russia? ==

== Peace with Russia? ==

Here's an article from the Financial Times:

Here's an article from the Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/c1721646-4d51-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493 --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 17:49, 5 May 2018 (EDT)

https://www.ft.com/content/c1721646-4d51-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493 --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:49, 5 May 2018 (EDT)

== Are we about to lose Poland? ==

== Are we about to lose Poland? ==

Meanwhile, the United States has made it clear that it supports Israel over Poland in this dispute. It has condemned Poland's law as infringing on freedom of speech and academic inquiry [http://thehill.com/policy/international/372595-tillerson-condemns-polish-president-signing-bill-on-holocaust-speech], and President Trump has signed a bill requiring the State Department to monitor and encourage countries affected by the Holocaust to either return land stolen from Jews by the Nazis to their rightful owners '''or''' provide substitute compensation -- including but not limited to property never owned by Holocaust survivors or victims -- to Holocaust survivors or their heirs as fair play and substantial justice may require. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/447/text] This bill is deemed highly controversial, and some claim that it violates international law. Furthermore, I have met multiple Poles online (on Twitter and on Breitbart's comment sections) that have stated that they now consider the US and Israel to be enemies of Poland in response to this crisis. Some have gone as far as advocating severing diplomatic ties or even going to war with the US and Israel over what they see as a malicious attack on Polish sovereignty. Either way, they used to admire President Trump. Now, they despise him.  

Meanwhile, the United States has made it clear that it supports Israel over Poland in this dispute. It has condemned Poland's law as infringing on freedom of speech and academic inquiry [http://thehill.com/policy/international/372595-tillerson-condemns-polish-president-signing-bill-on-holocaust-speech], and President Trump has signed a bill requiring the State Department to monitor and encourage countries affected by the Holocaust to either return land stolen from Jews by the Nazis to their rightful owners '''or''' provide substitute compensation -- including but not limited to property never owned by Holocaust survivors or victims -- to Holocaust survivors or their heirs as fair play and substantial justice may require. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/447/text] This bill is deemed highly controversial, and some claim that it violates international law. Furthermore, I have met multiple Poles online (on Twitter and on Breitbart's comment sections) that have stated that they now consider the US and Israel to be enemies of Poland in response to this crisis. Some have gone as far as advocating severing diplomatic ties or even going to war with the US and Israel over what they see as a malicious attack on Polish sovereignty. Either way, they used to admire President Trump. Now, they despise him.  

Although we haven't reached that point yet, I'm becoming increasingly worried that President Trump will go down in history as "the President who lost Poland." Poland has already demonstrated on at least one occasion that it is willing to side with the globalist EU over the United States, if President Trump does not side with Poland over Israel in this diplomatic dispute. Poland has already demonstrated on at least one occasion that despite the migrant crisis, it would consider the globalist EU to be the lesser of two evils if the United States engages in behavior that Poland deems to be infringing on Polish sovereignty. I fear that unless we fix this diplomatic crisis, we can forget the possibility of an alliance with Poland against globalism and Islamism. -- --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 11:20, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

Although we haven't reached that point yet, I'm becoming increasingly worried that President Trump will go down in history as "the President who lost Poland." Poland has already demonstrated on at least one occasion that it is willing to side with the globalist EU over the United States, if President Trump does not side with Poland over Israel in this diplomatic dispute. Poland has already demonstrated on at least one occasion that despite the migrant crisis, it would consider the globalist EU to be the lesser of two evils if the United States engages in behavior that Poland deems to be infringing on Polish sovereignty. I fear that unless we fix this diplomatic crisis, we can forget the possibility of an alliance with Poland against globalism and Islamism. -- --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 11:20, 21 May 2018 (EDT)