Trump: "We will take over Gaza and move all Palestinians out"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Burgawnc
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 420
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 
sringwal said:
And this is how you have misjudged Trump. He isn’t an isolationist; he is an imperialist.
Click to expand...
but a very astute and circumspect historian which makes him expert in foreign relations...

www.rawstory.com

'Nazis did nice things for their captives?' Trump's flippant remark leaves critics aghast

President Donald Trump held a news conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, but an odd Holocaust-related analogy he offered about the hostages captured by Hamas caught the attention of many observers."I said to [the former hostages], was there any sign of love?"...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
Georgia Tech really needs to improve their international studies department.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I don't think you have the background to understand the nuance of the occupation of Denmark. Germany controlled foreign policy, but domestic policy was much more of a give and take until 1944 or so. Denmark had their own elections and a head of state was an anti Nazi before the invasion for a few years. Several neutral countries like Switzerland and Portugal recognize the Danish government and copenhagen. The control wasn't nearly as tight as France for example.

The British agreed with the US occupation of Greenland eventually but initially there was a plan for British and Canadian occupation that the United States firmly rejected. And that goes along with FDR's anti-colonialism stance. Britain was the US's closest Ally but the US, and especially FDR, was not a fan of Britain's colonial policies. And it had the largest colonial empire ever at the time.

military-history.fandom.com

Greenland in World War II

Before the war, Greenland was a tightly controlled colony of Denmark, otherwise closed off to the world. After the Invasion of Denmark on 9 April 1940, Greenland was left on her own, because the Royal Navy seized any ships arriving from Axis-controlled Europe. Britain and Canada initially laid...
military-history.fandom.com military-history.fandom.com
Click to expand...
Don’t tell me I don’t understand. It’s you who doesn’t. One of the ways Switzerland avoided occupation by the Germans was by going along with the Germans on things like recognizing the Nazi puppet government in Denmark. Any government established by the Nazis was strictly controlled by Berlin. This puppet government assisted in helping the Nazis round up Danish Jews for shipment to the death camps. Sound like an independent government to you? Helping send your own people to be exterminated. There was discussions between the British and American governments over what to do about Greenland, but in the end it was never a race to the island. America occupying the island made more strategic sense. The British navy was engaged in defending the home islands and protecting convoys in the North Atlantic from German U-boats.
As to colonialism, there were disagreements between the US, British and French about restoring the last two countries’ colonies after the war. However, colonialism at the time of the discussions about what to do about Greenland was not a major concern. By far the biggest concern at that time was the aggression of Nazi German.
 
Patb78 said:
Don’t tell me I don’t understand. It’s you who doesn’t. One of the ways Switzerland avoided occupation by the Germans was by going along with the Germans on things like recognizing the Nazi puppet government in Denmark. Any government established by the Nazis was strictly controlled by Berlin. This puppet government assisted in helping the Nazis round up Danish Jews for shipment to the death camps. Sound like an independent government to you? Helping send your own people to be exterminated. There was discussions between the British and American governments over what to do about Greenland, but in the end it was never a race to the island. America occupying the island made more strategic sense. The British navy was engaged in defending the home islands and protecting convoys in the North Atlantic from German U-boats.
As to colonialism, there were disagreements between the US, British and French about restoring the last two countries’ colonies after the war. However, colonialism at the time of the discussions about what to do about Greenland was not a major concern. By far the biggest concern at that time was the aggression of Nazi German.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you are making my point for me. The Germans were initially very lenient with the Danes after a rapid and relatively easy invasion. Germany let them govern most of their internal affairs. The Danes actually refused German requests to pass special laws discriminating against Jews and the Germans went along. It wasn't until 1943, three years after the invasion, when the Danes started resisting the occupation, notably increasing sabotage efforts, that the Germans cracked down on Denmark and began deporting Jews among other more repressive actions.

There was never a race to Greenland, but there was some fear that Norway and/or Great Britain may try to occupy the island. Norway especially had historical claims and had invaded Greenland less than a decade before. They were also a German puppet state at that point.
 
Last edited:
gtyellowjacket said:
I'm afraid you are making my point for me. The Germans were initially very lenient with the Danes after a rapid and relatively easy invasion. Germany let them govern most of their internal affairs. The Danes actually refused German requests to pass special laws discriminating against Jews and the Germans went along. It wasn't until 1943, three years after the invasion, when the Danes started resisting the occupation, notably increasing sabotage efforts, that the Germans cracked down on Denmark and began taking Jews among other more repressive actions.

There was never a race to Greenland, but there was some fear that Norway and/or Great Britain may try to occupy the island. Norway especially had historical claims and had invaded Greenland less than a decade before. They were also a German puppet state at that point.
Click to expand...
At the time, Great Britain was much more engaged in staying alive as a country than occupying any new territory. Greenland offered a base for naval and air operations to protect the convoys. Colonialism did not become a point of contention among the allies until it was clear we were going to win the war. Once again, the Germans dominated any puppet government they set up. Those governments had absolutely no power to run their own affairs. Switzerland was not occupied because they did Berlin’s bidding. To say any of those governments in occupied countries had real freedom or power is just wrong. At the end of the day, Berlin made the decisions.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Everyone's going to let this one slide by?

On a side note, I think most folks knew about Canada, Mexico and Panama but did anyone know that FDR invaded Greenland? I was surprised when I looked it up. He invaded Greenland to keep it away from the Nazis but also to keep it away from the British and the Norwegians. Denmark was officially neutral at the time but under Nazi control.
Click to expand...
I omitted the word modern, and thus you dodged the point. To the best of my knowledge, the action against Noriega was not an invasion, in that the US never held any territory there.

Anyway, the main point -- with which everyone agrees -- is that not invading neighbors doesn't make you an isolationist.
 
Patb78 said:
At the time, Great Britain was much more engaged in staying alive as a country than occupying any new territory. Greenland offered a base for naval and air operations to protect the convoys. Colonialism did not become a point of contention among the allies until it was clear we were going to win the war. Once again, the Germans dominated any puppet government they set up. Those governments had absolutely no power to run their own affairs. Switzerland was not occupied because they did Berlin’s bidding. To say any of those governments in occupied countries had real freedom or power is just wrong. At the end of the day, Berlin made the decisions.
Click to expand...
No power to run their own affairs? That's an uncompromising claim that doesn't seem to jive with at least a few examples of occupied governments doing things that their Nazi occupiers would disagree with.

Certainly the jury is still out on switzerland. Once again, they did a number of things that the Nazis would not have wanted them to do. I wouldn't say they were being run by Berlin.

This is why I say that your understanding of the historical situation lacks nuance. You make these uncompromising claims and then ignore the documented evidence to the contrary. I mean that's okay if you're happy with being wrong but I think I'd hit the books and and learn something. Or don't. No biggie.
 
Last edited:
Lando said:
He once argued with me that the best way to manufacture weapons was to have the government sieze control of industry to force them to make tight toleranced specialty items with zero lead time. You know, to save money and lessen the economic impact.
Click to expand...
I never made that argument. What a weirdly specific lie to tell.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
No power to run their own affairs? That's an uncompromising claim that doesn't seem to jive with at least a few examples of occupied governments doing things that their Nazi occupiers would disagree with.

Certainly the jury is still out on switzerland. Once again, they did a number of things that the Nazis would not have wanted them to do. I wouldn't say they were being run by Berlin.

This is why I say that your understanding of the historical situation lacks nuance. You make these uncompromising claims and then ignore the documented evidence to the contrary. I mean that's okay if you're happy with being wrong but I think I'd hit the books and and learn something. Or don't. No biggie.
Click to expand...
You’re the one that’s wrong. The Nazis booked no gain saying by the countries they controlled. The Germans told these countries what they could do. When your country is occupied by a foreign power you have no freedom and you have no real control over your affairs. That’s the bottom line. Part of Switzerland’s effort to remain unoccupied was manufacturing precision equipment for Germany’s weapons factories. They did not do that of their own free will. Certainly the Swiss had more freedom of action than the occupied countries. But the Germans imposed them demands on them they had to meet.
 
Patb78 said:
You’re the one that’s wrong. The Nazis booked no gain saying by the countries they controlled. The Germans told these countries what they could do. When your country is occupied by a foreign power you have no freedom and you have no real control over your affairs. That’s the bottom line. Part of Switzerland’s effort to remain unoccupied was manufacturing precision equipment for Germany’s weapons factories. They did not do that of their own free will. Certainly the Swiss had more freedom of action than the occupied countries. But the Germans imposed them demands on them they had to meet.
Click to expand...
I think there's a difference between being surrounded and effectively having one trading partner, two if you count italy, and having no free will. I think your claims are getting sillier and sillier. The Swiss shot down axis (and allied) planes that ventured into their airspace. Goering actually sent saboteurs into Switzerland to try to prevent it. The Swiss fought a number of border disputes with the Germans throughout the war. They executed Nazi collaborators. They had a million men underarms to prevent an invasion. These are not the actions of a country that is in league with Germany or having no free will.

And why are you so focused on Switzerland anyway? What does that have to do with Greenland or Denmark or any of the other places that Super claimed we had never invaded. I'm just not following.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
And why are you so focused on Switzerland anyway? What does that have to do with Greenland or Denmark or any of the other places that Super claimed we had never invaded. I'm just not following.
Click to expand...
1. We invaded Greenland the same way we invaded France or Okinawa. Military campaigns during wartime aren't remotely what we are talking about.
2. As I said, I accidentally omitted one word in my post. The fact is that you claimed he's an isolationist because he didn't invade countries, but the non-isolationists were doing the exact same thing for centuries. And I'm not talking about small border skirmishes either.
 
Centerpiece said:
You can't take our resident Techster seriously... he/she is not legit.
Click to expand...
He's not the only resident Techster :cool: but I'm happy to stay out of this.

One of my roommates was one of the first international affairs majors IIRC.
 
Lando said:
So you never argued that we should only perform defense manufacturing as needed like to just make all this stuff when war broke out in Ukraine?
Click to expand...
I likely claimed that we could ramp up if necessary like we've done in wars in the past. I also likely claimed that we were using the domestic arms industry as a very expensive jobs program such as creating a bunch of tanks to sit in the field.

I'm not sure how either of those would relate to your lie of "the best way to manufacture weapons was to have the government sieze control of industry to force them to make tight toleranced specialty items with zero lead time." Or how that statement is equivalent to the other claim you made "we should only perform defense manufacturing as needed like to just make all this stuff when war broke out in Ukraine?"
 
Last edited:
Lando said:
So a full WWII style mobilization except on a much tighter schedule. Think maybe someone might have told you that manufacturing isn’t capable of of eliminating lead times like that, needless to say the long lead times associated with entering defense manufacturing? Maybe someone told you that even if possible (it’s not) that that the absolute carnage wrought by such an action would obliterate a manufacturer and any supply chains they were a part of making the only way it would ever be considered is government commandeering entire industries just to try the impossible thing. Think you might respond that you still think it’s a good idea?
Click to expand...
I don't really want to have the dense argument on our arms industry economic power again on the gaza thread. Start a new thread. But I am curious how does that in any way relate to this lie:

"government sieze control of industry to force them to make tight toleranced specialty items with zero lead time. You know, to save money and lessen the economic impact."

How does it have anything to do the government seizing control or have anything to do with tolerances? I'm genuinely curious how you are connecting all this. It just seems like a weirdly specific claim to make up.

On second thought, I'm out. Back to the Gaza thread.
 
Last edited:

Huckabee Says Muslim Nations Should Give Their Own Land for Palestinian State​

The suggestion by the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, would represent a sharp departure from decades of U.S. foreign policy.


“The American ambassador to Israel has said that it should be up to “Muslim countries” to build a Palestinian state on their territory instead of in the areas that much of the world recognizes as Palestinian lands.

… “Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land that are controlled by Israel,” Mr. Huckabee said in an videotaped interview with the BBC. “So maybe, if there is such a desire for the Palestinian state, there would be someone who would say we’d like to host it, we’d like to create it.”

… Mr. Huckabee said in a separate interview with Bloomberg News that it would be a “problem” if someone wanted to declare those exact territories a future Palestinian state. Bloomberg quoted him as saying in off-camera remarks “I don’t think so” when asked whether the Trump administration supported a two-state solution as ongoing American policy.

“I know that many American administrations and other European countries have pushed for it. But the question is: Where should that be?” he told the BBC. Both interviews were published on Tuesday but it was not clear precisely when they had taken place.

Asked about Mr. Huckabee’s remarks, a State Department spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce, told reporters, “I think he certainly speaks for himself,” and added: “When it comes to American policy and certainly where the president stands, I’d suggest you call the White House.”…”
 


Trump was convinced to quit talking about moving all the Palestinians out of Gaza (mostly, at least in public) but the Israeli government sees their chance and it appears that they are pushing to make it happen while Trump is still in his most powerful political position to help make it happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top