海天 发表于 2017-5-2 23:35
有同感。
不过看大选情势，亲北派文在寅很可能上台，thaad 有可能撤掉...... ...
我对韩国的政治了解的很少，不清楚它的走势。不过最近一个多月，Trump政府的一系列言论和举动确实给韩国政府的印象很坏。从Rex Tillerson到韩国访问的时候谢绝晚宴，到Trump嘴上吹嘘说派航空母舰驶往朝鲜，事实上却是往反方向走的闹剧，到传出来的Trump的韩国曾经是中国领土的言论，以及这次威胁韩国支付Thaad的费用。让韩国政府非常不满。而且我看到的报道，Thaad对韩国本身的安全防御没有多少帮助，三八线的大炮就能毁掉首尔，不需要导弹。真正得益的是日本和美国。因此要是Trump坚持让韩国出钱的话，是可能韩国干脆就把Thaad撤掉。
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-2 23:50
我对韩国的政治了解的很少，不清楚它的走势。不过最近一个多月，Trump政府的一系列言论和举动确实给韩国 ...
作为一条狗
它们想法太多了
这是要被烹的先兆
中华如龙 发表于 2017-5-3 00:07
作为一条狗
它们想法太多了
这是要被烹的先兆
也没有你说的那么极端。在支付Thaad费用的问题上，Trump政府这不已经是完全让步了吗？
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2017-5-3 01:23 编辑
海天 发表于 2017-5-2 23:35
有同感。
不过看大选情势，亲北派文在寅很可能上台，thaad 有可能撤掉...... ...
刚看到的，来自The Onion，挺好笑的。
Trump Voter Feels Betrayed By President After Reading 800 Pages Of Queer Feminist Theory
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/859437833945194500
你家的领导是不是曾经学过里面提到的这些左派女权主义的革命理论？
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-2 10:50
我对韩国的政治了解的很少，不清楚它的走势。不过最近一个多月，Trump政府的一系列言论和举动确实给韩国 ...
哦，俺不是军迷，对于可以在？？分钟内把汉城变成一片火海的远程火炮
和thaad 的性能和弱点都不是太清楚。
不懂韩文，以下印象源于中文和英文新闻：
本次大选提前举行是因为朴的丑闻，丑闻一出，执政党分裂，民调也
大大落后，看起来对在野党文在寅非常有利。
一段时间另一在野党的安哲秀一度追平甚至稍稍反超文在寅，
但现在这股劲头已经下去了，文重新获得明显的优势。
有意思的是现执政党候选人的支持率近期反而有上升趋势，许是支持者
从安那里“归队”了？
文以前是卢武铉的人，和卢一样也是人权律师出身（据称卢是前些年
大热的电影辩护者的原型），所以他上台有可能重复卢的亲北政策。
就thaad 来说，文和安原来都是反对阵营的，选战开跑以后却都有一定的
变化，可能是为了拉住中间派……
前不久看了文和美国某刊物的专访，有些问题他也在含糊其辞，具体怎么样
得等上台以后再说了吧。
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-2 11:56
刚看到的，来自The Onion，挺好笑的。
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/859437833945194500
哈哈，洋葱这个视频挺逗......学院左派的梦境吧
女权主义可以让领导吓一跳但还不算难读，真正费劲儿
的还是福柯同志……现在她学位到手了，这些玩意儿都可以扔了……
leekai 发表于 2017-4-29 07:57
中国不会让美国军事打击朝鲜的！否则就会像对越反击战一样，中国打了越南、让全世界看到了苏联的色厉内荏 ...
兄台那你有没有考虑过，说越南，假设当初北越有了核武，之后的对越反击战中国怎么搞？另外谁能保证中国一直强，半岛南北不统一？一个拥核的，躺在东北大粮仓旁边的半岛对中国有啥好处？中国政府已经说的很清楚了，无核化，反对动武。双反
老汉憨憨 发表于 2017-5-3 02:05
兄台那你有没有考虑过，说越南，假设当初北越有了核武，之后的对越反击战中国怎么搞？另外谁能保证中国一 ...
中国不会让朝鲜真正拥核的；但与此同时，中国也不会允许美国武力打击朝鲜。
我记得楼主原来预测川普没法当选总统吧？
zhanghaifeng 发表于 2017-5-3 23:21
我记得楼主原来预测川普没法当选总统吧？
是的。那次预测惨败。
不过这个贴里，我也是吸取了教训，除了最后一节以外，没有多少预测，文章的内容主要是对过去100天的总结。最后一节里，关于像Trump的医疗改革现在看来已经是不可能，这一点算是共识，过去几天的也是这么发展的。那里稍微大胆一点的预测是Trump的税制改革希望不大。过去几天的发展像最新预算的通过后，我觉得我那个预测里对Trump还是乐观了。现在我觉得那张A4纸就是废纸一张，就是税制改革能通过的话，也会是国会共和党自己的全新的方案，和那张A4纸不会有任何关系。
另外文章里关于Trump谈判风格的评论，前几天通过的预算对它是很好的印证。
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-4 00:32
是的。那次预测惨败。
不过这个贴里，我也是吸取了教训，除了最后一节以外，没有多少预测，文章的内容主 ...
希拉里这种人没当选，奥巴马的‘legacy’被清算，这个就够了，Trump的很多政策流产最好，不然沉默的中间派还得纠结。
sumigdai 发表于 2017-5-4 06:28
希拉里这种人没当选，奥巴马的‘legacy’被清算，这个就够了，Trump的很多政策流产最好，不然沉默的中间 ...
Obama的legacy也没给清算多少，他最重要的成就Obamacare不是还好好的吗？其他的，在非法移民的问题上，对dreamers的保护都还在。同伊朗的核协议，Trump竞选时攻击的非常厉害，现在则表示会继续执行。连退出气候变暖协议Paris Agreement这种保守派内很受欢迎，还不需要国会批准的事，也都还没有实现。
冰蚁 发表于 2017-4-29 00:29
四大流氓。哈哈。
那些个核弹还至少是距离远，还有预警时间。朝鲜真发展成了，这个威胁就太大，短程导 ...
从60年代开始，美帝有了北极星导弹，就拥有了从第一岛链抵进射击，10-15分钟落地的能力。
苏修嘛，真要想从贝加尔方向突袭也就是10-15分钟落地的事情。
10-15分钟的发射-落地时间，实际上，中国到现在可能都不具备有效的预警能力。
这么短的时间，预警和疏散都是空话。
hansens 发表于 2017-5-3 21:02
从60年代开始，美帝有了北极星导弹，就拥有了从第一岛链抵进射击，10-15分钟落地的能力。
苏修嘛，真要想 ...
预警能力可以发展，但预警时间不会无限制降下去。朝鲜这个预警时间太短了。
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-3 00:17
也没有你说的那么极端。在支付Thaad费用的问题上，Trump政府这不已经是完全让步了吗？ ...
没
棒子在讨价还价上完全是棋子
这次事件后棒子就是左右开弓被打脸的对象了
本质上这事有点像菜在ww上台
中方不再送钱了
但美帝却会趁机调高保护费
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-4 07:03
Obama的legacy也没给清算多少，他最重要的成就Obamacare不是还好好的吗？其他的，在非法移民的问题上，对 ...
还有四年嘛，这些要是100天都实现了那还得了？
Dracula 发表于 2017-5-4 07:03
Obama的legacy也没给清算多少，他最重要的成就Obamacare不是还好好的吗？其他的，在非法移民的问题上，对 ...
这两天不是说新医保投票过了众议院？CNN天天头条
bbceve 发表于 2017-5-8 13:38
这两天不是说新医保投票过了众议院？CNN天天头条
一般对共和党的医疗改革还是不看好。参议院已经表示他们不会对众议院通过的那个议案表决。未来几个月会推出自己的医改方案。首先这件事可能在参议院会无疾而终，几个月后就没了音讯。2009年民主党在众议院通过了对carbon的cap and trade，但这个措施在美国普通民众那儿其实并不怎么受欢迎。参议院的民主党连个票都没投就让这个法案死掉。众议院的这个医疗改革法案可能会有同样的命运。而且就算是参议院能通过自己的医改方案，他们做的改变众议院的共和党不见得会接受。这次在众议院通过优势只有2票。非常的precarious。参众两院的共和党能达成妥协的可能性不是很大。而且众议院的这个方案在美国人那儿非常不受欢迎。各种interest group也都反对。现在在摇摆选区的共和党同他们选区选民见面town hall的时候已经遇到很激烈的抗议。接下来几个月会更多。他们有的可能在参众两院conference的时候会变卦，而且只需要两三个人就能让这个法案最终通不过。因此共和党医疗改革最终能通过的前景就是现在也还是很不好。
Washington Loves General McMaster, But Trump Doesn't
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-08/washington-loves-general-mcmaster-but-trump-doesn-t
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iylCVHIGciuA/v0/1000x-1.jpg
For the Washington establishment, President Donald Trump's decision to make General H.R. McMaster his national security adviser in February was a masterstroke. Here is a well-respected defense intellectual, praised by both parties, lending a steady hand to a chaotic White House. The grown-ups are back.
But inside the White House, the McMaster pick has not gone over well with the one man who matters most. White House officials tell me Trump himself has clashed with McMaster in front of his staff.
On policy, the faction of the White House loyal to senior strategist Steve Bannon is convinced McMaster is trying to trick the president into the kind of nation building that Trump campaigned against. Meanwhile the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, is blocking McMaster on a key appointment.
McMaster's allies and adversaries inside the White House tell me that Trump is disillusioned with him. This professional military officer has failed to read the president-- by not giving him a chance to ask questions during briefings, at times even lecturing Trump.
Presented with the evidence of this buyer's remorse, the White House on Sunday evening issued a statement from Trump: "I couldn't be happier with H.R. He's doing a terrific job."
Other White House officials however tell me this is not the sentiment the president has expressed recently in private. Trump was livid, according to three White House officials, after reading in the Wall Street Journal that McMaster had called his South Korean counterpart to assure him that the president's threat to make that country pay for a new missile defense system was not official policy. These officials say Trump screamed at McMaster on a phone call, accusing him of undercutting efforts to get South Korea to pay its fair share.
This was not an isolated incident. Trump has complained in front of McMaster in intelligence briefings about "the general undermining my policy," according to two White House officials. The president has given McMaster less face time. McMaster's requests to brief the president before some press interviews have been declined. Over the weekend, McMaster did not accompany Trump to meet with Australia's prime minister; the outgoing deputy national security adviser, K.T. McFarland, attended instead.
Even McMaster's critics acknowledge that he has professionalized the national security policy process and is a formidable strategist in his own right. Trump credits McMaster with coming up with the plan to strike a Syrian air base last month, which won bipartisan support in Washington.
At the same time, White House officials tell me that in recent weeks, Trump has privately expressed regret for choosing McMaster. Last Monday, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who was a finalist for McMaster's job, met with Trump to discuss a range of issues with the National Security Council. White House officials tell me the two discussed the prospect of Bolton coming in as McMaster's deputy, but eventually agreed it was not a good fit.
The roots of the McMaster-Trump tensions begin in February, when the general was hired after his first meeting with the president. McMaster replaced another general, Michael Flynn. Both Vice President Mike Pence and Priebus supported getting rid of Flynn, after they alleged he misled his colleagues about conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Trump himself has defended Flynn publicly. The two shared a bond from the campaign trail, where they often discussed sports and movies during long evenings on the road. For a president who puts so much value in personal relationships and loyalty, Flynn's departure was a blow.
In this sense, McMaster came into the job with one strike against him. He has accumulated more. The first conflict between McMaster and Trump was about the major speech the president delivered at the end of February to a joint session of Congress. McMaster pleaded with the president not to use phrase "radical Islamic terrorism." He sent memos throughout the government complaining about a draft of that speech that included the phrase. But the phrase remained. When Trump delivered the speech, he echoed his campaign rhetoric by emphasizing each word: "Radical." "Islamic." "Terrorism."
Then Trump's inner circle began clashing with McMaster over personnel. This began with Ezra Cohen Watnick, who remains the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council. McMaster initially sided with the CIA and wanted to remove this Flynn appointee from his position, but eventually McMaster changed his mind under pressure from Bannon and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
That dispute was followed by a bigger one. Bannon and Trump, according to White House officials, pressed McMaster to fire a list of Obama holdovers at the National Security Council who were suspected of leaking to the press. The list of names was compiled by Derek Harvey, a former Defense Intelligence Agency colonel who was initially hired by Flynn. McMaster balked. He refused to fire anyone on the list and asserted that he had the authority to fire and hire National Security Council staff. He also argued that many of these appointees would be ending their rotation at the White House soon enough.
And finally, the White House chief of staff himself blocked McMaster this month from hiring Brigadier General Ricky Waddell as his deputy, complaining that McMaster failed to seek approval for that pick. McMaster had asked his inherited deputy to leave by May 10; she is now expected to stay on for the time being.
For now the White House is saying the president and his national security adviser are in sync. Trump said in his statement to me that he couldn't be happier with the general. Of course, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway assured the public in February that Trump had full confidence in McMaster's predecessor. Only a few hours later, he was forced to resign.
This Isn’t Realpolitik. This Is Amateur Hour.
The Trump administration’s Asia policy is the worst of all possible worlds.
https://foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/gettyimages-621635244.jpg
To a casual observer, Donald Trump’s invitation to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to visit the White House might appear to be a classic example of hard-nosed realpolitik. Never mind Duterte’s murderous anti-drug campaign, his boasting of having personally killed alleged criminals, or his other questionable statements, all of which have alarmed human rights advocates. The more important issue, some might think, is that Duterte is the leader of an important U.S. ally. From this perspective, it looks like Trump is simply subordinating moral concerns to strategic imperatives (as all of his predecessors have done) and pursuing an essentially realist policy toward this critical region.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
For realists, the key to U.S. security is maintaining dominance in the Western Hemisphere and preventing any peer competitor from dominating the vital power centers of Europe or Asia or controlling key energy resources in the Persian Gulf. Apart from the United States itself, there is only one potential “regional hegemon” in the world today: China.
Accordingly, a realist policy in Asia would first and foremost seek to prevent China from consolidating a dominant position in Asia and eventually persuading its neighbors to abandon their present security ties with the United States. Were that to occur, the United States would be unable to sustain a major military presence in the Western Pacific or Southeast Asia, and China would be a de facto regional hegemon. Over time, China would be increasingly free to project power into other areas of the world, much as America does today, and maybe even try to establish security ties here in the Western Hemisphere.
It follows that a realist approach in Asia calls for the United States to keep a wary eye on China and manage a sometimes delicate balancing coalition of Asian partners. This task is a tricky one that requires consistency, prudent judgment, and smart diplomacy, as well as credible military power. The latter quality is still abundant; the former, not so much.
Consider what Trump has done so far. He started out by taking an imprudent congratulatory phone call from the president of Taiwan and questioning the well-established “One China” policy, only to backtrack a few days later. He abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his third day in office, thereby destroying a key institution that would have bound a number of Asian countries more tightly to the United States and undermining local leaders who had spent political capital of their own in order to reach an agreement. He berated Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on a “get-acquainted” phone call, reinforcing growing Australian doubts about the merits of their long association with the United States.
On the Korean Peninsula, Trump has jeopardized relations with another key ally by saying South Korea would have to pay for the controversial THAAD anti-missile defense system that is now being deployed there and by suggesting the existing free trade deal between the two countries has to be renegotiated or abrogated. The Defense Department quickly corrected him and said the United States would pay for THAAD as agreed, but these episodes hardly reinforced confidence in Washington’s consistency or judgment. Trump has also raised the prospect of war with North Korea — which could have disastrous effects on the South — yet followed that up by suggesting, bizarrely, that he would be “honored” to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Coming on the heels of that misplaced aircraft carrier, is it any wonder South Koreans have doubts about following the U.S. lead (whatever it might turn out to be)?
It gets worse: Instead of seeing China as a peer competitor whose rising power needs to be checked, Trump has been kissing up to Beijing in the hope of securing its help on North Korea and a number of issues. There’s nothing inherently wrong with collaborating with Beijing when our national interests (as opposed to Trump’s business interests) align, but such an approach inevitably raises doubts in the minds of China’s neighbors. It also reinforces the perception that Beijing is calling the shots in Asia. If that were in fact the case, why would anyone there want to remain closely tied to the United States?
Even Trump’s impulsive outreach to Duterte shows that it is still amateur hour at the White House. One can make a pragmatic case for trying to smooth a strained relationship with a key ally; the problem is that Trump did not consult anyone about it and didn’t know if Duterte was likely to accept when he extended the invitation. Here’s a pro tip: An invitation to visit the White House is a serious matter that needs to be vetted beforehand and agreed to by both parties before it is made public. As it happens, Duterte responded by saying he might be too busy to pay a visit, thereby making Trump look foolish and desperate.
Needless to say, this entire approach is the antithesis of foreign-policy realism. Realists sees international politics as a deadly serious business, especially when dealing with critical regions and potential peer competitors. Realism focuses on preserving favorable balances of power, managing critical alliances adroitly, and above all acting in ways that allow both friends and foes to tailor their actions to ours. A country whose leader understood this wouldn’t be relying on an understaffed State Department, an unqualified first daughter and son-in-law, and wouldn’t be trying to manage key relations via an uncensored Twitter account. Trump’s approach to foreign policy would make a great sitcom, opéra bouffe, or a Marx Brothers movie, but it is both disastrous and demeaning for the United States.
Where we seem to be headed, alas, is the worst of all possible worlds. Trump is gradually being captured, co-opted, and contained by the foreign-policy establishment (aka the “Blob), and the radical restructuring he promised during the campaign is gradually being discarded along with goofballs like Michael Flynn and Sebastian Gorka. The result? The United States will continue to pursue an overly ambitious foreign policy and continue to try to manage events in nearly every corner of the world, much as we have for the past 25 years. But instead of having serious people in charge, we’ll now be doing it with an inexperienced, impulsive, and inept skipper at the helm.
This unhappy situation may give people like me plenty to write about, but it isn’t good for the country and it sure as hell ain’t realism. Those who wish America ill could hardly ask for more.