Yes, from the perspective of the Mexican government, the intellectual knowledge that Trump’s threats are meaningless bluster without Congressional complaisance… well, it wouldn’t be entirely reassuring.
There is also the slightly more reassuring knowledge that a central platform in Trump’s election campaign was his promise to build up the US military, and keep them as the only securely-funded component of the gubblement, and NEVER EVER send them out of the country to foreign places where bad people might be mean to them.
…because kissing up to our imperial overlords is the one enduring tradition of Australian diplomacy.
The Australian government won’t shift allegiance until they’ve found a replacement security blanket. Trumpy just gave 'em a lot more motivation to find one, though.
Classic mislead. They are seeing who reacts and how to those comments, whether real or not. They want to identify the hardcore supporters. Suggesting invading Mexico will highlight a core bunch of crazies they can rely on.
Also, the comments stroke up the military - shoring up support with your average soldier - calling them tougher.
I say source is definitely the Chrump gang. Whether or not the words were spoken; don’t matter none.
I think its unlikely. I have worked in the Australian Defense industry and the professional relationship with the US applies at many levels. Our ITAR infrastructure is locked in with the US for example.
Trouble is those 10% probably have 99% of the privately owned weapons and are also most likely members of the various militarised law enforcement bodies, which are currently dragging their feet in upholding the Constitution.
So, whatever will happen, most likely it is not going to be pretty. I am wondering when various European Foreign Offices will issue travel warnings for the USA.
[quote=“smut_clyde, post:101, topic:94212”]
Yes, from the perspective of the Mexican government, the intellectual knowledge that Trump’s threats are meaningless bluster without Congressional complaisance… well, it wouldn’t be entirely reassuring.
[/quote]Yeah, any reassurance there would have to do with whole divisions and the like; sending in a column of tanks would (probably) require legislation. But our military options come in all shapes and sizes …
We’ve just seen with the tragic mess in Yemen - a week into the job - that Trump is prepared to authorize reckless and poorly planned missions that send the special forces into hostile territory, even (or perhaps especially) ones that the previous administration specifically rejected. If Trump learned of a drugs warehouse or a cartel boss’s location, who’s to say he’d hesitate to authorize a drone strike, or a SEAL team? Even though it’d be an act of war, and unauthorized by Congress?
Is this going to weaken Turnbull’s position? His government was already hanging on to a knife-edge majority of seats. He was trying to present himself as the new, friendlier face of Conservatism – “Not as crazy as the previous PM!” – without actually changing any of the previous PM’s policies. He doesn’t have much electoral support to lose.
No if anything this new uncertain environment is going to make current leadership positions more solid. Former leader Tony Abbott and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson were both fans of Trump. But now that Trump is turning out to be more incompetent than properly right wing, they are going to have to pull their heads in.
The Labor opposition can’t make any serious proposals for better ways to handle the relationship with the US because there are unlikely to be any options.
And I don’t actually think Turnbull’s position was particularly weak. His margins are narrow but nobody is realistically going to vote for Abbott, and the next Federal election is a few years away.
As a very small consolation: if it gets that bad, the fascist 20% will once again discover that wars aren’t won by smallarms and marksmanship, they’re won by logistics and strategy.
