• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

zeke said:
this is when your sig is especially apropros.
Click to expand...

Yes, your distain for the military and soldiers has always been pretty clear, but I don't see how that's relevant to what we are talking about.

Unless you can somehow show how NAFTA potentially failing and the TPP going on without the USA somehow brings the world closer to war.

Pretty sure its just hyperbole though. Fact remains, those saying that if he solved the north Korean conflict he would have gotten a noble aren't wrong. The issue was if he was ever going to be able to solve it. Things were looking good for a bit, but predictably fell apart.
 
MapleLeafBlueJayBoy said:
Trump throws a hissy fit and cancels the North Korea summit.
Click to expand...

Oh, and he kind of forgot to tell SK about this decision too.

Frank Jannuzi
@FrankJannuzi
Replying to @APDiploWriter @KelseyDav
ROK was NOT informed in advance. They had either no notice, or virtually no notice (e.g. perhaps a phone call 1 minute in advance of public release....). This is diplomatic malpractice. THERE WAS NO REASON TO RUSH. I remind, it is 11:41 pm here....Moon had to jerk his cabinet.

Frank Jannuzi
@FrankJannuzi
Replying to @FrankJannuzi @APDiploWriter @KelseyDav
Moon had to convene emergency session of his national security team to try to figure out what the hell just happened. Why could Trump have not waited until later in the day, or even take 24 hours to mull things over? Because....Trump.
Click to expand...
 
Altair said:
Yes, your distain for the military and soldiers has always been pretty clear, but I don't see how that's relevant to what we are talking about.

Unless you can somehow show how NAFTA potentially failing and the TPP going on without the USA somehow brings the world closer to war.

Pretty sure its just hyperbole though. Fact remains, those saying that if he solved the north Korean conflict he would have gotten a noble aren't wrong. The issue was if he was ever going to be able to solve it. Things were looking good for a bit, but predictably fell apart.
Click to expand...

I know your reflex is to take the opposite position of anything zeke says, but give this one a good think before you wander down this particular road.

I'll give you a hint here - history agrees strongly with only one of you.
 
zeke said:
if you don't understand how trade alliances effect peace, I dunno, maybe read a book.
Click to expand...

I guess if nafta falls apart we can expect a American invasion at a moments notice.

Just like it was before Mulroney signed nafta in the 90s.

And don't get me started on the potential for a Pacific rim versus America military conflict since the US didn't sign onto TPP.

I shudder to think about the global military gangs up on the USA for them pulling out of the Paris agreement.

Oh, wait, that sounds retarded.
 
Wayward DP said:
I know your reflex is to take the opposite position of anything zeke says, but give this one a good think before you wander down this particular road.

I'll give you a hint here - history agrees strongly with only one of you.
Click to expand...

If trump had helped to solve the worlds longest running conflict that had the threats of nuclear war you don't think he would have be considered for the Nobel peace prize?

Obama got one for less. And it was being talked about by many in the press, by other international politicians.

The biggest thing was the "if" he could do it. He clearly cannot. I was wrong to think this was equal to Munich. At least they met so one side could get shafted before war.
 
Here's the thing, Altair, I could try to explain to you the longterm impact of america's network of alliances throughout the world, their cultivation of allies and dependants, and their isolation of bad actors, as i if you were my curious clever 12yr old nephew...but.....you're just a really fricken dumb adult, so I don't care to.
 
zeke said:
Here's the thing, Altair, I could try to explain to you the longterm impact of america's network of alliances throughout the world, their cultivation of allies and dependants, and their isolation of bad actors, as i if you were my curious clever 12yr old nephew...but.....you're just a really fricken dumb adult, so I don't care to.
Click to expand...

And of you were talking about Americas network of of alliances through the world, I would not disagree. If you were talking about the hollowing out of the state department, I would not disagree. If you were talking about how trump tries to bully other world leaders and complete disregard for international norms, I would not disagree.

But you're not. You're talking about the Paris accord. The world is no closer to conflict with America out of it.

You're talking about NAFTA. Does anyone in the world outside of canada America and Mexico care about it? No. Does it bring the world closer to conflict? No. Yet you tied it into the nobel prize consideration.

You're talking about the TPP. How is the world any closer to conflict with the USA out of it than in it? Its not. Arguments can be made about how it allows China to flex its economic muscle in the region with the US on the sidelines, but in terms of global peace, you must be joking.

Global trade deals are just that, trade deals. The alliances set up by America and others do not tie into trade deals. NATO doesnt fall part because the US isn't part of the Paris accord.

Yet you stupidly tie them all in together. That was what I was taking issue with.
 
Altair said:
If trump had helped to solve the worlds longest running conflict that had the threats of nuclear war you don't think he would have be considered for the Nobel peace prize?

Obama got one for less. And it was being talked about by many in the press, by other international politicians.

The biggest thing was the "if" he could do it. He clearly cannot. I was wrong to think this was equal to Munich. At least they met so one side could get shafted before war.
Click to expand...

I have been consistent in my position that Trump will not win the Nobel (and nor should he).

Others jumped to the conclusions they wanted to. I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals because the reality is Trump is simply a buffoon with no coherent approach (beyond personal enrichment) to much of anything, let alone foreign policy.

Obama's Nobel was not earned, but that is a different discussion.

The important point though is that trade agreements and institutions like the WTO have been instrumental in maintaining relative world peace over the past 80ish years. This is a point you seem to be trying to intentionally ignore though.
 
Altair said:
And of you were talking about Americas network of of alliances through the world, I would not disagree. If you were talking about the hollowing out of the state department, I would not disagree. If you were talking about how trump tries to bully other world leaders and complete disregard for international norms, I would not disagree.

But you're not. You're talking about the Paris accord. The world is no closer to conflict with America out of it.

You're talking about NAFTA. Does anyone in the world outside of canada America and Mexico care about it? No. Does it bring the world closer to conflict? No. Yet you tied it into the nobel prize consideration.

You're talking about the TPP. How is the world any closer to conflict with the USA out of it than in it? Its not. Arguments can be made about how it allows China to flex its economic muscle in the region with the US on the sidelines, but in terms of global peace, you must be joking.

Global trade deals are just that, trade deals. The alliances set up by America and others do not tie into trade deals. NATO doesnt fall part because the US isn't part of the Paris accord.

Yet you stupidly tie them all in together. That was what I was taking issue with.
Click to expand...

do you think backing out of previously agreed to international agreements has a positive or negative effect on America's "alliances" (as you like to phrase it) ?
 
Wayward DP said:
I have been consistent in my position that Trump will not win the Nobel (and nor should he).

Others jumped to the conclusions they wanted to. I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals because the reality is Trump is simply a buffoon with no coherent approach (beyond personal enrichment) to much of anything, let alone foreign policy.

Obama's Nobel was not earned, but that is a different discussion.

The important point though is that trade agreements and institutions like the WTO have been instrumental in maintaining relative world peace over the past 80ish years. This is a point you seem to be trying to intentionally ignore though.
Click to expand...

Does the nobel committee take that into consideration? I really don't think it would weight into it that much.

Do they factor into world peace and stability? Sure, but by how much? Enough to completely discount the effect of ending the worlds longest running conflict and the threats of nuclear conflict? I would think not. I mean, could you imagine that talk?

Trump helped negotiate the end of the Korean war, he should get the nobel peace prize.

Ya, but what about nafta?

As for Obama, well, precedent has been set. He didn't do much of anything and yet he got one, how can one argue that if trump ended the Korean conflict he doesn't get one?
 
Altair said:
Does the nobel committee take that into consideration? I really don't think it would weight into it that much.

Do they factor into world peace and stability? Sure, but by how much? Enough to completely discount the effect of ending the worlds longest running conflict and the threats of nuclear conflict? I would think not. I mean, could you imagine that talk?

Trump helped negotiate the end of the Korean war, he should get the nobel peace prize.

Ya, but what about nafta?

As for Obama, well, precedent has been set. He didn't do much of anything and yet he got one, how can one argue that if trump ended the Korean conflict he doesn't get one?
Click to expand...

you are arguing with yourself here.

there is no peace on the Korean peninsula. Trump is not winning the Nobel. if either of those things change, then maybe you can continue this discussion you seem to want to have so badly.
 
Altair said:
And of you were talking about Americas network of of alliances through the world, I would not disagree. If you were talking about the hollowing out of the state department, I would not disagree. If you were talking about how trump tries to bully other world leaders and complete disregard for international norms, I would not disagree.

But you're not. You're talking about the Paris accord. The world is no closer to conflict with America out of it.

You're talking about NAFTA. Does anyone in the world outside of canada America and Mexico care about it? No. Does it bring the world closer to conflict? No. Yet you tied it into the nobel prize consideration.

You're talking about the TPP. How is the world any closer to conflict with the USA out of it than in it? Its not. Arguments can be made about how it allows China to flex its economic muscle in the region with the US on the sidelines, but in terms of global peace, you must be joking.

Global trade deals are just that, trade deals. The alliances set up by America and others do not tie into trade deals. NATO doesnt fall part because the US isn't part of the Paris accord.

Yet you stupidly tie them all in together. That was what I was taking issue with.
Click to expand...

read a book. stop making an ass of yourself.
 
Wayward DP said:
interesting that you respond with quotes to two of my posts but seem to have missed this one.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how fast you want me get back to all of your posts...

It has a negative effect, no doubt. The Europeans are livid about the Paris agreement. The Canadians and Mexicans are not happy about how NAFTA is going. Japan in particular was displeased about the TPP.

Long term, world leaders are going to be more wary at taking America at its word. Agreements with America will be subject to whoever is sitting in the white house. Definitely erodes Americas standing on the global stage. But I do not for a second believe that this pushes America significantly towards a military conflict. Economic tic for tat, sure. Global trade war definitely on the horizon. But actual military conflict, no.

And those issues are important in their own right, don't get me wrong. Economic trade wars are not good for anyone involved. Climate change denial doesn't do the planet any good. But I wouldn't say they factor into the decision ofnwho gets a nobel peace prize, as zeke was trying to suggest. Do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top