Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden2 mins ago
President Trump Becomes The First American President To Step Into North Korean Territory.
35 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm happy to credit Trump for achieving something. I don't see what he has achieved, yet, with regards to China, North Korea, or Iran. Or Venezuela for that matter, where Trump was quite rightly trying to stand up against the Maduro regime. But Maduro is still there, and looks like he's there to stay.
There is no sign that North Korea has given any meaningful ground in order to lead to this latest summit. Nor is there any sign that China gave away much in order to get Trump to allow Huawei to resume relations with US companies.
Again, I hope I'm wrong -- and I'm well aware that, being no fan of Trump, it's difficult for me to be objective. But the simple fact is that as yet there is nothing to give him any credit for. Shaking hands with a despotic leader has historically been little guarantee of much.
Nor was North Korea the only one sabre-rattling in 2017/2018, Trump was at it too, so who was bluffing whom?
And is it really too much to ask that you actually try to explain why my analysis is wrong, rather than just recycle that ancient cliche of "you wouldn't credit Trump if he literally granted eternal life and riches to everybody on the planet whilst also solving climate change using the Infinity Gauntlet"?
There is no sign that North Korea has given any meaningful ground in order to lead to this latest summit. Nor is there any sign that China gave away much in order to get Trump to allow Huawei to resume relations with US companies.
Again, I hope I'm wrong -- and I'm well aware that, being no fan of Trump, it's difficult for me to be objective. But the simple fact is that as yet there is nothing to give him any credit for. Shaking hands with a despotic leader has historically been little guarantee of much.
Nor was North Korea the only one sabre-rattling in 2017/2018, Trump was at it too, so who was bluffing whom?
And is it really too much to ask that you actually try to explain why my analysis is wrong, rather than just recycle that ancient cliche of "you wouldn't credit Trump if he literally granted eternal life and riches to everybody on the planet whilst also solving climate change using the Infinity Gauntlet"?
Did you approve of Obama's reversal of the Bush war against terror, his détente with the Islamic world, his endorsement of the "Arab spring" which led to the replacement of Mubarak by a democratically (though not for long) elected Muslim Brotherhood candidate Morsi, his subsequent direct support for the overthrow of Gadaffi with the collusion and help of his French and English puppets (betraying trust in the implicit agreement brokered by earlier US administrations whereby Gaddafi stayed in power once his nuclear ambitions had been renounced)? And his gift of 140 billion dollars to Khamenei and his president Ahmadinejad in exchange for their promise not to develop a nuclear bomb in the next ten years?
I'm quite sure that you will question the wisdom of some of Obama's actions. You might even note and accept some of their obviously bad consequences. But one thing is sure: Obama meant well. In Obama's case redemption is possible. In Trump's case (or Sir Roger Scruton's or Sir Tim Hunt's) that spirit of understanding and possible forgiveness is disallowed, isn't it?
I'm quite sure that you will question the wisdom of some of Obama's actions. You might even note and accept some of their obviously bad consequences. But one thing is sure: Obama meant well. In Obama's case redemption is possible. In Trump's case (or Sir Roger Scruton's or Sir Tim Hunt's) that spirit of understanding and possible forgiveness is disallowed, isn't it?
The primary criticism of Trump here is not so much his decision to speak to Kim, but the fact that two or three days beforehand it was quite the reverse. And then a week before that is was different again. What odds on it being different again tomorrow? Can you not see that inconsistency and improvisation are terrible approaches to foreign policy? If Trump had a line on North Korea that was either one thing or the other I would respect him rather a lot more, because at least that way you know where he stands.
To take Obama as another example, arguably the worst thing he ever did was insist that Syrian use of chemical weapons* was a "red line" that could not be crossed without a firm and decisive US response. But he never followed through -- at least partly because he couldn't get congressional approval, but whatever the reason, it was and remains stupid to make such a pronouncement of definitive action and then end up failing to stick to it. It would have been better either to not draw the line at all, or to stick to it once drawn -- or to have checked whether Congress was onside with his plans before announcing them.
But apart from that Obama's foreign policy was generally easier to understand, and on occasion even quite successful.
*I can't remember exactly what caused him to draw his red line exactly, but to an extent it doesn't matter for my point. The fact is that he drew the line then did not stick to it. Syria has paid for this mistake.
To take Obama as another example, arguably the worst thing he ever did was insist that Syrian use of chemical weapons* was a "red line" that could not be crossed without a firm and decisive US response. But he never followed through -- at least partly because he couldn't get congressional approval, but whatever the reason, it was and remains stupid to make such a pronouncement of definitive action and then end up failing to stick to it. It would have been better either to not draw the line at all, or to stick to it once drawn -- or to have checked whether Congress was onside with his plans before announcing them.
But apart from that Obama's foreign policy was generally easier to understand, and on occasion even quite successful.
*I can't remember exactly what caused him to draw his red line exactly, but to an extent it doesn't matter for my point. The fact is that he drew the line then did not stick to it. Syria has paid for this mistake.
I suppose the other thing is to note that Trump generally seems to have better relationships with the US's enemies, rather than their allies. At the same time as praising Kim and Xi, and buddying up with Putin, he was utterly dismissive of a longstanding Treaty with Japan, and scornful of them in the process.
So the twin criticisms are this, then: I don't think even Trump knows what his foreign policy will be tomorrow, which makes it hard for allies and enemies alike to have a clue how to interact with the US as long as he is President; but, in as much as it does seem coherent, it generally seems to be more favourable to Russian and Chinese interests than to those of Europe and the West.
I could also mention one of the other main aspects of the latest G20 Summit, which saw 19 of the 20 countries reaffirm their commitments to meeting the Paris targets on Climate Change. The only country which did not was the USA -- and indeed it has been reported that Trump was pushing for Brazil and Turkey, among other countries, to abandon the Paris Agreement too. I don't want to dwell on it in this thread, as it's a separate topic, but it is incredibly frustrating to see.
https:/
So the twin criticisms are this, then: I don't think even Trump knows what his foreign policy will be tomorrow, which makes it hard for allies and enemies alike to have a clue how to interact with the US as long as he is President; but, in as much as it does seem coherent, it generally seems to be more favourable to Russian and Chinese interests than to those of Europe and the West.
I could also mention one of the other main aspects of the latest G20 Summit, which saw 19 of the 20 countries reaffirm their commitments to meeting the Paris targets on Climate Change. The only country which did not was the USA -- and indeed it has been reported that Trump was pushing for Brazil and Turkey, among other countries, to abandon the Paris Agreement too. I don't want to dwell on it in this thread, as it's a separate topic, but it is incredibly frustrating to see.
https:/
//to take Obama as another example, arguably the worst thing he ever did was insist that Syrian use of chemical weapons* was a "red line"//
That might support my criticism of you, Jim. I was suggesting policies which had wider than local consequences. None of which you've addressed.
What are the likely consequences of removing local dictators like Sadam Hussein, Mubarak or Assad from power? Let's start with the obvious areas off self-interest. Better or worse the the USA? Or Europe, or the UK? If you're a bleeding heart another question: what are the likely consequences for Iraqis, Egyptians and Syrians?
That might support my criticism of you, Jim. I was suggesting policies which had wider than local consequences. None of which you've addressed.
What are the likely consequences of removing local dictators like Sadam Hussein, Mubarak or Assad from power? Let's start with the obvious areas off self-interest. Better or worse the the USA? Or Europe, or the UK? If you're a bleeding heart another question: what are the likely consequences for Iraqis, Egyptians and Syrians?
A more interesting question (I hope) for you, Jim.
What explains the narrow purchase democratic institutions have in the Middle East?
I allow in advance obvious impediments like the dissolution of the Ottoman empire and its sub-division into "states" determined by cartographers in Whitehall and the Quai D'Orsay who loved right angles and were determined to create "rational" bureaucratic structures and were contemptuous of the chaotic geometry of mountains, rivers, languages and cultures.
What explains the narrow purchase democratic institutions have in the Middle East?
I allow in advance obvious impediments like the dissolution of the Ottoman empire and its sub-division into "states" determined by cartographers in Whitehall and the Quai D'Orsay who loved right angles and were determined to create "rational" bureaucratic structures and were contemptuous of the chaotic geometry of mountains, rivers, languages and cultures.
I didn't address them because I wasn't sure what your point was in drawing attention to them. As I say, again, my principal issue with Trump speaking to Kim is not the act itself but the total lack of coherent strategy. I've often been accused of flip-flopping -- wrongly, I might add -- but at least if and when I flip-flop, nobody cares, and the world doesn't give a toss about my whims. Not only that but it seems an almost deliberate distraction. I could be forgiven for thinking that you were engaging in "what-aboutism", but deliberate or not it's still true that we can and should discuss Trump on his own merits as president, rather than having to re-evaluate his predecessors.
In brief answer to your questions, though: removing local dictators from power seems the right thing to do but only with the proper -- and lengthy, and expensive -- follow-up, which has been lacking. Blame the disastrous invasion of Iraq for that, and blame Bush Jr and his advisers for having a single goal and no thought for its aftermath. I also don't share your cynicism about the JCPOA in Iran; literally everybody involved agreed that it was working, even Trump's own officials.
In brief answer to your questions, though: removing local dictators from power seems the right thing to do but only with the proper -- and lengthy, and expensive -- follow-up, which has been lacking. Blame the disastrous invasion of Iraq for that, and blame Bush Jr and his advisers for having a single goal and no thought for its aftermath. I also don't share your cynicism about the JCPOA in Iran; literally everybody involved agreed that it was working, even Trump's own officials.
Jim, //I'm well aware that, being no fan of Trump, it's difficult for me to be objective……Find a different tune for a change//
How do you expect me to find a different tune when by your own admission you find it difficult to be objective - and it shows? I respond to your deliberations, Jim, nothing more. You still don’t understand that your inability/refusal to scrutinize objectively is precisely the reason your arguments have lost credibility with some of the other contributors here. Take for example :
//Nor was North Korea the only one sabre-rattling in 2017/2018, Trump was at it too, so who was bluffing whom?//
That isn’t an objective statement, Jim – far less rational. Just think. Had Trump been the aggressor, imagine the headlines – and having eventually discovered something crawly enough beneath their huge collection of muddy stones to discredit him, just imagine the joyous field day the seasoned stone-turners would have had with them. We wouldn’t have heard the last of it! But those headlines didn’t exist, Jim, because Trump was not the aggressor. He responded to a threat – and in doing so succeeded in averting a potential world crisis. Points from you for that at least? Clearly not,
How do you expect me to find a different tune when by your own admission you find it difficult to be objective - and it shows? I respond to your deliberations, Jim, nothing more. You still don’t understand that your inability/refusal to scrutinize objectively is precisely the reason your arguments have lost credibility with some of the other contributors here. Take for example :
//Nor was North Korea the only one sabre-rattling in 2017/2018, Trump was at it too, so who was bluffing whom?//
That isn’t an objective statement, Jim – far less rational. Just think. Had Trump been the aggressor, imagine the headlines – and having eventually discovered something crawly enough beneath their huge collection of muddy stones to discredit him, just imagine the joyous field day the seasoned stone-turners would have had with them. We wouldn’t have heard the last of it! But those headlines didn’t exist, Jim, because Trump was not the aggressor. He responded to a threat – and in doing so succeeded in averting a potential world crisis. Points from you for that at least? Clearly not,
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Jobs & Education12 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.