US Foreign Policy

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2058
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by cassowary » Thu May 10, 2018 8:32 am

Trump-Fatty Kim meeting will be held in Singapore on June 12th.
The announcement came a day after North Korea released three imprisoned Americans during US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's most recent visit to Pyongyang.

Beyond securing the release of the three Americans, Pompeo also finalized details for the upcoming summit between Trump and Kim.

Trump has struck a cautiously optimistic tone ..
Why Singapore?

1)It is a safe place
2)It has modern communications
3)It is neutral territory
4)It is rich which makes the point that N Korea can too be rich - if it changes its behavior.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Thu May 10, 2018 8:40 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 8:32 am
Trump-Fatty Kim meeting will be held in Singapore on June 12th.
The announcement came a day after North Korea released three imprisoned Americans during US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's most recent visit to Pyongyang.

Beyond securing the release of the three Americans, Pompeo also finalized details for the upcoming summit between Trump and Kim.

Trump has struck a cautiously optimistic tone ..
Why Singapore?

1)It is a safe place
2)It has modern communications
3)It is neutral territory
4)It is rich which makes the point that N Korea can too be rich - if it changes its behavior.
Macao or Hong Kong would have been much better choices and safer for Kim Jong-un.

User avatar
armchair_pundit
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by armchair_pundit » Thu May 10, 2018 9:38 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 8:40 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 8:32 am
Trump-Fatty Kim meeting will be held in Singapore on June 12th.
The announcement came a day after North Korea released three imprisoned Americans during US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's most recent visit to Pyongyang.

Beyond securing the release of the three Americans, Pompeo also finalized details for the upcoming summit between Trump and Kim.

Trump has struck a cautiously optimistic tone ..
Why Singapore?

1)It is a safe place
2)It has modern communications
3)It is neutral territory
4)It is rich which makes the point that N Korea can too be rich - if it changes its behavior.
Macao or Hong Kong would have been much better choices and safer for Kim Jong-un.
Why, because they speak Portuguese in Macao and have the luxury gambling palaces?

Or HK, to still be in Mother China's bosom?

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Milo » Thu May 10, 2018 4:05 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 11:49 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 11:24 pm
Trump has exchanged a bad agreement with Iran for no agreement.

Now he makes threats in order to keep Iran from doing what the agreement already kept them from doing.
But the Iranians cannot be trusted to live up to their side of the bargain. They are most likely cheating. That is why the US or the iAEA are not allowed to inspect Iranian weapons site. If they had no intentions to cheat, then they should be open to inspection.
As I said, a bad deal, but most treaties are. Many feel that jaw jaw is better than war war.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2058
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by cassowary » Thu May 10, 2018 6:23 pm

Milo wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 4:05 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 11:49 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 11:24 pm
Trump has exchanged a bad agreement with Iran for no agreement.

Now he makes threats in order to keep Iran from doing what the agreement already kept them from doing.
But the Iranians cannot be trusted to live up to their side of the bargain. They are most likely cheating. That is why the US or the iAEA are not allowed to inspect Iranian weapons site. If they had no intentions to cheat, then they should be open to inspection.
As I said, a bad deal, but most treaties are. Many feel that jaw jaw is better than war war.
Sometimes, threats of war-war lead to jaw-jaw. Exhibit A is Fatty Kim coming to the table with Trump and Moon.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2058
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by cassowary » Thu May 10, 2018 8:45 pm

... Continued from above post.

Talk of war-war worked with Fatty Kim. But it remains to be seen if it will work with the Mullahs of Iran. The Mullahs have an evil ideology based on their faith. They wish for Islam (Shiite style) to dominate the world. So they wage a Holy War to bring the region under an Islamic state ruled by them. Those who die in this endeavour will go to paradise and receive 72 virgins.

Now Fatty Kim is a different kettle of fish. He probably already has 720 virgins awaiting him here on earth or at least he has the means to get them. He does not want to die. So Trump's crude threat of "fire and fury" worked with him.

Trump appears to have his confidence inflated after his unconventional approach worked despite the criticism of the "experts" in the news media. So he is trying it again. While intimidation worked with Fatty Kim, an atheist, will it work with the believers of the world's last warrior religion, Islam?

This will be interesting.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Fri May 11, 2018 4:10 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 8:45 pm
... Continued from above post.

Talk of war-war worked with Fatty Kim. But it remains to be seen if it will work with the Mullahs of Iran. The Mullahs have an evil ideology based on their faith. They wish for Islam (Shiite style) to dominate the world. So they wage a Holy War to bring the region under an Islamic state ruled by them. Those who die in this endeavour will go to paradise and receive 72 virgins.

Now Fatty Kim is a different kettle of fish. He probably already has 720 virgins awaiting him here on earth or at least he has the means to get them. He does not want to die. So Trump's crude threat of "fire and fury" worked with him.

Trump appears to have his confidence inflated after his unconventional approach worked despite the criticism of the "experts" in the news media. So he is trying it again. While intimidation worked with Fatty Kim, an atheist, will it work with the believers of the world's last warrior religion, Islam?

This will be interesting.
And I suppose that when you die you will be received in paradise (?) by 72 clones of Milton Friedman...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

US Foreign Policy / Terrorism

Post by Sertorio » Fri May 25, 2018 4:30 am

Cuba Air Crash Is Damning Indictment of US Economic Warfare
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... rfare.html

The horrific plane crash in Cuba last week in which over 100 passengers were killed is testimony to one outstanding fact: American economic sanctions on that country have cost the lives of innocent people.

But this is not just about Cuba. It is about several other nations, including Russia, that are being attacked by American economic weapons, with human casualties. This barbaric US policy must be condemned and halted.

There is little doubt that the aging 40-year-old Boeing 737 that went down shortly after take-off from the capital Havana was a result of the decades-long US trade embargo on the Caribbean island.

That embargo has been imposed on Cuba by successive US administrations despite numerous resolutions at the United Nations abhorring it as barbaric. It’s a relic of the Cold War, yet Washington callously pursues this cruel blockade of an impoverished country.

A New York Times report quaintly called the stricken aircraft a “hand-me-down plane”, which had been used over its many years by a half-dozen operators in the US, Canada, and Cameroon, before ending up leased to state-owned Cuban airlines.

Cut off from international financing and access to modern aviation, the Cuban authorities have had to make do with renting decrepit planes from regional operators with less-than-transparent safety records. Last month, Cuba reportedly had to ground its entire domestic fleet due to safety concerns.

The six-decade-old trade embargo imposed by the US on the country following its socialist revolution in 1959 is the single biggest factor in determining Cuba’s economic condition. Successive revolutionary governments have coped admirably to give the 11 million population relatively high standards of living despite the economic hardship inflicted by relentless US sanctions. Nevertheless, the US economic strangulation of the country for daring to choose socialist governance has left an onerous toll.

An aging aviation industry struggling to find modern fleets, spare parts and maintenance is one such toll of America’s vicious vendetta. It seems obvious that Washington’s economic hostility towards Cuba is putting lives at risk. The death of over 100 passengers last week is the grim result.

Yet, such a damning connection is not obvious to the New York Times. Its report attempted to fudge the blame with the Cuban government’s alleged “economic mismanagement”. It referred breathlessly to the doomed plane as “a powerful symbol of Cuba’s troubled aviation industry” – while playing down the precise reason for why the country’s aviation industry is “troubled”.

The report went on to declare “Cuba’s economy has long been in shambles” which has been “bedeviled” by “economic mismanagement and the United States’ embargo on the island.”

So, you see, Washington’s decades of blockading the island country is relegated by the New York Times to a somewhat lowly, indirect factor after the government’s alleged incompetence.

This is an unconscionable white-wash of American culpability for the chronic deprivation in Cuba and in particular the loss of life from economic hardship.

Tragically, the Cuban fatal air crash comes as a timely reminder of the criminality of using economic sanctions to punish declared enemies. Sanctions should be viewed as just another form of warfare, which results in deaths among civilian populations. It should be outlawed.

No other nation uses economic warfare as viciously or as rampantly as the United States. At least six nations are currently being subjected to this low-intensity warfare by the US: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Russia.

Ludicrous Western news media reported this week with outraged disbelief that Venezuelans re-elected socialist president Nicolas Maduro – despite the country being in “economic shambles and facing shortages of food and medicines”. Those media barely tell their audiences that the hardships are largely caused by American sanctions. Instead, the blame is shifted on to Maduro as some kind of crackpot dictator crushing his people.

The case of Iran also seems particularly apt. US President Donald Trump is threatening to reimpose and expand sanctions on Tehran that have been in existence for nearly 40 years since the Iranian revolution kicked out America’s client dictator, the Shah, in 1979. Those latest threats follow Trump pulling out of the international nuclear accord with Iran.

Iran, like Cuba, suffers from an aging airline because of US sanctions. Recent purchase orders by Iran from Boeing and Airbus worth about $40 billion in new aircraft are now in jeopardy because of Trump’s plan to ratchet up the embargo. Again, Washington’s hostile policies are putting lives in danger.

Economic sanctions are not some sterile policy. They are palpable attacks on the lives of people.

Ahmad Noroozi of the charitable Barakat Foundation, based in Tehran, estimates that tens of thousands of Iranians have died from US-led sanctions on the country restricting people’s access to cancer drugs and other vital pharmaceuticals.

Iranian writer Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has said that American sanctions should be called out for what they are: “sanctioned terrorism”.

It is a disturbing sign of the lawless times the world is witnessing that Washington is resorting more and more to sanctions as a coercive instrument in order to subjugate others to its geopolitical demands.

Any country not doing Washington’s bidding is liable to be slapped with financial and trade penalties. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have long been in the firing line, joined by Russia and Syria in recent years. But now the Americans are threatening their supposed European allies with similar retribution if they don’t toe the US line with regard to trading with Iran, or regarding the Nord Stream 2 gas supply project from Russia.

The criteria used by the US are entirely subjective, arbitrary, and extra-legal, not to say fraudulent. It is the actions of a bully nation that is trying to use sanctions to enforce results which it cannot achieve by fair political or economic means.

As Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently pointed out, the US is using sanctions to project its national interests at the expense of others. Worse, Lavrov, condemned such sanctions as a form of “genocide”.

The Nord Stream 2 gas supply joint venture between Europe and Russia is a classic example. America wants to obviate market forces by displacing cheaper Russian gas with its own more expensive fuel, and to do this economics gymnastics, Washington is using sanctions to enforce its desired result.

If the US gets its bullying way, gas prices in Europe will rocket. How many people across Europe will lose their jobs, or die from hypothermia from not being able to afford to heat their homes in winter? Again, sanctions cost lives. Not as graphically as with exploding bombs. But nevertheless lives are ruined, deleted, albeit in the guise of anonymous statistics.

The majority of nations need to repudiate the use of economic sanctions by the US as unlawful and unacceptable. The practice should be seen on the same sliding scale of aggression as all-out military force. Indeed, history has shown that sanctions often lead to military war.

In a very real way, sanctions constitute acts of warfare. Their consequences are deadly in terms of the loss of human life, as can be seen from the recent Cuban air crash.

No nation should be allowed to unilaterally wield economic warfare on another without itself being sanctioned as an international pariah state. And the United States reached that pariah status a long time ago.
Sanctions should be imposed on the US, as long as the US continues its terrorist policies around the world.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri May 25, 2018 10:34 am

Well, I disagree completely with the stupid embargo for a bunch of reasons.

1. As with most sanctions it only hurts the common people, not the elites who run the regime.

2. It's hypocritical to oppose a regime supposedly for being repressive by curtailing the freedom to visit there or trade there. The U.S. has been giving itself a black eye in public relations on this for generations now. It's a bullying tactic, and everyone knows it.

3. It gives Cuban policymakers a fig leaf for their own failure. Rather than having to admit that socialism doesn't work, they can simply say, "Ay, que lastima, it would be paradise here but for those evil Americans."

As for sanctions on the U.S., good luck with that.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Fri May 25, 2018 11:05 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 10:34 am

As for sanctions on the U.S., good luck with that.
[...sorry, tongue in cheek... ;) ]

Maybe not sanctions, but what about refusing to trade with the US?...

Post Reply