US Foreign Policy

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 2573
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:43 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:40 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:03 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 pm
As it happens, "America's reputation as an honest broker and square dealer" was debunked decades ago. Kerry was just one of the more slimy of a series of slimy foreign policy functionaries.
Kerry was probably less than a saint (politics has never been an occupation noted for nurturing sainthood anyhow!) but did this make the treaty with Iran anything less than a praiseworthy achievement?

More to the point; does it justify Trump's unilateral repudiation of the treaty which the Iranians apparently honoured?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ia-meeting
Yes, it does.
Why?

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1015
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:47 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:43 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:40 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:03 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 pm
As it happens, "America's reputation as an honest broker and square dealer" was debunked decades ago. Kerry was just one of the more slimy of a series of slimy foreign policy functionaries.
Kerry was probably less than a saint (politics has never been an occupation noted for nurturing sainthood anyhow!) but did this make the treaty with Iran anything less than a praiseworthy achievement?

More to the point; does it justify Trump's unilateral repudiation of the treaty which the Iranians apparently honoured?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ia-meeting
Yes, it does.
Why?
Why? Really? The agreement has been discussed ad infinitum - surely everyone is aware of the issues. The foreign policy apparatus that supported Obama/Hillary/Kerry malfeasance is regarded with favor by deep state types. Folks opposed to deep state corruption wanted the agreement abandoned. Not a difficult concept.

neverfail
Posts: 2573
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:01 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:47 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:43 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:40 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:03 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 pm
As it happens, "America's reputation as an honest broker and square dealer" was debunked decades ago. Kerry was just one of the more slimy of a series of slimy foreign policy functionaries.
Kerry was probably less than a saint (politics has never been an occupation noted for nurturing sainthood anyhow!) but did this make the treaty with Iran anything less than a praiseworthy achievement?

More to the point; does it justify Trump's unilateral repudiation of the treaty which the Iranians apparently honoured?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ia-meeting
Yes, it does.
Why?
Why? Really? The agreement has been discussed ad infinitum - surely everyone is aware of the issues. The foreign policy apparatus that supported Obama/Hillary/Kerry malfeasance is regarded with favor by deep state types. Folks opposed to deep state corruption wanted the agreement abandoned. Not a difficult concept.
What does this have to do with abandoning a treaty agreement with a foreign power that was/is fundamentally sound?

"The foreign policy apparatus"? Presumably the repository of an immense amount of know how in dealing with foreign governments worldwide. Yet you Americans now vest your faith in a blithering, clueless amateur instead? What sort of insanity is that?

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1015
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:26 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:01 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:47 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:43 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:40 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:03 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 pm
As it happens, "America's reputation as an honest broker and square dealer" was debunked decades ago. Kerry was just one of the more slimy of a series of slimy foreign policy functionaries.
Kerry was probably less than a saint (politics has never been an occupation noted for nurturing sainthood anyhow!) but did this make the treaty with Iran anything less than a praiseworthy achievement?

More to the point; does it justify Trump's unilateral repudiation of the treaty which the Iranians apparently honoured?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ia-meeting
Yes, it does.
Why?
Why? Really? The agreement has been discussed ad infinitum - surely everyone is aware of the issues. The foreign policy apparatus that supported Obama/Hillary/Kerry malfeasance is regarded with favor by deep state types. Folks opposed to deep state corruption wanted the agreement abandoned. Not a difficult concept.
What does this have to do with abandoning a treaty agreement with a foreign power that was/is fundamentally sound?

"The foreign policy apparatus"? Presumably the repository of an immense amount of know how in dealing with foreign governments worldwide. Yet you Americans now vest your faith in a blithering, clueless amateur instead? What sort of insanity is that?
Talk about your false premises . . . The agreement was not a "treaty." It was hardly "fundamentally sound." But, I'm pleased that you apparently approved of it - confirms my suspicions re your level of perspicacity on US foreign policy issues. Now, repeat after me, at least 10 times: "US foreign policy over the last several decades was mostly a series of gross blunders." Now, that was cathartic, wasn't it?

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1616
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 Sep 21, 2018 7:13 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:26 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:01 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:47 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:43 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:40 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:03 am


Kerry was probably less than a saint (politics has never been an occupation noted for nurturing sainthood anyhow!) but did this make the treaty with Iran anything less than a praiseworthy achievement?

More to the point; does it justify Trump's unilateral repudiation of the treaty which the Iranians apparently honoured?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ia-meeting
Yes, it does.
Why?
Why? Really? The agreement has been discussed ad infinitum - surely everyone is aware of the issues. The foreign policy apparatus that supported Obama/Hillary/Kerry malfeasance is regarded with favor by deep state types. Folks opposed to deep state corruption wanted the agreement abandoned. Not a difficult concept.
What does this have to do with abandoning a treaty agreement with a foreign power that was/is fundamentally sound?

"The foreign policy apparatus"? Presumably the repository of an immense amount of know how in dealing with foreign governments worldwide. Yet you Americans now vest your faith in a blithering, clueless amateur instead? What sort of insanity is that?
Talk about your false premises . . . The agreement was not a "treaty." It was hardly "fundamentally sound." But, I'm pleased that you apparently approved of it - confirms my suspicions re your level of perspicacity on US foreign policy issues. Now, repeat after me, at least 10 times: "US foreign policy over the last several decades was mostly a series of gross blunders." Now, that was cathartic, wasn't it?
You're right, it wasn't a treaty. But it was a negotiated and signed public agreement, one that the Iranian regime, however loathsome it may be, has apparently kept. For the U.S. to turn around and unilaterally repudiate it over the objections of its allies means shows that no other power can expect the U.S. to hold to its agreements beyond the next election. Can you really not see the long term harm in that?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1015
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:04 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:13 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:26 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:01 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:47 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:43 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:40 am


Yes, it does.
Why?
Why? Really? The agreement has been discussed ad infinitum - surely everyone is aware of the issues. The foreign policy apparatus that supported Obama/Hillary/Kerry malfeasance is regarded with favor by deep state types. Folks opposed to deep state corruption wanted the agreement abandoned. Not a difficult concept.
What does this have to do with abandoning a treaty agreement with a foreign power that was/is fundamentally sound?

"The foreign policy apparatus"? Presumably the repository of an immense amount of know how in dealing with foreign governments worldwide. Yet you Americans now vest your faith in a blithering, clueless amateur instead? What sort of insanity is that?
Talk about your false premises . . . The agreement was not a "treaty." It was hardly "fundamentally sound." But, I'm pleased that you apparently approved of it - confirms my suspicions re your level of perspicacity on US foreign policy issues. Now, repeat after me, at least 10 times: "US foreign policy over the last several decades was mostly a series of gross blunders." Now, that was cathartic, wasn't it?
You're right, it wasn't a treaty. But it was a negotiated and signed public agreement, one that the Iranian regime, however loathsome it may be, has apparently kept. For the U.S. to turn around and unilaterally repudiate it over the objections of its allies means shows that no other power can expect the U.S. to hold to its agreements beyond the next election. Can you really not see the long term harm in that?
The agreement was, in the view of many, not in the best interests of the US. While needy European and Middle Eastern nations may disapprove, I've got no problem with the US disavowing agreements not in America's best interests, regardless of what non-US entities think.

neverfail
Posts: 2573
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:31 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:13 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:26 am


Talk about your false premises . . . The agreement was not a "treaty." It was hardly "fundamentally sound." But, I'm pleased that you apparently approved of it - confirms my suspicions re your level of perspicacity on US foreign policy issues. Now, repeat after me, at least 10 times: "US foreign policy over the last several decades was mostly a series of gross blunders." Now, that was cathartic, wasn't it?
You're right, it wasn't a treaty. But it was a negotiated and signed public agreement, one that the Iranian regime, however loathsome it may be, has apparently kept. For the U.S. to turn around and unilaterally repudiate it over the objections of its allies means shows that no other power can expect the U.S. to hold to its agreements beyond the next election. Can you really not see the long term harm in that?
:lol: Talk about "catch me on a technicality" Jim. I chose the word "treaty" instead of agreement. It shows that I am fallible but still does not disprove the case I put forward. :)

Unsubstantiated allegations are cheap Jim. In what way was the agreement with Iran NOT in America's best interests?
.......................................................................................................

Steve: the Trump administration demonstrates contempt for America's own allies as well as for Iran. If it keeps going along that path the US will soon have no allies abroad; only enemies.
Last edited by neverfail on Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

neverfail
Posts: 2573
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:41 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:04 am

The agreement was, in the view of many, not in the best interests of the US. While needy European and Middle Eastern nations may disapprove, I've got no problem with the US disavowing agreements not in America's best interests, regardless of what non-US entities think.
No. I do not see the Europeans as "needy" but like me their governments and much of their interested public opinion (like myself) can see the injustice that the Trump administration is doing to Iran. Not for the first time either. Like me they can apparently also foresee no good, only harm, coming from Trump's unprovoked repudiation.

Why do you Americans permit your presidents to be so unaccountable over foreign policy? Surely, as another of the checks and balances against abuse of power by the executive wing of your government; the office of President should be divested of this power.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:24 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:04 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:13 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:26 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:01 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:47 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:43 pm


Why?
Why? Really? The agreement has been discussed ad infinitum - surely everyone is aware of the issues. The foreign policy apparatus that supported Obama/Hillary/Kerry malfeasance is regarded with favor by deep state types. Folks opposed to deep state corruption wanted the agreement abandoned. Not a difficult concept.
What does this have to do with abandoning a treaty agreement with a foreign power that was/is fundamentally sound?

"The foreign policy apparatus"? Presumably the repository of an immense amount of know how in dealing with foreign governments worldwide. Yet you Americans now vest your faith in a blithering, clueless amateur instead? What sort of insanity is that?
Talk about your false premises . . . The agreement was not a "treaty." It was hardly "fundamentally sound." But, I'm pleased that you apparently approved of it - confirms my suspicions re your level of perspicacity on US foreign policy issues. Now, repeat after me, at least 10 times: "US foreign policy over the last several decades was mostly a series of gross blunders." Now, that was cathartic, wasn't it?
You're right, it wasn't a treaty. But it was a negotiated and signed public agreement, one that the Iranian regime, however loathsome it may be, has apparently kept. For the U.S. to turn around and unilaterally repudiate it over the objections of its allies means shows that no other power can expect the U.S. to hold to its agreements beyond the next election. Can you really not see the long term harm in that?
The agreement was, in the view of many, not in the best interests of the US. While needy European and Middle Eastern nations may disapprove, I've got no problem with the US disavowing agreements not in America's best interests, regardless of what non-US entities think.
What possible interests of the U.S.? That's nonsense. Even if they wanted to, the Iranians cannot threaten U.S. territory.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1830
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:48 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:24 am

What possible interests of the U.S.? That's nonsense. Even if they wanted to, the Iranians cannot threaten U.S. territory.
But if Iran decided to obliterate Saudi Arabia's oil producing infrastructures, the US would suffer twofold:

1. Enormous increase in the price of oil;
2. No friends in the ME except Israel.

Post Reply