Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Britain a Naval Power which could not possibly defeat the German Army, so we tried to avoid war at all cost including through trying dialogue and the agreement of 30 September 1938.
We later declared War on Germany soon after (leaas than a yerar later), on the 3 September 1939. The US didn't enter the war until the 7th Demcemer 1941.
Germany breached the treaty by going after the rest of Czechoslovakia and then Poland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
The paper called for the establishment of a Jewish national home in an independent Palestinian state within 10 years, rejecting the idea of partitioning Palestine. This was later carried out by the Truman Administration and a UN Vote, the state of Israel was created on the 29 November 1947. Britain was the only western country to abstain from the vote.
With extreme limits on Jewish immigration so it would effectively be an Arab state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Hong Kong was leased from China, it was never British property, the 100 year lease ran out in 1997, after which time it was Chinese by law.
The UK leased it from a weak monarchy. Britain returned it to an inhumane, uncivilized regime. Would Queen's Bench have enforced that "lease"? I doubt it.
As for renewable energy sources they are actually now cheaper than traditional energy sources, whicvh is one of the reasons many countries are investing heavily in them.
Why would the government have to invest if it was cheaper? If it made economic sense rather than being just a wishful dream the government wouldn't have to be involved. Likely there's big money to be glammed off the "investments." Take Solyndra (where the company) misled the feds out of over $500 million..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
As for moving your embassy to Jerusalem, that's up to the US, however the US has been warned it will prevent meaningful peace negortiations with the Palestinians will fan the flames of hatred within the Arab Muslim World. So is making yourself an even bigger terrorist target for the sake of an Embassy really in America's national interest, and as well now interferring in Middle Eastern Politics always ends well.
Keeping the embassy where it is promotes the fiction that Israel's status is still in limbo.
It doesn't matter, the truth is the Chinese wanted the territory back and a large section was leased until 1997, so in the interest of good relations we held negotiations and agreed to a handover of the colony.
Appeasement by another name. The people didn't want to be repatriated. Last I checked "self-determination" was the mantra. I guess that's true wen it's Palestinians vs. Jews but not when it's the right of ethnic Chinese to live free lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
We certainly weren't going to go to war with China of the issue, indeed it was in our own interest to maintain good relations with China and to maintain trading and financial links with Hong Kong and China.
About 10,000 or so U.S. or British troops would have done the job. Remember the people wanted the status quo. The Chinese were and are not up for a shooting war with us. The Korean War was as close as they deigned to come and they didn't want a do-over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
War, Conflict and poor relations are never in anyones interest and need to be a last resort, and this also includes trade wars or fanning the flames of hatred in the middle east by moving an Embassy.
The hatreds are millennia old. Why is this hatred different from any other hatred?
George Schultz was Secretary of State from 1982 to 1989. When an Ambassador was appointed he took them to a large globe and asked them to show him "their country." Every single one of them pointed to the country to which they were assigned. He corrected them, reminding them that the U.S. was "their country." George Shultz - Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training
"World opinion" is largely a chimera. The terms "world opinion" or the "International community" come are easy to come to the lips or the fingertips (rhyme not intentional). There is little or no analysis of what either term means, or what constitutes the "international community" or "world opinion." This has allowed for some extremely weak thought processes and reasoning.The world's population is over seven and one half billion people. I don't think any reputable pollsters are out gauging the opinion of the people of the world on any given topic.
By necessity, the views of the "international community" are taken as the view of the "leaders" of countries, typically at the U.N. level or from statements to the media by the actual heads of state or prime ministers. As anyone listening to the opening speeches at the U.N. General Assembly knows, some of these speeches border on deranged.
As for the opinion of actual people, how would it be influenced if they knew who the donors of foreign aid were? This is a link to a map of donor countries (link). The image itself can be viewed but the link is behind a paywall so I couldn't post it. Would it surprise anyone here that the top ten donor countries are all Western democracies? Is anyone surprised that Israel had the first mobile hospital units (link) on the scenes of the Haiti earthquake and Philippine typhoon?
Would the impoverished people of the world be formulating the view of the "international community" ably expressed below if they were not kept ignorant of these facts?
That approach, without bluster, is the right one. And it's the policy we're pursuing.Good current examples are: 1) withdrawal from Paris Climate Accords; 2) recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital; and 3) use of MOAB on ISIS-aligned forces.
Withdrawal from Paris -
The Climate Accords have very little to do with climate and a lot to do with an incoherent hash of politically correct but impractical agendas. The accords, for example, have a lengthy codicil on "gender equality." While that may be a praiseworthy goal it has little to do with climate. But I digress.
The Climate Accords work by setting an unreachable U.S. goal of 40% reduction of greenhouse gases ("GHG") from 1990 levels. The year 1990 as a base year is itself grossly unfair to the U.S. but I digress. The failure to reach an unmeetable target will trigger an obligation to pay a large amount into a "climate adjustment fund" (the "Fund"). The Fund itself will offer full-time employment to a large contingent of bureaucrats. That to my mind is why Europe so strongly favors the Climate Accords. Such money as is distributed by the Fund for "climate adjustment" will go to Third and Fourth World "leaders" with little or no accountability for how it is spent. Can one, for example, seriously imagine leaders such as Assad, Kabila, or Mugabe using the money to protect their people from climate change. That is why "world" opinion favors them
I don't, in this post, address whether or not climate change is real, or if real, if it is man-made. The Climate Accords will do little to change a single temperature on a single day in a single place. But they will cost the U.S. and its citizens lots of money, and possibly significant growth and employment. The Climate Accords were not ratified by Congress, are not a treaty and are not legislation. The goal of the Paris Accords,in short, was a scheme to help world leaders who have erased wealth in their own countries to tap and need more funds for their Swiss bank accounts.
Recognition of Jerusalem as Capital of Israel -
Israel is a modern, Western democracy, rich in hi-tech. Political views are expressed openly, without fear of violence. GLBTQ rights are respected. Gays are not thrown off cliffs or dangled from cranes.
The resistance by the foreign policy establishment and the "world" is not new. In the months leading up to Israel's independence on May 15, 1948 there were urgent calls for delay, so that the "issues" could be settled. The problem was that the then-unnamed Jewish state accepted the U.N. Partition plan of November 1947; heavy fighting was the result. Then the issue was whether there was to be a Jewish State at all; now the issue is the capital.
Intransigent and belligerent negotiating tactics lead only one way; the other entities going about their business and recognizing reality. Israel exists as a Jewish state and is not going away. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Countries have a right to designate their capitals. See Should the U.S. Embassy in Germany Have Moved from Bonn to Berlin? Use of MOAB on ISIS Fighters -
What interest is it of ours to have the Embassy in Jerusalem? What does that do for the United States?
What interest is it of ours to NOT be proactive about alternative energies. I would think it would be MORE in our interests to ween the world off of oil and Arabic world wealth, and start the world on some U.S.-created energy sources, and lead the technology in something U.S.-centric. Being a backwards nations that wants to focus on Middle East OIL, make the Arabic world rich, and do NOTHING proactive energy-wise, and let the rest of the world create all that stuff? That might be in the interest of the US/Arabic/Russian Oil brokers and middlemen... but it shouldn't be the interest of the American people to be backwards as hell, and not attempt to lead our U.S. technology and U.S. industry into world leaders of alternative means of energy.
The rejection of the Paris Accord by the U.S. is all about oil lobbyists and corporate polluters who want to make a quick buck in the short-term. It has nothing to do with long-term 'America's interests'.
What interest is it of ours to have the Embassy in Jerusalem? What does that do for the United States
It shows the Arab world that we aren't going to kow-tow to them any more, and appease them when Israel is obviously much more of a democracy than any of them and is the biggest technological and military power and our only real friend in the region.
Saudi Arabia is an important U.S. ally, but don't forget who destroyed the Twin Towers in 2001.
Quote:
What interest is it of ours to NOT be proactive about alternative energies. I would think it would be MORE in our interests to ween the world off of oil and Arabic world wealth, and start the world on some U.S.-created energy sources, and lead the technology in something U.S.-centric. Being a backwards nations that wants to focus on Middle East OIL, make the Arabic world rich, and do NOTHING proactive energy-wise, and let the rest of the world create all that stuff? That might be in the interest of the US/Arabic/Russian Oil brokers and middlemen... but it shouldn't be the interest of the American people to be backwards as hell, and not attempt to lead our U.S. technology and U.S. industry into world leaders of alternative means of energy.
The rejection of the Paris Accord by the U.S. is all about oil lobbyists and corporate polluters who want to make a quick buck in the short-term. It has nothing to do with long-term 'America's interests'.
No, the rejection of the Paris Accord happened because it is basically a tax on the U.S. to redistribute to 3rd World countries.
It shows the Arab world that we aren't going to kow-tow to them any more, and appease them when Israel is obviously much more of a democracy than any of them and is the biggest technological and military power and our only real friend in the region.
Saudi Arabia is an important U.S. ally, but don't forget who destroyed the Twin Towers in 2001.
No, the rejection of the Paris Accord happened because it is basically a tax on the U.S. to redistribute to 3rd World countries.
If you want to pay more taxes, move to Europe.
We haven't been kowtowing to the arab world. We've been trying to manipulate and control the arab world for decades.
Your idea of kowtowwing must be not killing Arab in sight.
It shows the Arab world that we aren't going to kow-tow to them any more,
And how is that in America's interests? All the U.S. does is 'kow-tow' for OIL. The Arabic World is rich with American money. Did you see Trump, badmouthing all of our allies, but playing with Saudi swords and a ton of their ceremonies to show how accommodating and how much the U.S. loves Saudi OIL.
What are America's interests? Middle East Oil? How to be completely dependent on it? How to kow-tow to Saudis for oil? How to bankrupt our nation, our military, and our country, and attack Iraq over it?
If anyone won out on the Paris Accord, it was Saudi knowing the U.S. is completely dependent on Middle East fossil fuels, and that our corporate interests are oil-oriented, and our lobbyists focus on continuing to make their Arabic nation's rich, just so that a few American oil companies can keep contracts there.
I hardly see any of that as being in the U.S. interests.
And how is that in America's interests? All the U.S. does is 'kow-tow' for OIL. The Arabic World is rich with American money. Did you see Trump, badmouthing all of our allies, but playing with Saudi swords and a ton of their ceremonies to show how accommodating and how much the U.S. loves Saudi OIL.
What are America's interests? Middle East Oil? How to be completely dependent on it? How to kow-tow to Saudis for oil? How to bankrupt our nation, our military, and our country, and attack Iraq over it?
If anyone won out on the Paris Accord, it was Saudi knowing the U.S. is completely dependent on Middle East fossil fuels, and that our corporate interests are oil-oriented, and our lobbyists focus on continuing to make their Arabic nation's rich, just so that a few American oil companies can keep contracts there.
I hardly see any of that as being in the U.S. interests.
The US could become a net energy exported in 2018. Hydraulic fracturing of gas has made us energy self-sufficient. It's held down energy prices and been boon for the states where it's practiced.
Oil is almost where GM was 80 years ago: What's good for it is good for us.
We made the mistake of entering the stage of world politics 100 odd years ago. It was never any of our business and still really isn't. The world and we would be better off if we would up our current business and left stage right.
And how is that in America's interests? All the U.S. does is 'kow-tow' for OIL. The Arabic World is rich with American money. Did you see Trump, badmouthing all of our allies, but playing with Saudi swords and a ton of their ceremonies to show how accommodating and how much the U.S. loves Saudi OIL.
What are America's interests? Middle East Oil? How to be completely dependent on it? How to kow-tow to Saudis for oil? How to bankrupt our nation, our military, and our country, and attack Iraq over it?
If anyone won out on the Paris Accord, it was Saudi knowing the U.S. is completely dependent on Middle East fossil fuels, and that our corporate interests are oil-oriented, and our lobbyists focus on continuing to make their Arabic nation's rich, just so that a few American oil companies can keep contracts there.
I hardly see any of that as being in the U.S. interests.
What? We import very little oil from the Middle East, roughly 11%. We now produce at least 40% of our oil needs with Canada supplying about 35% and Latin America and Saudi Arabia each at around 11%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
