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.
Don't fret over Scarborough. The entire world told Haley what she could do with her empty threats. 128 to 9. Our foreign standing is in shambles.
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 -
It's like the instruction on airline oxygen masks -- put yours on FIRST. You can't help others if you're unconscious, or dead.
We learned all about that on September 11, 2001.
The U.S. diplomats have, since the days of Thomas Jefferson being Secretary of State concentrated on being personally well-liked. So, in many cases, have Presidents. They confuse other leaders liking them with furthering the U.S.'s interests. People are upset with the 128-9 vote against U.S., with 35 abstentions. People should remember that lopsided majorities inthe "world" were against the Jews in 1933. Which side of that debate was right?
Every other country in the world puts its own interests ahead of those of other nations. Why should we be any different?
Partial list of Western giveaways, in roughly chronological order:
The joining of the League of Nations was a giveaway defeated by the Senate;
The craven surrender of Sudentenland and later Czechoslovakia at Munich was a craven British giveaway;
The British White Paper of 1939 was a craven British giveaway;
Yalta and the establishment of the U.N. was a Roosevelt giveaway. The Senate approved the U.S. joining the U.N.
The Test Ban Treaty was a giveaway ratified by the Senate;
SALT I was a giveaway ratified by the Senate;
The Panama Canal treaty was a giveaway ratified by the Senate;
The restoration of relations with China and withdrawal of recognition from Taiwan was a giveaway which didn't have to be ratified by the Senate;
SALT II was a Presidential giveaway halted by the Senate (it was never submitted for ratification because is was going to be defeated);
The surrender of Hong Kong was a craven British giveaway;
The 1994 deal with the Democratic Republic of Korea was a surrender unaccompanied by Senate ratification;
Kyoto a Presidential giveaway halted by the Senate (it was never submitted for ratification because is was going to be defeated);
The JCPOA, better known as the "Iran deal" was a Presidential giveaway in which Obama sidestepped the Senate (it was never submitted for ratification because is was going to be defeated);
The Paris Climate Accord was a Presidential giveaway in which Obama sidestepped the Senate (it was never submitted for ratification because is was going to be defeated, and Trump withdrew the U.S.); and
The restoration of relations with Cuba was a giveaway which didn't have to be ratified by the Senate.
Time to stop being played for fools. We have generous impulses that are not necessarily matched elsewhere in the world. This reminds me of a kid who gives his allowance away to buy friends; but the President is not giving away his own money.
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 -
1. The US has an interest in preventing climate change. The Paris Treaty is not perfect, but moves everyone in the right direction. Trump's withdrawal from the accord makes the USA the only nation in the world that no longer adheres to the Paris Treaty. If you blithely dismiss the treaty as not doing anything constructive about climate change than you take a position that is literally at odds with every other country in the world.
The reality is Trump withdrew America from this treaty to appease some people in the fossil fuel industry, supporters in places like West Virginia and Kentucky, and nut reactionary groups who believe there are things like "one world government".
2. Recognition of Jerusalem as capitol of Israel. This is a complex issue and too many people fail to grasp the nuances involved in it. By moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the USA sends a message that it is no longer an honest broker who is attempting to resolve issues between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather, this move signals the USA is now firmly on Israel's side period. As such, the USA no longer has the credibility to act as a neutral broker in this dispute. I have other issues with Trump's action as well. Any real negotiator who was considering such a move would have extracted a concession from Israel first. Perhaps, they could have agreed to stop building settlements on the West Bank? Trump's failure to ask for anything in return, leads me to (1) question his negotiating skills; and (2) do anything in the Middle East that isn't 100% pro Israel. I personally think moving the embassy should wait until an overall resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict takes place. If it takes fifty years, fine. Meanwhile, we still have an embassy in Tel Aviv. Israel has the right to designate its capitol. The USA has a right to say where it will maintain an embassy in a country.
I suspect the real reason this occurred was because of two people: Jared Kushner (Trump's son-in-law) and Sheldon Adelson (a huge contributor to the republican party). In any event, its poor foreign policy to simply be acting on the wishes of a couple of people.
The reality is that neither of these two actions are in the long term interest of the American people.
The U.S. diplomats have, since the days of Thomas Jefferson being Secretary of State concentrated on being personally well-liked. So, in many cases, have Presidents. They confuse other leaders liking them with furthering the U.S.'s interests. People are upset with the 128-9 vote against U.S., with 35 abstentions. People should remember that lopsided majorities inthe "world" were against the Jews in 1933. Which side of that debate was right?
THAT is exactly right!
The UN does not represent "world opinion" they only represent the opinions of a select few who impose their power over the will of their people.
1. The US has an interest in preventing climate change. The Paris Treaty is not perfect, but moves everyone in the right direction. Trump's withdrawal from the accord makes the USA the only nation in the world that no longer adheres to the Paris Treaty. If you blithely dismiss the treaty as not doing anything constructive about climate change than you take a position that is literally at odds with every other country in the world.
The reality is Trump withdrew America from this treaty to appease some people in the fossil fuel industry, supporters in places like West Virginia and Kentucky, and nut reactionary groups who believe there are things like "one world government".
I understand the sentiment and it is noble. But if you read the treaty you would feel differently. The preamble is great, even if you disagree on global warming. It is a beautiful, eloquent pitch to work together to solve the problems of the world.
But life is not a sleepaway camp campfire, with counselors strumming "Where Have All the Flowers Gone." A real agreement demands mutual sacrifices. Those are hard to come by, since all countries, even affluent ones, have economic needs. As Britain's leftist Prime Minister Tony Blair famously said: (link to source):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
I would say probably I'm changing my thinking about this in the past two or three years. I think if we are going to get action we have got to start from the brutal honesty about the politics of how we deal with it.The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem.Some people have signed Kyoto, some people haven't signed Kyoto, right? That is a disagreement. It's there. It's not going to be resolved.
What's called a "climate treaty" is really a wealth redistribution treaty. Anyone with a grain of sense knows that 40% cuts from 1990 GHG levels are just about physically impossible, never mind politically impossible. 40% was the U.S.'s "target" and that was a number that never could be met. Thus the flow of monetary wealth to the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
2. Recognition of Jerusalem as capitol of Israel. This is a complex issue and too many people fail to grasp the nuances involved in it. By moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the USA sends a message that it is no longer an honest broker who is attempting to resolve issues between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather, this move signals the USA is now firmly on Israel's side period. As such, the USA no longer has the credibility to act as a neutral broker in this dispute. I have other issues with Trump's action as well. Any real negotiator who was considering such a move would have extracted a concession from Israel first. Perhaps, they could have agreed to stop building settlements on the West Bank? Trump's failure to ask for anything in return, leads me to (1) question his negotiating skills; and (2) do anything in the Middle East that isn't 100% pro Israel. I personally think moving the embassy should wait until an overall resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict takes place. If it takes fifty years, fine. Meanwhile, we still have an embassy in Tel Aviv. Israel has the right to designate its capitol. The USA has a right to say where it will maintain an embassy in a country.
I suspect the real reason this occurred was because of two people: Jared Kushner (Trump's son-in-law) and Sheldon Adelson (a huge contributor to the republican party). In any event, its poor foreign policy to simply be acting on the wishes of a couple of people.
The reality is that neither of these two actions are in the long term interest of the American people.
Something is wrong if Israel's allies such as the U.S., Canada, Australia and to a lesser extent Britain and the rest of Europe are all "honest brokers" and their enemies are unambiguously hostile. We tried the "honest broker" routine for a long time and it flat out din't work. Same with "restraint" on settlements. The people in the West Bank must understand; time to come to the table or they will, over time, be squeezed out. Israel cannot just sit there, doing nothing, while pining for a deal. I doubt that Adelson and/or Kushner had much to do with it, since Kushner didn't even agree with the decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
THAT is exactly right!
The UN does not represent "world opinion" they only represent the opinions of a select few who impose their power over the will of their people.
I don't see the U.N. delegates doing much about illiteracy, tropical diseases like tracoma, schistosomiasis and hookworm (link to excellent article by Nicholas Kristof, who spoke on this at my synagogue). Instead of trying to help their people, they complain about Israel and Trump. Significantly Israel had agricultural workers in many of these countries until after the 1973 war, the OPEC countries bribed the country into expelling the workers. The rulers got a good deal; money for their Swiss bank accounts. Excerpts from article,(link):
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
Eighteen of these countries have ended their relations since the outbreak of the fourth Arab-Israeli war Oct 6. (1973).
The diplomatic ruptures are in marked contrast to the Africans' position immediately after the 1967 war....The African support in 1967 appeared to have been a reward for Israel's technical assistance to the emerging nations, which had begun before their independence - a program that had created goodwill. ....
Monetary incentives and threats are believed here to induced (sic) these Governments to break ties with Israel.
Want a 40 % Reduction ? Let China & India Cut their emissions by 5 %
It will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
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.
