Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2023, 06:20 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 871,039 times
Reputation: 2573

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wadd View Post
No one "stole" money, it was oil revenue by Iran legally seized when the Iran nuclear deal was abandoned. Thus the original sanctions were reinstated (i.e. preventing illegal oil revenue that was used to fund terrorism). The "list of conditions attached" for the release of funds (for Iranian humanitarian aid) is just a shell game, as it simply replaces funding that was already originally earmarked by Iran for hospitals and food and frees up that money to further spend to fund terrorism.
The $6 billion is still on hold I think thanks to more level headed politicians, but there is a good argument that it empowered and encouraged Iran and it's proxies to strike our allies in the middle east by perceiving it as a sign of western weakness and lack of resolve.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. They can come up with convoluted legally theories all day long, but at the end the day, they took money that didn't belong to them. Money rightfully earned from the sale of a legal good. Sounds like stealing to me.

The problem with using "terrorism" as a legal justification for confiscating money, is who gets to define what is terrorism or when the justification for due cause is appropriate? In modern times it's only applied to nations we don't like. Basically a tool used against adversaries similar to the label of genocide. In the end we can't be naïve in a belief of international law. Nation states are in a state anarchy. The only true law is might equals right. We can steal Iran money because their ability to do anything about it is limited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2023, 06:25 PM
 
85 posts, read 40,738 times
Reputation: 65
Matters may be about to deteriorate between Israel and Hezbollah. Fighting words from both sides as well as an uptick in skirmishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2023, 06:25 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 871,039 times
Reputation: 2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Well, this is what a multi-polar World that everyone says they want is going to look like. In a World with over 200 countries, many of them weak and unable to defend themselves, it is only going to get worse.

Since the fall of the Axis powers in WW2, the USA and its allies played World Policeman, outside of the Russian sphere of influence. This is what allowed so many small nations to survive. When Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait 30 years ago, the USA was able to create a coalition to liberate Kuwait and knock Saddam Hussein down.

Today, Russia and/or China may very well defend a dictator like Saddam and he might very well get away it.
The U.S. invaded plenty of countries during this period. It can be argued that the presence of the Soviet Union is what kept the U.S. for launching armed conflicts against many more. It's no coincidence that invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan along with multiple bombing campaigns against others were launched after the fall of the Soviet Union. How is that more peaceful? Unipolar worlds are not more stable than multipolar ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2023, 04:15 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,207 posts, read 13,496,080 times
Reputation: 19544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major View Post
The U.S. invaded plenty of countries during this period. It can be argued that the presence of the Soviet Union is what kept the U.S. for launching armed conflicts against many more. It's no coincidence that invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan along with multiple bombing campaigns against others were launched after the fall of the Soviet Union. How is that more peaceful? Unipolar worlds are not more stable than multipolar ones.


The world is no more violent today than in the past, and there were nearly constant wars involving the major powers throughout most of history.

In terms of the US, it seems to be becoming ever more protectionist and isolationist, and recent Republican and Democrat administrations have followed this narrative, and this has been a feature of US politics post Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump's questioning of US NATO commitment and Article 5, and the increasing protectionist trade measures that were further implemented by Biden are just a couple of such examples, along with the increasing America first type mantra.

Whilst the rise of the so called BRICS led by China and to a lesser extent Russia may lead to US global hegemony being challenged in a way that has not happened since the end of the Cold War, Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, and could potentially lead to a rival economic system to the current US and Western dominated system.

However just as in the Cold War, it's unlikely that the powers and alliances would actually want a full scale war, in a world with a vast array of increasingly technologically advanced weapons with ever greater potential for destruction.

Last edited by Brave New World; 12-29-2023 at 04:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2023, 09:02 AM
 
711 posts, read 296,587 times
Reputation: 1255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major View Post
The U.S. invaded plenty of countries during this period. It can be argued that the presence of the Soviet Union is what kept the U.S. for launching armed conflicts against many more. It's no coincidence that invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan along with multiple bombing campaigns against others were launched after the fall of the Soviet Union. How is that more peaceful? Unipolar worlds are not more stable than multipolar ones.
How do you then explain the Pax Romana? Repeated through history when regional hegemony occurs.

Anyways I reiterate my original post to not only emphasis this is a peaceful period since the end of WWII, but probably the most peaceful period since the beginning of recorded human history not only in terms of violence (wars or otherwise), but in terms of health, famine, disease, and economic struggle. There is data to support all of the above.

We should be aware of trends in warfare however: The increase in "gray zone" tactics (cyber warfare), the increase in asymmetrical warfare, and the usage of armed non-state actors (i.e. Hamas). Technology/AI will also have a role which adds advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the ability to cause human violence: unmanned drones doing battle against other unmanned drones or remote vehicles. It becomes a war of technological attrition. That all seems harmless in conventional warfare except in the hands of terrorists who want to target civilians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2023, 11:17 AM
 
1,651 posts, read 871,039 times
Reputation: 2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post


The world is no more violent today than in the past, and there were nearly constant wars involving the major powers throughout most of history.

In terms of the US, it seems to be becoming ever more protectionist and isolationist, and recent Republican and Democrat administrations have followed this narrative, and this has been a feature of US politics post Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump's questioning of US NATO commitment and Article 5, and the increasing protectionist trade measures that were further implemented by Biden are just a couple of such examples, along with the increasing America first type mantra.

Whilst the rise of the so called BRICS led by China and to a lesser extent Russia may lead to US global hegemony being challenged in a way that has not happened since the end of the Cold War, Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, and could potentially lead to a rival economic system to the current US and Western dominated system.

However just as in the Cold War, it's unlikely that the powers and alliances would actually want a full scale war, in a world with a vast array of increasingly technologically advanced weapons with ever greater potential for destruction.
I agree with you on most of your points; however, I'm mixed on if the U.S. is becoming more protectionist and isolationist. We're still in NATO and the alliance has actually grown. We continue to conduct foreign interventions. We're increasing the number of the military bases abroad. It's not just the military. Companies continue to expand overseas operations. Maybe the argument could be made we're not as Euro focused, but certainly not more isolationist.

https://www.defensenews.com/news/you...e-philippines/

I agree the general public prefers an isolationist/protectionist policy; however, the elites are the opposite. Due to the dynamics of our political system, the elites tend to get their way more often than not. It's been this way since the founding of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2023, 11:31 AM
 
1,651 posts, read 871,039 times
Reputation: 2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wadd View Post
How do you then explain the Pax Romana? Repeated through history when regional hegemony occurs.

Anyways I reiterate my original post to not only emphasis this is a peaceful period since the end of WWII, but probably the most peaceful period since the beginning of recorded human history not only in terms of violence (wars or otherwise), but in terms of health, famine, disease, and economic struggle. There is data to support all of the above.

We should be aware of trends in warfare however: The increase in "gray zone" tactics (cyber warfare), the increase in asymmetrical warfare, and the usage of armed non-state actors (i.e. Hamas). Technology/AI will also have a role which adds advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the ability to cause human violence: unmanned drones doing battle against other unmanned drones or remote vehicles. It becomes a war of technological attrition. That all seems harmless in conventional warfare except in the hands of terrorists who want to target civilians.
I agree there are less conflicts today. This is attributed more to the advanced weapons as you stated that can literally wipe out humanity as opposed to contributing all of this to U.S. hegemony or a Pax Romana as you state. We have to be careful not to fall into the trap of "National Narcissism." I wouldn't also say things are peaceful. Tell that to the Israel and Palestine.

I see armed non-state actors as the modern-day barbarians. As great as ancient Rome, and China for that matter were, they weren't able to subdue those pesky barbarians at the edges of their territory. Just had to make peace and hope that the factions would never unite. The U.S. has been waging war against these groups for over two decades now, yet they keep coming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2023, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,207 posts, read 13,496,080 times
Reputation: 19544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major View Post
I agree with you on most of your points; however, I'm mixed on if the U.S. is becoming more protectionist and isolationist. We're still in NATO and the alliance has actually grown. We continue to conduct foreign interventions. We're increasing the number of the military bases abroad. It's not just the military. Companies continue to expand overseas operations. Maybe the argument could be made we're not as Euro focused, but certainly not more isolationist.

https://www.defensenews.com/news/you...e-philippines/

I agree the general public prefers an isolationist/protectionist policy; however, the elites are the opposite. Due to the dynamics of our political system, the elites tend to get their way more often than not. It's been this way since the founding of the country.


In terms of NATO, Article 5 was even thrown in to question by Trump, and NATO itself is now used as a political football in terms of US politics,

The US Congress even recently passed a well meaning piece of legislation to try and stop any future President from leaving NATO without first seeking Congressional approval.

However in reality this would do little to stop a future US President from withdrawing US military forces from Europe and from NATO's command structures, whilst effectively destroying NATO's credibility and Article 5 at the same time.

TRUMP WILL ABANDON NATO - The Atlantic (4th December 2023)

"Current and former European diplomats said there was growing concern a second Trump presidency could mean an American retreat from the continent and a gutting of NATO".

Fears of a NATO Withdrawal Rise as Trump Seeks a Return to Power - New York Times (9th December 2023)

'The Economist' stated earlier this year in an article entitled "What would Europe do if Trump won? - The Economist (11th July 2023)" that "The difference between future Democratic or Republican presidents may be only the speed and extent to which America pivots away from Europe".

It was also noted that some European politicians are asking the questions in relation to the future of the Alliance and some see the US both turning inward whilst at the same time being more concerned with the Pacific region Chinese threat, and I have to agree that this may well be a very realistic scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by What would Europe do if Trump won? - The Economist (11th July 2023)

'Even as NATO meets, Europeans are exploring a plan B' - The Economist.

“Will [the American] administration always be the same? Nobody can tell, and we cannot delegate our collective security and our stability to the choices of American voters.” Europeans, he argued, needed to be able to defend themselves, not just militarily but also economically.

"French officials think a transatlantic separation is already under way, as America turns inward and its foreign policy focuses on China. Mr Trump is merely the most brutal expression of the trend. On trade, they note, Mr Biden is scarcely less protectionist than Mr Trump. Amid a European outcry, he told Mr Macron he “didn’t know” the vast green subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act would threaten Europe’s industry".

America’s priority, their argument goes, is its contest with China. Sooner or later, even Mr Biden will want to do less in Europe to focus on Asia. It could be sooner if a crisis erupts over Taiwan. The difference between future Democratic or Republican presidents may be only the speed and extent to which America pivots away from Europe. Most European governments do not fully share this analysis—America’s military commitment to Europe is rising—yet few discount it.

What would Europe do if Trump won? - The Economist (11th July 2023)

Last edited by Brave New World; 12-29-2023 at 01:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2023, 11:58 PM
 
2,347 posts, read 856,230 times
Reputation: 3075
The world is well on it's way to destruction because of the increasing lust for the three things that will cause it to happen. Money, power and religion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2023, 04:59 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,207 posts, read 13,496,080 times
Reputation: 19544
I think a Trump victory is highly likely in 2024, and that this could have a significant impact on US Foreign policy and international global affairs.

In a recent article in 'The Financial Times (London)' entitled 'Europe must not be caught short if Trump wins again', the paper warns that 'American talk of a ‘dormant Nato’ should be a wake-up call for leaders on the continent', and that Europe must work towards new alternative security and defence collaboration, as well as possible taking over responsibility for the bulk of funding to Ukraine.

Other experts from respected think tanks such as the The Royal Institute of International Affairs, commonly known as Chatham House, are also in agreement in relation to such a possible scenario.

Then again I don't like Biden, and wouldn't vote for him if I were American, and in terms of Britain and Europe all we can do is to plan ahead in relation to such a possible scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daily Mirror (28th December 2023)

Vladimir Putin 'betting the farm' on Donald Trump 2024 presidency and 'radical' NATO move

Russian president Vladimir Putin is hoping for a Donald Trump win in the 2024 US election, according to an expert.

Former president Donald Trump is currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Incumbent Joe Biden is set to lead the Democrats making next year a repeat of the 2020 election. Putin himself is set to run again in the March 2024 Russian Presidential Elections likely against a token opposition. And one expert claims Putin and Russia have a lot to gain from a Trump win.

John Lough, associate fellow of the Russia & Eurasia Programme at Chatham House , told the Mirror: "Putin is betting the farm on the return of Trump. Even if Trump delivered little for Russia in the first term - heavens know what they discussed when they met in Helsinki - there's a good chance if Trump comes to power he will do something radical in terms of foreign policy."

Lough added: "This could bring into question the US' commitment to NATO, for example. Putin is playing a big game on a global scale. " Trump has previously expressed his views on NATO as a drain on US resources. His campaign website states: "We have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally reevaluating NATO's purpose and NATO's mission"

Vladimir Putin 'betting the farm' on Donald Trump 2024 presidency and 'radical' NATO move - Daily Mirror (28th December 2023)

‘Trump was right’ when he complained about Nato, says former Navy Seal Erik Prince - GB News (29th December 2023)

Last edited by Brave New World; 12-30-2023 at 05:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top