Trump nominated a second time for Nobel Peace Prize
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
Technicalities are important.
Champagne is only produced in a certain region in France.
Jamon is only produced in Spain from certain types of pigs.
Bourban can only be made in the US.
etc. etc.
But this is out of topic, so I won't press this further.
I can explain myself but I wouldn't want to go into technicalities because if someone wants to, they can exhaust me in this discussion.
The US no-fly-zone imposed on Libya sealed the fate of Muammar Qadaffi. European warplanes used US supplies (they had very little stockpiles of munitions, unsurprisingly). A US flotila was off the coast of Libya for the duration of the intervention. Had it not been for US support, Qadaffi wouldn't have been killed and his regime ended. Libya fell into a civil war, later devolved into two major factions backed by pretty much everyone important.
If you trust Obama, you get shafted. Same with Mubarak (which is actually the origin for Barak's name, since it's an african version of the arab name Mubarak).
This is why Russia intervened in Syria in favor of Assad. US intelligence poured money, weapons and training into Syrian insurgents. It later had troops on the ground. Intervention in the region wouldn't have happened had the US not intervened in the first place. This also paved the way for the rise of ISIS (US withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011 was the catalyst).
Syria is a walking corpse, the Alawi male population is destroyed, the country's people went down from 24 million to 17 million in 10 years. Sectarian violence erupted between various factions, and continues to this day. The Assad regime is a husk, the country is fragmented beyond belief, regional powers are stirring the pot and there is no end in sight for Syria. Expect it to fair as well as Somalia.
Maybe in 20 years a Syrian-refugee could run for congress and tell the people of the US how bad they were.
Similar situation in Yemen. US had pursued a policy of targeted killings of suspected terrorists, while destabilizing the regime in Yemen. US kept military and intelligence assets in Yemen officially to "fight against terrorism" (which is somewhat true, Yemen had been a place where Al-Qaeda and like-minded groups found recruits and trained them). US and Sauds instituted a no-fly zone over Yemen. They placed a blockade over its ports. Yemen fell to a civil war under sectarian lines.
Drone strikes in Yemen - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
America is likely complicit in war crimes in Yemen. It's time to hold the US to account | Mohamad Bazzi
Saudi-led forces have deliberately targeted civilians since the war’s early days – and US officials have done little to stop it
www.theguardian.com
I agree generally with your assessment of Obama, the caveat of 'starting a war' here is not as bad as Bush. Even discounting the lies, they didn't invade in the same way
I disagree with you about Trump, mainly around Venezuela and perhaps Bolivia
"Starting a war" is a technicality, I mentioned it earlier.
If you are talking about the "WMDs" as "lies" I agree, but you should also understand that the same was done with Assad, albeit with less success.
I agree with your analysis.
I personally think that Trump had been the dove candidate in 2016 and will be in 2020. He had repeatedly rebuffed attempts at instigating conflict with foreign nations and sacked hawkish cabinet members.
Even the assassination of the Iranian top-general was a calculated move which did not incite war but demolish Iran's capability for war in the region via a surgical strike, thus preventing future hostilities and neutering their capability for waging war.
I personally think the trade-war with China is necessary, and is something US allies had desired.
I will give this as an example why US allies want the US to wage a "trade-war" with it.
Again, good analysis.
He will use the tools he has (the might of the US military) to win, but without actually fighting a war. A Modern Sun Tzu
The same international agreement Morales used to justify his breach of the constitution can be used to overrule a nation's laws and ban abortions.
Neat, but even if true I don't see how that's relevant to Bolivia's US backed, lie-based coup
If you support Morales using this clause, then you support that life starts at conception and abortion is murder.
I think you're giving him way too much credit. One is a military philosopher the other is a man with a desire to hurt his perceived enemies and little interest in how he does it, so long as it doesn't come to an all out war.
He hasn't used any of his means to in a lot of conflicts solely because he doesn't perceive them as such. Russian mercenaries are still running rampant, US soldiers are still being killed for bounties, he still mocks soldiers and gold-star families.
Trump is not concerned with winning wars or ending conflicts, he is concerned with spiting his foes. Every conflict that did not escalate have been solely because outside interference or last minute changes, not because Trump is a tactical or strategic genius with a masterplan. And that fact is still eroding the ability to exert power all around the world.
The bounties in Afghanistan is false, the sources remain anonymous, and all parties involved deny its existence.
The source for Trump mocking soldiers is, again, anonymous, and unverified.
How far has journalism fallen, eh?
He isn't Sun Tze, definitely. He did manage to win wars without actually waging battles, which is something that is very powerful. An example would be the slim american presence in Syria, which allows the US to block access to the eastern gas and oil fields past the river and cut off a great source of wealth for its enemies. Trump had been wonderful at attacking US enemies financially, without resorting to conflict (sanctions on Syria, Iran).
Regardless of the comparison I don't think Sun Tzu even existed, personally I think it's a collection of works made by several authors.
The panel cited nuclear de-escalation (New START, which was signed after the prize was given but was negotiated and drafted beforehand, reduced the numbers of Russian & US warhead & ICBM launchers hugely).
A constitutional amendment is not a breach. Regardless of your personal feelings about it, it was legal by the existing mechanisms; it's factually not a breach.
Unverified by the public at large, but the practice is for papers to internally verify before printing. This is not new; journalism has relied on whistleblowers and internal sources who remain anonymous to the public forever. That they are anonymous to us does not mean they have not been verified.
Realistically, there's no good alternative: if the paper prints their source's details, the source will face professional repercussions, and future sources will then be unwilling to share information they may have. The result of that would be that the public loses access to information, and the government will find it easier to hide whatever it wants to keep secret.
Last edited:
He failed to pass it through the electorate (which includes the people who voted for him) then forced it through the special constitutional court he set up himself.
It would be similar to UK Brexit, with the opposition using a court decision to nullify the referendum.
The Plurinational Constitutional Court was established by the 2009 Constitution (which was voted for by the people), and all its members are elected by the people.
But this is beside the point. How you and I feel about the way he went about it is not relevant to my point: it was legally not a breach. Only fully legal mechanisms were used.
You know the funny thing? Had the Brexit referendum been legally-binding, it would have been overturned due to the proven law-breaking of the Leave campaign.
The only reason it hasn't been overturned was because it was purely advisory.
They're printing crap. It's not better than the Russia dossier. I ought to trust the newspaper's integrity when CNN had been found to blackmail a guy over a meme.
This is "trust me bro" level of journalism.
It was a breach, because the court's ruling was a fucking joke, and the members of it were stacked by Morales. Remind yourself that it was founded by him, to serve his agenda.
I like how you ignore the rest of the sentence, when it implies you believe that life starts at conception, and that abortion is murder, to justify using that international document to allow Morales a third term in office. It wasn't even the first time he fudged the law, when he changed the country's name and lead to early elections, apparently 'resetting' his allowed 2 terms in office.
This is no better than Putin.
I don't support either side in Venezuela. Morales broke Constitution IMO but then the US backed a coup. And there's been fighting about it since
Trump pulling a Bolivia in another country is about as good as Obama in the middle East. But better than Bush