Originally posted by: David Miller
Duh? What?
I guess my post was too hard for you to understand. There, there.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Duh? What?
I guess my post was too hard for you to understand. There, there.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Where? Look no further than DemocRAT mayors, Governors, and other elected officials, that's "where".
Your orange master is a criminal, so naturally, he hires fellow criminals.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Your orange master is a criminal, so naturally, he hires fellow criminals.
DemocRATs have no choice - they are ALL criminals...
Originally posted by: David Miller
DemocRATs have no choice - they are ALL criminals...
Nope. Having a different political stance than you is not a crime.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Nope. Having a different political stance than you is not a crime.
The "crime" is that you are are not only wrong, you are also a liar.
Originally posted by: Nines
The Gulf Coast Coalition ( eg United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others) along with South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia have pledged some funding for Iran's reconstruction. They all have some future economic interest in this deal and region. Will they in the end? Tune in tomorrow..day at a time and every day for 2 months. How much will US taxpayers fund? Tune in tomorrow and everyday for 2 months to see..day at a time, sweet Jesus.
Back to the topic.
Deals with bad actors have historically proved hollow:
- Treaty of Versailles. Germany violated provisions imposed by France to limit their armaments production. Allies either turned a blind eye or acquiesced.
- The Cold War. The U.S., both parties, signed arms control with the Soviets, promised consequences if violations occurred. Soviets often violated, but little to no enforcement happened.
- The 1993 Oslo Accords. Israel signed agreement with PLO, promised termination of the accords and reversal of concessions if PLO violated the agreement. PLO violated committments relating to terrorism, gave money to imprisoned terrorists and their families. Israel didn't withdraw from the accords nor reverse its concessions.
Democracies' leaders sign agreements for political investment rather than actually taking enforcement action when the other side doesn't comply. Enforcement is the hard part. Leadership will say it 'isn't clear' when a violation has occurred. If the violation is proven, the next response is that the violation isn't serious.
Iran has a record of violating promises. After benefiting financially from a 'deal' Iran will violate it and no enforcement is likely to occur.
Information from: Douglas J. Feith, senior fellow at Hudson Institute, served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the G. Bush administration.
Candy
Me: Deals are useful, if conditions are enforced after violations. Enforcement is the hard part. Parents know this; teachers know this; lawmakers know this. Humans are selfish and prone to deceit, when they can get away with it.
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
Back to the topic.
Deals with bad actors have historically proved hollow:
- Treaty of Versailles. Germany violated provisions imposed by France to limit their armaments production. Allies either turned a blind eye or acquiesced.
- The Cold War. The U.S., both parties, signed arms control with the Soviets, promised consequences if violations occurred. Soviets often violated, but little to no enforcement happened.
- The 1993 Oslo Accords. Israel signed agreement with PLO, promised termination of the accords and reversal of concessions if PLO violated the agreement. PLO violated committments relating to terrorism, gave money to imprisoned terrorists and their families. Israel didn't withdraw from the accords nor reverse its concessions.
Democracies' leaders sign agreements for political investment rather than actually taking enforcement action when the other side doesn't comply. Enforcement is the hard part. Leadership will say it 'isn't clear' when a violation has occurred. If the violation is proven, the next response is that the violation isn't serious.
Iran has a record of violating promises. After benefiting financially from a 'deal' Iran will violate it and no enforcement is likely to occur.
Information from: Douglas J. Feith, senior fellow at Hudson Institute, served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the G. Bush administration.
Candy
Me: Deals are useful, if conditions are enforced after violations. Enforcement is the hard part. Parents know this; teachers know this; lawmakers know this. Humans are selfish and prone to deceit, when they can get away with it.
In general, yes. Self interest can override commitments. happens routinely. I agree.
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
Back to the topic.
Deals with bad actors have historically proved hollow:
- Treaty of Versailles. Germany violated provisions imposed by France to limit their armaments production. Allies either turned a blind eye or acquiesced.
- The Cold War. The U.S., both parties, signed arms control with the Soviets, promised consequences if violations occurred. Soviets often violated, but little to no enforcement happened.
- The 1993 Oslo Accords. Israel signed agreement with PLO, promised termination of the accords and reversal of concessions if PLO violated the agreement. PLO violated committments relating to terrorism, gave money to imprisoned terrorists and their families. Israel didn't withdraw from the accords nor reverse its concessions.
Democracies' leaders sign agreements for political investment rather than actually taking enforcement action when the other side doesn't comply. Enforcement is the hard part. Leadership will say it 'isn't clear' when a violation has occurred. If the violation is proven, the next response is that the violation isn't serious.
Iran has a record of violating promises. After benefiting financially from a 'deal' Iran will violate it and no enforcement is likely to occur.
Information from: Douglas J. Feith, senior fellow at Hudson Institute, served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the G. Bush administration.
Candy
Me: Deals are useful, if conditions are enforced after violations. Enforcement is the hard part. Parents know this; teachers know this; lawmakers know this. Humans are selfish and prone to deceit, when they can get away with it.
Here's the sad truth, Candy: deals with the US have also historically proved hollow, at least recently
Trump reneged on the Paris climate accords.
Trump canceled USAID agreements wuth dozens of nations.
Trump reneged on the treaty with Iran that Obama crafted.
Trump violated the NATO agreement by threatening military action against a member state.
Trump violated trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, China, and dozens of other nations.
Trump violated the freedom of the seas treaty when he murdered hundreds of Venezuelans.
Our Presidents are supposedly held in check by the inherent features of our political system, but it has turned out, and Trump certainly has realized, that those checks are much too weak and ineffectual. The outcome is that Trump can and has shit on and ignored whatever treaties or agreements he wants to.
So can we be trusted? NO! Who are the bad actors? Who launches undeclared wars on the slightest pretext? Who uses force when diplomacy is just too much bother?
Us, Candy, it's us. We're the bad guys.
Parenthetically, the Treaty of Versailles was unfair and doomed to failure. The winning side made it punitive for the losing side, when all parties were equally to blame for the war. Noble democracies can draft unfair agreements; they do that all the time. The stronger parties decide what's "fair" and what isn't.
And lest anyone think that noble might makes noble right (certainly, that was the attitude in 1919), I have to point out that the unjustifiably harsh conditions of the Versailles Treaty caused the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party and all the fun stuff that followed.
