6 ms·

Trump has already ended that policy.

by m0zg 7y ago

brighter2morrow 7y ago
Yes but when the next President comes in we will want to have had Trump's anti-war policies to have been cemented in place.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  Which policies are you referring to?
archgoon 7y ago
Although the Trump administration has voiced a desire to extract themselves from the existing military engagements in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, they have not yet done so. (As a side note, the previous administration also expressed a similar desire). Thus it is perhaps premature to claim that the current administration has 'ended' the policy. However, this misses the point that the goal of the proposed institute is to: > ... promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing. Unfortunately, the current negotiation tactics being pursued against, say, Iran, do not fall under this new style of diplomacy. I'm sure other examples may come to mind.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  It's weird to take tools off the table, like sanctions. It would reduce diplomacy to begging "pretty please".
  - archgoon 7y ago
    I'll be interested in seeing what the proposed alternative will be.
  - effie 7y ago
    "Pretty please" is actually a good default approach for a state X wanting something from another state Y; it shows respect and builds mutual trust. There is no guarantee that request will be fulfilled, but it can start a dialog "we want something in return" that can result in mutual accommodation. When the state X throws out past agreements, starts making higher demands, it is playing very risky game.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      I'm very thankful that you're not the one running the country. "Pretty please" gets you jack shit when you're dealing with hardcore gangsters like Xi Jinping, Shinzo Abe, Angela Merkel, or Vladimir Putin.
      - effie 7y ago
        The original context is Iran. So you want more from somebody than agreed and if you won't get it you start to use sanctions? Risky game, you can sometimes win, but if you go for it too far for too long, this will blow in your face.
      - dang 7y ago
        We've asked you repeatedly to stop posting flamebait to HN. Especially political flamebait. If you keep doing it we will ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- m0zg 7y ago
  That's a generous interpretation. A more realistic one is that Soros's and Koch brothers Chinese holdings are beginning to suffer a little.
bilbo0s 7y ago
If he did... he forgot to tell a lot of my buddies about it. Because they're still stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq.
chillwaves 7y ago
Would love to see evidence to support what you are saying. Trump did pull out of Syria, at Russia's request, but has increased threats towards Iran and Venuzuela, not to mention unbridled support for SA war in Yemen (including attmepting to bypass Congress to sell them more weapons -- which is contrary to what you are asserting).
- tathougies 7y ago
  Trump has not started any foreign intervention, unlike the past two administrations. Threats of foreign intervention are great and we should keep doing that. Imagine if GW Bush had just made threats. Man, I wish he threatened every country in the world, if that kept him from -- you know -- actually invading Iraq.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Moreover, he _defeated ISIS_, and _stopped nuclear testing in North Korea_. If any of the previous administrations achieved just one of these things, you'd never hear the end of it, and they'd receive a Nobel Peace Prize every year. With Trump, if you go to CNN right now, you can't even find anything about his _stepping over the DMZ into NK_ yesterday. He's the first US president to do so. It's a historic event, no matter how much they hate Trump. Go ahead and check.
    - apt-get 7y ago
      >he _defeated ISIS_ He didn't, the Syrian Arab Army and Russia did (and the Syrian Defense Forces, to an extent).
jmull 7y ago
In words (sometimes) but not deeds. That's really a continuation of the policies of the prior two presidents (maybe more, I just don't remember one way or the other).

Trump has already ended that policy.

by m0zg 7y ago

Trump has already ended that policy.

Yes but when the next President comes in we will want to have had Trump's anti-war policies to have been cemented in place.

chillwaves 7y ago
Which policies are you referring to?

archgoon 7y ago

Although the Trump administration has voiced a desire to extract themselves from the existing military engagements in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, they have not yet done so. (As a side note, the previous administration also expressed a similar desire). Thus it is perhaps premature to claim that the current administration has 'ended' the policy. However, this misses the point that the goal of the proposed institute is to: > ... promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing. Unfortunately, the current negotiation tactics being pursued against, say, Iran, do not fall under this new style of diplomacy. I'm sure other examples may come to mind.

chrisco255 7y ago
It's weird to take tools off the table, like sanctions. It would reduce diplomacy to begging "pretty please".
- archgoon 7y ago
  I'll be interested in seeing what the proposed alternative will be.
- effie 7y ago
  "Pretty please" is actually a good default approach for a state X wanting something from another state Y; it shows respect and builds mutual trust. There is no guarantee that request will be fulfilled, but it can start a dialog "we want something in return" that can result in mutual accommodation. When the state X throws out past agreements, starts making higher demands, it is playing very risky game.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    I'm very thankful that you're not the one running the country. "Pretty please" gets you jack shit when you're dealing with hardcore gangsters like Xi Jinping, Shinzo Abe, Angela Merkel, or Vladimir Putin.
    - effie 7y ago
      The original context is Iran. So you want more from somebody than agreed and if you won't get it you start to use sanctions? Risky game, you can sometimes win, but if you go for it too far for too long, this will blow in your face.
    - dang 7y ago
      We've asked you repeatedly to stop posting flamebait to HN. Especially political flamebait. If you keep doing it we will ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
m0zg 7y ago
That's a generous interpretation. A more realistic one is that Soros's and Koch brothers Chinese holdings are beginning to suffer a little.

bilbo0s 7y ago

If he did... he forgot to tell a lot of my buddies about it. Because they're still stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq.

chillwaves 7y ago

Would love to see evidence to support what you are saying. Trump did pull out of Syria, at Russia's request, but has increased threats towards Iran and Venuzuela, not to mention unbridled support for SA war in Yemen (including attmepting to bypass Congress to sell them more weapons -- which is contrary to what you are asserting).

tathougies 7y ago
Trump has not started any foreign intervention, unlike the past two administrations. Threats of foreign intervention are great and we should keep doing that. Imagine if GW Bush had just made threats. Man, I wish he threatened every country in the world, if that kept him from -- you know -- actually invading Iraq.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Moreover, he _defeated ISIS_, and _stopped nuclear testing in North Korea_. If any of the previous administrations achieved just one of these things, you'd never hear the end of it, and they'd receive a Nobel Peace Prize every year. With Trump, if you go to CNN right now, you can't even find anything about his _stepping over the DMZ into NK_ yesterday. He's the first US president to do so. It's a historic event, no matter how much they hate Trump. Go ahead and check.
  - apt-get 7y ago
    >he _defeated ISIS_ He didn't, the Syrian Arab Army and Russia did (and the Syrian Defense Forces, to an extent).

jmull 7y ago

In words (sometimes) but not deeds. That's really a continuation of the policies of the prior two presidents (maybe more, I just don't remember one way or the other).