Disasters and Trump

[Stravinsk]

That theory is laughable IMO. There have been sanctions of one sort or another placed on all kinds of things around the world since WW2, some by groups of nations as in this case, and some by the UN itself. Seldom has it meant the start of a war and never because of the sanctions alone.

It's only laughable to someone ignorant of both what the sanctions actually do and world history. Before the US invaded (on false charges of WMD btw) Iraq was already in a default war with the USA for many years, firing at it's war planes. At the same time, Sanctions had been in place all that time.

Sanctions that cripple nation's economies - or threaten to - ARE ACTS OF WAR. It is not laughable except to perhaps someone who has never lived in a country effected by them or who lives in the magical land of the US media and brought up on some bogus history.

 

[Albion]

It's only laughable to someone ignorant of both what the sanctions actually do and world history. .

Well, I am an historian and teacher by profession. What's yours?

 

[Stravinsk]

Well, I am a historian and teacher by profession. Whats yours?

Based on your more recent statements - if that is true, then you are a very biased one and not honest when it comes to matters of State.

You laugh at sanctions. You think they mean nothing - and you call yourself a historian and teacher. I pity your students!

If the world's oil was controlled by any other Empire - and it decided to cut off oil supply to the USA (as just one example)- you think that might effect things a bit? Hmm, Teacher?

Your history and your logic must be on par with the corporate media in your State - full of it.

 

[Albion]

Based on your more recent statements - if that is true, then you are a very biased one and not honest when it comes to matters of State.

What else COULD you reply if you are intent on defending a losing proposition, eh?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Economic sanctions and sanctions on goods and services are hostile acts. That is too obvious to need justification.

 

[Albion]

Economic sanctions and sanctions on goods and services are hostile acts. That is too obvious to need justification.

The claim was that it was the start of a war, not that it was provocative.

 

[Stravinsk]

What else COULD you reply if you are intent on defending a losing proposition, eh?

Anyone with half a brain can investigate the statements I have already made here and find that they are true. Sanctions precede wars. They did so in Japan before it attacked. They did so in Germany before Hitler rose to power. They preceded the first gulf war in Iraq.

They are preludes to war. If you are actually a history teacher I hope you correct your statements because if I knew who you were I'd be highlighting them and questioning your ability to hold whatever position you say you do.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The claim was that it was the start of a war, not that it was provocative.

Sanctions can be interpreted as acts of war. Sanctions often have been interpreted that way and led to all out war.

 

[Albion]

Sanctions can be interpreted as acts of war. Sanctions often have been interpreted that way and led to all out war.

...which doesn't prove a thing as regards the current situation, but go ahead and cite some concrete examples for us. I see that you have provided plenty of wiggle room for that claim, with such as "led to war," and "have been interpreted that way," and "can be interpreted as...."

Sure, Stravinsk has interpreted wildly, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Proof doesn't come into it does it? This is about prediction and balance of probabilities.

 

[Albion]

Proof doesn't come into it does it? This is about prediction and balance of probabilities.

Is that what you would like us to think now? It's not what was posted when this dispute took off.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is that what you would like us to think now? It's not what was posted when this dispute took off.

Perhaps you've confused Stravinsk's posts with mine.

 

[Stravinsk]

...which doesn't prove a thing as regards the current situation, but go ahead and cite some concrete examples for us. I see that you have provided plenty of wiggle room for that claim, with such as "led to war," and "have been interpreted that way," and "can be interpreted as...."

Sure, Stravinsk has interpreted wildly, but that doesn't make it true.

Already cited examples, professor (lol). The economic conditions pushed upon Germany after WW1 led to mass suffering and corruption in that country that led to the rise of a dictator with the desire to help his people and push back against them.

Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor BEFORE it's oil was cut off - but AFTER. Any dumb dumb can see that cutting off a major resource to a country who's industry absolutely depends on it is going to have massive effects on it's citizens - negatively. Except maybe people on websites claiming to be history teachers.

Economic Sanctions were imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait, and war with the US (a former ally and arms trader during the Iraq/Iran war) would shortly follow.

But of course a history teacher should KNOW all of this...and not out of hand dismiss sanctions as if they mean nothing. Maybe History teachers who are banned from earning a living at teaching would realize the effect of such a ban on their persons and their ability to draw an income and thus may "see the light" that economic sanctions that hurt economies of nations might have some historical relevance to wars and the aggressiveness of nation states towards one another.

But then again - you're living in America - the land of Disney.

Maybe it's just "They are evil and we are good" - and "they hate us for our freedoms" and other such idiotic sentiments from US leaders (Ah the days of Bush-isms). It seems to appeal at least to a portion of the population.

 

[Albion]

I'll call on you when the topic turns to the things that you are good at. You know--herbs and musical instruments. :wave:

 

[MennoSota]

It's fascinating to watch as God ordains the rise of immoral leaders (in both political parties) and natural disasters around the country. It's like I'm in a dual reality living in the time of the Judges where everyone did what they felt was right in their own eyes.
If the scriptures were not so clear about God's sovereignty I would likely be in a panic (as many of my unsaved co-workers are). Instead, I let today play out and try not to worry about tomorrow. Today has enough problems.
What I find myself doing is praying for the peace of the city in which I live as an ambassador to the Kingdom of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Panic does no good for anybody. Donald is a disaster still playing out. Like a severe cyclone or a tornado. It appears and destroys things and moves on until it is played out.

Impeach Donald

 

[Stravinsk]

Panic does no good for anybody. Donald is a disaster still playing out. Like a severe cyclone or a tornado. It appears and destroys things and moves on until it is played out.

Impeach Donald

This isn't going to change anything, sadly. It's not the president - it's some of the powers he has. Strict sanctions that isolate a nation from trade bring consequences. Like the power to declare a military war - the power to introduce sanctions should be in the hands of congress, not the president.

In any case it should (but sadly I do not think most people will give it any thought at all) - raise the question in people as to how exactly the US can wield such economic power? That would be a monopoly on most oil being traded in US dollars. The whole world could cripple the US economy if they all got together and decided to trade oil in anything but the US dollar.

...and there goes the US empire.

If that ever happened, then our silly and willingly blind nationalists here on CH who cry that sanctions don't increase aggressiveness between nations and precede wars - they'd be crying fowl all over the place when their dollar isn't worth the paper it's printed on and the whole economy grinds to a halt.

 

[Albion]

Trump has had to face a lot of disasters (natural and men being crazy) so far during his term of Presidency. How do you think he's handling things so far?

He's actually done well if we are honest about it and consider his governmental decisions rather than concentrate on silly and contrived things like his hair or what shoes his wife might be wearing. By and large, he's come through, at least partially, on almost all of his campaign promises. That's except, of course, for the ones that have so far been blocked by the Democrats who are still trying to win the election of 2016 or by "NeverTrump" Republicans in Congress. He has tried befriending, then twisting the arms of reluctant Republicans and, after that, schmoozing opposition Democrats, so he has certainly worked hard at getting things done.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeah, ignore what Donald says and tweets and pay attention to what other competent people in the government are doing.

 

[Albion]

Pay attention to what the president himself is doing if the intention is to answer the question of this thread.

He promised--the American people agreed--and he has accomplished much of it in only nine months. And that has come in the face of unprecedented obstructionism on the part of (mainly) the Democrat party.