Germany: US ambassador Richard Grenell

[+Hammerclaw]

At least, he was honest enough to own up to his mistakes. Of course, the history of the Levant didn't begin in 1948. It's pre American history makes for ever so interesting reading, as well.

 

[stevewinn]

12 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

At least, he was honest enough to own up to his mistakes. Of course, the history of the Levant didn't begin in 1948. It's pre American history makes for ever so interesting reading, as well.

 

Totally agree, Ike was a statesman. a true leader. and we'd expect no less than an honest assessment from the Great man himself.

On the Levant, well the defeat collapse of the Ottoman empire and French & British involvement in WW1. Its well documented how the straight lines (borders) drew up on a map in the aftermath by the French and British diplomats Messrs Sykes & Picot. 

by mentioning the Levant and pre 1948 You make the clear argument why Ike should have allied with the British French and Israel. during Suez. alas, he chose the wrong policy. Ike's mistake never came about from a causative pre-involvement by the British or French. it came from a policy all off Americas own making.

An American foreign policy on communism and the spread of it, and the mistakes it has made during that time. this policy took America to the brink, But we should not forget during this era, the USA's equally catastrophic mistake with its loss of China, which ironically 2 years later would lead to the war and eventual stalemate in Korea, this prevention of communism policy seen Vietnam, the Cuban Missile crisis, it could be argued the greatest achievement of the policy would come about 40'odd years later with the collapse of the soviet union. but my god, the US paid in blood and treasure both during that period and right up to the modern day with its involvement in Afghanistan post 9/11. followed by another policy which seen action in Iraq, (2003) the collapse of the wider near east and Levant with Syria and Libya. (2011) 

in its short time as a superpower the US suffers from a national affliction of an inward looking insular country who struggles to put together a coherent policy beyond its shores. and when it does pursue a foreign policy unilaterally it makes a catalogue of errors in the process. - this happens by the way to all superpowers in the early stages. the USA is no different of those who've gone before and as the US has only been a superpower for 70 odd years. a study of what we call today superpowers usual go on keep making foreign policy mistakes for at least the first 100 years, hence the long list of wars in the early days of "empire" or superpower status.  

I think its rather intriguing how events over half a century are still present today and playing out, in fact its interesting how empires of centuries before still have a massive impact on the geopolitics of today.

[+Hammerclaw]

4 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Totally agree, Ike was a statesman. a true leader. and we'd expect no less than an honest assessment from the Great man himself.

On the Levant, well the defeat collapse of the Ottoman empire and French & British involvement in WW1. Its well documented how the straight lines (borders) drew up on a map in the aftermath by the French and British diplomats Messrs Sykes & Picot. 

by mentioning the Levant and pre 1948 You make the clear argument why Ike should have allied with the British French and Israel. during Suez. alas, he chose the wrong policy. Ike's mistake never came about from a causative pre-involvement by the British or French. it came from a policy all off Americas own making.

An American foreign policy on communism and the spread of it, and the mistakes it has made during that time. this policy took America to the brink, But we should not forget during this era, the USA's equally catastrophic mistake with its loss of China, which ironically 2 years later would lead to the war and eventual stalemate in Korea, this prevention of communism policy seen Vietnam, the Cuban Missile crisis, it could be argued the greatest achievement of the policy would come about 40'odd years later with the collapse of the soviet union. but my god, the US paid in blood and treasure both during that period and right up to the modern day with its involvement in Afghanistan post 9/11. followed by another policy which seen action in Iraq, (2003) the collapse of the wider near east and Levant with Syria and Libya. (2011) 

in its short time as a superpower the US suffers from a national affliction of an inward looking insular country who struggles to put together a coherent policy beyond its shores. and when it does pursue a foreign policy unilaterally it makes a catalogue of errors in the process. - this happens by the way to all superpowers in the early stages. the USA is no different of those who've gone before and as the US has only been a superpower for 70 odd years. a study of what we call today superpowers usual go on keep making foreign policy mistakes for at least the first 100 years, hence the long list of wars in the early days of "empire" or superpower status.  

I think its rather intriguing how events over half a century are still present today and playing out, in fact its interesting how empires of centuries before still have a massive impact on the geopolitics of today.

Well, at least we didn't make the same mistake in 1982.

[Helen of Annoy]

While you two were busy derailing this thread, Trump found another amateur to represent the US, this time in Mexico.

Since we all know what Trump thinks of Mexicans, I'm actually surprised the US still has an embassy in Mexico.  

 

 

Seriously now, the complete destruction of the US international reputation and influence should start looking weird, if not worrisome, even to the Trump's fan club. 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Seriously now, the complete destruction of the US international reputation and influence should start looking weird, if not worrisome, even to the Trump's fan club. 

They would have to be able to admit that anything negative was happening in the first place.

[stevewinn]

24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well, at least we didn't make the same mistake in 1982.

Oh, you nearly did. America acted as the go between trying to prevent war between two of it allies. Which is commendable but US policy at that point was for Britain to surrender the Falklands. That policy only changed when a phone call between the Prime minister and Reagan. Where Reagan proposed the idea of handing over the falklands but British prime minister Thatcher snapped back, "Never and its about time you picked whose side your on and slammed the phone down" according to those present Reagan astonished turned around and said "shes going to do it, Shes going to war" from then on in official policy by the USA was neutral. But Britain received support via back channels from the CIA and military intelligence. Including spy satellite images and a rushed delivery and source codes for the brand new sidewinder missiles. And as they say the rest is history.

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by stevewinn

[Helen of Annoy]

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

They would have to be able to admit that anything negative was happening in the first place.

Bless their hearts, they truly are a sect. 

On the brighter side, it could relatively easy help control the Trump problem: the same media the sect trusts unquestionably can brainwash them back to acceptable behaviour. 

[Farmer77]

Just now, Helen of Annoy said:

On the brighter side, it could relatively easy help control the Trump problem: the same media the sect trusts unquestionably can brainwash them back to acceptable behaviour. 

I gotta say I think I've actually thought about this and I would love to see what would happen if Fox started reporting facts in prime time. I'm honestly not sure the Trumpians wouldnt just turn the TV off and put Twitter on the big screen.

 

[Farmer77]

@Helen of Annoy Weirdly I finished responding to you and this article that touches on the very thing we were discussing was the first thing I saw.

Fox News viewers are convinced: Donald Trump is the greatest president ever

Quote

As dangerous as these propaganda outlets are, and as much necessary attention as we pay to Facebook algorithms and Twitter bots, they really aren't the major propaganda tools responsible for the political culture that resulted in President Trump. His hold on his true believers, who number in the tens of millions, isn't a consequence of his Twitter feed. The medium he has truly mastered, and which seems to have the greatest influence on the people who love him, is good old-fashioned television.

New polling by a group called Navigator,  published by the Daily Beast, shows that Fox News viewers hold very different views than everyone else. Indeed, they seem to be indoctrinated just as thoroughly as those 8chan posters. The poll surveyed more than 1,000 registered voters to determine the beliefs of people who watch Fox News compared them to people who don't. The portrait that emerges shows a group of people who took Donald Trump to heart when he said, "Stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from the fake news."

The authors conclude, "There is an alternate reality in American politics, and it plays an outsized role in the way many experience and form opinions on the most important issues facing the country."

 

 

[Gromdor]

Germany should just expel him if they don't like him.