I thought his post was talking about the administration seeming to address global crisis with arms and military action rather than diplomacy. It doesn’t seem that complicated a criticism. The underlying crisis may have nothing to with the Biden Administration but the choice to constantly respond with military and weapons has been the subject of U.S. and international criticism.
I don’t know enough about the dispute to answer your question. But I do think the Biden Administration is too quick to react with military and weapons rather than ambassadors and diplomacy. I believe that has generally been the case with most U.S. Presidents starting with W Bush. So, I don’t begrudge Akbar’s post. I wish the White House would emphasize explicit diplomatic efforts to resolve and deescalate the dispute rather than war games and military preparation.
I don’t feel obliged to defend Trump’s diplomatic record as I never raised it as an example. I also never suggested the U.S. should negotiate for Venezuela’s annexation of Guyana’s territory. I suggested the U.S. use diplomatic efforts to diffuse and if possible, resolve the dispute rather than provocative military exercises in yet another country. I understand the U.S. used diplomacy in the late 19th century to resolve the same dispute and get the border established in the first place.
I’m a little surprised by the straw man positions you’re attributing to me. I don’t think I’m even saying anything controversial that requires the tactic.
>I don’t feel obliged to defend Trump’s diplomatic record as I never raised it as an example. I also never suggested the U.S. should negotiate for Venezuela’s annexation of Guyana’s territory. I suggested the U.S. use diplomatic efforts to diffuse and if possible, resolve the dispute rather than provocative military exercises in yet another country. I understand the U.S. used diplomacy in the late 19th century to resolve the same dispute and get the border established in the first place.
I fail to see what there is to resolve in this specific circumstance. Venezuela's claim is essentially rooted in naked imperialism at this point.
>I understand the U.S. used diplomacy in the late 19th century to resolve the same dispute and get the border established in the first place.
There is an entire school of diplomacy dedicated to the development of strategies to peacefully resolve transnational territorial & border disputes. A good example of creative diplomacy was the Clinton Administration’s ingenious contributions in solving the Peru-Ecuador border dispute in the mid-1990’s. It permanently solved a century of conflict that had produced multiple bloody confrontations and wars between the two countries. There is always a diplomatic strategy that should be pursued.
Russia annexed Crimea when Obama was President. Russia invaded Ukraine when Biden is President. Hamas invaded Israel when Biden is President. Biden totally bumbled the withdrawal of Afghanistan and got 13 soldiers killed for no reason. Iran is attacking American soldiers in Iraq and Syria when Biden is President.
Under Trump no new wars were started.
2 new wars have started with Joe in charge.
Even though Joe has over 50 years of Political experience and promised to BBB, he has done nothing to make America and the World safer.
I don't know, I am not Trump but the Dems would have blamed Trump. Obama could have feigned outrage at least.
I don't know, I am not Trump but the Dems would have blamed Trump. Biden couldn't do anything. He said small incursions are ok and he had to launder money back to Ukraine somehow. Under the guise of war is the easiest way.
The Afghanistan War lasted 20 years. Trump ended it and Joe screwed up the withdrawal.
Yes, Iran-backed insurgents are attacking America soldiers.
Joe cant do anything because he has dementia. Trump would have signed EO's to make America great again.
He probably wouldn't have been intimidated by the Taliban. The withdrawal would have been more organized and not left US eqpt and money behind and 13 soldiers would not have been killed for no reason.
Biden left 3 days early. He was scared. He probably wouldn't have been intimidated by the Taliban. The withdrawal would have been more organized and not left US eqpt and money behind and 13 soldiers would not have been killed for no reason.
>Biden left 3 days early. He was scared. He probably wouldn't have been intimidated by the Taliban. The withdrawal would have been more organized and not left US eqpt and money behind and 13 soldiers would not have been killed for no reason.
So... Trump's withdrawal would have been more organised? Is that it?
>Search Countries that have threatened the United States.
So you have no examples. I'm asking about actual serious threats.
What would Trump have done about these threats from China? Or the threats from North Korea? Or the threats from Iran?
"America First" Policy: Trump often emphasized an "America First" approach, prioritizing the interests of the United States in international relations. This involved renegotiating trade deals, seeking to reduce trade imbalances, and focusing on domestic economic priorities.
Unconventional Communication: Trump was known for his unconventional communication style, often using Twitter to announce policy decisions, express his views on world leaders, and make public statements. His direct and unfiltered communication style sometimes generated controversy and speculation.
Transactional Diplomacy: Trump was often described as practicing a transactional approach to diplomacy, viewing international relations through the lens of deal-making. He sought to negotiate agreements that he believed would benefit the United States economically or strategically.
North Korea Summit: One of the notable diplomatic initiatives during Trump's presidency was his engagement with North Korea. He held summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, aiming to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. While the meetings were historic, there were mixed results, and a comprehensive agreement was not reached.
Trade Policies: Trump pursued an aggressive trade agenda, including renegotiating existing trade agreements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). He also initiated a trade dispute with China, imposing tariffs on a range of Chinese goods.
NATO and European Relations: Trump expressed skepticism about traditional alliances, including NATO, and called for increased burden-sharing among member countries. His comments sometimes raised concerns among U.S. allies in Europe.
I'm asking YOU. Your opinion. What threats, specifically, has the US received from the nations I mentioned, and what is it that you think Donald Trump would have done about them?
>He would have used his diplomacy skills to diffuse the situation and then sign a treaty.
What "situation" needs diffusing? You think Trump would've ended the disputes the USA has with China and North Korea, Iran, Russia and Venezuela just like that?
And again, you claimed that they THREATENED the USA. You still haven't backed this up.
>It doesn't matter what my opinion is, only the truth matters.
Threats to democracy need diffusing. There were no new wars when Trump was President. Trump is a strong leader and great at diplomacy. I dont have to back up anything as the burden of truth is on you. My opinion is the truth.
"America First" Policy: Trump often emphasized an "America First" approach, prioritizing the interests of the United States in international relations. This involved renegotiating trade deals, seeking to reduce trade imbalances, and focusing on domestic economic priorities.
>Threats to democracy need diffusing. There were no new wars when Trump was President.
And many conflicts continued to rage during his presidency. Provide evidence that the conflicts that emerged after Joe Biden took office did so because of Joe Biden.
>"America First" Policy: Trump often emphasized an "America First" approach, prioritizing the interests of the United States in international relations. This involved renegotiating trade deals, seeking to reduce trade imbalances, and focusing on domestic economic priorities.
This is waffle and has nothing whatsoever to do with conflicts that happened that have nothing to do with "America First".
Donald Trump, who had run against Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Reform Party presidential primaries, first revived the slogan in a November 2015 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.[25] In its early going, the Trump campaign publicized an article by Jeff Kuhner on the World Tribune praising the candidate as a "nationalist who seeks to put America first";[26] campaign manager Corey Lewandowski (who later published a book with the title)[27] promoted Trump with the phrase; and both Sarah Palin[30] and Chris Christie[31] featured it in their endorsements of Trump. Trump later incorporated the slogan into his daily repertoire following a suggestion and historical comparison by David E. Sanger during an interview with The New York Times in March 2016. In subsequent months, without referencing Pat Buchanan's prior usage or the America First Committee, candidate Trump promised that "'America First' would be the major and overriding theme" of his administration, and advocated nationalist, anti-interventionist positions.
>That is true, but the fact remains no new wars were started when Trump was President and Trump even ended the 20 year Afghanistan war.
By essentially just pulling out and surrendering, and handing it back de facto to the Taliban. This isn't some epic win you think it is.
I'll ask again: What "situation" needs diffusing? You think Trump would've ended the disputes the USA has with China and North Korea, Iran, Russia and Venezuela just like that?
That was Bidens fault. Trump wasn't President when the withdrawal happened. Dont forget that Joe extended the date by 3 months.
Threats to democracy need diffusing. There were no new wars when Trump was President. Trump is a strong leader and great at diplomacy.
Ending a lifelong dispute with a Communist Country probably will never happen. But those leaders feared and respected Trump which is why no new wars were started when Trump was President
"America First" Policy: Trump often emphasized an "America First" approach, prioritizing the interests of the United States in international relations. This involved renegotiating trade deals, seeking to reduce trade imbalances, and focusing on domestic economic priorities.
>That was Bidens fault. Trump wasn't President when the withdrawal happened. Dont forget that Joe extended the date by 3 months.
Are you saying Trump would have not withdrawn and continued the occupation (or support of the Afghan government, I should say)?
>Threats to democracy need diffusing. There were no new wars when Trump was President. Trump is a strong leader and great at diplomacy.
What "threats" are you referring to right now, and what should be done about them?
>Ending a lifelong dispute with a Communist Country probably will never happen. But those leaders feared and respected Trump which is why no new wars were started when Trump was President
The Communist countries haven't actually started any new wars. Not sure how Trumps military isolationism and threats to withdraw from NATO would prevent them either.
Are you asking "Evidence please" to a question I posed to you?
>NATO didn't prevent Russia annexing Crimea nor did it prevent Russia invading Ukraine. In fact, NATO has never prevented a war since 1949.
Ukraine isn't in NATO. And I willv repeat: NATOs existence prevented the USSR and likely later Russia from launching invasions and coups into Eastern Europe.
Ukraine is also in Eastern Europe and NATO was created in 1949 because of Russia. How much money has been given to the organization since 1949?
Why not just let Ukraine into NATO?
It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.
Because Ukraine did not fulfill the minimum membership requirements and Russia threatened to respond militarily to that. Do you know nothing about this topic whatsoever?
I know that NATO was created in 1949 to defend Eastern European Countries from Russia. I guess Ukraine is too corrupt to let into NATO. Its ironic that trillions has been sent to NATO and billions have been sent to Ukraine and yet the war continues. Its a good thing NATO was created to protect Eastern European Countries from Russia.
Somehow it will be all Trumps fault. I have this strange feeling that Dems might lose on purpose so they can blame Trump for all the crises that they created.
I'm telling ya, Biden has a total Boner for shit like this.. He's a certified Dictator & War monger with as much $$$$ as he's sent Ukraine while not giving no fucks here back in the U.S and this is precisely why he's losing in 2024 to Trump
If we invade Venezuela it will create peace in the region and we can implement American democracy after tossing the corrupt dictator in change there. We can also take control of the oil they have as a thanks for our support.
Because for those awaiting to initiate those conflicts, the deterrent forces are right now in a moment of weakness.
The moment they realize they may miss their chance, they will move.