166 replies to this topic

[DeathMerchant]

As the title says, Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, for 2019. What is everyone's thoughts on this?

My feelings is that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. Considering the last Presidential recipient, upon winning it, escalated the Afghan War, began a war with Libya, escalated drone strikes in Yemen, allowed North Korea to build and test nuclear weapons, allowed Iran the ability to legally produce nuclear weapons in X amount of years, allowed ISIS to manifest itself in Iraq, threatened to attack the Syrian military, and in the waning days of his Presidency broke almost every diplomatic tie with Russia. After listing it all out, sounds like Obama was more of a state sponsor of terror than all other dictators of the world.

[Koliny]

I do agree that there was a flop. However the person that i think was the main force for giving Obama the prize, has been demoted.

Edited by Koliny, 06 May 2018 - 01:38 PM.

[Lysistrata]

I don't think they will give it to him. Nobel is not about accomplishment. They are about advancing their agenda. They will praise the end of hostilities in Korea while condemning the method Trump used to get the results.

 

"Yes of course he ended 65 years of war... but he did it in an extremely in-peaceful fashion. We cannot reward such a deplorable, juvenile, racist, bully". These headlines write themselves.

[onbekende]

Always had mixed feelings for such "grand" prices, mainly cause they don't give them posthumously. For the other Nobel Prices this is somewhat fine but it is kinda idiotic for the Peace Price. Guess the norwegians just got on the wrong bandwagon

 

 

My feelings is that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. Considering the last Presidential recipient, upon winning it, escalated the Afghan War, began a war with Libya, escalated drone strikes in Yemen, allowed North Korea to build and test nuclear weapons, allowed Iran the ability to legally produce nuclear weapons in X amount of years, allowed ISIS to manifest itself in Iraq, threatened to attack the Syrian military, and in the waning days of his Presidency broke almost every diplomatic tie with Russia. After listing it all out, sounds like Obama was more of a state sponsor of terror than all other dictators of the world.

 

Afghan war was a right mess with no end in sight, any action tried would have been a bad one.

War in Libya? Guess I missed the boots on the ground there. Which I thought Republicans were screaming for after Benghazi...

Yemen is a right cluster fuck, +1 point for you. Then again you folks ere their cause of the Saudi's, so meh.

NK nukes would have happended anyway, even funnier when dragging Iran into it cause the reason they did is was the USA itself. With the USA throwing its weight into an accord with Iran did keep it from going further, you just don't want to believe that. Also Trump did literary nothing towards NK except calling its leader out on twitter.

ISIS is Obama's fault? Is this the entire Obama/Osama debacle again?

Russian ties were improving to "moderate" for roughly Obama's first term, then Crimea happended and shit hit the fan.

 

But hey, from your list, why you keep calling Obama a socialist? Doesn't seem very socialist to me. >_>

[ccabal86]

My feelings is that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.

^this

[onbekende]

 

My feelings is that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.

^this

 

 

Biggest current issue towards this: annual

 

Stop making it a sorta "mandated election" and you will clear up alot of misgivings.

[joe44]

After Henry Kissingers Nobel Peace Prize, i dont believe in fairy tales anymore.

[DeathMerchant]

Always had mixed feelings for such "grand" prices, mainly cause they don't give them posthumously. For the other Nobel Prices this is somewhat fine but it is kinda idiotic for the Peace Price. Guess the norwegians just got on the wrong bandwagon
 
 

My feelings is that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. Considering the last Presidential recipient, upon winning it, escalated the Afghan War, began a war with Libya, escalated drone strikes in Yemen, allowed North Korea to build and test nuclear weapons, allowed Iran the ability to legally produce nuclear weapons in X amount of years, allowed ISIS to manifest itself in Iraq, threatened to attack the Syrian military, and in the waning days of his Presidency broke almost every diplomatic tie with Russia. After listing it all out, sounds like Obama was more of a state sponsor of terror than all other dictators of the world.

 
Afghan war was a right mess with no end in sight, any action tried would have been a bad one.
War in Libya? Guess I missed the boots on the ground there. Which I thought Republicans were screaming for after Benghazi...
Yemen is a right cluster fuck, +1 point for you. Then again you folks ere their cause of the Saudi's, so meh.
NK nukes would have happended anyway, even funnier when dragging Iran into it cause the reason they did is was the USA itself. With the USA throwing its weight into an accord with Iran did keep it from going further, you just don't want to believe that. Also Trump did literary nothing towards NK except calling its leader out on twitter.
ISIS is Obama's fault? Is this the entire Obama/Osama debacle again?
Russian ties were improving to "moderate" for roughly Obama's first term, then Crimea happended and shit hit the fan.
 
But hey, from your list, why you keep calling Obama a socialist? Doesn't seem very socialist to me. >_>

The US air campaign in Libya cost upwards of $1 Billion and NATO planes flew somewhere around 26k flight missions. I would say that constitutes a war, or at least qualifies as a dedicated military intervention. I don't recall many Republicans advocating for involvement in Libya, only after Ambassador Stevens was murdered.

I agree that we shouldn't have gotten involved with Yemen as the Saudi's should handle their own neighbors. Even if their military can't manage to defeat poorly equipped guerillas. I used to know a former Army Officer who was stationed in Saudi Arabia during 2006-2007. His line of work was to train Saudi Officers in proper Command and Control elements/procedures. Heavy emphasis on deploying strategic assets properly. The fact Saudi Arabia has lost so many M1 Abrams tank in combat is very disheartening. Just like Iraq and Turkey, its as if the completely forgot how to use their tanks properly in a combat environment.

Its a fair enough point to allege North Korea would have continued testing and building nuclear weapons. Nevertheless we forget that NK is the recipient many aid sources. The US government could have worked harder to pursue the choking of those aid functions. Even to this day North Korea isn't under 100% import sanctions. The US should have pressured years ago to choke off the entire country. Better than doing nothing or barely anything.

Iran too is a bit of an odd one because I know if the US didn't sign some deal, Europe (particularly Germany) was ready to negotiate without US approval. There were German construction companies that were immensely excited at the prospect of capitalizing on an untapped Iranian market. Regardless of that, the US should stuck to its hard line approach to Iran. If other countries want to do business with their regime then so be it, but the US caved way to hard in striking a largely unenforceable deal.

The creation of ISIS isn't Obama's fault. The part that was Obama's fault, is allowing ISIS to almost be on the doorstep of Baghdad before he decided the US had to intervene. I get the whole, the US didn't keep combat troops in Iraq due to the Iraq government not giving US troops immunity from prosecution. This issue was Obama waiting far too long to solve a problem. Once the Iraqi forces were repeatedly routed in combat, and US equipment costing millions of dollars was now in ISIS possession, that is when the US needed to strike. Not sit around and hope corrupt Iraqi officials appointed by Maliki would hold the line.

The Russia remark was in regards to Obama kicking out Russian diplomats about 1 month prior to Trump taking office. It served no purpose whatsoever except to sour ties.

And speaking of last minute things, I just remembered that on his last several hours as President, Obama tried to quietly give $221 Million to Palestine. I understand the monetary transfer had been discusses for some time. But it came off as a slap on the face. Because we all know deep down who really would have found a way to commandeer that money, Hamas.

[onbekende]

(not ignoring the rest, no reason to "counter".

 

Its a fair enough point to allege North Korea would have continued testing and building nuclear weapons. Nevertheless we forget that NK is the recipient many aid sources. The US government could have worked harder to pursue the choking of those aid functions. Even to this day North Korea isn't under 100% import sanctions. The US should have pressured years ago to choke off the entire country. Better than doing nothing or barely anything.

.
Kinda difficult with a land border to the 2 nations who's desire to keep NK afloat is part "we do'nt want this to implode in our backyard" and part "good thing to annoy them americans with" and which keep veto'ing the very nasty stuff.

 

Point still stands, you had an authoritarian/dictatorial/cultivist regime using the USA as the scary boogeyman needing to be protected again (or vanquished) and you didn't really give many openings to lessen that image.

 

And most of the aid is strictly humanitarian, or do you want to strangle the NK powerbase by famine?
.

Iran too is a bit of an odd one because I know if the US didn't sign some deal, Europe (particularly Germany) was ready to negotiate without US approval. There were German construction companies that were immensely excited at the prospect of capitalizing on an untapped Iranian market. Regardless of that, the US should stuck to its hard line approach to Iran. If other countries want to do business with their regime then so be it, but the US caved way to hard in striking a largely unenforceable deal.

.
Kinda same as NK, stop setting yourself up as the boogeyman (thou here it is more Israel). Iran has an underflow of moderation going for it (hence the former president was the vitriolic but toothless shouter ). The lesser NK cult traits combined with actual power projection does mean Iran is less inclined to activly search nuclear protection.

 

The Israeli "bombshell" just showed basic beaurocracy (keep everythign filed!) together with "we can start this again if you want" but no actual furthering of a nuclear capability has been found. Most of the upper echelon know that it needs to keep up the "bread and games" and as such aren't as stringent in their desire for nukes themselfes.

 

Do wonder if we could wean off their desire for nuclear power (as in electricity) by using their geography (hello dams!).
.

The Russia remark was in regards to Obama kicking out Russian diplomats about 1 month prior to Trump taking office. It served no purpose whatsoever except to sour ties.

.
Well he couldn't just sit still with what the intelligence agency's discovery of attempted electoral hacking (which btw I don't think succeeded). Not like it further soured the already acidic ocean between the US and Russia at that point >_>

 

Heck Trump had the same "thaw" as Obama had, it just stopped that bit sooner, which couldn't even be blamed on Trump either, was once again Russia poking its tentacles out trying to see howfar it got into its "world power" position.
.

And speaking of last minute things, I just remembered that on his last several hours as President, Obama tried to quietly give $221 Million to Palestine. I understand the monetary transfer had been discusses for some time. But it came off as a slap on the face. Because we all know deep down who really would have found a way to commandeer that money, Hamas.

.

Always been more for straight up goods instead of $$ aid, thou unsure if they would just wire over the cash rather then buy food/other commodities to distribute (the usual route).

[Rand0m her0]

And speaking of last minute things, I just remembered that on his last several hours as President, Obama tried to quietly give $221 Million to Palestine. I understand the monetary transfer had been discusses for some time. But it came off as a slap on the face. Because we all know deep down who really would have found a way to commandeer that money, Hamas.

 

 

That's unfortunately pretty much entirely wrong.

 

So to begin with that aid had been approved and set aside by Congress some time in 2016. It had been held up by a couple Republicans on the committee with political axes to grind over the Palestinian government seeking greater recognition and participation in international organizations.  They basically kept insisting on a hold on distribution of the aid. Traditionally such requests are accepted, because it's not worth the slap fight ignoring it would cause, however they're not binding on the executive office. Once congress approves the funds for something, the executive is littrealy required to see it done. it was done "last minute" (in so much as anything that should have been done two years prior can be said to be last minute) because at that point the threat of Ed Royce and Kay Granger  throwing a shitfit no longer existed. 

 

At no point in time were funds released to the Palestine Authority. They were earmarked for building infrastructure, providing clean water, electricity, education etc, as well as spending on security in the West Bank, and as always there are a ton of safeguards put in place. Also some portion of it went to israel do to work in the area as well, although I don't want to go look up the details at the moment.

 

If your not familiar with the situation over there, Palestine is...sort of split at the moment  between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Hamas has control of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian government over the West Bank, and this has been the case for more than a decade now. Technically there has been some steps towards reconciliation, but right now that mostly means they probably won't start shooting at each other tomorrow.

 

That aid was approved in an attempt to undercut Hamas's attempts to gain support in the West Bank and help prop the Palestine Government back up. As you may recall, they managed to gain a bunch of their support in the Gaza Strip by exploiting the poor conditions and providing basic services to the people there; by ensuring those services are provided in the West Bank it stops hamas from gaining support and helps create support for the government that isn't lobbing missiles over the border with Israel on a semi regular basis. While i'm not exactly qualified to weigh in on the outcome of foreign policy, the concessious seems to be that aid went a significant way to ensuring the stability of the West Bank.

 

 

And yea, while Obama authorized the state department to distribute the aid, he did so late enough into his administration that it was left up to the Trump administration to actually distribute it. Signing off on it stopped the aforementioned congressmen from seeing the issue buried in the administration change. (Also it was maybe something of a middle finger to the two of them for fucking around for two years.) Which is why the Trump admin, after making a fuck ton of pointless noise about it and freezing the release of the aid immediately after taking office, quietly released the funds shortly after the news cycled stopped giving a shit. 

 

(yea, that means it the money was acctually released by Trump.) 

 

I'd hit the rest of your post, but Betsy kinda got most of it, and I've already turned 4 sentences into 5 paragraphs which means this is long enough, especially since the whole NK thing is something littreal dissertations have been written about. 

[DeathMerchant]

 

Kinda difficult with a land border to the 2 nations who's desire to keep NK afloat is part "we do'nt want this to implode in our backyard" and part "good thing to annoy them americans with" and which keep veto'ing the very nasty stuff.

 

Point still stands, you had an authoritarian/dictatorial/cultivist regime using the USA as the scary boogeyman needing to be protected again (or vanquished) and you didn't really give many openings to lessen that image.

 

And most of the aid is strictly humanitarian, or do you want to strangle the NK powerbase by famine?

Kinda same as NK, stop setting yourself up as the boogeyman (thou here it is more Israel). Iran has an underflow of moderation going for it (hence the former president was the vitriolic but toothless shouter ). The lesser NK cult traits combined with actual power projection does mean Iran is less inclined to activly search nuclear protection.

 

The Israeli "bombshell" just showed basic beaurocracy (keep everythign filed!) together with "we can start this again if you want" but no actual furthering of a nuclear capability has been found. Most of the upper echelon know that it needs to keep up the "bread and games" and as such aren't as stringent in their desire for nukes themselfes.

 

Do wonder if we could wean off their desire for nuclear power (as in electricity) by using their geography (hello dams!).

Well he couldn't just sit still with what the intelligence agency's discovery of attempted electoral hacking (which btw I don't think succeeded). Not like it further soured the already acidic ocean between the US and Russia at that point >_>

 

Heck Trump had the same "thaw" as Obama had, it just stopped that bit sooner, which couldn't even be blamed on Trump either, was once again Russia poking its tentacles out trying to see howfar it got into its "world power" position.

And speaking of last minute things, I just remembered that on his last several hours as President, Obama tried to quietly give $221 Million to Palestine. I understand the monetary transfer had been discusses for some time. But it came off as a slap on the face. Because we all know deep down who really would have found a way to commandeer that money, Hamas.

Always been more for straight up goods instead of $$ aid, thou unsure if they would just wire over the cash rather then buy food/other commodities to distribute (the usual route).

 

I am trying to structure this in a way that doesn't make me sound heartless, as that isn't my intention. Severely limiting the amount of humanitarian aid/food to NK might actually be a positive outcome for western nations. While somewhat of a remote possibility, if millions starve, eventually the North Korean people could revolt against their government. It is incredibly difficult to give an accurate assessment since NK experienced massive famine in the 90s and as far as we publicly know, no coups or attempted revolts took place. But this option would let the people of North Korea solve their own problem of overthrowing their government. After all, the most positive outcome to the North Korea situation is if the people themselves stood up and said, "we are taking control of our own future from now on". I think everyone can agree that is the best case scenario as its letting them fix their own country.

The issue with Iran comes down to many Americans flat out do not trust the Iranian government. Quite frankly the majority of that distrust stems from the established fact Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Providing funds, weapons, and training to terrorist groups + paramilitary organizations that are heavily radicalized. Iran has spent decades engaging in subversion tactics throughout the middle east, and its not unreasonable to expect their government to continue such behavior when engaging in the global political sphere. Its also not completely unreasonable, albeit somewhat improbable, that after producing nuclear weapons Iran could theoretically in 10-20 years supply Hamas, or another popular terrorist group with a Tactical Nuclear weapon. That in of itself would truly be a game changer, regardless if that weapon is ever detonated or if its to engage in MAD theory deterrence.

I still haven't the slightest clue if the Russian meddling in the 2016 has any merit. I've seen evidence it allegedly happened, and some US intelligence experts say it occurred. On the other hand, evidence exists it didn't happen, or the Russians mulled the idea around but never followed through with an actual attempt. A couple months ago I had a conversation with a relative who has a friend of a friend that works at CNN. I forget their exact position but it is somewhat higher up. My relative asked them what they actually knew about alleged Russian interference with the election. Their reply was that as far as they were aware, nothing significant occurred that could be verified. CNN basically took the accusation and ran with it as the truth. First reason was for ratings, second reason was making Trump look bad. Could the person have lied to my relative? Its possible, or CNN honestly doesn't have definitive proof and is going off pure speculation. One would believe that if definitive proof existed, someone (or multiple individuals) would have been indicted by now.

 

 

That's unfortunately pretty much entirely wrong.

 

So to begin with that aid had been approved and set aside by Congress some time in 2016. It had been held up by a couple Republicans on the committee with political axes to grind over the Palestinian government seeking greater recognition and participation in international organizations.  They basically kept insisting on a hold on distribution of the aid. Traditionally such requests are accepted, because it's not worth the slap fight ignoring it would cause, however they're not binding on the executive office. Once congress approves the funds for something, the executive is littrealy required to see it done. it was done "last minute" (in so much as anything that should have been done two years prior can be said to be last minute) because at that point the threat of Ed Royce and Kay Granger  throwing a shitfit no longer existed. 

 

At no point in time were funds released to the Palestine Authority. They were earmarked for building infrastructure, providing clean water, electricity, education etc, as well as spending on security in the West Bank, and as always there are a ton of safeguards put in place. Also some portion of it went to israel do to work in the area as well, although I don't want to go look up the details at the moment.

 

If your not familiar with the situation over there, Palestine is...sort of split at the moment  between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Hamas has control of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian government over the West Bank, and this has been the case for more than a decade now. Technically there has been some steps towards reconciliation, but right now that mostly means they probably won't start shooting at each other tomorrow.

 

That aid was approved in an attempt to undercut Hamas's attempts to gain support in the West Bank and help prop the Palestine Government back up. As you may recall, they managed to gain a bunch of their support in the Gaza Strip by exploiting the poor conditions and providing basic services to the people there; by ensuring those services are provided in the West Bank it stops hamas from gaining support and helps create support for the government that isn't lobbing missiles over the border with Israel on a semi regular basis. While i'm not exactly qualified to weigh in on the outcome of foreign policy, the concessious seems to be that aid went a significant way to ensuring the stability of the West Bank.

 

And yea, while Obama authorized the state department to distribute the aid, he did so late enough into his administration that it was left up to the Trump administration to actually distribute it. Signing off on it stopped the aforementioned congressmen from seeing the issue buried in the administration change. (Also it was maybe something of a middle finger to the two of them for fucking around for two years.) Which is why the Trump admin, after making a fuck ton of pointless noise about it and freezing the release of the aid immediately after taking office, quietly released the funds shortly after the news cycled stopped giving a shit. 

 

(yea, that means it the money was acctually released by Trump.) 

 

I'd hit the rest of your post, but Betsy kinda got most of it, and I've already turned 4 sentences into 5 paragraphs which means this is long enough, especially since the whole NK thing is something littreal dissertations have been written about.

 

I've followed Palestinian internal politics on and off for the past 12 years, and it makes my head spin at times! You could write a television show script with all the drama that has gone on between Abbas, the Palestinian Authority, and HAMAS. I fully understand Palestine itself gets a bad rep because of the Gaza Strip, but the question I have always asked is why doesn't Abbas reach out to the international community and ask for helping in destroying HAMAS? Sure its easier said then done as it would infuriate a large amount of Palestinians and could risk civil war. Although the positive prospects of a moderate West Bank, Palestinian government being the sole authority in the region, would aid them in gaining full sovereignty. With HAMAS out of the picture I don't think any nation outside of Israel (possibly the US as well depending on the circumstances) would say Palestine doesn't deserve their own legally recognized country. HAMAS is the very reason that so few people are sympathetic to Palestine, all due to the violence they commit on a semi regular basis. A lot of people, including myself are skeptical of the power the Palestine Authority has at keeping funds out of the hands of HAMAS. HAMAS sure is a creative bunch and I fully believe they are more than capable of exploiting corruption in the West Bank, to siphon resources/monetary aid for their own use. And as you did note, while the Gaza Strip and West Bank aren't on great terms, they aren't currently enemies. Some form of covert cooperation probably exists between the two, even if it is minor.

[Rand0m her0]

 

 

 

Kinda difficult with a land border to the 2 nations who's desire to keep NK afloat is part "we do'nt want this to implode in our backyard" and part "good thing to annoy them americans with" and which keep veto'ing the very nasty stuff.

 

Point still stands, you had an authoritarian/dictatorial/cultivist regime using the USA as the scary boogeyman needing to be protected again (or vanquished) and you didn't really give many openings to lessen that image.

 

And most of the aid is strictly humanitarian, or do you want to strangle the NK powerbase by famine?

Kinda same as NK, stop setting yourself up as the boogeyman (thou here it is more Israel). Iran has an underflow of moderation going for it (hence the former president was the vitriolic but toothless shouter ). The lesser NK cult traits combined with actual power projection does mean Iran is less inclined to activly search nuclear protection.

 

The Israeli "bombshell" just showed basic beaurocracy (keep everythign filed!) together with "we can start this again if you want" but no actual furthering of a nuclear capability has been found. Most of the upper echelon know that it needs to keep up the "bread and games" and as such aren't as stringent in their desire for nukes themselfes.

 

Do wonder if we could wean off their desire for nuclear power (as in electricity) by using their geography (hello dams!).

Well he couldn't just sit still with what the intelligence agency's discovery of attempted electoral hacking (which btw I don't think succeeded). Not like it further soured the already acidic ocean between the US and Russia at that point >_>

 

Heck Trump had the same "thaw" as Obama had, it just stopped that bit sooner, which couldn't even be blamed on Trump either, was once again Russia poking its tentacles out trying to see howfar it got into its "world power" position.

And speaking of last minute things, I just remembered that on his last several hours as President, Obama tried to quietly give $221 Million to Palestine. I understand the monetary transfer had been discusses for some time. But it came off as a slap on the face. Because we all know deep down who really would have found a way to commandeer that money, Hamas.

Always been more for straight up goods instead of $$ aid, thou unsure if they would just wire over the cash rather then buy food/other commodities to distribute (the usual route).

 

I am trying to structure this in a way that doesn't make me sound heartless, as that isn't my intention. Severely limiting the amount of humanitarian aid/food to NK might actually be a positive outcome for western nations. While somewhat of a remote possibility, if millions starve, eventually the North Korean people could revolt against their government. It is incredibly difficult to give an accurate assessment since NK experienced massive famine in the 90s and as far as we publicly know, no coups or attempted revolts took place. But this option would let the people of North Korea solve their own problem of overthrowing their government. After all, the most positive outcome to the North Korea situation is if the people themselves stood up and said, "we are taking control of our own future from now on". I think everyone can agree that is the best case scenario as its letting them fix their own country.
 

 

Literally nothing north korea does is worth trading millions of lives for. As well, NK is perfectly capable of sustaining itself even in that event. they would almost certainly starve the their citizens,. however as long as they keep the army fed, and they can manage that on the back of slave labor if they need too, the government will maintain control. In the worst case scenario it pushes NK into taking military action against the south in an attempt to prop themselves up because the government has nothing else to lose, at which point, well see all those guns pointed at the South.

 

Cutting off that aid would do almost nothing to remove the NK govement from power and only force it into worse abuses. I don't have time to distil the entire topic, but suffice to say there's a reason that some 50ish years of successive administrations have been willing to ship food and etc there, and it's not because every single one of them was a bunch of idiots. 

 

 

 

I've followed Palestinian internal politics on and off for the past 12 years, and it makes my head spin at times! You could write a television show script with all the drama that has gone on between Abbas, the Palestinian Authority, and HAMAS. I fully understand Palestine itself gets a bad rep because of the Gaza Strip, but the question I have always asked is why doesn't Abbas reach out to the international community and ask for helping in destroying HAMAS? Sure its easier said then done as it would infuriate a large amount of Palestinians and could risk civil war. Although the positive prospects of a moderate West Bank, Palestinian government being the sole authority in the region, would aid them in gaining full sovereignty. With HAMAS out of the picture I don't think any nation outside of Israel (possibly the US as well depending on the circumstances) would say Palestine doesn't deserve their own legally recognized country. HAMAS is the very reason that so few people are sympathetic to Palestine, all due to the violence they commit on a semi regular basis. A lot of people, including myself are skeptical of the power the Palestine Authority has at keeping funds out of the hands of HAMAS. HAMAS sure is a creative bunch and I fully believe they are more than capable of exploiting corruption in the West Bank, to siphon resources/monetary aid for their own use. And as you did note, while the Gaza Strip and West Bank aren't on great terms, they aren't currently enemies. Some form of covert cooperation probably exists between the two, even if it is minor.

 

 

 

Because as the US has insisted on proving again and again at the cost of trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives over the last 20 years, you can't actually solve an issue like hamas by bombing them. They're a symptom of systemic issues related to the palestine authority limited ability to provide for its people coupled with the tensions re: Israel which they can exploit to gain support. Large scale military action would only serve to destabilize the region further. As well given that a lot of the tension there is a result of perceived imperialism,. having outside forces intervene would only further serve to delegitimize the non crazy government.  There's a reason why Israel has refrained from taking that large scale action. Right now, hamas is about as close to a nuisance as pseudo terrorists groups get. Large scale action would prompt worse issues and require major expenditures of blood and money, this would be stupid when dealing with an organization that is currently losing support anyways.

 

 

 

>A lot of people, including myself are skeptical of the power the Palestine Authority has at keeping funds out of the hands of HAMAS. 

 

And as mentioned, the Palestine Authority doesn't need to do this. That aid does not amount to a blank check and a pinky promise. The money is not release to the Palestine Authority control, there is a giant mess of safeguards, etc. The US state department has a lot of experience handling exactly that kind of issue and a very good track record. When you hear about aid money being misused, it's almost always something via private donors or charity drives or etc.

 

And again, there's a reason why the Trump admin went ahead and released it. The whole flareup about it was pure and utter manufactured outrage bait because "OBAMA SNEAKILY BETRAYS AMERICA!"  is exactly the kind of headline Breitbart etc makes their money on. 

[DeathMerchant]

I should have expanded on my premise that a North Korean revolt would need the support of the Army. Particularly individual soldiers and NCOs. The only way they would turn on their government is if their families starved. No one would continue to provide security for a government that couldn't even feed their own family. North Korea has a strange hold over their psychology of its military and populace, but the prospect of starvation could be its breaking point. I can't reasonably foresee the North attacking South Korea on grounds it is losing all forms of aid. Kim would need his troops stationed within the North to quell rebellion as public dissent would massively increase. Kim cares most about the survival of his own regime, not the survival of the people. And he is very much aware that starting a war at this moment in time would mean the end of his regime.

Pursuing military action against HAMAS would best be accomplished not by bombing them, especially given their close proximity to working within civilian infrastructure. The better approach would be an international Community Oriented Policing (COP) operation. Those had some success in Iraq as it got the community involved in creating trust and learning to take responsibility in their individual neighborhoods. As for the distribution of aid, I will have to look more into it. I was on the premise the Palestinian Authority was given about 80% of the money, with the rest being distributed to other organizations. I am wary of safeguards due to the US barely oversaw hundreds of millions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan for nation building projects, and look how the majority of those turned out. I have very strong feelings its naive to expect the State Department can 100% say, not a single penny will be lost to corruption or end up in the hands or terrorism. The Palestinian Authority isn't exactly a well oiled machine capable of functioning best toward their own interests. Sometimes they make compromises with HAMAS as they would rather appease them then start another internal war.

[onbekende]

I am trying to structure this in a way that doesn't make me sound heartless, as that isn't my intention. Severely limiting the amount of humanitarian aid/food to NK might actually be a positive outcome for western nations. While somewhat of a remote possibility, if millions starve, eventually the North Korean people could revolt against their government. It is incredibly difficult to give an accurate assessment since NK experienced massive famine in the 90s and as far as we publicly know, no coups or attempted revolts took place. But this option would let the people of North Korea solve their own problem of overthrowing their government. After all, the most positive outcome to the North Korea situation is if the people themselves stood up and said, "we are taking control of our own future from now on". I think everyone can agree that is the best case scenario as its letting them fix their own country.

.
Indeed they had a widespread famine before, it didn't do squat about the hegemony of the Kim family. The cultist tendency's have made any North Korean not exposed to a different viewpoint (regardless which) into a zealot for the Kim family tree.

 

Sure a slow and internal change is prefered, just don't go try and catalyze it with a civil war will ya... We could probably count on 1 hand the nations that transitioned towards a "better" future after a coup/revolution against the many counts of nations who just devolved or got caught in a bloody civil war.
.

The issue with Iran comes down to many Americans flat out do not trust the Iranian government. Quite frankly the majority of that distrust stems from the established fact Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Providing funds, weapons, and training to terrorist groups + paramilitary organizations that are heavily radicalized. Iran has spent decades engaging in subversion tactics throughout the middle east, and its not unreasonable to expect their government to continue such behavior when engaging in the global political sphere. Its also not completely unreasonable, albeit somewhat improbable, that after producing nuclear weapons Iran could theoretically in 10-20 years supply Hamas, or another popular terrorist group with a Tactical Nuclear weapon. That in of itself would truly be a game changer, regardless if that weapon is ever detonated or if its to engage in MAD theory deterrence.

.
One mans terrorist group is anothers freedom fighters, please be consistent and throw the Saudi's under the same bus you want the Iranians under.

 

Thusfar no nation has "handed over" any nuclear weapon towards a non-nation or private army type organisation, heck I would be more worried about Pakistan in that sense.

 

And Iran in that is even a special case, they were predominantly trying to develop their own nuclear power technology (and for that you indeed also need centrifuges). Offcourse I aint naive enough to think they would just keep it to that, but if some of the developments surrounding their uranium enrichment and talks surrounding it have shown it isn't their primary driving force. Heck they are fine with Russia building all their nuclear power facilities and then getting them handed over (and also buying the fuel from Russia proper).

 

We have a saying for Trumps actions surrounding this: don't throw out the child with the bathwater, further talks and actual facts could have made for a more favourable enviroment were a plausible renegotiation could have been held. Now you are basically resetting the talks and stopped giving Iran reasons to hold off on spinning up the centrifuges.
.

I still haven't the slightest clue if the Russian meddling in the 2016 has any merit. I've seen evidence it allegedly happened, and some US intelligence experts say it occurred. On the other hand, evidence exists it didn't happen, or the Russians mulled the idea around but never followed through with an actual attempt. A couple months ago I had a conversation with a relative who has a friend of a friend that works at CNN. I forget their exact position but it is somewhat higher up. My relative asked them what they actually knew about alleged Russian interference with the election. Their reply was that as far as they were aware, nothing significant occurred that could be verified. CNN basically took the accusation and ran with it as the truth. First reason was for ratings, second reason was making Trump look bad. Could the person have lied to my relative? Its possible, or CNN honestly doesn't have definitive proof and is going off pure speculation. One would believe that if definitive proof existed, someone (or multiple individuals) would have been indicted by now.

.

Traces have been found of Russian led (or tied to) groups trying to infiltrated a dozen states voting/counting governmental organisations. No evidence was found of actual breaches or tampering of the inner workings. These are the facts currently reported and undisputed by organisations that matter (people shouting various theories/hoaxes not withstanding). Also many sanctions/indictments have been thrown around surrounding these actions, issue is that it is nearly all non-USA citizens (which would be a given no? )

 

Also, lol at running a story for ratings, this once again ties into ALL your major news channels running more "insight into event X" type programs then actual "this is news item X" newscasts.

[Lysistrata]

Are there any skeptics left? Most everything is already done. While Democrats in Congress are dragging their feet on nominations, the media is obsessed with porn stars and lawyers, Progressive zealots are clinging on to lies about Russia, race, and impeachment... Donald Trump is blowing right past them. The timing of the pullout of the Iran nuke deal is no coincidence. This is a blueprint for the world on how to deal with uncooperative nations. Korea will be a bad dream of the past next month, and then all eyes will turn to Iran.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/12/north-korea-to-hold-ceremony-dismantling-nuclear-site-on-may-23-25-state-media.html

[onbekende]

Well I am skeptic cause they agreed to stop using the site they themselfes made unusable by collapsing their test shafts and making the mountain fall down giving a massive earthquake.

 

it is basically the equivalent of the US abandoning Bikini atol.

 

Basically alot of "good will" is coming from the NK side, I just hope they keep their demands on the low side.

 

As for Singapore summit, frankly am surprised they went for that place.

[Lysistrata]

I think the deal is already sealed. Too many early concessions for a deal not to already be in place. They will meet, talk for awhile, have a nice dinner... then a photo op and signing ceremony, and it's done. Then all pressure will be placed on Iran. Life is good

[onbekende]

You don't do diplomacy do you...

 

I would expect starting price to be no US armed forces in Korea. Probably watered down to big photo op of nukes leavng SK.

[Lysistrata]

You don't do diplomacy do you...

 

I would expect starting price to be no US armed forces in Korea. Probably watered down to big photo op of nukes leavng SK.

If a peace treaty is signed, there is no reason for thousands of US troops to be stationed in South Korea. I expect them to come home, and "the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" is exactly what it says it is. Little Kimmy wants to be the leader they have never had. He plays this right, he will bring unity and prosperity to his people.

 

They get rid of the nukes and I see Amazon, McDonalds, Apple, and Coca-Cola coming in just to start things off. Cattle, chickens, pigs, and how to grow more than rice. Beachfront property finally granted it's place as "highest and best use". People working, earning a wage, and creating a real economy. I see Kimmy given two phone numbers... Ivanka and Don Jr., his "Project Managers" with instructions to do everything they say. By the time Trump is out of office, Trump Industries will be drawing a piece of everything North Korean just for brokering the deals. Peace, unity, economic growth, and a place on the world stage... Little Kimmy's dream.

 

And the entire world will thank Donald Trump. This is what making a billionaire the President looks like.

[onbekende]

aaaah, the capitalist dream.

 

or delusion in this case. How you think you will get Kim from "complete crazy" to "sheep willing to follow" is beyond me.

 

And besides, are we still sure he is actually a billionaire? He tends to fluctuate his worth depending on who's asking (usually between the givers and the takers ).