ADDED: Here's the transcript of the speech. Just yesterday, I was focusing on a question asked on CNN: "Will the president stick by his America-first message when he appears before the U.N. this coming week?" So let's look at the place in today's speech where Trump says "America first":
The greatest in the United States Constitution is its first three beautiful words. They are: “We the people.”
Generations of Americans have sacrificed to maintain the promise of those words, the promise of our country, and of our great history. In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.
In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens -- to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.
In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.
In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens -- to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.
As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first. (Applause.)
All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.
But making a better life for our people also requires us to work together in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.
The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return. As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else.
But in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.
পোস্টগুলি
১৭৭টি মন্তব্য:
Man...he is on a tear.
Refugee crisis, Cuba, Venezuela...
How much the US pays for the UN...
OHHHH...shit
"The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented." Wow...the effing room was stunned.
A new American doctrine - nationalism as a moral good.
He is iconoclastic against modern thought, but probably this is a speech that JFK would have given.
That was very American and I think Trump is improving the standing of America around the world. However Merkel is probably going to need antacids.
It's speeches like this that make Chuck deserve every kick in the teeth that he will receive in this lifetime. And the next.
Xmas..."The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented." Wow...the effing room was stunned...YEP!
Re-run the pearl-clutching photo
I wish I'd caught the whole speech but I thought the last 15 minutes were memorable and spot-on,
Xmas..."The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented." Wow...the effing room was stunned...YEP!
Beautiful! Cookie, any thoughts?
"Xmas..."The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented." Wow...the effing room was stunned...YEP!"
That got a warm, sincere-sounding murmur of appreciation followed by applause.
Great speech by the way. He killed it.
Xmas said...
Man...he is on a tear.
OHHHH...shit
"The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented." Wow...the effing room was stunned.
9/19/17, 9:39 AM
--
That's one of the greatest lines I've heard on Socialism. Kudos Mr. President.
"He killed it." He did. I hope he remembers it tomorrow and next month.
Watch the unfolding of the pre-determined media narrative: Respect and support for national sovereignty is "what a dictator would say."
RE Merkel - yesterday Trump met with Macron and they had a confab. Merkel is pretty directly pinned to supporting Macron, so anything Macron goes with Merkel will have trouble opposing. The Polish/French encirclement proceeds.
Since Trump's election the German government has been so critical of the word "nationalism" (in a grossly hypocritical way) and so critical of Trump's nationalism that this is pretty much a cocklebur enema for her.
Excellent speech, but Trump is not a great formal speaker and has trouble even reading the teleprompter. This speech was excellent for its sentiments and sincerity and clarity in spite of the speaker.
I found it astounding but Trumpish that he used the "Rocketman" tag on Kim.
Every day in Trump's America gets just a bit better.
RE Merkel - yesterday Trump met with Macron and they had a confab. Merkel is pretty directly pinned to supporting Macron, so anything Macron goes with Merkel will have trouble opposing. The Polish/French encirclement proceeds.
And the German election is next Sunday, is it not? While I'd love to see Merkel unseated, I doubt it will happen.
Yes someone has to tell let boil to what to say
Http://freebeacon.com/national-security/bolton-trumps-u-n-speech-the-best-of-his-presidency
Wow, what a good speech. It's nice to have an American president think and speak clearly on the issues of the day.
Socialism is a flawed economic/social system. It leads to the destruction of wealth and peace. See Venezuela.
Mass illegal immigration is a flawed social policy. It disrupts and weakens the bonds of the destination country.
North Korea and Iran are rogue states. The first is a sclerotic monument to the ugliness of communism and authoritarianism. The second is a modern monument to the craziness of orthodox Islam. Both oppress their own people. Both seek nuclear weapons to threaten and leverage their evil aims and intentions against the free world.
Way to go, Trump!
That's the best thing a president has said since "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
@mocktutle Minimal chance Merkel will be defeated. The Germans are very slow to deal with new things - that's not entirely bad!. Trump and Macron represent new things that are a direct threat to Germany's success and complaisance. Merkel has not been bad for Germany (excepting the refugee situation), but the rules of the game in the West are changing and she will have to adapt. It is certainly understandable that they would be nervous about "nationalism" - look where it got them the last time!
I suspect we will be seeing subtle shifts in Germany's approach to the EU and the US after the election and when Merkel has her ruling coalition together. I don't think the woman is stupid. Germany is an important ally for us and we need to work with (not follow) Merkel.
"However Merkel is probably going to need antacids."
She and the rest of Europe are going to need antmuslims.
Can't wait to read some of the MSM (and Bernie's) bloviation on the Venezuela comment. We will be plied with success stories like ... the Soviet Union... Cuba.... Chicago(?)!
I liked Trump's unequivocally anti globalist speech.
I don't understand the vision of the globalists. How is that supposed to work?
World wide elections of an international congress and a world president?
That doesn't sound very practical.
Look at the United Nations. Heck, look at our own Congress and the controversies surrounding our last presidential election.
You don't seem to hear any globalists talking about the details. Maybe we have to adopt globalism to find out what's in it.
If you actually support nationalism, I'm not sure why you would particularly like this speech. It was larded with the same kind of internationalist rhetoric we've been spoon fed on foreign affairs for years.
Sean Penn, are you available for comment?
Couldn't see his teleprompter. How does he do that, speak quickly and coherently for an hour and a half, moving quickly from subject to subject?
Which idiot thinks he isn't smart?
I don't understand the vision of the globalists. How is that supposed to work?
George Soros wants to destroy the non-Socialist West and have the Left take it over. Until that happens the chaos opens up the possibility of huge financial gains in the currency, stock, and commodities markets in those Capitalist economies.
"The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented."
I'm not listening to the speech. Did Trump say that?
Did Bernie Sanders faint?
Althouse thinks it was a great speech. I am inclined to agree. Although it seems that great speeches come out of this White House on very rare occasions when the speechwriters are called in and everyone agrees that it will be a sane speech, written by someone like Michael Anton, or even a marginally-sane operative like Stephen Miller. Measured, and with words that are mostly carefully chosen (apart from Trump's little add-on asides).
And of course today's speech was comprehensively unlike anything and everything that Trump said about the UN while he was campaigning.
But that seems to only be a problem for me, and others who listen to Trump's words and measure them against logic and reason and commonly-understood meanings. When I suppose the fact is that Trump is just speaking to the emotions of base populations.
Like the wall. Trump is never going to build any fucking border wall. His Republican rivals said that Trump wouldn't build a "great wall," and Trump wouldn't get Mexico to pay for it. And they were right. And they were right to call Trump on it. But a lot of stupid people liked hearing Trump say it. Even if it was stupid, and Trump was wrong. And now, if Trump does what was done by responsible Republicans who were in Washington before Trump and will be in Washington after Trump -- namely, building strategic portions of a border wall on a cost-effective basis because we will be paying for it and Mexico won't -- Trump will try to claim a victory.
David Frum is right, in his own use of Twitter: "Regular reminder that Donald Trump’s core competency is not dealmaking with powerful counter-parties. It is duping gullible victims."
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/845314898276106240?lang=en
I'm not listening to the speech. Did Trump say that?
Yes. He didn't pull any punches regarding the failures of socialism.
Chuck, can you name the Presidents in our generation who did not use speechwriters?
F* yeah!
You can almost smell the collective left's poopy diaper.
The socialism line is the best line said by a President this century so far.
Did Sanders faint into Pelosi's arms? Medicrap for all!
College-age American leftists are so stupid, they think Socialism is good because it has the word "social" in it. Plus, that means stuff is free and stuff. Bernie promises.
"And of course today's speech was comprehensively unlike anything and everything that Trump said about the UN while he was campaigning."
Wasnt a Trump voter first time around, but I did pay attention. Trump said the same things about the UN -- US pays way too much, that countries with horrible human rights abuses are on the Human Rights Committee, that far away bureaucracies will not and cannot solve problems, that ceding sovereignty to the UN is ridiculous, that democracy is the way to peace and prosperity and the US is now and has since WWII led the world toward those goals -- in this speech that he did throughout campaigning.
LLR takes time out from declaring Obama "magnificent" to lament Trumps capabilities.
LOL
Did Bernie Sanders faint?
Bernie and the faint of heart LLR's.
We already have a border wall in many areas of the border with Mexico.
The question is what will be added. If even one foot is added, Trump can claim to have built a wall.
What Trump is symbolizing with his comment, build the wall, is really about borders. And the Globalists believe in a world without borders, and Trump believes the US should have borders. Trump has already moved the conversation from should we have borders or not. He broke the overton window on illegal immigration into the US.
Mockturtle - but Merkel is the clear pick for PM. Not that they directly vote for her. But if they did, she would win reelection. The only alternative (SPD/Schulz) is clearly worse, and in any case, he didn't even try. This is the doofus who is wandering around Germany saying that Europe should have a unified household budget. It is hard to imagine a less attractive proposition for the German voters, who pay very high taxes. My reading is that Schulz deliberately threw this one.
The minority parties are Die Linke (commies), FPD (German conservatives), Gruene (Greens, commies driving electric cars fueled by solar panels), and AfD (Alternative for Germany aka Anything But This). The Greens and the FPD are not doing well and will probably only barely get into parliament.
It looks like Groko again (Union/SPD). If by some chance they can't form a majority, then the fun begins, because AfD and Die Linke are projected to be the next largest parties, and AfD is out. Both SPD and Union announced beforehand that they would not work with their foul evil, and indeed will find it difficult to tolerate their foul stench in the Bundestag. Some of the Linke leaders are protesting in horror at the idea of forming a coalition with the SPD or the Union. But the Linke is the best option if Groko fails. The other parties will have such a small number of seats that they really don't get them anywhere.
I think it is going to be Groko, but it looks like together that will be less than 60%. Erdogan has requested that his German supporters not vote for Union or SPD, which will make the resulting government an historically weak one. Both Die Linke and AfD are gaining strongly in four or five East German provinces, and the resulting government will very poorly represent those areas. So now a geographic split develops in Germany in a way that the Germans have actively tried to prevent. Plus it appears that Die Linke and AfD will be very active opposition parties.
The real fun in German elections occurs after the election as the winners negotiate; in this case SPD may have influence out of all proportion to its voting results. Without them, Merkel would have to bring in Die Linke, FPD, AND AfD for a workable majority. So what seems on the surface to be a non-election may result in real change a couple years down the road.
Today I'm truly scared and embarrassed to be an American. Donald Trump is a disgrace to the world and must be opposed!
Angela Merkel - please save us from the orange ape!
Socialism just hasn't been faithfully implemented cons. We need to to give it a full chance!
What else would one expect from President Tiny Hands & tiny dick.
"Chuck, can you name the Presidents in our generation who did not use speechwriters?"
He may not know this but the last president to write his own speeches was Calvin Coolidge.
mockturtle said...
Chuck, can you name the Presidents in our generation who did not use speechwriters?
They all did! I'd be happier, if we never heard from Trump again, and every word from Trump came through a White House speechwriter.
The only time that Trump avoids sounding like a character in The Sopranos is when he is reading a speech.
I should add; that while I liked Trump's speech, I didn't like his delivery at all. Those annoying little salesman-pitches that he adds to the written text; so damned annoying. He is a guy who is so used to words meaning nothing, that he can't trust the words in a crafted, approved speech. He has to keep saying, "Believe me..." A guy who keeps saying, "Believe me," is a guy who you probably shouldn't believe.
Fantastic speech! Reagan-esque!
(I didn't see it. Just giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.)
@MaxedOutMama:I found it astounding but Trumpish that he used the "Rocketman" tag on Kim.
When Hugo Chavez said "smells of sulfur" about George W. Bush, it went over pretty well at the UN.
Yes, we got the message a long time ago, Chuck, that you don't like Trump. These knee-jerk expostulations are totally unnecessary.
@Alex: "What else would one expect from President Tiny Hands & tiny dick."
Several problems here:
1) "Tiny" should not be capitalized
2) Where's the question mark at the end?
3) Actually, "Tiny" should be capitalized since you have used it as part of a nickname, but then, so too should the other "tiny" and "dick" as well.
4) Too much hyperbole. Trump's hands appear fairly normal-sized. Can you palm a basketball? His dick we know very little about. Bill Clinton's dick was "bent," according to eyewitness Paula Jones.
5) Humor deficient. This is probably due to relying on an overused punchline. The word "dick," still has humor currency, but not in this context.
6) Spelling checks out.
"When I suppose the fact is that Trump is just speaking to the emotions of base populations."
Marcus Tullius Cicero - De Invenzione - Book I, Chap. XV
"An exordium is an address bringing the mind of the hearer into a suitable state to receive the rest of the speech; and that will be effected if it has rendered him well disposed towards the speaker, attentive, and willing to receive information."
...
"Therefore, the exordium is divided into two portions, first of all a beginning, and secondly language calculated to enable the orator to work his way into the good graces of his hearers. The beginning is an address, in plain words, immediately rendering the hearer well disposed towards one, or inclined to receive information, or attentive The language calculated to enable the orator to work his way into the good graces of his hearers, is an address which employs a certain dissimulation, and which by a circuitous route as it were obscurely creeps into the affections of the hearer."
And. etc. Read the whole thing, very worthwhile.
Watched it. Sad he keeps taking my most-improved talking/trolling/poeting title, it's all I got left.
That and the fact I wasn't a part of this: https://mobile.twitter.com/jgav71/status/713564934093856768
But Trump is way better than advertised and I sold him as Milt Friedman's perfect potUS given the all-around hate incentivizing doing the right thing.
Let me say you are more than forgiven to the Jews embarrassed by their tribal hatred of Trump given his words toward and support from Israel.
"Let me say you are more than forgiven to the Jews embarrassed by their tribal hatred of Trump given his words toward and support from Israel."
US Jews of a certain class seem estranged from and not to have much sympathy for Israel. This seems to amount to outright hatred at times.
Socialism is Communism's ugly little brother.
"That got a warm, sincere-sounding murmur of appreciation followed by applause."
Not really. A small number in a large, silent, room.
"Great speech by the way. He killed it."
From the bits I watched, agreed.
Reading over the transcript, a few things jumped out at me:
"We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people."
How is that nationalism? It is not an American national security interest how foolishly the Venezuelans decide to structure their economic or political situation.
"It is time for North Korea to realize that the denuclearization is its only acceptable future."
Sounds precariously close to a red line to me. What if North Korea continues to develop its program? Will Trump launch an illegal, preventative strike on North Korea, one that could actually result in nuclear exchange? Tough talk my surge a certain segment of the populus' serotonin, but it's more often than not a dead end in international relations.
The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don't think you've heard the last of it. Believe me.
Trump continues to spout nonsense about the Iranian Nuclear deal and appears committed to destroying it, even as major allies like UK, France, and Germany support it, and after the US intellegience community and the IAEA have certified that Iran is in compliance. If Trump thinks he can get a "better deal," perhaps he can explain what those terms would be and why he would be able to get the Iranians to comply. Again, the devil is in the details. Tough rhetoric is the cheapest form of diplomacy imaginable.
"Last month I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan. From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operation, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians. I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups."
What "security interests" do we have in Afghanistan? We're putting American troops in the middle of a multifacted civil war on the side of a government that faces little legitimacy and is constantly hounded by charges of corruption. Why are the Pakistani Taliban not a security threat to us?
The dude sure knows how to read off of a teleprompter. He should do that all the time. He was at his most coherent. Not inspired, but coherent.
vicki from Pasadena
"Trump continues to spout nonsense about the Iranian Nuclear deal and appears committed to destroying it"
We have been arguing this extensively below.
But I have not gotten into desiderata -
A proper nuclear deal would include an immediate and complete dismantling of Bushehr and all existing enrichment infrastructure, plus a ban on long range missile development and test launches, on pain of large fines or territorial loss. As well an agreement on the part of Iran to cease all official rhetoric hostile to the United States.
If Trump ever needed Steve Bannon to write a speech for him it was for the UN occasion. Stephen Miller, a certified dumbass, wrote the "total destruction" speech doubling down on Trump's "fire & fury" remark. North Korea is a nuclear weapons state, and as such, we can't start a war there.
"Will Trump launch an illegal, preventative strike on North Korea,"
:O You would let North Korea finish developing a nuclear capability on working long-distance missiles? Stop them now, and it will not "actually result in nuclear exchange", as they have no such ability now. You would wait? Insane.
I read that Trump stated we might have to "totally destroy North Korea?" Is this correct? If so, he's a disgrace and a fool.
We haven't been able to totally destroy Afghanistan despite our years of bombing there, (just as we couldn't totally destroy Vietnam, despite our hitting them with more bombs than had been dropped throughout WWII), so how does he expect to "totally destroy" North Korea? He must be alluding to using nukes, which makes him look like a psychopath.
We are in THE DEAD ZONE and Trump is Martin Sheen!
I haven't had a chance to see it yet, but I'm pretty shocked that this site and it's commenters think he gave a wonderful speech.
@MikeR:
You would let North Korea finish developing a nuclear capability on working long-distance missiles? Stop them now, and it will not "actually result in nuclear exchange", as they have no such ability now. You would wait? Insane.
North Korea's ability to deliver a nuclear weapon is not currently agreed on, so it is quite possible that they have the ability to deliver a weapon, even if not at great length. But even North Korea's conventional military hardware could cause devastation to Seoul, whose metropolitan area is home to nearly 10,000,000 people. Also, there is no guarantee that a war against North Korea would bring in the Chinese, who most certainly do possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Now I don't think that is likely, but given that I think we can contain a nuclear North Korea with a lot less cost and destruction than trying to destroy them, I think it is by far the better option.
@buwaya:
A proper nuclear deal would include an immediate and complete dismantling of Bushehr and all existing enrichment infrastructure, plus a ban on long range missile development and test launches, on pain of large fines or territorial loss. As well an agreement on the part of Iran to cease all official rhetoric hostile to the United States.
Neither Iran nor our major allies would support such a deal. So then what?
'We could destroy you,' Obama warns 'erratic' North Korean leader
A "proper" deal with any country would include a commitment by that country's government - official and unofficial - to adhere to that deal.
Anybody give a thought to the japanese people and how they may feel about the air raid sirens being sounded and their governmennt advising them to take cover every time the despised Koreans send a missile arcing over Japan?
"awoke"
@Mac McConnell:
'We could destroy you,' Obama warns 'erratic' North Korean leader
Not precisely. The actual quote was, "We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals. But aside from the humanitarian costs of that, they are right next door to our vital ally, [South] Korea."
Slightly different flavor, but a still an ill advised, unhelpful comment to make. The most proximate effect of continuously threatening North Korea with total destruction and annihilation is likely to make them think that rapidly advancing their nuclear weapons program would be their only way to prevent such an attack.
"Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Xmas..."The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented." Wow...the effing room was stunned...YEP!"
That got a warm, sincere-sounding murmur of appreciation followed by applause...."
That's interesting - I'd like to say 'Amen' but my 'live' response while watching was far murkier. Indeed, i spent the next minutes trying my best to comprehend those 'murmurs'/visuals...'what do they mean??' I wondered. Still haven't decided so I'll probably try a search and review of that taped portion....
@Hagar:
A "proper" deal with any country would include a commitment by that country's government - official and unofficial - to adhere to that deal.
The nuclear deal, if that is what you are referring to, has such a commitment and has numerous mechanisms to ensure commitment. The US and the IAEA have both confirmed that the Iranians have been in compliance. If the Trump administration believes they are violating it, why not just tell us what terms have been violated and show the evidence?
The best way to "deal with" the DPRK may be to find a way to point out to the people of North Korea that their emperor has no clothes on.
Calling him "Rocketman" is a step in that direction.
transcript.
@Hagar:
The best way to "deal with" the DPRK may be to find a way to point out to the people of North Korea that their emperor has no clothes on.
Calling him "Rocketman" is a step in that direction.
And what percent of North Korea do you think will be aware of that statement? And how easily does "rocketman" translate into Korean?
@mac said:
"....The most proximate effect of continuously threatening North Korea with total destruction and annihilation is likely to make them think that rapidly advancing their nuclear weapons program would be their only way to prevent such an attack."
If they are indeed so stupid as to "think" only that, they are even more dangerous than might otherwise appear.
We are in THE DEAD ZONE and Trump is Martin Sheen!
Pretty clever way to threaten the life of a sitting US President. Do we really want the secret service shutting down Althouse website?
gg6:
If they are indeed so stupid as to "think" only that, they are even more dangerous than might otherwise appear.
One word: Libya. They gave up their WMD capabilities in order to alleviate international isolation and sanctions. How well did that work out for them? It would not be a leap for North Korea to draw a lesson. Also, Iraq had no nuclear WMD, and its government was destroyed. It would actually be quite rational from North Korea's standpoint to believe that a nuclear deterrent was your only insurance against invasion and regime change.
If other nations live in prosperity and freedom, their people won't want to flee here or Europe. So - nationalism.
The nuclear deal, if that is what you are referring to, has such a commitment and has numerous mechanisms to ensure commitment. The US and the IAEA have both confirmed that the Iranians have been in compliance. If the Trump administration believes they are violating it, why not just tell us what terms have been violated and show the evidence?
This is just B.S. The Iranian government is proclaiming their newfund love for the "deal" after Trump's election to the western press because it hamstrings the U.S., while at home in Iran and across the Middle East the ayatollahs and the generals assure their adherents and allies that Iran has no intention of ever observing any "deals" made with the "Crusaders."
And they have done so from the beginning - ever since Obama announced this "deal" that he apparently negotiated with himself.
@Hagar:
The Iranian government is proclaiming their newfund love for the "deal" after Trump's election to the western press because it hamstrings the U.S., while at home in Iran and across the Middle East the ayatollahs and the generals assure their adherents and allies that Iran has no intention of ever observing any "deals" made with the "Crusaders."
What is your source for this claim? If the Iranians are not adhering to the deal, why would the Trump administration and the inspections regime certify their compliance?
Apparently South Koreans have put a lot of effort into smuggling radios and other communications devices into the North. The North also still does a lot of business with China and others. As such, we can assume at least some penetration of outside news. Whether it is believed is another question. Whether the people of North Korea will ever be in a position to take action against the regime is the important question. But don't assume that 'Lil Kim can cut off all outside news.
I haven't had a chance to see it yet, but I'm pretty shocked that this site and it's [sic] commenters think he gave a wonderful speech.
Another way for harrowgate to phrase his comment: "I haven't had a chance to see it yet, but since it's Trump I assume that the speech is at best mediocre and at its worst as utterly deplorable as Trump's voters."
Putting America first is a bad way to explain what happens.
Trump is negotiating for America, and you guys negotiate for your countries. Where we can both come out ahead, then and only then is there a deal.
Trump won't make a losing deal for America, and neither should you guys make a losing deal for yourselves.
It just describes a normal economic transaction.
Trump is saying that America is not a perpetual charity.
Alex's Tourette's syndrome is getting much worse.
The best plan to deal with the Norks is to built a real missile defense system which we do not have.
We do have a limited system in Korea, but the new developments mean the system cannot deal with mid course missile flight.
Codevilla: I don’t think North Korea will go beyond doing what it’s been doing so successfully for the past 25 years — which is to say — a blackmail scheme which the US has been perfectly content to play along with.
AT: China’s state-run newspaper Global Times recently ran an editorial suggesting that Beijing would tolerate a “surgical strike” against North Korea’s nuke facilities. Does this represent a major shift in China’s stance toward Pyongyang?
Codevilla: In this regard, suggestions that China has changed its policy toward North Korea and would not object to a US “surgical strike” on North Korea’s nuclear program are based on throwaway lines in a state-run newspaper. China reiterated its pro forma statements and disapproval of North Korea’s nukes and its talk of economic sanctions. And of course, China’s response to a US surgical strike on North Korea would not be World War III.
Farmer has good points but Korea is an existential problem.
@rhhardin:
Trump won't make a losing deal for America, and neither should you guys make a losing deal for yourselves.
It just describes a normal economic transaction.
Trump is saying that America is not a perpetual charity.
What deals is he talking about and to whom is he talking?
Cookie may have to exercise his guarantee of right-of-natural return to the Soviet Union after threatening the President. Maybe the Soviets have a time machine to put him in 1948 so that he can enjoy the full experience.
"What "security interests" do we have in Afghanistan? "
Prestige and the Pax Americana.
Thats a much bigger deal than might be assumed.
Granted, these are moot at this point, the US is not going to have any weight here until there is a huge and effective show of force. The Obama administration turned the US into a paper tiger. Thats why the Chinese were fine blowing him off.
"Neither Iran nor our major allies would support such a deal."
Not initially.
But the US has been reluctant to try to bring them - "major allies" - around.
The US has not brought the pain. It can, but hasn't got the will.
@buwaya:
Prestige and the Pax Americana.
Thats a much bigger deal than might be assumed
Actually, it's just the opposite. It's a cliched "credibility" argument. The Chinese are likely happy to see us fritter away our resources on a useless mission like Afghanistan. The notion that if we abandoned failed policies, it will embolden adversaries was always a very weak argument.
The Obama administration turned the US into a paper tiger. Thats why the Chinese were fine blowing him off.
Nonsense. Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, expanded the drone war to several countries, carried out a regime change operation in Libya, and helped to prolong and escalate a civil war in Syria. Meanwhile, to the anger of the Pakistanis, he violated Pakistani sovereignty in order to kill bin Laden. I'm okay with that, but none of this points to a so called "paper tiger."
"One word: Libya. They gave up their WMD capabilities in order to alleviate international isolation and sanctions. How well did that work out for them? "
That was a terrible mistake. Gaddafi should have been let alone. The Euros and the US administration were very short-sighted. The same they they were re Mubarak and Egypt. Egypt managed to recover, mostly, but not Libya.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Xmas..."The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented." Wow...the effing room was stunned...YEP!"
That got a warm, sincere-sounding murmur of appreciation followed by applause."
Well, I would LUV to agree, Ms. A, but sadly cannot. I reviewed the tape of that portion and I would describe the reaction of the UN audience as perhaps 'stunned, surprised and taken aback"....but certainly not "appreciation" by more than a very few - including what i would label the 'hesitant, uncertain and feeble APPLAUSE". I think Trump literally took their breath away by so clearly condemning Socialism. They were shocked and aghast, I would say.
Even more fascinating was the look on Trumps face as he paused to gauge the reaction himself - personally, I thought I detected a knowing smile of satisfaction at what he had just done to this crowd.
In any event, Bravo, I say.
"The Chinese are likely happy to see us fritter away our resources on a useless mission like Afghanistan. The notion that if we abandoned failed policies, it will embolden adversaries was always a very weak argument."
This is exactly what happened post-Vietnam. Communism spread in a wave. "Containment" nearly broke down. Alliances failed totally, in Asia especially. Non-aligned countries tacitly became aligned with the USSR.
@buwaya:
"But the US has been reluctant to try to bring them - "major allies" - around.
The US has not brought the pain. It can, but hasn't got the will."
Even if we could get major allies like UK, France, and Germany to come around on such a plan, you would be stuck with Russia and China who would most certainly be opposed. America has gone it practically alone on Cuba for over 50 years with practically nothing to show for it. North Korea is one of the most isolated countries on the planet and continues to develop its program.
The result of a DJT speech is NO CONFUSION. Really, everybody can deal with his truth telling. The old Obama way of hinting about an ideal future UN World Governance just around the corner with a UN Police that protects everybody from reality offended all of the sane listeners.
Basically the deal is better than nothing, so the US stays in for the moment. Supposedly Tillarson is supposed to get agreement with other nations on more sanctions, before the deal is ended. And this has not happened yet, so Trump keeps the deal.
>If the Iranians are not adhering to the deal, why would the Trump administration and
>the inspections regime certify their compliance?
@buwaya:
This is exactly what happened post-Vietnam. Communism spread in a wave. "Containment" nearly broke down. Alliances failed totally, in Asia especially. Non-aligned countries tacitly became aligned with the USSR.
Where did communism spread in southeast Asia after 1975? Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were already communist, and there was no spread to Thailand, Malaysia, or Burma. The Chinese largely considered the Vietnamese a regional threat and were much closely aligned with Cambodia.
Pope Francis hardest hit. Without a One World Government, no one needs his One World Religion.
"Nonsense. Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan,"
Obama announced the drawdown of US troops in 2011, to remove all combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014.
That was a very powerful signal.
And this did happen, if not completely due to emergencies on the ground.
Trump just destroyed, or at least moved, another overton window, the one being if Socialism is just properly implemented, and the other times it was tried it was not done right.
Good speech. I am surprised the Trump said positive things about UN peace keepers. For the price, even with all the mismanagement and other issues, they are a lot cheaper than war, and save a lot of lives.
@buwaya:
Obama announced the drawdown of US troops in 2011, to remove all combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014.
That was a very powerful signal.
With Petraeus carrying out his surge strategy and bringing total US troops in Afghanistan to 100,000. They couldn't pacify the Taliban, but 12,000 will?
@Ray:
Trump just destroyed, or at least moved, another overton window, the one being if Socialism is just properly implemented, and the other times it was tried it was not done right.
Yeah, fantastic if it were 1989. Attacking "socialism" is a completely anachronistic boilerplate. Do you see any major powers or developing countries going, "Boy, we really want to look just like Venezuela and North Korea." Highly ideological states like Chavez's Venezuela or Kim's North Korea are international basket cases. China has urged economic reforms and an abandonment of Leninist ideas on North Korea for years, and they have steadfastly been ignored.
J. Farmer - sorry but you're wrong. You have 90% of universities actively promoting socialism every day in classrooms. Also look at the UN delegates reaction, they looked like Trump had killed a close loved on. That's how dear socialism is to them.
The USSR obtained new clients and allies in the 1970's in, at various times, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan (by invasion), Cambodia and Laos of course, where the collapse of US supported governments paralleled the cutoff of aid as with South Vietnam, Ethiopia, Somalia (who turned on each other), Uganda, Libya (which turned explicitly to the USSR in 1973), etc. And a big one, India under Indira Gandhi gave the USSR basing rights, signed huge arms deals and flirted with a military alliance.
If the USSR had the economic wherewithal to actually exploit all these opportunities (which was the fatal flaw in its system) it could have effectively created a global presence akin to the US, a threat to Naval dominance.
"You have 90% of universities actively promoting socialism every day in classrooms."
This is true. It is an aspect of the modern hegemonic religion.
The Trump administration "certifies" that Iran is in compliance because there is a paragraph in there that says that if it does not, it is obliged to take some other action, which they do not want to take. So they sign, but every time verbally state, as reported right across the media, that they do so very reluctantly and in no way actually believe Iran is in compliance.
Is your memory actually that short, Farmer?
The problem of getting information or propaganda into the DPRK is a real one, but not insurmontable. The regime itself has a substantial staff monitoring events abroad, and I expect the majority of these people already are quite cynical about the official dogma.
However, in China, the top CCP brass were quite aware of what Mao was doing to China with "The Great Leap Forward" that killed a minimum of 33 million Chinese, and "The Cultural Revolution" when Mao turned China's children against their parents, yet none of them dared speak up against it.
The personality cult of the Kims is supposed to be as tight as Mao's, but it is now on the third generation and might be fraying round the edges, which may be why Li'l Kim is getting so frenetic about it.
This was the ideal speech of every neoconservative, me included. I loved that he singled out the bad guys by name, that he essentially called out Obama for all the damage he did. Most of all, that line about socialism applied correctly should go down in history as one of the greatest quotes from a political speech, along with "Four score and twenty years ago" and "Tear down this wall!" (all three by Republicans, BTW).
Hillary and her staffers are offended that Trump and normal people are offended by socialism.
Thank THE GOOD LORD hillary LOST.
@Alex:
J. Farmer - sorry but you're wrong. You have 90% of universities actively promoting socialism every day in classrooms. Also look at the UN delegates reaction, they looked like Trump had killed a close loved on. That's how dear socialism is to them.
Well, partly, the word "socialism" has been completely evacuated of any meaning. Socialism, in its broadest sense, is the abolition of private property. The two most popular programs the federal government administers are Social Security and Medicare. Are these not "socialist" programs in the sense that the word is popularly used today? Nixon instituted wage and price controls. He's a socialist? Japan? South Korea? Russia? China? UK? France? Germany? How are any of these countries not socialist in the sense in which you are using the word?
"With Petraeus carrying out his surge strategy and bringing total US troops in Afghanistan to 100,000."
Obama announced the surge was over in 2011. That was a signal of weakness.
Not coincidentally thats when the Chinese began the surge in creating artificial islands to enforce their claims.
"Attacking "socialism" is a completely anachronistic boilerplate. "
So I was told, in 1989.
"Yeah, fantastic if it were 1989."
Oopsie. You mean Venezuala was a basket case in 1989? Gotten better has it?
It's not anachronistic if there are still lots of socialists around. http://www.mikechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/newsweek-socialsim2.jpg
It's not like it takes full-on nationalize-everything-even-down-to-the-barbershops-and-lemonade-stands socialism to do serious harm. All it takes is the erosion of price mechanisms and markets. You can get that from a mild case of socialism.
Alex @1:48. - exactly right. The left wave off the failure of actual socialism, citing it simply hasn't been implemented correctly. They do this every damn day.
J. Farmer - yes Nixon implemented some socialist policies which were later reversed. America has always trended towards Milton Friedman style capitalism with occasional bouts of socialism(1930s comes to mind). But remember that while socialism peaked in the 1930s, it's been on the decline ever since in America. Hell even George W. Bush never called out socialism in his 8 years! I guess the only reason Trump didn't say 'Communism' is he didn't want to offend the Chicoms. Gotta appease them because they make all our electronics.
@Hagar:
The Trump administration "certifies" that Iran is in compliance because there is a paragraph in there that says that if it does not, it is obliged to take some other action, which they do not want to take. So they sign, but every time verbally state, as reported right across the media, that they do so very reluctantly and in no way actually believe Iran is in compliance.
Is your memory actually that short, Farmer?
Translation: they don't like the deal but can't point to anything Iran has done that is not in keeping with the agreement they signed.
So many commenters here seem utterly convinced that Iran is not in compliance. Okay then, what part of the agreement are they violating?
Four score and seven years ago.
Creeping socialism - does not mean we need more of it. The end result is Venezuela.
"They" did not sign it. Obama did.
@Alex:
J. Farmer - yes Nixon implemented some socialist policies which were later reversed. America has always trended towards Milton Friedman style capitalism with occasional bouts of socialism(1930s comes to mind).
But not the 2010's? We have massive regulation of industry, a forced pension program, single-payer healthcare, money welfare, and corporate welfare.
But remember that while socialism peaked in the 1930s, it's been on the decline ever since in America...
Were the Great Society programs of the mid-1960s part of this decline? Seems to me that Congress' power under the commerce clause did not peak in the 1930s. Also, Trump ran on protecting Social Security and Medicare. How are those not socialist policies?
@Ken B:
All it takes is the erosion of price mechanisms and markets. You can get that from a mild case of socialism.
So which countries today are not socialist by your definition?
@Hagar:
"They" did not sign it. Obama did.
I was referring to Iran. And recall it was not a deal between the US and Iran, but the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran.
@buwaya:
Obama announced the surge was over in 2011. That was a signal of weakness.
Not coincidentally thats when the Chinese began the surge in creating artificial islands to enforce their claims.
Or perhaps completely coincidentally. Who knows. But perhaps one of the reasons China's power and influence is growing is because they are not busy frittering away their resources on stupid military adventurism. Perhaps not being so strategically overstretched as the US as been great for the Chinese. Precisely why calls to stretch our resources even further over meaningless chumps like the Taliban is such a godawful strategy for the US. Especially for an administration that claims to put "America first."
traditionalguy said...
Pope Francis hardest hit. Without a One World Government, no one needs his One World Religion."
The Poles who welcomed Reagan's ally. John Paul II in the '80's, would have disagreed with your assessment. Yeah, I know, Francis is no JPII.
" is because they are not busy frittering away their resources on stupid military adventurism"
They are building modern military aircraft and naval vessels at a much faster rate than the US. They can do this more cheaply than the US mainly because they are vastly more efficient at this. The US procurement system and military-industrial complex inflates costs absurdly, which is the real problem, not cost of operations.
"So which countries today are not socialist by your definition?"
Which is is it? Socialism is defunct, decrying it it anachronistic, or every country is socialist? You're the one who owes an answer.
I'll tell you my answer. Socialism is not as you say the abolition of private property. Even in the USSR people owned their own underwear. Welfare is not socialism. Neither is public schooling or a public armed forces. Socialism is the "public ownership of the means of production". The phrase "means of production" covers a lot. It includes for instance bakers and insurance companies or banks. And it includes the risks as well as the gains. And you can have gradations of that. The key issue isn't just "ownership" but susceptibility to market forces. I'd say when banks and automakers who fail in the market get bailouts that's a real problem -- the risk has been socialized -- we paid the bailouts. That sort of thing impoverishes us and impedes growth.
In our prisons convicts can be forced to take a shower. So by an essentialist definition we are a slave society, and it is wrong to draw distinctions between current America, and the ante-bellum south, or the Roman empire.
Essentialist arguments are always foolish. These are what J Farmer offers.
That the Chinese "are not busy frittering away their resources on stupid military adventurism" would be welcome news to all the countries around the South China Sea as well as India, the Russian Federation, etc.
J. Farmer, what would you characterize the Chinese pushing their Navy into the Mediterranean as?
We had a housing bubble. That happened in large part because the bankers knew they were "too big to fail". That is, they were able socialize the risks they were taking, but not the potential profits. They were insulated from the market forces. That market distortion had disastrous effects. That's an example of what I mean when I say you don't need full-on socialism for market distortion to take a heavy toll. And some policies and forms of intervention distort markets more than others.
Farmer wants to dismiss this by saying "oh sure they did socialize the possible upside, they'd have to pay taxes, and once you have taxes you have socialism. Let's have no more of your 'insulated from the market' stuff, it's all socialism once you have an army!"
Just got to read the transcript, very impressive address.
Empowering for every citizen of the world, honest and beautifully grounded in the originating ideals of the U.N. itself. Bravo
@Ken B:
Which is is it? Socialism is defunct, decrying it it anachronistic, or every country is socialist? You're the one who owes an answer.
As I said in my first comment, "Well, partly, the word 'socialism' has been completely evacuated of any meaning."
Farmer wants to dismiss this by saying "oh sure they did socialize the possible upside, they'd have to pay taxes, and once you have taxes you have socialism. Let's have no more of your 'insulated from the market' stuff, it's all socialism once you have an army!"
That's actually not what I want to say at all. What I want to say is that the word "socialism" in 2017 is a largely moribund word that does not have significant consequence for the world today. Again, what major powers are looking at Venezuela and North Korea and wanting to emulate their economic systems? The British NHS is routinely referred to as "socialist" or "socialized medicine." Do you agree with this characterization? If so, is Medicare socialist as well?
But perhaps one of the reasons China's power and influence is growing is because they are not busy frittering away their resources on stupid military adventurism
Yeah it's a good thing that they are not expanding their navy, building and operating aircraft carriers for the first time, building new classes of submarines or building artificial islands with military base4s on them.
@cf:
Empowering for every citizen of the world, honest and beautifully grounded in the originating ideals of the U.N. itself. Bravo
How about the Yemenis who are suffering under a brutal, pointless Saudi Arabian aerial bombardment? Are they empowered? Trump seems to have left that little cross-border war off the list. Never mind the torture, execution, imprisonment, and oppression of anyone who opposes the regime. Why is that you think?
If so, is Medicare socialist as well?
Yes it is. The Progressives on the Left have been working to turn the U.S. socialist for at least 100 years now.
@J. Farmer:
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to constantly attack our allies and defend our enemies and the enemies of our allies?
" Never mind the torture, execution, imprisonment, and oppression of anyone who opposes the regime. Why is that you think?"
Wars are nasty, especially when you are fighting people who invaded Mecca and killed thousands of peaceful worshipers.
Come on. Stop sounding like Freder.
@Gahrie:
Yes it is. The Progressives on the Left have been working to turn the U.S. socialist for at least 100 years now
And Trump campaigned on preserving Medicare. Does that make him a socialist?
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to constantly attack our allies and defend our enemies and the enemies of our allies?
I am neither attacking allies nor defending enemies. I am opposing a policy of interventionism.
Harrogate - I have been reading the commentary at Die Welt, and it's amazing how positively the Germans who watched it are reacting. The official German press reaction is very different from the reaction on the individual level. Two of these comments struck me so forcefully that I copied them off and saved them down. They are on this article:
https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article168807450/So-spricht-keine-Macht-die-moralisch-fuehren-will.html#Comments
Habe mir die Rede im original angesehen. Trump sieht die Welt als Verbund unabhängiger Nationalstaaten die Unter dem Dach der UN Zusammenarbeiten. Etwa so wie einzelne Bürger selbst in einem Staat organisiert sind. Einzelne Bürger die über den Staat ihr persönliche Freiheit realisiert sehen. Einem Staat der seine Bürger schützt und ihre Interessen vertritt. Genau das Gegenteil von dem was Merkel in Deutschland betreibt.
Eine wirklich großartige Rede.
and:
Ich weiß nicht, welche Rede Herr Stürmer gehört oder gesehen hat, aber ich fand Mr. Trumps Rede relativ gelungen. So staatsmännisch hätte ich gerne einen Vertreter unserer Bundesregierung dort gesehen. Mr. Trump weiß, dass es sein oberstes Gebot als amerikanischer Präsident ist, dem amerikanischen Volk zu dienen, anstatt sich als Führungsmacht darzustellen, sich aber eigentlich zum Gespött der Welt zu machen.
Mr. Trump und seine Präsidentschaft verschmelzen zu einer wunderbaren Symbiose, die in der Historie amerikanischer Präsidenten eine ganze Weile seinesgleichen sucht. Er glaubt an sich und sein Land, während Obama viel zu häufig die Welt retten wollte. Mr. Trump setzt Prioritäten und stellt andere Regierungschefs vor vollendete Tatsachen, weil die Welt und die Amerikaner schon gar nicht auf die Befindlichkeiten der deutschen Bundesregierung warten.
In Ermangelung politisch korrekter Denkverbote darf Mr. Trump sagen was er denkt, das mündet in einer Rede, die authentisch und politisch wichtig ist. Deutsche Bedenkenträger mögen mit dieser Offenheit ihre Probleme haben, doch Mr. Trump ist der beste Präsident seit langer, langer Zeit. Ich freue mich auf weitere Jahre.
"Again, what major powers are looking at Venezuela and North Korea and wanting to emulate their economic systems?"
At one point or another in the last decade, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras and several others I'm not thinking of at the moment, were quite eager to adopt the "Venezuelan Model". Some went some way in that direction but more sensible heads prevailed, or some other good fortune intervened.
@Michael K:
Wars are nasty, especially when you are fighting people who invaded Mecca and killed thousands of peaceful worshipers.
Sorry, which event are you talking about? That wars are nasty is part of why they should be an option of last resort when one's security and peace are legitimately threatened. The Houthi rebels may not be liked by the Saudis, but their existence in Yemen does not give the Saudis cart blanche to destroy the country.
@buwaya:
"Again, what major powers are looking at Venezuela and North Korea and wanting to emulate their economic systems?"
At one point or another in the last decade, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras and several others I'm not thinking of at the moment, were quite eager to adopt the "Venezuelan Model".
Leaving aside that none of those are major powers, they have done this "in the last decade?" Since 2007?
The Houthis, pre-breakup of Yemen, were constantly raiding into Saudi territory.
There is a long-standing border war with the Shiite clans on the Yemeni border. And that region of Arabia is also one of the less-attached to the house of Saud.
None of this came from nothing.
Whether what the Saudis are doing, or were doing, or will do, is the wisest course or not, I have no idea. But wars very often just are.
And without fail, the leftists on this board automatically pan the speech and choose up sides with our enemies.
But don't you DARE question their patriotism.
The left in America today is truly a fifth-column.
How are those not socialist policies?
Would there be a point, J, under all that? Maybe hiding under the pony?
Brazil is pretty major, unless you want to limit your statement to some absurd degree.
Chavismo was definitely an inspiration for Lula Da Silva and Dilma Roussef - who got her start in politics as a communist urban guerilla.
And why limit yourself to major powers? Most people in this world are citizens of humbler countries and they also count, and it matters if they suffer from such political infections.
"Again, what major powers are looking at Venezuela and North Korea and wanting to emulate their economic systems?"
Ask a Bernie Bro.
@buwaya:
None of this came from nothing.
Right, it came from a Saudi desire to inject itself into the Yemeni Civil War. There has been sporadic conflict on the border for over a half a century, and not even the Saudis claimed that that was the reason they were waging war on Yemen.
Saudi Arabia’s Brutal and Futile War in Yemen Turns Two
@buwaya:
And why limit yourself to major powers? Most people in this world are citizens of humbler countries and they also count, and it matters if they suffer from such political infections.
Because major powers are the ones who have the most ability to affect us. Brazil and Argentina, not so much. Of course, a lot of those "socialist" policies are supported by pluralities of the populations. It's not up to the United States to tell those countries how to conduct their foreign affairs anymore than it is up to them to tell us the same thing.
J Farmer
So I mocked your essentialism this way:
'Farmer wants to dismiss this by saying "oh sure they did socialize the possible upside, they'd have to pay taxes, and once you have taxes you have socialism. Let's have no more of your 'insulated from the market' stuff, it's all socialism once you have an army!"'
and what's your response? To prove me right this way:
'The British NHS is routinely referred to as "socialist" or "socialized medicine." Do you agree with this characterization? If so, is Medicare socialist as well?'
You seem to be stuck on binary. Economies can be mixed, and some mixes can be worse than other. Let's say we agree that public schools is "socialism" and that we both agree that public schools are a good thing. "AHA" you cry "That's an argument for socialism". Well maybe it's an argument for some socialism. It's not an argument for MORE socialism. This is the point you do not grasp. An argument for X is not an argument for more X.
@Bad Lieutenant:
Would there be a point, J, under all that? Maybe hiding under the pony?
Well, at least one other commenter here (who was nonetheless thrilled by Trump's statement) does not believe they are socialist, so your quarrel is with more than just me.
As for my own position, I have stated it. I think the word "socialist" has been evacuated of any significant meaning and is terribly anachronistic. I think the Fukuyama thesis that wars since the end of the Cold War would not largely be based on ideological struggles like liberal democracy versus centrally planned state socialism. The mixed system has emerged as the dominant economic system of the global order, with political activists mostly tinkering on the edges. Every major power employs a mixed economic system. Wars since the end of the Cold War have largely been centered around issues of nationalism, tribalism, and social identity.
I am neither attacking allies nor defending enemies. I am opposing a policy of interventionism.
You are constantly defending Iran, North Korea and China.
"Because major powers are the ones who have the most ability to affect us."
That seems a bit cold-blooded. And short-sighted. Communism/Socialism is like Ebola. It doesn't matter if it afflicts poor puny Liberia or Guinea, it will show up in the US. Cuban communism was a huge PR boost to US communism, and that, through the "long march", has fatally infected major US institutions.
@Gahrie:
You are constantly defending Iran, North Korea and China.
Example, please?
@buwaya:
That seems a bit cold-blooded.
Coming from someone who seems to be an inveterate supporter of constant US military aggression and the violence and destruction such militarism inevitably provides.
Now to attempt an English translation of the above:
1) I watched the original speech. Trump sees the world as a composite of independent national states cooperating under the umbrella of the UN. Somewhat as individual citizens are organized in a nation. Individual citizens who see their freedom realized by means of the state. A state which protects its citizens and represents their interests. Just the opposite of what Merkel is attempting in Germany. A really great speech.
2) I don't know what speech Mr. Stuermer heard or saw, but I found Trump's speech pretty successful. I would like to see a representative of our government so statesmanlike there. (lit) Trump knows that it is his highest imperative, as an American president, to serve the American people, rather than of positioning himself as a leading power, [but] really making himself the mockery of the world.
Mr. Trump and his presidency merge into a wonderful symbiosis, not seen for a long time in the history of American presidents. He believes in himself and his country, whereas Obama wanted to save the world much too often. Mr. Trump sets priorities and confronts other heads of states with fait accomplis, because the world and the Americans are not waiting for the German federal government. In the absence of politically correct thought prohibitions, Mr. Trump may say what he thinks, which results in an authentic and politically important speech. German pundits may have their problems with this openness, however Mr. Trump is the best president for a long, long time. I look forward to more years [of his presidency].
I really do think Trump's approach is going to wear better in the world at large than Obama's ever did. Trump puts himself more on a level with other countries. He invites them in rather than dictating from the temple on high, as Obama tended to do.
"Right, it came from a Saudi desire to inject itself into the Yemeni Civil War."
I don't love the House of Saud, but this is rather quixotic. Yemen is Saudi Arabia's neighbor. The winning side in Yemen was looking to be long-standing enemies of the House of Saud (the Shiite Houthis). If something similar were going on in Mexico the US would intervene to prevent an essentially hostile state from establishing itself on its border.
@buwaya:
I don't love the House of Saud, but this is rather quixotic. Yemen is Saudi Arabia's neighbor. The winning side in Yemen was looking to be long-standing enemies of the House of Saud (the Shiite Houthis).
There is not just one "side" in Yemen, and the Saudis are not just battling the Houthis, who are erroneously identified as Iranian proxies, which they are not. The Yemeni civil war also includes loyalists of Saleh, who had been president of the country for over 20 years before being swept from power in the Arab Spring protests. The current president, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, also faces widespread domestic opposition. In its battles, Saudi Arabia is also making use of and funding Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Example, please?
All day yesterday and today to start with.
North Korea is just misunderstood, the Iranians aren't really Islamic extremists that support terrorism, China isn't flexing its military muscles and expanding their capabilities........
"Coming from someone who seems to be an inveterate supporter of constant US military aggression and the violence and destruction such militarism inevitably provides."
I am rather reptilian, but a prudent sort of reptile I like to think. The Pax Americana is in nearly all respects a good thing. The world has benefited enormously through the ending of great-power wars and the US Naval and strategic dominance guaranteeing at least the opportunity of free trade.
This necessarily implies US militarism, which often requires violence and aggression, if only to demonstrate that the material the US deploys is backed by a sufficiency of that essential moral (in the military sense) quality.
This moral quality (as in "the moral is to the material as three is to one" of Napoleon) is I think nearly gone. The world is waking up to this, and the erosion of the Pax Americana is becoming clearer. It still serves most peoples to pretend that it is still in place, but it won't take much to overthrow the pretense.
J. Farmer, though we disagree politically, you are one of the rare voices of reason among this blog's commenters. However, you stated, "We have massive regulation of industry, a forced pension program, single-payer healthcare, money welfare, and corporate welfare." Unless you define "single-payer healthcare" in a way unfamiliar to me, you are in error. We do not have single-payer healthcare.
What Donald Trump doesn't talk about is often more informative than what he does say. He doesn't talk about America;s engagement in the never-ending Afghanistan "war" that really appears to be nothing other than maintaining the Afghan economy to keep the poppy trade afloat.
And he doesn't talk about ending the "Yemen War" and American support for the Saudis against the Yemenis which has never made any sense considering the size difference of tiny Yemen but Trump policy is obviously influenced by Donald's ever-loving need for Saudi cash. And even now, the war inside Yemen has been accompanied by nearly 700,000 cases of cholera which isn't getting better because medical personnel treating the epidemic are being killed by combatants.
And of course, Trump would not waste time sypathizing with Rohingya Muslims living in Myanmar who are being subjected to ethnic cleansing by the Burmese military junta.
And somehow, our president doesn't explain, after reinstalling America as the world police force, why we would continue to waste time negotiating the nonnegotiable peace between Israelis and their sworn murderers.
All in all, since Trump only read aloud this speech prepared by his writers, tonight's tweets and tomorrow's off-the-top comments will be nothing even resembling the speech given at the at the U.N.
@Gahrie:
North Korea is just misunderstood, the Iranians aren't really Islamic extremists that support terrorism, China isn't flexing its military muscles and expanding their capabilities........
Quote a single thing I have said to that effect.
@Robert Cook:
Unless you define "single-payer healthcare" in a way unfamiliar to me, you are in error. We do not have single-payer healthcare.
Actually, I wrote that in haste. What I was referring to was Medicare, which for all intents and purposes is a single-payer program for people over 65. And one of the most popularly supported things the federal government does.
I almost forgot to say that Trump also didn't tell the useless Europeans to pound salt on the idea of reconsideration of the Paris Climate Accords which could never make an iota of difference in controlling climate. We cannot control the weather that the warmers now reference as climate, let alone change the effect of the sun on our atmosphere.
Quote a single thing I have said to that effect.
But perhaps one of the reasons China's power and influence is growing is because they are not busy frittering away their resources on stupid military adventurism
Yemen vs Saudi is interesting.
Yemen has nearly as many natives, now, as Saudi Arabia, 28 million vs 33 million.
Yemen is not little.
And the population growth rates including baked-in growth indicate Yemen will overtake Saudi Arabia very soon. And this implies a larger supply of cannon-fodder.
The advantages Saudi has, of course, are chronic disunity in Yemen and a technological advantage in arms. It is however likely that Yemen has a moral advantage, or parts of it could have one.
@Gahrie:
Quote a single thing I have said to that effect.
But perhaps one of the reasons China's power and influence is growing is because they are not busy frittering away their resources on stupid military adventurism
That is not, in any way, a "defense" of China. It is a description of empirical reality. China has not engaged in "stupid military adventurism," unless you want to tell me about the multiple regime change and nation-building activities its military has engaged in in the last 20 years. And I made the statement to criticize US foreign policy. In the last two decades, China has grown as a regional power while the US, under successive administrations, frittered away resources on huge military blunders like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
In fact I'd say China has engaged in supremely reckless adventurism by propping up North Korea for so long.
China is flirting with blowing up the world!
@buwaya:
And the population growth rates including baked-in growth indicate Yemen will overtake Saudi Arabia very soon.
Yemen's population growth is likely to continue to strain services given the chronic underperformance of Yemen's economy. They have a GDP of about $55 billion dollars, compared to the Saudi GDP of nearly $650 billion, a more than tenfold difference. In terms of GDP per capita, the differences are even more stark, with about $1000 for Yemen and $20,000 for Saudi Arabia, a twentyfold difference.
@Alex:
In fact I'd say China has engaged in supremely reckless adventurism by propping up North Korea for so long.
China is flirting with blowing up the world!
Propping up a client state is not "adventurism." And from the perspective of China, they see a strategic benefit to a North Korean buffer state, and they have not had to pay any significant price for it. And given their role in the world and their position on the UN Security Council, they are not likely to. The best thing the US can do is work with China to try to contain North Korea. Trump's strategy is doing its best to isolate China, given their obsession with stability and not wanting to see the Kim regime fall.
The Houthi (Shiite) bits of Yemen are also right by the most densely populated parts of Saudi Arabia, which also, rather disconcertingly to the Saudis, in the border areas are also mostly Shiites, and are on the whole among those least loyal to the House of Saud, Sunni or Shiite.
Saudi Arabia has had a lot to worry about re Shiites. There is a lot of bad blood piled up there, most of it through a long body count piled up by the fanatically anti-Shiite Wahabbis. Besides this, the two most critical bits of the kingdom, the Eastern oilfields and the most densely populated western bits, most easily subject to infiltration, by Yemen, are largely or substantially Shiite.
Farmer said:
"Again, what major powers are looking at Venezuela and North Korea and wanting to emulate their economic systems?"
**********************************
I guess you missed the last election, where Bernie Sanders and his followers openly pined for socialism in the USA, arguably still a major power, Obama's efforts aside. As do the Hollywood dumbass so-called "elites".
You know, the too-many-deodorants-for-our-own-good argument against capitalism. Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone et al.
@Jay Elink:
I guess you missed the last election, where Bernie Sanders and his followers openly pined for socialism in the USA, arguably still a major power, Obama's efforts aside. As do the Hollywood dumbass so-called "elites".
If you accept that definition of socialism, then nearly every US president of the 20th and 21st century would apply. As I said before, Trump ran on preserving Social Security and Medicare. One is a forced pension scheme, and the other is a single-payer healthcare program. Is Trump a socialist?
You know, the too-many-deodorants-for-our-own-good argument against capitalism. Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone et al.
None of those people have a significant influence on international affairs. The entire world, virtually, has settled on a mixed economy. Can you name one that you would describe as a capitalist as opposed to mix, and why?
@buwaya ... What was Great Power thinking post WWI ... Setting up Shia Persia and Sunni Saudi ... How when did it unravel?
"The problem with Venezuela isn't that Socialism has been poorly implemented, but that is has been faithfully implemented." Wow...the effing room was stunned."
Rousing agreement with the awesomeness of that statement here on boards.
England, France, Canada, Germany, & all other developed nations must be running back to try and adopt the USA health care system in 3-2-1.....
Or, maybe the "stunning" nature of the speech is different than what commenters here wish?
On the bright side, End-times people probably creamed when he issued his threats and taunts at NK tho.
"He killed it," indeed.
There was a whole mess of Smug on this thread. I skipped most of it, reading only what the rest quoted. I could predict with near certainty what Smug would write.
gadfly gets my vote for most passive aggressive butt hurt sufferer. Is there an ointment?
harrogate offers non sequiturs. To him I respond "short people ain't got no reason". It's as good a response as any.
Harrogate makes me laugh. Thanks man, I needed that.
The great powers didnt set up Saudi Arabia. Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud conquered it from its several previous masters, his rival eastern tribal confederation under the Rashids, and the Sharif of Mecca, whom the British actually were supporting. The sons of the Sharif got kingships in Jordan and Iraq, from the British, to some degree as consolation prizes.
Ibn Saud was hostile to the British and they to him, for two decades or so, as he threatened Iraq and their Gulf clients. The British thought he was something of a "mad mullah". Its one reason Saud eventually favored the Americans for oil concessions on his part of the Gulf, not the previously dominant British.
Ref, very good book, "The Kingdom", Lacy.
England, France, Canada, Germany, & all other developed nations must be running back to try and adopt the USA health care system in 3-2-1.....
\
No but the people who live in those places all come here for their medical care if they can afford it.
"Actually, I wrote that in haste. What I was referring to was Medicare, which for all intents and purposes is a single-payer program for people over 65. And one of the most popularly supported things the federal government does."
Okay, yes, in that respect, you are correct.
"That is not, in any way, a "defense" of China."
Get with the program, J. Farmer! If you're not rabidly decrying the satanic motives and actions of (China/Russia/Iran/...Fill in the blank...) anytime you even mention them, you are, by default, "defending" them.
Didn't you get the handbook of How To Discuss World Politics the Right Way?
Smug doesn't support foreign regimes in the same way Chuck doesn't support Democrats by attacking Trump.
The best plan to deal with the Norks is to built a real missile defense system which we do not have.
Missile defense is a huge waste of money. The truth is that we can't defend against nuclear weapons in the hands of the North Koreans or anybody else. We can stop some forms of delivery if we're lucky, but with thousands of miles of land borders, and even more miles of sea borders, just about anyone with the resources to build nukes can get them through.
Birkel shreds me often but is still one of my favorite commenters.
I'm going to need to do a better job, here, clearly.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন