November 13, 2018

Trump's French tweetstorm ends with "MAKE FRANCE GREAT AGAIN!"

280 comments:

1 – 200 of 280   Newer›   Newest»
jaydub said...

He's right about no other country being more nationalistic than France.

rhhardin said...

France was talking about protecting itself from cyberbugging.

AllenS said...

Gawd, I love Trump.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carol said...

La France was the first great nation! thanks to a series of strong despotic kings.

Now they lecture us. Pah.

Seeing Red said...

10% unemployment. Their stupid socialized medicine rules which, I understand, Obamacare adopted, is a cause of that.

What’s their annual unemployment rate?

Seeing Red said...

Or should I say modeled Obamacare on....

Balfegor said...

Well, that was a very nice thing Trump just did for Macron. Macron should see his approval ratings tick up a least a little bit after this.

Ralph L said...

Considering Charlemagne, Louis XIV, and Napoleon, it's fine with me if France stays Not Great, or Just Great Enough to keep Germany in her place.

tim in vermont said...

If all you have is being not Trump, you're in intellectual bankruptcy court.

tim in vermont said...

The Anglosphere's frenemy since 1066.

Hagar said...

and French wines are also grown on American root stocks.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

It is not just the socialized medicine hurting the economy. French labor laws make it very very difficult to fire anyone.As a result employers are much less likely to take on a new hire.

Cato Renasci said...

Trump spoke the unvarnished truth about France and its behavior - it's nationalism, wannabe imperialism (trying to build empires ever couple of generations since 1790...), its protectionism, its national arrogance and delusions of grandeur.

You just can't say such things opening among "polite international society" and that silence enables the French inordinately.

On a bet, as grad students in history back in the early '70s, a friend and I laid out an essentially coherent theory of European history that plausibly laid the blame for everything that's gone substantially wrong since 800 AD on the French. In our view, the last positive French (Frankish) contribution to civilization was Charles Martel's victory at Tours in the early 8th century.

mockturtle said...

A few strong kings and one strong cardinal.

Sebastian said...

What's troll in French? Better yet, trollmaster?

Le Trump, il est extraordinaire.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"nationalism" is a word with a definition.

The Democratic Media Industrial Complex in America stick the word "white" in front, in order to pedal their agenda and their snakey misinformation.

rehajm said...

French labor laws make it very very difficult to fire anyone

Yah this is it. More accurate to say you can't...

One of those Nexflix shows on the French grape harvest shows one vineyard moments before sending scores of workers out to pick only to be shut down by French labor authorities to 'check' if all was in order. Think it took a few days...the French fail to recognize a correlation between that merde and unemployment.

Humperdink said...

There are those that wish Trump would stop tweeting. I am not among them. This is the unvarnished truth about France. And only Trump will say it.

Are Macron and Trudeau brothers? *cough*

EDH said...

FUCK YEAH: The US Space Force alone could kick any European Army's ass!

Big Mike said...

Back in the day a colleague regaled a bunch of us about the time he was hired by a French high tech start-up. The first thing he ran afoul of were the French labor laws. As a veteran of American high tech start ups he was accustomed to working long hours band weekends. In France he was ordered home under the threat of being arrested at 35 hours, which typically meant some time on Thursday. Plus the company had to hire a senior executive with connections in Paris. The guy stayed in Paris so money that should have gone into development and test instead paid this drone’s salary and regular trips at company expense from Paris to the firm’s work location.

The firm failed. They were beaten to market so they failed. This was blamed, of course, on the American engineers they’d hired.

Yet entrepreneur is a French word.

Fernandistein said...

Say what you will about their overpriced wine, but you can't beat French cars.

rehajm said...

Toute la France vous aime, Barack! Nous t'aimons Barack! kiss! kiss!

Big Mike said...

Macron married his school teacher. It’s not like the French understand the concept of “manliness.”

tcrosse said...

The French chose to re-colonize Indo-China after the Japanese left. This led to a lot of trouble for all concerned.

lgv said...

The new kinder, gentler Trump. He's just one of those people who can't help themselves. He must always respond. Whether you call it a personality disorder, or just a trait, you know the type. God forbid he should ever take the stand in his own defense in a court of law.

His response is actually pretty mild. I could have come up with a lot worse even if I would have never said them publicly.

traditionalguy said...

Macron is wholey owned by George Soros.

rehajm said...

John Kerry is free and would excellent as Secrétaire du War en France.

Bob Boyd said...

That should make some eyeballs bleed. Best Trump tweet since he hawked his taco salads on Cinco de Mayo

glam1931 said...

"you can't beat French cars."
No, but you can burn streets full of them!

mockturtle said...

How else, but through tweets, can Trump get out his message in unadulterated form? Through the news media?

mockturtle said...

you can't beat French cars.

Hand me a baseball bat and I'll prove you wrong.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...

Great stuff. But not random. A series of wedges and cuts to make the tree fall in a certain spot.

J. Farmer said...

Macron's remarks were certainly undiplomatic (not that Trump should mind that), and they repeated the same daft nonsense about WWI being a result of too much nationalism, as opposed to too much imperialism. But Europe should indeed build its own common security area that is not underwritten by US war guarantees. NATO was created to protect against a threat that doesn't exist anymore. It is obsolete and should be wound down.

That said, Trump's notion that foreign policy can be conducted through nothing more than bluster and bravado is childish and counterproductive. Two connected and relevant stories on non-proliferation came out yesterday. One, Iran is continuing to comply with the restrictions of the JCPOA. And North Korea is continuing its ballistic missile development. Yet, according to the administration's position, North Korea has capitulated to maximalist demands, and Iran is racing towards a bomb. That's about 180 degrees from reality.

mockturtle said...

It's clear why 'nationalism' is a threat to the elite. The global elite see their cabal as the leadership of the world and the people merely useful pawns in their grand scheme.

tcrosse said...

you can't beat French cars.

Odd that nobody in the world copies them.

GRW3 said...

The last line about learning German was great.

To be fair, however, I heard the French military was updating their curriculum. Instead of learning how to say "I surrender in German", they are now learning how to say "I surrender in Arabic".

narciso said...

Yes they did with Marshall plan money, as to events in North Korea that's much more subject to debate re 38 north,

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Many decades ago, back when my father was working, he came home from a business trip overseas that included a stop in France for a meeting. During the meeting, 5:00 rolled around and right at 5:00, the French stood up and pushed-in their chairs and said they needed to leave. The meeting was not yet finished. My father and the other Americans were puzzled. The French explained that they had to leave because it was the law.

Ah sweet sweet micromanaged living and working. The big nanny government is everywhere. Even in your meetings.

In California, if you are a student at a CA university, it is now required law that a student must fill out paperwork for any romance or date. You must have a paper-trail of approved "rounding the bases". Again - the left are constantly at work looking for ways to nanny state your entire life and infantilize the entire population.

narciso said...


But the times can't read photos, they do rely on apocryphal tapes though.


https://mobile.twitter.com/38NorthNK/status/1061008420164247552

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Of course the same nanny state laws that apply to you, do not apply to the Clintons.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

J Farmer said...

NATO was created to protect against a threat that doesn't exist anymore. It is obsolete and should be wound down.

And we Americans should not shoulder the financial burden - when Europe should deal with it.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

When Trump goes to Berlin and tweets Make Germany Great Again ...

Ralph L said...

Collective Security (without the US) made two French-German wars into World Wars, yet the Left demands the US act "multilaterally" IOW hamstrung.

FIDO said...

you can't beat French cars.

Hand me a baseball bat and I'll prove you wrong.



Okay, despite the evidence of essentially every Hollywood comedienne I've listened to, I guess women CAN be funny.

That I had to share with my wife.

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

Undeclared North Korea: Missile Operating Bases Revealed

Undeclared North Korea: The Sakkanmol Missile Operating Base

Humperdink said...

Make France Great Again????

To paraphrase Andrew Cuomo (D-Charisma Personified), France was never great.

J. Farmer said...

@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:

And we Americans should not shoulder the financial burden - when Europe should deal with it.

Undoubtedly. No NATO, no NATO the US has to financially support.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

J Farmer. What do we do with NoKo?
Sanctions don't really seem to work. Threats don't work. Cooperation and handshakes don't work.
I'm not giving Trump a pass, but I wonder who could get the job done without war?


FIDO said...


Yet entrepreneur is a French word.


There are a lot of ancient French words that were more theoretical constructs than actual use words. Labour is also a French word but you barely see any.

Last I remember, Cardinal Richelieu, the Three Musketeers and Raquel Welch threw out the last entrepreneurs out of France back in the 17th Century.

Soon after that, their economy tanked. This is known as 'Bad Luck' according to Heinlein.

mockturtle said...

To be fair, however, I heard the French military was updating their curriculum. Instead of learning how to say "I surrender in German", they are now learning how to say "I surrender in Arabic".

And the UK is already fluent.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

@ J Farmer

Macron's remarks were certainly undiplomatic (not that Trump should mind that), and they repeated the same daft nonsense about WWI being a result of too much nationalism, as opposed to too much imperialism.

That is right on.

J. Farmer said...

@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:

J Farmer. What do we do with NoKo?

The best chance for a solution, in my opinion, is some form of multilateral negotiated settlement in which the US is willing to give up something valuable in order to get verifiable concessions. The much-maligned and often misunderstood and misrepresented Agreed Framework remains a viable blueprint. This article from the Arms Control Association does a good job of giving an overview of its successes and failures.

narciso said...

Well it took about a hundred years, though and a real bad famine, victor cha was the one who said one couldn't launch a preemptive strike, so more bribes are the answer?

FIDO said...

Trump's notion that foreign policy can be conducted through nothing more than bluster and bravado is a continuance of a strong historical tradition of diplomacy since the Greco Roman times


Gaius Popillius Laenas, presented Antiochus with the ultimatum that he evacuate Egypt and Cyprus immediately. Antiochus, taken by surprise, asked for time to consider. Popillius, however, drew a circle in the earth around the king with his walking stick and demanded an unequivocal answer before he left the circle.


Here. I fixed that for you.

narciso said...

More bribes than, despite the fact they perfected their weapons under the framework of course yong byon was 40 years in the making as with the French contribution to their nuclear program.

FIDO said...


The best chance for a solution, in my opinion, is some form of multilateral negotiated settlement in which the US is willing to give up something valuable in order to get verifiable concessions


Yeah. Clinton did something like that to stop NoKo from building a nuke. How did that work out?

FIDO said...

Treaties work if both sides will abide by the agreement.

They don't work when you are dealing with a Teenaged God Emperor who thinks that Marxism means never having to back down or say you are sorry.

But THIS time, a treaty will work.

Yeah, sure it will.

Meade said...

The Louisiana Purchase is arguably the greatest deal in the history of deals. I found this correlation interesting: Look at 2016 voting by state. Now take a map of the U.S. and overlay the Louisiana Purchase. You're looking at the heart of Trump Country.

Thank you, Franco-Americans for making America great again... again!

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

Here. I fixed that for you.

No, that wasn't "nothing more." That was backed up by an implicit threat of force. Is it your contention that Trump is willing to use force against France to compel their behavior?

Yeah. Clinton did something like that to stop NoKo from building a nuke. How did that work out?

"Most of the people who invoke the failure of the Agreed Framework couldn’t tell you the first thing about it—other than that they “know” it didn’t work because North Korea now has nuclear weapons. But they are misguided. The 1994 Agreed Framework was a good deal. Would that we had been wise enough to keep it."
-Revisiting the Agreed Framework, 38North

"Past negotiations with North Korea are frequently dismissed as a failure, but diplomacy with North Korea has worked in the past to stem its nuclear activities and can work in the future."
-5 Myths on Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea, Arms Control Association

Bob Boyd said...

J. Farmer said...
"The best chance for a solution, in my opinion, is some form of multilateral negotiated settlement in which the US is willing to give up something valuable in order to get verifiable concessions. The much-maligned and often misunderstood and misrepresented Agreed Framework remains a viable blueprint. This article from the Arms Control Association does a good job of giving an overview of its successes and failures."

In short, Negotiate.

A good plan. And while you're negotiating there will be people saying it isn't working and you're doing it wrong.

Chuck said...

Trump is just mistaken, right? French and American wine tariffs on each other are mostly the same, right. Isn't France just about 15 cents a bottle more than the U.S.?

Isn't the biggest problem now facing U.S. winemakers the sudden elevation of tariffs on U.S. wine imports to China? That was the big news earlier this year, as the U.S.-China tariff war grew with actions by Trump. And the U.S. imports a lot of wine to China; China is now greatly boosting imports of European wine.

Curious George said...

Make France Great Again? Too late. Praise Allah.

Winston said...

Agreed Framework is definitely a blueprint--- for failure. Never impressed by the ACA.

Reason for NATO gone? Ask any Czech, Pole, Latvian, or Hungarian if that is true. The Soviet Union is gone, but the geopolitics aren't.

J. Farmer said...

Bob Boyd:

A good plan. And while you're negotiating there will be people saying it isn't working and you're doing it wrong.

International negotiations will always be subject to domestic political pressures. It's a byproduct of democracy.

Humperdink said...

"you can't beat French cars.

Hand me a baseball bat and I'll prove you wrong.
"

You don't need a baseball bat, only a match. From New Years Eve a few years ago:

"Vandals in France torched 945 parked cars on New Year's Eve in an arson rampage that has become a sinister annual "tradition" amid a row over whether the government sought to play down the figures.

According to the French interior ministry, the total of 945, which included cars that were either "totally destroyed" or "more lightly affected", amounted to a 17 per cent rise compared to last year."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/02/almost-1000-cars-torched-around-france-new-years-eve-government/

J. Farmer said...

@Winston:

Agreed Framework is definitely a blueprint--- for failure. Never impressed by the ACA.

Whether you are impressed with them or not, what did they say that was factually incorrect?

Reason for NATO gone? Ask any Czech, Pole, Latvian, or Hungarian if that is true. The Soviet Union is gone, but the geopolitics aren't.

All of those countries would be free to create their own common security areas with France, Germany, and the UK. Russia is always going to have influence in Eastern Europe just as America will always have influence in Latin America. The notion that Russia is going to invade and conquer the Czech Republic or Poland absent NATO is daft. For one, it doesn't even have the power to carry out such an operation, and if it did, it would provoke a huge counter-reaction in the west.

Kassaar said...

New tweet, just sent:

“By the way, when the helicopter couldn’t fly to the first cemetery in France because of almost zero visibility, I suggested driving. Secret Service said NO, too far from airport & big Paris shutdown. Speech next day at American Cemetery in pouring rain! Little reported-Fake News!”

narciso said...

Well certain officials in the stavka (general staff) would disagree with you, in recent years re poland.

FIDO said...

The proof is in the pudding.

That agreement was supposed to stop the NoKos from having a nuke.

The Norks now have a nuke. The agreement FAILED.

But like Marxism, they just did it a little bit wrong and the NEXT negotiations will work even better...until they get more nukes.

Is it your contention that Trump is willing to use force against France to compel their behavior?


Well, that image of the woefully one sided conflict between the French and American military gave me an even better laugh than Mockturtle did, so thank you for that.


But yes, I fully expect Trump to kick the French in the 'grapes' if they don't undertake some more negotiating. That is a threat. Not a 'we will march our legions in and rape your women' threat, but a 'we are going to hurt one of your largest and most influential special interest groups' threat.

You read it. He made it. That isn't bluster.

FIDO said...

Just to the point: Trump's base is not obsessed with fru fru French wine. So if the liberal women need to spend more for their plonk, it is a double win.

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

The proof is in the pudding.

That agreement was supposed to stop the NoKos from having a nuke.

The Norks now have a nuke. The agreement FAILED.


The actual proverb is the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof is in the pudding does not make any sense. But I digress.

Again, from 38 North:

"The politics though, don’t change the merits. Why on earth would our response to North Korean bad behavior be to free them from their obligations not to produce plutonium?

Still, no one listens to me! The Bush administration decided to suspend US obligations under the Agreed Framework [in 2003].

The consequences were pretty straightforward. North Korea “effectuated” its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, opened the cans of spent fuel and separated out the plutonium, restarted Yongbyon to produce even more plutonium, then conducted a nuclear explosion in 2006. I guess that showed ol’ Kim Jong Il.

This policy was such a rousing success that the Bush administration used the Six Party Talks to renegotiate a much watered-down version of the Agreed Framework with North Korea."

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

Well certain officials in the stavka (general staff) would disagree with you, in recent years re poland.

I have no opinion on what amorphous "officials" do or do not agree with.

traditionalguy said...

The Norks are still done for. Trump still has the button that took out their nuke testing underground mountain with an earthquake from a kinetic energy space force weapon. And the computers placed there by Google/Obama guys to attack us are gone.

readering said...

Anniversary of Bataclan.

Gk1 said...

He's not wrong. Undiplomatic or impolitic, but not wrong.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

General nagovitsyn general makarov those are just two that come to mind, now they've had their hands fun in the Ukraine moving pass the donbass,

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "Trump is just mistaken, right? French and American wine tariffs on each other are mostly the same, right."

Dont you ever stop lying for your lefty allies?

EU tariffs on 750ml wine and sparkling wines are between 2 and 3 times that of US tariffs on EU wines.

Just go put on a p****-hat Chuck and get on with appropriate self-identification!

LOL

Most revealing moment of the new week: LLR Chuck's "heroic" Jeff Flake going Full LLR Chuck and tellibg pro-taliban marxist leftist Synema she'll do a great job!

Of course she will! As a far left marxist anti-american democrat, all she will have to do is be herself to win the love and undying support of LLR's everywhere!

Although she will be competing with Dick Durbin and Stolen Valor Blumenthal for LLR Chucks attention.

We will see which one Chuck ends up favoring the most. My money is still on Durbin because he called US troops the gestapo and that clearly thrilled Chuck.

Howard said...

Macaroon successfully trolled the troll in chief! Finally a battle the French can win!

Curious George said...

"jaydub said...
He's right about no other country being more nationalistic than France."

Japan?

Nonapod said...

Nobody is arguing that the Argreement didn't fail. It's just a question of why it failed and whose fault it was. It's inarguable that North Korea violated the terms when they started an centrifuge program for enrichment (since remaining party to the NPT was part of the deal). But some have argued that we weren't meeting our obligations in a timely way. For various political reasons we dragged our feet on the heavy oil deliveries and the LWRs and this contributed to the deal falling apart. Although to be fair I'm unaware of any specific timelines built into the agreement.

readering said...

RLFGAN

mccullough said...

Trump is the first US president to say publicly what every US president since FDR has said privately about France.

readering said...

The most nationalistic country gave up its currency?

readering said...

These days the most nationalistic countries seem to be Russia and China.

FIDO said...

The consequences were pretty straightforward. North Korea “effectuated” its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, opened the cans of spent fuel and separated out the plutonium, restarted Yongbyon to produce even more plutonium, then conducted a nuclear explosion in 2006. I guess that showed ol’ Kim Jong Il.


OR, radical idea, maybe the Bush team knew (or strongly suspected) that the Norks were NOT living up to their agreements, that they had some secret labs, and that sending them money for nothing was idiotic.

As you just got finished saying: bluster and bravado without a threat is meaningless...and without a 'threat', the Norks were all B and B. So all the free rice and computers in the world would not change their circumstances as much as a nuke.


But the idea that the Agreement was a failure and that the Norks had never stopped working on their nukes doesn't fit your narrative of 'Bush Bad, Negotiations always good', despite the fact that it also fits into the evidence of our eyes...and human psychology...and realpolitik...and the example of Iran, who would rather starve than give up their nuclear program.

I remain unpersuaded.

Robert Cook said...

"'jaydub said...
He's right about no other country being more nationalistic than France.'


"Japan?"


America?

Drago said...

Howard: "Macaroon successfully trolled the troll in chief!"

Not even close. Or are you so foolish that you actually believe France will reconstitute itself into an economic and military world power?

LOL

All France will do is, eventually, become an islamic/Sharia political entity.

When that happens I can definitely see the new French Islamic Republic improving its military to act as a European Sword of allah.

That I can definitely see. I would give that about 2 more generations.

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

General nagovitsyn general makarov those are just two that come to mind, now they've had their hands fun in the Ukraine moving pass the donbass,

Please provide a source to such statements of their disagreement.

FIDO said...

Do you concede that it is POSSIBLE that the Bush team stopped the agreement because of secret non-compliance by the Norks or is that a ridiculous proposition?

Robert Cook said...

"France was the first great nation! thanks to a series of strong despotic kings.

"Now they lecture us. Pah."


Less so than we lecture the rest of the world.

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

You really should read the 38North article I have linked to now. You are the prototypical person for whom it was written: someone with very strong opinions on the Agreed Framework who hasn't bothered to learn a thing about it.

From the same article, which you apparently refuse to read:

"The fundamental logic of the Agreed Framework was sound. North Korea had a small, unknown stockpile of plutonium in 1994. It was on the verge of having much, much more.

The United States successfully froze that stockpile—a freeze that lasted eight years. And when the Bush Administration chose to “shatter” the Agreement (Mr. Bolton’s characterization, not mine) the consequences were clear. North Korea has increased its stockpile of plutonium to more than 60 kilograms and conducted three nuclear explosions. Moreover, the United States failed utterly to constrain North Korea’s uranium enrichment program, which is now the major source of uncertainly about the size of North Korea’s nuclear stockpile. The same President who walked away from the agreement spent the final years of his term trying to resurrect it, albeit under a different name to avoid any admission of failure."

narciso said...

Arms control is a priesthood with its own rituals which have little to do with results:


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9243954/Russia-threatens-Nato-with-military-strikes-over-missile-defence-system.html

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

Do you concede that it is POSSIBLE that the Bush team stopped the agreement because of secret non-compliance by the Norks or is that a ridiculous proposition?

It is possible but also a ridiculous proposition. The administration would gain nothing by relying on secret information. If it had information about North Korean activities and wished to act on it, it would make that information. Also, the Bush administration explained why it abandoned the Agreed Framework, and there is no reason to disbelieve them: the North's uranium centrifuge program.

mccullough said...

France was nationalistic about that soccer tournament they won this summer.

Doesn’t make up for getting their ass kicked in WW1 and WW2.

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

Your statement and your link (from 6.5 years ago) aren't even logically connected.

narciso said...

There's more than one way to skin a cat:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2018-01-31/long-shadow-aq-khan

The French and the germans trusted the Shah with nuclear power production, thru were a little more wary of the ayatollah

J. Farmer said...

@mccullough:

At least they got their asses kicked (arguable about WWI) by one of the most powerful, industrialized nations in the planet. We have spent 17 years bogged down in a conflict with a state whose GDP is smaller than the state of Rhode Island.

narciso said...

Degaulle chose to favor the Arab states over Israel after the algerian matter, this followed through his successor chiraq whose joint venture with the Iraqi nuclear program tammuz 16, was nicknamed o'chiraq.

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

The French and the germans trusted the Shah with nuclear power production, thru were a little more wary of the ayatollah

Precisely why "trust" is not required. The JCPOA is a very effective nonproliferation agreement. It is foolish for the US to abandon it for the chimera of a "better deal."

narciso said...

Well the French experience in Algeria is akin to ours in those two theatres of combat.

J. Farmer said...

Well the French experience in Algeria is akin to ours in those two theatres of combat.

And...

JPS said...

jaydub, 7:27:

"He's right about no other country being more nationalistic than France."

Can't seem to find the source for this old joke. I'm not one to bash France or the French, but I got a chuckle, back in the day:

"Among [France's] 361 national holidays are 197 saints' days, 37 National Liberation Days, 16 Declaration of Republic Days, 54 Return of Charles de Gaulle in Triumph as if He Won the War Single-Handed Days, 18 Napoleon Sent into Exile Days, 17 Napoleon Called Back from Exile Days and 112 France Is Great and the Rest of the World Is Rubbish Days."

FIDO said...

Sigh.

Ridiculous? If Ramalanga Ding Dong, Nork Informant to the Bush administration, tells the Bushies that 'Hey, they are still making nuclear materials and you guys are saps', then the Bushies say 'Hey...we know the Norks are cheating', the first thing that the Norks are going to do is examine EVERYONE who might know this information...and they won't just ask nicely.

So the 'well, the Bushies would have mentioned this' is errant nonsense if you spent a few moments THINKING about this instead of parroting links.

Now, it is possible that Bush is an idiot, his VEEP was an idiot, all his cabinet were idiots, Daddy Bush was an idiot and everyone at Langley were also idiots.

Possible. Statistically likely? No, but that doesn't fit your narrative.

Granted, I think that the Inbred Brigade at State probably ARE all idiots, so I am slightly hypocritical on that point, but then again, State sell positions to the highest bidder, so...

So maybe they were all idiots.


Maybe they thought the Norks were cheating but were wrong.


Maybe Bolton has an ax to grind. Maybe he has the Pure Unvarnished Truth. Maybe everything you assert is true. Maybe.


And maybe the Bush admin acted correctly. But since you strongly favor limp wristed agreements with really bad actors, it is easier to think "Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid".

So...how well is Iran complying with the magic diplomacy. Asking for a friend.

J. Farmer said...

Julia Child made a similar observation during one of her cooking shows: "Probably the French would think this was dreadful because they don't like anything that they never thought of."

Noam Chomsky also does an able job of pointing out the bizarrity of French intellectual history since the end of the Second World War here.

tim in vermont said...

What they say about French cars:"The French copy nobody and nobody copies the French."

FIDO said...

The JCPOA is a very effective nonproliferation agreement.


And you will assert this until they explode a nuke. In which case, you will assert that 'hated political figure' messed up a magical agreement instead of questioning if that magical agreement was really as good as you asserted it was.

FIDO said...

What they say about French cars:"The French copy nobody and nobody copies the French."


An Axiom of European Aviation:


If it is ugly, it's British


If it is weird, it's French


If it is ugly AND weird, it's Russian.

tim in vermont said...

I worked in France for a short while on a project and found the French to be hardworking.

n.n said...

France is nationalist, pro-native, but not diverse, implying assimilation and integration of immigrants.

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

Ridiculous? If Ramalanga Ding Dong, Nork Informant to the Bush administration, tells the Bushies that 'Hey, they are still making nuclear materials and you guys are saps', then the Bushies say 'Hey...we know the Norks are cheating', the first thing that the Norks are going to do is examine EVERYONE who might know this information...and they won't just ask nicely.

Except that is completely at odds with history. The Bush administration did accuse the North Koreans of cheating (though on the NPT, not the Agreed Framework) in the form of secret uranium enrichment and provided their evidence to the North Koreans, at which time they admitted to the program.

Now if you want to postulate that the Bush administration was "maybe" acting on secret information that they have never made public, then fine. Go ahead. It's a completely unfalsifiable assertion.

So...how well is Iran complying with the magic diplomacy. Asking for a friend.

"Iran has been in compliance with the JCPOA since its implementation began three years ago. This is the thirteenth consecutive time that the IAEA has reported Iran’s compliance. To date, it has been one of the mot successful nonproliferation agreements ever negotiated, and it achieved everything that it was supposed to achieve."
-The Trump Administration’s Fantasy World

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

And you will assert this until they explode a nuke. In which case, you will assert that 'hated political figure' messed up a magical agreement instead of questioning if that magical agreement was really as good as you asserted it was.

No country that has adopted the Additional Protocols has ever developed a nuclear weapon, and the JCPOA effectively blocks Iran's means to a weapon. Again, you appear to have strong feelings about the JCPOA but have not bothered to learn anything about it.

Also, I do not form opinions about policies based on "hated political figures." I don't know these people and don't like or dislike them. I don't judge a policy based on personal feelings about people. That sounds more like the kind of partisan thinking you would be attracted to.

tim in vermont said...

There is no point debating Farmer, you will never hear anything starting with "because" after the phrase "you are wrong." He can prove negatives easily, does it constantly on the most complex subjects. Of course he won't show his work, he just says things like "logically disconnected."

Jim Harvey said...

Who here can imagine Frenchmen drinking California chardonnay?

FIDO said...

Who knew that Chomsky could be relevant.

Known Unknown said...

"We have spent 17 years bogged down in a conflict with a state whose GDP is smaller than the state of Rhode Island."

If only the RoE of WW2 and Afghanistan were the same?

Fernandistein said...

I'll have all you scoffers know that a French guy, Léon Serpollet, driving a French "Œuf de Pâques" car, set the world's land speed record...in France!

steve uhr said...

Trump owns a winery, raising the question whether that was a factor in his decision to single out that product.

Jack Wayne said...

Anyone who quotes Chomsky is guilty of a neo-Godwin thread destroyer.

J. Farmer said...

@tim in vermont:

Of course he won't show his work, he just says things like "logically disconnected."

I am more than willing to debate the subject, with actual facts. And in case you had not noticed, I linked to 38North, a very well respected collection of ongoing commentary and analysis on North Korea, the Arms Control Association, the largest national organization for promoting arms control policies, and the reports of the International Atomic Energy Association. If you can point to similar effort on the other side, I'm all ears.

@Jim Harvey:

Who here can imagine Frenchmen drinking California chardonnay?

Ha. See the infamous Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 for verification of this claim. The dramatized the events in the film Bottle Shock, though a straight documentary about the subject is supposedly also in the works. The event helped put California wines on the map. Though, truthfully, I think professional wine tasting is mostly bunk.

FIDO said...

The Bush administration did accuse the North Koreans of cheating (though on the NPT, not the Agreed Framework) in the form of secret uranium enrichment and provided their evidence to the North Koreans, at which time they admitted to the program.


Wait...so the Bush admin showed EVIDENCE that the Norks were violating one of two nuke agreements, the Norks ADMITTED to violating the agreement...and you think that the idea that Bush admin thought that maybe the Norks were ALSO violating the other agreement is a ridiculous leap? AYFKM?

It's like a man sees his wife hanging around two men a LOT, investigates, discovers that she is DEFINITELY sleeping with Guy A...and yet you would castigate him for being suspicious about her also sleeping with Guy B because hubby doesn't have any evidence...even though she has already been revealed as a cheat once.

This assertion does not paint your intellectual rigor in a positive light.


J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

Who knew that Chomsky could be relevant?

@Jack Wayne:

Anyone who quotes Chomsky is guilty of a neo-Godwin thread destroyer.

You don't have to agree with Chomsky on everything to believe he is write on some things. Chomsky is well known for his loathing of French post-modernism, which was the context of the remarks he was making.

Is being opposed to French post-modernists like Foucault and Derrida wrong because Chomsky also believes it?

Howard said...

Drago stating alternate future projections he pulled out of his tailhook as facts. The real reason Macaroon got Dronald hot and bothered is because of the eagerness and glee with which Princess Melanoma kissed the Frog.

J. Farmer said...

@Known Unknown:

If only the RoE of WW2 and Afghanistan were the same?

That was not the point of the statement, and of course the conflicts are different as well. The point was the impact either had on the respective countries' sense of nationalism.

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

This assertion does not paint your intellectual rigor in a positive light.

Quite frankly I do not think you are understanding the argument. I will again quote at length from 38 North:

"The North Koreans were clearly, in my view, giving themselves a second route to nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration had a fundamental choice: Under the Perry Process, the approach was to treat North Korea’s centrifuge program like its ballistic missile program or its abductions of foreign citizens—yet another instance of terrible North Korean behavior that had to be dealt with in time. In this case, the United States might have negotiated a new agreement to complement the freeze on the DPRK’s plutonium program provided by the Agreed Framework.

The alternative, of course, was to blow up everything. Or, as John Bolton would write with exceptional candor, “This was the hammer I had been looking for to shatter the Agreed Framework.” The phrasing—“had been looking for”—is telling.

I think this was the wrong choice—although I do suspect a Gore Administration might have let the Agreed Framework succumb to political pressures under the same circumstances. The Perry Process was always about bigger carrots and bigger sticks, which is how we ended up with Perry suggesting we attack North Korea in 2006. We’ll never know how a Gore administration would have responded to new intelligence about the maturity of the North Korean enrichment effort. The politics though, don’t change the merits. Why on earth would our response to North Korean bad behavior be to free them from their obligations not to produce plutonium?"

FIDO said...

I linked to 38North, a very well respected collection of ongoing commentary and analysis on North Korea, the Arms Control Association, the largest national organization for promoting arms control policies, and the reports of the International Atomic Energy Association whose power comes from the same said agreements and their ability to craft them


To a baker, the answer is always bread. To a Diplomat...

J. Farmer said...

p.s. Your claims about the Bush administration's supposed secret evidence is also undermined by the fact that the result of Bush's six-party talks was to negotiate a watered down version of the Agreed Framework.

"The United States even agreed to provide North Korea with light-water reactors, the element of the deal the Bush administration criticized most directly."

FIDO said...

"The North Koreans were clearly, in my view, giving themselves a second route to nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration had a fundamental choice: Under the Perry Process, the approach was to treat North Korea’s centrifuge program like its ballistic missile program or its abductions of foreign citizens—yet another instance of terrible North Korean behavior that had to be dealt with in time. In this case, the United States might have negotiated a new agreement to complement the freeze on the DPRK’s plutonium program provided by the Agreed Framework.


Translation: "We needed to replace the agreement they already cheated on with another program that they would likely cheat on"


They are bad apples and liars are going to lie, no matter how you craft the agreement.


"Give them more shit and talk to them in an even sterner fashion" is not a change of anything.

The fundamental problem with all these agreements is that a nuke is better than almost anything you can provide.

rehajm said...

Weeeee already got one!

(i told him we already got one....)

Fernandistein said...

Though, truthfully, I think professional wine tasting is mostly bunk.

They get more accurate results by tasting the labels on the wine bottles.

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

whose power comes from the same said agreements and their ability to craft them

The JCPOA was not crafted by the IAEA but by the P5+1. And it includes not just weapons inspectors working at Iran nuclear facilities but electronic seals on nuclear material, complete monitoring of the fuel cycle, 24/7 video surveillance at facilities, and permanent implemented of the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Agreements.

Humperdink said...

steve uhr: "Trump owns a winery, raising the question whether that was a factor in his decision to single out that product."

Of course. I heard Trump owns a non-French car also.

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

Translation: "We needed to replace the agreement they already cheated on with another program that they would likely cheat on"

The Agreed Framework was about plutonium and did not cover uranium. The North Koreans had violated the NPT but not the Agreed Framework. The state goal of the Framework, to restrict North Korea's plutonium activity, succeeded until the Agreed Framework was abandoned.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. FIDO, please take 10 minutes out of your day and read the two articles I linked to hours ago. If you want to oppose international arms control agreements, that's fine. But at least know what the hell you're talking about first.

Nonapod said...

The Agreed Framework was about plutonium and did not cover uranium. The North Koreans had violated the NPT but not the Agreed Framework. The state goal of the Framework, to restrict North Korea's plutonium activity, succeeded until the Agreed Framework was abandoned.

An agreement that retricts plutonium enrichment but not uranium seems flawed.

YoungHegelian said...

@J Farmer,

Is being opposed to French post-modernists like Foucault and Derrida wrong because Chomsky also believes it?

No, but step outside of his politics & Chomsky's philosophical background is main-line mid 20th C Anglo-American Analytic School. That's not a background that I would expect would have any sympathy nor understanding of French post-structuralism in any case. I would also expect the reverse to be true.

A good example of two philosophers from the two traditions both missing the boat can be seen in the Derrida vs Searle Affair.

narciso said...

The aq Khan network was clearly finding a way around the agreement as the foreign affairs piece note

tim in vermont said...

Well then steve, I am sure that you can explain why we should import French wines with small tariffs while the French protect their domestic producers with higher ones then. You can explain why he is wrong, I am sure.

J. Farmer said...

@Nonapod:

An agreement that retricts plutonium enrichment but not uranium seems flawed.

Recall that the Agreement arose out of the crisis of the early 1990s when North Korea announced plans to withdraw from the NPT and pursue nuclear weapons. The Agreed Framework succeeded in halting North Korea's plutonium enrichment activities, placing the spent fuel under IAEA safeguard, and halting production at Yongbyon and Taechon. Had this not occurred, North Korea would likely have possessed enough material for 100 bombs by 2003.

The decision to respond to uranium enrichment facilities by abandoning the Agreed Framework was a failure. The IAEA inspectors were expelled, the seals were removed, and the spent fuel was repurposed. The all-or-nothing approach pursued by the Bush administration failed, and the result of the six-party talks was to come to an agreement that was even less stringent than the Agreed Framework.

FIDO said...

Cheaters are cheaters.

Look, the problem with this discussion is that you refuse to acknowledge that there is any credence to how many people (not just State Dept Jerk Offs) see the world.

I have been the 98 lb weakling AND the 210 lb monster. If you are a 98 # weakling, you either need Big Brothers, or a lot of other 98# weakings to back you up...or you need to be submissive. Or a mix of the bunch.

If you are a 210# monster, the thing you really don't want to hear about is guns. Because God made Man and Samuel Colt made them equal. Even if you, the 210# monster, has a gun.

If you are an obnoxious, unlikeable and vigorously aggressive and mouthy fuckwit, you are going to have a LOT of people who want to give you a shot in the mouth, especially 210# monsters whom you have insulted their mothers a lot.

So first on fuckwit's Christmas list is a Colt .45 and not the malt liqour. Because fuckwit knows he has no friends and a lot of 210# monsters around with itchy fists. And there is that 'Death to America' crap fuckwit is always spouting

So your agreement of 'Hey, I'm going to give you money but don't you buy a gun which will immunize you to invasion and regime change' seems errant stupidity which ignores facts on the ground.

It means that the guy is going to openly try to save up for a gun, or secretly try to save up for a gun...because fuckwit is tired of taking it on the chin.


Tell me how this is an unreasonable world view?

And please note: The Norks can NOW demilitarize because they have a nuke and can hit Sorks. Funny how that happened. They have the Colt .45 because the Sorks were a 180# monster in their eyes.

J. Farmer said...

@YoungHegelian:

That's not a background that I would expect would have any sympathy nor understanding of French post-structuralism in any case. I would also expect the reverse to be true.

Oh, I agree. Chomsky is clearly from the empiricist position and likewise has disdain for a lot of continental philosophy. But my point was merely to respond to people here who scoffed at the mere quoting of anything Chomsky said.

mockturtle said...

The actual proverb is the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Thank you, Farmer. That always drives me nuts.;-)

Howard said...

Didn't the French reject the 100% French post-structural deconstruction?

Howard said...

Blogger tim in vermont said...

Well then steve, I am sure that you can explain why we should import French wines with small tariffs while the French protect their domestic producers with higher ones then. You can explain why he is wrong, I am sure.


If you keep regurgitating the talking points from a disgusting pusball you'll end up with the fate of Karen Carpenter.

Nonapod said...

I'm sure all that's true, but I still say that it was a deeply flawed agreement if it did not include uranium. Uranium based nukes are damn near as deadly as Plutonium based ones after all. Any agreement about nuclear weapons should have been and should be comprehensive with regards to fissile materials. Otherwise you're inviting trouble.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Hahahahaha! What a dope. He’s not even worthy of scorn anymore, just mockery.

J. Farmer said...

@FIDO:

Tell me how this is an unreasonable world view?

To be honest, your metaphor did not help me in elucidating what the world view is. I do not understand it. If you care to explain it in simpler terms, I'll give a respond. As best as I can tell, your argument seems to be that diplomacy can never work because another side can always cheat. If that is the case, perhaps you can explain what a workable solution to the problem of North Korea would look like?

steve uhr said...

"Well then steve, I am sure that you can explain why we should import French wines with small tariffs while the French protect their domestic producers with higher ones then. You can explain why he is wrong, I am sure."

So Tim are you saying that when/if Trump proposes higher tariffs on French wine you will be concerned about the fact that he will personally benefit from such action? Or no reason for worry because "what's good for Trump is good for America"

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

Thank you, Farmer. That always drives me nuts.;-)

Haha. Me, too! Though not as much as when people say "that begs the question" to mean "that raises the question." I have all but given up on trying to correct that one, and sadly it seems to be heading for common usage acceptance.

J. Farmer said...

@Nonapod:

I agree, generally speaking. But I also think it is a perfect being the enemy of the good kind of situation. The Agreement did succeed in freezing a stockpile for eight years and halting North Korea's advancement towards a weapon. The question was how to respond to the discovery that North Korea was potentially pursuing a uranium enrichment capacity. The Bush administration made the decision to abandon the Agreed Framework and pursue a maximalist approach. That policy failed, and it is ahistorical to say that it failed because of the Agreed Framework.

Fernandistein said...

That always drives me nuts.;-)

The driving of nuts is in the eating.

Drago said...

Howard: "Drago stating alternate future projections he pulled out of his tailhook as facts. The real reason Macaroon got Dronald hot and bothered is because of the eagerness and glee with which Princess
Melanoma kissed the Frog."

Please tell me that is not really all you have to fall back on.

Drago said...

Shorter steve uhr: its okay for the French to place high tariffs on US products and the US better not respond in kind because ...reasons.

Doug said...

How do you say'pissant' in French? 'Cause it kinda looks like a French word.

tim in vermont said...

More like what's good for America is good for Trump. You and me too. Did your response seem like thinking to you, because it sure seems like unquestioning parroting of a talking point to me.

Balfegor said...

RE: J. Farmer:

The Agreed Framework was about plutonium and did not cover uranium. The North Koreans had violated the NPT but not the Agreed Framework.

So they happily breached one international agreement about nuclear proliferation, but hadn't yet breached another. Why on earth would that give you comfort that they would take the Agreed Framework any more seriously than they took the NPT? Particularly since we'd been slow-walking our obligations under the Agreed Framework (e.g. to provide them with a light water nuclear reactor) since the middle of the Clinton Administration. We didn't even start construction at all until Bush II (in 2002, um, after he had identified North Korea as part of an Axis of Evil), but then we stopped almost immediately. We also regularly held back on fuel shipments under both Clinton and Bush II.

Doug said...

Q: Why did the French plant trees along the Champs de Elysee?
A: So to Nazis could match in the shade.

Henry said...

A quick search tells me that the difference between U.S. and French wine tariffs is between 6 and 24 cents.

Trump misses the bigger picture: French subsidies, protective labeling laws, and baroque certification requirements are the real problem.

India, of all places, has the highest tariffs on U.S. wines (150%). Perhaps a holdover from autarky.

For the record, I've had domestic Chinese and Indian wine and they have been perfectly drinkable.

tim in vermont said...

steve believes that we should import European goods at unreciprocated low tariffs because it's unseemly to demand a fair deal. What his policies that are well known and defensible on their own as what he ran on have to do with his personal holdings, I guess you have to be a liberal to understand why their personal animus against Trump outweighs America's trade interests.

Fernandistein said...

"Les noix conduisent souvent les voitures Françaises." -- Gaston Vuillemin

Balfegor said...

RE: J. Farmer:

It's also false to claim that the Agreed Framework was limited to plutonium. The specific reactors called out for decommissioning were used for plutonium processing, but section III.2 committed the DPRK to implementation of the 1992 Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which provided that North Korea (and South Korea) would not possess uranium enrichment facilities. DPRK also committed to remain a party to the NPT.

You could try and make a lawyerly argument that DPRK constructing and operating uranium enrichment facilities wasn't a violation of the 1992 Joint Declaration, because hey, it didn't say that they would implement it immediately, just that they would "continually" take steps to implement it. That could include steps in the opposite direction. And technically the DPRK remained a party to the NPT until they withdrew . . . after we discovered they had been flouting their obligations under the NPT. But that's BS, frankly. I won't say that the US exactly lived up to its obligations under the Agreed Framework -- we didn't. But North Korea didn't either.

rehajm said...

I don't care for nuts in my pudding. Some bread puddings can support a few chopped pecans.

mockturtle said...

@mockturtle:

Thank you, Farmer. That always drives me nuts.;-)

Haha. Me, too! Though not as much as when people say "that begs the question" to mean "that raises the question." I have all but given up on trying to correct that one, and sadly it seems to be heading for common usage acceptance.


Mere minutes after I posted that, I heard a guy on Fox Business say, "The proof is in the pudding". I'm afraid it's a losing battle. ;-D

J. Farmer said...

@Balfegor:

So they happily breached one international agreement about nuclear proliferation, but hadn't yet breached another. Why on earth would that give you comfort that they would take the Agreed Framework any more seriously than they took the NPT?

I agree with you that there were also concerns about the US keeping to its side of the commitments, and that this engendered a lot of mistrust on the North Korean side as well. The enmity between the two countries was obviously an obstacle to a working agreement.

But again, as to the basis purpose of the Agreed Framework, it was succeeding and had halted North Korea's plutonium enrichment activities and significantly slowed its progress towards developing a weapon. The question was how to respond to the newly discovered interested in uranium centrifuges. Had the US maintained the Agreed Framework and pursued a new round of negotiations aimed at limiting the uranium program, we may have ended up with a different result. Of course, no one can know this one way or the other. But what we do know is that the decision to abandon the Agreed Framework and pursue a new round of pressure and negotiations ultimately failed.

Nonapod said...

. Farmer said...But I also think it is a perfect being the enemy of the good kind of situation. The Agreement did succeed in freezing a stockpile for eight years and halting North Korea's advancement towards a weapon.

My view is that, given North Korea's history, you have to ensure that any agreement is very specific, detailed, and firm with a clear timeline. If there are loopholes, they will be exploited. North Korea is nothing if not opportunistic.

You could argue that such a deal is unrealistic or unachievable, but I would argue that we've tried less-than-ideal deals many times now and they have all failed. Anything less than a clear and specific agreement will only end up failing anyways. You could argue that perhaps we bear some of the burden for those various failures, and I might agree in certain cases. But we are where we are now. At this point blame isn't that important to me. Neither are the politics. I'm interested in results. What will work?

J. Farmer said...

@Balfegor:

Again, I generally agree with your assertion, and that was addressed in the 38 North article I linked to earlier. I'll quote it here:

"Assumption 2: North Korea cheated on the Agreed Framework.

Well, again, not quite. We should give the devil his due: North Korea largely kept its commitments regarding its plutonium-production capabilities.

Starting a secret enrichment program, on the other hand, clearly violated understood expectations, a classic example of a transgressor obtaining a slight advantage in comparison with a relatively large inconvenience imposed upon the aggrieved party. This will get its own section.

But freezing North Korea’s plutonium production was nothing to sneeze at. We might not have known how much separated plutonium North Korea possessed, but we had a pretty good idea how much unseparated plutonium was sitting in North Korea’s spent fuel pond in 1994. Moreover, we know how much plutonium North Korea would be able to produce each year if it completed the two much larger reactors under construction at Yongbyon and Taechon."

Luke Lea said...

"
Blogger J. Farmer said...
Macron's remarks were certainly undiplomatic (not that Trump should mind that), and they repeated the same daft nonsense about WWI being a result of too much nationalism, as opposed to too much imperialism."

I would say WWI was caused by too many hereditary monarchs. After all it was Germany's Kaiser, Autria-Hungary's Emperor, and Russia's Czar who made the final decisions to go to war. This should be mentioned more often.

tcrosse said...

Mere minutes after I posted that, I heard a guy on Fox Business say, "The proof is in the pudding". I'm afraid it's a losing battle. ;-D

He could care less.

walter said...

Trump is such a star he had that hot Parisian babe rushing his limo showing off her perfect tits.
So much winning.

steve uhr said...

Tim. dont put words in my mouth. If you don't care to address the point I raise I'm cool with that.

J. Farmer said...

@Nonapod:

But we are where we are now. At this point blame isn't that important to me. Neither are the politics. I'm interested in results. What will work?

I agree that trying to apportion blame is a waste of time and is more about partisan point scoring than actually trying to solve the problem. But I don't think that is the same as trying to learn from history, and I think that there are a set of folk myths that have grown up around the Agreed Framework from which people are drawing very misguided conclusions. I would recommend two other articles from 38 North on the subject that I think are worth reading:

Lessons from the Unhappy History of Verification in North Korea

Bad History Makes for Flawed Policy

Balfegor said...

Re: J. Farmer:

Starting a secret enrichment program, on the other hand, clearly violated understood expectations,

So you're going with the argument that starting a secret enrichment program isn't technically a violation of the Agreed Framework provision obligating DPRK to implement the Joint Declaration:

3. The South and the North shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities (all kinds of emphasis added)

I mean, look -- I'm a lawyer, and I understand that sometimes that's all you've got. But come on. That's not a violation of "understood expectations." That's BS.

J. Farmer said...

@Luke Lea:

I would say WWI was caused by too many hereditary monarchs. After all it was Germany's Kaiser, Autria-Hungary's Emperor, and Russia's Czar who made the final decisions to go to war. This should be mentioned more often.

I don't actually think there is much connection between the internal nature of a society and its foreign policy. The most liberal society in the 19th century, the United Kingdom, was also the most interventionist and imperialist. That said, I do believe that Germany deserves most of the blame for WWI. The Austro-Hungarians were hungry to unleash a punitive war against Serbia and crafted their ultimatum in such a way that they knew Serbia would reject it and thus give Austro-Hungary a pretext for war. A sort of last gasp of a crumbling, dying empire. And the Germans were unbelievably foolish in giving the Austro-Hungarians a green light to pursue its vendetta against the Serbians.

J. Farmer said...

@Balfegor:

So you're going with the argument that starting a secret enrichment program isn't technically a violation of the Agreed Framework provision obligating DPRK to implement the Joint Declaration

I am most certainly not a lawyer, though I do have to work with them every day, and I don't want to get bogged down into a semantic disagreement. But recall that you already pointed out the he Agreed Framework did not obligate them "to implement the Joint Declaration" but only to "consistently take steps to implement the North-South Join Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

And also, I am not arguing that the United States should simply have ignored the North's uranium enrichment program. The question is how to respond to it once it was discovered. There was disagreement within Bush's inner circle, particularly between Bolton and James Kelly. I would have been on Kelly's side in that argument and opposed to Bolton's desire to destroy the Agreed Framework. Kelly pointed out at the time that the discovered plans would take a decade to come to fruition, and he turned out to be correct in that assessment.

Unknown said...

IIRC, the Kaiser actually tried to stop the war when he saw the Serbian capitulation, which his government had kept from him for crucial hours, but by then it was too late.

Churchill said something to the effect that he honored the Kaiser for that effort, and damned him for tolerating a government that could do such things.

Seeing Red said...

Too much nationalism = protecting yourself.

So Macron wants to build an army to protect France? Whaaaa?


I don’t think France ever paid back their portion of the Marshall Plan and didn’t DeGaulle pull them out of (parts of) NATO in the 60s?

Jim Gust said...

Make France Great Again? That implies that it was great once before, I don't know when that was.

I don't see a path to greatness for cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Meade said...

"Hahahahaha! What a dope. He’s not even worthy of scorn anymore, just mockery. "

Yeah? Mockery without contempt? From the left? I'd love to see what that looks like. No jeers, sneers, taunts, disdain, derision, disparagement, denigration, disrespect, insults, scorn. Just straight up mockery and ridicule but with love (or at least neutral, without hate.)

Can you find an example of that, Inga? Or demonstrate it yourself? I'm sure I've never seen it.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

IIRC, the Kaiser actually tried to stop the war when he saw the Serbian capitulation, which his government had kept from him for crucial hours, but by then it was too late.

I am not sure that trying to "stop the war" was exactly the goal. The Kaiser was attempting to use his relationship (he was related to Nicholas) to prevent Russian involvement and to remain a spectator. The Kaiser never appeared to waver from his support of Austria's actions against Serbia. This link has an interesting compilation of the telegrams between the two leaders in late July 1914.

mockturtle said...

Tcrosse quips: He could care less.

;-D Yep, another one...

mockturtle said...

Yes, France was a great nation when the USA was a mere twinkle in Columbus' eye.

J. Farmer said...

@Jim Gust:

Make France Great Again? That implies that it was great once before, I don't know when that was.

French support for the Revolutionary War is certainly important to our history, and French-British rivalries were an important issue to our fledgling republic. Not to mention the unabashed Francophilia expressed by important founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin. And French had been a diplomatic lingua franca for a few centuries.

tim in vermont said...

Tim. dont put words in my mouth. If you don't care to address the point I raise I'm cool with that.

I absolutely addressed the point you made and pointed out the implications of your “point.” That you can’t see it due to your partisan blindness is not a great surprise.

mockturtle said...

Someone suggested the other day that WWI was caused by a balance of power becoming unbalanced. I would offer that alliances are a major cause of wars and certainly caused WWI.

Henry said...

WWI was caused by boredom.

tim in vermont said...

“Don’t put words in my mouth” means don’t point out the implications of my arguments. And BTW, it also means that the utterer will not be explaining why I am wrong to come up with those implications. I am supposed to narrowly focus on the one issue that Trump brought up and his holdings, even though Trump has been talking about uneven tariffs in our European trade deals just about since he rode down the escalator. But this ONE time, since Trump owns a winery, his arguments are thus invalid. Only a person harboring blind hatred for Trump could believe that, steve.

tim in vermont said...

I bet the only reason that Trump became president was to advantage his wineries and drag the press to his golf courses.

tim in vermont said...

I bet your argument works a lot better, steve, on those lefty sites that ban commenters like myself within hours, if not minutes. It’s amazing how strong these hothouse flower arguments can seem before they are subjected to the open air of a site that doesn’t ban commenters.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

Someone suggested the other day that WWI was caused by a balance of power becoming unbalanced. I would offer that alliances are a major cause of wars and certainly caused WWI.

Completely agree. The continent had faced a number of significant crises before the events of June 1914 that did not lead to a general war. I think disquieting thing was the very romantic notion many Europeans had of war prior to WWI. A general sense had been growing that war on the continent was not only inevitable but would be a good and cleansing thing.

Also, this is why I think we should worry about the fact that the US has extended war guarantees to nearly half the globe.

Jim Harvey said...

Who here can imagine Frenchmen drinking California chardonnay?

Ha. See the infamous Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 for verification of this claim.



But, I said nothing about the quality of US wine. Would a Frenchman drink it? Not in a million years.

PS, yea and I'm a wine snob and generally have no interest in California wine, and love French wine. But, I do like Pennsylvania, and that's because for me it's fresh and local.


tcrosse said...

WWI was caused by boredom.

"Since boredom advances and boredom is the root of all evil, no wonder, then, that the world goes backwards, that evil spreads. This can be traced back to the very beginning of the world. The gods were bored; therefore they created human beings. Adam was bored because he was alone; therefore Eve was created. Since that moment, boredom entered the world and grew in quantity in exact proportion to the growth of population. Adam was bored alone; then Adam and Eve were bored en famille. After that, the population of the world increased and the nations were bored en masse. To amuse themselves, they hit upon the notion of building a tower so high that it would reach the sky. This notion is just as boring as the tower was high and is a terrible demonstration of how boredom had gained the upper hand. Then they were dispersed around the world, just as people now travel abroad, but they continued to be bored. And what consequences this boredom had: humankind stood tall and fell far, first through Eve, then from the Babylonian tower."

- Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or, Part 1, Crop Rotation

tim in vermont said...

So you guys are trying to get Althouse to back off of her “I’m for boring” thing?

James Smith said...

Yeah, the good old days when France was our ally. Curiously, in all the war remembrances there is no mention of the French Army killing US and British troops landing in Morocco. Or the French admiral who was going to turn French capital ships over to the Germans - because he hated the English.

Also no mention of how much of the French Resistance cooperated with the Germans.

Or, for that matter, how much French citizens assisted the German holocaust.

Wonderful bunch of people those French.

James K said...

alliances are a major cause of wars and certainly caused WWI.

No doubt WWI was a complete clusterf**k triggered by a bunch of unwise alliances, but alliances can also prevent wars. Who's to say that NATO didn't prevent Soviet westward expansion? In any case it's a bit hard to sort out cause and effect. Alliances form in preparation for (and as a deterrent to) war, so to say they cause wars is a bit like saying umbrellas cause rain. The real lesson is to be careful with alliances, not to forswear them entirely.

J. Farmer said...

@Jim Harvey:

But, I said nothing about the quality of US wine. Would a Frenchman drink it? Not in a million years.

I was agreeing with you. The French reaction to the Judgment of Paris was hysterical, in the truest sense of the word.

J. Farmer said...

@James K:

The real lesson is to be careful with alliances, not to forswear them entirely.

I am not sure anyone is making the case that alliances should be forsworn entirely. And there is a difference between an alliance that is meant to protect you from an invasion and actively supporting and encouraging an invasion. There was nothing about Germany's alliance with Austro-Hungary that required them to support an Austro-Hungarian war against Serbia, and Germany's decision to support such a war was the single most proximate cause of the war.

mockturtle said...

Farmer opines: Also, this is why I think we should worry about the fact that the US has extended war guarantees to nearly half the globe.

And of course our first President warned against 'foreign entanglements'. While trade is good, security guarantees are not. Of course, we did guarantee Japan's security because they were not allowed to develop their own military after WWII. So now, if they are attacked by NorK, we have to intervene. Not saying alliance is always a bad thing but they certainly have caused wars in cases where the skirmish may have been limited to two nations rather than expanding globally.

mockturtle said...

There is no comparison between a California 'Burgundy' and a French one.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 280   Newer› Newest»