Oh, boy. Here we go again.
The real spearhead of global terrorism.
The Donald is showing great restraint and diplomacy in not nuking all of these savages.
How does that work for a narrative?
I’m only half kidding.
[quote]“This type of target was absolutely foreseeable, as Islamic State has increasingly been highlighting in its propaganda that scores of children have been killed in coalition and Russian strikes targeting Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria,” said Michael S. Smith II, a terrorism analyst who specializes in the Islamic State’s influence efforts and who is writing a book on its external operations.
All of that content is “intended to stimulate thinking about executing retributive attacks among Islamic State supporters here in the West,” Mr. Smith said.[/quote]
If the narrative is that Donald bin Laden is considering “executing retributive attacks” against civilian targets in the Middle East using weapons of mass destruction because “scores of children” were killed on Manchester then I’d say results speak for themselves.
I don’t think I bring myself to accept a moral equivalence between human shields and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Blowing up an apartment building in order to kill one individual versus blowing up an apartment building in order to kill everyone in it aren’t morally equivalent but they’re both still acts of depravity. Just ask the families of the dead women, children and elderly.
Let the tantrums begin:
I’m looking at the accord on NPR and it is really hard to read. I wonder where the language is in it that requires the US to pay more without requiring China and India to reduce their emissions. Any legal experts out there?
I think that we Americans will join in the end but renegotiate something that is better for America. I also think that most of us really do care about global warming but we aren’t convinced that a Paris Climate Accord is the way to do this.
This is what Trump says:
“I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States, which is what it does, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters,” Trump said — singling out China and India by name.
“In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States and ships them to foreign countries,” he added. “This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”
This is from NPR
As NPR’s Christopher Joyce recently reported, emissions in the U.S. have declined by about 12 percent since 2005.
“The U.S. has successfully bent its greenhouse gas emissions curve,” Kate Larsen, of the economics research team Rhodium Group, told Christopher. “And we are going to continue to reduce emissions over the next 10 years, likely regardless of Trump policy.”
Well done for wanting to read what the actual accord is. Much easier to virtue signal by name calling Trump a meanie. I’ve tried reading up on it, so far just the article on Wikipedia.
It’s interesting that Obama didn’t get congressional approval when he signed. Then paid, 500 million? towards a 3B commitment. Correct me if I’m wrong. It is a complex agreement. It doesn’t look like anything in it can be enforced though from my first reading of it. I hope we will join on better terms and I also support taking care of the environment.
When it comes to this agreement, there’s only one thing you really need to know: it’s non-binding. With no mechanism for enforcement, it’s basically just a big let’s-pat-each-other-on-the-back (pardon my French) circle jerk. Of course everybody but Nicaragua and Syria have signed it…it’s no skin off their teeth. And the poor countries are promised $100 billion in aid a year from the rich countries. What are they gonna do? Refuse free money?
In a non-binding agreement, anyone who honors the terms is a chump. The Donald has opted to be one of the non-chump nations.
But he’s also decided to announce it. Why bother to announce when you can just pretend the thing doesn’t exist? The only reason is to troll people.
Holy cow, looks like someone has been thrown under the bus.
As dubiously sourced as anything you see in the news these days, but oozing with truthiness:
Trump was blunt with the Saudi ruler. “I’ll help you with Iran only if you help me sell American LNG and oil to China, and there’s only one way to do that.” “ Which is?” asked the head camel driver. “Stop Qatar from selling their LNG to the Chinese, and while you’re at it, both of you stop funding terrorists, or else.”
All effective international diplomacy is international politics, and most effective politics is pressure politics.
Il Douche politicized law enforcement and thus weaponized the law. Now The Donald wields the weapon.
Nation building.Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. It’s like psychotherapy: the nation has to want to be built.
Dubya tried to be the world’s wise old uncle. It turned out he wasn’t as insightful as he thought he was, and his platitudes about the Iraqi People and the Religion of Peace soon appeared ludicrous. But killing terrorists… that always made sense.
Oh, and there’s no Libyan People or Syrian People either.
Lot of sour grapes in this article, but here’s the real takeaway: people like this are currying favor with us now. That’s an improvement.
Oh, and Saudi Arabia is trying to be less evil for a change. Still lots of problems to clean up in this world, but that’s major progress on one of them. Well, there’s also some progress on North Korea.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. And a carrot. And throw Il Douche’s not-so-smart diplomacy under the bus.
China imports soybeans from the US?
Yeah. China consumes 61% of the world’s soybeans (tofu, anyone?) and the U.S. is a major farming country.
I was reading 60b of tariffs on china, which responded by proposing 3b tariffs on Us imports.