One Year of Trump

... sit down, kick back and relax, and talk about anything that doesn't belong on one of the other forums.
Maegon
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:15 am

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Maegon » Wed May 09, 2018 12:46 pm

Tolveor wrote:Just to keep the debate going, I'm not really sure how accurate that statement is. If you take into account the many indian treaties that happened when the United States took over the North American continent, I'm pretty sure there was treaties broken while at the same time similar treaties were negotiated elsewhere.


There were over 300 Indian languages spoken in America at the time, so even assuming they had a common language or translator, they couldn't exactly Skype instantly across the country to discuss the fine details of how hard we screwed over other tribes. Times are a bit different now.

Tolveor wrote:Also if you want a more recent example, you pulled out of whatever transatlantic trade deal there was while trying to simultaniously (re)negotiate nafta. So that would be other times when the United States have pulled out of established/working deals in one theater while trying to negotiate the same exact things elsewhere. In fact, I think thats a pretty common mechanic in international relations.


They still haven't renegotiated NAFTA. I wonder what's slowing them down?

Vaen
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Vaen » Wed May 09, 2018 2:51 pm

Maghus wrote:


Oops and I stopped caring.
Last edited by Vaen on Wed May 09, 2018 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vaen
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Vaen » Wed May 09, 2018 3:17 pm

I'm sure if one tribe tuned into CNN (Colonial News Network) and saw another tribe was getting fucked, it would have probably had an impact on relations. Anyways:

Tolveor wrote:Also if you want a more recent example, you pulled out of whatever transatlantic trade deal there was while trying to simultaniously (re)negotiate nafta. So that would be other times when the United States have pulled out of established/working deals in one theater while trying to negotiate the same exact things elsewhere. In fact, I think thats a pretty common mechanic in international relations.


Let me start by saying that no, diplomatic inconsistency and lack of basic internal logic is most certainly not a common mechanic in international relations. Uncertainty is not really desirable enough to be a common mechanic, it's more of a by-product.

Realizing that this administration says a lot of things that they contradict five minutes later, there's definitely consistency for why they don't want to be part of the TPP and why they want to either leave or "renegotiate" NAFTA. It's incorrect, but I get the internal logic of "America is getting fucked by international trade deals! We're going to leave or renegotiate" as it applies across TPP and NAFTA. That's boiling it down to really simplistic terms, but it's there. Even then, like Maegon said, any substantial change to NAFTA is going to be a pull-out. Nobody is going to agree to substantial changes with an unreliable actor, so you're going to see the same exact thing happen.

Lykan
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Lykan » Wed May 09, 2018 5:13 pm

Trail of Tears, people. Trail of Tears!!!

Fuck you, Jackson. Supreme Court 4 life.

Davor
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:38 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Davor » Wed May 09, 2018 6:41 pm

I like that he freed the Americans in NK. Too bad we couldn’t do it earlier with that college kid who passed away from NK treatment.

hasp
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:30 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby hasp » Wed May 09, 2018 7:00 pm

Truth Davor

Tolveor
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:29 am
Location: Sarpsborg, Norway
Contact:

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Tolveor » Wed May 09, 2018 7:38 pm

Breaking peace with one nation and simultaniously seeking peace with another nation would be a very common example of nations breaking an agreement in one arena while at the same time negotiating a similar agreement another place. So to me it would seem a common mecanic.

We are down to semantics here, but I would certainly not say breaking agreements is a desireable strategy, but its still a mecanic, by-product or not.

Maybe the US is a special case with over 500 treaties entered in 200 years with the native americans, and every single one of those agreements broken, but i'm sure there are plenty of examples of that all over the world if you look at it closer. I would guess if an inconsistency is repeated enough times it becomes a consistancy. What i'm getting at is that looking at history or statistics, one shouldn't expect the US government to keep treaties.

Back to your original point. The way you phrase it "I can't think of" makes sure you are not wrong in that statement. But in the native american example i had hoped to provide you with a plausible example of the US pulling out of established deals while negotiating the same things elsewhere. I could actually go through the recently digitalized historical treaties the US made of course, but since its a thought experiment to begin with, i will just say that I think its plausible that the US government negotiated one treaty with one nation and broke another similar treaty with another nation at the same time throughout history. I base this on the number of treaties written and broken on the official record.

Also I will add that the means of communication becomes irrelevant when the statement is "I can't think of another time the United States pulled out of an established/working deal in one theater while trying to negotiate essentially the exact same thing elsewhere", and the argument is basically "here is some plausible examples."

Vaen
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Vaen » Wed May 09, 2018 8:31 pm

I think you're seriously missing the point - the idea is not 'treaty with nation' it's 'treaties against nonproliferation', so the debate is sort of a non-starter.

We are down to semantics here,


Yeah, that tends to happen when you go back to the Trail of Tears or some shit to make a pointless counterpoint.

Also I will add that the means of communication becomes irrelevant when the statement is "I can't think of another time the United States pulled out of an established/working deal in one theater while trying to negotiate essentially the exact same thing elsewhere"


Right, if you absolutely go out of your way to avoid the point, being the reason *why* people don't negotiate in a way that doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt.

Tolveor
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:29 am
Location: Sarpsborg, Norway
Contact:

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Tolveor » Wed May 09, 2018 9:32 pm

So treaties from 1791 to 1911, which is most of the history of the united states goverment when it relates to treaties doesnt matter?

And I'm not talking about the trail of tears. I'm talking about 500 documented historical treaties and agreements the US government have agreed to and broken. Its on the record. If that doesn't show that "people" is inconsistent in their negotiations I dont know what does. The US government is historically notorious for breaking deals.

* "I can't think of another time" opens up for others to provide examples of just that. I don't see how thats beside the point you were making. If you don't want a point you are making to be argued, don't make the point.

* I don't see where you say "treaties against nonproliferation" except in that last post.

Anyway, i agree that its a sound strategy to not break treaties while negotiating a treaty.

Just to make the point clearer. There is 1 non proliferation treaty and thats on nuclear weapons. If you want other examples of breaking and negotiating you have to take other treaties into consideration. So its not besides the point.

Vaen
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Vaen » Thu May 10, 2018 10:12 am

Tolveor wrote:So treaties from 1791 to 1911, which is most of the history of the united states goverment when it relates to treaties doesnt matter?


They matter in their own context - I just don't give a fuck about them in the context of modern geopolitics.

And I'm not talking about the trail of tears. I'm talking about 500 documented historical treaties and agreements the US government have agreed to and broken. Its on the record. If that doesn't show that "people" is inconsistent in their negotiations I dont know what does. The US government is historically notorious for breaking deals.


No, you're conflating things that happened (documented historical treaties that were broken) and then extrapolating what you're "pretty sure" was the case (that they were negotiating and breaking them at the same time). The idea is to negotiate the best deal for yourself, but relying on information asymmetry "between 1791 to 1911" is very different than relying on it in 2018.

* "I can't think of another time" opens up for others to provide examples of just that. I don't see how thats beside the point you were making. If you don't want a point you are making to be argued, don't make the point.


Yes, as you've said 40 times -- and once again, if your'e going to conflate "point" with "rhetorical device used to make it", I'm sure the fact that I said you've said it 40 times should keep you busy for at least 4 more posts.

* I don't see where you say "treaties against nonproliferation" except in that last post.


I don't think I've said "treaties against nonproliferation" anywhere because I'm pretty sure they're treaties for nonproliferation, but that is literally the context for the entire conversation we're having. What do you think both the Iran deal and any potential North Korea deal hinges on?

There is 1 non proliferation treaty and thats on nuclear weapons.


That's just a factually incorrect statement. Just off the top of my head there are nonproliferation treaties and conventions on biological weapons, chemical weapons, anti-ballistic missiles, cluster munitions, mines, etc. There are also about a dozen treaties/conventions specific to nuclear nonproliferation besides the NPT. Then there are the dozens on other conventional weapons, the major ones like SALT, the STARTs, SORT, etc. etc. etc. These all fall under the umbrella of nonproliferation under the larger umbrella of arms control.


Return to “Player's Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests