Well, no, it's backfired now and you are facing a costly war as a consequence, one with lasting and unpredictable repercussions for all of us and in which history will (or should) all but certainly conclude that you were the instigators. However, you have just illustrated my point from the other thread very nicely. The US will do as it pleases and the rest of the world have to deal with the consequences. In other words bullying behaviour.
It is hardly a bullying behavior to expect lesser nations to obey the will of the dominant one. The U.S. spends more than any other nation to maintain a military capable of defeating all comers. If other nations want to have a dominant military they can pay for it. But in the real world, sacrifice (in this case of American taxpayers) deserves something for it.
How is he a bad actor? Nobody except Trump and his most shameless bootlickers could possibly think he did anything wrong, including the entire U.S. diplomatic corps.
Precisely. Trump declares him useless (ie, a "bad actor")and Boris makes it abundantly clear he won't support an extremely competent civil servant for fear of upsetting a sitting POTUS. Sir Darroch found himself in a position where he had no support from the top at either end and maintaining his job was untenable.
It's just important to distinguish between U.S. policy in general over the years, and this current administration's particular brand of idiocy.
Like Trump or not (and I detest the man) his policies are not that different from that advanced by other U.S. administrations. Even some of President Obama's.
Absolutely, but I'm talking about the nature of the transatlantic relationship, the so called "special relationship". The sacking of Sir Darroch is a perfect illustration of just how sycophantic that relationship is and frankly always has been with successive UK governments jumping to the bidding of their US counterparts and selling it as being a sign of just how close we are to our American cousins.
Which is why I wanted to emphasize that his petty, spiteful reaction to the former U.K. ambassador's truthful comments was outside the realm of policy.
Stop with that bullshit. Iran does have a nuclear weapons program. Literally no one on the planet thinks they don't. Except apparently for you.
Well I don’t necessarily think Iran would target Canada specifically but in the event Iran ever got ICBM's and if it wanted to commit suicide by lobbing them at America than that means at least one or two of those nukes would no doubt be high altitude air-bursts designed for an EMP strike. In which case Canada would be fucked as badly as the United States. Mexico too.
No, there's no proof (or even particularly compelling evidence) that they do. We have inconclusive evidence they did (AMAD) and also that it was discontinued or suspended around 2003 (ish) but even that is at least partially drawn from an unreliable source (the Isrealis) The question, however, should also be considered, so what if they do? The only issue for me there would be that they had violated an agreement, one which the US most definitely has violated at its' end.
Don't British Prime Ministers frequently get criticized for being "too supportive" of the United States.? Margaret Thatcher for allowing the U.S. to use F-111s based in Britain to attack Libya in 1986. Tony Blair during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. IIRC, Winston Churchill would advise his successor Anthony Eden (and also for all future Prime Ministers) to (hope the quote is right) "Never allow anything come between you and the Americans". Churchill had a solid reason for this beyond his parentage. I've read that he (and Churchill was known for his foresight in geopolitics) knew the British Empire was dying and that it was by exerting influence through its relationship with the USA, the British had an opportunity to "punch above its weight" in foreign affairs.
I'm pretty sure it is pretty much a global policy to prevent and/or discourage nations from becoming nuclear powers. Kind of the entire point of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
I completely agree, but what is Trumps' stance on denuclearisation? Is he playing along with that? Where is the incentive for countries like Iran to not become a nuclear power if all you are doing is leaving yourself vulnerable to other, larger, nations who can force their will on you via conventional means and are unwilling to work towards that goal themselves? Everyone watched what happened to Iraq, to Afghanistan. They know full well that if they're on the US hit list they are screwed unless they have a (no pun intended) trump card to play.
I doubt Trump can spell denuclearization (but then again you can't either so we can't hit him for that) But that said, IIRC the terms of the Nonproliferation Treaty require the existing nuclear weapons powers to "work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons". By any reasonable standard the U.S. (and Russians) have indeed "worked toward the elimination of nuclear weapons". Both have dismantled literally thousands of nuclear weapons. Sure they had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons at one point but progress is still progress and still is still in accordance with the NPT.
Indeed I can, I just refuse to switch to US English to pacify the WF spellchecker. We consider "z" to be reserved for special occasions and not to be sullied by day to day use. Trump has made it clear he has no intentions to comply with the NPT, one of his earliest pledges in office (and one he has reiterated since) was a ten year plan to spend £350 billion upgrading and increasing US nuclear capabilities. Russia likewise has withdrawn from a lot of the anti proliferation agreements and is in the process of up gunning. Don't believe me, google is your friend.
IIRC the NPT does NOT forbid nuclear powers from building new nuclear weapons as long as the total number is less. IIRC this has been the policy of the U.S. (and for that matter the Russians) for a couple of decades now. Decommission older nuclear weapons and build newer nuclear weapons but in reduced numbers. This is reasonable as newer nuclear weapons tend to be smaller (because missile accuracy has increased), more reliable, and safer. Let's put it this way, if both the U.S. and Russia reduced their number of strategic nuclear weapons (weapons that can strike at intercontinental ranges) from 1,500-1800 at present to say only about 500 each even if those 500 are brand new state of the art nuclear weapons wouldn't you consider that a step forward? Sorry about the spelling comment. While I know British spelling of many words is different than that of Americans I wasn't aware of the "s" in place of "z" thing.
It's ok, I wasn't offended. I get that Trump and Putins' stance may technically comply with the NPT (although I personally doubt either would feel obliged or even inclined to do so, after all, who could hold either to account?) it certainly represents an increase in capabilities and runs counter to the spirit of NPT and that's very much visible to countries like Iran. Smaller but more accurate may produce less collateral, but from a military standpoint is almost certainly more effective. So from the Iranians' point of view: 1) Non nuclear powers are seen to be preyed upon by larger powers using conventional means 2) The largest powers have no real intention to reduce their capabilities 3) The US has a long history of belligerence towards them in particular 4) The US has reneged on a deal designed to allow for peaceful management of nuclear proliferation 5) Very high level voices in the US administration are openly calling for war and seemingly gaining traction 6) Tensions are rising and it seems that claims of innocence are ignored, much as was the case with Iraq What course of action are they likely to take under such circumstances?
Can't say but the fact is that for the two and a half decades the Shah was leading Iran, the U.S. had highly friendly relations with them. And I'm pretty certain that despite what they no doubt claim today, the U.S. was not "controlling" Iran back then.
Controlling? No, not likely, not in a direct sense. He was, however, their chosen leader. He was there with their good graces and at their (really quite violent) behest. Had he meaningfully turned against them his life expectancy would have been quite doubtful. He maintained "friendly relations" on the basis of being amenable and keeping at least one eye on at the bare minimum not disrupting US interests if not supplementing them.
Oh please. Name some foreign leaders the U.S. has actually assassinated. Not "attempted", "suspected", "claimed", "alleged" or killed by someone supposedly allied with the U.S. I mean actually murdered by the U.S. I assure you given the hapless history of the U.S. CIA that the number is shockingly tiny.
I never mentioned assassination. Regime change frequently involves the death of the outgoing leadership one way or another.
Use whatever terms you like. Name some foreign leaders the U.S. has actually killed. Not "attempted", "suspected", "claimed", "alleged" or killed by someone supposedly allied with the U.S.
Inflation is currently running at 50% and food price ibflation is at 85%. This will go up as the economy is tanking and they are printing money to cover their massive and growing deficit. Does this mean the mullahs will fall? Probably not but it sure does make them less powerful and weakens their gripe.
The single most important skill for any diplomat to be effective, or competent, at his job is _______ ? This guy Darroch was toast the minute his email(s) was leaked. As to his job performance, based on the tiny bit of info available, Trump had not met him yet, and his "counsel" didn't sound unique or insightful, but something any reader of NYT/Wash Post or viewer of CNN or MSNBC might report (and about half sounded accurate, imo).
