Making a list and checking it twice

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:04 am

No, Not Santa, but The Donald

What do you guys think of this:

us to take names in united nations vote on jerusalem recognition

Donald will take names of those nations who vote against the US position on Jerusalem

Not sure what he plans to do with that list, but how many nations do you think will be intimidated by such a comment?

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:46 am

I'm delighted he's making it personal. The list of those countries which back his position will be as interesting as the list of those who vote criticizing America's choice. I rather hope it will show how far America has fallen from being the superpower it was back in the 50s and 60s. Having issued this bombastic threat, Trumpolini has made the UN General Assembly vote more interesting for both sides. Poseurs should never ever bluff like this.

I note the Security Council split 13 to 1 on the same subject last week, with a veto from an extremely isolated America.

I'll be interested to see which way the House of Saud votes. Are they custodians of the holy places or are they obediently yoked to America's foreign policy?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:24 am

My suspicion is that by this bully boy tactic the trump will cause the vote against him to harden, and some who might have abstained to vote against.

But maybe some will be bullied. We are particularly vulnerable I'd say and an abstention wouldn't surprise though it would disappoint. This is outside the normal run of things to me and I honestly can't even guess how countries will react.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:56 pm

Clodhopper;1516100 wrote: We are particularly vulnerable I'd say and an abstention wouldn't surprise though it would disappoint.

I'll put money on the UK voting to criticize America's choice, the Foreign Office has more clout than that powerless moral derelict in number 10.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:54 pm

He's taking names????? So another words....trump is sitting in his office going through a list of all the little guys in the world the US gives any kind of trade or funding to? He might want to think about that for a minute. Because the charitable funding of any country (lets be honest here) is to threaten and intimidate when it comes to the crunch. But these days there are others happy to fund all those little guys struggling.

Yep...... THINGS ARE JUST GREAT AT THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:12 pm

Sounds more Corleone than Trump.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:31 pm

well they say he has links

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:41 pm

Bruv;1516108 wrote: Sounds more Corleone than Trump.

Sounds more like Nixon's Enemies List:

""Nixon’s Enemies List" is the informal name of what started as a list of President of the United States Richard Nixon’s major political opponents compiled by Charles Colson, written by George T. Bell[1] (assistant to Colson, special counsel to the White House), and sent in memorandum form to John Dean on September 9, 1971. The list was part of a campaign officially known as "Opponents List" and "Political Enemies Project"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List

Lars asked: "..........how many nations do you think will be intimidated by such a comment?"

I think it is safe to answer NONE. Safety in numbers.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:44 pm

spot;1516103 wrote: I'll put money on the UK voting to criticize America's choice, the Foreign Office has more clout than that powerless moral derelict in number 10.

Liar Johnson is Foreign Secretary...

Nonetheless I very much hope you are right.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:52 pm

AnneBoleyn;1516114 wrote: Sounds more like Nixon's Enemies List:

""Nixon’s Enemies List" is the informal name of what started as a list of President of the United States Richard Nixon’s major political opponents compiled by Charles Colson, written by George T. Bell[1] (assistant to Colson, special counsel to the White House), and sent in memorandum form to John Dean on September 9, 1971. The list was part of a campaign officially known as "Opponents List" and "Political Enemies Project"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List

Lars asked: "..........how many nations do you think will be intimidated by such a comment?"

I think it is safe to answer NONE. Safety in numbers.

And before that didn't you guys go after all the "commi"s" ?

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:57 pm

Clodhopper;1516115 wrote: Liar Johnson is Foreign Secretary...

Nonetheless I very much hope you are right.

No Foreign Secretary has ever had the slightest influence on the Foreign Office, his sole function is to speak in the political arena what he has been told to say by his civil servants. They must be counting the days to his departure by now.

The last time the Foreign Office reversed one of its policies was in 1904 when they catastrophically gave up the alliance with Germany in favour of the Entente Cordiale, a policy shift which led directly to two world wars.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:07 pm

magentaflame;1516117 wrote: And before that didn't you guys go after all the "commi"s" ?

You guys? I was in diapers. Pink ones.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:08 pm

AnneBoleyn;1516123 wrote: You guys? I was in diapers. Pink ones.

Eww.

Too much blackcurrant juice.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:11 pm

spot;1516124 wrote: Eww.

Too much blackcurrant juice.

No. Pink diaper babies were the children of socialists. Red diaper babies were the children of..............https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_diaper_baby

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:16 pm

In England it was more typical to put the child out all day in the yard with the hens. Whatever they did out there just added calories to the other scraps the hens found, and the child got dip-washed in the water trough at dusk when it was brought back in.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:21 pm

Yes but only after father had his bath....(hence the term of throwing the baby out with the bath water)

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:48 pm

spot;1516126 wrote: In England it was more typical to put the child out all day in the yard with the hens. Whatever they did out there just added calories to the other scraps the hens found, and the child got dip-washed in the water trough at dusk when it was brought back in.

Eww.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:51 pm

Has anybody been listening to that Guy?

He questions what do we get in return for the billions upon billions of dollars going to other countries?

Really, all the billions upon billions of dollars we send overseas.

Think about it.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:01 pm

If you could arrange for all American gift and aid money, private and charitable and governmental, to be kept within America and never sent abroad, the world would be a far better place. Thank you for your cooperation.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:27 pm

spot;1516135 wrote: If you could arrange for all American gift and aid money, private and charitable and governmental, to be kept within America and never sent abroad, the world would be a far better place. Thank you for your cooperation.

You can't leave it like that, an explanation please.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:38 pm

There's two sorts of aid. There's what goes in to save lives after a natural catastrophe, and that's a very rare beast. I think there should be fast-response groups who do that. The vast majority of aid is long-term and is invariably destructive.

If you set up food aid, you collapse the local producers and the local market and destroy the local economy for generations to come. I think aid destroying markets is far and away the biggest and worst consequence.

Most long-term aid fuels corruption, personal and institutional.

Most of the aid is self-serving and tied to local policy choices.

Rogue administrations are propped up by foreign aid in exchange for a compliant foreign policy, it's effectively national bribery.

Get rid of the whole thing, ban aid entirely, countries will thrive on the flat playing field they've never had since colonialism started.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:42 pm

Will there ever be a level playing field trade wise ?

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:50 pm

Bruv;1516142 wrote: Will there ever be a level playing field trade wise ?

I'd be delighted to see countries choose their own internal market policies. At the moment if a country chooses to place barriers against international imports it's destroyed by entities like the World Bank. If I were bringing a poor country to a point where it could provide livable conditions for all its residents, I'd give priority to the internal market.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:58 pm

tude dog;1516134 wrote: Has anybody been listening to that Guy?

He questions what do we get in return for the billions upon billions of dollars going to other countries?

Really, all the billions upon billions of dollars we send overseas.

Think about it.

Well, I think China would be only too happy to fill the gap the withdrawal of US aid left. Who so you then think would have influence over that country? Heck, if the UK wasn't messing the EU around with brexit I'd be suggesting the EU step in. I hope they do if needed.

Aid is influence, soft power. You are giving that up it seems to me.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:00 pm

Clodhopper;1516150 wrote: Aid is influence, soft power. You are giving that up it seems to me.Aid is unethical bribery, and the one thing the world needs at the moment is America focused on the American Homeland and not abroad.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:23 pm

spot;1516152 wrote: Aid is unethical bribery, and the one thing the world needs at the moment is America focused on the American Homeland and not abroad.

I don't know the current state of play on the matter, but I seem to remember the Commonwealth was involved something called intermediate technology. It meant not bringing in modern technology, but for example introducing a more efficient irrigation method like an Archimedes screw that hadn't been known in the region before that the locals could make and maintain themselves.

There is little that corruption cannot damage and Aid is often particularly vulnerable, I agree.

I'm not sure where Charity stops and Aid starts, but I saw a rather special example when I was in India. The wife of a senior UK diplomat there had arranged with Women's Institutes in England to knit jerseys for the slum children because Delhi winters can get down to freezing. Some container loads arrived and she went through Indian Customs like a Juggernaut. Chuckle. I don't know what happened in later years, but I do know there were a lot of kids warmer that winter than there otherwise would have been.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:17 am

Clodhopper;1516150 wrote: Well, I think China would be only too happy to fill the gap the withdrawal of US aid left.

China has now replaced the UK in Zimbabwe, flooding the place with cheap stuff and funding infrastructure projects, according to my sources.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:02 am

LarsMac;1516094 wrote: No, Not Santa, but The Donald

What do you guys think of this:

us to take names in united nations vote on jerusalem recognition

Donald will take names of those nations who vote against the US position on Jerusalem

Not sure what he plans to do with that list, but how many nations do you think will be intimidated by such a comment?

It stinks!

And the stated intent is to cut funding to those countries that vote against the US. That's not diplomacy, that's blackmail.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:23 am

I'm sure it's always been said in the past by diplomats with filed teeth, behind the scenes, as a matter of routine. It's quite refreshing to see it said in public.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:25 am

Bruv;1516178 wrote: China has now replaced the UK in Zimbabwe, flooding the place with cheap stuff and funding infrastructure projects, according to my sources.

How has this disadvantaged the man in the street in Zimbabwe, do you suppose. It sounds ideal.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:25 am

spot;1516183 wrote: I'm sure it's always been said in the past by diplomats with filed teeth, behind the scenes, as a matter of routine. It's quite refreshing to see it said in public.

I beg to differ

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:27 am

It pulls down the curtains and lets the light in. Now you know which group of people to despise instead of just having to guess.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:00 am

I suspect the gallery to which he is playing will be delighted but he's probably made sure any nation thinking of siding with the US won't do so. Who wants to be seen as giving in to bullying or toadying up to the US. He's making america a laughing stock throuhout the world though. I almosy hope therea may decides to abstain the resulting outrage might bring the tories down.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:16 am

The results are in :-

Attached files

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:48 pm

spot;1516184 wrote: How has this disadvantaged the man in the street in Zimbabwe, do you suppose. It sounds ideal.

So you think the Chinese are as altruistic as the Brits were ?

They are exchanging one imperialist for another.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:21 pm

Bruv;1516193 wrote: So you think the Chinese are as altruistic as the Brits were ?

I think the Brits were thieves. I think, for instance, that if I were a black Kenyan I'd be wondering why any white "owner" could possibly still be claiming land rights in Kenya when the entire basis of land ownership came as a result of colonial theft. At least in Zimbabwe the issue was addressed to some extent.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:15 pm

spot;1516194 wrote: I think the Brits were thieves. I think, for instance, that if I were a black Kenyan I'd be wondering why any white "owner" could possibly still be claiming land rights in Kenya when the entire basis of land ownership came as a result of colonial theft. At least in Zimbabwe the issue was addressed to some extent.

What's your cut off date for when the descendants of invaders should be disinherited and expelled?

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:29 pm

Clodhopper;1516197 wrote: What's your cut off date for when the descendants of invaders should be disinherited and expelled?

I have no idea. I seems to me to be blatantly impossible for any right to be established by the expats who colonized either Kenya or Rhodesia, much less that it should be handed down to their descendants. Ejecting the lot of them without so much as a shirt to their names would have been entirely justifiable the moment it became feasible. There was a land, it was taken at gunpoint and the residents deprived of both rights and possessions, the thieves were eventually persuaded that the rights issue was untenable. The question of possession should have been straightened out at the same time but it wasn't.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:00 pm

gmc;1516188 wrote: I suspect the gallery to which he is playing will be delighted but he's probably made sure any nation thinking of siding with the US won't do so. Who wants to be seen as giving in to bullying or toadying up to the US. He's making america a laughing stock throuhout the world though. I almosy hope therea may decides to abstain the resulting outrage might bring the tories down.

The list of abstains, and the list of those just not voting tells the story, I think

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:48 pm

spot;1516194 wrote: I think the Brits were thieves. I think, for instance, that if I were a black Kenyan I'd be wondering why any white "owner" could possibly still be claiming land rights in Kenya when the entire basis of land ownership came as a result of colonial theft. At least in Zimbabwe the issue was addressed to some extent.

The rich lifestyle we all enjoy is partially down to British Imperialism. Should we repay by way of aid the riches we stole ?

The fact is when farms went back into black hands, a lot were given to politicians and veterans with no idea how to farm the land.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:23 am

spot;1516198 wrote: I have no idea. I seems to me to be blatantly impossible for any right to be established by the expats who colonized either Kenya or Rhodesia, much less that it should be handed down to their descendants. Ejecting the lot of them without so much as a shirt to their names would have been entirely justifiable the moment it became feasible. There was a land, it was taken at gunpoint and the residents deprived of both rights and possessions, the thieves were eventually persuaded that the rights issue was untenable. The question of possession should have been straightened out at the same time but it wasn't.

The basis of all land ownership is theft, the strongest take and then convince everybody that the theft was legitimate. In the UK we have landownership laws that are based on the feudal system.

Posted by bruv

The rich lifestyle we all enjoy is partially down to British Imperialism. Should we repay by way of aid the riches we stole ?

The fact is when farms went back into black hands, a lot were given to politicians and veterans with no idea how to farm the land.

I and anyone else alive today are not responsible for what out antecedents did but we are for what is done in our name today. That one set of landgrabbers in rhodesia was replaced by another set of landgrabbers is not really surprising I have little sympathy for colonialists bleating about being robbed by the indigenous people.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:08 am

The thread should perhaps retain a memory of the UN vote.

Those who lined up with the US and Israel were Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo. The remainder of the world took the rare public opportunity of disrespecting the bombast of President Trumpolini.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:03 am

I suppose we have to admit that Trump has done a good job of uniting the World...

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:51 am

LarsMac;1516094 wrote:

What do you guys think of this

Do you mean other than it's self-centered, lame, ridiculous, arrogant, stupid, hypocritical after asking for help on North Korea, and just plain embarrassing? Not much really.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:56 am

Saint_;1516209 wrote: Do you mean other than it's self-centered, lame, ridiculous, arrogant, stupid, hypocritical after asking for help on North Korea, and just plain embarrassing? Not much really.

I think Andy Borrowitz of the New Yorker said it best:

People need to stop being surprised by the things Trump does. Everything he does is utterly predictable, because in every situation he does whatever is the opposite of smart.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:11 pm

I already posted where through our Congress our nation desires our Embassy in Israel be moved to its capital city, Jerusalem.

We had three presidents who at least indicate they would fulfill the expressed desire of the American people.

Now, tell me. what's the problem?

No secret I am no fan of President Trump, but he actually fulfilled that promise to the American people and I am grateful for that.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:24 pm

Saint_;1516209 wrote: Do you mean other than it's self-centered, lame, ridiculous, arrogant, stupid, hypocritical after asking for help on North Korea, and just plain embarrassing? Not much really.

Excuse me, but I think we pay enough to have an equal voice in that forum.

How much do various countries contribute to the UN Budget?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:28 pm

Clodhopper;1516208 wrote: I suppose we have to admit that Trump has done a good job of uniting the World...

Whatever gave you the idea it is the job of the President of the United States to unite the World?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:35 pm

tude dog;1516218 wrote: I already posted where through our Congress our nation desires our Embassy in Israel be moved to its capital city, Jerusalem.

We had three presidents who at least indicate they would fulfill the expressed desire of the American people.

Now, tell me. what's the problem?

No secret I am no fan of President Trump, but he actually fulfilled that promise to the American people and I am grateful for that.

Suppose we have a public referendum and take a vote to see how the American people really think about the idea before claiming that such a thing is the "expressed desire of the American People"?

Name those three presidents, please.

And, name the other countries who have their embassies in Jerusalem.

I'd actually like to hear some rational arguments for moving our embassy to Jerusalem. Even irrational arguments might be interesting.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:39 pm

tude dog;1516219 wrote: Excuse me, but I think we pay enough to have an equal voice in that forum.

How much do various countries contribute to the UN Budget?

This isn't asking for an equal voice - it's demanding that everyone else parrots your voice.