Tom seems to think that international affairs can be conducted as if we are all-seeing script writers with future plot-defining powers and complete information on all possible players and motivations. He also has one colonialism viewpoint that filters all information he does have, and he has a lot. But it's all hindsight information.
Tom seems to think that international affairs can be conducted as if we are all-seeing script writers with future plot-defining powers and complete information on all possible players and motivations. He also has one colonialism viewpoint that filters all information he does have, and he has a lot. But it's all hindsight information.
Knowledge of history IS important, but much of it only becomes widely known much later in time. Instead, leaders are put in difficult situations making decisions with incomplete information and little to no control over how other people respond. Eventually it all gets distilled into a cohesive narrative for our pattern-seeking brains. But until then, it's chaotic, imperfect , and highly emotionally charged.
People mostly make emotion-based decisions, not rational logic based ones. Emotions prod us into action. Reason moderates that action. That is why we must elect leaders who are able to moderate their feelings when making these decisions. Biden is doing that. Trump, and Netanyahu, are not.
Biden is making decisions based on American hegemony. Period.
Your first paragraph above is total crap, nothing but word salad; yet another ‘you don’t live in the real world’ centrist deflection from asking not whether policy is right or wrong, or moral, but rather, does it conform to the DC beltway consensus on foreign policy.
Much of American history becomes known later because it is covered up due to the understanding by operatives and elected officials in the loop that it is mendacious in intent. American ‘leaders’, whether you’re talking about Biden or Trump, do what the ‘intelligence’ agencies and the MIC want.
There is nothing, nothing, nothing, rational or logical about making the decision to be complicit in a genocide by using some absurd rules-based order or geopolitical reasoning.
You ‘seem’ to think it’s regrettable, but OK, and it’s a reprehensible rationalization to make.
You dismissed the book out of hand based on nothing but the author’s name
It’s actually an in depth history of the use of diplomacy through the centuries as it’s adversary, the military, fought for control of nation’s futures
The Irony here is that you have no use for Diplomacy, nor do you have any sense of exploring it as a critical cog in preventing wars initiated by territorial disputes
Your comments appear driven by Greek Mythology that places decisions in the hands of all powerful Gods that can choose to be benevolent or cruel based on whim or some internal dispute where Hera gets back at Zeus by sending an arrow into a human’s heal
Pick any other author on the history of diplomacy. Its gonna read like history
Its easy to see that your checkerboard is one dimensional
The irony here is that you can’t discern the difference between faux diplomacy (Biden/Blinken-Gaza) and the real kind (Mitchell-Ireland). You obviously have no interest in diplomatically preventing war, just like your hegemonic heroes (Biden/Blinken-Ukraine).
My comments are driven by the awareness of three things, empire, narrative, and propaganda, and how all three relate to the twin pillars of truth and justice.
Your checkerboard is without any dimension, as it is illusory in nature.
Don’t care about mythology, I’ll let Omar take care of that for me.
Tom seems to think that international affairs can be conducted as if we are all-seeing script writers with future plot-defining powers and complete information on all possible players and motivations. He also has one colonialism viewpoint that filters all information he does have, and he has a lot. But it's all hindsight information.
Knowledge of history IS important, but much of it only becomes widely known much later in time. Instead, leaders are put in difficult situations making decisions with incomplete information and little to no control over how other people respond. Eventually it all gets distilled into a cohesive narrative for our pattern-seeking brains. But until then, it's chaotic, imperfect , and highly emotionally charged.
People mostly make emotion-based decisions, not rational logic based ones. Emotions prod us into action. Reason moderates that action. That is why we must elect leaders who are able to moderate their feelings when making these decisions. Biden is doing that. Trump, and Netanyahu, are not.
Biden is making decisions based on American hegemony. Period.
Your first paragraph above is total crap, nothing but word salad; yet another ‘you don’t live in the real world’ centrist deflection from asking not whether policy is right or wrong, or moral, but rather, does it conform to the DC beltway consensus on foreign policy.
Much of American history becomes known later because it is covered up due to the understanding by operatives and elected officials in the loop that it is mendacious in intent. American ‘leaders’, whether you’re talking about Biden or Trump, do what the ‘intelligence’ agencies and the MIC want.
There is nothing, nothing, nothing, rational or logical about making the decision to be complicit in a genocide by using some absurd rules-based order or geopolitical reasoning.
You ‘seem’ to think it’s regrettable, but OK, and it’s a reprehensible rationalization to make.
I suggest you read Kissinger’s book “Diplomacy”
Now that made me laugh out loud! Thanks!
What’s next, a book on how I learned to be a diplomatic asshole, by Hillary Clinton?
I charge for laughs. Laughs out loud are double
You dismissed the book out of hand based on nothing but the author’s name
It’s actually an in depth history of the use of diplomacy through the centuries as it’s adversary, the military, fought for control of nation’s futures
How you learn to be an asshole is up to you
You’re damn right I dismissed it out of hand, both because of the author’s name and the sick irony of the title.
Everybody with a pulse, and a smidgeon of good sense knows ol’ Hank spelled diplomacy C… I…. A.
What will you ‘suggest’ next, something like ‘The Art of the Deal’, so I can get an ‘in depth’ look at Trump’s thoughts on leadership?
Stick to your Fake News. You’re out of your element here, Donnie.
The Irony here is that you have no use for Diplomacy, nor do you have any sense of exploring it as a critical cog in preventing wars initiated by territorial disputes
Your comments appear driven by Greek Mythology that places decisions in the hands of all powerful Gods that can choose to be benevolent or cruel based on whim or some internal dispute where Hera gets back at Zeus by sending an arrow into a human’s heal
Pick any other author on the history of diplomacy. Its gonna read like history
Its easy to see that your checkerboard is one dimensional
The irony here is that you can’t discern the difference between faux diplomacy (Biden/Blinken-Gaza) and the real kind (Mitchell-Ireland). You obviously have no interest in diplomatically preventing war, just like your hegemonic heroes (Biden/Blinken-Ukraine).
My comments are driven by the awareness of three things, empire, narrative, and propaganda, and how all three relate to the twin pillars of truth and justice.
Your checkerboard is without any dimension, as it is illusory in nature.
Don’t care about mythology, I’ll let Omar take care of that for me.