Posted: May 19, 2017 6:28 pm
Weaver wrote:
The Iran nuclear agreement was the culmination of decades of sanctions and both direct and indirect talks. We used no military force to drive them to the table.
This is just laughable. No military? What was the Iraq-Iran war then? A tea party? Who was supporting Saddam during this war? Do you not know about how the US undermined Iran in the fifties at the behest of the British?
I mean seriously, how would you "listen" to a mobster who has been involved for the past sixty years in waging covert and proxy war against you?
And then they start talking to you after decades of having had sanctions imposed on you? This is a joke.
The USA, when it wants to, bosses the UN to do its bidding. And when the UN comes down against the US, the US just ignores it.
Weaver wrote:
NAFTA was a direct counter to your claim that we always, everywhere, have displays of military force involved in our geopolitical influence operations. It simply isn't so.
NAFTA is an interesting case about how the US negotiates. It might well have been unnecessary or even impossible to use military action to do a deal with Mexico and Canada. It's hardly something to crow about and it most certainly isn't a refutation of the levels to which the US will go to get their bidding done. And it certainly wasn't for the benefit of American workers whose unions were just brushed aside when it came to their involvement in ratifying the deal. But lets look at how the US does "talks" to its close partners.
In 2016 one of the US's best friends - the UK - decided to hold a vote to leave the European Union, an important commercial and strategic entry point for the US. The campaign for this was fought - politically - from a commercial/economic perspective. The remain side pointed out how Europe was commercially advantageous, the leave side tried to make claims contrary to this. The issue of with whom the UK would be able to strike a deal, after departure, was a contentious issue. What did the US do? Did they say "hey, we've been friends for decades, we'll always help the UK. Whatever you decide, good luck, and we look forward, if needed, to trade with you in the future"? Not a bit. The response, from Obama, was a warning. He said more or less, "if you leave Europe, you can expect no help from us". It wasn't even veiled, this threat. It was a naked warning that if the UK left Europe, they could expect punishment.
Is that the kind of "talking" to which you refer?
Weaver wrote:I don't argue that the US does not use its military, including subtle and direct shows of force, to influence our discussions with others - that's part of what a military is all about (read von Clausewitz). But we do not always, necessarily, use our military in that way.
I just think your mind might be clouded when I read things like this.
No, no-one uses military force when other forms of "persuasion" will work.