I was listening to a radio interview with an Israeli general this morning about the recent air strikes and missile attacks across the Syrian border. He was entirely open that Israel was prepared to go to war immediately with Iran rather than allow them to build up troops and equipment in Syria that could potentially be used in a future conflict with Israel. That intention is not a particular surprise given that Israel has been carrying out unannounced attacks across the border for some time now. What was new, however, was such a clear public acknowledgement of the policy.
This obviously follows on from the Israeli success in getting the US to fall in line with them over the nuclear deal with Iran. Such strong backing from the US though is dangerous for the region as a whole. If Israel really does try and enforce total Iranian exclusion from Syria it's possible Iran will meekly back down. However, given their recent humiliations over the nuclear deal it seems more likely to me that they would make a fight of it. If that happens it's almost certain that the Syrian government, Hezbollah and Hamas will get drawn in and Israel would be faced with fighting on several fronts. If the US then decided to take a hand, could Russia really be expected to stay out of it ...
An article in the Times reported a correlation between education and partisanship. The theory is that partisan affiliation offers people a source of identification in a bigger social group. I'm not sure this theory fully explains the correlation, though. It makes sense to me that people get invested in their party and develop that classic "us vs. them" mindset or "siege mentality," but I don't know why more education would increase that, or less education would decrease it.
The U.S. is not the only signatory to the deal besides Iran. The deal may well persist even after the U.S. has dropped out.
That's fine, but WE have nothing to say about it anymore, nor should anyone listen to what we have to say. The increased inspections that came with the deal have nothing to do with the United States anymore. Imagine being THIS arrogant, to abandon a deal and less than 48 hrs later still think you are dictating the terms to the other party.
An article in the Times reported a correlation between education and partisanship. The theory is that partisan affiliation offers people a source of identification in a bigger social group. I'm not sure this theory fully explains the correlation, though. It makes sense to me that people get invested in their party and develop that classic "us vs. them" mindset or "siege mentality," but I don't know why more education would increase that, or less education would decrease it.
Makes perfect sense to me. People with less education don't give a shit about politics. My grandfather was a prime example. Never got through 8th grade and didn't know a lick about politics. Voted Democrat until the day he died and could never explain why. Just told me, "Cause that's what I've always done". Can't argue with that logic...
For all we know, this anonymous official could well have opposed Trump's decision. We shouldn't assume this person is a hypocrite when we don't even know their name... or even what they actually said. That tweet doesn't even contain a quote.
The U.S. is not the only signatory to the deal besides Iran. The deal may well persist even after the U.S. has dropped out.
That's fine, but WE have nothing to say about it anymore, nor should anyone listen to what we have to say. The increased inspections that came with the deal have nothing to do with the United States anymore. Imagine being THIS arrogant, to abandon a deal and less than 48 hrs later still think you are dictating the terms to the other party.
Trump's announcement that the US was pulling out of the deal also said that Iran would never be permitted nuclear weapons. In that sense the US has not changed its mind about the end goal, but simply decided to replace a shared program between the parties with threats and intimidation.
The US strategy now though is not really about nuclear weapons at all. Ignoring the smokescreen put up by Israel, it's clear that Iran does not have a current military nuclear program. The sanctions now being put back on them by the US are therefore not aimed at nuclear capabilities, but at their missile program and international actions. Effectively that means they are about pushing for regime change - something that doesn't have a great record in Iran, let alone the wider Middle East.
The U.S. is not the only signatory to the deal besides Iran. The deal may well persist even after the U.S. has dropped out.
That's fine, but WE have nothing to say about it anymore, nor should anyone listen to what we have to say. The increased inspections that came with the deal have nothing to do with the United States anymore. Imagine being THIS arrogant, to abandon a deal and less than 48 hrs later still think you are dictating the terms to the other party.
Trump's announcement that the US was pulling out of the deal also said that Iran would never be permitted nuclear weapons. In that sense the US has not changed its mind about the end goal, but simply decided to replace a shared program between the parties with threats and intimidation.
The US strategy now though is not really about nuclear weapons at all. Ignoring the smokescreen put up by Israel, it's clear that Iran does not have a current military nuclear program. The sanctions now being put back on them by the US are therefore not aimed at nuclear capabilities, but at their missile program and international actions. Effectively that means they are about pushing for regime change - something that doesn't have a great record in Iran, let alone the wider Middle East.
I fail to see how this deal does anything but give ammo to the hardliners in Iran. We handed them the ultimate "I told you so" for them to throw in the face of more moderate factions.
I was listening to a radio interview with an Israeli general this morning about the recent air strikes and missile attacks across the Syrian border. He was entirely open that Israel was prepared to go to war immediately with Iran rather than allow them to build up troops and equipment in Syria that could potentially be used in a future conflict with Israel. That intention is not a particular surprise given that Israel has been carrying out unannounced attacks across the border for some time now. What was new, however, was such a clear public acknowledgement of the policy.
I don't see the surprise here, Israel has always stated it has clear red lines regarding of establishment of Iranian front in Syria, and the supply of rockets/advanced weaponry to Iran's proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran and its IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) has gone bolder in the area in the recent years, including increased weapon shipments to Lebanon, establishment of military bases and airfields in Syria, and building rocket factories in Lebanon and Syria. All aimed against Israel, with aspiration to open additional (to Lebanon) front against Israel from the Syrian Golan.
Iran usually uses it proxys (Hezobllah, Islamic Jihad) to launch rockets at Israel, until last February when they sent an Armed Drone, operated by the IRGC, into Israel.
Israel is better to handle this problem while it is still small, rather stand idly by and wait, for a much more catastrophic possible result.
This obviously follows on from the Israeli success in getting the US to fall in line with them over the nuclear deal with Iran. Such strong backing from the US though is dangerous for the region as a whole. If Israel really does try and enforce total Iranian exclusion from Syria it's possible Iran will meekly back down. However, given their recent humiliations over the nuclear deal it seems more likely to me that they would make a fight of it. If that happens it's almost certain that the Syrian government, Hezbollah and Hamas will get drawn in and Israel would be faced with fighting on several fronts. If the US then decided to take a hand, could Russia really be expected to stay out of it ...
If the situation will deteriorate to an armed conflict with Iran and Hezbollah, then the Palestinians groups in Gaza, (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Popular Resistance Committees, etc) groups will surely join, since they are backed economically and militarily by Iran, and of course share the same interest, to annihilate Israel. But Israel is well prepared for such a scenario, and if the USA will intervene in any way, it will by supplying additional ammunition and not direct military intervention (Unless the situation this will really really go south, literally)
Russia on the other hand has no interest to get involved in such a conflict, other than providing military equipment to Iran and Syria, which is does anyway.
Right now there is a full synchronization between Israel and Russia regarding Syria, including hot-line and constant talks and delegations. Russia interest is Syria is Syria west region (Tartarus) as an entry to the Mediterranean Sea, and not south Syria region.
The JCPoA's status in the United States was "non-binding political commitment" and Kerry's State Department acknowledged that it was neither an executive agreement nor a treaty. In short, it was the diplomatic equivalent of a handshake with no way to be enforced domestically. Iran may still choose to allow inspectors to its sites and it may choose to adhere to the enrichment limitations, if it wants to. That being said, the United States cannot *tell* Iran what it will or will not do.
Makes perfect sense to me. People with less education don't give a shit about politics. My grandfather was a prime example. Never got through 8th grade and didn't know a lick about politics. Voted Democrat until the day he died and could never explain why. Just told me, "Cause that's what I've always done". Can't argue with that logic...
I'm not sure I'm reading that chart right, is it saying if you have a college degree and you are 60 years old you're either going to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative? And if you are uneducated then you won't be a partisan?
In your example Balrog, it sounds like your granddad was extremely partisan lol, unyielding in his devotion to democrats beyond the need to give a reason so that sounds like the opposite a non-partisan - that's extreme partisanship isn't it? And the stereotype of the Trump supporting Conservative is a poor white guy who is uneducated (Trump claimed he loves the poorly educated).
Makes perfect sense to me. People with less education don't give a shit about politics. My grandfather was a prime example. Never got through 8th grade and didn't know a lick about politics. Voted Democrat until the day he died and could never explain why. Just told me, "Cause that's what I've always done". Can't argue with that logic...
I'm not sure I'm reading that chart right, is it saying if you have a college degree and you are 60 years old you're either going to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative? And if you are uneducated then you won't be a partisan?
In your example Balrog, it sounds like your granddad was extremely partisan lol, unyielding in his devotion to democrats beyond the need to give a reason so that sounds like the opposite a non-partisan - that's extreme partisanship isn't it? And the stereotype of the Trump supporting Conservative is a poor white guy who is uneducated (Trump claimed he loves the poorly educated).
I don't know. My great aunt is 88 years old and when I visited her over Christmas, even though she despises Trump, the basic info I got out of our political conversation was that she voted for Democrats because her dad and mom did, and it was something the family had always done. Keep in mind these people also lived through the Depression and World War II. You can't underestimate the towering figure that Franklin Roosevelt was to this generation. I'd say my parents had far more concrete reasons for voting for Democrats than my grandparents did, and I'd also say that I have EVEN MORE concrete reasons and beliefs than my parents did. Also keep in mind we are participating in a political thread. On some level, all of us like the sport and horse-race aspect of this. It's exciting, it's gossipy, it's interesting. I look forward to Election nights as much as the Super Bowl or NBA Finals.
@smeagolheart: To clarify, the graph I posted above contains no information about age. The numbers at the side are supposed to represent degree of ideological affiliation. As for what units they are or how it was calculated, you'd need to check the original study.
As for Argentina, I'm not familiar with its economic history, but 1895 was an entirely different reality. I don't think any economy in 1895, even the absolute most advanced countries of the time, is comparable to any economy today. If we're going to make judgments about economic policy, it should be grounded in the events of the last 50-60 years at earliest.
Makes perfect sense to me. People with less education don't give a shit about politics. My grandfather was a prime example. Never got through 8th grade and didn't know a lick about politics. Voted Democrat until the day he died and could never explain why. Just told me, "Cause that's what I've always done". Can't argue with that logic...
I'm not sure I'm reading that chart right, is it saying if you have a college degree and you are 60 years old you're either going to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative? And if you are uneducated then you won't be a partisan?
In your example Balrog, it sounds like your granddad was extremely partisan lol, unyielding in his devotion to democrats beyond the need to give a reason so that sounds like the opposite a non-partisan - that's extreme partisanship isn't it? And the stereotype of the Trump supporting Conservative is a poor white guy who is uneducated (Trump claimed he loves the poorly educated).
Good point. I guess I read it as if you have no clue you can't be partisan but you're right, it's really the opposite. I guess I must think it's counterintuitive that higher education level would lead to higher partisanship so I must have been a victim of confirmation bias. Wow, and I'm supposed to be a scientist...
Trump might be well on his way to proving that you can be a complete asshole and still be right sometimes. The North Korea and quite possibly Iran situations might actually turn out in our favor ('our' meaning the USA and perhaps democracy in general). If he can avoid being impeached we might actually get some hard data on whether or not it's diplomacy or power that's truly 'trump' on the world stage.
(Sorry couldn't help myself on the double-entendre.)
@Balrog99: I've wondered about that too. Is it possible that Trump's apparent willingness to fly off the handle has persuaded the North Koreans to play nice to avoid accidentally triggering a war? Most experts in international relations aren't big fans of playing the bully on the world stage, but North Korea experts have often stressed that the North Korean government isn't as irrational and willing to take risks as people often assume.
@Balrog99: I've wondered about that too. Is it possible that Trump's apparent willingness to fly off the handle has persuaded the North Koreans to play nice to avoid accidentally triggering a war? Most experts in international relations aren't big fans of playing the bully on the world stage, but North Korea experts have often stressed that the North Korean government isn't as irrational and willing to take risks as people often assume.
@semiticgod I'm actually starting to think that diplomacy works among fellow democracies but autocratic governments see diplomacy as weakness. If a nation values their citizens, diplomacy works, if they don't then power, bluster and threats of war seem to be the only currency of value to them. Maybe it just boils down to how much a nation values human life...
Plenty of Administrations in the last 20 years have thought they solved the North Korea problem. Like, legitimately thought they had solved it. They were all hoodwinked. All of which put alot more thought and effort into the negotiations than this one has, where this meeting has been set up after what, 2 months?? We're gonna leave the Iran deal but then turn around and make a similar one with North Korea?? Does anyone think anything Trump gets will be as remotely as strong as having inspectors on the ground 24/7/365 like we did in Iran?? North Korea isn't attempting to build nuclear weapons, they already have them. What are we going to give them that could possibly be of equal value to what is essentially their only leverage??
I will repeat this again, because I assume opponents of the Iran deal when it was negotiated didn't think it would work because Iran would break their word. All well and good, except they DIDN'T break their word. It had been doing EXACTLY what was intended for the 3 years it was in effect, which was to stop Iran from continuing to work on a bomb. It was the result of YEARS of painstaking diplomacy. And we are the ones who didn't keep our word. Not the Iranians, us. Those aren't my opinions, those are the facts. And we're supposed to trust the guy who clearly didn't put more than an ounce of thought into what leaving the Iran deal would mean for the rest of the world to "solve" North Korea?? Yeah, color me skeptical on that front. You'll be able to knock me over with a feather if Trump even gets a scintilla of the kind of rigid verification process that was in place in regards to Iran, which we threw away for absolutely nothing.
As for military might vs. diplomacy, let's look at the Iran deal (which was working) versus, oh I don't know, that little incident called the Iraq War. But hey, if you thought Iraq was fun, you'll LOVE what happens if the same situation takes hold with Iran. Because it'll be everything that was x10. And Bolton has had a hard-on for attacking Iran for well over a decade. In fact, there were PLENTY of those in the Bush 43 orbit who thought after the Iraq "cake-walk", we were going to march into Tehran next. Guess that plan didn't quite work out like they'd hoped.
How is Iran better? We threw away any leverage we had on their Uranium enrichment program. And they are basically nearly at war with Israel. How is this good?
Korea does "seem" better. But a couple months of a unified message of trying something different than they did before doesn't really mean much. Good start. Let's see how bad Trump screws it up or not at their meeting. Either way South Korea has been integral as well. There has to be more going on here than we have been told. Like if we find out that trump has been secretly bribing Kim Jong Un with Russian prostitutes and bribes funneled from his reelection campaign I would not be surprised.
Plenty of Administrations in the last 20 years have thought they solved the North Korea problem. Like, legitimately thought they had solved it. They were all hoodwinked. All of which put alot more thought and effort into the negotiations than this one has, where this meeting has been set up after what, 2 months?? We're gonna leave the Iran deal but then turn around and make a similar one with North Korea?? Does anyone think anything Trump gets will be as remotely as strong as having inspectors on the ground 24/7/365 like we did in Iran?? North Korea isn't attempting to build nuclear weapons, they already have them. What are we going to give them that could possibly be of equal value to what is essentially their only leverage??
I will repeat this again, because I assume opponents of the Iran deal when it was negotiated didn't think it would work because Iran would break their word. All well and good, except they DIDN'T break their word. It had been doing EXACTLY what was intended for the 3 years it was in effect, which was to stop Iran from continuing to work on a bomb. It was the result of YEARS of painstaking diplomacy. And we are the ones who didn't keep our word. Not the Iranians, us. Those aren't my opinions, those are the facts. And we're supposed to trust the guy who clearly didn't put more than an ounce of thought into what leaving the Iran deal would mean for the rest of the world to "solve" North Korea?? Yeah, color me skeptical on that front. You'll be able to knock me over with a feather if Trump even gets a scintilla of the kind of rigid verification process that was in place in regards to Iran, which we threw away for absolutely nothing.
Except it wasn't 'us' who negotiated and signed the deal. It was Obama. On his own. It wasn't ratified by Congress so there is nothing backing the deal except the signature of one man. Sorry, but that's the truth. If you want to go out on your own to sign a deal that requires more than your own contribution, don't be surprised when it falls apart as soon as you're gone...
Plenty of Administrations in the last 20 years have thought they solved the North Korea problem. Like, legitimately thought they had solved it. They were all hoodwinked. All of which put alot more thought and effort into the negotiations than this one has, where this meeting has been set up after what, 2 months?? We're gonna leave the Iran deal but then turn around and make a similar one with North Korea?? Does anyone think anything Trump gets will be as remotely as strong as having inspectors on the ground 24/7/365 like we did in Iran?? North Korea isn't attempting to build nuclear weapons, they already have them. What are we going to give them that could possibly be of equal value to what is essentially their only leverage??
I will repeat this again, because I assume opponents of the Iran deal when it was negotiated didn't think it would work because Iran would break their word. All well and good, except they DIDN'T break their word. It had been doing EXACTLY what was intended for the 3 years it was in effect, which was to stop Iran from continuing to work on a bomb. It was the result of YEARS of painstaking diplomacy. And we are the ones who didn't keep our word. Not the Iranians, us. Those aren't my opinions, those are the facts. And we're supposed to trust the guy who clearly didn't put more than an ounce of thought into what leaving the Iran deal would mean for the rest of the world to "solve" North Korea?? Yeah, color me skeptical on that front. You'll be able to knock me over with a feather if Trump even gets a scintilla of the kind of rigid verification process that was in place in regards to Iran, which we threw away for absolutely nothing.
Except it wasn't 'us' who negotiated and signed the deal. It was Obama. On his own. It wasn't ratified by Congress so there is nothing backing the deal except the signature of one man. Sorry, but that's the truth. If you want to go out on your own to sign a deal that requires more than your own contribution, don't be surprised when it falls apart as soon as you're gone...
I'm not saying Trump CAN'T end it, but saying it "fell apart" is like saying my bookcase fell apart after I smashed it ten times with a sledgehammer.
I'm saying that's the difference between an 'executive order' and a law or treaty. An executive order only lasts as long as the executive is in power. The Supreme Court can't even weigh in on this because of the way it was passed. If you want a true, legally binding treaty, pass it the old fashioned way, with the aid of congress. If you can't do that, the will of the people is against it (or at least not sufficiently 'for' it).
Russia on the other hand has no interest to get involved in such a conflict, other than providing military equipment to Iran and Syria, which is does anyway.
Right now there is a full synchronization between Israel and Russia regarding Syria, including hot-line and constant talks and delegations. Russia interest is Syria is Syria west region (Tartarus) as an entry to the Mediterranean Sea, and not south Syria region.
I agree that the Israeli strikes in recent months have been carried out with the knowledge and tacit agreement of Russia. However, Russia has made clear that it has an interest in the stability of Syria as a whole - a major conflict between Israeli and Iranian forces in Syria would clearly affect that.
@Balrog99: I've wondered about that too. Is it possible that Trump's apparent willingness to fly off the handle has persuaded the North Koreans to play nice to avoid accidentally triggering a war? Most experts in international relations aren't big fans of playing the bully on the world stage, but North Korea experts have often stressed that the North Korean government isn't as irrational and willing to take risks as people often assume.
North Korea has a long history of 'playing nice' at times, but not sticking to that - see this timeline since they signed up to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1985.
Given that history it seems probable to me that the current round of talks will ultimately fail. I've said before though that I support Trump's decision to get personally involved in talks. That's not because I think the chances of success are great, but because the issue is important enough to justify the risks of failure.
Apart from the obvious problem about the credibility of doing any nuclear deal with the US at the moment though, I'm also getting more concerned about Trump's public statements in the last few days on the Korean talks. In effect he's doubling-down on his position there by already looking forward to a successful outcome from the talks. Given how sensitive Trump is to any suggestion of failure, this raising of expectations now is likely to result in a violent swing in his attitude to North Korea if the talks don't make quick progress.
I'm saying that's the difference between an 'executive order' and a law or treaty. An executive order only lasts as long as the executive is in power. The Supreme Court can't even weigh in on this because of the way it was passed. If you want a true, legally binding treaty, pass it the old fashioned way, with the aid of congress. If you can't do that, the will of the people is against it (or at least not sufficiently 'for' it).
I can see the force of this argument, but you need to consider how things are perceived from outside the country.
As an analogy think about 2 companies signing a major long-term contract. A couple of years later one of the companies has a change of management and says that they're no longer bound by the deal. How would the other company feel - would they accept that a change of management was a reasonable excuse for scrapping the deal? This sort of situation is not actually that uncommon, but it does result in a major loss of credibility for the company pulling out - and therefore is typically associated with a company that's failing and/or undergoing major reconstruction.
That loss of credibility applies in international relations as well when one country pulls out of an agreement. The legal form of that agreement may make a big difference to the domestic politics, but to other countries the issue is whether they can trust any agreements made in future.
I'm saying that's the difference between an 'executive order' and a law or treaty. An executive order only lasts as long as the executive is in power. The Supreme Court can't even weigh in on this because of the way it was passed. If you want a true, legally binding treaty, pass it the old fashioned way, with the aid of congress. If you can't do that, the will of the people is against it (or at least not sufficiently 'for' it).
I can see the force of this argument, but you need to consider how things are perceived from outside the country.
As an analogy think about 2 companies signing a major long-term contract. A couple of years later one of the companies has a change of management and says that they're no longer bound by the deal. How would the other company feel - would they accept that a change of management was a reasonable excuse for scrapping the deal? This sort of situation is not actually that uncommon, but it does result in a major loss of credibility for the company pulling out - and therefore is typically associated with a company that's failing and/or undergoing major reconstruction.
That loss of credibility applies in international relations as well when one country pulls out of an agreement. The legal form of that agreement may make a big difference to the domestic politics, but to other countries the issue is whether they can trust any agreements made in future.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but Obama knew about the non-binding aspect of this 'treaty' and decided to go ahead anyway. If Hillary had won, no harm done, however... Ooopsy!
Comments
This obviously follows on from the Israeli success in getting the US to fall in line with them over the nuclear deal with Iran. Such strong backing from the US though is dangerous for the region as a whole. If Israel really does try and enforce total Iranian exclusion from Syria it's possible Iran will meekly back down. However, given their recent humiliations over the nuclear deal it seems more likely to me that they would make a fight of it. If that happens it's almost certain that the Syrian government, Hezbollah and Hamas will get drawn in and Israel would be faced with fighting on several fronts. If the US then decided to take a hand, could Russia really be expected to stay out of it ...
The US strategy now though is not really about nuclear weapons at all. Ignoring the smokescreen put up by Israel, it's clear that Iran does not have a current military nuclear program. The sanctions now being put back on them by the US are therefore not aimed at nuclear capabilities, but at their missile program and international actions. Effectively that means they are about pushing for regime change - something that doesn't have a great record in Iran, let alone the wider Middle East.
Iran and its IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) has gone bolder in the area in the recent years, including increased weapon shipments to Lebanon, establishment of military bases and airfields in Syria, and building rocket factories in Lebanon and Syria. All aimed against Israel, with aspiration to open additional (to Lebanon) front against Israel from the Syrian Golan.
Iran usually uses it proxys (Hezobllah, Islamic Jihad) to launch rockets at Israel, until last February when they sent an Armed Drone, operated by the IRGC, into Israel.
Israel is better to handle this problem while it is still small, rather stand idly by and wait, for a much more catastrophic possible result. If the situation will deteriorate to an armed conflict with Iran and Hezbollah, then the Palestinians groups in Gaza, (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Popular Resistance Committees, etc) groups will surely join, since they are backed economically and militarily by Iran, and of course share the same interest, to annihilate Israel. But Israel is well prepared for such a scenario, and if the USA will intervene in any way, it will by supplying additional ammunition and not direct military intervention (Unless the situation this will really really go south, literally)
Russia on the other hand has no interest to get involved in such a conflict, other than providing military equipment to Iran and Syria, which is does anyway.
Right now there is a full synchronization between Israel and Russia regarding Syria, including hot-line and constant talks and delegations. Russia interest is Syria is Syria west region (Tartarus) as an entry to the Mediterranean Sea, and not south Syria region.
In your example Balrog, it sounds like your granddad was extremely partisan lol, unyielding in his devotion to democrats beyond the need to give a reason so that sounds like the opposite a non-partisan - that's extreme partisanship isn't it? And the stereotype of the Trump supporting Conservative is a poor white guy who is uneducated (Trump claimed he loves the poorly educated).
Since on USA there are right wing populism aka protectionism and nationalism and left wing populism aka free stuff, gun control, etc, it can happens to USA too https://panampost.com/marcelo-duclos/2018/04/14/in-1895-argentina-had-the-worlds-highest-gdp-per-capita-what-went-wrong/
About Trump, at least he doesn't look like a vampire and he din't turned the gun laws more restricted than already are in your country.
As for Argentina, I'm not familiar with its economic history, but 1895 was an entirely different reality. I don't think any economy in 1895, even the absolute most advanced countries of the time, is comparable to any economy today. If we're going to make judgments about economic policy, it should be grounded in the events of the last 50-60 years at earliest.
(Sorry couldn't help myself on the double-entendre.)
I'm actually starting to think that diplomacy works among fellow democracies but autocratic governments see diplomacy as weakness. If a nation values their citizens, diplomacy works, if they don't then power, bluster and threats of war seem to be the only currency of value to them. Maybe it just boils down to how much a nation values human life...
I will repeat this again, because I assume opponents of the Iran deal when it was negotiated didn't think it would work because Iran would break their word. All well and good, except they DIDN'T break their word. It had been doing EXACTLY what was intended for the 3 years it was in effect, which was to stop Iran from continuing to work on a bomb. It was the result of YEARS of painstaking diplomacy. And we are the ones who didn't keep our word. Not the Iranians, us. Those aren't my opinions, those are the facts. And we're supposed to trust the guy who clearly didn't put more than an ounce of thought into what leaving the Iran deal would mean for the rest of the world to "solve" North Korea?? Yeah, color me skeptical on that front. You'll be able to knock me over with a feather if Trump even gets a scintilla of the kind of rigid verification process that was in place in regards to Iran, which we threw away for absolutely nothing.
As for military might vs. diplomacy, let's look at the Iran deal (which was working) versus, oh I don't know, that little incident called the Iraq War. But hey, if you thought Iraq was fun, you'll LOVE what happens if the same situation takes hold with Iran. Because it'll be everything that was x10. And Bolton has had a hard-on for attacking Iran for well over a decade. In fact, there were PLENTY of those in the Bush 43 orbit who thought after the Iraq "cake-walk", we were going to march into Tehran next. Guess that plan didn't quite work out like they'd hoped.
Korea does "seem" better. But a couple months of a unified message of trying something different than they did before doesn't really mean much. Good start. Let's see how bad Trump screws it up or not at their meeting. Either way South Korea has been integral as well. There has to be more going on here than we have been told. Like if we find out that trump has been secretly bribing Kim Jong Un with Russian prostitutes and bribes funneled from his reelection campaign I would not be surprised.
Given that history it seems probable to me that the current round of talks will ultimately fail. I've said before though that I support Trump's decision to get personally involved in talks. That's not because I think the chances of success are great, but because the issue is important enough to justify the risks of failure.
Apart from the obvious problem about the credibility of doing any nuclear deal with the US at the moment though, I'm also getting more concerned about Trump's public statements in the last few days on the Korean talks. In effect he's doubling-down on his position there by already looking forward to a successful outcome from the talks. Given how sensitive Trump is to any suggestion of failure, this raising of expectations now is likely to result in a violent swing in his attitude to North Korea if the talks don't make quick progress.
As an analogy think about 2 companies signing a major long-term contract. A couple of years later one of the companies has a change of management and says that they're no longer bound by the deal. How would the other company feel - would they accept that a change of management was a reasonable excuse for scrapping the deal? This sort of situation is not actually that uncommon, but it does result in a major loss of credibility for the company pulling out - and therefore is typically associated with a company that's failing and/or undergoing major reconstruction.
That loss of credibility applies in international relations as well when one country pulls out of an agreement. The legal form of that agreement may make a big difference to the domestic politics, but to other countries the issue is whether they can trust any agreements made in future.
Ooopsy!