placeholder

There's a logical fallacy that logicians have labelled "post hoc ergo propter hoc" Which translates to "after this therefore because of this". So, to your way of thinking is that because during Trump's presidency russia didn't massively invade Ukraine or Hamas didn't stage its attack on Israel, therefore it's because of Trump. Yet on the other hand you claim that these issues are too complicated for us to understand. So how do you square your simplistic thinking with your claims of complexity in foreign affairs? Good luck with that.

And the candidate of the ignoramuses triumphs again! "Trump is winning by a wide margin with the two-thirds of caucusgoers who think Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election, according to caucus entrance polls. Haley wins among the third of voters who think Biden’s victory was legitimate." https://archive.ph/oKQ5a https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/15/us/iowa-caucus-election-news

Depends on what the goal is. Why do you think the Houthis are attacking ships?

Exactly. What you call "news" a rational observer would label fiction.

How ignorant does someone have to be to allege that Putin and Iran behaved well when Trump was President? Under Trump, the US engaged in wholesale and enthusiastic support of the Saudi's disastrous war against the Houthis. I haven't read anywhere that the Iranians withdrew their support for the Houthis during the Trump administration. As for Putin, did Trump deter him from stepping up his support of the rebels in the Donbas region? or Moldova? Or Georgia? In fact, Trump tried to starve Ukraine of weaponry but was halted in his attempt by the threat from Congress to take him to court over his clearly illegal attempt.

What don't you understand about the fact that the Trump administration is killing of the nuclear agreement destroyed that as an incentive?

Nonsense. There's even a real stipulating that links be provided to back up assertions of fact. What's stopping you from posting evidence backed up with a link?

Yes It gave them a very strong incentive not to misbehave. It also strengthened the position of the moderates in Iran which showed that negotiating could be a good thing.

Why don't you link to these "new" news articles?

Did you really have to ask?

More nonsense from you. The Obama administration reached a nuclear deal with Iran that was working. Trump not only exited the deal, but made it impossible for any business that used the Smart financial system (just about every major economy) from doing business with Iran. So virtually all leverage was lost.

As for issuing new sanctions, are there any serious ones left for the US to invoke? After the previous administration not only pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, but made it virtually impossible for any business interests in the West to legitimately do business with Iran, they pretty much removed all incentives for Iran to cooperate with the west. And once the agreement fell apart, it vitiated the status of the moderates in the Iranian government who had staked their hopes and reputations on the agreement. As for China, it's not so much about imports as it is about exports. China's economy is hugely reliant on exports to the west. Its economy is already in big trouble. A crimp in its exports would be especially damaging now.

It's not relative warming. It just a decrease in the rate of cooling. The stratosphere on balance is still getting colder.

It's hard to know if the Iranians enjoy enough influence over the Houthis to stop them from attacking shipping. But China and others could do their bit by not purchasing Iranian oil and gas.

The crucial difference is that I am always prepared to provide a link if asked. You refused to provide one.

The only mystery in the case of the 2020 elections is why so many people cling to their belief in fraud despite the overwhelming evidence that the election was legitimate. Not even the 2 teams of forensic experts hired by the Trump campaign could come up with anything significant.

Another porky. If you aren't prepared to back up your claims, keep your comments confined to the fiction forum. The folowing rule was created for this forum specifically to keep out conversational polluters such as yourself: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

Why do you think Kevin O'Leary is an expert? Is he a lawyer? As for his business experience, he originally made his money from software. I haven't seen any indication that he's an expert in real estate investment.

Here's the heart of what you wrote: : " I don't see them not getting involved as implying what you push, no. Sitting on the sidelines whenever possible is quite normal." And to forestall you accusing me of taking your quote out of context, here's the whole thing Clearly, you had no use for any other explanation of why the Saudis are behaving the way they are. Instead you resorted to some tired all purpose explanation. Unfortunately for me, I have misplaced my volume of the collected comments of Morch. So, I'm going to have to go on what you wrote here. And your dismissal of the fact of Saudi fears about the present situation and the reason for that, but instead promoting the notion that it's just their innate cautiousness at work, is clearly wrong. And your criticism of that piece in foreign policy stems entirely from the fact that the author explicitly says there is no short term solution to the problem. Could be that some problems are just insoluble in the short or medium term, or that actions taken to solve one problem may ultimately make the situation worse or even create new, worse problems. The 2nd Iraq war comes to mind.

Real estate developers may talk it up but the law abiding ones don't lie.. Trump lied repeatedly. He inflated the size of his apartment by almost 3 times its actual size. He claimed development rights for his vacation property in upstate NY but the fact is development rights had been signed away. That's just 2 of the lies he signed off on. They won't tell you that on Fox News.

I may not be very bright but you seem very trusting of an anonymous person's claim. And perhaps a bit ignorant. The high tide line isn't constant. " Because of the angle of the moon with respect to the earth, the two high tides each day do not have to be of equal height. The same holds true for the two low tides each day. Tides also differ in height on a daily basis." https://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php?word=tides#:~:text=Because of the angle of,height on a daily basis. The most accurate way to measure sea level is not by it's relation to the shore but by its absolute height in relation to the center of the earth. This is done by satellites. "Radar satellite altimetry is one of the basic satellite measurement techniques intended primarily for solving global geodetic tasks by means of radar measurements from satellites toward the Earth. Satellite altimetry ensures the collection of high-precision global data of uniform accuracy on sea level, which enables monitoring of the geophysical characteristics of the sea and larger water surfaces, that is, marine topography and circulation within liquid water bodies. During the last four decades, satellite altimetry has revolutionized geosciences, especially oceanography, geophysics, and geodesy." https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/87727

There's the upper stratosphere and the lower stratosphere. The temperature of the upper stratosphere is naturally warmer than the temperature of the lower stratosphere thanks to the relatively high concentrations of ozone in the upper stratosphere. Hydrofluorocarbons destroyed lots of ozone so the upper stratosphere's cooling was accelerated. Now that the level of hydrofluorocarbons in the atmosphere is decreasing, the temperature in the upper stratosphere is increasing again. However, while ozone may heat the upper stratosphere, it has no effect on the lower stratosphere. So the reduction in ozone levels doesn't explain why the lower stratosphere is cooling. Here's a link: https://archive.ph/71all https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere/Stratosphere-and-mesosphere Nauseus' claim "Stratospheric temperatures generally decreased from the 1970's to about 2000, coincident with a reduction in the ozone layer. A gradual recovery of same (ozone) has prompted a reversal in that trend. Recently, stratospheric warming has occurred where ozone concentrations have recovered the most, away from the poles and at about 20-25 km above msl." is false. Average overall stratospheric temperature is still declining. There has been no reversal in overall stratospheric temperature. And the fact that the upper stratosphere has been getting warmer is utterly irrelevant to the reason why the lower stratosphere is getting cooler. And the reason for that is that greenhouse gases in the troposphere are slowing the rise of heat into the stratosphere.

If it was such common knowledge, how come you didn't seem to have a clue about the Saudi fears of the Yemen truce unraveling and renewed conflict with Iran. And her conclusion agrees with mine: sometimes there's nothing more that you can do.

That's what you're talking about now. Now what you said back when. And this in no way constitutes a reversal. Just a slowing.