Sorry, Guys, We Can’t Blame This On Biden

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Note the Anchorage meeting. China did not openly insult the Trump administration, but then immediately insulted the Biden administration. You should be asking why.

I appreciate your world view. I don't agree with it, but I appreciate it as thought out and researched. It will be interesting to see how your views change over the next four years.
You make an excellent point. Biden’s man, Blinken, has spent the last couple of decades pushing for war with Russia, and I think that is his greatest desire. I agree the verbal thrashing he got from the Chinese seemed to come out of nowhere. And I agree the Biden administration leaves a lot to be desired. I hardly think they are up
to the task. But the pickle they find themselves in was created by Trump’s (Navarro’s and Pompeii’s) policies. I said earlier in this thread, and I’ll repeat it now, I don’t think the Biden administration has what it takes to make much of a change.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Then why was this held until now? Trump pulled out of the agreement 3 years ago, yet China waits until Beijing Biden is in office to enact this Iranian trade agreement?
Lordy, I hardly know the ins and outs of China’s foreign policy decisions. I agree with you that Trump was “tougher” on China (and Iran) than Biden will be. The Chinese might view the timing is right. But I think such a deal would have been struck no matter who was American president. IMO Trump’s policies are the building blocks of what led to it.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
If there is nothing he could have done, then he is not the cause!!!!!!!!!! (pulling my hair out). And OUR government made NO agreements with Iran, as none were ever ratified by the Senate. The Obama cabal made the agreements. Americoms vs. Chicoms. or six of one and a half dozen of the other.
Trump’s policy of isolating Iran left them no choice but to go to China. It was their last resort. China has a vision to dominate the world; the BRI is evidence of their intentions. They saw a golden opportunity to make a deal with Iran and they jumped on it. Pompeo, et al, thought he had boxed Iran in. He completely misread the tea leaves on this one. It’s up to Biden’s team to clean up the mess, and I personally don’t think they’re up to the job. Biden could very well make things worse, probably will. But he was handed a clusterf__k of Trump’s making.
 

Tulsaaggieson

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 29, 2010
2,275
1,595
113
Stillwater
You make an excellent point. Biden’s man, Blinken, has spent the last couple of decades pushing for war with Russia, and I think that is his greatest desire. I agree the verbal thrashing he got from the Chinese seemed to come out of nowhere. And I agree the Biden administration leaves a lot to be desired. I hardly think they are up
to the task. But the pickle they find themselves in was created by Trump’s (Navarro’s and Pompeii’s) policies. I said earlier in this thread, and I’ll repeat it now, I don’t think the Biden administration has what it takes to make much of a change.
Chinese foreign policy has been about projection of strength, and the do's and don'ts of diplomatic exchanges. The verbal lashing is much more significant than you are giving credence to. Trump set the next administration up for success if they are to project strength. Combine that with some back and forth and we would have been in a better position. I don't think China for one minute would have gone against sanctions if Trump was still president. They have zero respect for an administration they believe they own. You can't look at any mainstream journalists when it comes to China. I look for Hong Kong and Taiwan journalists, as well as Japanese and South Korean. Yku get a much different take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Chinese foreign policy has been about projection of strength, and the do's and don'ts of diplomatic exchanges. The verbal lashing is much more significant than you are giving credence to. Trump set the next administration up for success if they are to project strength. Combine that with some back and forth and we would have been in a better position. I don't think China for one minute would have gone against sanctions if Trump was still president. They have zero respect for an administration they believe they own. You can't look at any mainstream journalists when it comes to China. I look for Hong Kong and Taiwan journalists, as well as Japanese and South Korean. Yku get a much different take.
We’ll just disagree on this one. I think China would have made the deal with Iran in a heartbeat no matter who was president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulsaaggieson

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
Lordy, I hardly know the ins and outs of China’s foreign policy decisions. I agree with you that Trump was “tougher” on China (and Iran) than Biden will be. The Chinese might view the timing is right. But I think such a deal would have been struck no matter who was American president. IMO Trump’s policies are the building blocks of what led to it.

Here is where I disagree. The fact is that this is an issue with the global leadership (G8, G20, WTO, and UN) refusing to hold China to the standards of being a global trade partner and the global community consistently has turned a blind eye to all of the trade abuses China commits just so we can continue to get access to its billion people and its #2 global economy. In fact, Trump was the first president in my lifetime that actually tried to do anything to rein China in (for example, trade tarriffs, restrictions on foreign visas, etc.). We can argue whether those actions were adequate or effective, but that's a different discussion.
 

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
We’ll just disagree on this one. I think China would have made the deal with Iran in a heartbeat no matter who was president.

If it would have cost China twice as much in US trade lost (as it should have), they wouldn't have done it. But knowing it costs them nothing because we'll do nothing is why they progressed with the Iran trade deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

soonerinlOUisiana

Heisman Candidate
May 29, 2004
11,674
7,355
113
fvck off, leftists
www.youtube.com
Trump’s policy of isolating Iran left them no choice but to go to China. It was their last resort. China has a vision to dominate the world; the BRI is evidence of their intentions. They saw a golden opportunity to make a deal with Iran and they jumped on it. Pompeo, et al, thought he had boxed Iran in. He completely misread the tea leaves on this one. It’s up to Biden’s team to clean up the mess, and I personally don’t think they’re up to the job. Biden could very well make things worse, probably will. But he was handed a clusterf__k of Trump’s making.
Do you honestly think that Iran would have refrained from cutting a deal with China if Trump had stuck to the shytty Obama deal? Good grief Dan. You're as stup...er....naive as the unilateral disarmament crowd from the 80's that believed an evil regime (the soviets) would "do the right thing" if we offered them an olive branch. Sorry pal, but you're putting too much faith in back-stabbing human debris (ie. marxists and moslems)
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Here is where I disagree. The fact is that this is an issue with the global leadership (G8, G20, WTO, and UN) refusing to hold China to the standards of being a global trade partner and the global community consistently has turned a blind eye to all of the trade abuses China commits just so we can continue to get access to its billion people and its #2 global economy. In fact, Trump was the first president in my lifetime that actually tried to do anything to rein China in (for example, trade tarriffs, restrictions on foreign visas, etc.). We can argue whether those actions were adequate or effective, but that's a different discussion.
But we DON’T disagree on that. China literally prostrated itself before the world begging to be admitted into the WTO. Almost from the time the papers were signed China backstabbed the rules, and the world, at the time led by the USA, so eager to gain access to a billion potential customers, did nothing about it. Donald Boudreaux wrote a paper showing that the few times the WTO stepped in and threatened to punish China if they didn’t follow a particular rule in a particular trade agreement with another WTO partner China backed down the vast majority of the time. But greed so consumed the other WTO partners, including the USA and its corporations, salivating at getting access to the Chinese market thought they could ignore the transgressions. They thought China would eventually see how the game is played, and they got played by China instead. Trump’s mistake, one of several, is he made no effort to use the WTO to usher China into conformity. He thought he could bully and bash China (and our allies) into doing his bidding. And it didn’t work. I guess that’s the other discussion you are talking about.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
If it would have cost China twice as much in US trade lost (as it should have), they wouldn't have done it. But knowing it costs them nothing because we'll do nothing is why they progressed with the Iran trade deal.
Peter Navarro, Trump’s main advisor on matters of foreign trade, had no understanding of the extent of global trade networks. He and Trump viewed trade as binary between two countries. Maybe that’s how it was back in the 40’s and 50’s, but it’s not like that any more. Products are assembled from parts that are created all over the world. Tariffs and sanctions on one country, China, had relatively little impact on the targeted country, and but bit other countries where the sun doesn’t shine. There is no way what you recommend would work. It would wreak havoc across the globe, and cause untold damage to American producers and consumers. Look how Trump’s steel tariffs had no effect on China, but cost thousands of jobs of people who built American products made of Chinese steel. Look at the damage it did to American farmers to the point Trump had to try and buy their votes back by giving them subsidies. I know many on here don’t want to hear it, it goes against everything they want to believe, but Trump’s foreign
policies coupled with his flawed notions about international trade were a travesty,
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
That requires ignoring all evidence to the contrary v. your pure speculation.
Well, I don’t know what evidence I’m ignoring, but for sure it is pure speculation on my part since Trump is no longer president and Joe Biden is.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Do you honestly think that Iran would have refrained from cutting a deal with China if Trump had stuck to the shytty Obama deal? Good grief Dan. You're as stup...er....naive as the unilateral disarmament crowd from the 80's that believed an evil regime (the soviets) would "do the right thing" if we offered them an olive branch. Sorry pal, but you're putting too much faith in back-stabbing human debris (ie. marxists and moslems)
Your emotional desire to insult aside, my argument is Iran made a deal with China because Trump’s policies gave them nowhere else to go. The West lost any influence they might have had because of American belligerence. Our European allies were continuing to trade with Iran and made it clear they didn’t want to stop. But Trump browbeat them until they acquiesced. Maybe Iran would have still struck a deal with China, probably would have. But it’s doubtful it would have been a $400 billion deal, and the West might have slowly gained some diplomatic influence. The point is we’ll never know, and that’s on Trump.
 

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,564
2,391
113
Peter Navarro, Trump’s main advisor on matters of foreign trade, had no understanding of the extent of global trade networks. He and Trump viewed trade as binary between two countries. Maybe that’s how it was back in the 40’s and 50’s, but it’s not like that any more. Products are assembled from parts that are created all over the world. Tariffs and sanctions on one country, China, had relatively little impact on the targeted country, and but bit other countries where the sun doesn’t shine. There is no way what you recommend would work. It would wreak havoc across the globe, and cause untold damage to American producers and consumers. Look how Trump’s steel tariffs had no effect on China, but cost thousands of jobs of people who built American products made of Chinese steel. Look at the damage it did to American farmers to the point Trump had to try and buy their votes back by giving them subsidies. I know many on here don’t want to hear it, it goes against everything they want to believe, but Trump’s foreign
policies coupled with his flawed notions about international trade were a travesty,
Dan you're an expert on foreign trade? How you can blame Trump when he at least tried to battle China rather than rag on Bush and Hussein et al when they gave a China whatever they want- Biden still is. I'm no expert but I know what the others did with China were way worse than Trump.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Your emotional desire to insult aside, my argument is Iran made a deal with China because Trump’s policies gave them nowhere else to go. The West lost any influence they might have had because of American belligerence. Our European allies were continuing to trade with Iran and made it clear they didn’t want to stop. But Trump browbeat them until they acquiesced. Maybe Iran would have still struck a deal with China, probably would have. But it’s doubtful it would have been a $400 billion deal, and the West might have slowly gained some diplomatic influence. The point is we’ll never know, and that’s on Trump.
One other point that needs to be made. This deal was made via Chinese currency, not the American dollar. That’s a shot across the bow of American monetary dominance. I’d be curious what our friend @07pilt could tell about that.
 
Last edited:

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Dan you're an expert on foreign trade? How you can blame Trump when he at least tried to battle China rather than rag on Bush and Hussein et al when they gave a China whatever they want- Biden still is. I'm no expert but I know what the others did with China were way worse than Trump.
No, hardly an expert. Just a person with an unusual passing interest. You are transposing a thread about Trump’s mistakes and assuming my criticism begins and ends with him. That is not the case. The whole international trading game could have been a marvel following WW2, but as usually happens politics got involved and screwed everything up. The only thing this thread entertains is Trump’s mistakes, but I assure you there is plenty of blame to go around.
 

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
One other point that needs to be made. This deal was made via Chinese currency, not the American dollar. That’s a shit across the bow of American monetary dominance. I’d be curious what our friend @07pilt could tell about that.

The fact China did a deal in the Chinese Yuan isn't that big a deal. Let me know when two countries outside of China make a deal thats based on the Yuan. That will be the shot across the bow of the fed and the dominance of the US dollar.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
The fact China did a deal in the Chinese Yuan isn't that big a deal. Let me know when two countries outside of China make a deal thats based on the Yuan. That will be the shot across the bow of the fed and the dominance of the US dollar.
You may be right. I hope you are.
 

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
Your emotional desire to insult aside, my argument is Iran made a deal with China because Trump’s policies gave them nowhere else to go. The West lost any influence they might have had because of American belligerence. Our European allies were continuing to trade with Iran and made it clear they didn’t want to stop. But Trump browbeat them until they acquiesced. Maybe Iran would have still struck a deal with China, probably would have. But it’s doubtful it would have been a $400 billion deal, and the West might have slowly gained some diplomatic influence. The point is we’ll never know, and that’s on Trump.

And while you are correct that Iran went to China because there was nowhere else to go, its not the West's doing, other than the fact that we choose to do nothing to China when they trade with countries that we've sanctioned. For example, China trades with North Korea (a country with trade sanctions from every other G20 nation) yet we don't prevent it or punish them for it. Not sure this is any different.

One final note: You said this was caused by Trump. In reality, if Trump hadn't pulled us away from the Iran Nuclear Non-Treaty, this deal would have been done (like sooner) and noone would have batted an eye because there wouldn't have been sanctions on Iran for them to be 'backdooring' via China.
 

Sunburnt Indian

All-American
Nov 7, 2001
3,582
8,999
113
Edge of the Comancheria
The fact China did a deal in the Chinese Yuan isn't that big a deal. Let me know when two countries outside of China make a deal thats based on the Yuan. That will be the shot across the bow of the fed and the dominance of the US dollar.
Didn't China and India trade oil using the Yuan, in a feeble attempt by China to upset the dollar's World Reserve Status? It went nowhere as I recall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
Didn't China and India trade oil using the Yuan, in a feeble attempt by China to upset the dollar's World Reserve Status? It went nowhere as I recall.

China trades with Vietnam, India and a number of other Asian countries using the Yuan. Many countries in Europe trade via the Euro. The fact is, none of that is relevant. What will be relevant is when countries that peg their currency to the dollar (like Saudi Arabia, for example) choose to change that linkage or those with major inflationary/stability concerns (such as Venezuela) start choosing to negotiate with their peers using the Yuan, Euro, or even Bitcoin rather than basing it on the US dollar. When either of these actions start occurring, then you will know that the Fed sold out our kids' futures to support a debt-based economy and America is truly done for.
 

Sunburnt Indian

All-American
Nov 7, 2001
3,582
8,999
113
Edge of the Comancheria
China trades with Vietnam, India and a number of other Asian countries using the Yuan. Many countries in Europe trade via the Euro. The fact is, none of that is relevant. What will be relevant is when countries that peg their currency to the dollar (like Saudi Arabia, for example) choose to change that linkage or those with major inflationary/stability concerns (such as Venezuela) start choosing to negotiate with their peers using the Yuan, Euro, or even Bitcoin rather than basing it on the US dollar. When either of these actions start occurring, then you will know that the Fed sold out our kids' futures to support a debt-based economy and America is truly done for.
Oil is usually traded world wide using the U. S. buck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
And while you are correct that Iran went to China because there was nowhere else to go, its not the West's doing, other than the fact that we choose to do nothing to China when they trade with countries that we've sanctioned. For example, China trades with North Korea (a country with trade sanctions from every other G20 nation) yet we don't prevent it or punish them for it. Not sure this is any different.

One final note: You said this was caused by Trump. In reality, if Trump hadn't pulled us away from the Iran Nuclear Non-Treaty, this deal would have been done (like sooner) and noone would have batted an eye because there wouldn't have been sanctions on Iran for them to be 'backdooring' via China.
I’ll grant you know more about the Iran Nuclear Deal than me, because I know next to nothing about it. I do know those people infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome were up in arms about it. Some people whom I always gave credence for objectivism thought it was a fair deal. And of course the Obama faithful said it’s the best deal ever. Like Covid mandates I don’t know whom to believe. But I’m not sure the same deal would have been consummated. China is a well known “hard bargainer” in their trade deals, and if Iran had other places they could go to they might not have gone so big. They could tell China if they don’t want the deal with better terms then France would. As said earlier, however, this is all speculation. Iran cut the deal with China and left the West, in particular the USA with egg on its face.
 

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
Oil is usually traded world wide using the U. S. buck.

Correct, but its usually traded through exchanges and markets, and not in direct negotiations. So comparing OPEC pricing and trade model vs. Sanctioned Iran's direct sell method doesn't correlate.
 

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
I’ll grant you know more about the Iran Nuclear Deal than me, because I know next to nothing about it. I do know those people infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome were up in arms about it. Some people whom I always gave credence for objectivism thought it was a fair deal. And of course the Obama faithful said it’s the best deal ever. Like Covid mandates I don’t know whom to believe. But I’m not sure the same deal would have been consummated. China is a well known “hard bargainer” in their trade deals, and if Iran had other places they could go to they might not have gone so big. They could tell China if they don’t want the deal with better terms then France would. As said earlier, however, this is all speculation. Iran cut the deal with China and left the West, in particular the USA with egg on its face.

Why do you think we have egg on our face from this deal? Do we have egg on our face because China negotiates with North Korea? All this does is further demonstrate that there is no "singular" trade organization that has any teeth to it (sorry WTO, G8, etc). If sanctions can be (or are in this case) circumvented by our own trade partners, then either we as a country need to decide if we want to be trading partners with that other country (sorry, that ship has sailed) or we have to accept that sanctions are no longer a viable tool to enforce compliance and thus when the shit hits the fan with Iran (and it will), you'll know why troops will have to be deployed.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Nowhere else to go, my a$$. Iran went to China under the birds of a feather axiom. Evil people stand together. It also explains why libs constantly are siding with America’s enemies.
My goodness, I hope as an attorney your court demeanor is less emotionally vituperative than you have displayed in this thread! Iran wanted to trade with Europe. Europe wanted to trade with Iran. Trump made every effort to shut it down, causing tremendous hardship for the Iranian people (who are viewed as no more than pawns by either side), and in the process infuriating our European allies with his bullying. Where was Iran going to trade? With whom? Botswana? Venezuela? No, they really had nowhere else to whom they could turn. The fact they are both brutal dictatorships has almost nothing to do with the deal from Iran’s perspective. They had nowhere else to go. China got a twofer: another foot in the door for the BRI while poking the bear that is the west, especially the USA. I’m not sure why you find this so hard to see, and especially why you are so mad that it is being pointed out.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Why do you think we have egg on our face from this deal? Do we have egg on our face because China negotiates with North Korea? All this does is further demonstrate that there is no "singular" trade organization that has any teeth to it (sorry WTO, G8, etc). If sanctions can be (or are in this case) circumvented by our own trade partners, then either we as a country need to decide if we want to be trading partners with that other country (sorry, that ship has sailed) or we have to accept that sanctions are no longer a viable tool to enforce compliance and thus when the shit hits the fan with Iran (and it will), you'll know why troops will have to be deployed.
I think we have egg on our face because Pompeo was so smugly sure he’d had completely hemmed in Iran, and his sanctions would kill enough Iranian peasants they would eventually rise up and oust the regime. The Iranian regime was willing to let several millions more of its citizens starve to death or die from a treatable disease, and was not too concerned there would be a revolt. This deal between Iran and China came out of the blue and caught diplomats in the West unprepared. From my perspective that’s some serious egg on our face.

As for North Korea I would say a resounding YES we have had egg on our face for decades through countless presidents. Our policy of starving the innocent civilians of a country as leverage to overthrow the existing regime has been a massive failure in NK. We should have learned something from the experience when we tried the same thing with Iran. I give Trump credit for trying to change the dynamic, paltry as the effort was. Of course our friend, John Bolton, was there to kill any possibility of rapprochement.
 

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
My goodness, I hope as an attorney your court demeanor is less emotionally vituperative than you have displayed in this thread! Iran wanted to trade with Europe. Europe wanted to trade with Iran. Trump made every effort to shut it down, causing tremendous hardship for the Iranian people (who are viewed as no more than pawns by either side), and in the process infuriating our European allies with his bullying. Where was Iran going to trade? With whom? Botswana? Venezuela? No, they really had nowhere else to whom they could turn. The fact they are both brutal dictatorships has almost nothing to do with the deal from Iran’s perspective. They had nowhere else to go. China got a twofer: another foot in the door for the BRI while poking the bear that is the west, especially the USA. I’m not sure why you find this so hard to see, and especially why you are so mad that it is being pointed out.

Here's the flaw in your perspective: Trump is no longer in office. So he's not holding up Europe from making similar trade deals with Iran. And you can bet that Biden isn't stopping Europe either. China was simply faster to the trigger (probably because Europe and the US govt is too busy squabbling about a virus with a .02% death rate for those under the age for 50) while China has moved on to continue its goal of global dominance. Again, though, its not Trump's fault that his replacement doesn't have a nutsack to hold anyone accountable or to enforce his sanctions.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Do you not see the Iranians and the Chicoms for the evil pieces of excrement that they are? If not, then we have nothing to discuss.

Your attitude toward them reminds me of Phil Donahue’s attitude toward the Soviets back in the 80s.
Of course I see them for what they are, exactly as you described them. I have said nothing to make you think otherwise.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
Here's the flaw in your perspective: Trump is no longer in office. So he's not holding up Europe from making similar trade deals with Iran. And you can bet that Biden isn't stopping Europe either. China was simply faster to the trigger (probably because Europe and the US govt is too busy squabbling about a virus with a .02% death rate for those under the age for 50) while China has moved on to continue its goal of global dominance. Again, though, its not Trump's fault that his replacement doesn't have a nutsack to hold anyone accountable or to enforce his sanctions.
You’re all over the map with this reply. China was quicker on the draw with Iran, I never thought otherwise. But if you think Trump was going to prevent the deal because he had a nutsack to force China to honor his sanctions I think you are in grievous error. This deal was going to be done no matter whose nutsack was on the line. IMO.
 

Ponca Dan

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
9,538
7,155
113
You’re all over the map with this reply. China was quicker on the draw with Iran, I never thought otherwise. But if you think Trump was going to prevent the deal because he had a nutsack to force China to honor his sanctions I think you are in grievous error. This deal was going to be done no matter whose nutsack was on the line. IMO.
And with that I gladly give you the last word. I’m about talked out on this subject, I just keep having to think of new ways to say the same thing over. This has been immensely enjoyable (for me at least). But I’m worn out. Please take the last word!
 

soonerinlOUisiana

Heisman Candidate
May 29, 2004
11,674
7,355
113
fvck off, leftists
www.youtube.com
Of course I see them for what they are, exactly as you described them. I have said nothing to make you think otherwise.
You said they had no choice but to go with China. What makes you think that the bad guys would ever choose something other than the leader of the bad guys, unless it somehow facilitated them doing bad things to the good guys?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

aix_xpert

Heisman Candidate
Sep 5, 2001
10,800
8,338
113
And with that I gladly give you the last word. I’m about talked out on this subject, I just keep having to think of new ways to say the same thing over. This has been immensely enjoyable (for me at least). But I’m worn out. Please take the last word!

I get where you're coming from and I've enjoyed the discussion as well. I still think the hole in your theory is the following question: "If China wasn't concerned about Trump's potential reprisal, then why did this agreement wait 3 years to happen?". You know for a fact Trump would have loved to use the US Navy to stop a Chinese Tanker sailing into the Persian Gulf. That's the kind of 'in your face' show that not even the libs would argue that Trump was a fan of. Whether or not this tacit knowledge of Trump's likelihood to respond drove the delay of this trade agreement will never been known outside of government offices in Tehran or Beijing, but the fact is, they did delay until Trump was out of office.
 

07pilt

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2012
13,702
5,481
113
I get where you're coming from and I've enjoyed the discussion as well. I still think the hole in your theory is the following question: "If China wasn't concerned about Trump's potential reprisal, then why did this agreement wait 3 years to happen?". You know for a fact Trump would have loved to use the US Navy to stop a Chinese Tanker sailing into the Persian Gulf. That's the kind of 'in your face' show that not even the libs would argue that Trump was a fan of. Whether or not this tacit knowledge of Trump's likelihood to respond drove the delay of this trade agreement will never been known outside of government offices in Tehran or Beijing, but the fact is, they did delay until Trump was out of office.
As the dems learned in 2016, foreign policy that requires a single party (or single man) hold the presidency in perpetuity is not very effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aix_xpert

Latest posts