Do you agree or disagree with this general statement about where U.S. foreign policy should go?

[Ken Burch]

“In my view, the United States must seek partnerships not just between governments, but between peoples.”

8 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Agree strongly
	5 (63%)
	Disagree strongly
	0 (0%)
	Agree somewhat
	3 (38%)
	Disagree somewhat
	0 (0%)
	not sure.
	0 (0%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. 3 guys walk into a bar

one of them turns to the other two and says:

"Why cant you two just admit I am right, you are wrong, in fact everybody in this bar is wrong?"

In fact

[Ken Burch]

4. Where do you get that from this quote?

There's nothing in it that's confrontational or divisive.

It simply says that we should ally ourselves globally with the people, rather than with the military or the elite in the mansions on the hill.

That a stable, peaceful world requires accepting that all deserve decent, dignified treatment and a basically survivable standard of living.

Do you take issue with that?

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. Sense of humor much?

[NurseJackie]

8. You needn't ask.

[guillaumeb]

10. If the clip actually applied,

it might be a funny response. However.................it has nothing to do with the actual post and the question asked.

Agreed?

[Ken Burch]

19. It sounded like you were comparing the speech to Pacino's courtroom speech in that movie

Implying a combative attack when that wasn't what was there.

Look, I get it that you're pissed at the way he's talked about the party-I wish that the guy would find more constructive ways to discuss things Democratic-AND that you don't want the guy to run again-and for that matter, I don't want him to run myself), but are you going to respond with automatically dismissiveness to anything he says simply BECAUSE he's the one saying it?

Why would you do that?

Why dismiss the idea simply because of the source of the idea?

The things in that speech are ideas lots of people in this country and around the world have supported for decades. Why not at least consider them on the merits? What's the harm?

[George II]

16. Along those lines, if there are three people on an elevator and one farts.........

.....only one knows who it was. On the other hand, if there are only two people on the elevator and one farts, they both know who it was.

[Weekend Warrior]

25. That's why I only fart in crowded elevators. Nt

[LexVegas]

2. He invented foreign policy years ago. nt

[FSogol]

3. Only he can fix everything!

Hallelujah!

[Ken Burch]

6. This is a thread about the idea. It doesn't matter what you feel about the person who said it.

What do you have to say about the actual idea?

[beachbum bob]

7. can't get partnership with people who have no interest

[bettyellen]

35. You mean Russia doesn't want to held hands and replace their oil w solar?

[guillaumeb]

9. Instead of endless war, which profits the war industries,

we should instead try peace?

Who benefits by peace? We all do.

[Expecting Rain]

11. Sounds like populist demogogery taken to new global dimensions...

and more hot air to me, since you ask.

[Ken Burch]

20. It's populist demagogery to say we should globally ally with the poor?

Why?

It's not as though any greater good has come to the majority of people in this country from our traditionally alliances with the rich.

In a way, it's simply variant of John F. Kennedy's observation:

those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable

Have you actually even read the speech that comes from?

[Expecting Rain]

22. Sounds like populism when you promise to reach out to the world's poor...

While at the same time you embrace nativist-protectionist trade policies that would badly hurt the poorest of the world's poor.

[PETRUS]

31. You're talking nonsense.

First of all, you start with a straw man (nativist-protectionist trade policies). Second, pretty much all of the success stories of economic development happened under national policies that the kind of trade agreements the US has been pursuing would render impossible for any signatories (n.b. Mexico's GDP growth has lagged its peer group post NAFTA).

[Ken Burch]

50. I'm support "fair trade"-that is trade deals that guarantee workers in different countries

are never set against each other in a contest to see who's willing to work for the lowest pay in the worst conditions.

Why can't we negotiate trade deals with labor, POC, and environmentalist sitting as part of the negotiating panel?

[NurseJackie]

12. It's a naive and unrealistic approach. Or a very clumsy phrase...

... because our nation does not sign treaties or enter into accords with a nation's citizens. Such things are typically done with their government or their leaders (whether elected or not.) Now, our country can seek to improve how we are perceived with the citizens of another country. We can employ propaganda or promote positive public relations... but that's definitely NOT the same thing as an actual "partnership".

Besides, how would such an imaginary "partnership" be enforced? With whom would it be negotiated? What would the terms be? And what methods would be put in place to insure compliance or to redress complaints or other issues. ("No, Mr. Kim... you can't have nuclear weapons because we bypassed you. The US has a 'partnership' with the people of North Korea. Screw you Kim!" --- No, I don't think that would work too well.)

That statement just stumbles all over itself. It's trying too hard to appear to be important or thoughtful... but it just illustrates that whoever wrote it did so hastily and didn't consider the actual meaning of his/her words.

Is it a real quote, or something you made up? If it's real, who said that, anyway? George W. Bush? ("Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" ... "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.'')


<--- Look! It's a WAVING emoji! Cute, huh?

[George II]

17. .

[NurseJackie]

24. ###

Some people hate it when I wave at them. That's weird, huh?

[Ken Burch]

21. OK...here are some ways you can create such a partnership:

1) Apologize for every past instance in which the U.S. overthrew or destabilized an elected government-including the coup the U.S. and the UK staged in Iran in 1953, which put the Shah back into absolute power against the wishes of the Iranian people-and commit never to do that again. I would suggest that, among other things, the next U.S. president travel to Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua and the Dominican republic to atone for our past leaders did throughout Latin America for most of the time since 1823;

2) Announce that we will not arm regimes who are using force to put down protest-which would mean, among other things, ending all further arms sales to Saudi Arabia, a regime we should never have given unquestioned support for;

3) Agree that we will not support the imposition of austerity programs on countries receiving bailouts-such as Greece, where, with U.S. acquiescence, the people have been subjected to brutal economic punishment-including massive forced cuts in pensions that have literally resulted in elderly people committing suicide to avoid just plain starving to death-for a debt crisis that was caused almost exclusively by the actions of wealthy Greeks and Goldman Sachs;

4) Make it clear that we won't oppose any movements for social or economic justice anywhere in the world;

Those are some fairly easy steps to take.

We'd lose nothing any of us really needs.

It's a real quote.

[NurseJackie]

23. That's not a partnership. That's PR or goodwill, it's an apology-tour, but it's not a partnership.

It serves no good purpose to pretend that something is what it really isn't.

It's a real quote.

I've heard smarter things from GWB. That one was clumsy.

[Ken Burch]

42. The quote was a broadstrokes statement.

It's not difficult to flesh out a relationship with the world where we would stand with the many, not the few, and where we would stay of the way when the many decide to work to change their condition.


The steps I laid out there weren't just an apology tour. They would substantive and purely positive changes in U.S. policy-changes we should have made in the Sixties, when JFK was pointing out that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable".

The partnership with the poor would be in making it clear to the poor that we would no longer be party to holding them down.

The best way to a stable world is to make sure as few people as possible are powerless or suffering, or that no one is suffering at all.

[bettyellen]

30. I gotta laugh at the idea of someone running campaigning on that. And won't oppose

Movement for social or economic justice? What does this even mean?


It's like you believe if we wish away other governments they'll just disappear. And when they don't, well we're going to what, ring our hands? Nada. Zip. Seriously?

[Ken Burch]

43. Not wish away other governments.

But at least stop doing things we never ever needed to do-like arming the House of Saud and making it impossible for anything to ever change in that country.

By not opposing movements for social or economic change, I meant breaking our leaders traditional habit, in places like Latin America, Africa, and Asia, of using whatever means we could to prevent the impoverished majority from overthrowing the tyrants who held them down, or in the worst situations, imposing and preserving tyrants on various countries, as we did in Chile(where we destabilized and orchestrated the overthrow of Allende), the Congo(when we brought down Lumumba and put that fascist Mobutu in in his place)Nicaragua(where we kept Somoza in power for decades against the will of his own people and then organized a bandit army to put a right-wing government into power as soon as the people liberated themselves in 1979)in Guatemala(where in 1954 we turned a democratic country into what is still effectively a white supremacist military dictatorship), South Africa(where we armed the apartheid regime for decades and where our diplomats tipped off the regime to Nelson Mandela's whereabouts and thus caused his decades-long prison sentence), to name but a few examples.

We need to renounce all of that, admit that none of it should have happened, and agree never to let it happen again.

[bettyellen]

55. It's bizarre that none of this has to do with doing things today. Why is their no policy for now?

In his speech or in your suggestions- both are curiously devoid of anything concrete policy for Syria or Russia. Why are you both so vague? Broad strokes are pretty- also pretty useless.

[Ken Burch]

58. Because the long-term also matters.

In practical terms, there's nothing we CAN do about Syria. We already know that there can't be a military solution there and that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. All of the armed "rebel factions" are simply advocates for replacing Assad with a different form of dictator-and since all dictatorships are equally loathesome, it's pointless to simply try to trade an old tyrant for a new tyrant.

Other than greater sanctions there's no possibility of doing anything that could change things regarding Russia. With the massive nuclear stockpiles STILL pointed at each other, there is no military option.

Why should we even talk about situations in which no progressive(and thus no positive)outcome can ever be possible? Where hope can never exist?

[JI7]

48. I know an Iranian American woman who wants to do business with IRan and other countries

should she apologize to Iran for what the US did when her family was in IRan ?

the OP is nothing more than the usual "i'm the purest of them all".

[Warpy]

29. It's a typical political slogan

long on ideals and short on the nuts and bolts of how it might be accomplished. Kennedy came up with nuts and bolts (Peace Corps) so it's not all that difficult. These are just empty words with nothing to back them up but a gust of hot air.

I am not impressed.

[Ken Burch]

44. It was never meant to be an end in itself.

We can let the young people who entered politics for the first time in 2016 flesh it out.

No lines in a speech have ever been a complete policy.

Clearly, we need to stop what we currently do in much of the world-fighting to defend the property and profits of the few.

To tie it into and differentiate it from JFK, we need all Peace Corps and no more Green Berets.

[Warpy]

49. Obviously, after "drain the swamp" and "make America great again" we need to question

exactly what the hell they're talking about and how they hell they propose to do it.

They didn't do that in the farcical debates. They need to.

That's if this country survives this monster.

[Ken Burch]

52. OK. But I don't know why you think I disagree with any of that.

You do realize that we can't defeat Trump solely on the argument that Trump must be defeated, right?

[bettyellen]

56. Are you pretending Dems have no policy positions ? Because that's what this "solely on Trump"

Sounds like. It was bad enough hearing he media spread that lie, why am I seeing it implied here?

[Ken Burch]

57. No, I'm not pretending that(and I AM a Democrat, so please don't imply I'm an outsider)

I'm simply saying that to beat Trump, we need to lead with what we are FOR, rather than once again leading with the idea that Trump is a monster who has to be stopped.

Trump IS a monster, and he does have to be stopped, but we can't beat him by focusing on calling that out.

[NastyRiffraff]

13. Is this supposed to be something we should respond to?

Okay. Kumbaya, my lord, KUMBAYA!

Everybody get together let us love one another, RIGHT NOW!

Love is all we need!

What the world needs now, is LOVE sweet LOVE!

Etc.

[sheshe2]

14. :)

[George II]

18. .

[NastyRiffraff]

38. Ah, those were the days!

Good times, good times.

[NurseJackie]

27. The whole thing is so unrealistic. It doesn't represent the real world.

It makes as much sense to ask if our foreign policy should include rainbows and unicorns and lollipops and sunflowers and cotton candy. Ugh. We deal with heads of state, with other governments, not with the citizens. That doesn't mean the citizens aren't important, or that they shouldn't be considered, but as a nation, our country doesn't enter into partnerships with the citizens.

[R B Garr]

39. Exactly, actually it's sounding like a trade agreement.

[Ken Burch]

51. The idea of actually listening to and working with the global majority terrifies you, I think.

We've had decades of proof that working only with governments means that the poor are left out in the cold and kept poor.

Would it be asking to much for us to at least say that if the poor want to bring down an oppressive regime, that we won't send in the Marines of the Delta Force or the 101st Airborne to stop them doing that?

[NurseJackie]

61. LOL! Cloudy with a chance of meatballs...

[Ken Burch]

62. This is the difference with us.

When disagreeing with you on an issue, I never choose to treat you like you are beneath me as a human being. My concern has always simply been issues and the merits of the argument. Why do you seem to feel you can't do that? Why do you seem to feel that the only way you can make yourself heard is to be pointlessly harsh on a personal level to people with differing views than yours?

You're not an oppressed person on this board. Nobody here is persecuting you, or trying to tell you not to express your opinions. To my knowledge, nobody here is intentionally disrespecting you in any way at all. All that happens with you here, from what I can see, is that some of those who post on this board disagree with you.

And in real life, were we to meet, I'd probably ask you to join me for coffee to try and work out some reasonable, mutually respectable way to communicate.

Why should we assume that we can't ever change the way we deal with the rest of the world? That we can't ever align, on a basic level, with the majority of the human race?

It's not as though the heads of state and the ceo's and the generals are the only figures who matter, or even that all of them will hang on in power forever.

It's not as though our only way of being relevant in the world is trade deals largely written for the benefit of the 1% and an endless series of military interventions around the globe.

What is so terrible about, in some way, sending the signal to the many, to the billions with nothing and no hope, that we will no longer be party to holding them down?

[NurseJackie]

64. Well...

This is the difference with us.

"The"? That implies just one. There are many. Actually... I could write a book.

When disagreeing with you on an issue, I never choose to treat you like you are beneath me as a human being.

I never said that. I never do that to you either. That is a false accusation and disparaging insinuation. I don't deserve that kind of bullying.

My concern has always simply been issues and the merits of the argument. Why do you seem to feel you can't do that?

Really? If that's truly your main concern, please explain the reason for ugly accusations and rude insinuations about me. What's with all this "negging" of me?

Why do you seem to feel that the only way you can make yourself heard is to be personally nasty to people with differing views than yours?

More "negging". I don't do that. That's another false accusation. Frankly, I don't deserve to be treated this way and I'm not going to let anyone try to bully me into silence.

I think there's something important that you need to be told... It's not nice to accuse someone of being "nasty" simply because they disagree with you. And I can't believe you used the word "nasty" to describe me! Remember how Trump used it as a sexist slur against Hillary? And now you're using the word "NASTY" with reference to me?? Amazing.

You're not an oppressed person on this board. Nobody here is persecuting you, or trying to tell you not to express your opinions.

Are you actually suggesting that you are an "oppressed person"? Are you feeling "persecuted"? Is someone trying to silence you?

You're not an oppressed person on this board.

I never made such a claim.

Nobody here is persecuting you,

I never made such a claim.

or trying to tell you not to express your opinions.

Well... I guess that depends on how you look at it. I think the sexist and bullying aspect of calling someone "nasty" is an attempt to shut-down the conversation and to make someone shut-up.

To my knowledge, nobody here is intentionally disrespecting you in any way at all.

Scroll up.

All that happens with you here, from what I can see, is that some of those who post on this board disagree with you.

Yes... and... what's your point? I disagree with some people here... so? Some people disagree with me... so? Reasonable and mature adults can have political disagreements without feeling "insulted" or "hurt" or "attacked". It happens all the time. What's the big deal?

I'm only hurt and upset when someone accuses me of being "nasty".

I get upset when I'm falsely accused of treating people as if they were less than human. I never do that an you know it! That's no reason to treat me like I'm some sort of witch. (FYI: "Nasty" is just cutesy code-talk for calling someone a B or a C without actually saying the word.)

And in real life, were we to meet, I'd probably ask you to join me for coffee to try and work out some reasonable, mutually respectable way to communicate.

Uh... no, thank you. For obvious reasons, that's not a good idea.

Why should we assume that we can't ever change the way we deal with the rest of the world? That we can't ever align, on a basic level, with the majority of the human race?

Who's making that assumption? (Strawman. Irrelevant.)

It's not as though the heads of state and the ceo's and the generals are the only figures who matter, or even that all of them will hang on in power forever.

Who's making that argument? (Strawman. Irrelevant.)

It's not as though our only way of being relevant in the world is trade deals largely written for the benefit of the 1% and an endless series of military interventions around the globe.

Irrelevant. Strawman. That's not what this is about. You're changing the subject as per usual.

What is so terrible about, in some way, sending the signal to the many, to the billions with nothing and no hope, that we will no longer be party to holding them down?

See response #12. The one that starts off with: It's a naive and unrealistic approach. Or a very clumsy phrase... because our nation does not sign treaties or enter into accords with a nation's citizens. Such things are typically done with their government or their leaders (whether elected or not.) Now, our country can seek to improve how we are perceived with the citizens of another country. We can employ propaganda or promote positive public relations... but that's definitely NOT the same thing as an actual "partnership".

You're now trying to change the subject... move the goalposts... and redefine how our nation actually enters into treaties, accords or agreements with other nations.

So I'll repeat something that I've said to you many times before. Just because you change a few words and reword your question or your premise or your objection/s MY RESPONSE WILL REMAIN THE SAME.

[Ken Burch]

66. I don't need to scroll up.

I wasn't "negging"...I was simply making valid observations about you based on long experience.

It's respect to speak honestly about you.

You seldom do what we should all do and keep the conversation strictly on the issues-you've done some of that in this discussion, for a change, and I actually thank you for that). I'd LOVE to have that kind of exchange with you.

Instead, rather than treating other posters with respect, as all posters here should be treated so long as they don't personally attack or disparage you, you treat people here who disagree with some of your views-mostly just people who are to your left on economic issues, people who aren't in disagreement with you on anything else-as though they have no right to even be posting on this board, as though if you disagree with their ideas, they should simply feel obligated never to mention those ideas here.

It sounds as though it isn't enough for you to try to make some kind of a point, but that you feel you have to shout down and kind of verbally annihilate anybody who doesn't stay within your personal political comfort zone?

Why not just say why you disagree with somebody else's ideas without acting like you are a Democrat and the most of the rest of DU aren't, as though you should be the person who gets to determine which ideas can and cannot be discussed here?

[NurseJackie]

67. Sigh... very disappointing.

I don't need to scroll up.

I'm glad you've got a good memory. I can understand why you'd decline to view the evidence for yourself.

I wasn't "negging"...I was simply making valid observations about you based on long experience.

Yes, that's "negging" whether you realize it or not.

It's respect to speak honestly about you.

No there's nothing respectful about using the code-word "NASTY" to refer to me. Trump knows what it means. Hillary knows what it means. EVERYONE knows what it means. You can't get away with sneakily calling me a B or a C without me complaining about it. I'm not going to accept that type of sexist behavior from anyone. I deserve an apology (which you'll never do) but I deserve one anyway.

You never do what we should all do and keep the conversation strictly on the issues. I'd LOVE to have that kind of exchange with you. Instead, rather than treating other posters with respect, as all posters here should be treated so long as they don't personally attack or disparage you, you treat people here who disagree with some of your views-mostly just people who are to your left on economic issues, people who aren't in disagreement with you on anything else-as though they have no right to even be posting on this board, as though if you disagree with their ideas, they should simply feel obligated never to mention those ideas here.

That's false accusations and insinuations. None of those things are true.

Besides, it's really not my responsibility to worry about how someone "feels" after their arguments or ideas have been proven wrong or unrealistic or having no place in the real world. The "attack" was on the idea, not the person. I can't be responsible for nurturing hypersensitive people who have a personal attachment to an idea. If someone "feels as though they have no right to post anything on this board" because they lost an argument... then I have to question whether they're mature enough to be here in the first place. Those are the emotions of juveniles, not adults.

Why not just say why you disagree with somebody else's ideas without acting like you are a Democrat and the most of the rest of DU aren't, as though you should be the person who gets to determine which ideas can and cannot be discussed here?

That's false accusations and insinuations. None of those things are true.

[Ken Burch]

68. The term "Nasty" has no relation to gender in my use of it.

I remember what Trump said, but I have nothing in common with him and I campaigned hard for Hillary in the fall.

It was specifically about your person discourse...about you as an individual...and I'd have said the exact same thing about anyone else who posts in the way you do. I'll amend it to "pointlessly harsh on a personal level".

[NurseJackie]

69. That's wrong again.

The term "Nasty" has no relation to gender in my use of it.

You should have thought of that before you said it.

I remember what Trump said, but I have nothing in common with him

Nobody said you have anything in common with him. But I can tell you that I'm not going to remain silent when anyone uses code words to disparage me.

and I campaigned hard for Hillary in the fall.

So? What does that have do with anything? Just out of the blue you throw that in there? We all did. It's irrelevant. It serves no good purpose to mention it and it raises eyebrows.

MARGE: Hi, Homer! Welcome home! How was work?
HOMER: Well, I didn't go to Moe's, if that's what you mean!

It was specifically about your person discourse...about you as an individual...and I'd have said the exact same thing about anyone else who posts in the way you do.

Well, you can try to make it about me, but that would be a mistake. Besides, I really can't be responsible for someone who "owns" an idea with such passion that they feel personally wounded whenever someone else shoots it down or points out it's flaws or reminds them that it's been rejected or that it's not forward-looking or that it's not realistic, etc.

I'll amend it to "pointlessly harsh on a personal level".

The opposite of that would be "absurdly sensitive on a personal level" and again, I'll reference something that was said earlier. That's a juvenile response to confrontation and a clashing of ideas. I can't be responsible for someone else's hypersensitivity, nor am I willing to concede an argument or debate or decline making a point so as not to upset their delicate feelings.

Just as an example (and I know it sounds unbelievable, so bear with me) there was one person who expressed consternation that I often use the format of "quote and reply"... supposedly he or she found that style to be unnecessarily "aggressive". Another person says that my use of the animated waving smilie is being "dismissive" or some such nonsense. I mean, seriously! Can you imagine? Honestly, something like THAT is the definition of someone being emotionally crippled by their own hypersensitivity.



PS: Our nation still doesn't make deals or "partnerships" with the peoples of a nation. It's always with the heads of governments or their duly authorized representatives (in case you forgot what this was all about). See? In spite of all the distractions and trying to make this about Nurse Jackie... I still remember.

[Ken Burch]

45. It's simply a line in a speech.

We already know that the alternative-continuing to ally ourselves with people like the House of Saud and the folks who run Goldman Sachs, and to always choose war as the first option, are failures as policy for the vast majority of Americans.

Nothing else positive can ever come of brinksmanship, or "frank exchanges of views", or the drones that kill more innocent people than they ever do actual bad guys.

[rogue emissary]

15. We use that language and sentiment anytime we want to screw over another government.

Did it to the French and to Native Americans tribal leaders when we didn't want to honor treaties with them.

[Weekend Warrior]

26. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

It's foolish as an absolute statement.

[chaking53]

28. trump is a foreign agent

for Russia's destabilization plans plain and simple- In my humble opinion

[Demsrule86]

32. It is not possible.

[PoorMonger]

33. The issue I have with it...

Has nothing to do with your personal reading of it in the OP - but that broadly the same idea could be used by the right for entirely purposes.

I could hear Alt Right turds saying that their ideas meet the same standard.

Of course we as liberals could say that the idea is about embracing an essential humanity regardless of race , ethnicity , religion or class.

So then it goes back to a question of trusting the current government and how they would apply the concept.

[Ken Burch]

46. I wasn't calling for trusting the current government.

Trump wouldn't even be able to read this concept, let alone apply it. He despises the idea of a greater global good.

[PoorMonger]

53. But it's still a part of reality

You put this question to right wing policy makers and they'd parrot it back to you and still think the same bullshit they do. That's why I think it's kind of a moot point to make, as it won't truly advance debate. Either political party could argue their ideas meet the standard of appealing to people and not government figures or institutions but it depends on who has the White House as to how it would be handled in practice.

Sure Trump is ignorant of concepts like that - but Stephen Miller isn't. He could very easily say something like this is why we should ally with Russia and not Mexico or Canada and right wingers would eat it up.

[Ken Burch]

54. OK. A cynic can co-opt any positive concept...we all KNOW that...what's your point here?

Are we supposed to avoid any positive or idealistic sentiments simply because opportunists can use them to their advantage?

Are we supposed to erase all dreams from our souls or something?

[PoorMonger]

59. I'm saying that

It is just an idealistic statement and that's all. It might seem like a framework of a philophy but if it can so easily be turned around it's not the kind of agrument that will change opinions for us or affect the change we want.

By all means stay as positive as you can

[bettyellen]

34. I think it's actually meaningless fluff, so none of the above.

[NurseJackie]

60. It *is* silly-fluff but it's fun to watch people try to make it MORE important than it actually is

... and it's amusing to watch others try to seriously defend happy-little-clouds and rainbows as being an actual foreign policy goal.

[delisen]

36. pap

[Me.]

37. Is This Rhetorical?

[betsuni]

40. DIY trade deals/diplomacy?

I'm not good with DIY projects. Last week I assembled some metal shelves and ended up with lots of extra screws, no idea where they were supposed to go. One of these days that thing is going to collapse because of insufficient screwing, I just know it.

[JI7]

41. like the US arming Syrian Rebels fighting Assad and ISIS ?

[Ken Burch]

47. No. There aren't any rebels in Syria fighting for anything positive

And no conflict in the Arab/Muslim world can ever end in anyone winning a final military victory.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

63. I can't argue with the statement. Can't understand it, either.

What peoples would the U.S. represent, and what peoples would they seek partnerships with, and through what means? What treaty-signing organizations would represent various peoples?

[Expecting Rain]

65. Perhaps it is time for the United States to seek partnerships with the people of Venezuela...

who face levels of oppression that increase by the day from a "democratic socialist" dictatorship?

Is that what you have in mind?