Trump nominated a second time for Nobel Peace Prize

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rockoh22
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re incessant negative comments re Trump are just really petty. I,as well as everyone here gets you don’t like the guy,however constantly trying to come up with lame reasons for denigrating his presidency is baseless.
 
Accident or not, great news, it may mean peace.

And as for “Foreign Affairs”, has one ever actually picked up that magazine? Maybe a library might have it but I’d be cautious of armchair diplomats, well, he apparently is experienced, continue on.

If it were there way, we’d probably be engaging the Syrian regime (Assad) in war (we probably should be totally adamantly against and opposed to Assad but I would not call for a real shooting war unless some sort of coalition got involved). I’d be very careful of what they say. I’m not calling them the coined term “Neo-Con”, I’m just saying there are a lot of these kinds of writers around.

Author, Martin Indyk,

A Fellow and later, vice-president of the Brookings Institute. Okay, I didn’t know it previously, but it seems Brookings is called “liberal”. Now, I’m not totally sure what to call Brookings, Rubio, who I like gave a speech their some years ago.

Hudson Institute is a very good think tank, that’s what Brookings is too. A think tank. There youtube videos are available to watch.

Indyk, now, a Fellow at the CFR, Council on Foreign Relations,

Ted Cruz called “CFR” a pit of vipers, working to undermine our sovereignty. And Cruz’s wife is or was in CFR.


Wikipedia article on Indyk, oh, he worked for Hillary?? See a pattern here?

en.wikipedia.org

Martin Indyk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So, I don’t know if he worked for Bush, sounds like he was in DC for a long time; but I’d call him quite a questionable source for writing an article like this. One can read the wikpedia article for themselves, worked for HIllary?

If one ever sees articles like this or others, it’s good to check the source.

Isi Leibler criticized Indyk in a 2010 Jerusalem Post op-ed, calling him a “anti-Israel apologist.”[25] In 2014,

Doesn’t sound good but not my field of expertise.
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
You’re incessant negative comments re Trump are just really petty.
Click to expand...
They are not my comments. They are the comments of a Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations. Take it up with him, not me.
 
The article was not written for people of my intellectual abilities. What I did get from it was this.

This talks and negotiations have been going on for a long time.
The author says, unless this scenario happens, it is not really peace.

I can agree with that. But does not take away the fact of what has happened and where can we go from here. And if the Nobel Peace Price is not worthy of such diplomacy, then what is?
 
Victoria33 said:
Author, Martin Indyk,

A Fellow and later, vice-president of the Brookings Institute. Okay, I didn’t know it previously, but it seems Brookings is called “liberal”. Now, I’m not totally sure what to call Brookings, Rubio, who I like gave a speech their some years ago.
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty round-about way of dismissing Mr. Indyk’s analysis without even considering the substance of that analysis. Even as an ad hominem it focuses only on his association with a think tank that is listed only as “left-leaning” - just one notch from center, while the think tank you cite (the Hudson Institute) is listed as strongly right - two notches from center. So right back at you with the ad hominem. But think tanks aside, your dismissal ignores his qualifications as senior director at the National Security Council, a member of the Middle East peace team under Secretary of State Warren Christopher, two stints as United States Ambassador to Israel, and special envoy for the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I think he knows the territory better than most armchair diplomats. So maybe you could address the substance of his analysis to see where he went wrong, in your opinion.
 
Sorry, I can look up the definition of ad hominem.

What I said is not such a statement, I referred to their position.

Ad hominem -in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

From typing in “definition ad hom”.

So, I did not say one.
 
en.wikipedia.org

Foreign Affairs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Foreign Affairs is apparently the publication of the CFR. All I’m saying is this displays a bias “in position”.

There’s also a website called “Foreign Policy” and “National Security”, I get the impression that free-lancing journalists may write these articles, diplomats and diplomatic wannabes.

https://foreignpolicy.com/channel/news/

Nothing wrong with knowing the views of who writes these articles, Brookings is okay, maybe I should have called them “liberal” but “liberal”, “left-of-center”. It’s fairly clear of what I am speaking of.

Call Hudson, right-wing, conservative, whatever, it’s no big deal. There’s a lot of these organizations, Henry (Scoop) Jackson center in London, Hoover Institute at Stanford, there’s a lot of these, Center, Institute, some sort of name like that.

It is important to note, because some of these organizations may want war, war is justified sometimes but we must be careful and responsible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top