by nowwhat? 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
At the annual meeting they said God will put it into the nations hearts to give their power to the united nations. Now that Trump and the Republicans have won, the United States will never give up their sovereignty to the U.N. !
Trump has total disdain for the UN, WHO AND WEF! The GB were obviously banking on Kamala and the Dems to win because they are part of the globalist agenda.
What Trump says and what he does doesn’t always match. He talked about leaving NATO but actually succeeded in forcing the others members to pay more. Was that the plan all along? Maybe that’s crediting him with too much strategic nous, but maybe not.
Besides, he’s only there for four years, which is like what, a couple of minutes to Jehovah, no?
I’m more worried about what he’ll do with Iran, because Netanyahu clearly thinks he can get America under Trump into a war with Iran. Netanyahu was also eerily confident Trump would win when many others didn’t expect it. Did he have an inside track through intelligence?
Plus Trump raised expectations so high that he could make a deal to end the Ukraine war, what if it goes wrong and Trump feels he needs to “stand up” to Putin to save face.
Predicting the future is a fools game now more than ever.
Trump won the election; but he is not in office yet.
Let's see what those who are running things behind Biden/Harris will do between now and Jan 20th.
If WW3 breaks out before then, Trump will never take office.
I know. Jan 20th is over 2 mos away yet. Who knows. 🙄
@slimboyfat: the fact NATO members paid more and the US paid less was exactly the goal. That was initially the goal of the Marshal plan, to get European countries back on its feet to the point they can build a military to defend against a future recovering Germany and Soviet Russia except we pushed the Marshal plan along for over 75 years now, Europe has pumped it in failed social welfare programs, Germany is once again taking over Europe under guise of the EU (and the day after Trump was elected, their Socialist/Communist government collapsed) and Putin is rebuilding Soviet Russia.
Just like he said I will bomb Russia if they invade Ukraine, Putin said, no Mr. President, I don’t think you will, and Trump answers, well, I might. And that 5% chance that Trump will bring down your regime is enough for Iran and Russia and North Korea, hell, even the Taliban to sit straight and pay attention and come to the table.
And Iran was at a point under Trump where regime change was plausible, they had protests that were brutal and caused serious consternation in their people, but they were quickly running out of money, collapse was inevitable. Then Biden gave them $100B, took off the trade restrictions and allowed them to rebuild their military and terrorist networks through their oil economy, allowed them to build a nuclear strike capability (which some experts believe they now have between 1 and 10 warheads available) which brings us to the October 6th invasion of Israel.
Perhaps the only bright thing about the fact we have two more months of Biden is that between the cheating in the polls and the media, everybody believed Harris was going to win, including our enemies. I think even China got caught flat footed because they tried to influence the election severely through outlets like TikTok and direct influence on politicians (the string or arrests of spies working with Democrat politicians in DC, California, New York which are bringing those fake lawsuits) and now to mobilize against Taiwan in 2 months is not going to happen. The other great thing is that Trump can at least start negotiating with Ukraine and Russia and Israel and Hamas without violating the law and put down the terms, end the war, here is a carrot (loosening trade agreements and restrictions, land deals etc), and whoever does not agree gets the stick.
When I was in high school we were taught the Marshall plan was all about reconstructing Europe after the war and was an altruistic gesture by the United States. When I got to university and studied modern European history we were presented with the thesis that the Marshall plan’s main goal was to secure a foreign market for American consumer goods and to establish United States hegemony in Europe and globally.
When Germany and other European states began to look to Russia for its oil and gas in recent decades they were warned off by the United States. Nevertheless they carried on against the wishes of the United States until more drastic measures were required and somebody blew up the gas pipeline from Russia to Europe.
@slimboyfat: the Nordstream 2 pipeline was stopped by Trump and Senator Cruz, Biden removed the restriction on Russia and Germany finishing it on day 3 of his administration, Russia invaded 12 months later with the glut of cash they had gotten off Germany’s Energiewende (they converted everything to wind and solar, reduced or eliminated reliance on French nuclear power and then went and begged Russia for oil so they wouldn’t freeze in winter).
The things you learned about the Marshall plan was apparent propaganda. Neither story is completely true, it doesn’t make sense that business would be better being taxed to pay for the rebuilding of Europe only to then get a trickle of that tax money back in international business. The Marshall plan allowed Europe and Japan to put in massive trade restrictions actually, 100% tariffs while the US was bound not to have tarrifs in return, that led to the Japanese car and electronics boom in the US starting in the 60s, the Europeans focused elsewhere while depending on the US for protection. They had all the leverage to export and closed their import markets to US trade.
The primary goal of the plan was to stand against future issues, when your country is in rubble, it is easy to get someone like Hitler back in power or someone like Stalin to just roll over the ruins, that was clearly stated along the way by many of those involved, they didn’t want the US to keep getting involved in future European issues and it worked to some extent, too well as socialists took advantage of the generosity to fund their utopian agendas. And you can clearly see that after the war, the US elected a series of weak presidents afraid to enforce the power they had, leading to Korean and Vietnam wars, domestically resulting in the hippie movement and Black Panthers and the Weather Underground.
I agree with much of slim's earlier comment. It's certainly premature to claim the idea of a resurgence of the UN (or possibly a successor organisation) is dead just because Trump has been re-elected.
Four years is a short time in world history, and the UN is already nearly 80 years old (even older if you count a continuous line from the previous League of Nations as a model for world governments).
There are a few possible outcomes:
1) Little change. For all the fears of Trump opposers and expectations of Trump supporters, his time as President may not make much difference in the long term. Look back through history - even just since the year 2000 and think of things we thought would be massive world turning points - September 11, 2001, for example - and in fact, on the grand scheme of things, they have changed relatively little. That includes Trump's first term. The world didn't burn down, but nor was there happiness and unicorns for all. The UN is still there, its membership pretty much as it was before (with the same 5 UNSC members). It's still getting involved in world trouble spots but unable to stop wars, and still having its own members killed by fighting nations, armies and groups, with no real comeback or punishment for the offenders. (Not much use for a world-ruling organisation!)
2) Trump acts in a way that weakens the UN, maybe even directly undermining or removing it. Even if this happens, by the end of his term it may just lead to the formation of a new successor organisation - a UN 2.0 if you like. Maybe Trump himself will be responsible for starting it, as a replacement on new terms of reference to the old one.
3) Trump acts in a way - perhaps inadvertently - that strengthens the UN in the long term. It may even be that the way Trump carries out his international politics might strengthen the future of the UN.
a) Positive example: he succeeds in mediating in various conflicts - that would strengthen the UN in the long term, as the thing most likely to break up the UN (apart from direct action against it by the USA) is if the member states are so divided in warfare that they cannot sit round a table. If the world temperature for war is cooled down, then there is more room for the UN to work.
b) Negative example: he fails to resolve the various world conflicts, possibly making them worse - the world would eventually need an organisation like the UN even more after future bloodshed, to bring nations to the table in an attempt to bring "world peace", especially if the US administration is seen to fail badly at peace-brokering alone.
