I think that was obvious at least back as far as the as far as the 1980's and I may be being generous. He, likely, was double-crossing his nanny while still in his stroller.
From our point of view or for that matter, the point of view of any other country in the world it seems clear that one can not trust the word of the USA, no matter who is president. And even if one president means to abide by an agreement, the next one does not feel any responsibility to continue to do so.
I was reading about the France–USA Quasi-War, 1798 to 1800. It looks like the USA reneged on paying war debts from the War of Independence–possibly claiming the debt was owed to the Kingdom of France and not the French Republic– France was a triffle annoyed.
The Russian language has a word недоговороспособны. What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.
I don't say it was invented for the USA but I wonder. Maybe, someday I may even learn how to pronounce it.
I have been thinking along similar terms lately as well, Anon. It would indeed be folly for any country to ever trust the U.S. again,. whether or not, as you suggest, someone comes along willing to honour past agreements. It is also one of the main reasons I believe we should not be buying the F-35s, given that the Americans have all the software codes.
He may even believe that last statement. I am beginning to think a lot of what he says is confabulation rather than his normal lying.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the explanation is, Anon, it is clear that Trump is a man who can never be taken at his word.
DeleteI think that was obvious at least back as far as the as far as the 1980's and I may be being generous. He, likely, was double-crossing his nanny while still in his stroller.
DeleteFrom our point of view or for that matter, the point of view of any other country in the world it seems clear that one can not trust the word of the USA, no matter who is president. And even if one president means to abide by an agreement, the next one does not feel any responsibility to continue to do so.
I was reading about the France–USA Quasi-War, 1798 to 1800. It looks like the USA reneged on paying war debts from the War of Independence–possibly claiming the debt was owed to the Kingdom of France and not the French Republic– France was a triffle annoyed.
The Russian language has a word недоговороспособны.
What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.
I don't say it was invented for the USA but I wonder. Maybe, someday I may even learn how to pronounce it.
I have been thinking along similar terms lately as well, Anon. It would indeed be folly for any country to ever trust the U.S. again,. whether or not, as you suggest, someone comes along willing to honour past agreements. It is also one of the main reasons I believe we should not be buying the F-35s, given that the Americans have all the software codes.
Delete