My theory:
The narrative has shifted so USA can save face and leave the war and have a legitimate reason as to why the Taliban is in power.
The narrative goes like this:
Afghan's didn't want to fight the Taliban. They wanted the Taliban. Afghanistan is a tribal country and a central government would not work. We failed in our attempt to establish a democracy.
The parties in the negotiations were USA, Taliban, and Afghan government.
USA:
- Their goal was to leave the country but not look like the losers or fools.
Taliban:
- Their goal was to rule the country and establish a legitimate Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (a new country).
Afghan government:
- Corrupt individuals wanting money and to live a good life tired of ruling the country with Talibans constantly attacking them and being a threat.
All three wants little bloodshed because that would look bad on the global stage.
So what could they do so all three can have what they want?
Taliban or whoever pays the Afghan government and leaders so they can flee and live in exile and in the shadows for the rest of their lives with lots of money. USA withdraws. Afghan leaders let the commandos survive by proposing an offer to live by giving up arms. There is no bloodshed. Army is dissolved and Taliban walks into the capital without any violence so it looks like the Afghan people wanted them to rule over Afghanistan all along. Now Biden and propaganda on certain media spreads that says Afghans were cowards or wanted to have the Taliban rule the country. Hopefully USA saved face and they got out of the country. Now since there was no "resistance" against Talibans, the Talibans have press conferences, and act as though they are a legitimate ruler that the people wanted and that they are peaceful. They already changed the flag and got a freakin' Wikipedia page. And they spread propaganda like fire. Afghan government officials (the corrupt ones) also got what they wanted. Money and a good life in exile. Sure, people will talk bad about Ghani for now. But soon he will be forgotten.
One small thing I hope comes with Toolbox Theory is that the South East Asia conflicts influence the outcome of the 1968 negotiations. Right now Hawaii especially is rng-heavy with little weights either way to influence the outcome.
Repeated failures by US aligned forces should encourage a Dente between the OFN and Japan favorable to Japan. Japan's confidence would be bolstered, albeit the costs of fighting should weigh down upon the Japanese.
Meanwhile, if the US is successful in driving out the Japanese from the Southern Resource Area they fought so hard for, this should make the pre-Hawaii negotiations more likely to succeed in getting US treaty ports back to the US, as the Americans have proven that Japan can't actually hold onto their defensive perimeter.
Hawaii should be more complicated. If Japan lost basically everything in their sphere outside of China/Manchuria (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and possibly Vietnam...which in domino theory would mean Free India-Indochina is in danger), I feel like there would be 2 competing currents in Tokyo. One is doubling down and seeking to preserve the gains of the greatest generation - meaning hold onto Hawaii no matter what the cost. The other is to make peace with the US and ditch the difficult to defend Hawaii across the ocean. I guess different leaders should have different weights for the outcome - arguably the more dovish R-Ds should be more likely to succeed than the hawkish NPP
please help me figure out what to do! wait?? email?? call?? cry??
17low, 3.7mid and dead-set on PI. not sure where I want to be, but have family in NY. Berk and NYU are my current top. here are my offers (measured by tuition not COA, b/c it makes me feel better):
USC $$$
Fordham $$+
BU $$
Michigan $$ (Dean's so can't negotiate higher)
Vanderbilt < $$
Berkeley ???
NYU ???
Northwestern ???
In our previous parts we discussed the idea that Balon may have been planning to negotiate an early peace with the North. We'd started to look at what these negotiations might entail and specifically Theon's role in them. In the preceding part we discussed more precisely exactly what Theon can bring to the table, and how Balon may already have been manipulating Theon to that end.
There is another, seemingly much more sinister, reason for Theon's presence though. He's not the negotiator, so is he part of the terms.
One aspect of these negotiations that we haven't discussed yet, is what the North gets to guarantee future peace. As things stand in our scenario, Balon can simply attack again after any deal is signed without any real consequences. The Starks need something to act as a deterrent.
The argument for Theon fulfilling that role, as a hostage, is pretty obvious. I mean he's already done it for nearly a decade, but let's firstly look at the other options open to Balon.
And there really isn't that many. Traditionally in Westeros this purpose would be fulfilled by either a marriage or a hostage. On paper, Balon has quite a number of unmarried close relatives, however they're nearly all male, and in Westeros the bride is generally expected to move to the husband's home, making her a de facto Ironborn hostage. So while Catelyn marrying Victarion or Aeron is not an entirely unrealistic prospect, it doesn't solve our problem. When we really boil it down, Balon is left with two options, Asha and Theon.
Now, you could make an argument for hostages from Balon's vassels. However, this relies on there being someone in the Stark camp with a strong knowledge of internal Ironborn affairs, to reliably value the hostages offered. My opinion here is that there needs to be a high level exchange of hostages, with the Starks most likely giving up Rickon. The Ironborn have the stronger position here, they can't just give the Starks a hostage.
An interesting option to look at, would be a double marriage, Asha to Robb, and Theon to Sansa. There are problems with this, the Starks don't physically have Sansa, and Robb is betrothed but it's not implausible, and it's arguably the most sensible option.
The problem I have with it though, is where it leaves everyone. Asha is sent to the North, and Theon stays an
... keep reading on reddit ➡Andrew J. DuBrin Rochester Institute of Technology-Emeritus
Pages: 222 Pages Copyright Year: © 2020 Status: Available Formats & Ordering ISBNs:
Paperback (Four-Color): 978-1-942041-93-1 Paperback (B/W): 978-1-942041-94-8 Loose-Leaf (B/W): 978-1-942041-95-5 Online Version: 978-1-942041-96-2
Has anyone taken MSCR3392 Gender and Film or COMM3532 Theories of Conflict and Negotiation? I am going over the syllabi and it seems like a lot. For people who have taken either class, did you find the course load to be manageable?
I made a lot of commitments this semester so I just want to know what I'm getting into before classes start. I looked at TRACE but the hours reported were so different, ranging from 4 to 20 hours a week and, unfortunately, there were only a couple of written responses.
Thanks!
The deputy Kusari-Lila complained that the PM Hoti is not being transparent. She said that they are getting more information from Thaçi's, Grenel's and even Vucic's Twitter.
https://youtu.be/S8PR65MUpNo
Pure speculation here, but why not feed the flames.
We know that the prize money has doubled for this season - this is no doubt a result of the cast leveraging their position to get something extra out of production. I believe Heidik tried to do the same for All Stars, but he was rejected. The cast of s40, though, has waaaay more bargaining power: There are only 36 potential players, and there's a list of people who can't play for one reason or another (Hatch, Jenna, Todd?) as well as a list of people who production wouldn't want (Tina, Bob, Vecepia, Fabio, Nat W). Basically, the players have a lot of leverage in getting production to do what they want because they're all high value players and there aren't a lot of them. The women especially, being a smaller group than the men, would presumably carry a lot of negotiation weight.
These people have already all starved for at least 39 days (many of them have starved for twice that many days), all of them have already put in the time/effort and won their million. They don't want to starve again. So, how does production entice them to play again? Give them Probst Bucks to win some extra food so the experience isn't completely miserable for them. The fact that these paid rewards exist on extinction too makes this even more believable.
Most of these people probably like screen time, or at the very least they like being out on this wild adventure. Maybe they told production that they wanted a kind of Redemption Island that they could all coexist on so that they could all last until the finale. Maybe they're afraid of tarnishing their legacy by getting voted out early, so they want chances to come back into the game.
Maybe the cast had a bigger hand in enforcing these twists than Probst or CBS did. Honestly, who knows? Mostly I just think it's dumb that people are so trigger happy in blaming Probst, and I'll keep on making threads about it.
EDIT: http://insidesurvivor.com/survivor-season-40-to-shake-up-the-family-visit-39238
Apparently literally every single castaway can get their ENTIRE FAMILY a free, all expenses paid vacation to Fiji. That sounds even more like something that the cast would push for rather than something production would do to "make the game more interesting."
I'm getting a bit worried that the castaways are just gonna phone in the gameplay because they see this as an opportunity for a paid vac
... keep reading on reddit ➡
In the first several minutes of today’s Lowe Post podcast, Bobby Marks makes it clear that there was never a mistake and that Rob didn’t press on the date because there were alternate paths to a max slot.
It took Bobby Marks, another FO guy who got thoroughly disrespected, to set the record straight.
Fuck Woj.
Edit: Ok, maybe I have him too much credit. At least Marks is being a man about it.
AGENCIA BRASIL -- Brazil Supports Chilean and Argentinian Antarctic Claims "in Theory", Calls for Negotiation
[May/June 2022]
(BRASILIA) Brazil's Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo has made a key initial statement on his country's position in the brewing Antarctica crisis. Closely watching the region for decades since South American nations got involved and also during the signing of the Antarctic Treaty System, it has taken its first step towards a formal policy.
"Let it be known, that the Federative Republic of Brazil supports Chile and Argentina's claims to Antarctica," said Mr. Araújo.
"This support is for their legitimacy and entitlement to a piece of the adjacent landmass. However, because the claims of Chile, Argentina, and the United Kingdom are overlapping, negotiations are required for us to formally recognize a specific piece of land as theirs."
Analysts have speculated that Brazil's silence until now reflects pending agreements with the European Union for a much-anticipated free trade agreement and its strategic partnership with the United Kingdom. Government officials have in private dismissed this angle, saying that alternative trade arrangements exist and that Brazil would cancel its carrier deal with the United Kingdom and select the second place Sierran bid in the event of serious militarization of British islands in the area.
Brazil has not changed its stance on the dispute over the Las Malvinas islands, which it continues to state is the sovereign territory of Argentina.
Another, and perhaps bigger issue thus far keeping Brazil quiet is a dispute over what Chile and Argentina claim. The former has yet to join Mercosur as a full member, a constant irritant in Brasilia, but has a stronger economy and military while Argentina is a close partner which would need massive support to prop up in any serious geopolitical stand-off.
I’d be all for a Superman TV show don’t get me wrong. If it’s happening that’s great
But I wouldn’t be surprised if WB “leaked” this like the other “leaks” (Supergirl movie, Cavill leaving) as negotiation tactics on their part aka telling Cavill that if he doesn’t agree to their offer they will simply move on without him; “the role is bigger than the actor”
Tbh I’d kinda want to WB to give in to Cavill’s demands as a fuck you to WB for everything they’ve done to DC and the actors involved. But at the same time I totally understand why they wouldn’t, as much as I like Cavill he’s not worth A-list money
I dunno maybe it’s really happening but I wouldn’t be surprised if this never comes to fruition cos it was never there in the first place
How is Spiderman gonna undo what Mysterio did? A skrull could help, maybe miles Morales helps or maybe Toby macguire or Andrew Garfield steps in?
The new dr strange has multiverse in its title and Jane foster is gonna be Thor. The MCU is doing some crazy shit the comics did that I don’t think anyone ever thought films could achieve. So why not a live action spiderverse movie? It could be terrible and opening weekend would still be huge. If it is actually a good movie it could have avengers type numbers and if it’s awesome possibly go over 2$ billion.
I really think Sony wants this and needs the multiverse for it to happen. The multiverse allows for Venom to be connected to the avengers and the MCU now.
It’s not out of the realm of possibility to have marvel studios make the next Spiderman movie and also for Sony to make one starring Tom Holland, macguire and Garfield.
Dr.strange is associated with Spiderman now so maybe he is the one to help peter by bringing another Spiderman(Garfield or macguire) to pose as Spiderman while Tom Holland shakes his hand. That could then lead to Sony’s movie now that MCU Peter knows about the other spidermen.
Also with Sony and marvel playing nice maybe Sony borrows an avenger or two. Scarlett witch and dr strange. MCU could get Kraven and Venom. Noice!
My point is that Sony is working it’s way up to what they hope to be a huge event style movie, probably Maximum Carnage. I am excited about this but imagine if it has multiple versions of Spiderman alongside venom and Morbius(the movie that will make or break Sony’s spiderverse)
That is a movie that could arouse as much buzz as endgame.
How does a country try to control the negotiations to get their favourable tariff rates using game theory? Given that the negotiation is a continuous improvement.
Thank you!
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)
> That's because Donald Trump and his counterparts from six other industrialized countries have been at loggerheads over the president's aggressive but unstable trade policy.
> The ink on the G-7 communique wasn't dry before Trump darted to Singapore to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for nuclear talks, another example of his unpredictable decision-making style.
> It's the same story with China, which Trump has not only made subject to the same metals tariffs but has also threatened with US$50 billion of other sanctions if it doesn't meet a series of demands.
> When U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and White House adviser Peter Navarro, economic nationalists both, are in the room, Trump doubles down on protection.
> International trade negotiations do not play by the same rules as military diplomacy, where much of this theory was developed.
> Some are now saying that President Trump is in the early stages of reconsidering America's membership in the WTO. Hopefully the president will come to understand what is at stake soon, before it is too late.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Trump^#1 trade^#2 policy^#3 country^#4 president^#5
Post found in /r/Economics and /r/geopolitics.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
