Basically what the title asks. He keeps stating that he has solved eight wars and IMHO he has solved nothing. At the same time, MSM reporters never call him on it and he just keeps on saying it.
So, realistically, has he actually done anything remotely related to this? Is it possible to actually list eight wars that clearly have been stopped by him or am I missing something?
No. I can’t even think of ONE.
I take that back…there’s maybe a different way of looking at this. Trump solved a war when he announced he would not be invading Greenland. So one could argue a war was averted by his actions. Because if you recall not a week earlier he was beating the ‘we need to invade Greenland’ drums.
I remember seeing a list somewhere at some time. IIRC, most of what were listed impressed me as border disagreements or internal struggles - in countries I had not even understood were “at war.”
I think I heard on the radio yesterday that he claims the Gaza conflict as one of the 8.
But of course, the claim is utter BS.
This article is comprehensive.
I’m not familiar with all those conflicts, but the ones that I am I would describe as “not actively shooting at each other last time I checked the news”, definitely not as having been “solved”. And how much credit can Trump legitimately claim for even these fragile ceasefires? I’m guessing not much to none.
Yeah, since at least Truman (if not Teddy R.) U.S. presidents have been in the business of sorting out diplomatic love triangles, where the U.S. is on better terms with each of the other countries than they are with one another.
One example is South Korea and Japan, where some really brutal shared history makes each country highly sensitive to the other’s actions. Elites on both sides of that relationship know that they need to maintain good relations, but the public of each country thinks that the other nation is antipathetic to them, and a move against the other country’s interests or sensitivities can be politically advantageous. It’s pretty much par for the course for the U.S. president to smooth some feathers in such a situation on a frequent basis.
In some other relationships, it can go to the point of two sides actually shooting at one another, often with no real intent to escalate conflict with the other side. When damage done is light, the U.S. can sometimes offer inducements to come to the table and hammer out another ceasefire, and as often as not just the fact of being on the president’s radar is enough for the leaders of some smaller nations to “feel heard” and take what they perceive to be a win back to their native constituency.
When Donald Trump does the basics here, he has a crowd of sycophants (led, no doubt, by Marc O’Rubio) who will tell him he’s done the most incredible job of diplomacy of any president in history, and not only has he stopped an awful war from happening, he’s surely completely solved the underlying problem forever and ever. Is Donald Trump going to doubt any of this? So he thinks it’s all worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
For presidents who are based in reality, it’s just a Tuesday, and a distraction from the kind of stuff they really want to do, and it’s just another round in a dance that started a while ago and will continue for a while longer, and hopefully they can keep it from becoming too much worse.
I answered the OP’s question last month in the Pit. I will just quote myself:
Given it’s almost the anniversary of Ben Tre (February 7, 1968) and with ultimatums of imminent destruction being issued for distraction or whomever 45/47 considers to be grinding his valves, it’s a bit hard to tell, one does ponder whether the infamous headline from that day might be resurrected as a further example of his Nobel Peace Prize credentials.
If it were needed:
“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”