It's actually kind of bizarre to the extent that Putin influenced that tbh
Like, he basically created modern Russian national political culture and norms as they are now. Sure he did it out of a previous chaotic structure and he's got a very large amount of political and economic infrastructure there to hold it together, but it's very, very much a system of his creation.
It's actually kind of bizarre to the extent that Putin influenced that tbh
Like, he basically created modern Russian national political culture and norms as they are now. Sure he did it out of a previous chaotic structure and he's got a very large amount of political and economic infrastructure there to hold it together, but it's very, very much a system of his creation.
Masha Gessen's The Future is History is a really fucking good look into this. I'm fairly certain we've had this conversation before, but I just have to bring up that book each time.
Question: "Why does the US need to deal with ISIS?"
Answer: "Because a state founded on principles so extreme AQ feels kinda leery is a recipe for disaster and untold carnage the likes of which the World hasn't seen in generations?"
I feel like we’ve forgotten or are ignoring that some pretty horrendous shit was going down.
Assad was using nerve gas on people and ISIS were putting people into cages and setting them on fire. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Obviously things could have been done better in Syria, but it wasn’t without purpose.
Bill Clinton not intervening in the Rwanda genocide hasn’t exactly been forgotten. It’s always gonna be a lose/lose in these situations. Ignore massacres and genocides or intervention, it always comes down to the lesser of two evils, cause people are gonna die no matter what you do.
I don't think I'm prone to forgetting atrocities happening the middle east, it's just that as some from the middle east I'm not selective about the ones to remember, so it's pretty hard for me to believe that they're that the motivator for American administrations flooding the middle east with weapons and bombs, and actively helping starve civilians and create catastrophes out of nothing. References by people like Powers to Rwanda and how that motivates their foreign policy seem more like sick jokes every day. But it's easy for them to get away with their bullshit, because people will eager offer apologetics to every crime they actively took part in - or, in the best case scenario, just shrug and move on.
You are already complaining that people in this thread have selective memories so why would the people in the US government be any different? Somethings stick in people's minds more then others, people can only pay attention to so many things, etc, etc. That's how people are.
I also feel awful for the Kurds. I've really rooted for the YPG, though I knew their betrayal was inevitable, as it was in the past. I guess I'd like to see some sort of more gradual draw down. The SDF controls a ton of territory in Eastern Syria -including most of the countries oilfields- but most of the territory isn't ethnically Kurdish. It doesn't make sense for an essentially Kurdish militia to control this area in perpetuity. The US withdraws from areas, and the SDF gives back the oil fields to Assad as a first step, in exchange for some sort of political protection from Assad, enforced by Russia and/or Iran. As a second step create some sort of buffer along the border with Turkey-- this is trickier, and maybe not possible, but worth a shot. Instead we get this sudden change (which I'm not convinced will actually come to pass, but we'll see) which catches everyone off guard and leaves open the possibility for another escalation of fighting.
So speaking of this, apparently Russia is offering a deal to the SDF that has SAA forces taking control of border posts along the Syrian-Turkish border.
Also, here's another tweet from Trump; looks like the withdrawal will not be as immediate and complete as he initially said! Which should surprise nobody.
I just had a long and productive call with President @RT_Erdogan of Turkey. We discussed ISIS, our mutual involvement in Syria, & the slow & highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops from the area. After many years they are coming home. We also discussed heavily expanded Trade.
e: I was quoting myself in the first paragraph, but tagged Rchanen by mistake. Sorry.
Apparently because when he praised Mattis in the earlier tweet he had not read Mattis' resignation letter and he didn't understand how Mattis' letter was such a strong rebuke to Trump and Trumps worldviews.
So after the news informed the President of what that letter actually meant because he was too stupid to understand it, it made him mad. So now, this.
Let’s start with a fact that the mainstream media has glossed over when criticizing Trump’s Syria decision: His decision is in compliance with U.S. and international law. The presence of U.S. troops in the Syrian civil war was never authorized by Congress. We are also violating international law by invading Syria without the approval of the United Nations. Before any administration official can advocate keeping troops in Syria to fight the Islamic State, Congress needs to offer authorization.\
It is pretty rich that the US Congress is happy to let the Executive declare wars at will, but talk about reducing them and suddenly that's ignoring Congress.
Let’s start with a fact that the mainstream media has glossed over when criticizing Trump’s Syria decision: His decision is in compliance with U.S. and international law. The presence of U.S. troops in the Syrian civil war was never authorized by Congress. We are also violating international law by invading Syria without the approval of the United Nations. Before any administration official can advocate keeping troops in Syria to fight the Islamic State, Congress needs to offer authorization.\
It is pretty rich that the US Congress is happy to let the Executive declare wars at will, but talk about reducing them and suddenly that's ignoring Congress.
It's not reasonable to hold one representative responsible for congress' decisions as a whole, in particular previous congresses, though I'm unfamiliar with his voting record.
But yeah, Congress is the one with the outstanding ambiguous-as-fuck War on Terror AUMF that seems to basically authorize the violation of all the international laws they want to soooooo....
Let’s start with a fact that the mainstream media has glossed over when criticizing Trump’s Syria decision: His decision is in compliance with U.S. and international law. The presence of U.S. troops in the Syrian civil war was never authorized by Congress. We are also violating international law by invading Syria without the approval of the United Nations. Before any administration official can advocate keeping troops in Syria to fight the Islamic State, Congress needs to offer authorization.\
It is pretty rich that the US Congress is happy to let the Executive declare wars at will, but talk about reducing them and suddenly that's ignoring Congress.
So, Congress, lets follow through and use your constitutional powers to limit the power of the President! Its Trump! He's a madman! How's about you grow a collective spine and do something about it, like you're supposed to.
Let’s start with a fact that the mainstream media has glossed over when criticizing Trump’s Syria decision: His decision is in compliance with U.S. and international law. The presence of U.S. troops in the Syrian civil war was never authorized by Congress. We are also violating international law by invading Syria without the approval of the United Nations. Before any administration official can advocate keeping troops in Syria to fight the Islamic State, Congress needs to offer authorization.\
It is pretty rich that the US Congress is happy to let the Executive declare wars at will, but talk about reducing them and suddenly that's ignoring Congress.
So, Congress, lets follow through and use your constitutional powers to limit the power of the President! Its Trump! He's a madman! How's about you grow a collective spine and do something about it, like you're supposed to.
Agreed, any Congressperson angry about decisions of war and peace being made on the whim of a president should be advocating repeal of the AUMF, or their words are empty.
I feel like we’ve forgotten or are ignoring that some pretty horrendous shit was going down.
Assad was using nerve gas on people and ISIS were putting people into cages and setting them on fire. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Obviously things could have been done better in Syria, but it wasn’t without purpose.
Bill Clinton not intervening in the Rwanda genocide hasn’t exactly been forgotten. It’s always gonna be a lose/lose in these situations. Ignore massacres and genocides or intervention, it always comes down to the lesser of two evils, cause people are gonna die no matter what you do.
I don't think I'm prone to forgetting atrocities happening the middle east, it's just that as some from the middle east I'm not selective about the ones to remember, so it's pretty hard for me to believe that they're that the motivator for American administrations flooding the middle east with weapons and bombs, and actively helping starve civilians and create catastrophes out of nothing. References by people like Powers to Rwanda and how that motivates their foreign policy seem more like sick jokes every day. But it's easy for them to get away with their bullshit, because people will eager offer apologetics to every crime they actively took part in - or, in the best case scenario, just shrug and move on.
You are already complaining that people in this thread have selective memories so why would the people in the US government be any different? Somethings stick in people's minds more then others, people can only pay attention to so many things, etc, etc. That's how people are.
I'm speaking about people in this thread as far as I'm talking about the general reaction of mostly white westerners and Americans, but take it however you want. I don't understand what selective memory has to do with the actions of the US government. I presume the US government is not, continuously, forgetting that it's helping to bomb and starve civilians as it's doing it, for years. The reason that you do an action over and over is that you're okay with it, and can live with it doing. Selective memory will of course be valuable in their memoirs, but it has nothing to do with why they did the thing in the first place.
It's actually kind of bizarre to the extent that Putin influenced that tbh
Like, he basically created modern Russian national political culture and norms as they are now. Sure he did it out of a previous chaotic structure and he's got a very large amount of political and economic infrastructure there to hold it together, but it's very, very much a system of his creation.
Masha Gessen's The Future is History is a really fucking good look into this. I'm fairly certain we've had this conversation before, but I just have to bring up that book each time.
It's a great book. All of her books are.
Putin is a monster though. Like, in her kinda-sorta-biography of him where she's saying "yeah the FSB basically did the Moscow bombings on his orders" and it's not some conspiracy theory shit it's just clear that no he killed hundreds of Russian people to buoy up support... fuck man
Also I will continue to mix metaphors until I am stopped. HAHAHAHA
How do you like that for American Exceptionalism?
I could use my mod powers to stop you, but I have a strict policy of non-intervention.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+23
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Overall, is impressive the complete failure that Bolton had of convincing Trump to do anything.
Leaving by itself is perfectly fine, even good! Leaving out of nowhere with no plan for what's going to happen to our allies after we leave is not good. Though I guess it's an American tradition at this point to fuck over our local allies when we pull out, at least since the first Gulf war. It's a wonder anyone ever works with us at all. I guess it's probably cause they're desperate people in desperate situations.
Yeah, at this point, he's as meaningful as Jeff Flake. Or Susan Collins.
Unless he's going to DO something, and not just vote no when he and McConnell both know it won't matter, he can fuck right off.
"Ohh, I can't do anything, I'm one Senator!". Yeah, shithead. You're one Senator, and while McCain was absent, you could have taken a stand. But you're just another (bad) hairdo. Empty suit. And get another Senator or two on board about some of your non-whackjob ideas, and you can get some of your shit done.
Rand, get the things you feel are paramount to your position (like making NSA senate confirmable, and any other shit that you incessantly bitch about), and then draw a line in the sand. Until (and including) then, eat shit.
It's actually kind of bizarre to the extent that Putin influenced that tbh
Like, he basically created modern Russian national political culture and norms as they are now. Sure he did it out of a previous chaotic structure and he's got a very large amount of political and economic infrastructure there to hold it together, but it's very, very much a system of his creation.
Mostly because he killed everybody that advocated for any other type.
The sheer number of exiles and critics that "died" suddenly and mysteriously is huge and not just in itself Russia either.
Oh and for people that don't think we are not in a cold war with russia because "all they did was hack a few servers and make a few facebook ads".
Its called salami tactics. Slice here, slice there and soon half the salami is gone. Look at Ukraine, never once did Putin openly invade, but Russia is occupying 1/3 of the country nonetheless.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I'm speaking about people in this thread as far as I'm talking about the general reaction of mostly white westerners and Americans, but take it however you want. I don't understand what selective memory has to do with the actions of the US government. I presume the US government is not, continuously, forgetting that it's helping to bomb and starve civilians as it's doing it, for years. The reason that you do an action over and over is that you're okay with it, and can live with it doing. Selective memory will of course be valuable in their memoirs, but it has nothing to do with why they did the thing in the first place.
Incorrect. You're assuming everyone is ok with every action America does with foreign policy, when it's never been that simple. There are some things which might be worthwhile or like, yet dislike how the government executes a military strike or the whole operation - for example, The War on Drugs. It is a worthwhile goal to dismantle the global drug trade and various cartels. However, the US government does this terribly, when it's not backing them up for political purposes (which the CIA is known for), or exploiting the cultural cache as an excuse for police brutality and locking up minorities to stop them from voting/being black etc or that their obsession with marijuana despite the fact it should have been made legal years ago. Then there's the downsides to the allies, who occasionally aren't assholes (the Kurds, as far as I'm aware) who needed the US intervention to prevent the various players from annihilated them. And groups like ISIS, in general, who need to be wiped out because they're so radical they think Al Queda are a bunch of hippies.
I feel like, again, the situation is that while those of us here are very very aware of the humanitarian issues at play in Syria, at a national level the US has not made a particularly measurable effort to provide stability and protection for the civilians caught in the midst of a civil war that turned into a larger proxy conflict.
And so now, we're pulling out, but not because of any real moral or ethical motivation but because the president is... well, Donald Trump.
And we're doing it in a manner equivalent to yanking a piece of rebar out of an impaled person's gut and then, oh hey, turns out now they're bleeding out because that's not how you fix a problem if you don't want the geopolitical equivalent of sepsis and hemorrhaging.
Like... maybe I'm just being cynical and tired but I don't know how else to view this entire clusterfuck at this point. We went in half-assed, focused on the wrong shit if we wanted to actually promote a humanitarian cause in the middle of a foreign civil war and now we're half-assedly pulling out and a shitton of people are going to get hurt because of it.
For whatever reason, Bob Corker seem to have some bravery this morning. While it's only his twitter it's still another GOP senator seemingly upset over Trump's unilateral decision on this withdrawal.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I'm glad we're withdrawing from Syria, and I honestly don't care it's a republican administration doing it
doesn't make me think any better of Trump and his ilk, but at least we're probably not gonna be directly killing people in Syria for a while?
This stance worked really well in North Korea. Who is implementing policy and why matters.
I'm certain those among the "collateral damage" and their grieving families don't particularly care about US reasoning and the identity of whichever president gave the green light. Same goes for the people who otherwise would be collateral damage but aren't because Trump happened to make the right choice for once, poorly executed though it may be.
In this situation, American weapons are either currently killing people or they aren't--a dichotomy not in place in North Korea, which is why it fails as an analogy.
I'm speaking about people in this thread as far as I'm talking about the general reaction of mostly white westerners and Americans, but take it however you want. I don't understand what selective memory has to do with the actions of the US government. I presume the US government is not, continuously, forgetting that it's helping to bomb and starve civilians as it's doing it, for years. The reason that you do an action over and over is that you're okay with it, and can live with it doing. Selective memory will of course be valuable in their memoirs, but it has nothing to do with why they did the thing in the first place.
Incorrect. You're assuming everyone is ok with every action America does with foreign policy, when it's never been that simple. There are some things which might be worthwhile or like, yet dislike how the government executes a military strike or the whole operation - for example, The War on Drugs. It is a worthwhile goal to dismantle the global drug trade and various cartels. However, the US government does this terribly, when it's not backing them up for political purposes (which the CIA is known for), or exploiting the cultural cache as an excuse for police brutality and locking up minorities to stop them from voting/being black etc or that their obsession with marijuana despite the fact it should have been made legal years ago. Then there's the downsides to the allies, who occasionally aren't assholes (the Kurds, as far as I'm aware) who needed the US intervention to prevent the various players from annihilated them. And groups like ISIS, in general, who need to be wiped out because they're so radical they think Al Queda are a bunch of hippies.
The War on Drugs is probably not the example you want, because the purpose was never to actually break up the drug trade and cartels; that was always just the cover. It was always, from the very beginning, a means of continuing to oppress African Americans as the made further and further civil rights gains. In wider culture it took on a life of its own based on the cover, but a good deal of primary sources will bring it back to good old fashioned American racism.
Though ultimately this sort of serves to prove the other point folks have been making, because it happens with foreign policy as well: America has a cover story it likes to generally promote as the reason why it does things, but ultimately the motivation is more often a selfish, short-term one based on America's hegemonic interests than humanitarianism.
I'm glad we're withdrawing from Syria, and I honestly don't care it's a republican administration doing it
doesn't make me think any better of Trump and his ilk, but at least we're probably not gonna be directly killing people in Syria for a while?
This stance worked really well in North Korea. Who is implementing policy and why matters.
I'm certain those among the "collateral damage" and their grieving families don't particularly care about US reasoning and the identity of whichever president gave the green light. Same goes for the people who otherwise would be collateral damage but aren't because Trump happened to make the right choice for once, poorly executed though it may be.
In this situation, American weapons are either currently killing people or they aren't--a dichotomy not in place in North Korea, which is why it fails as an analogy.
Nah, because you are assuming a withdrawal would happen exactly the same regardless of who was President. Which is just wrong. I mean, there's literally an election for President because this idea is wrong.
The two situations are the in the respect that some people are thinking "I should support this because it's vaguely the policy I want to happen" and ignoring that it's Donald Trump running the show so why would you ever think it would be done well.
I'm glad we're withdrawing from Syria, and I honestly don't care it's a republican administration doing it
doesn't make me think any better of Trump and his ilk, but at least we're probably not gonna be directly killing people in Syria for a while?
This stance worked really well in North Korea. Who is implementing policy and why matters.
I'm certain those among the "collateral damage" and their grieving families don't particularly care about US reasoning and the identity of whichever president gave the green light. Same goes for the people who otherwise would be collateral damage but aren't because Trump happened to make the right choice for once, poorly executed though it may be.
In this situation, American weapons are either currently killing people or they aren't--a dichotomy not in place in North Korea, which is why it fails as an analogy.
I can't quite tell if Shryke is refering to modern policy regarding North Korea or if this is was trying to suggest that we're repeating the end of the Korean War, leading to Syria becoming some sort of pseudo-theocratic monarchistic hermit nation.
For whatever reason, Bob Corker seem to have some bravery this morning. While it's only his twitter it's still another GOP senator seemingly upset over Trump's unilateral decision on this withdrawal.
He is retiring and only a Senator for another 1.5 weeks. And he is wasting that time being pissy on Twitter instead of using his office to do something about it.
The War on Drugs is probably not the example you want, because the purpose was never to actually break up the drug trade and cartels; that was always just the cover. It was always, from the very beginning, a means of continuing to oppress African Americans as the made further and further civil rights gains. In wider culture it took on a life of its own based on the cover, but a good deal of primary sources will bring it back to good old fashioned American racism.
Though ultimately this sort of serves to prove the other point folks have been making, because it happens with foreign policy as well: America has a cover story it likes to generally promote as the reason why it does things, but ultimately the motivation is more often a selfish, short-term one based on America's hegemonic interests than humanitarianism.
Which is why I'd like to have serious reform on foreign policy so the right thing gets done for the right reasons. Another factor is the parties need to get a better grip on the military industrial complex - which is bigger than any president. Which will be difficult when the powerful groups like the CIA, military and corporations will fight back ruthlessly when people start fucked up their business. But it needs to happen ASAP.
It's actually kind of bizarre to the extent that Putin influenced that tbh
Like, he basically created modern Russian national political culture and norms as they are now. Sure he did it out of a previous chaotic structure and he's got a very large amount of political and economic infrastructure there to hold it together, but it's very, very much a system of his creation.
Mostly because he killed everybody that advocated for any other type.
The sheer number of exiles and critics that "died" suddenly and mysteriously is huge and not just in itself Russia either.
Oh and for people that don't think we are not in a cold war with russia because "all they did was hack a few servers and make a few facebook ads".
Its called salami tactics. Slice here, slice there and soon half the salami is gone. Look at Ukraine, never once did Putin openly invade, but Russia is occupying 1/3 of the country nonetheless.
I am somewhat terrified of what happens if Putin dies.
I don't think he has a clear successor, or even a clear chain of succession. If he shuffles off without warning Russia will turn into a bloodbath.
I'm glad we're withdrawing from Syria, and I honestly don't care it's a republican administration doing it
doesn't make me think any better of Trump and his ilk, but at least we're probably not gonna be directly killing people in Syria for a while?
This stance worked really well in North Korea. Who is implementing policy and why matters.
I'm certain those among the "collateral damage" and their grieving families don't particularly care about US reasoning and the identity of whichever president gave the green light. Same goes for the people who otherwise would be collateral damage but aren't because Trump happened to make the right choice for once, poorly executed though it may be.
In this situation, American weapons are either currently killing people or they aren't--a dichotomy not in place in North Korea, which is why it fails as an analogy.
Nah, because you are assuming a withdrawal would happen exactly the same regardless of who was President. Which is just wrong. I mean, there's literally an election for President because this idea is wrong.
The two situations are the in the respect that some people are thinking "I should support this because it's vaguely the policy I want to happen" and ignoring that it's Donald Trump running the show so why would you ever think it would be done well.
I am not assuming that a withdrawal would happen the same regardless of who is president. I said the opposite. See bolded.
That reasserted, since Trump is actually the president right now, I'd prefer no bombs dropping to bombs continuing to drop because his handling of the withdrawal would be subpar. What's your preference? Continue strikes apace until the next president is sworn in? That would seem to pile up a lot more bodies at American hands unnecessarily.
I'm glad we're withdrawing from Syria, and I honestly don't care it's a republican administration doing it
doesn't make me think any better of Trump and his ilk, but at least we're probably not gonna be directly killing people in Syria for a while?
This stance worked really well in North Korea. Who is implementing policy and why matters.
I'm certain those among the "collateral damage" and their grieving families don't particularly care about US reasoning and the identity of whichever president gave the green light. Same goes for the people who otherwise would be collateral damage but aren't because Trump happened to make the right choice for once, poorly executed though it may be.
In this situation, American weapons are either currently killing people or they aren't--a dichotomy not in place in North Korea, which is why it fails as an analogy.
Nah, because you are assuming a withdrawal would happen exactly the same regardless of who was President. Which is just wrong. I mean, there's literally an election for President because this idea is wrong.
The two situations are the in the respect that some people are thinking "I should support this because it's vaguely the policy I want to happen" and ignoring that it's Donald Trump running the show so why would you ever think it would be done well.
I am not assuming that a withdrawal would happen the same regardless of who is president. I said the opposite. See bolded.
That reasserted, since Trump is actually the president right now, I'd prefer no bombs dropping to bombs continuing to drop because his handling of the withdrawal would be subpar. What's your preference? Continue strikes apace until the next president is sworn in? That would seem to pile up a lot more bodies at American hands unnecessarily.
US forces don't have to drop any bombs to discourage Turkey from attacking the Kurds. The mere presence of US forces in Kurdish held areas as a peacekeeping force would have been enough.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I'm glad we're withdrawing from Syria, and I honestly don't care it's a republican administration doing it
doesn't make me think any better of Trump and his ilk, but at least we're probably not gonna be directly killing people in Syria for a while?
This stance worked really well in North Korea. Who is implementing policy and why matters.
I'm certain those among the "collateral damage" and their grieving families don't particularly care about US reasoning and the identity of whichever president gave the green light. Same goes for the people who otherwise would be collateral damage but aren't because Trump happened to make the right choice for once, poorly executed though it may be.
In this situation, American weapons are either currently killing people or they aren't--a dichotomy not in place in North Korea, which is why it fails as an analogy.
Nah, because you are assuming a withdrawal would happen exactly the same regardless of who was President. Which is just wrong. I mean, there's literally an election for President because this idea is wrong.
The two situations are the in the respect that some people are thinking "I should support this because it's vaguely the policy I want to happen" and ignoring that it's Donald Trump running the show so why would you ever think it would be done well.
I am not assuming that a withdrawal would happen the same regardless of who is president. I said the opposite. See bolded.
That reasserted, since Trump is actually the president right now, I'd prefer no bombs dropping to bombs continuing to drop because his handling of the withdrawal would be subpar. What's your preference? Continue strikes apace until the next president is sworn in? That would seem to pile up a lot more bodies at American hands unnecessarily.
My preference is that we not ignore that who directs US foreign policy will materially impact it's outcome. That despite your dismissal of the idea, the reasoning for why something is done matters. (Something you literally asserted didn't matter) Both short term in how it's carried out and long term as to what signals it sends about future actions by other actors.
To the other point, do you really think the situation in Syria is going to get better with US withdrawal? It will be different, assuredly, but I'm not seeing anything that necessitates it getting better for the people on the ground you are talking about. The general reaction I'm seeing is that things certainly don't look better for the Kurds at the very least. I'm not sure either "Trump's shitty Syria policy" or "Trump's shitty withdrawal policy" are going to be markedly better for the people you are bringing up.
Posts
Like, he basically created modern Russian national political culture and norms as they are now. Sure he did it out of a previous chaotic structure and he's got a very large amount of political and economic infrastructure there to hold it together, but it's very, very much a system of his creation.
Masha Gessen's The Future is History is a really fucking good look into this. I'm fairly certain we've had this conversation before, but I just have to bring up that book each time.
Trump:
Answer: "Because a state founded on principles so extreme AQ feels kinda leery is a recipe for disaster and untold carnage the likes of which the World hasn't seen in generations?"
You are already complaining that people in this thread have selective memories so why would the people in the US government be any different? Somethings stick in people's minds more then others, people can only pay attention to so many things, etc, etc. That's how people are.
So speaking of this, apparently Russia is offering a deal to the SDF that has SAA forces taking control of border posts along the Syrian-Turkish border.
Also, here's another tweet from Trump; looks like the withdrawal will not be as immediate and complete as he initially said! Which should surprise nobody.
e: I was quoting myself in the first paragraph, but tagged Rchanen by mistake. Sorry.
Apparently because when he praised Mattis in the earlier tweet he had not read Mattis' resignation letter and he didn't understand how Mattis' letter was such a strong rebuke to Trump and Trumps worldviews.
So after the news informed the President of what that letter actually meant because he was too stupid to understand it, it made him mad. So now, this.
It is pretty rich that the US Congress is happy to let the Executive declare wars at will, but talk about reducing them and suddenly that's ignoring Congress.
It's not reasonable to hold one representative responsible for congress' decisions as a whole, in particular previous congresses, though I'm unfamiliar with his voting record.
But yeah, Congress is the one with the outstanding ambiguous-as-fuck War on Terror AUMF that seems to basically authorize the violation of all the international laws they want to soooooo....
So, Congress, lets follow through and use your constitutional powers to limit the power of the President! Its Trump! He's a madman! How's about you grow a collective spine and do something about it, like you're supposed to.
I'm speaking about people in this thread as far as I'm talking about the general reaction of mostly white westerners and Americans, but take it however you want. I don't understand what selective memory has to do with the actions of the US government. I presume the US government is not, continuously, forgetting that it's helping to bomb and starve civilians as it's doing it, for years. The reason that you do an action over and over is that you're okay with it, and can live with it doing. Selective memory will of course be valuable in their memoirs, but it has nothing to do with why they did the thing in the first place.
It's a great book. All of her books are.
Putin is a monster though. Like, in her kinda-sorta-biography of him where she's saying "yeah the FSB basically did the Moscow bombings on his orders" and it's not some conspiracy theory shit it's just clear that no he killed hundreds of Russian people to buoy up support... fuck man
doesn't make me think any better of Trump and his ilk, but at least we're probably not gonna be directly killing people in Syria for a while?
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
This stance worked really well in North Korea. Who is implementing policy and why matters.
So much for two months of carefully managed drawdown
I could use my mod powers to stop you, but I have a strict policy of non-intervention.
How policy is implemented is as important as what the policy is.
Overall, is impressive the complete failure that Bolton had of convincing Trump to do anything.
Leaving by itself is perfectly fine, even good! Leaving out of nowhere with no plan for what's going to happen to our allies after we leave is not good. Though I guess it's an American tradition at this point to fuck over our local allies when we pull out, at least since the first Gulf war. It's a wonder anyone ever works with us at all. I guess it's probably cause they're desperate people in desperate situations.
Yeah, at this point, he's as meaningful as Jeff Flake. Or Susan Collins.
Unless he's going to DO something, and not just vote no when he and McConnell both know it won't matter, he can fuck right off.
"Ohh, I can't do anything, I'm one Senator!". Yeah, shithead. You're one Senator, and while McCain was absent, you could have taken a stand. But you're just another (bad) hairdo. Empty suit. And get another Senator or two on board about some of your non-whackjob ideas, and you can get some of your shit done.
Rand, get the things you feel are paramount to your position (like making NSA senate confirmable, and any other shit that you incessantly bitch about), and then draw a line in the sand. Until (and including) then, eat shit.
Mostly because he killed everybody that advocated for any other type.
The sheer number of exiles and critics that "died" suddenly and mysteriously is huge and not just in itself Russia either.
Oh and for people that don't think we are not in a cold war with russia because "all they did was hack a few servers and make a few facebook ads".
Its called salami tactics. Slice here, slice there and soon half the salami is gone. Look at Ukraine, never once did Putin openly invade, but Russia is occupying 1/3 of the country nonetheless.
Incorrect. You're assuming everyone is ok with every action America does with foreign policy, when it's never been that simple. There are some things which might be worthwhile or like, yet dislike how the government executes a military strike or the whole operation - for example, The War on Drugs. It is a worthwhile goal to dismantle the global drug trade and various cartels. However, the US government does this terribly, when it's not backing them up for political purposes (which the CIA is known for), or exploiting the cultural cache as an excuse for police brutality and locking up minorities to stop them from voting/being black etc or that their obsession with marijuana despite the fact it should have been made legal years ago. Then there's the downsides to the allies, who occasionally aren't assholes (the Kurds, as far as I'm aware) who needed the US intervention to prevent the various players from annihilated them. And groups like ISIS, in general, who need to be wiped out because they're so radical they think Al Queda are a bunch of hippies.
And so now, we're pulling out, but not because of any real moral or ethical motivation but because the president is... well, Donald Trump.
And we're doing it in a manner equivalent to yanking a piece of rebar out of an impaled person's gut and then, oh hey, turns out now they're bleeding out because that's not how you fix a problem if you don't want the geopolitical equivalent of sepsis and hemorrhaging.
Like... maybe I'm just being cynical and tired but I don't know how else to view this entire clusterfuck at this point. We went in half-assed, focused on the wrong shit if we wanted to actually promote a humanitarian cause in the middle of a foreign civil war and now we're half-assedly pulling out and a shitton of people are going to get hurt because of it.
I'm certain those among the "collateral damage" and their grieving families don't particularly care about US reasoning and the identity of whichever president gave the green light. Same goes for the people who otherwise would be collateral damage but aren't because Trump happened to make the right choice for once, poorly executed though it may be.
In this situation, American weapons are either currently killing people or they aren't--a dichotomy not in place in North Korea, which is why it fails as an analogy.
The War on Drugs is probably not the example you want, because the purpose was never to actually break up the drug trade and cartels; that was always just the cover. It was always, from the very beginning, a means of continuing to oppress African Americans as the made further and further civil rights gains. In wider culture it took on a life of its own based on the cover, but a good deal of primary sources will bring it back to good old fashioned American racism.
Though ultimately this sort of serves to prove the other point folks have been making, because it happens with foreign policy as well: America has a cover story it likes to generally promote as the reason why it does things, but ultimately the motivation is more often a selfish, short-term one based on America's hegemonic interests than humanitarianism.
Nah, because you are assuming a withdrawal would happen exactly the same regardless of who was President. Which is just wrong. I mean, there's literally an election for President because this idea is wrong.
The two situations are the in the respect that some people are thinking "I should support this because it's vaguely the policy I want to happen" and ignoring that it's Donald Trump running the show so why would you ever think it would be done well.
I can't quite tell if Shryke is refering to modern policy regarding North Korea or if this is was trying to suggest that we're repeating the end of the Korean War, leading to Syria becoming some sort of pseudo-theocratic monarchistic hermit nation.
He is retiring and only a Senator for another 1.5 weeks. And he is wasting that time being pissy on Twitter instead of using his office to do something about it.
Which is why I'd like to have serious reform on foreign policy so the right thing gets done for the right reasons. Another factor is the parties need to get a better grip on the military industrial complex - which is bigger than any president. Which will be difficult when the powerful groups like the CIA, military and corporations will fight back ruthlessly when people start fucked up their business. But it needs to happen ASAP.
I am somewhat terrified of what happens if Putin dies.
I don't think he has a clear successor, or even a clear chain of succession. If he shuffles off without warning Russia will turn into a bloodbath.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I am not assuming that a withdrawal would happen the same regardless of who is president. I said the opposite. See bolded.
That reasserted, since Trump is actually the president right now, I'd prefer no bombs dropping to bombs continuing to drop because his handling of the withdrawal would be subpar. What's your preference? Continue strikes apace until the next president is sworn in? That would seem to pile up a lot more bodies at American hands unnecessarily.
US forces don't have to drop any bombs to discourage Turkey from attacking the Kurds. The mere presence of US forces in Kurdish held areas as a peacekeeping force would have been enough.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
My preference is that we not ignore that who directs US foreign policy will materially impact it's outcome. That despite your dismissal of the idea, the reasoning for why something is done matters. (Something you literally asserted didn't matter) Both short term in how it's carried out and long term as to what signals it sends about future actions by other actors.
To the other point, do you really think the situation in Syria is going to get better with US withdrawal? It will be different, assuredly, but I'm not seeing anything that necessitates it getting better for the people on the ground you are talking about. The general reaction I'm seeing is that things certainly don't look better for the Kurds at the very least. I'm not sure either "Trump's shitty Syria policy" or "Trump's shitty withdrawal policy" are going to be markedly better for the people you are bringing up.