As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] Talk about the Foreign Policy of the United States

15455575960100

Posts

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.

    The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.

    Can you source this? China has been investing a lot in Iraq over the last few years, and its already been mentioned Iran plays a huge role, about the same as the US. But I don't really know what industry in Iraq is dependent on what countries.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.

    The American public. Pretty sure the Iraqi public isn't a huge fan of bombing campaigns.

    It remains a dumb point. Obama showed the Democrats have heart for conflict just fine. The claim that the guy who increased the wars the US is engaged in to seven (7) dislikes war is nonsense. The idea that Iraq should no longer fear a "real war" with the USA is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Perhaps in the sense that there is no need for a "real war" any more? Iraq has been dominated, so just flexing your muscles is enough to make them do what you want?

    Come on! Iraq got invaded over outright lies, after having their infrastructure get bombed to such an extent that it has still not recovered after almost 30 years. The US is engaged in multiple armed conflicts in the area. The suggestion that any fear is unreasonable is bullshit.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.

    The American public. Pretty sure the Iraqi public isn't a huge fan of bombing campaigns.

    It remains a dumb point. Obama showed the Democrats have heart for conflict just fine. The claim that the guy who increased the wars the US is engaged in to seven (7) dislikes war is nonsense. The idea that Iraq should no longer fear a "real war" with the USA is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Perhaps in the sense that there is no need for a "real war" any more? Iraq has been dominated, so just flexing your muscles is enough to make them do what you want?

    Come on! Iraq got invaded over outright lies, after having their infrastructure get bombed to such an extent that it has still not recovered after almost 30 years. The US is engaged in multiple armed conflicts in the area. The suggestion that any fear is unreasonable is bullshit.

    Nah, the point is dead on. The Democrats supported Obama's actions very much because he didn't escalate these conflicts to the degree that, say, GWB did with his 2 different invasions and occupations of two different countries. His stance on not doing that was a big part of his messaging and conflict with and victory over Clinton in the primary.

    Obama's general strategy on this stuff was to keep the hell away from any kind of occupation like scenario and confine US action to targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about because they just have way way less of an effect domestically and are just way less noticeable. The wars GWB started became quite unpopular. Obama deliberately avoided doing anything like that.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Also “Obama started wars” ignores the fact that Obama largely followed other nations into wars.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Obama's Foreign Policy was more hawkish than I would have preferred.

    He was also a damn flower child hippie compared to Bush and Trump.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited January 2019
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Afghanistan is an occupied nation, as Japan and Germany used to be. But controlling Iraq has been the plan since at least the 90s, and it happened. This talk of "influence" ignores that Iraq's industry is in large part reliant on the US and the West. Once the spoils are divided there is no need for direct control, you can just collect the protection money each week.

    The US got "invited in" to protect their investment.

    Can you source this? China has been investing a lot in Iraq over the last few years, and its already been mentioned Iran plays a huge role, about the same as the US. But I don't really know what industry in Iraq is dependent on what countries.

    Exploitation of Iraqi oil fields is dominated by the West, with China and Russia being the other main players. Iran has no contracts, it simply buys a lot of stuff and is just generally the neighbour trading partner. The oil trade is open, being a large customer is not a big deal given the need for oil. Comparing the US role to that of Iran is nonsense, Iranian companies aren't making almost a billion dollars a year in Iraq.

    As for industry, crude oil export is like 2/3 of Iraq GDP. The oil industry is the Iraq industry.

    Julius on
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    moniker wrote: »
    Obama's Foreign Policy was more hawkish than I would have preferred.

    He was also a damn flower child hippie compared to Bush and Trump.

    So far, Trump is all bark and no bite. He is obnoxiously belligerent, but has not yet declared any new wars. Hopefully he remains that way.

    CelestialBadger on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Obama's Foreign Policy was more hawkish than I would have preferred.

    He was also a damn flower child hippie compared to Bush and Trump.

    So far, Trump is all bark and no bite. He is obnoxiously belligerent, but has not yet declared any new wars. Hopefully he remains that way.

    Trump is all sorts of bite. It's just he's attacking US allies so it's not in the conventional way.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Obama's Foreign Policy was more hawkish than I would have preferred.

    He was also a damn flower child hippie compared to Bush and Trump.

    So far, Trump is all bark and no bite. He is obnoxiously belligerent, but has not yet declared any new wars. Hopefully he remains that way.

    ah8xqlhbd4aw.gif

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.

    The American public. Pretty sure the Iraqi public isn't a huge fan of bombing campaigns.

    It remains a dumb point. Obama showed the Democrats have heart for conflict just fine. The claim that the guy who increased the wars the US is engaged in to seven (7) dislikes war is nonsense. The idea that Iraq should no longer fear a "real war" with the USA is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Perhaps in the sense that there is no need for a "real war" any more? Iraq has been dominated, so just flexing your muscles is enough to make them do what you want?

    Come on! Iraq got invaded over outright lies, after having their infrastructure get bombed to such an extent that it has still not recovered after almost 30 years. The US is engaged in multiple armed conflicts in the area. The suggestion that any fear is unreasonable is bullshit.

    Nah, the point is dead on. The Democrats supported Obama's actions very much because he didn't escalate these conflicts to the degree that, say, GWB did with his 2 different invasions and occupations of two different countries. His stance on not doing that was a big part of his messaging and conflict with and victory over Clinton in the primary.

    Obama's general strategy on this stuff was to keep the hell away from any kind of occupation like scenario and confine US action to targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about because they just have way way less of an effect domestically and are just way less noticeable. The wars GWB started became quite unpopular. Obama deliberately avoided doing anything like that.

    Right right you do realise I am talking about the people in Iraq, not the US, right?

    like:
    targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about
    these are things the Iraqi public does not want. These things result in a lot of dead people. These can very much be brought under the header "conflict", the thing the Democrats supposedly have no heart for.


    I have no idea how I could make this any clearer. If you go "yo Iraq has nothing to fear from the US because Obama had no heart for conflict" you can't then also admit Obama engaged in a lot of conflict. That is a direct contradiction.

  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.

    The American public. Pretty sure the Iraqi public isn't a huge fan of bombing campaigns.

    It remains a dumb point. Obama showed the Democrats have heart for conflict just fine. The claim that the guy who increased the wars the US is engaged in to seven (7) dislikes war is nonsense. The idea that Iraq should no longer fear a "real war" with the USA is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Perhaps in the sense that there is no need for a "real war" any more? Iraq has been dominated, so just flexing your muscles is enough to make them do what you want?

    Come on! Iraq got invaded over outright lies, after having their infrastructure get bombed to such an extent that it has still not recovered after almost 30 years. The US is engaged in multiple armed conflicts in the area. The suggestion that any fear is unreasonable is bullshit.

    Nah, the point is dead on. The Democrats supported Obama's actions very much because he didn't escalate these conflicts to the degree that, say, GWB did with his 2 different invasions and occupations of two different countries. His stance on not doing that was a big part of his messaging and conflict with and victory over Clinton in the primary.

    Obama's general strategy on this stuff was to keep the hell away from any kind of occupation like scenario and confine US action to targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about because they just have way way less of an effect domestically and are just way less noticeable. The wars GWB started became quite unpopular. Obama deliberately avoided doing anything like that.

    Right right you do realise I am talking about the people in Iraq, not the US, right?

    like:
    targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about
    these are things the Iraqi public does not want. These things result in a lot of dead people. These can very much be brought under the header "conflict", the thing the Democrats supposedly have no heart for.


    I have no idea how I could make this any clearer. If you go "yo Iraq has nothing to fear from the US because Obama had no heart for conflict" you can't then also admit Obama engaged in a lot of conflict. That is a direct contradiction.

    If you refuse to make any distinction between different types of conflicts then I guess this conversation is done.

    }
    "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!".
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Obama's Foreign Policy was more hawkish than I would have preferred.

    He was also a damn flower child hippie compared to Bush and Trump.

    So far, Trump is all bark and no bite. He is obnoxiously belligerent, but has not yet declared any new wars. Hopefully he remains that way.

    ah8xqlhbd4aw.gif

    Yikes, I didn't know that. Perhaps it's for the best he wants to pull out of these conflicts.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Obama's Foreign Policy was more hawkish than I would have preferred.

    He was also a damn flower child hippie compared to Bush and Trump.

    So far, Trump is all bark and no bite. He is obnoxiously belligerent, but has not yet declared any new wars. Hopefully he remains that way.

    ah8xqlhbd4aw.gif

    Yikes, I didn't know that. Perhaps it's for the best he wants to pull out of these conflicts.

    Pulling troops out. I doubt it will impact the number of drone strikes and MOAB drops when we have fewer boots on the ground.

    Plus, it's Trump. He's probably going to pull people out in a way that results in more death than if they stayed and got removed in 2021. And also somehow piss of Switzerland or Bolivia or something.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    But weren't civilian casualties under Obama unusually depressed because of the shitty ways they were counting "civilians?" Like, if you were a young male somewhere within range of a cruise missile, you were just counted as a "legitimate target?"

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    But weren't civilian casualties under Obama unusually depressed because of the shitty ways they were counting "civilians?" Like, if you were a young male somewhere within range of a cruise missile, you were just counted as a "legitimate target?"

    It uses the same methodology throughout.

  • RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    But weren't civilian casualties under Obama unusually depressed because of the shitty ways they were counting "civilians?" Like, if you were a young male somewhere within range of a cruise missile, you were just counted as a "legitimate target?"

    It uses the same methodology throughout.

    Holy shit

    :bigfrown: :bigfrown: :bigfrown:

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    That is a legitimate complaint about the counting... but that method of counting would not have been changed

    wbBv3fj.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.

    The American public. Pretty sure the Iraqi public isn't a huge fan of bombing campaigns.

    It remains a dumb point. Obama showed the Democrats have heart for conflict just fine. The claim that the guy who increased the wars the US is engaged in to seven (7) dislikes war is nonsense. The idea that Iraq should no longer fear a "real war" with the USA is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Perhaps in the sense that there is no need for a "real war" any more? Iraq has been dominated, so just flexing your muscles is enough to make them do what you want?

    Come on! Iraq got invaded over outright lies, after having their infrastructure get bombed to such an extent that it has still not recovered after almost 30 years. The US is engaged in multiple armed conflicts in the area. The suggestion that any fear is unreasonable is bullshit.

    Nah, the point is dead on. The Democrats supported Obama's actions very much because he didn't escalate these conflicts to the degree that, say, GWB did with his 2 different invasions and occupations of two different countries. His stance on not doing that was a big part of his messaging and conflict with and victory over Clinton in the primary.

    Obama's general strategy on this stuff was to keep the hell away from any kind of occupation like scenario and confine US action to targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about because they just have way way less of an effect domestically and are just way less noticeable. The wars GWB started became quite unpopular. Obama deliberately avoided doing anything like that.

    Right right you do realise I am talking about the people in Iraq, not the US, right?

    The original comment was about Democrats desire for conflict and since Democrats aren't the people in Iraq I don't know why you are talking about them at all in this context.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That is a legitimate complaint about the counting... but that method of counting would not have been changed

    Yeah, those numbers are almost certainly very conservative estimates with far more blood spilled than what we acknowledge.

    Consistently more blood spilled, though, is the thing. If the gap between those numbers and the grimmer reality stay the same...

    moniker on
  • cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That is a legitimate complaint about the counting... but that method of counting would not have been changed

    Those aren't US government numbers in any case.

    cckerberos.png
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.

    The American public. Pretty sure the Iraqi public isn't a huge fan of bombing campaigns.

    It remains a dumb point. Obama showed the Democrats have heart for conflict just fine. The claim that the guy who increased the wars the US is engaged in to seven (7) dislikes war is nonsense. The idea that Iraq should no longer fear a "real war" with the USA is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Perhaps in the sense that there is no need for a "real war" any more? Iraq has been dominated, so just flexing your muscles is enough to make them do what you want?

    Come on! Iraq got invaded over outright lies, after having their infrastructure get bombed to such an extent that it has still not recovered after almost 30 years. The US is engaged in multiple armed conflicts in the area. The suggestion that any fear is unreasonable is bullshit.

    Nah, the point is dead on. The Democrats supported Obama's actions very much because he didn't escalate these conflicts to the degree that, say, GWB did with his 2 different invasions and occupations of two different countries. His stance on not doing that was a big part of his messaging and conflict with and victory over Clinton in the primary.

    Obama's general strategy on this stuff was to keep the hell away from any kind of occupation like scenario and confine US action to targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about because they just have way way less of an effect domestically and are just way less noticeable. The wars GWB started became quite unpopular. Obama deliberately avoided doing anything like that.

    Right right you do realise I am talking about the people in Iraq, not the US, right?

    like:
    targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about
    these are things the Iraqi public does not want. These things result in a lot of dead people. These can very much be brought under the header "conflict", the thing the Democrats supposedly have no heart for.


    I have no idea how I could make this any clearer. If you go "yo Iraq has nothing to fear from the US because Obama had no heart for conflict" you can't then also admit Obama engaged in a lot of conflict. That is a direct contradiction.

    If you refuse to make any distinction between different types of conflicts then I guess this conversation is done.

    I wasn't the one who made no distinction. If you wanted to claim Iraq should not fear an invasion then you should have said it. Conflict is pretty broad.

    This tangent started with the assertion that Iraq can just do whatever it wants to do because the US has no leverage because it is not willing to fight a "real war" any more. That take is still wrong even if you want to claim by "real war" you mean an invasion. It is wrong because bombs and special forces are still more than enough leverage in a military sense. You can't really do what you want if your enemy says they are still willing to bomb the shit out of you. The implication is still death and destruction.


    It is also more obviously wrong because there is 0% reason to believe the USA would remain unwilling to fight a real war. The length of the current period in which the USA has not fought wars is 0. The US is currently fighting real wars. Fuck your different types of conflicts, the US is at war right now. I find it very hard to classify it as unwilling.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    These sort of things are not invasions is the point. They are far more limited actions that the public is far more willing to accept.

    The American public. Pretty sure the Iraqi public isn't a huge fan of bombing campaigns.

    It remains a dumb point. Obama showed the Democrats have heart for conflict just fine. The claim that the guy who increased the wars the US is engaged in to seven (7) dislikes war is nonsense. The idea that Iraq should no longer fear a "real war" with the USA is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Perhaps in the sense that there is no need for a "real war" any more? Iraq has been dominated, so just flexing your muscles is enough to make them do what you want?

    Come on! Iraq got invaded over outright lies, after having their infrastructure get bombed to such an extent that it has still not recovered after almost 30 years. The US is engaged in multiple armed conflicts in the area. The suggestion that any fear is unreasonable is bullshit.

    Nah, the point is dead on. The Democrats supported Obama's actions very much because he didn't escalate these conflicts to the degree that, say, GWB did with his 2 different invasions and occupations of two different countries. His stance on not doing that was a big part of his messaging and conflict with and victory over Clinton in the primary.

    Obama's general strategy on this stuff was to keep the hell away from any kind of occupation like scenario and confine US action to targetted strikes, bombing campaigns (drone and otherwise) and basically all the kind of stuff that the public and his supporters are much less inclined to kick up a fuss about because they just have way way less of an effect domestically and are just way less noticeable. The wars GWB started became quite unpopular. Obama deliberately avoided doing anything like that.

    Right right you do realise I am talking about the people in Iraq, not the US, right?

    The original comment was about Democrats desire for conflict and since Democrats aren't the people in Iraq I don't know why you are talking about them at all in this context.

    Yeah and the original comment said the Democrats had no desire for conflict and you admitted that they had no problems with the conflicts Obama engaged in, so I assumed you were making a different point. I was trying to explain that the acceptance of the American public is completely besides the point of these being conflicts.

    My point is that literally nobody else thinks "full blown invasion" is the definition of conflict, or that that is the only possible military intervention related reason to fear another country. Your point can't possibly be as dumb as "The US is not willing to full invade the country, Iraq can do whatever it wants.".

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Remember when our President said some really crazy things about our foreign policy and brought up Russia in Afghanistan completely unprompted?

    Turns out he really was just regurgitating Putin’s own propaganda on the matter as he now seeks to justify Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan and rewrite history.


    Fmr Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaulJust learned from @vkaramurza via @maddow that Putin's party IS seeking to rewrite the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! And our president just echoed the same. Amazing. I had no idea from where Trump had picked up this crazy idea. Now I have a theory. Thanks Rachel.
    Crazy isn't it. The President of the United States of America appears to be just regurgitating Putin revisionist propaganda about Soviet history. Even the Soviet government denounced the invasion of Afghanistan !

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Geth, kick @Julius from the thread

  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative So It Goes. @Julius banned from this thread.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Julius had been previously warned about aggressive posting. If you can't post without getting heated take a break.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    The only additional line I can throw on comparing Obama's military decisions vs Trump's is that Obama was after objectives that would curb or stop the enemy. Trump is forever in showmanship mindset.

  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Remember when our President said some really crazy things about our foreign policy and brought up Russia in Afghanistan completely unprompted?

    Turns out he really was just regurgitating Putin’s own propaganda on the matter as he now seeks to justify Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan and rewrite history.


    Fmr Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaulJust learned from @vkaramurza via @maddow that Putin's party IS seeking to rewrite the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! And our president just echoed the same. Amazing. I had no idea from where Trump had picked up this crazy idea. Now I have a theory. Thanks Rachel.
    Crazy isn't it. The President of the United States of America appears to be just regurgitating Putin revisionist propaganda about Soviet history. Even the Soviet government denounced the invasion of Afghanistan !

    I feel like Trump has been doing this in various forms since the campaign. But I can't bring any specific details to mind at the moment. Am I crazy here?

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Label wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Remember when our President said some really crazy things about our foreign policy and brought up Russia in Afghanistan completely unprompted?

    Turns out he really was just regurgitating Putin’s own propaganda on the matter as he now seeks to justify Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan and rewrite history.


    Fmr Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaulJust learned from @vkaramurza via @maddow that Putin's party IS seeking to rewrite the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! And our president just echoed the same. Amazing. I had no idea from where Trump had picked up this crazy idea. Now I have a theory. Thanks Rachel.
    Crazy isn't it. The President of the United States of America appears to be just regurgitating Putin revisionist propaganda about Soviet history. Even the Soviet government denounced the invasion of Afghanistan !

    I feel like Trump has been doing this in various forms since the campaign. But I can't bring any specific details to mind at the moment. Am I crazy here?

    Defining “this” in that sentence is somewhat difficult.

    He’s been repeating Russian talking points for a very long time, since way before the 2016 campaign.

    I think there’s an anti-NATO op-Ed that he publish almost 20 years ago

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Label wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Remember when our President said some really crazy things about our foreign policy and brought up Russia in Afghanistan completely unprompted?

    Turns out he really was just regurgitating Putin’s own propaganda on the matter as he now seeks to justify Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan and rewrite history.


    Fmr Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaulJust learned from @vkaramurza via @maddow that Putin's party IS seeking to rewrite the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! And our president just echoed the same. Amazing. I had no idea from where Trump had picked up this crazy idea. Now I have a theory. Thanks Rachel.
    Crazy isn't it. The President of the United States of America appears to be just regurgitating Putin revisionist propaganda about Soviet history. Even the Soviet government denounced the invasion of Afghanistan !

    I feel like Trump has been doing this in various forms since the campaign. But I can't bring any specific details to mind at the moment. Am I crazy here?

    Depends on your definition of crazy.

    Because one of the intended effects of Trump's gish gallop of bullshit, and adamant stance that the current position has been the position all along, is to cause people to question what the truth is.

    I'd say it's more confusing than crazy. But what would I know. Following the Trump Administration is a massive sanity check, like staring into the face of Cthulhu, and how would I know if I failed?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Label wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Remember when our President said some really crazy things about our foreign policy and brought up Russia in Afghanistan completely unprompted?

    Turns out he really was just regurgitating Putin’s own propaganda on the matter as he now seeks to justify Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan and rewrite history.


    Fmr Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaulJust learned from @vkaramurza via @maddow that Putin's party IS seeking to rewrite the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! And our president just echoed the same. Amazing. I had no idea from where Trump had picked up this crazy idea. Now I have a theory. Thanks Rachel.
    Crazy isn't it. The President of the United States of America appears to be just regurgitating Putin revisionist propaganda about Soviet history. Even the Soviet government denounced the invasion of Afghanistan !

    I feel like Trump has been doing this in various forms since the campaign. But I can't bring any specific details to mind at the moment. Am I crazy here?

    Depends on your definition of crazy.

    Because one of the intended effects of Trump's gish gallop of bullshit, and adamant stance that the current position has been the position all along, is to cause people to question what the truth is.

    I'd say it's more confusing than crazy. But what would I know. Following the Trump Administration is a massive sanity check, like staring into the face of Cthulhu, and how would I know if I failed?

    An overwhelming desire to tell each and every one of them to go fuck themselves, right to their face?

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    The problem here is where he got this particular talking point.

    It had to be in conversation with Putin. Private conversation that is not on the Presidents schedule.

    Viskod on
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    The problem here is where he got this particular talking point.

    It had to be in conversation with Putin. Private conversation that is not on the Presidents schedule.

    I dunno. At this point I half expect we will find out that Trump had an English translated RT piped into the White House as one of the channels he binges. Would anyone really be surprised by it?

    It'd be moronic, but would it really be that far a reach? Trump is like the living embodiment of Hanlon's Razor. Except sometimes it is malice.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    moniker wrote: »
    Obama's Foreign Policy was more hawkish than I would have preferred.

    He was also a damn flower child hippie compared to Bush and Trump.

    So far, Trump is all bark and no bite. He is obnoxiously belligerent, but has not yet declared any new wars. Hopefully he remains that way.

    Trump's got bite, except all the countries he's been trying to get into wars with won't allow the tension to escalate into full blown war. The closest America got to another war was with North Korea a few months ago, and perhaps Iran after that. NK's ramping up hostiles again and Trump's getting antsy looking in Mueller's direction, too.

    Harry Dresden on
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    The problem here is where he got this particular talking point.

    It had to be in conversation with Putin. Private conversation that is not on the Presidents schedule.

    Looking at Trump's insane ramblings and deducing a private meeting took place with Putin certainly requires... imagination.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Trump is known for spending a lot of time chatting on the phone to his rich buddies. If one of them is Russian, he probably gets a good grounding in the Russian view of the world from him.

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    The problem here is where he got this particular talking point.

    It had to be in conversation with Putin. Private conversation that is not on the Presidents schedule.

    Looking at Trump's insane ramblings and deducing a private meeting took place with Putin certainly requires... imagination.

    Not really. He exactly and specifically parroted a propaganda talking point that is just now working its way through the Russian government.

    It’s not hard to imagine the President having phone calls with Putin and the White House not keeping a record of it, because he’s already had multiple phone calls with Putin where the White House kept no record of it and the only way we know is because the Russian government announced Putin’s call with the President first leaving the White House to go “oh yeah, that did happen.”

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Trump is known for spending a lot of time chatting on the phone to his rich buddies. If one of them is Russian, he probably gets a good grounding in the Russian view of the world from him.

    Yeah. Pretty sure Trump doesn't have to talk directly with Putin to get the pro-Russia view on anything.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Trump is known for spending a lot of time chatting on the phone to his rich buddies. If one of them is Russian, he probably gets a good grounding in the Russian view of the world from him.

    Yeah. Pretty sure Trump doesn't have to talk directly with Putin to get the pro-Russia view on anything.

    He can probably just talk directly into the couch seat where that russian camera man sat when he visited the oval office.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I'm not saying it can't be Putin, but trying to get Trump to talk about history in a stupid, moronic, incurious way does not necessarily require the skills of a lifong FSB agent.

This discussion has been closed.