It's honestly probably impossible to figure out where he's getting fed his Russian propaganda. But it's ultimately kind of irrelevant. The thing that really matters is that he's willing to parrot Russian government propaganda uncritically and as fact. In public. It's shaping his foreign policy.
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.
I think there are two reasons for this:
- US government loosening restrictions on when the military is allowed to bomb things. I know Trump did so in Afghanistan (and Somalia, says Google, which makes sense given the escalation in US bombing there), but IIRC it was Obama who loosened restrictions in Iraq and Syria.
- The battles for Raqqa and especially Mosul mostly occurred under the Trump administration. Mosul itself probably accounts for a large portion of that rise. The US was heavily bombing a densely populated city of 2 million (pre-war) people. Thousands of civilians died. It was really horrible.
It should be noted that the sharp rise in casualties depicted in that graph begins before Trump's inauguration, because the Battle of Mosul started under Obama. Also here's a source on Obama loosening restrictions:
The Obama administration did seek to mitigate the cost in civilian lives from such stand-off and remote-control weapons, by maintaining political control over operations from the White House. But in the last weeks of the outgoing administration, some of those curbs were lifted.
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.
I think there are two reasons for this:
- US government loosening restrictions on when the military is allowed to bomb things. I know Trump did so in Afghanistan (and Somalia, says Google, which makes sense given the escalation in US bombing there), but IIRC it was Obama who loosened restrictions in Iraq and Syria.
- The battles for Raqqa and especially Mosul mostly occurred under the Trump administration. Mosul itself probably accounts for a large portion of that rise. The US was heavily bombing a densely populated city of 2 million (pre-war) people. Thousands of civilians died. It was really horrible.
It should be noted that the sharp rise in casualties depicted in that graph begins before Trump's inauguration, because the Battle of Mosul started under Obama. Also here's a source on Obama loosening restrictions:
The Obama administration did seek to mitigate the cost in civilian lives from such stand-off and remote-control weapons, by maintaining political control over operations from the White House. But in the last weeks of the outgoing administration, some of those curbs were lifted.
Yes, but Mosul ended in July and it stays elevated beyond that. There are likely better and more updated charts as well. This is just from Kevin Drum when he made a more legible one last year. Trump has weakened rules making strikes that result in more civilian dead occur more frequently. The suggestion that he's just all talk is not really true. A lot of people have been killed under his watch. Including people who would be alive today if he had kept previous rules of engagement.
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.
okay hold on is this civilian deaths attiributed to US forces or just in general?
I don't doubt civcas spiked under Trump but this graph desperately needs more context
e: for one thing, the spike coincides with the Battle of Mosul and the Battle of Raqqa
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.
okay hold on is this civilian deaths attiributed to US forces or just in general?
I don't doubt civcas spiked under Trump but this graph desperately needs more context
e: for one thing, the spike coincides with the Battle of Mosul and the Battle of Raqqa
It does need context but I recall at least Mosul being a long drawn out slog well before Trump took office.
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.
I think there are two reasons for this:
- US government loosening restrictions on when the military is allowed to bomb things. I know Trump did so in Afghanistan (and Somalia, says Google, which makes sense given the escalation in US bombing there), but IIRC it was Obama who loosened restrictions in Iraq and Syria.
- The battles for Raqqa and especially Mosul mostly occurred under the Trump administration. Mosul itself probably accounts for a large portion of that rise. The US was heavily bombing a densely populated city of 2 million (pre-war) people. Thousands of civilians died. It was really horrible.
It should be noted that the sharp rise in casualties depicted in that graph begins before Trump's inauguration, because the Battle of Mosul started under Obama. Also here's a source on Obama loosening restrictions:
The Obama administration did seek to mitigate the cost in civilian lives from such stand-off and remote-control weapons, by maintaining political control over operations from the White House. But in the last weeks of the outgoing administration, some of those curbs were lifted.
Yes, but Mosul ended in July and it stays elevated beyond that. There are likely better and more updated charts as well. This is just from Kevin Drum when he made a more legible one last year. Trump has weakened rules making strikes that result in more civilian dead occur more frequently. The suggestion that he's just all talk is not really true. A lot of people have been killed under his watch. Including people who would be alive today if he had kept previous rules of engagement.
Again, Obama loosened rules of engagement in the war against ISIS shortly before leaving office. And the Battle of Raqqa (which was not as horrific as Mosul due to scale but was still horrific in terms of civilian death) didn't end until October. I do not deny that Trump has further loosened such restrictions, as I referred to in my post, and I agree that more people will die as a result, but given that Obama relaxed restrictions early on in the battles for the two cities, I'm not convinced that we should blame Trump for that rise instead of blaming the US generally (or at the very least its government and military). edit - or just blaming it on the shift to dense urban warfare in ISIS's capitals, if you prefer
That said I agree that "all bark and no bite" is questionable
As part of withdrawing from Syria do this entirely unrelated thing
I love the audacity of it
The evangelicals are pushing this right now. They thought that when Israel was reestablished, a countdown started to the end of the world. Well, the world hasn't ended yet but the evangelicals don't want to be wrong, so they are thinking that maybe enough of Israel wasn't established. They want the whole "Biblical" territory to be claimed, because maybe that will fulfill the prophecy to immanentize the eschaton. Same with putting the embassy in Jerusalem, because that would be saying that Jerusalem is the capital, which must be done because line and verse or something and they really want the world to be destroyed before they die and they aren't getting any younger.
John Bolton said the U.S. withdrawal from Syria is pending assurances that Turkey will protect America’s Kurdish allies
He also said there's no timetable on the troop withdrawal. Which is to say, they may not be leaving at all. Because of course.
I'm not sure what to make of this; it's possible that trump has sussed out that abandoning the Kurds to the tender mercies of turkey is an incredibly bad look and is trying to back walk that... or he's stupid enough to try and negotiate a deal with the fox for it's services in guarding the chicken coop.
John Bolton said the U.S. withdrawal from Syria is pending assurances that Turkey will protect America’s Kurdish allies
He also said there's no timetable on the troop withdrawal. Which is to say, they may not be leaving at all. Because of course.
I'm not sure what to make of this; it's possible that trump has sussed out that abandoning the Kurds to the tender mercies of turkey is an incredibly bad look and is trying to back walk that... or he's stupid enough to try and negotiate a deal with the fox for it's services in guarding the chicken coop.
Trump said stupid shit despite everyone in the Defence sphere trying to stop him. Now they are trying to stall and undermine him until they can change his mind. It's that simple.
I mean, “we’ll leave once turkey protects the kurds” certainly seems like a recipe for not ever leaving; on the other hand I kind of assume he’s not worked out the finer points with Trump so as usual, who fucking knows.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Reporting suggested that Bolton was lockstep with Mattis and the rest of the Pentagon in opposing this pullout. So I’m not surprised if he’s still trying to find a way out of it. This guy is a firm believer in American Imperialism which always made him a strange pick for Mr. “America First.”
Reporting suggested that Bolton was lockstep with Mattis and the rest of the Pentagon in opposing this pullout. So I’m not surprised if he’s still trying to find a way out of it. This guy is a firm believer in American Imperialism which always made him a strange pick for Mr. “America First.”
Not really. He's there to make Trump look better in comparison. Trump looks like a dove next to that lunatic.
So we’ve gone from 30 days to 4 months to not leaving until the government that can’t wait to murder every Kurd changes their mind to protecting every Kurd?
Reporting suggested that Bolton was lockstep with Mattis and the rest of the Pentagon in opposing this pullout. So I’m not surprised if he’s still trying to find a way out of it. This guy is a firm believer in American Imperialism which always made him a strange pick for Mr. “America First.”
America First doesn't mean a lack of american imperialism. Especially for Trump, for whom "america first" really means "america the biggest guy in the room who threatens everyone and extorts money from them". It's more imperialistic then your standard foreign policy really.
Right up until Trump just makes a random decision based on a mood swing caused by talking heads on TV anyway.
So we’ve gone from 30 days to 4 months to not leaving until the government that can’t wait to murder every Kurd changes their mind to protecting every Kurd?
We've gone from Trump deciding, on the spot, in a fit of pique and without consultation with anyone, that the US is gonna pull out to top national security and military officials resigning in protest to the remaining people basically trying to overrule his sudden random decision by slowwalking the whole process and hoping they can convince him to change his mind.
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.”
This is Rachel Maddow levels of ridiculous.
I'd be far more concerned about Israeli and Saudi meddling in Trump's foreign policy than anything else.
MargaretThatcher on
I'm Jeremy Corbyn's #1 fan
+2
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
“Rachel Maddow levels of ridiculous”
So, not ridiculous at all then.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
As part of withdrawing from Syria do this entirely unrelated thing
I love the audacity of it
The evangelicals are pushing this right now. They thought that when Israel was reestablished, a countdown started to the end of the world. Well, the world hasn't ended yet but the evangelicals don't want to be wrong, so they are thinking that maybe enough of Israel wasn't established. They want the whole "Biblical" territory to be claimed, because maybe that will fulfill the prophecy to immanentize the eschaton. Same with putting the embassy in Jerusalem, because that would be saying that Jerusalem is the capital, which must be done because line and verse or something and they really want the world to be destroyed before they die and they aren't getting any younger.
You would think there must be a special place in hell for “having the gall to attempt to force God’s hand into starting the apocalypse.”
As part of withdrawing from Syria do this entirely unrelated thing
I love the audacity of it
The evangelicals are pushing this right now. They thought that when Israel was reestablished, a countdown started to the end of the world. Well, the world hasn't ended yet but the evangelicals don't want to be wrong, so they are thinking that maybe enough of Israel wasn't established. They want the whole "Biblical" territory to be claimed, because maybe that will fulfill the prophecy to immanentize the eschaton. Same with putting the embassy in Jerusalem, because that would be saying that Jerusalem is the capital, which must be done because line and verse or something and they really want the world to be destroyed before they die and they aren't getting any younger.
You would think there must be a special place in hell for “having the gall to attempt to force God’s hand into starting the apocalypse.”
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Bible quote on the topic of trying to manipulate God:
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“ ‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’
The whole thing about End Times prophecy is selectively reading passages of the Bible out of order or context. Including ignoring things explicitly stated.
The danger is not that they might be right, in the end, but that they intend to make it happen.
Best leave the discussion to another thread, though. At least until Trump start spouting it freely.
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.”
This is Rachel Maddow levels of ridiculous.
I'd be far more concerned about Israeli and Saudi meddling in Trump's foreign policy than anything else.
Russia is already meddling in US foreign policy. Look at Trump's NATO comments.
+8
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
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.”
This is Rachel Maddow levels of ridiculous.
I'd be far more concerned about Israeli and Saudi meddling in Trump's foreign policy than anything else.
Russia is already meddling in US foreign policy. Look at Trump's NATO comments.
Or changing a party's foreign policy platform before a national convention.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
"Russian" interference is barely an issue and is championed by establishment Democrats to avoid any critical self-reflection on the reasons why they lost in 2016.
The Trump administration's adherence to Russia is nowhere near the shameless kowtowing they do for Saudi Arabia and Israel. Neither of those countries will be able to conduct their genocides (Yemen, Palestine) without American help.
Oh wait, Maddow doesn't talk about Yemen or Palestine. I wonder why that is?
For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump’s various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I’m alarmed at how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really? We shouldn’t get out Syria? We shouldn’t go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the Cold War? And don’t even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?
What about Trump's constant misunderstanding of NATO in a way that will alienate European allies? What about Trump's constant racism such as disparaging police violence protesters, or the centrality of anti-hispanic sentiment to his campaign?
What about Aleksandr Dugin's book, Foundation of Geopolitics published in 1997?
Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics"
"Russian" interference is barely an issue and is championed by establishment Democrats to avoid any critical self-reflection on the reasons why they lost in 2016.
All those indictments, barely an issue to be sure. Nothing to see here.
"Russian" interference is barely an issue and is championed by establishment Democrats to avoid any critical self-reflection on the reasons why they lost in 2016.
The Trump administration's adherence to Russia is nowhere near the shameless kowtowing they do for Saudi Arabia and Israel. Neither of those countries will be able to conduct their genocides (Yemen, Palestine) without American help.
Oh wait, Maddow doesn't talk about Yemen or Palestine. I wonder why that is?
For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump’s various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I’m alarmed at how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really? We shouldn’t get out Syria? We shouldn’t go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the Cold War? And don’t even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?
Maddow is not a topic in this thread, and neither is the 2016 election.
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.”
I will be making skeptical noises, like Tycho, because that's not really the old Soviet/new Russian defense of the invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets would have, of course, described the people they're fighting as terrorists, but beyond that they would not describe the conflict in the terms Trump is using. The Soviets and Russian defenders of Soviets would tell you that the Soviet army was sent to Afghanistan at the request of that country's legitimate government (and never you mind about the bloody details of that request), and that it was legitimate intervention in support of that government.
Now, this story about Afghan terrorists attacking the USSR, and the USSR responding by going to Afghanistan to fight? That makes that war entirely about the USSR, and acknowledges it as a conflict based on Soviet self-interest. Trump casts the fight as one between Soviets and Afghans, while Soviets would always cast themselves as the defenders of Afghanistan, and Afghans, against the bandits and paid American insurgents that want to undermine the Afghan government and tear Afghanistan apart.
Trump's sentence is what comes out of an ignorant American person who wanted to defend the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but also knows nothing about it except that it happened and went badly. He might as well have talked about the tragic fall of the Moscow Twin Towers.
Putin has for some time made efforts to cast the USSR in a favorable light. He's also embraced the orthodox church, capitalism, Russia's international allies and pals, biker gangs, and more. He seems to pick pretty well anything where Russia has shown strength.
Though I can't say I've heard him talk about the tzars, now that I think about it. I'm sure he's talked up Russia's imperial past at some point though.
Putin has for some time made efforts to cast the USSR in a favorable light. He's also embraced the orthodox church, capitalism, Russia's international allies and pals, biker gangs, and more. He seems to pick pretty well anything where Russia has shown strength.
Though I can't say I've heard him talk about the tzars, now that I think about it. I'm sure he's talked up Russia's imperial past at some point though.
I'm more referring to general attitude than anything specifically he's said about them.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Putin's goal seems to be self aggrandizement personally and externally, nihilistic spite. Russia is rotting from the inside. Nothing the Russian government has been doing even pretends to be promoting the welfare of the country; all they care about is sowing chaos around the world to laugh as it all burns around them. It's the internet troll ethos taken to an entire country; try to make other people suffer more than themselves. He seizes the wealth for himself and lives in palaces but makes no plans for the future after his death. If his boot crushes the throat of the second to last person on Earth, then he wins.
Putin has for some time made efforts to cast the USSR in a favorable light. He's also embraced the orthodox church, capitalism, Russia's international allies and pals, biker gangs, and more. He seems to pick pretty well anything where Russia has shown strength.
Though I can't say I've heard him talk about the tzars, now that I think about it. I'm sure he's talked up Russia's imperial past at some point though.
I'm more referring to general attitude than anything specifically he's said about them.
Ah. Yeah, I don't think anybody's under any illusion: Putin is in charge, and him alone.
Putin's goal seems to be self aggrandizement personally and externally, nihilistic spite. Russia is rotting from the inside. Nothing the Russian government has been doing even pretends to be promoting the welfare of the country; all they care about is sowing chaos around the world to laugh as it all burns around them. It's the internet troll ethos taken to an entire country; try to make other people suffer more than themselves. He seizes the wealth for himself and lives in palaces but makes no plans for the future after his death. If his boot crushes the throat of the second to last person on Earth, then he wins.
Come on, at least try to see things from the other side. Putin is popular in Russia because regular Russian people have seen their lots materially improve under his rule. His military aggressiveness seems to be popular as well, also from the low bar of the 90s where Russia went from a superpower to almost nothing.
Thinking about politicians or leaders of any sort as evil incarnate makes it a lot harder to understand whats actually going on. Most national leaders want to better their country-- in their own minds, at least.
Putin has for some time made efforts to cast the USSR in a favorable light. He's also embraced the orthodox church, capitalism, Russia's international allies and pals, biker gangs, and more. He seems to pick pretty well anything where Russia has shown strength.
Though I can't say I've heard him talk about the tzars, now that I think about it. I'm sure he's talked up Russia's imperial past at some point though.
I'm more referring to general attitude than anything specifically he's said about them.
Ah. Yeah, I don't think anybody's under any illusion: Putin is in charge, and him alone.
Putin's goal seems to be self aggrandizement personally and externally, nihilistic spite. Russia is rotting from the inside. Nothing the Russian government has been doing even pretends to be promoting the welfare of the country; all they care about is sowing chaos around the world to laugh as it all burns around them. It's the internet troll ethos taken to an entire country; try to make other people suffer more than themselves. He seizes the wealth for himself and lives in palaces but makes no plans for the future after his death. If his boot crushes the throat of the second to last person on Earth, then he wins.
Come on, at least try to see things from the other side. Putin is popular in Russia because regular Russian people have seen their lots materially improve under his rule. His military aggressiveness seems to be popular as well, also from the low bar of the 90s where Russia went from a superpower to almost nothing.
Thinking about politicians or leaders of any sort as evil incarnate makes it a lot harder to understand whats actually going on. Most national leaders want to better their country-- in their own minds, at least.
Yeah, but I don't see how there isn't another collapse and chaotic oligarchical civil war in the wake of his eventual death. It's a kleptocracy without any of the structural stability of say...the mafia.
Posts
- US government loosening restrictions on when the military is allowed to bomb things. I know Trump did so in Afghanistan (and Somalia, says Google, which makes sense given the escalation in US bombing there), but IIRC it was Obama who loosened restrictions in Iraq and Syria.
- The battles for Raqqa and especially Mosul mostly occurred under the Trump administration. Mosul itself probably accounts for a large portion of that rise. The US was heavily bombing a densely populated city of 2 million (pre-war) people. Thousands of civilians died. It was really horrible.
It should be noted that the sharp rise in casualties depicted in that graph begins before Trump's inauguration, because the Battle of Mosul started under Obama. Also here's a source on Obama loosening restrictions:
Yes, but Mosul ended in July and it stays elevated beyond that. There are likely better and more updated charts as well. This is just from Kevin Drum when he made a more legible one last year. Trump has weakened rules making strikes that result in more civilian dead occur more frequently. The suggestion that he's just all talk is not really true. A lot of people have been killed under his watch. Including people who would be alive today if he had kept previous rules of engagement.
okay hold on is this civilian deaths attiributed to US forces or just in general?
I don't doubt civcas spiked under Trump but this graph desperately needs more context
e: for one thing, the spike coincides with the Battle of Mosul and the Battle of Raqqa
It does need context but I recall at least Mosul being a long drawn out slog well before Trump took office.
That said I agree that "all bark and no bite" is questionable
Nothing. It's a three-month process. She's out on bail.
Channel 10 News reporter:
Trump is foolish enough to agree to it.
I love the audacity of it
The evangelicals are pushing this right now. They thought that when Israel was reestablished, a countdown started to the end of the world. Well, the world hasn't ended yet but the evangelicals don't want to be wrong, so they are thinking that maybe enough of Israel wasn't established. They want the whole "Biblical" territory to be claimed, because maybe that will fulfill the prophecy to immanentize the eschaton. Same with putting the embassy in Jerusalem, because that would be saying that Jerusalem is the capital, which must be done because line and verse or something and they really want the world to be destroyed before they die and they aren't getting any younger.
I'm not sure what to make of this; it's possible that trump has sussed out that abandoning the Kurds to the tender mercies of turkey is an incredibly bad look and is trying to back walk that... or he's stupid enough to try and negotiate a deal with the fox for it's services in guarding the chicken coop.
Trump said stupid shit despite everyone in the Defence sphere trying to stop him. Now they are trying to stall and undermine him until they can change his mind. It's that simple.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Not really. He's there to make Trump look better in comparison. Trump looks like a dove next to that lunatic.
America First doesn't mean a lack of american imperialism. Especially for Trump, for whom "america first" really means "america the biggest guy in the room who threatens everyone and extorts money from them". It's more imperialistic then your standard foreign policy really.
Right up until Trump just makes a random decision based on a mood swing caused by talking heads on TV anyway.
We've gone from Trump deciding, on the spot, in a fit of pique and without consultation with anyone, that the US is gonna pull out to top national security and military officials resigning in protest to the remaining people basically trying to overrule his sudden random decision by slowwalking the whole process and hoping they can convince him to change his mind.
This is Rachel Maddow levels of ridiculous.
I'd be far more concerned about Israeli and Saudi meddling in Trump's foreign policy than anything else.
So, not ridiculous at all then.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
You would think there must be a special place in hell for “having the gall to attempt to force God’s hand into starting the apocalypse.”
The danger is not that they might be right, in the end, but that they intend to make it happen.
Best leave the discussion to another thread, though. At least until Trump start spouting it freely.
Russia is already meddling in US foreign policy. Look at Trump's NATO comments.
Or changing a party's foreign policy platform before a national convention.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Maddow doesn't even live on this planet anymore.
"Russian" interference is barely an issue and is championed by establishment Democrats to avoid any critical self-reflection on the reasons why they lost in 2016.
The Trump administration's adherence to Russia is nowhere near the shameless kowtowing they do for Saudi Arabia and Israel. Neither of those countries will be able to conduct their genocides (Yemen, Palestine) without American help.
Oh wait, Maddow doesn't talk about Yemen or Palestine. I wonder why that is?
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/03/veteran-nbcmsnbc-journalist-blasts-the-network-for-being-captive-to-the-national-security-state-and-reflexively-pro-war-to-stop-trump/
What about? What about? What about?
What about Trump's constant misunderstanding of NATO in a way that will alienate European allies? What about Trump's constant racism such as disparaging police violence protesters, or the centrality of anti-hispanic sentiment to his campaign?
What about Aleksandr Dugin's book, Foundation of Geopolitics published in 1997?
All those indictments, barely an issue to be sure. Nothing to see here.
Maddow is not a topic in this thread, and neither is the 2016 election.
I will be making skeptical noises, like Tycho, because that's not really the old Soviet/new Russian defense of the invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets would have, of course, described the people they're fighting as terrorists, but beyond that they would not describe the conflict in the terms Trump is using. The Soviets and Russian defenders of Soviets would tell you that the Soviet army was sent to Afghanistan at the request of that country's legitimate government (and never you mind about the bloody details of that request), and that it was legitimate intervention in support of that government.
Now, this story about Afghan terrorists attacking the USSR, and the USSR responding by going to Afghanistan to fight? That makes that war entirely about the USSR, and acknowledges it as a conflict based on Soviet self-interest. Trump casts the fight as one between Soviets and Afghans, while Soviets would always cast themselves as the defenders of Afghanistan, and Afghans, against the bandits and paid American insurgents that want to undermine the Afghan government and tear Afghanistan apart.
Trump's sentence is what comes out of an ignorant American person who wanted to defend the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but also knows nothing about it except that it happened and went badly. He might as well have talked about the tragic fall of the Moscow Twin Towers.
Though I can't say I've heard him talk about the tzars, now that I think about it. I'm sure he's talked up Russia's imperial past at some point though.
I'm more referring to general attitude than anything specifically he's said about them.
Ah. Yeah, I don't think anybody's under any illusion: Putin is in charge, and him alone.
Come on, at least try to see things from the other side. Putin is popular in Russia because regular Russian people have seen their lots materially improve under his rule. His military aggressiveness seems to be popular as well, also from the low bar of the 90s where Russia went from a superpower to almost nothing.
Thinking about politicians or leaders of any sort as evil incarnate makes it a lot harder to understand whats actually going on. Most national leaders want to better their country-- in their own minds, at least.
Yeah, but I don't see how there isn't another collapse and chaotic oligarchical civil war in the wake of his eventual death. It's a kleptocracy without any of the structural stability of say...the mafia.