This is nakedly political. It's entirely disingenuous to bring up old opposition to the resolution that is entirely grounded not in the actual resolution itself, but in the (at the time) present political expediency of keeping the Turks happy. Circumstances which have now changed given Turkey's recent actions. (eg - Obama said one thing earlier and then another thing a bit later and there's no reason to think he wouldn't say a different thing now, each based on the shifting political issues of the moment)
We're discussing politicians. How is it disingenuous to bring up political expediency? The kind of thing that might motivate a politician like Omar rather than generic religious allegiance?
You seem to have entirely missed what that sentence is saying. It's disingenuous to act like Obama or whoever else opposes the resolution passing now based on their opposing this kind of language in the past. Because it's pretty obvious their opposition in the past was entirely about political expediency and that changes with changing circumstances. Unless you have them saying they oppose it when it passed this week, they haven't said anything on the current subject.
What silly in the case of Omar is talking about how this shouldn't be a political issue when everything about this resolution, it's existence, it's lack of passage before and it's passage now, is entirely political and that's all it is. Pass it, don't pass it, abstain with a statement, it's all just a cudgel in a political fight.
And if there's anything non-political here, if there's anything that transcends the political considerations at work in this whole endeavor, it's voting to say that "Yes, obviously, the Armenian genocide is a real thing that actually happened."
lmao they're already getting mad that libs aren"t giving trump credit for killing baghdadi
I'd deduce from the troop pullout that either
a) The military didn't inform him of the operation against Baghdadi until it was going down, so he blundered into the withdrawal without realizing the implications.
or
b) He did know about the Baghdadi operation and didn't give a shit about killing the leader of ISIS.
This is why I don't give him any credit.
The entire Baghdadi thing is an example of how isolated the bubble our leaders live in. People gave a shit about Bin Laden because they were personally traumatized by the events of Sept. 11.
The public does not care about the leadership of ISIS. They don't even care that much about ISIS. There's no huge surge of popularity to be gained from yet another "Enemy leader dead!" announcement after 18 years of endless war.
The seemingly endless number of AQ Number Twos that got taken out before Bin Laden did not help.
I think this is what will take a lot of wind out of the announcements. The few people I know who even understand who was killed all thought he had been killed years ago as he has been claimed to have been bombed so many times now they stopped paying attention.
Also, to put it in terms Trump would understand, Baghdadi doesn’t have “star power”. (I just puked in my mouth a bit typing that).
But Baghdadi was very, very good at keeping a low profile while also being a horrible monster. Trump is trying so hard to hype up his corpse so he can have his “Obama kills Bin Laden” moment. It’s pathetic.
And again, Baghdadi is a huge get, but the average uninformed American just doesn’t know who he is. Baghdadi was like Dormammu and Trump is trying to hype him up to be Thanos. Both are reality destroying monsters, but people are only aware of one of them.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
This is nakedly political. It's entirely disingenuous to bring up old opposition to the resolution that is entirely grounded not in the actual resolution itself, but in the (at the time) present political expediency of keeping the Turks happy. Circumstances which have now changed given Turkey's recent actions. (eg - Obama said one thing earlier and then another thing a bit later and there's no reason to think he wouldn't say a different thing now, each based on the shifting political issues of the moment)
We're discussing politicians. How is it disingenuous to bring up political expediency? The kind of thing that might motivate a politician like Omar rather than generic religious allegiance?
You seem to have entirely missed what that sentence is saying. It's disingenuous to act like Obama or whoever else opposes the resolution passing now based on their opposing this kind of language in the past. Because it's pretty obvious their opposition in the past was entirely about political expediency and that changes with changing circumstances. Unless you have them saying they oppose it when it passed this week, they haven't said anything on the current subject.
What silly in the case of Omar is talking about how this shouldn't be a political issue when everything about this resolution, it's existence, it's lack of passage before and it's passage now, is entirely political and that's all it is. Pass it, don't pass it, abstain with a statement, it's all just a cudgel in a political fight.
And if there's anything non-political here, if there's anything that transcends the political considerations at work in this whole endeavor, it's voting to say that "Yes, obviously, the Armenian genocide is a real thing that actually happened."
But as you point out this isn't a statement of fact its a political cudgel, it's not just a vote saying "Yes, obviously, someone bled onto this shirt I am waving.".
This is nakedly political. It's entirely disingenuous to bring up old opposition to the resolution that is entirely grounded not in the actual resolution itself, but in the (at the time) present political expediency of keeping the Turks happy. Circumstances which have now changed given Turkey's recent actions. (eg - Obama said one thing earlier and then another thing a bit later and there's no reason to think he wouldn't say a different thing now, each based on the shifting political issues of the moment)
We're discussing politicians. How is it disingenuous to bring up political expediency? The kind of thing that might motivate a politician like Omar rather than generic religious allegiance?
You seem to have entirely missed what that sentence is saying. It's disingenuous to act like Obama or whoever else opposes the resolution passing now based on their opposing this kind of language in the past. Because it's pretty obvious their opposition in the past was entirely about political expediency and that changes with changing circumstances. Unless you have them saying they oppose it when it passed this week, they haven't said anything on the current subject.
What silly in the case of Omar is talking about how this shouldn't be a political issue when everything about this resolution, it's existence, it's lack of passage before and it's passage now, is entirely political and that's all it is. Pass it, don't pass it, abstain with a statement, it's all just a cudgel in a political fight.
And if there's anything non-political here, if there's anything that transcends the political considerations at work in this whole endeavor, it's voting to say that "Yes, obviously, the Armenian genocide is a real thing that actually happened."
But as you point out this isn't a statement of fact its a political cudgel, it's not just a vote saying "Yes, obviously, someone bled onto this shirt I am waving.".
It is a statement of fact. The armenian genocide is a real historical event that actually occurred.
The US government/congress/house/senate/state government/whatever releasing an official statement saying "We totally believe this is a thing that happened", on the other hand, is a political act. As is refusing to do so when prompted to.
It's just that officially saying "The Armenian Genocide occurred" happens to be a political act that is also saying a fact that is true.
While we haven't done anything to affirm it, the US government to my knowledge doesn't actively deny the charge that the Trail of Tears and the Indian Wars constituted genocide. (the transatlantic slave trade is a little more dubious because it was never to destroy an ethnic group, at least not on America's part). The Turkish government is very active in their denial.
They actively deny it in part because acknowledging it might compromise the territorial integrity of Turkey, so this is more than a purely moral stance.
I disagree with her voting present on recognizing the genocide, but I can kinda see where she’s coming from. But voting no on sanctions I vehemently disagree with and I think she’s making a major error that’s gonna bite her in the ass later.
The sanctions are targeted specifically at Erdogan, his assets, and the upper echelon in the Turkish government and those that are attacking or facilitating the attack on the Kurds and Syria. There are exceptions there to protect NATO and humanitarian efforts to protect the Turkish civilians and the sanctions are written as to be lifted once Turkey stops murdering people.
It seems pretty well targeted and not overly broad to me and I don’t see where she’s coming from at all on voting no. A present vote on the sanctions would at least be better than a no. A no makes it sound like she approves of Erdogan murdering Kurds and it’s bullshit she voted that way.
Exclusive: U.S. withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon - sources
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon, two U.S. officials said on Thursday, two days after the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.
The State Department told Congress on Thursday that the White House budget office and National Security Council had decided to withhold the foreign military assistance, the two officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The officials did not say why the aid was blocked. One of the sources said the State Department did not give Congress a reason for the decision.
But Washington has also repeatedly expressed concern over the growing role in the Beirut government of Hezbollah, the armed Shi’ite group backed by Iran and listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.
The official said drawing aid away from Lebanon could pave the way for Russia to move in. Russia has expanded its influence in Syria since Trump announced he was withdrawing U.S. forces from the northeastern part of the country.
Lebanon has been arguing with foreign donors over international aid for months. Before he resigned, Hariri failed to convince foreign donors to release $11 billion in assistance pledged at a Paris conference last year.
Well, at least they told Congress they were withholding aid this time even if they forgot to give a reason for it.
Exclusive: U.S. withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon - sources
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon, two U.S. officials said on Thursday, two days after the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.
The State Department told Congress on Thursday that the White House budget office and National Security Council had decided to withhold the foreign military assistance, the two officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The officials did not say why the aid was blocked. One of the sources said the State Department did not give Congress a reason for the decision.
But Washington has also repeatedly expressed concern over the growing role in the Beirut government of Hezbollah, the armed Shi’ite group backed by Iran and listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.
The official said drawing aid away from Lebanon could pave the way for Russia to move in. Russia has expanded its influence in Syria since Trump announced he was withdrawing U.S. forces from the northeastern part of the country.
Lebanon has been arguing with foreign donors over international aid for months. Before he resigned, Hariri failed to convince foreign donors to release $11 billion in assistance pledged at a Paris conference last year.
Well, at least they told Congress they were withholding aid this time even if they forgot to give a reason for it.
Probably still trying to figure out if Hunter Biden had any business ties there.
Exclusive: U.S. withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon - sources
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon, two U.S. officials said on Thursday, two days after the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.
The State Department told Congress on Thursday that the White House budget office and National Security Council had decided to withhold the foreign military assistance, the two officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The officials did not say why the aid was blocked. One of the sources said the State Department did not give Congress a reason for the decision.
But Washington has also repeatedly expressed concern over the growing role in the Beirut government of Hezbollah, the armed Shi’ite group backed by Iran and listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.
The official said drawing aid away from Lebanon could pave the way for Russia to move in. Russia has expanded its influence in Syria since Trump announced he was withdrawing U.S. forces from the northeastern part of the country.
Lebanon has been arguing with foreign donors over international aid for months. Before he resigned, Hariri failed to convince foreign donors to release $11 billion in assistance pledged at a Paris conference last year.
Well, at least they told Congress they were withholding aid this time even if they forgot to give a reason for it.
Probably still trying to figure out if Hunter Biden had any business ties there.
I suspect that it has to do with the unpredictable political situation, and possibly fears of Hezbollah gaining from it.
Exclusive: U.S. withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon - sources
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon, two U.S. officials said on Thursday, two days after the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri.
The State Department told Congress on Thursday that the White House budget office and National Security Council had decided to withhold the foreign military assistance, the two officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The officials did not say why the aid was blocked. One of the sources said the State Department did not give Congress a reason for the decision.
But Washington has also repeatedly expressed concern over the growing role in the Beirut government of Hezbollah, the armed Shi’ite group backed by Iran and listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.
The official said drawing aid away from Lebanon could pave the way for Russia to move in. Russia has expanded its influence in Syria since Trump announced he was withdrawing U.S. forces from the northeastern part of the country.
Lebanon has been arguing with foreign donors over international aid for months. Before he resigned, Hariri failed to convince foreign donors to release $11 billion in assistance pledged at a Paris conference last year.
Well, at least they told Congress they were withholding aid this time even if they forgot to give a reason for it.
Probably still trying to figure out if Hunter Biden had any business ties there.
I suspect that it has to do with the unpredictable political situation, and possibly fears of Hezbollah gaining from it.
Which is why I find it weird they did not tell Congress that.
Syrian President Assad said on Thursday that President Trump is the best type of president for a foe due to his open talk of annexing Middle Eastern oil.
"The attorney general is focusing on the theory, aired on far-right conspiracy sites, and raised by Trump and Giuliani, that Ukraine framed Vladimir Putin over the US election in a complex triple-cross operation by impersonating Russian hackers."
"And the information being requested has left allies astonished. One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services”.
Trump's REALLY fucking lucky that the US IC are professionals. Because if I were working for one, the way he slags them off, I'd be PISSED, even if I was non-partisan. He's been attacking them and disrespecting them as President, since literally the day after his inauguration.
As with most things Trumpian, this could go in many threads (this one, impeachment, UK, justice/AG, etc). It's probably harder to figure out which thread it would be off topic on. I put it in this one, because it's the British response to the request, and mentions similar reported requests of Australia and Italy.
Sometimes it’s easy to forget that even though Giuliani is a crazy person and the one reportedly dumping (more) of these conspiracy theories in Trump’s head, he is also another unregistered foreign agent working for Trump and it’s been coming out for a bit now he’s been trying to poison the Mueller investigation.
The working theory is that if the basis for the Mueller report (Russian interference) is discredited enough in the public, then Trump can get rid of sanctions on Putin and his oligarchs. Trump has tried before and backed off due to public outrage, that’s why he’s trying so hard to get Ukraine, Australia, the UK, and every other nation with links to the Mueller investigation to publicly investigate the origins. Except he’s asking those countries to investigate their own intelligence agencies like Barr is doing and that’s crazy to them since the information has been vetted a bajillion times.
We’re living in crazy town.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Washington (CNN)US military commanders overseeing Syria operations are still waiting for precise battlefield orders from the White House and Pentagon on their exact mission to protect oilfields in eastern Syria, according to a defense official directly familiar with the matter.
Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered troops out of northern Syria, publicly declaring he was taking "control" of the oil and sending troops and armored carriers to protect it from ISIS, US commanders lack clarity on the most basic aspects of their mission, including how and when troops can fire their weapons and what, exactly, that mission is.
The lack of precise orders means troops are on the ground while critical details are still being worked out -- exactly where they will go, when and how they will stay on small bases in the area, and when they go on patrol.
Perhaps most crucially, there is no clarity about exactly who they are operating against in the oilfields.
That's essential information for troops on the ground and in the air to understand circumstances in which they are permitted to fire their weapons. It's also crucial for military planners to understand how many US combat ground forces and aircraft are needed, the official said.
The precision that's lacking is vital for military commanders, who need specific, legal orders that are not subject to interpretation in moments of crisis.
Trump made his remarks to the Chicago police after telling reporters he was considering making a deal with a US oil company to go into Syria. It remains unclear what legal basis the US government would have for controlling or taking the oil in Syria.
But the President has made it clear he is willing to see US troops fight for it. "We are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. And we may have to fight for the oil. It's okay," Trump said Oct. 27 at the White House. "Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight."
Bradley armored troop carriers and dozens of troops have already arrived in eastern Syrian oilfield areas this week. Those troops are mainly in the Deir Ezzor area, but there are other oil areas to the northeast that would also possibly still need some US presence, the defense official said.
That decision also has yet to be made.
The legal basis is "fuck it, let's just openly commit clear war crimes."
"The attorney general is focusing on the theory, aired on far-right conspiracy sites, and raised by Trump and Giuliani, that Ukraine framed Vladimir Putin over the US election in a complex triple-cross operation by impersonating Russian hackers."
"And the information being requested has left allies astonished. One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services”.
Trump's REALLY fucking lucky that the US IC are professionals. Because if I were working for one, the way he slags them off, I'd be PISSED, even if I was non-partisan. He's been attacking them and disrespecting them as President, since literally the day after his inauguration.
As with most things Trumpian, this could go in many threads (this one, impeachment, UK, justice/AG, etc). It's probably harder to figure out which thread it would be off topic on. I put it in this one, because it's the British response to the request, and mentions similar reported requests of Australia and Italy.
This is straight out of Erdogan’s playbook.
Step1. Take an unreasonably aggressive and hostile stance towards preexisting professional intelligence and security.
Step 2. Some small contingent of the existing security apparatus responds (if this doesn’t happen it can be facilitated with provocateurs or outright faked).
Step 3. Use this as justification to purge/arrest/imprison security and intelligence and replace with loyalists.
The downside is this guts your effective ability to conduct proper intelligence or domestic security, but by the time the transition is complete those become lesser priorities to internal policing and rooting out dissent.
Jealous Deva on
+21
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Washington (CNN)US military commanders overseeing Syria operations are still waiting for precise battlefield orders from the White House and Pentagon on their exact mission to protect oilfields in eastern Syria, according to a defense official directly familiar with the matter.
Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered troops out of northern Syria, publicly declaring he was taking "control" of the oil and sending troops and armored carriers to protect it from ISIS, US commanders lack clarity on the most basic aspects of their mission, including how and when troops can fire their weapons and what, exactly, that mission is.
The lack of precise orders means troops are on the ground while critical details are still being worked out -- exactly where they will go, when and how they will stay on small bases in the area, and when they go on patrol.
Perhaps most crucially, there is no clarity about exactly who they are operating against in the oilfields.
That's essential information for troops on the ground and in the air to understand circumstances in which they are permitted to fire their weapons. It's also crucial for military planners to understand how many US combat ground forces and aircraft are needed, the official said.
The precision that's lacking is vital for military commanders, who need specific, legal orders that are not subject to interpretation in moments of crisis.
Trump made his remarks to the Chicago police after telling reporters he was considering making a deal with a US oil company to go into Syria. It remains unclear what legal basis the US government would have for controlling or taking the oil in Syria.
But the President has made it clear he is willing to see US troops fight for it. "We are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. And we may have to fight for the oil. It's okay," Trump said Oct. 27 at the White House. "Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight."
Bradley armored troop carriers and dozens of troops have already arrived in eastern Syrian oilfield areas this week. Those troops are mainly in the Deir Ezzor area, but there are other oil areas to the northeast that would also possibly still need some US presence, the defense official said.
That decision also has yet to be made.
The legal basis is "fuck it, let's just openly commit clear war crimes."
So the stance is officially “No, war for oil!”
I can see how that may have been misinterpreted by some sectors
"The attorney general is focusing on the theory, aired on far-right conspiracy sites, and raised by Trump and Giuliani, that Ukraine framed Vladimir Putin over the US election in a complex triple-cross operation by impersonating Russian hackers."
"And the information being requested has left allies astonished. One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services”.
Trump's REALLY fucking lucky that the US IC are professionals. Because if I were working for one, the way he slags them off, I'd be PISSED, even if I was non-partisan. He's been attacking them and disrespecting them as President, since literally the day after his inauguration.
As with most things Trumpian, this could go in many threads (this one, impeachment, UK, justice/AG, etc). It's probably harder to figure out which thread it would be off topic on. I put it in this one, because it's the British response to the request, and mentions similar reported requests of Australia and Italy.
This is straight out of Erdogan’s playbook.
Step1. Take an unreasonably aggressive and hostile stance towards preexisting professional intelligence and security.
Step 2. Some small contingent of the existing security apparatus responds (if this doesn’t happen it can be facilitated with provocateurs or outright faked).
Step 3. Use this as justification to purge/arrest/imprison security and intelligence and replace with loyalists.
The downside is this guts your effective ability to conduct proper intelligence or domestic security, but by the time the transition is complete those become lesser priorities to internal policing and rooting out dissent.
That's a concern, for sure.
I ask a simpler question. "What does Putin want?"
Does Putin want his chief intelligence opponent fractured and in disarray? If I was him I would.
Washington (CNN)US military commanders overseeing Syria operations are still waiting for precise battlefield orders from the White House and Pentagon on their exact mission to protect oilfields in eastern Syria, according to a defense official directly familiar with the matter.
Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered troops out of northern Syria, publicly declaring he was taking "control" of the oil and sending troops and armored carriers to protect it from ISIS, US commanders lack clarity on the most basic aspects of their mission, including how and when troops can fire their weapons and what, exactly, that mission is.
The lack of precise orders means troops are on the ground while critical details are still being worked out -- exactly where they will go, when and how they will stay on small bases in the area, and when they go on patrol.
Perhaps most crucially, there is no clarity about exactly who they are operating against in the oilfields.
That's essential information for troops on the ground and in the air to understand circumstances in which they are permitted to fire their weapons. It's also crucial for military planners to understand how many US combat ground forces and aircraft are needed, the official said.
The precision that's lacking is vital for military commanders, who need specific, legal orders that are not subject to interpretation in moments of crisis.
Trump made his remarks to the Chicago police after telling reporters he was considering making a deal with a US oil company to go into Syria. It remains unclear what legal basis the US government would have for controlling or taking the oil in Syria.
But the President has made it clear he is willing to see US troops fight for it. "We are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. And we may have to fight for the oil. It's okay," Trump said Oct. 27 at the White House. "Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight."
Bradley armored troop carriers and dozens of troops have already arrived in eastern Syrian oilfield areas this week. Those troops are mainly in the Deir Ezzor area, but there are other oil areas to the northeast that would also possibly still need some US presence, the defense official said.
That decision also has yet to be made.
The legal basis is "fuck it, let's just openly commit clear war crimes."
And this is their strategy for containing him backfiring him. He's gone in fully on the reason they gave him for why he should do what they want. Except he's simultaneously their commander and also a guy who understands nothing about the situation or a military strategy and is only thinking in terms of "Get Oil!" with zero points beyond that.
This oil thing is an absolute disaster for foreign perceptions of the US. It's solid proof that the US is 100% about what its critics have always said, and completely undercuts any future attempts by the US to counter authoritarian regimes by supporting democratic forces. If I was a dictator I would be pinching myself just to check this isn't some wonderful dream.
This oil thing is an absolute disaster for foreign perceptions of the US. It's solid proof that the US is 100% about what its critics have always said, and completely undercuts any future attempts by the US to counter authoritarian regimes by supporting democratic forces. If I was a dictator I would be pinching myself just to check this isn't some wonderful dream.
Putin's relatively minor investment has paid off like whoa.
This oil thing is an absolute disaster for foreign perceptions of the US. It's solid proof that the US is 100% about what its critics have always said, and completely undercuts any future attempts by the US to counter authoritarian regimes by supporting democratic forces. If I was a dictator I would be pinching myself just to check this isn't some wonderful dream.
Putin's relatively minor investment has paid off like whoa.
I think "destabilize the west" isn't a minor investment for Putin but a key part of his foreign policy. He's encouraging far right nutjobs all over Europe.
This oil thing is an absolute disaster for foreign perceptions of the US. It's solid proof that the US is 100% about what its critics have always said, and completely undercuts any future attempts by the US to counter authoritarian regimes by supporting democratic forces. If I was a dictator I would be pinching myself just to check this isn't some wonderful dream.
Putin's relatively minor investment has paid off like whoa.
I think "destabilize the west" isn't a minor investment for Putin but a key part of his foreign policy. He's encouraging far right nutjobs all over Europe.
The actual capital investment is pretty minor
American domestic politics was already fairly unstable so it didn't take much of a push
This oil thing is an absolute disaster for foreign perceptions of the US. It's solid proof that the US is 100% about what its critics have always said, and completely undercuts any future attempts by the US to counter authoritarian regimes by supporting democratic forces. If I was a dictator I would be pinching myself just to check this isn't some wonderful dream.
Putin's relatively minor investment has paid off like whoa.
I think "destabilize the west" isn't a minor investment for Putin but a key part of his foreign policy. He's encouraging far right nutjobs all over Europe.
The actual capital investment is pretty minor
American domestic politics was already fairly unstable so it didn't take much of a push
That's good because Russia is pretty broke, so they don't have a tonne of cash to spend (mostly because Putin and his cronies stole so much.)
It's not just the USA, it's all over Europe too. Putin's taking advantage of fear of the refugees to push xenophobic parties and destabilize Europe.
I feel like putting most of the cause of political instability in the US and Europe as Putin's doing is probably giving him too much credit, even if yes he is obviously constantly trying to fan the flames and start new fires.
I feel like putting most of the cause of political instability in the US and Europe as Putin's doing is probably giving him too much credit, even if yes he is obviously constantly trying to fan the flames and start new fires.
Yeah I'm pretty sure there is just a shitty regressive streak from older people "rising up" to exert the last of their influence. At least that's how it feels like in the US.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I feel like putting most of the cause of political instability in the US and Europe as Putin's doing is probably giving him too much credit, even if yes he is obviously constantly trying to fan the flames and start new fires.
Yeah I'm pretty sure there is just a shitty regressive streak from older people "rising up" to exert the last of their influence. At least that's how it feels like in the US.
This is true.
That does not stop me from hoping that a Democrat gets into office this next term and slaps Putin down so hard the Romanov's feel it.
I feel like putting most of the cause of political instability in the US and Europe as Putin's doing is probably giving him too much credit, even if yes he is obviously constantly trying to fan the flames and start new fires.
Yeah I'm pretty sure there is just a shitty regressive streak from older people "rising up" to exert the last of their influence. At least that's how it feels like in the US.
This is true.
That does not stop me from hoping that a Democrat gets into office this next term and slaps Putin down so hard the Romanov's feel it.
Oh necessarily, his government has been doing and fanning some shitty flames all over.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
You seem to have entirely missed what that sentence is saying. It's disingenuous to act like Obama or whoever else opposes the resolution passing now based on their opposing this kind of language in the past. Because it's pretty obvious their opposition in the past was entirely about political expediency and that changes with changing circumstances. Unless you have them saying they oppose it when it passed this week, they haven't said anything on the current subject.
What silly in the case of Omar is talking about how this shouldn't be a political issue when everything about this resolution, it's existence, it's lack of passage before and it's passage now, is entirely political and that's all it is. Pass it, don't pass it, abstain with a statement, it's all just a cudgel in a political fight.
And if there's anything non-political here, if there's anything that transcends the political considerations at work in this whole endeavor, it's voting to say that "Yes, obviously, the Armenian genocide is a real thing that actually happened."
Also, to put it in terms Trump would understand, Baghdadi doesn’t have “star power”. (I just puked in my mouth a bit typing that).
But Baghdadi was very, very good at keeping a low profile while also being a horrible monster. Trump is trying so hard to hype up his corpse so he can have his “Obama kills Bin Laden” moment. It’s pathetic.
And again, Baghdadi is a huge get, but the average uninformed American just doesn’t know who he is. Baghdadi was like Dormammu and Trump is trying to hype him up to be Thanos. Both are reality destroying monsters, but people are only aware of one of them.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
But as you point out this isn't a statement of fact its a political cudgel, it's not just a vote saying "Yes, obviously, someone bled onto this shirt I am waving.".
It is a statement of fact. The armenian genocide is a real historical event that actually occurred.
The US government/congress/house/senate/state government/whatever releasing an official statement saying "We totally believe this is a thing that happened", on the other hand, is a political act. As is refusing to do so when prompted to.
It's just that officially saying "The Armenian Genocide occurred" happens to be a political act that is also saying a fact that is true.
They actively deny it in part because acknowledging it might compromise the territorial integrity of Turkey, so this is more than a purely moral stance.
The sanctions are targeted specifically at Erdogan, his assets, and the upper echelon in the Turkish government and those that are attacking or facilitating the attack on the Kurds and Syria. There are exceptions there to protect NATO and humanitarian efforts to protect the Turkish civilians and the sanctions are written as to be lifted once Turkey stops murdering people.
It seems pretty well targeted and not overly broad to me and I don’t see where she’s coming from at all on voting no. A present vote on the sanctions would at least be better than a no. A no makes it sound like she approves of Erdogan murdering Kurds and it’s bullshit she voted that way.
House Bill on sanctions (PDF WARNING): https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/e/b/eb440c71-a15d-4e9b-8fac-83f6053d2f94/742280A55004AEE0124B2D1E61BE52E1.hr-4695-pact-act--.pdf
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
They have publicly said it is an Act of War.
Sweet, I haven't had an existential angst fueled fiery stress shit in over a week, my toilet was starting to feel separation anxiety.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I’m looking forward to Trump excusing both Kim and Modi for the resulting nuclear winter.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Well, they're not blaming Pakistan yet? Or...?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Though, were I in their position, the first name I threw out would definitely be someone I really didn't like.
Guess they got or gave up on their quid pro quo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-delayed-ukraine-trade-decision-in-august-a-signal-that-us-suspension-of-cooperation-extended-beyond-security-funds/2019/10/24/a42b8992-f67d-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html
Well, at least they told Congress they were withholding aid this time even if they forgot to give a reason for it.
"Those libs kept complaining about global warming. I was able to fix it, and got North Korea and India to pay for it!"
Probably still trying to figure out if Hunter Biden had any business ties there.
Which is why I find it weird they did not tell Congress that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-russia-mueller-ukraine-zelensky-a9181641.html
"The attorney general is focusing on the theory, aired on far-right conspiracy sites, and raised by Trump and Giuliani, that Ukraine framed Vladimir Putin over the US election in a complex triple-cross operation by impersonating Russian hackers."
"And the information being requested has left allies astonished. One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services”.
Trump's REALLY fucking lucky that the US IC are professionals. Because if I were working for one, the way he slags them off, I'd be PISSED, even if I was non-partisan. He's been attacking them and disrespecting them as President, since literally the day after his inauguration.
As with most things Trumpian, this could go in many threads (this one, impeachment, UK, justice/AG, etc). It's probably harder to figure out which thread it would be off topic on. I put it in this one, because it's the British response to the request, and mentions similar reported requests of Australia and Italy.
The working theory is that if the basis for the Mueller report (Russian interference) is discredited enough in the public, then Trump can get rid of sanctions on Putin and his oligarchs. Trump has tried before and backed off due to public outrage, that’s why he’s trying so hard to get Ukraine, Australia, the UK, and every other nation with links to the Mueller investigation to publicly investigate the origins. Except he’s asking those countries to investigate their own intelligence agencies like Barr is doing and that’s crazy to them since the information has been vetted a bajillion times.
We’re living in crazy town.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Military commanders: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN!?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/02/politics/pentagon-syria-confusion-us-plan-oil/index.html The legal basis is "fuck it, let's just openly commit clear war crimes."
This is straight out of Erdogan’s playbook.
Step1. Take an unreasonably aggressive and hostile stance towards preexisting professional intelligence and security.
Step 2. Some small contingent of the existing security apparatus responds (if this doesn’t happen it can be facilitated with provocateurs or outright faked).
Step 3. Use this as justification to purge/arrest/imprison security and intelligence and replace with loyalists.
The downside is this guts your effective ability to conduct proper intelligence or domestic security, but by the time the transition is complete those become lesser priorities to internal policing and rooting out dissent.
So the stance is officially “No, war for oil!”
I can see how that may have been misinterpreted by some sectors
That's a concern, for sure.
I ask a simpler question. "What does Putin want?"
Does Putin want his chief intelligence opponent fractured and in disarray? If I was him I would.
This train of thought is conjecture though.
Quite a good account to follow
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
And this is their strategy for containing him backfiring him. He's gone in fully on the reason they gave him for why he should do what they want. Except he's simultaneously their commander and also a guy who understands nothing about the situation or a military strategy and is only thinking in terms of "Get Oil!" with zero points beyond that.
Putin's relatively minor investment has paid off like whoa.
I think "destabilize the west" isn't a minor investment for Putin but a key part of his foreign policy. He's encouraging far right nutjobs all over Europe.
The actual capital investment is pretty minor
American domestic politics was already fairly unstable so it didn't take much of a push
That's good because Russia is pretty broke, so they don't have a tonne of cash to spend (mostly because Putin and his cronies stole so much.)
It's not just the USA, it's all over Europe too. Putin's taking advantage of fear of the refugees to push xenophobic parties and destabilize Europe.
Yeah I'm pretty sure there is just a shitty regressive streak from older people "rising up" to exert the last of their influence. At least that's how it feels like in the US.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This is true.
That does not stop me from hoping that a Democrat gets into office this next term and slaps Putin down so hard the Romanov's feel it.
Oh necessarily, his government has been doing and fanning some shitty flames all over.
pleasepaypreacher.net