To his credit, Trump gets closer to a correct pronunciation of “nuclear” than GWB, so he’s got that goin’ for him.
3 Likes
Truly hilarious. Thanks for that.
I agree, I just don’t think it’s truly available to Trump. Trump may want some split-the-difference, “moderate” policies (to the extent he even thinks about them at all), but he has forfeited a lot of support from the voters who are in that camp. Given he can’t get along with anyone and still will have the stink of throwing his lot in with the Alt-Right creeps, I just don’t think he can recover with the moderate bloc enough to offset losses in his base.
You are welcome. Glad to expose you any time.
I agree with what you wrote, but I have to disagree on this statement - Kremlin has repeatedly stated their willingness to give Assad’s head on a platter, provided they get concessions elsewhere - the most recent example being this statement
I you’d look at Kremlin-controlled media you’d see that pro-Assad pieces have long disappeared.
When justifying their military intervention on behalf of Assad’s regime the Russians usually resort to phrases such as “helping the legitimate government”, “fighting terrorism”, “protecting cultural and historical sites” and sometimes discreetly alluding to “protecting Arab Christians” as heirs of the Byzantine Empire.
Assad himself is conspicuously absent from all Russian propaganda - they’re constantly ready to ditch him in case a deal is reached.
The only danger here is that the Russians realize that military adventurism pays off as the Trump’s administration is always read to offer a “deal”. What’s next then?
Will the Russians have to paid off with additional concessions for potential containment actions towards North Korea as well?
Let’s hope this stays this way
Agreed. [quote=“, post:6509, topic:223365”]
But said the air strikes should’ve happened long ago.
[/quote]
How long ago?
2 Likes
Yes, this I am on board with–much like Tom Hanks in his post election season speech. I want good results for this country even if he is the head
Sig–this would also be part of my opinion on your question. I can’t say it would be a positive reaction due to the positive reinforcement we would be giving Putin, which is something I want to prevent at almost all costs. However, if a pro Western govt were to be put in, then it would be “meh” on the slightly positive side.
Looks like the Kansas House seat will remain in GOP hands… but pretty slim 6-point margin considering Trump won KS by nearly 30 pts. (Pompeo won in 2014 by 70k votes; this election looks like a difference of about 6.5k). I believe GA is up next week for Price’s seat.
1 Like
Yes, they will give us Assad but couldn’t let us take him… notice the difference? That’s why both Russia and Iran responded with threat of force should we continue to undermine the regime. One gives Russia the image of being unloyal the other weak, not hard to imagine what they’d choose.
By deal are you implying concessions across a broader sphere? I.e. give us Syria we give you Ukraine? If so, we’ve yet to see any evidence that’s the case (although given trumps background it’s understandable), at this point it would be 100% speculation. If so I would agree it sends a horrible message and would put me back to square one with Trump admin.
If you mean concessions re Syria however, I would say to look back at the context and history of the situation and I think it’s apparent the admin is heading in the right direction
Prior to the khan shaykhun attack the Trump admin had no decernible pretext to further intervene in Syria, the previous administration had “settled” the issue when it opened the door for Russia. Any effort to do otherwise would put us in the middle of another proxy war for SA/Iran with the added perk of having Russia actively fighting against our efforts, so calling it a clusterfuck would put it mildly. As much as I hated the way it was handled under the last admin it was done and there was no practical way to rewrite it.
The attack on khan shaykhun gave Trump the pretext to reset the approach. With Russia already having an established military presence in the area operating in direct opposition to their interests is not a viable option for either party. Nonetheless we opened up the dialogue with a barrage of Tomahawks(probably how we should start every negotiation with Putin) to kick off a geopolitical game of chicken. Putin will likely get sway in the future of Syria but it won’t be anything he hadn’t already secured.
In short Putin got free reign to utilize their military intervention for geopolitical gain under the last 2 admins. Our current response is making it clear that won’t be the case and is doing it without exhausting our resources.
That’s the catch however, the positive reinforcement is already there for Putin. Doing nothing at all would reinforce it and unfortunately there really is no practical means of installing a pro western goverment in place of Assad. The cost would be so high that the reality could only exist in the wet dream of our nation’s most decorated neocons.
1 Like
I’d like to know how we’re gonna defeat ISIS without going into Syria?
We are going to send big beautiful Scud, er Patriot missiles in.
There are going to be so many.
1 Like
Blockade the country and starve them out? Semi-serious suggestion.
You can’t defeat ISIS. It’s a mindset. The whole world needs to stop buying ME oil and pull out. Let them slaughter each other once the sheiks and mullahs are broke.
You’d need 5 countries to agree to blockade their border with Syria and a Naval component for the Mediterranean. The largest border, Iraq, would have to be manned by US forces. I’m not sure what Turkey would do and I don’t know if Jordan has the resources.
You can’t defeat extremism, but you can defeat ISIS. You can destroy their leadership, their equipment, and eliminate their rank and file. We did it with AQI and then, stupidly, backed off allowing for ISIS.
Never gonna happen as long as the world is dependent on oil. They’ve been slaughtering each other for thousands of years now. We’re not the catalyst just an extra ingredient.
1 Like
Between the US, the Russians, South America and China we have enough oil, NG and coal. The US could easily be self sufficient.
We don’t need the middle east. It’s easy enough to sail around or fly over. Let them go be murderous savages they have always been, but without money from the West and Asia to fund it.
I don’t think the Chinese and the Russian’s see it that way. So, they’ll just continue to get oil from the Middle East, save/sell their’s, and nothing will change. The European Union will need oil too and my guess would be they would gladly take it from the Middle East if it’s cheaper than buying it from us or the Russian’s.
We don’t even get that much oil from the Middle East anyway. I think it’s like 15% of total import or so.
Then what strategic interest does the ME serve for the USA? If we get to a point we don’t need their oil at all that is.
If we let Russian, Chinese and European interests control the ME what happens? Is that outcome good/bad/indifferent for the US?