Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

55,120 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I assume it has more to do with Blank throwing money around in a league that isn't used to that.

I mean yeah a little bit but that really goes more towards things like resources and training ground, the league otherwise has a salary cap and we weren't even in the top 8 or 10 in salarywise the year we actually won.

United doesn't get enough credit for how much depth they've been able to develop on the cheap. For instance most MLS teams completely disregard their draft picks, probably like on average only the top 3 overall picks will ever see a starting roster (some years down the road) and we took Gressell at #14 and turned him into an All Star in year 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Watching leftists become neocons is almost as amusing as watching leftists misuse the word "neocon" for 8 years of the Bush administration.  Back then it was basically a pejorative, used because stupid people thought it sounded mean.

One of the great ironies of the 2016 election is all the people *****ing about GWB for 8 years got really mad when his foreign policy clone didn't get elected, in part because some jackass with a bad combover sold an old Democratic staple -- we aren't the world's policemen and we need to take care of our problems here at home -- to people in blue collar states.  Certainly, few Republicans have learned any lessons from that.  But it's really uncanny to watch Democrats fail to learn from it too.

Stop.

If you think recognizing the horridness of green lighting Turkey's assault on the Kurds is adopting "NeoCon" anything. . . . just step over to the WFW table.

Please tell me you don't really think that.

And FWIW, I know how to talk to girls just find.  I have NO idea how to talk to someone who knows better but engages in WFW levels of whataboutism and false equivalencies.  I'm sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

He shouldn't have sent troops in to start with and I'm not necessarily opposed to pulling out. However, when you combine the fact that a few weeks ago we convinced the Kurds to leave their border positions to "ease tensions" with a promise that they'd be protected with what's happening now then, well... Yeah. Not good.

I'd also like to add that Turkey has already carried out ethnic cleansing against the Kurds in the Efrin region of Syria.

The Trump administration knew full well what they were about to allow to happen.

Gritzblitz 2.0, AF89 and GEORGIAfan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

 

I've told you all this before. I'm around generals each week and I've heard them say how much of a moron Trump and his cronies are when it comes to foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Statick said:

Me after the first inning of last night's Braves blowout:

at least they didn't waste our time with false hopes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AF89 said:

What's ****ed up is the Kurds could pretty much be protected from Turkey  (a member of NATO and nominally a US ally) on that side of the border by like a handful of US personal simply being in the region. 

This is not exactly the same as trying to maintain a costly large scale military occupation against a hostile population

That's the whole point. The mere presence of US personnel there kept Turkey from moving against the Kurds. They were never going to get into it with another NATO member. 

Look, everyone knows how I feel about these foreign interventions and imperialistic wars, but saying this was about bringing the troops home is ridiculous when you look at all of the other places we are still engaged without any end in sight. This was done because Trump cut a deal with Ergodan and he sold out an ally. Good luck getting anyone to trust us the next time.

mdrake34, Sancho, AF89 and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump wants to turn Turkey/Syrian Kurds into another Israel/Palestine in my not-so-nuanced view.

And Erdogan wants to turn Syrian Kurdistan into Crimea, "Hey Russia did it to Europe, why can't we?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News poll...

Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.

A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

He shouldn't have sent troops in to start with and I'm not necessarily opposed to pulling out. However, when you combine the fact that a few weeks ago we convinced the Kurds to leave their border positions to "ease tensions" with a promise that they'd be protected with what's happening now then, well... Yeah. Not good.

I'm not suggesting it is, or that he's handling it well.  But then, this isn't the first time Trump has been lambasted from the left over troop withdrawals, nor has it been on the grounds you've stated.  Recall the criticism of him inviting the Taliban to negotiate troop withdrawals in Afghanistan.

I'm not saying his foreign policy is good, certainly not beyond criticism.  I'm saying there is a legitimate tension between the White House and certain current and former cabinet members, and the Pentagon, about whether the neocon view ought to prevail or be jettisoned (or scaled back).  And it seems to me that from the left, the general consensus is not "we have a principled opposition," but "if Trump does it, it's bad," even if opposing Trump puts them on the side of, say, John Bolton.

Granted, criticism from the right has not been well stated either, but at least it tends to be consistently neocon, as with Lindsay Graham and others.  We know where those folks stand.

WhenFalconsWin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again and I can't stress this enough

(1)You didn't need a large occupying force to offer Syrian Kurds a significant amount of diplomatic protection from a population that actually wants you to be there.

(2) there are actually legitimate reasons to not want to have military forces in Syria but it's becoming less and less apparent that we're doing this for any of those reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Serge said:

Do the troops that fought with the Kurds sound like they just want to come home? I'm mainly hearing abject horror, shame, and confusion.

There is confusion, just like many Lemmings were confused when Obama pulled out of Iraq leaving their people with abject horror at the thought no of being slaughtered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, HolyMoses said:

Stop.

If you think recognizing the horridness of green lighting Turkey's assault on the Kurds is adopting "NeoCon" anything. . . . just step over to the WFW table.

Please tell me you don't really think that.

And FWIW, I know how to talk to girls just find.  I have NO idea how to talk to someone who knows better but engages in WFW levels of whataboutism and false equivalencies.  I'm sorry.

Re-read this.  Pretend it's me saying it to you.

Then ask yourself why you would bother even responding to it.  Then perhaps you'll figure out why I don't discuss politics with you anymore.

WhenFalconsWin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

I'm not suggesting it is, or that he's handling it well.  But then, this isn't the first time Trump has been lambasted from the left over troop withdrawals, nor has it been on the grounds you've stated.  Recall the criticism of him inviting the Taliban to negotiate troop withdrawals in Afghanistan.

I'm not saying his foreign policy is good, certainly not beyond criticism.  I'm saying there is a legitimate tension between the White House and certain current and former cabinet members, and the Pentagon, about whether the neocon view ought to prevail or be jettisoned (or scaled back).  And it seems to me that from the left, the general consensus is not "we have a principled opposition," but "if Trump does it, it's bad," even if opposing Trump puts them on the side of, say, John Bolton.

Granted, criticism from the right has not been well stated either, but at least it tends to be consistently neocon, as with Lindsay Graham and others.  We know where those folks stand.

Dem leadership, especially Dems from Florida, also went along with the administration's attempts to gin up support for a military operation against Venezuela before Russia sent in troops and took it off the table. A lot of them aren't opposing this because it's Trump doing it. A lot of them are just hawks.

Having said that, when we have the ability to prevent or stop genocides then I'm for military intervention. This is a real obvious case of prevention and we just threw the intended victims under the bus.

Serge and AF89 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Watching leftists become neocons is almost as amusing as watching leftists misuse the word "neocon" for 8 years of the Bush administration.  Back then it was basically a pejorative, used because stupid people thought it sounded mean.

One of the great ironies of the 2016 election is all the people *****ing about GWB for 8 years got really mad when his foreign policy clone didn't get elected, in part because some jackass with a bad combover sold an old Democratic staple -- we aren't the world's policemen and we need to take care of our problems here at home -- to people in blue collar states.  Certainly, few Republicans have learned any lessons from that.  But it's really uncanny to watch Democrats fail to learn from it too.

I've got the apolitical blues,and that's the meanest blues of all.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Watching leftists become neocons is almost as amusing as watching leftists misuse the word "neocon" for 8 years of the Bush administration.  Back then it was basically a pejorative, used because stupid people thought it sounded mean.

One of the great ironies of the 2016 election is all the people *****ing about GWB for 8 years got really mad when his foreign policy clone didn't get elected, in part because some jackass with a bad combover sold an old Democratic staple -- we aren't the world's policemen and we need to take care of our problems here at home -- to people in blue collar states.  Certainly, few Republicans have learned any lessons from that.  But it's really uncanny to watch Democrats fail to learn from it too.

If we're going to engage in these perpetual wars, I think we should at least nominally keep our word to our allies. 

And if this were about bringing the troops home and making a sea change in foreign policy where we stay out of the middle east then I am all for it. 

But we both know that's not the case here. Trump cut a deal that was personally beneficial to himself and sold out one of our few allies. 

mdrake34, HolyMoses, AF89 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is about a similar to the Iraq occupation as the NFL is to Arena Football

Which is to say...sure there are some similar facets if you squint and don't really think about it i guess but on the whole they're pretty dam different rules and scales

Serge and Gritzblitz 2.0 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

Dem leadership, especially Dems from Florida, also went along with the administration's attempts to gin up support for a military operation against Venezuela before Russia sent in troops and took it off the table. A lot of them aren't opposing this because it's Trump doing it. A lot of them are just hawks.

Having said that, when we have the ability to prevent or stop genocides then I'm for military intervention. This is a real obvious case of prevention and we just threw the intended victims under the bus.

That's fair.  I granted early on, Hillary Clinton is basically a neoconservative on foreign policy.  So perhaps it is simply the case that the majority position across bipartisan lines is basically neocon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh...

President Donald Trump pressed then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to help persuade the Justice Department to drop a criminal case against an Iranian-Turkish gold trader who was a client of Rudy Giuliani, according to three people familiar with the 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.

Tillerson refused, arguing it would constitute interference in an ongoing investigation of the trader, Reza Zarrab, according to the people. They said other participants in the Oval Office were shocked by the request.

Tillerson immediately repeated his objections to then-Chief of Staff John Kelly in a hallway conversation just outside the Oval Office, emphasizing that the request would be illegal. Neither episode has been previously reported, and all of the people spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the conversations.

Sn4tteRBoxXeR and HolyMoses like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

If we're going to engage in these perpetual wars, I think we should at least nominally keep our word to our allies. 

And if this were about bringing the troops home and making a sea change in foreign policy where we stay out of the middle east then I am all for it. 

But we both know that's not the case here. Trump cut a deal that was personally beneficial to himself and sold out one of our few allies. 

Sure.  That's the downside of perpetual war.  It brings with it perpetual obligation.  If you're going to meddle, you can't just go kill the enemy and break their toys and leave.  You can do that if you are going to conquer, or repel, but not if you are going to meddle, pretending your intervention is for the "good of the region" or whatever bull**** reasons we convince ourselves exist.

Again, my point was broader.  This is the second time in a couple of months I've seen neoconservative objections from Democrats about reducing our role overseas. Though @Psychic Gibbon is doing a fair job convincing me there are simply more Democrat hawks than I anticipated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

Sure.  That's the downside of perpetual war.  It brings with it perpetual obligation.  If you're going to meddle, you can't just go kill the enemy and break their toys and leave.  You can do that if you are going to conquer, or repel, but not if you are going to meddle, pretending your intervention is for the "good of the region" or whatever bull**** reasons we convince ourselves exist.

Again, my point was broader.  This is the second time in a couple of months I've seen neoconservative objections from Democrats about reducing our role overseas. Though @Psychic Gibbon is doing a fair job convincing me there are simply more Democrat hawks than I anticipated.

tenor.gif

mdrake34, Sancho, JDaveG and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now