Donald Trump has been far tougher on Russia than obama, who is the real traitor

I'm saying the highly biased and desperate NY Times cannot possibly be counted on to dispassionately and accurately characterize this "squeeze play" you speak of.
Don't accuse me of lying, by the way. It's despicable and against forum rules (though I realize the rules only apply to some).

And I'm guessing that all the other news outlets you refer to are similarly left wing and highly biased and I would say the same of them.
It amuses me to no end that you want me to trust and believe the same rag that just recently published a homophobic cartoon
depicting Donald Trump and Vlad Putin in some sort of gay love relationship.
This actually was published in a trusted and supposedly serious American newspaper of repute, at least on the far left, as amazing as that seems.

You people don't seem to have the slightest bit of self consciousness and realize how the NY Times, a long time left wing rag good only for lining bird cages even under the best of circumstances, looks to normal people not afflicted with your maniacal hate of the president.


It ruins your narrative, I'm sure, when Trump places new sanctions on Russia so I understand you have to account for this in some way
where you can save face and your dogma can still run wild. I don't have to buy it for a nano second, however.

 

It’s almost like you’re blaming Russia for our bad relationship...
If trump cares about Crimea why was it off the table for Monday’s summit?

 

Very nice ownage once again MMC

 

He’s tweet was clear:

Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!

 

Making stuff up will not help you.

He cares about what happens under his watch. Vlad bent your messiah over the table. Trump is in charge now.

 

Did this really all happen while Donald John Trump was president? Because I've been led to believe that he is a pawn for Vlad Putin as well as his gay lover, reportedly. I can hardly therefore believe this to be so.

It certainly doesn't seem like the actions of a man who is Putin's back pocket.

 

Not really, the most likely is simply trumps ego.
He cannot admit that he even got the lsightest help from anyone else. He wants that victory to be absolute and a 100% thx to him.


If he was controlled or handled by putin it would make sense to let him run, he made a mess of the republican primarys that alone was enough, but actually be elected and make a mess of the US, cherry on top.

 

So why is he hanging out with putin while they still occupy Crimea?

 

Thanks GB....got this Cute hottie here today and she has dinner ready. Feel free to use any of the links. Oh and see if Mello can link up Trumps Twitter feed from 2 days ago with his first post.

Oh and throw in some R.E.M. for our leftist friends. Crush with Eyeliner.

 

You do realise those russian soldiers attacked the US troops?

That trump didnt even know this had happened until a few days later when it was briefed to him?


This has been trump on russia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3ad4f8-417f-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html

Trump puts the brakes on new Russian sanctions

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-gives-unexpected-gift-to-putin-idUSKCN1IG2Y7

Trump’s Iran decision gives unexpected gift to Putin

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-may-drop-russia-sanctions-if-moscow-helpful

Donald Trump loosens sanctions preventing Russia intelligence agencies from cyberspying

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...55b448-77b9-11e7-803f-a6c989606ac7_story.html

Trump signs Russia sanctions bill, but makes clear he's not happy

 

For the same reason we don't go to war because China has massive human rights abuses. It doesn't effect us.

Answer me this. Why did Obama bend over and take it in the backside when Putin invaded the Ukraine? I thought Russia was the enemy.

 

Trump has repeatedly made a fool of himself in the past 5 days.. I don't think that was ego driven.

 

You really need to get your facts straight.

Trump put weapons back in Poland and he is selling weapons to the Ukraine.

Your hero took it up the backside while Putin invaded the Ukraine and pulled out of Poland just as Putin wanted.

Deal with reality.

 

And, may I add ...20% of our uranium reserves to Putin-controlled Uranium One/ ROSATOM, also.

 

Russian bot?

 

That's right, and Obama did nothing while Russia attacked Ukraine, who we had given security guarantees....

The Ukraine Was a Test Case of American Foreign Policy Moralism Vs. American Foreign Policy Realism, and Realism Won in a Rout

The basic tension in US foreign policy theorizing is between moralism and realism. Moralism is an idealistic position that urges that we bear any burden in support of liberty. Realism is a far less idealistic position that says we'll ask ourselves -- realistically -- how much of a burden we're willing to bear in support of liberty.

There is virtually no one who is a 100% moralist and virtually no one who is a 100% realist. Virtually everyone is a mix, somewhere on the spectrum between these two poles.

Though those urging for more moralism are still informed by realism and those urging realism are still animated by moralism.

It's a question of degree.

The foreign policy establishment's and neocons' analysis of foreign policy views things through an almost purely moral lens, as if it's dirty and grubby to even consider pesky little questions like "What realistically can be done to vindicate this moral right? What can reasonably be asked of the American people to vindicate this moral right?"

The foreign policy establishment, and the neocons who dominate the foreign policy establishment's right-hand wing, are far too devoted to a risibly moralistic concept of foreign policy that results in immoral and perverse outcomes.

Let's look at the Ukraine.

Ukraine has always been dominated by Russia. Russia colonized it. Russia annexed it. Russia suppressed Ukrainians' own language as well as its (Christian) church.

The Ukrainians have long wished for true freedom from the bullying (and worse) of their large, powerful, evil neighbor.

And they have every moral right to that freedom.

The trouble is, while they have every moral right, they do not have the physical might to be totally free of Russia's domination.

Ukraine, while formally an independent country since it broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991, continued suffering under Russian domination. Technically they were independent -- but Russia acted as a cynical colonial power interfering in Ukrainian political decisions and thwarting the will of this long-oppressed people.

In 2013, the so-called Euromaidan Revolution began.

Ukraine wanted to join the EU, align themselves with free Europe, and distance themselves from Russian control.

So they kicked out the Russian puppet president of Ukraine.

Russia didn't like that. And the threat of a Russian invasion loomed.

The EU and the United States had different reactions to the Ukraine's morally-righteous but politically-provocative actions.

The EU understood that it was a nation of self-interested pacifists who would not under any circumstances do much of anything -- apart from issuing communiques and the like -- to guarantee the Ukraine's political independence and territorial integrity. Basically, the EU counselled the Ukraine to go very slow and not upset too many Russian apple carts. They knew damn well they would not lift a finger to help Ukraine should Russia invade, and they said so pretty clearly.

So they told Ukraine to not do anything so provocative in declaring their independence from the Russian empire that the Russian empire would reassert its dominance.

They did not lie to themselves about their willingness to fight for Ukraine, and so they did not lie to the Ukraine, either.

On the other hand, there's Barack Obama. The man who would, by the very power of the charisms God granted him, cause the oceans to recede by the power of his arrogant gaze alone. Remember Victoria Nuland's "**** the EU!" phone call that leaked?

Well, the "**** the EU" concerned the EU's cautious, go-slow urgings. The US chose to ignore misgivings about a possible Russian invasion and encouraged the Ukraine to get into a fight with Russia that they could not win.

Well, the Ukraine got into that fight -- presumably expecting help from the US, which had encouraged it to get into a fight with Russia.

And guess how much the US helped?

Almost none at all, of course. We did the same things the EU was prepared to do -- issue Stinging Rebukes and Harshly Worded Statements.

But when the Russians began sending mercenaries and special forces troops over the border to pretend to be "native Ukrainians fighting to stay aligned with their historical oppressor Russia," what did we do, beyond offering some sweet words of support?

Nothing. We sent in some medical aid and other non-military aid.

End result? Russian mercenaries and special forces operators faked an "indigenous uprising," killed a lot of Ukrainians, shot down a passenger jet, seized control centers in the Crimea, staged a "referendum" on whether Crimean wanted to stay in Ukraine or annex themselves to Russia.

Spoiler alert on how that turned out: Armed Russian mercenaries were manning the polling places. Do the math.

In the end, the Ukrainian rebellion was met with fire and slaughter and put down. Ukraine's subordinate position to the Russian empire was reinforced. And the most strategically important part of Ukraine decided to re-join Russia in a vote that was totally fair and free of coercion.

The Ukraine is in no better a position than it was before the Revolution, except that more Ukrainians are dead and that a major part of Ukraine is now Russia.

Here's a question: Between the EU response -- go slow, do not start a fight we are unwilling to help you in -- and the US response -- go fast, start a fight, we'll be with you all the way (except we won't be at all) -- which was the more "moral" response?

The EU response looks less moral at first glance. After all, they were basically telling the Ukraine to continue putting up with a substantial amount of Russian interference and domination.

The US response looks more moral, but only at first glance. We pushed for the Best of All Possible Worlds solution. Declare your independence from Russia and align yourself with the peaceful nations of Europe.

But when the perfectly-predictable happened -- when Russia invaded with professional troops pretending to be Ukrainian freedom fighters -- we let them get slaughtered and set them down a path where they actually came out of the conflict in a worse position than they had begun it.

So which was more moral? I know it must have felt super-good when Victoria Nuland said "**** the EU!" and urged Ukraine to fight for its independence.

But how did it feel in the months and years that followed, with Ukrainians being bombed and shot and passenger jets being shot from the sky?

A policy impulse that felt good when announced, that felt good when it cost nothing at all, actually wound up feeling not so good at all when people started getting killed and Ukraine looked to America for actual support, support that would actually cost America something, and America said, "Here's a sternly worded letter of reprimand for the Russian mercenaries murdering you."

That's not moral.

Morality comes after wisdom, and wisdom can only be had if someone is honest with themselves about what burdens they're actually willing to bear -- not just the burdens they're glad to rhetorically claim they'll bear -- and what costs they're willing to pay.

People who lie to themselves about what they're willing to do are not wise, and, because they're not wise, they also can't really be moral. And their ill-wisdom can often lead to immoral outcomes, as they promiscuously make promises they've never thought very hard about and therefore feel free to shed at earliest convenience.

America has a limited appetite for war. Americans will go to war, but they do reach a point of exhaustion with war after some number of years.

It is silly to pretend this fact away in order to count oneself as "idealistic." People who ignore reality are not "idealistic;" they're just cowards afraid to face reality.

The fact is that Americans are tired of war and it is dangerous to write checks on America's war-fighting account that it might not be willing to cover.

The fact is that one of America's two main political parties is always willing to be part of a war at the Fun Part of the war -- the declaration of war part, the first-easy-victories part -- but which abandons every war it votes for when it sees any small political advantage in doing so.

Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and many other Democrat Senators voted for the War in Iraq. Within three years, they were screaming that Bush "lied us into war" and that we must withdraw immediately.

It is insane to pretend this away. If you know Democrats will give you initial support for a war they'll happily vote you into, when doing so grants them political advantage, and then savagely turn on that war the moment they get political advantage from that, it is lunacy to even count them as allies in war.

The NeverTrumpers who sometimes claim "At least Hillary Clinton would have been better on foreign policy?" Yes, of course. The same Hillary Clinton who voted for the War in Iraq to show how tough she would be as a president, and then agitated to abandon troops in the field when she realized that opposing the war would boost her chances of becoming president.

Yeah, we need that kind of patriot as President, rather than the unamerican, immoral Trump.

In 2008, Obama campaigned on the idea that he would somehow both withdraw from Iraq and yet also "win" Iraq by withdrawing. It was so obviously, transparently a lie and a dodge. He wasn't planning to "win" anything; he just wanted to bug out. Americans weren't really tricked by Obama; rather, Obama told them a lie that they knew was a lie but they wanted some "out" to pretend they were honoring the sacrifice of the already-dead while also bugging out of Iraq.

So Obama pretended he would "win" the war in Iraq, and the American public pretended to believe him.

They really didn't.

But they did want out of the war, one way or the other, either stated forthrightly or crabwalked dishonestly, and they voted for Obama, and they voted for the dishonest crabwalk way of abandoning Iraq.

And it was their right to make that choice. Every people has a right to decide how much of war's burdens it's willing to bear.

But they did make that choice, and we cannot pretend that they didn't, and we cannot pretend that Americans' appetite for war is as limitless as internet bloviators' capacity for self-aggrandizement.

When we think of war, we must assume that Democrats and therefore 45% of the country will turn on that war by the next midterm or presidential election. The war must therefore be either a very short one, all wrapped up before the Democrats execute their predictable turn against it, or slightly longer, but still short enough to keep the support of 55% of the public, most Republicans and most independents too, and the length of the war must not be so long as to cause that support to flee as well.

These are the realistic limitations we face on America's war-making capacity.

Again, it is not "idealistic" or "moral" to pretend these limitations away. Running from reality is like running from any other obstacle: a sign of cowardice (moral, intellectual, and psychological in this case), and not a sign of "idealism" and certainly not a sign of "courage."

Wars are not #Hashtag campaigns, with an almost non-existent cost but a big boost of dopamine for Retweeting Justice. They are not just another venue for Virtue Signalling on Twitter.

Wars have real costs and therefore they have real limitations. We do not do our war-fighters or our fellow Americans any favors by ignoring those limitations and refusing to know ourselves, to know, realistically, what we are willing to do and what we are not willing to do, how long we're willing to fight for and when we're likely to bug out and leave our allies or even our soldiers in the field without support.

I'm not against moralism in foreign policy, but honesty is an important part of morality, and being honest with ourselves about what we're personally willing to do, and what we believe our fellow Americans are willing to do, is a critical part of the candid thinking necessary for a moral, and realistic, foreign policy. One that doesn't start a lot of wars and leave them half-finished.

Wars can be left half-finished, but the dead they leave behind are all-the-way dead. I'd like to avoid more half-finished wars and more all-the-way dead Americans.

And I think an important part of avoiding half-finished, lost wars is admitting that the years between 2003 and 2016 did in fact happen -- they weren't just a bad dream, I assure you -- and we have to heed the lessons that those years taught us.

Or that those years should have taught us, at least.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/376189.php

 

Trump or Obama? Which one got caught on a hot mike saying they had more flexible in their 2nd term?

 

LOL its really amazing at times how the left can't address the fact that Trump is a better President then Obama is/was or ever will be.

 

I was talking about the April 7, 2017 air strike, the one where the Americans attacked an airport in Syria alone.

The one you mentioned (April 201 was a joint France-USA-UK operation.

How do you determine that it was the American missiles that killed the Russians?

In any case, they were Russian mercenaries and Vladimir Putin did not see any need to inform them of the upcoming strikes, even though he had been informed of them by the Trump administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_missile_strikes_against_Syria

 

Do you really believe that? Trump is such a low life its hard to imagine you don't see that.

 

Refute what? The fact that you suffered from ODS for eight years and now all you do is deflect to Obama when you need to kiss Trump's ass? Nothing but paid shills in this place.

 

It's really amazing how right wingers are such hypocrites.

 

REALLY???Then why in the hell does Vlad the Bad and Dirty Donald have such butt love for each other???

 

Dream on. Was he not doing anything, you’d be happy and content.

Conservatives were happy when Obama was doing nothing.

Right