but yeah, fuck russia for going to crimea. I am glad that we sent them....eventually a good package.

Quote :

"How dare they want to rebuild their navy. "

It's clearly a war move.

[Edited on December 3, 2019 at 3:14 AM. Reason : a]

12/3/2019 3:13:18 AM

12/3/2019 7:42:49 AM

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1201897601509023745?s=21

Imagine casting a Green Party vote knowing the only outcome of doing that is helping this guy win.

Also, he has no idea how climate change works. Or how dogs work, but that’s a different matter.

12/3/2019 1:24:18 PM

No one knew going in that green party votes would be counted towards Trump's totals. That would be fraud.

12/3/2019 1:43:16 PM

Quote :

"...to maintain the stability? What are you asking here? My whole point is that our approach has maintained the global order, and our having bases all over is part of that approach. I don't really give a shit whether Iraq, Syria, and Libya are stable. Overall I probably prefer that they be a little bit precarious, as long as they aren't dominated by somebody opposed to us."

What about Indonesia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Chile, Argentina, Haiti, Laos, Vietnam, Grenada, or any other country or region that has peacefully attempted to take control of its own economy and was subsequently thwarted with devastating sanctions, regime change, or war?

The "global order" we have is entirely euro-centric. Sorry to keep using the c-word, but it is what it is - colonization. We steal resources to maintain power against our ideological enemies.

12/3/2019 1:55:20 PM

regarding south america, I think that the move to go in there and combat them in terms of a drug war was a huge mistake. If cocaine were legal, then places like Columbia and Mexico would have been much wealthier and more stable than they are today. They could have become great allies for us and helped to stabilize the economy in central and south america.

All they were trying to do was to use a natural resource to make money and benefit the country through employment and fiscal growth. Not their fault that cocaine is illegal. Of course it's money that you can't tax, but I am sure that they could have negotiated some sort of "participation" tax into the drug trade that would have been an effective compromise.

Then again, they could have just turned into the huge mess that we got in the middle east because of oil.

12/3/2019 2:14:20 PM

the drug war is just a small part of the things we've done to fuck up south and central america

12/3/2019 2:47:07 PM

Ukraine is corrupt! But they should investigate the bidens!!

[Edited on December 3, 2019 at 4:51 PM. Reason : Now the move is to just straight up "pull" for Russia Ala Tucker Carlson et al]

12/3/2019 4:50:01 PM

My experience is that eastern Europe takes corruption to a whole new level. I think that we can all agree that it was fuckin stupid for Biden to have his son getting involved with this mess.

Even if he didn't do anything wrong, it just looks bad. Like, being associated with a cartel kind of bad. The biggest problem is that Trump can say that he was just fighting corruption, point to eastern Europe, and most people would nod their heads and say "yeah, makes sense"

12/3/2019 6:15:14 PM

^It makes sense to have a corrupt country investigate corruption???

Well OK then.

12/3/2019 6:19:52 PM

it would make sense for the US to want to investigate it with all of the funding that they have tied up into it, yeah. It is something that is an easy sell for the GOP.

12/3/2019 6:23:29 PM

President Trump didn't ask the United States to investigate corruption in Ukraine; supposedly, he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption in Ukraine.

[Edited on December 3, 2019 at 6:47 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2019 6:46:06 PM

He asked Ukraine to announce investigations into a United States political candidate on the basis of no evidence.

[Edited on December 3, 2019 at 7:13 PM. Reason : a]

12/3/2019 7:13:23 PM

The whole premise is dumb, and ardent Trump supporters are either too stupid to understand how illogical they're being, or too unprincipled to care.

As a reminder for all US presidents, you're not supposed to:

1. Go to a supposedly corrupt country and ask them to investigate US corruption for your own political benefit
2. Dangle military aid to entice said corrupt country to cooperate
3. Withhold said aid indefinitely as way to ensure compliance
4. Release said aid the second Congress gets a whiff
5. Trivialize the matter when you get caught, and send out a doctored 'transcript' that does nothing to exonerate you.
6. Attack and damage dedicated public servants who are simply doing their jobs
7. Intimidate witnesses and attempt to unmask a whistle blower
8. Refuse to cooperate in a congressional investigation

12/3/2019 7:37:12 PM

yall need to take a minute and entertain the idea of not thinking like a lib.

Everybody that testified gave sworn testimony that the Ukraine and Burisma have a history with corruption. Don't know how many people here have taken a vacay to eastern Europe, but that doesn't surprise me at all.

Everybody that testified also said that it was suspicious that Hunter Biden got that job; that it looked like a conflict of interest. Also, not very surprising. It was totally fucking idiotic to have Biden take that job, and many talking heads that are pro left have stated that.

That "Everybody" btw includes people that gave pretty scathing testimony about the president and his administration.

So, this is bad because it opens up the door for Trump to openly pursue these investigations under the disguise of fighting a corrupt country, and a corrupt business, because that's what they are.

Whether or not he gets away with it is still up for grabs, but it certainly gave him some good cards to play.

[Edited on December 3, 2019 at 7:52 PM. Reason : k]

12/3/2019 7:51:50 PM

How dumb are you?

12/3/2019 8:00:51 PM

He's confused by mail.

12/3/2019 8:05:45 PM

^^^

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/impeachment-report-giuliani-called-white-house-nunes-and-omb.html

12/3/2019 8:10:17 PM

Quote :

"Everybody that testified gave sworn testimony that the Ukraine and Burisma have a history with corruption. Don't know how many people here have taken a vacay to eastern Europe, but that doesn't surprise me at all. Everybody that testified also said that it was suspicious that Hunter Biden got that job; that it looked like a conflict of interest. Also, not very surprising. It was totally fucking idiotic to have Biden take that job, and many talking heads that are pro left have stated that. That "Everybody" btw includes people that gave pretty scathing testimony about the president and his administration. So, this is bad because it opens up the door for Trump to openly pursue these investigations under the disguise of fighting a corrupt country, and a corrupt business, because that's what they are."

Not a single person has stated Ukraine wasn't corrupt. That's one of the contributing factors to them not having made it into NATO.

Nobody testified that it was "suspicious." Any testimony regarding Hunter Biden mentioned that they could see how it would be a perceived conflict of interest but that not a single bit of information exists to suggest anything untoward. It was only "idiotic" to take the job because everyone should have known it would have impacted political shit in Biden's future. Beyond that, it's no more idiotic than anyone else getting a job because of their connections. It's certainly NOT more idiotic than Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump possessing security clearances and having jobs in the White House.

It didn't give Trump cover to do anything because he doesn't give two shits about corruption one way or the other outside of seeing any benefit to himself. In which case, he cares very much that corruption continues. You have to be an idiot, have your head buried in the sand or have problems with critical reading and thinking to buy into anything being thrown out presently by congressional Republicans, Giuliani and Russian intelligence.



Both the Senate and DOJ already looked into this a couple of years ago and found the allegations regarding Biden completely baseless.

12/3/2019 8:17:11 PM

Quote :

" I think that we can all agree that it was fuckin stupid for Biden to have his son getting involved with this mess. "

Wat?

Do you think Joe Biden called up his large adult son and asked him to join a random board for an energy company in Ukraine?

In that case, I think it was a bad decision for Donald to make Don Jr cheat on his wife with an aging plastic Fox News mascot.

12/3/2019 8:18:08 PM

I am just trying to explain how it looks to somebody that hasn't already made up their mind.

Just look at the hearings, people tied the quid pro quo to the investigations regarding the company, sure, but then regarding biden, they all said a variation of " knowing what I know now, I would have made the connection with the Bidens and raised concern". You must realize by now that Trump is only able to play that card because of the corruption in that country, and in that company.

Of course, it is clear to me that he was trying to pressure a foreign state to investigate a US citizen, and that scares me, and being fucking scary is the definition of his presidency.

However, politics in this country is based on people that make up their mind first and then find ways to justify it later. Both the dems and the republicans operate exactly the same when it comes to this fallacy.

12/3/2019 9:59:40 PM

Your line of reasoning for "not making up your mind yet" is dumb.

The facts of what happened are not up for debate, nor interpretation, so if you're waiting around to pick a side based on how the GOP behaves, that's stupid, too.

The vast majority of Americans admit that what Trump did was wrong, and a plurality/slim majority think he should be removed from office. That's a really bad sign for Trump.

12/3/2019 11:23:25 PM

Made up their minds? Give me a fucking break. No matter what flaws dems have, this isn’t a difficult decision. Pretty much anyone on earth is better than Trump. This is a perfect example of why dems might lose. There are still people that are undecided

12/3/2019 11:24:47 PM

Quote :

"What about Indonesia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Chile, Argentina, Haiti, Laos, Vietnam, Grenada, or any other country or region that has peacefully attempted to take control of its own economy and was subsequently thwarted with devastating sanctions, regime change, or war? The "global order" we have is entirely euro-centric. Sorry to keep using the c-word, but it is what it is - colonization. We steal resources to maintain power against our ideological enemies."

Quote :

"I don't really give a shit whether Iraq, Syria, and Libya are stable."

Exactly, and neither do most Americans.

Thanks for re-confirming that all the wars, destruction, and killings of 0.5-1 million civilians has NOT been over concerns of democracy, human rights, or premature babies in Kuwait being flung out of their incubators by invading Iraqi soldiers (which of course turned out to be a lie).

12/3/2019 11:44:10 PM

Sorry for the misquote. Cherookee, not Grumpy, said the racist thing.

Quote :

"ww1 intervention made ww2 more likely Whose intervention? Ours? Prove it. Or even just defend it."

Its pretty simple stuff. WW1 was a virtual stalemate before the US entered. Without the US, the treaty of versailles would not have been as extreme and would not have created such a nationalistic stir in germany. The treaty of versailles laid the groundwork for the nazi rise. Without it, Hitler would not have been a thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsrwjxs/revision/4

Quote :

"No, worst case scenario is one country (not us) wins all those two party wars of domination, until it's the whole world vs. us""

This is absurd. You think the whole world would join forces with their own occupying force and unite with their overlords against the last neutral country? You have no motive for the occupied nor occupier to wage hostility against the US. and you claim to be a historian of some sort?

Quote :

"Oh, OK. Do you need a forklift to keep moving the goalposts, or can you handle the weight all on your lonesome?"

This was always about closing bases overseas and leaving NATO, Korea, Japan to defend themselves. It was never about letting hostile militaries setup on our borders.

Quote :

"I don't really give a shit whether Iraq, Syria, and Libya are stable. Overall I probably prefer that they be a little bit precarious, as long as they aren't dominated by somebody opposed to us."

This just shows there is no moral compass involved in your world view. Purely self-satifying agenda. You'd prefer current Syria over a stable, Russian puppet Syria just like you prefer an impoverished North Korea over a wealthy, Kim led DPRK.

Quote :

"^It makes sense to have a corrupt country investigate corruption??? Well OK then. "

They aren't competent enough to investigate corruption but writing them a blank check for military aid is compulsory.

WELL OK THEN

12/4/2019 2:48:13 AM

Quote :

"I am just trying to explain how it looks to somebody that hasn't already made up their mind has been suckered in by the biggest con artist in American history."

FTFY

12/4/2019 6:49:29 AM

Quote :

"They aren't competent enough to investigate corruption but writing them a blank check for military aid is compulsory. WELL OK THEN."

A whataboutism that is irrelevant to the issue raised by a president asking a corrupt country to investigate a political opponent for electoral advantage???

WELL OK THEN

LOL

12/4/2019 6:53:51 AM

But 'Murica is respected again!

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/12/04/video-shows-world-leaders-mocking-trump-after-uncomfortable-first-day-at-nato-summit/23873916/

12/4/2019 6:56:52 AM

Quote :

"They aren't competent enough to investigate corruption but writing them a blank check for military aid is compulsory. WELL OK THEN"

A Russian troll thinks we shouldn't be sending other countries military aid against Russia???


Well OK then.

LMFAO!!

12/4/2019 7:22:22 AM

Quote :

"Without the US, the treaty of versailles would not have been as extreme"

This is some pretty wild counterfactual speculation here. You don't need to educate me on the shortcomings of the Versailles treaty, but you have to do a lot more explaining of how it's our fault.

While we're engaging in wild counterfactual speculation, I submit to you that whichever side eventually won would be subject to the same miscalculations that the French and British were at the close of the war, imposing harsh terms that would embitter the other side. Perpetual stalemate was not a plausible outcome, and even a very protracted stalemate would have eventually resulted in Soviet/Communist domination of a devastated western Europe.

Quote :

"This is absurd. You think the whole world would join forces with their own occupying force and unite with their overlords against the last neutral country? You have no motive for the occupied nor occupier to wage hostility against the US. and you claim to be a historian of some sort?"

A few things here. One, I don't think the process of massive national expansion is a quick one. It's not like Russia takes over Europe in 2020 and then lands troops in Alaska in 2021. But all over the world, subjugated peoples have eventually been integrated into the armies of their conquerors, going back as far as ancient Rome. They probably didn't invent this integration, but they very nearly perfected it for centuries. For more recent examples, of course, you have the various territories occupied by the Axis powers, whose resources and, to an extent, even manpower were harnessed by the "overlords" in a fairly short period of time.

As to the motives of this hypothetical world-conqueror, they couldn't be more clear. Why on Earth would you subjugate the entire planet except for one powerful country? Why would you leave one threat when you could eliminate all of them? A country that is neutral today is not guaranteed to be neutral tomorrow, and even today, it can play host to dissidents and opponents to your regime.

Quote :

"This was always about closing bases overseas and leaving NATO, Korea, Japan to defend themselves. It was never about letting hostile militaries setup on our borders."

OK, so from the very beginning, I've been saying that the goal of force projection was to keep adversaries away from us, and now you're saying that you, too, want to keep them away from us, just not quite so far away. This is like the old joke - "We've already agreed you're a whore, now we're just haggling about price."

Quote :

"This just shows there is no moral compass involved in your world view. Purely self-satifying agenda. You'd prefer current Syria over a stable, Russian puppet Syria just like you prefer an impoverished North Korea over a wealthy, Kim led DPRK."

Self-satisfying? Hardly. Self-protecting, perhaps. There's a hierarchy to these things. The most satisfying world would include a happy, wealthy, friendly Korean nation. Replace "friendly" with "hostile," though, and of course I'd prefer my opponents be weak and hungry rather than powerful and well-fed.

I'm not going to get into it with you on the question of my "moral compass," but ultimately the question hinges on this: I consider it axiomatic that the survival and success of my (community/family/country) is good. Very much secondary to that is the survival of other (communities/families/countries). In this, I suspect I join the overwhelming majority of people on Earth. It's one thing to think you'd lay down your life for your friends; it's another to think you'd sacrifice your family to save your neighbors.

Once that distinction is clear, you can quickly run into situations where behavior which might otherwise seem amoral becomes a necessary trade-off in the course of protecting one's community.

Quote :

"Exactly, and neither do most Americans. Thanks for re-confirming that all the wars, destruction, and killings of 0.5-1 million civilians has NOT been over concerns of democracy, human rights, or premature babies in Kuwait being flung out of their incubators by invading Iraqi soldiers (which of course turned out to be a lie)."

The space between "international politics" and "personal motivations" is very wide and very fuzzy. The large numbers of Americans who supported the Iraq War did not do so for raisons d'etat or because they studied and agree with a realist interpretation of international relations. They did so for a range of reasons, including democracy and human rights. I was among this number, and now realize that the administration's lack of understanding and planning - things which, at the time, I wrongly assumed that such a powerful entity as the U.S. government must have plenty of - made achieving anything in those regards nearly impossible.

Another thing I was wrong in assuming is that we were past the era of great power politics and could shift our thinking to being entirely about questions of democracy and human rights. Given the manifestly expansionist aspirations of China and Russia, I came to realize that is not the case.

12/4/2019 9:26:33 AM

man, imagine thinking the iraq war was for democracy or human rights

12/4/2019 9:37:53 AM

the mean men at nato hurt his feefees
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-trudeau-nato-summit-press-conference-macron-boris-johnson-latest-a9232496.html?utm_source=reddit.com

12/4/2019 10:05:59 AM

Quote :

"Another thing I was wrong in assuming is that we were past the era of great power politics and could shift our thinking to being entirely about questions of democracy and human rights. Given the manifestly expansionist aspirations of China and Russia, I came to realize that is not the case."

You have got to be kidding me. You believed the fucking Bush administration would be the one to shift our thinking to democracy and human rights?

And China and Russia are the ones threatening the possibility of this shift, not the US? You said you've read alternative perspectives, would love to hear which ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#

Probably the dumbest thing about all of this is your belief that our foreign policy protects your community, when in actuality all it does is line the pockets of defense and natural resource industry executives.

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2019 11:08:01 AM

you disagree that china and russia have expansionist aspirations?

12/4/2019 11:13:33 AM

Ask me again when they're expanding into territories that weren't in their control within the past 50 years. In particular, claiming China has expansionist aspirations because of Taiwan is extremely questionable. And the fear that either of them plan to take over western Europe or the US is total neocon insanity.

And anyways, Grumpy's point was that Russia and China's "expansionist tendencies" are the reason we can't fight for democracy and human rights. The blind spot he has for our own "expansionist tendencies" is unbelievable. Even if Russia were to annex Latvia (extremely unlikely), it would still pale in comparison to our own actions. Thanks to the brilliance of Friedman and Kissinger, we don't need to re-write borders. We have effectively subjugated dozens of countries through economic intimidation and violence. If we absorbed them, we'd actually be held responsible for their quality of life.

12/4/2019 11:43:20 AM

russia is in a shooting war capturing places they lost over 50 years ago

china is building islands

12/4/2019 12:01:41 PM

Which places? Georgia and Crimea were part of the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991.

And China building islands hardly counts as expansionism in the terms we’re discussing.

Neither of these are the reason why the US can’t shift foreign policy toward humanitarianism.

12/4/2019 12:13:58 PM

Do you support Russian incursions and even annexations in to sovereign nations?

Remove America completely from the equation so no “but what about.” Do you support it or do you think it’s wrong?

Earl already answered it. I’m curious about you.

12/4/2019 12:17:29 PM

Absolutely wrong.

12/4/2019 12:19:40 PM

Quote :

"Georgia and Crimea were part of the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991."

Wait so your argument is that Russia (which isn't the ussr but whatever) could annex all former soviet territories and you wouldn't blink an eye?

12/4/2019 12:24:32 PM

^

also

Quote :

"And China building islands hardly counts as expansionism in the terms we’re discussing."

tell that to the other nations that claim rights to some of the same islands chain claims, or have claims to maritime rights in those areas



[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 12:30 PM. Reason : USSR =/= russia]

12/4/2019 12:26:37 PM

Quote :

"Wait so your argument is that Russia (which isn't the ussr but whatever) could annex all former soviet territories and you wouldn't blink an eye?"

I'm saying that they've occupied two areas that were previously under Russian influence. And to base your foreign policy on the belief that they will violently expand to the rest of the former USSR and then into western Europe and the US is insanity.

When you compare the actions of Russia or China to the actions of the US, it's entirely obvious that the US is 90% responsible for the state of geopolitics.

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2019 12:39:29 PM

more than 2 areas in more than 2 countries

12/4/2019 12:50:56 PM

Quote :

"You believed the fucking Bush administration would be the one to shift our thinking to democracy and human rights?"

Nope.

Quote :

"And China and Russia are the ones threatening the possibility of this shift, not the US?"

No, the shift was materially impossible because the world had not actually changed. What can I say, I used to be a teenager. I believed some silly things when I was a teenager, and have had to adjust. No doubt your worldview and understanding have remained unchanged since they were formed, perfectly, at age 16.

Quote :

"Probably the dumbest thing about all of this is your belief that our foreign policy protects your community"

No outside power poses an immediate existential threat to my community, which means it is satisfying my primary requirement of a foreign policy.

Quote :

"I'm saying that they've occupied two areas that were previously under Russian influence."

The Philippines, Japan, and much of the Americas were once under our influence. So are they fair game for us to occupy?

Quote :

"When you compare the actions of Russia or China to the actions of the US, it's entirely obvious that the US is 90% responsible for the state of geopolitics. "

See, this is the problem. You're talking about this issue as though the current "state of geopolitics" was something that a country can affect. Great power politics existed before the United States, and they'll exist after we're gone, unless and until one polity becomes sufficiently powerful to encompass the entire world.

We're not uniquely bad actors; neither are Russia and China, really, just looking at it from an international relations theory perspective. We're all just doing what countries do, which is strive for power relative to other countries. To the extent that we are more "responsible for the state of geopolitics," it's because we have the power to influence things more than others do. It's not because we're more enthusiastic about exerting that power, or because Russia and China are such delicate flower children.

12/4/2019 1:18:09 PM

if we started moving little green men into the phillipines and landing tanks, and they asked japan or australia for help and they provided aid and some forces as a blocking force, it seems that daaave and earl would argue that this was bad imperialist expansion by japan/australia and should be stopped?

12/4/2019 1:24:36 PM

Good point. We've all had influence there. Which influence makes invading a country OK? Is it most recent, or duration of influence? Like, could Spain invade the Philippines? I mean, I know they can't, logistically speaking, but if they could, would daaaave be OK with it?

12/4/2019 1:30:30 PM

I also had some moronic beliefs at 16 - the issue here is that you don't seem to understand, or at least won't acknowledge, why you were wrong. Blaming Russia and China for our inability to focus on democracy abroad implies that we aren't a colonial nation and we have actual interests in human rights.

Quote :

"The Philippines, Japan, and much of the Americas were once under our influence. So are they fair game for us to occupy?"

I've already said it was wrong of them to occupy Crimea and Georgia. My point was that there is very recent historical context for them being there, and the dissolution itself was completely un-democratic in the first place. So to expand that out and say "well if they take Crimea, there's no reason why they won't expand all the way across the Atlantic Ocean" is blatant fearmongering and a poor basis for foreign policy.

12/4/2019 1:46:02 PM

Israel has had control over the occupied territories for 52 years.

12/4/2019 1:47:50 PM

Quote :

"So to expand that out and say "well if they take Crimea, there's no reason why they won't expand all the way across the Atlantic Ocean""

sounds more like a strawman

12/4/2019 2:53:40 PM

i mean this all started from horosho saying it was bad to give aid to crimea for them to protect themselves

12/4/2019 3:01:57 PM