"The plan was announced Friday at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, after a meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin," CNN reports.
(I considered writing CNN begrudgingly reports.)
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
২৬টি মন্তব্য:
So you begrudged us a begrudgingly?
If only Trump were more flexible, he could have persuaded Russia eventually --after many months of shuttle diplomacy by his tireless and world-spanning Secretary of State-- to agree to this.
Qatar is not going to like this. And Israel is going to like this.
The Donald is a mover and a shaker.
I've decided to boycott the CNN website. I'm sure they'll notice that in their ad revenue.
Is this proof of collusion with the Russians?
Wow. Credit where it's due. The authors managed to get through a full article on an agreement between Trump and Putin without mentioning the supposed collusion or calling Trump a puppet. That's new.
More important question -- what's the difference between grudgingly and begrudgingly?
Clint: agree, this is important. I think "grudgingly" is the better usage here. You give something "grudgingly," but you "begrudge"
somebody a thing. "I grudgingly admitted my mistake, and I begrudged Tom his victory."
Have I missed CNN reporting that thousands of Syrian civilians have been blown to bits in their homes -by Russian & Syrian bombs- since Obama drew a line in the sand in 2012?
The real news is all in DJT's Tweets this AM. No wonder CNN and NBC and CBS feel like jilted lovers. They are no longer needed.
"More important question -- what's the difference between grudgingly and begrudgingly?
Grudgingly is an iPhone app that helps you keep track of who you unfriended or blocked, when, why, for how long, etc.
Begrudgingly is a colloquialism. For example you might say, "I said I was sorry, but bitch begrudgingly n' shit."
Hope this helps.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see if it takes.
Anyhow, the whole of political Twitter is up in arms right now because Trump tweeted about forming a cyber security unit with Russia.
As time goes I find the "trolling" explanation more and more persuasive for Trump's tweets.
If Middle East ceasefires really worked, it would be the most peaceful area in the world.
That said, I hope this one holds and some good comes out of it.
Christopher: "As time goes I find the 'trolling' explanation more and more persuasive for Trump's tweets."
This. DJT is playing with them.
Assad is the lesser evil. If they can agree on that much there is a way forward in Syria.
Baby steps that may realize the end of anti-native activism, which is a change that renews hope for non-refugees.
Nobel Peace Prize for Trump & Putin!
CNN reports...
To which I bergrudgingly read expecting a car
crash.
CNN and MSNBC talking heads commented suspiciously on how long the meeting between Trump and Putin lasted while it took place.
Greg Gutfeld assembled a montage of the clips and compared it to waiting outside the bathroom door for grandpa to finish.
On Friday, the AP tweeted: BREAKING: AP learns that Russia is prepared to announce cease-fire in southwest Syria starting Sunday.
I commented about it on FB on how they act as if it happened in a vacuum. They could have included "after talk with Trump" without going over the character limit. Would they have made the same choice if the President meeting with Putin had been Obama? (The correct answer is "no, because there wouldn't have been a cease-fire to report".)
Michael McClain said...
If Middle East ceasefires really worked, it would be the most peaceful area in the world.
That said, I hope this one holds and some good comes out of it.
I've seen too many ceasefires, across too many combat zones, to believe any of them. Most are ignored immediately; and those that aren't are usually just a window to rearm and regroup.
Sadly, I don't believe this one, either. But like you, I hope I'm wrong.
Even Trump has to defer before the Russian primacy that Obama created in Syria. The Russians are in the saddle on the Strong Horse, and they have the intent and means to stay there.
Ending one of Hillary's disasters.
The Russians are in the saddle on the Strong Horse, and they have the intent and means to stay there.
All the better for us, and the native people, if they assume responsibility (for what Americans and our allies did not want to do), and reconcile the interests and imperatives of the majority parties with the welfare and security of the minority parties.
The Russians are in the saddle on the Strong Horse, and they have the intent and means to stay there.
With three carriers in the Med and the Gulf, major US and allied bases in the immediate area, places like Diego Garcia on call, and ultimately, anything you want on demand from CONUS, we could end all Russian life and property in Syria within an hour, vaunted S-400s not excluded, nor the lives of the Assad clique.
What Russia is, is the dog in the manger, a nuisance in our scales, but without our taking a decisive hand, the supplier of enough support to keep Assad propped up. Russia has the advantages of having actually acted instead of talking.
Plus, though all can agree that Assad is a nogoodnik like his father, we see that what is the case is that the region lacks a suitable Westernized democratic counter-offering to compete. ISIS is probably a bit worse than Assad, so Assad is probably a bit better than ISIS.
The US owes Syria no cosmic debt of smashie-smashie as with Iran or Cuba or, some would say on both sides, Libya. Decisions made *unilaterally* by the last fool need not bind us now, In fact should be repudiated routinely, wishingly with a settling into a path of wisdom that can be pursued bipartisanly.
So we don't HAVE to take down Assad.
I see no harm in chipping off pieces though and getting something started. Ultimately a Western oriented Kurdistan, in much of its ancient home which traverses Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, offers much potential.
Anyway it is not existential to US interests to stomp out Assad. With that as stakes, much else could be got back out of there deal. If Bashar Assad doesn't have to go to the Hague or be knife-raped, he might for peace's sake induced to take retirement someplace non-political, say wherever Idi Amin went. Then someone from the succession can take over, and life can go on.
I suppose if we outbid the Russians they could be chased out of Tartus, but the Russians are pretty much an actual world power of sorts and kinda have a right to have one lousy base in the Med. I guess though that it could be a counterweight to their pushing on Crimea. And so the game of 3-D chess is played...
Ultimately a Western oriented Kurdistan, in much of its ancient home which traverses Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, offers much potential.
Yes, the Kurds are our only friends in the area aside from Israel. Turkey might have been once but it is no longer and Pakistan is another enemy that we are far too obliging toward.
Having said that, the Kurds are not much better in person than the typical Arab. Kurdish fathers in Europe are murdering daughters who want to be western.
So we don't HAVE to take down Assad.
A friend of mine was sitting in a sauna in Saudi Arabia a few years ago and there, across from him, sat Idi Amin.
Most of these people are real despicables. What we are interested are OUR interests. George Bush is a nice guy but he got caught up in this wish to make everyone happy.
There was no danger of that from Obama or Hillary. They are just flat out incompetent.
With Obama, I do have occasional questions about whose side he is on.
Ceasefires come, ceasefires go.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন