An intensity shows up in Baker's voice when he talks about Trump. He gets gruff on those words I've italicized, and that's a vocal mannerism I associate with Trump.
If there's anything he believes, it's this idea that other countries are shafting the United States.... And so he's often been much harder on America's allies than he has on been on America's adversaries....
The interviewer, Sabrina Tavernise, inserts a new idea — "Right? He's drawn to these strong men in a way"— then asks Baker to compare the candidates with respect to Israel: "Maybe let's start with this killing of Hassan Nasrallah, which plunges us directly into the unknown when it comes to Israel and Iran.... When we're looking at the candidates here, how do each see Iran?"
Baker says:
Well, definitely Trump sees Iran as the main malign force.... He's willing to say nice things about Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un in North Korea. Not one good word, obviously for Iran. I think Harris obviously sees Iran as a malign force as well. But she has been part of an administration that was willing to at least try to restart negotiations over their nuclear program. Now, that didn't go anywhere. That ended up fizzling. And right now we are at odds with Iran. We have sanctioned Iran. We are not part of an agreement with Iran, and doesn't look like one is happening anytime soon. So where Harris wants to take the policy with Iran right now is a little unclear.....
About Israel, Baker says:
[Trump] likes to boast of being Israel's great friend during his first term.... Now, it's fair to say, there's probably never been a president who's been more willing to give Israeli leadership what it wanted than Donald Trump, right? He moved the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which is something that the previous presidents had all declined to do. He recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which again, no president had done up until that point. He closed the Palestinian office in Washington and cut off aid, and he wasn't even on speaking terms with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority. So in Trump, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is getting an awful lot of what he wanted.
But when it comes to the war on Gaza itself, Trump has been relatively quiet. He really hasn't given any kind of extended analysis or interview to explain how he sees the war in Gaza. And in fact, if anything, when he has talked about it, he has said things that Israel supporters are uncomfortable with, like Israel needs to get this over with.... There's too much killing. Not that he is expressing concern for those who are being killed, but, but because he says is hurting Israel's reputation in the world....
And he doesn't particularly like wars. I mean, I think that's one thing he has expressed pride about — not starting any wars while he was President.... I don't know what he would be willing to do to stop it or how far he would be willing to go to pressure Netanyahu, but I don't think Netanyahu can count on a hundred percent unvarnished support like he had in the first three years of Trump's presidency....
He's the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt, right? Teddy Roosevelt was speak softly and carry a big stick. Trump is speak loudly, but carry a small stick. Yeah. So he is actually somebody who has not been eager to pull the trigger, even though he speaks very gruffly and... bellicosely....
In Harris, Baker detects an emphasis that sounds like empathy:
Kamala Harris has stuck close to President Biden's policy, but she sounds different, right? At times.... When she describes the situation there, it's a matter of emphasis.... you hear more empathy, it sounds like, to people for the suffering of the civilians, at least in Gaza, who are paying a price....
My gender sensors itch.
And so people assume because of that, that she will be tougher on Netanyahu than Biden has been, that she would have less patience for Netanyahu and put more pressure on him.
The softer person will be tougher and pushier? Why? Are we just guessing she'll put more pressure on Netanyahu? And is that what we should want? Let her be clear, then, so we can vote on it.
Well, I think the Harris administration would continue a lot of the policy that we've seen in the last two and a half years since Putin's full scale invasion. She is invested in that.... She's met with Zelensky now seven times, including the meeting they had together late last week. And so whatever she might have thought about it coming in, she's very much a part of the Biden policy and is unlikely to make large scale shifts.... She believes that Russia cannot be allowed to simply win. Because if Russia wins, it means that the whole international rules based order is out the window.... It means that a larger country can use force to rewrite the map without any regard to the rules, without any regard to sovereignty and independence. And in fact, she took a dig at Trump when she met with Zelensky calling what he is suggesting, a proposal for surrender.
As for Trump, Baker says:
I think he'd be vastly different.... He has said that he would end the war in 24 hours. Now how he would do that, he doesn't exactly say.... Not a single person I know who knows anything about Russia and Ukraine thinks it's possible, right? A, it's not realistic. And B, it's just a complete and utter reversal of where the United States has traditionally stood, which is you don't reward aggression that you don't give in to international bullies.... And when he is asked as he was at the debate, whether he wants Ukraine to win... he always ducks the question.... So even last week, while Zelensky was visiting... Trump refused to condemn Russia for the war. Instead, he suggested that Putin wants the war to end and refused to give any assurances to Zelensky for American support....
Unless he sees it as an immediate American benefit, [Trump] doesn't want to have anything to do with it. A lot of people would argue, of course it is in America's interest to stop countries from invading each other. But he doesn't see it that way. In his telling of it, we have no business being involved unless we get something out of it....
I won't quote from the discussion of China. You can check that out for yourself. I just want to jump to the end, where they talk about unpredictability.
Tavernise says she's struck by "just how different Trump is from his party... while Harris in many ways is very much the product of her party." Baker credits Trump with "changing his party" and characterizes Harris as "a product of hers." But, Baker says:
But could unpredictability work? Baker immediately jumps to "the madman theory":It's it's it's really about predictability and unpredictability. In other words, Harris represents a much more stable way of looking at the world. And other leaders have a much better sense of where she will come out on things. And he's volatile and he's mercurial. He threatens to leave NATO one minute and has to be talked into staying in the next....
The madman theory, if you will, of foreign policy. Now, Richard Nixon famously used this tactic. He told Kissinger to tell foreign leaders that he, Nixon was kind of crazy, and therefore they ought to do whatever Kissinger was asking, because I have no idea if I can control the boss.... In some ways Trump does the same thing. But with Nixon, it was a tactic. With Trump, it's just who he is, right? He is in fact somebody who will decide on the spur of the moment to do something drastically different on foreign policy without a big process and a committee meeting and so forth. So traditionally, of course, America has preferred to have predictable and stable relations with other countries, but Trump is again, as always the outlier who challenges that thinking.
Tavernise casts a shadow on Harris: "Just to play this out: If Harris were to win... then there's... four more years of the same — or at least, a very similar — foreign policy to Biden might also be problematic considering that all of these wars that we find ourselves pretty closely related to and very difficult to find our way out of."
Baker chooses predictability: "In a world where you have adversaries who have nuclear weapons, the argument from the Biden side is better... A Trumpian unpredictability is a deterrent on some level, but it's better — from their point of view anyway — to have predictability, because outcomes could be a whole lot worse... It used to be that the United States was the reliable actor. You pretty much knew where the United States was going to fall on major issues in the world, and other countries responded accordingly. Didn't mean that everybody did what the United States wanted them to do by any stretch, but that that predictability, that reliability, was central to at least a broad sense of order in the world....."
Posts
201 comments:
1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»But Brandon said that he delegated most foreign and domestic policy to her.
So has she been doing the work or not?
John Henry
They still believe their foreign policy from a year ago is working. Ignore what has happened since.
I'd say Biden was pretty hard on our allies when he abandoned them without so much as a warning phone call in Afghanistan.
Excellent summary of Baker's views. It is impossible that he arrived at them without starting from the unshakable premise: must support Kamala.
Biden takes nap on beach while North Carolina is underwater.
How many wars started under Biden/Harris?
cue that jk simmons gif from spiderman ('you serious)
In other words...
AI, why is Kamala better on foreign policy than Trump?
baker who along with susan glasser, conjured a whole host of hallucinations about orange man,
"I think our general assumption is that she's pretty close to where Biden is...." And that, friends, has been a complete disaster.
I think the madman theory worked to Trump's benefit during his first term, helped along by the slavering hysteria of American journalists. I suspect he will have a harder go of it during his second term, should he win, since foreigner powers by now have probably realised (a) that Trump is actually quite deliberate and even conservative about tit for tat escalations against regional powers, and (b) that American journalists are full of shit.
Follow the money.
Trump's not unpredictable. He's been totally clear. He's an America First isolationist/non-interventionist. He's not going to get the U.S. involved in anything. So Europe and Taiwan can basically GFT. So the bad actors really have nothing to fear from him. Oh, sure, Trump might huff and impose scary tariffs on them, but they don't care about that. His Peace in Ukraine strategy is basically for Ukraine to surrender it's territory to the expansionist Soviet Russians who started this war of aggression. And having been so rewarded, they will be encouraged to go further and start threatening the Baltics. Meanwhile, there will be nothing to stop Communist China from invading Taiwan. Trump has been abundantly clear about all this.
I read the Carlos Slims papers, much like the funny pages, where no one was given the punchline,
If you want Iranian Old guard backwards unpopular Islamic Supremacist Ayatollahs to remain in power in Iran and endless war ... Vote Harris/Tampon Tim. If you want the war between Russian and Ukraine to never end... Vote on a sesame seed bun and Tampon Tim! To save Democracy!
I’m puzzled by the Democrat insistence that denouncing other foreign leaders is a coherent strategy. Or that failure to denounce equals affection for them. This is just damnably stupid. Considering the potential for nuclear war with a variety of actors, I prefer diplomacy. Trump’s reliance on diplomacy isn’t a fault. It’s just sensible.
It appears that Mr. Baker works at the NYT. With his contacts, I would expect he could contact NASA, determine which extraterrestrial planet Ms. Harris is currently occupying, and arrange some sort of communication link, so he could ask her about her views on foreign policy. That's what a real newsman would do.
I love these experts who see Trump as an isolationist. It is true he wants to implement tariffs (again) on China and perhaps others. What he is doing is what he views as strategic negotiation. He is trying to get China to move off of its own policies that hurt American producers.
But what no one can dispute is that Trump accomplished more in the way of international peace than any of the 4 Presidents before him, and certainly the one after him (with Kamala at his side).
The Abraham Accords alone are so outrageous in their outside the box domain, that the foreign policy establishment still cannot get their heads around it, have failed miserably to expand it, and instead, have sat back and watched as Iran funded Hamas for Oct. 7 and Hezbollah in the north. And the rest is ongoing now.
Had Trump won in 2020, the Abraham Accords would have expanded, Saudi Arabia would now have been a part of it. Iran would have been isolated. We would have been producing far more petroleum and natural gas- dropping the prices and the market for both Putin and Iran, depleting their resources, so that Ukraine may not have happened as it did, if at all. It certainly hadn't when Trump was in office.
We had peace and prosperity in Trump's term, right up to the Democratic supported George Floyd riots, and the covid pandemic. Under Biden and his Sidekick, we are on the brink of a major Middle East war, and on the brink of a World War with both Russia and Iran playing a part. Nuclear weapons are being talked about out loud.
Yet our foreign policy 'experts' are all in on Kamala. Well...I think it is abundantly clear that the establishment has other ideas of what constitutes our national security. I do believe they are all in for war. Period. All of their decisions and actions point to it. We could have had peace in the Ukraine 3 years ago now. Biden blew that up. They have what they want.
And now they want you to buy into it. Kamala won't be running a thing. She'll be the face, the mouth of the foreign policy establishment. Trump would not be that. And so...they need Trump removed.
All the more reason we need to have him in place.
"Well, definitely Trump sees Iran as the main malign force.... "
" I think Harris obviously sees Iran as a malign force as well. "
Obviously? He just pulled that out of his butt.
"But she has been part of an administration that was willing to at least try to restart negotiations over their nuclear program. Now, that didn't go anywhere. That ended up fizzling. And right now we are at odds with Iran…"
IOW, Harris got a major foreign policy judgement wrong. Iran has no interest in working with us.
Some foreign leaders not others,
her daughter fundraises for hamas, her lead foreign policy advisor, phillip Gordon is very 'understanding' of the iranian regime
Try this link again. Kamala is so giddy about her youthful work at the fast food burger joint. For Democracy!
MSNBC sniff sniff that bottom.
Trump gave us Summer after Obama's ethnic Spring. The expectation is that he will do the same after Biden's Spring to Karma-la without a Pelosi-rrection assist.
Harris won't adopt a more pro-Palestinian stance that her base demands? Not a word about the massive political pressure she will face to do so?
Sidestepping that issue in an analysis is quite a feat.
Biden announced yesterday that there is no more Federal Assistance headed for the disaster area in the Southeast. No more ! That's going to go over really well in about 2 or 3 more days of no power, no gasoline, no food. Awesome FEMA response, Joe. We feel ya !.
When Harvey hit Houston, we had Nat Guard choppers flying overhead from the local staging point, headed for Houston or coming back, for 2 solid weeks.
So, she's spent a lot of time with Joe Biden learning all this foreign policy stuff and she didn't notice he's completely non compos mentis?
As my late and oh so progressive San Fransico sister might say, "Oh p l e e ze!". I read Baker's load of codswallop and need to gag a bit. Kamala will be the marionette whose strings are pulled by the Kalorama Cabal headed up by Obama. And Obama loves Iran and gave it plane loads of Benjamins stacked on cargo pallets to finance their terrorist minions.
Peace between nations makes us all isolationist.
the corrupt democratic left want to import the worlds criminals. AND DID SO!
Trump isn't a rejection of the rules based international order, he's a rejection of the notion that the US should bear the costs of maintaining such an order while receiving no benefits commensurate with that burden. The western managerial class has spent decades permitting bad actors to ignore the rules and cheat the system, rather than take politically and economically expensive steps to punish them.
The shortened version of all that verbiage, "we have always done things this way and therefore should continue doing it this way." No acknowledgment that "this way" isn't working or that the cold war has been over for over thirty years or that our navy is a mess and and China's navy is a near peer adversary (or might even be superior to ours.) That we don't have the manufacturing capacity to sustain a war against near peers, that we have allowed the country to be flooded with illegal immigrants and sleeper agents and terrorists who if we did go to war would start sabotaging infrastructure on a large scale.
That is indeed the premise from which all mainstream news coverage begins: Democrats are right and need to win. It's been this way for decades, before Trump, but has hardened into steel since 2015.
Trump is not an isolationist; he's a realist about what can be accomplished with the power the US and our allies can wield. So he calls on our NATO allies to power up as they had promised, and he helps engineer a way, in the Abraham Accords, for more peaceful Middle Eastern states to become powerful enough, through alliance, to confront Iran.
so a vote for Kamela is a vote for Endless War..
Good to know.
remember!
a vote for the Democrat Establishment isn't JUST a vote for Endless War..
it's ALSO a vote for competence and intelligence!
Reporter: "Any comment on the strikes in Yemen?"
Biden: "I've spoken to both sides. They gotta settle the strike. I'm supporting the collective bargaining effort. I think they'll settle the strike."
"there will be nothing to stop Communist China from invading Taiwan."
There isn't anything stopping them right now. We aren't going to use nukes over Taiwan and China doesn't need to have a navy superior to ours, just a good enough navy. They aren't invading Taiwan because they know that eventually it will be in their spear of influence.
Sen. Tom Cotton on Kamela's foreign policy, "Again, just like we should support Israel in striking back against these terrorists, we should be striking back harder again. But that’s not Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s policy. From the very beginning, they’ve appeased and conciliated the ayatollahs. Kamala Harris, for instance, opposed Donald Trump’s strike that killed Iran’s terrorist mastermind in 2020.
Over the last four years, they’ve given away tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. They’ve looked the other way as Iran violates sanctions. They’ve continually put more pressure on Israel than they put on Iran’s terrorist proxy. That’s why Kamala Harris is the ayatollahs’ handpicked candidate, and why the ayatollahs are hacking into Donald Trump’s campaign and trying to kill him."
Used of course, to fund and arm Hamas and Hezballah. Yes, the attack on Israel last year was a direct result of the Obama/Biden/Harris policy on Iran. Much probably a result of Valarie Jarret’s long time love affair with Iran.
What ends the war in Ukraine is both sides thinking that they can get more by settling than by fighting. Trump is the most likely to find "mores" that can be added to the deal that nobody is thinking of today, because that's how he makes deals. Compare Kim Jung Un.
Nothing about rules-based.
You get three strikes.
"So she looks at foreign policy in the sense of who is following the rules, in effect, in terms of whether it be trade security or economics or border security^H^H^H^H^H."
There are no norms in politics. There are no rules in international relationships.
I just read the comments you quoted. I agree with a lot of it. It seems to me that they presented a convincing case for voting for Trump.
Trump likely has no love for Ukraine because his first Impeachment was for their benefit. The Veldman brothers, both US Army officers, are native Ukrainians, and the testimony of the one was central to the impeachment. On the flip side, they bought Biden back when he was VP, through his son. Or, I should clarify, the Ukrainian President did, when FJB protected his dirty election.
"We're sort of guessing?" Maybe the candidate for President of the United States should tell us instead of leaving us to guess.
One iron rule of the Trump haters: never mention the Abraham Accords. A huge advance in peace in the mid East. Arab countries near Israel used to unite in war against her. No more. A commitment to legal arrangements and trade. Worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Of course Iran remains a problem. Israel is making progress against Iranian proxies.
When America realized the depth of Joe's incapacitation, people began to wonder who was really running the country. No one, to my knowledge, ever suggested it was Kamala. Running the country is well beyond her grey grade. The Democrat power structure knows it, but 'Hey, we ran it for that guy, we can run it for her.'
Sorry but I died after "learned a lot at his side." OMG. The only two things you can "learn" about foreign policy from Joe is how to enrich yourself and to make the opposite of the correct decision every time.
Of course Trump is an isolationist - or neo-isolationist if you insist. And so are most of the people here. That's what "America First" (which invariably means America Only) and "no more forever wars" are all about; and his protectionist anti-free trade ideas add into it.
That, as of today, Iran may be isolated, it will be because Israel worked completely against the wishes of the Biden Administration. Regardless of other feelings on Israel, compared to Iran, Israel is a US ally. Biden worked against them. Iran is a foe, and Biden worked to lift sanctions imposed on them. That alone destroys Baker's arguments.
We can also talk about Taiwan and China. No question which side Walz will support. However, the Biden Administration was upset with Nancy Pelosi when she visited Taiwan and gave them comfort the US would protect them from China.
While Biden has been President, the US Navy has pulled resources from the Western Pacific and ceded international water ways to China. That is, without US presence, China has claimed existing and artificially built territory in waters that it now says is Chinese sovereign territory. This has been to the detriment of US allies. It also pushes the US Navy further away if it were to try and defend Taiwan.
At the core of this is the Biden Administration isolating from the Pacific. It is his foreign policy leaving allies to fend for themselves. That's before we discuss the 11 embassy evacuations that have occurred under President Biden of which 7 were closed.
There is also another storm that looks to be forming in the Caribbean and expected to make US landfall next week.
This is a fantastic example of what a truly dumb NeverTrumper believes is true.
So the pro Harris argument boils down to the idea that Harris will be better able to deal with the all the foreign policy debacles she’s supported over the last four years. Exactly the kind of logic I expect from the NYT.
I suggest Bitter and Forever Angry DeSantis Die-Hard Supporter Virginia Lawyer Mark read Temujin's comment at 10:14am which puts the lie to VA Lawyer Mark's truly moronic comment above.
But VA Lawyer Mark won't do it......because he wasn't reasoned into his dumb NeverTrump BS so he can't be reasoned out it. It's emotional....and requires therapeutic intervention at this point.
A Kiev kan of Spring with emoluments, and a double-dip in Iran following in Obama's footprints.
But [Kamala Harris] has been part of an administration that was willing to at least try to restart negotiations over their nuclear program. Now, that didn't go anywhere. That ended up fizzling.
Interesting to me that Donald Trump gets no points with Baker of Tavernise for figuring out ahead of time that negotiations with Iran were bound to fizzle. Folks, he wrote the first good book on how to negotiate!
Kamala is probably the worst presidential candidate of our lifetimes (yes, worse than Hillary). And she's leading by 2 points, because folks hate Trump that much.
what is this charades
https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1840640173442240636
who put that deal together Robert Malley, iranian agent
"Well, Kamala Harris course hasn't had a lot of experience in foreign policy, but she's learned a lot at the side of President Biden as his vice president."
And we all know what Robert Gates said about Joe Biden's foreign policy judgement.
Seriously, voting for Harris, to the extent that she will follow in Biden's footsteps, is voting for failure.
It could be worse, is a very low bar for success.
However I’m going to need some conformation about the apparent given “Kamala has been by his side” that one gets my “without evidence” tag.
What’s really funny about that ‘obviously’ comment is that I’m seeing that word on Harris yard signs now: Harris, Obviously. The only thing obvious to me is that the sign poster is a Democrat shill (usually a teacher or a government employee) for a candidate who has zero obvious qualifications.
"the international rules-based order"
We never used to hear that, now we hear it all the time. Where'd that phrase come from? What does it mean exactly?
Seems like the media just started using that phrase during the 1st Trump term. They love to say it now. "The rules-based international order," they chime. It sounds wonderful and so safe...so pious even. Everything is under control, ladies and gentlemen.
What are these rules? And who sets them? John Kerry is probably anguishing over them on a stage somewhere right now. John Kerry is the very embodiment of the rules-based international order.
Actually, my interplanetary friend, I have an even better suggestion for what Mr. Baker can do to ascertain what Ms. Harris's real views on foreign policy are...he could study what she has previously said over the last decade or so BEFORE she became a candidate and got trained to lie about what she would do. That, in fact, is what a real newsman would do.
And he would find out that her views are NOT "probably like Joe Biden's."
Lol... to ask that question is to answer it. If you're not doing the work, delegating it to someone else that does it to the same standard YOU were using means it doesn't get done by them...
Harris: If you like your wars you can keep your wars.
There are so many people struggling in America right now, and our gov't gives money to illegal immigrants in order to import Democrat / Deep State voters, and spends hundreds of billions of dollars on Ukraine and Israel.
Spending money on your own citizens is not isolationism.
And getting fucked by NATO who doesn't put up their monetary contractual end of the war bargain is not a healthy alliance. It is time Zelensky accepts the reality that some of eastern Ukraine is gone, and it isn't coming home. Flirting with NATO membership via ding-bat Kamala's invitation cause it. It's time for the US to stop financing Zelensky and his propaganda army green clown outfit.
"Everything's nice and stable. No changes, so what we're doing is working..."
The problem is that it was as stable as a Jenga tower right before the final piece is nudged. Sure, everyone knows it's going to fall catastrophically at some point, but they're hoping it's not on their turn. And any change in any of the parameters is likely to make it fall.
But as long as it doesn't fall on THEIR turn, it's all good.
This is the NYT interfering in the election by bringing on some expert to outline Harris' "policies". Thus, people think they've heard what she proposes when she hasn't proposed anything at all.
These are the same kind of people who told us the Soviet Union was doing well right before it collapsed.
I don't think the geniuses in the media fully appreciate how helpful they actually are to making Trump the ultimate "Peacekeeper President." How, you say? Well, if you're a chickenshit dictator who happens to know exactly what he can get away with against the "predictable" Democrats, and suddenly the U.S. goes rogue and elects somebody that American media swears is volatile, unpredictable, and exactly like Hitler, are you going to try even the lamest aggressive move against Hitler?
And that is exactly why the world experienced the "Pax Trumpana Era" from 2016 to 2020. Nobody dared lift a finger or even breathe heavy.
Thank you. Most useful lies. Evah.
It's very difficult for the dummies in the MSM to understand that Trump almost always is negotiating. He will state a position and then wait to see how the other side reacts to it. Is the position a bit outside the norm? Maybe. But maybe that's just what the other guys have been waiting for- a flexibility signal. As I say, MSM types are so far removed from the real world they haven't a clue. As far as Ukraine is concerned the Ukrainians are doomed by the reality of numbers. They need to find a way to come out as whole as possible. Telling Putin to his face that he's an a**hole doesn't get anyone closer to a solution. As an afterthought I am willing to bet that should the Russians, at some point, mount a successful offensive you will see both the Germans and French crying loudly for a ceasefire and settlement. They can not afford continued support to Ukraine and meet their own defense requirements at the same time. On thinking about it I am not sure we can either.
What Harris has said is she wants the US military to be the "most lethal" in the world. Does this sound like someone who's planning to keep our forces out of confrontations? Does anyone think the first woman President won't go looking for situations to show her resolve to use military force?
Harris: Today I / (cackle, cackle) / sent the Marines / into some country / I can't really pronounce (waves arms). It's a small country (shortens arms). The United States is a big country (widens arms). Let us / remind them of that (head bobbing up and down).
It seems sometimes that they're still in high school - talking nasty about those outside their cliques with each other is supposed to do something productive.
She's been busy fixing the border crisis while Joe cures cancer. On the beach. In Rehoboth.
Their policy was to allow Jews to be murdered to boost arms sales in the US ... the last shred of economy we have left now that Hooters' are going out of business.
I like the way he's "escalation managing" Ukraine such that they cannot win the war, but can still be used to launder Democrat money via arms sales.
We haven't had 'real' journalists for decades now. It's all about their beliefs, and how they can twist what's observed to match their beliefs, and report accordingly.
There is no "American media" any longer. It's just 6 billionaires controlling it all.
Amen. That's Peter Zeihan's point over and over again. We begat globalization as a defense strategy against the USSR. One could construct a plausible successor rational post-1990 which was the integration of China and Russia into the global community aka The End of History. That died in a fire on 9/11.
The Uniparty is still willing to act as if globalization is viable.
Trump is not.
That's the difference in a nutshell.
The main thing you learn working at the side of Joe Biden is probably the name of the dog he had when he was 8, which he keeps calling you by.
Italico!
She certainly has all the qualifications.
Raised middle class. Likes good lawns.
The 'experts' have a status quo that they find optimal. Country pitched against country, the US somehow 'managing' the tension, sufficient conflict between nations to ensure that the arms factories are well supplied with orders and the diplomats can maintain a semblance of peace while everyone's got knives out and are glaring at one another.
Trump disrupted THAT status quo. How DARE he talk like a (spit) filthy businessman to the mortal enemies of civilization? How DARE he 'make deals' that reduced tension? How DARE he reduce the importance of the State Department?
Those are reasons I'll be voting for him.
Most NATO countries are in fact contributing more than the US as a percentage of their GDP, some of them a lot more. The Statista website provides a useful chart: link. The US is in 17th place, contributing 0.35% of its GDP. Four countries are contributing more than four times as much: Denmark (1.85%), Estonia (1.66%), Lithuania (1.43%), and Latvia (1.35%) - being on the front lines, as the last three are, tends to concentrate one's mind.
Two more are contributing more than twice as much as the US: Finland (0.88%) and Sweden (0.75%), with Poland very close to twice the US rate (0.68%).
What about the larger countries? The UK, Canada, and Germany are all contributing more than the US (0.45%, 0.39%, and 0.37%), while France, Italy, and Spain are contributing a lot less (0.16%, 0.11%, and 0.09%). Feel free to criticize the last three, but not NATO in general.
The reality is that all of eastern Ukraine could be recaptured, if the US would just fulfill its promises and send adequate aid, which will cost less than nothing. We have hundreds of unneeded F-16s, M-1 tanks, and Bradley fighting vehicles that we'll never use again. It's cheaper to ship them to Ukraine than to dismantle and recycle them according to EPA standards. In fact, we have sent zero F-16s and only 31 M-1 tanks. Thirty-one! The front line is over 600 miles long, and one tank for each 20 miles of front makes very little difference, no matter how much better they are (a lot better) than Russian tanks.
I wonder how much of the sanction relief gets funneled back into NGOs, and back to Democrats.
Well, high level, he's the opposite, right? He is a disruptive force when it comes to international affairs. Proudly so.
I suppose to the "right" people, no new wars, middle-east peace, reduced international terrorism, etc. can all be considered "disruptive".
I have noticed that when I try to use an italics tag, the autocorrect capitalizes the i. I have to go back and set it to lower case, and do so again with the /i. This may account for some of the italics problems here.
"Letting everything go to crap in a way which doesn't discomfort elites" will do for a first approximation.
An absolute fustercluck for the last 44 months that Baker and the NYT seem to completely disregard. Biden couldn’t find his dimpled ass with 2 hands and a map and Harris is even more confused and dysfunctional.
I don’t believe a damn thing these people have to say.
If Harris becomes Commander-in-Chief, the U.S. military will be like the Village People with guns. But more joyful. And better dance moves.
Outside of Asheville, there are few Dem voters in E TN and W NC. DeSantis may have to cough up some of the linemen & trucks he organized for the Florida coast.
Peter Baker just made a great case for Trump and shot up the case for Kamala.
Remarkable.
Not all of us were fortunate enough to have been raised middle class. Some of us fought the lawn, and the lawn won.
Islam and China are the greatest threats to the United States and Europe.
Russia is a threat to Ukraine. Not the United States. Russia doesn’t want to take over Europe. Dealing with all those Muslims would be a nightmare.
The "international rules-based order" comes straight from Davos and the World Economic Forum. It is Bilderberg bilge. The rules are set by transnational corporations that don't owe allegiance to anyone and haven't for some time. The rules are simple: "Don't let anyone do anything that upsets our ability to siphon value from nations like the USA which are becoming increasingly aware of how much we take advantage of them"
These groups have far more in common with the mafia than people imagine, and imagining the similarities it suddenly makes a lot of sense.
Likes good lawns.
=================
well maintained with cheap labor!
if the US would just fulfill its promises [to ukraine]
I don't believe we have any formal obligations with respect to Ukraine. We have politicians who have made speeches and promises, at an individual level, but those kinds of things, even at the secstate or presidential level, do not obligate us as a country to aid any other country.
It may be a good idea to help (debatable), but your claim of a promise existing outside of an official treaty is a bridge too far and would imply that a previous congress can generally obligate a future congress through legislation by means of the appropriations process. That would make an even bigger mess of things.
"He's willing to say nice things about Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un in North Korea."
He said nice things about Kim while in negotiations. When that deal was not acceptable to Trump, he pulled out. He didn't keep endlessly sweetening it. He also threatened Rocket Man. Basically, this is just media and Dems trying to convince you Trump likes dictators...so he must be one.
No, he does like strong leaders, but he also knows how to sell things, and to get a deal, you sometimes have to say things.
Also in RE: Putin, Trump literally told him we might blow up Moscow, and he sold weapons not blankets to Ukraine, and he blew up Russians in Syria.
The media and the left just can't help dip back into the Russia Hoax. Remember, the Democrats and media were willing to lie about Russia to get Trump - and Putin was aware it was a lie. That's not good for our reputation - but they didn't give a shit.
We had an apple tree in the backyard. And then bees. My Struggle.
Althouse, I think you're missing an "of" in your post title, after Harris.
Hasn't Biden repeatedly said that we support Ukrainian victory? And isn't it now obvious that that was a lie, and that he (or whoever is making decisions) doesn't want Ukraine to lose, but also doesn't want Russia to lose, either, which means he (she? they?) doesn't want Ukraine to win, and wants the slaughter of Ukrainian civilians by Russian projectiles to continue? Do you really not see a problem with that?
And the Budapest Memorandum may not be a treaty ratified by the Senate, but it's not just a 'speech or a promise' made by a politician, as you say. The Ukrainians thought it was a promise, so did the rest of the world, and the Biden administration is demonstrating that American promises are worthless, at least when made by Democrats. And that is having a devastating effect on world prospects for peace and prosperity.
FEMA is now all about DEI. Look at their web site. More important than saving a bunch of deplorables.
very succinct iman
Here's the embodiment of Democrat Party propaganda, folks. Donald Trump got more votes than any candidate for president ever, regularly draws crowds of hundreds of thousands wherever he appears, was the star of a hit television series, and has been a beloved celebrity for over 40 years....but everybody hates him, doncha know.
I believe that like I believe Joe Biden was sharp as a tackle, and Kamala wants what's best for America.
Who is Peter Baker? The White House Correspondent at the NYT. In other words, who cares what Peter Baker thinks? This is one category of loser talking to another loser from the same source.
The fact he has to twist himself in knots to obscure Biden-Harris while linking Trump to Nixon in "madman" theory (this was never true, for either man) shows the NYT is increasingly bankrupt intellectually.
Biden certainly made an impression on Saudis by attacking them before asking for oil.
It is astonishing that American public opinion is based to any extent on the blather of these journalists. Fortunately, the public is moving away from the newspapers like NYT. The patrons are now progressive automatons and an occasional outlier like Althouse.
It is astonishing that American public opinion is based to any extent on the blather of these journalists. Fortunately, the public is moving away from the newspapers like NYT. The patrons are now progressive automatons and an occasional outlier like Althouse.
The State dept, like the British, has been Arabist since WWI. Israel unleashed shows how stupid that is.
Temujin and Leland - top notch/spont-on comments. Must read.
There's too much killing. Not that he is expressing concern for those who are being killed, but, but because he says is hurting Israel's reputation in the world....
Perfect example of how disgusting many on the left are.
Christopher is right about this. The coddling of Russia was an Obama Hillary goal until she needed a club to beat off Trump.
As always, very nice summary from our hostess. Thank you!
That was revealing, wasn't it ?
& Jerry!
"One China" policy = the D-left's code for:
Democrats like Chinese money and will bend over backwards for Xi. Democrats will dutifully throw Taiwan to the sharks.
Obama is so sure he knows what he is doing.
The same applied to Reagan. The press hysteria created a lot of room for him.
As I understand it, one of the things President Trump wants to do is institute a uniform (more or less) tariff on all goods coming into the US from anywhere. I think I've heard 10% so i'll use that for this comment.
And of course it will be added into the price consumers pay for those goods.
It will effectively be a national sales tax but with US produced goods exempt.
Or we could call it a sales tax but only on imported goods.
Applied non-selectively in this manner, I fail to see the problem with it.
Perhaps Vance or one of the moderators can ask Walz why he sees it as a problem. As I understand that he does.
Yes, I know all the problems with taxing the American people even more. I know the pros and cons of sales taxes and VATs and so on. I know quite a bit about the problems with selective tariffs.
I just want to know why a uniform, general, tariff would be better or worse than any other kind of consumption tax.
John Henry
As if President Harris would have anything to do with formulating or implementing foreign policy. Management will take care of that. She is merely auditioning to play the President on television.
Disruptive of their rice bowl.
All good points.
"Teddy Roosevelt was speak softly and carry a big stick. Trump is speak loudly, but carry a small stick."
That is so completely wrong. Does he not understand that the big stick represented a strong and visible deterrence so that it's use was unnecessary?
That's Trump in spades.
Remember when the collective hivemind left's hearts all bleed for the dead terrorist? I do.
" I think our general assumption is that she's pretty close to where Biden is, and I think it's safe to assume that she is basically a pretty conventional center left Democratic, foreign-policy thinker."
Those two things are mutually incompatible. Plus, always an assumption - no one knows what Harris thinks about any of this.
Our propensity to intervene is bankrupting the country, Mark. Now, I don't expect Trump to prevent our bankruptcy but I would like to see his opponents admit the basic premise and fucking quit advocating our involvement in every fucking conflict across the world.
Exactly right RideSpaceMountain.
Do you know what you call a plane or a tank with no mechanics and spare parts?
A paperweight.
Trump called off a missile strike against Iran because he said it would have killed too many people. That sounds pretty empathetic toward the be people on the ground.
Pushing Ukraine to continue the war when there is no way they can win a war of attrition does not sound empathetic to me.
Well, bully for the Danes, Estonians, and Lithuanians but on a good day I doubt they could muster much more than a reinforced infantry brigade combined. So when anybody says NATO and doesn't mean the US they are talking about the Brits, the French, and especially the Germans.
Exactly. In his first year as president, he implemented major sanctions against North Korea, and even got China to (agree to) stop shipping oil to them.
Of course Trump treated our allies much more "nicely" that he treated China, North Korea, and Russia. It's astounding how many people say the opposite because they can think of a headline where he spoke politely to/about Putin or Kim, and another headline where he said something "unkind" about a NATO member.
"Learned a lot at the side of President Biden" Yikes, it must be tough to keep a straight face while saying/writing those words...
It's swapping the / and the i, b, or a which is easier to do on a phone, combined with the code for this comment format not recognizing that the reversal is invalid HTML and the lack of a preview or edit function.
President Staff has run the show and will again if God-forbid.
A tariff can compensate for labor arbitrage (e.g. slavery, subsidized labor), environmental arbitrage (e.g. Green blight, unfiltered waste), and monetary manipulation (e.g. single/central/monopolistic practices, debt emission) that motivates immigration reform, redistributive change schemes (e.g. progressive prices), planned parenthood, etc.
Waltz'n Karma-la.
More trimmers and balancers. The war in Ukraine is a great example of how badly the foreign policy establishment is at performing. Just give Ukraine enough to prolong the war but not enough to finish it. The black hearts are saying we are giving Ukraine just enough make the war last long enough to utterly destroy Russia as a global or even regional power, and they see this is a plus. I wonder what the Ukrainians are going to think about this after the war ends, which it will. Not to mention what the Russians that come after Putin think about it.
If you want to think outside the box, just make Crimea and the contested areas a Temporary Protected Status Designated Country, and let all the ones there come to the United States for free, set em up in some small towns in the midwest. Can't be more than 5-10 million people.
Why do so many here post things that 10 minutes with Google would show are false? Is it true that "the Danes, Estonians, and Lithuanians . . . on a good day . . . could [not] muster much more than a reinforced infantry brigade combined", as Christopher B wrote at 1:45pm? No, it is false. Wikipedia has an article on the Estonian Defense Forces, which have two active infantry brigades all by themselves, and are to be expended from 6,500 active duty troops, plus rapid reserves bringing the total to 21,000, to a total of 24,400 in war time by 2026, with tens of thousands more available in the longer term. Add in the Danes and Lithuanians, and it's obviously a lot more than a brigade.
In any case, no one was suggesting that they would fight in Ukraine. The question was whether European NATO countries are doing their share in supporting Ukraine with arms, ammunition, and money, and the answer is mostly yes.
Nor is it true that only "the Brits, the French, and especially [!] the Germans" count in NATO. They are the 5th, 4th, and 6th largest militaries in NATO, while the US is of course the largest, unreliable Turkey the second-largest. So who's the third-largest? Poland, which also has the newest and best equipment. (They just bought 980 brand new K2 tanks, 648 K9 self-propelled guns, and 48 FA-50 jet fighters from South Korea: link.)
If you can't bother to check the facts before posting a comment, keep your unsupported 'facts' to yourself.
It's not tough at all. These people are actors. They don't have an experienced policy-making bone in their body. They have more in common with the fat bearded dudes that show up in malls during Christmas to play Santa Clause.
Supporting Ukraine to the degree necessary to win the war means committing the United States to fighting a full-scale proxy war against Russia. Putin will not be fooled into ignoring our role in arranging his personal humiliation and downfall, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of 20-something Russian conscripts who will be killed with weapons stamped "Made in the U. S. A.".
Not supporting Ukraine to the degree necessary to defeat Russia and secure Ukrainian independence means prolonging the current conflict for many years to come, which will probably end on terms far more unpleasant for the Ukrainians than what Trump would insist on, not to mention the millions of young men and women who will die in the interim
Ukraine is not strong enough to defeat Russia without a massive commitment of arms, munitions, and political support, and the United States cannot provide that support and escape the consequences. Anyone who doubts Trumps sincerity in his desire to quickly end the fighting -- Kamala Harris, for example -- needs to exactly what consequence she is prepared to face.
Ukraine is not Afghanistan. It's historical importance to Russia going back to the early 15th century can hardly be overstated, and it boils down to two Russian indispensables: black soil and the Black Sea. Ukrainian nationalism is a very new idea. One need not look back very far in English-language journalism and scholarship to see the word Ukraine invariably coupled with the definite article, the Ukraine. This is how English speakers have historically referred to regions as opposed to nation-states. It is an exaggeration to speak of Ukraine as a newly independent yet long-suppressed nation state. Over the centuries the Ukraine has always been under the thumb of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Prince of Muscovy, or the Romanov tsars who succeeded them. Its status wasn't finally settled until the Great Northern War (1700-1721).
My sympathies are with Ukraine, but I'm not inclined to the romantic and often counterfactual attachment exhibited by the simpleton X.com subscribers who display Ukrainian flag icons alongside "gay pride" and "Palestinian" symbols.
Typo correction: Anyone who doubts Trumps sincerity in his desire to quickly end the fighting -- Kamala Harris, for example -- needs to exactly specify what consequence she is prepared to face.
Dr. Weasel said...Why do so many here post things that 10 minutes with Google would show are false? Yeah like your bullshit assumption that NATO Nations are paying their fair share (which is a favorite libtard mantra). As of July 2023...Germany 1.6%, Canada 1.4%, Italy 1.5%, Belgium 1.1%, France 1.9%.... the United States 3.5%, Poland 3.9%. You list countries that couldn't win a war against our transgender Colonels brandishing Swiss Army knives and wearing a pussy hats. The "deal" is 2% not matter how you justify not meeting the obligation.
And until TRUMP put them under pressure, they weren't budging. Put your money where you mouth is Dr. Weasel and go volunteer for Zelenky's foreign mercenary corps. The Estonian's could use someone like you.
The numbers you list for Estonian defense forces are chicken shit. Even if true, they are symbolic. Add Danes and Lithuanians to the mix as stated and... it's still chicken shit.
Trump brings chaos and Harris brings stability and continuity? Things became chaotic when Biden took office. Whatever the Democrats, the media, and foreign leaders say, there was more stability and continuity when Trump was president.
Harris has learned from being at Biden's side all these years? She's learned from the guy who "has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades"? Some lessons she must have learned.
Harris's experience as a prosecutor means that she has her own perspective on foreign affairs and believes in a "rules-based international order"? No, she's in over her head and more likely to do whatever staffers tell her to do. The "rules-based international order" is where we start out. Where do we go and what do we do when it doesn't work? It's unlikely that Harris will know what to do?
"Speak softly and carry a big stick?" Trump talks a lot but hasn't been speaking very loudly in international terms. You carry the stick and use it when necessary. You don't go swinging it about and hitting stuff with it. We had no new wars, because Trump kept that big stick and didn't try to mess with things in places where we shouldn't be messing with things.
You are a leader in a foreign country. You are wondering, "will Biden/Harris be there when we need them?" You see the news in North Carolina. You know the answer.
Dr. Weasel links to a site that provides gifts to Zelensky as portion of GDP, and not the common topic of the required 2% GDP defense spending to be a part of NATO. Plus the GDP of these countries compared to the size of the US GDP is CHICKEN SHIT, and so are the funds provided. Without US money, the war is over, even if all the other European nations double their contributions to Zelensky. Dr. Weasel seems to suggest the US is not meeting some bullshit obligation via a dishonest statistical slight of hand. He supports more Americans living without, to pay for another European conflict.
Dr. Weasel likes dead Russians, and dead Ukrainians while he sits in his chicken hawk armchair protected from the conflict. I'm sure his kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews are protected as well. Doesn't really affect him, so why should he really care?
If dingbat Kamala didn't extend and open NATO invitation to Ukraine, none of this would have happened. There is zero reason NATO needs to extend to Russia's border. It is purposefully, and stupidly provocative.
I should note, Taiwan is facing Typhoon Krathon (Cat 4 equivalent) right now.
Many accuse NATO of not doing their fair share in helping Ukraine with weapons, ammunition, and money, and claim that the US is doing it all. I thought that was what Gusty Winds was saying, and demonstrated that that is false for most of NATO. If she was writing of the 2% spending requirement for NATO members - an entirely different measure - she should have written more clearly. She has a point on that: they should spend more, though simple spending is not enough, it has to be spent on effective weapons systems.
Of course she ruins even this point with stupid invective and inept writing:
is volunteering for military service in a foreign country "put[ting] your money where your mouth is"? No, that would be putting my body where my mouth is, IF I were encouraging others to serve there, or to be sent to serve there against their will. I have never done any such thing, and have repeatedly pointed out that Ukraine doesn't need troops, they need weapons and ammunition, and permission to use the ones they have as they see fit.
Finally, if she's going to call me "Dr. Weasel", I'm going to have to call her "Windy Butts". Her choice.
Dr. Weasel said...If you can't bother to check the facts before posting a comment, keep your unsupported 'facts' to yourself..
Here's a fact dipshit. No US Money; no more Russia/Ukraine war. Ukraine gives up an eastern region they never would have lost if Kamala didn't invite them to hop in NATO's backseat and pull down their pants to help cover for US corruption.
It is now accepted that Ukraine is NOT getting that land back. The war is essentially over, except for the death you enjoy. The Kamala/BIDEN/NATO/EU strategy only lead to dangerous escalation.
Go waive to your neighbors with both hands like Tampon Tim.
So now we have two Lefty Marks ?
She and Obama are trying to construct a foreign policy of our enemies.
More foul stench from Windy Butts. And more idiocy. She thinks Putin would make peace if Ukraine gave him the Donbas and Crimea and let him continue torturing the Ukrainians who live there, and the hundreds of thousands more that have been kidnapped and moved to Russia! He has made it quite clear that he wants all of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, too, neither of which has a significant number of ethnic Russians, so he'll have a land route to Crimea, and Odessa, so Ukraine will have no seacoast, and in fact he wants all of Ukraine so he can draft all the young men and use them to conquer Poland. Anyone who tries to keep up with Russian TV propaganda knows this, and knows therefore that cutting off US money would undoubtedly massively increase military and civilian casualties on the Ukrainian side, and probably military casualties on the Russian side, too. And Windy Butts supports this.
Harris thinks our ally is North Korea. On video in South Korea !
Okay, with three and a half months to go, Biden has had fewer deaths from hostile action than Trump did (16 v 65). As for Reagan, over 200 Marines were killed and then (to get the disaster out of the headlines) invaded Grenada. He also traded arms for hostages with Iran.
Your memories are selective at best.
Hahaha! Russia is still far more likely to collapse than Ukraine is, even without further US support. Cutting off aid would only extend the war and vastly increase the casualties on both sides, along with the chances of a total break-up of Russia.
And Ukraine has as much right to independence as Ireland, which was also occupied by an oppressive larger neighbor for centuries. In fact, Ukraine declared independence (1917) before Ireland (1919), though it was not able to stay free when invaded by the Bolsheviks - far more ruthless than the British. Having black soil and easy access to the Black Sea does not in any sense give another country the right to invade it. Saying that makes you sound like Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, or a Russian propagandist. The consent of the governed is the only thing that counts, and Donbas and Crimea freely voted to join Ukraine in 1991.
Dr. Weasel said... "No, that would be putting my body where my mouth is, IF I were encouraging others to serve there, or to be sent to serve there against their will. I have never done any such thing, and have repeatedly pointed out that Ukraine doesn't need troops, they need weapons and ammunition, and permission to use the ones they have as they see fit....and have repeatedly pointed out that Ukraine doesn't need troops."
This is classic chicken-hawk chicken-shit. The weasel absolutely encourages people to fight against their will. Especially Ukrainians. The people weasels pretend to care about.
Ukraine's new "Mobilization Law" just came into effect Spring 2024. The new law, after they have already forced tens of thousands to fight and die against their will, requires the registration of all men between the ages of 18 and 60. Yes. 60 fucking years old. That's a country losing the war.
It's also a country that needs troops.
They are even going after Ukrainian men who aren't in the country. "Men of service age who are living abroad will not be able to renew their passports at Ukrainian consulates without producing up-to-date registration paperwork."
“Democrat Representative Elissa Slotkin warns Kamala that she is going down in Michigan, and not in the way that gets you promotions.”
—— Ace (AoS)
Foul-mouthed hard-to-tell-which-is-her-mouth-and-which-is-her-ass Windy Butts can't stop lying. Now she's changed the definition of 'chickenhawk' just for me! And she cries about Ukraine allegedly (assuming she didn't make it up) registering men up to 60, and having a draft (like many civilized countries when they're at war), while Russians in their '50s and '60s are actually serving in the front lines and being killed in large numbers. Some on Twitter follow obituaries and where's-my-missing-loved-one posts on Russian Telegram, and there are hundreds of new ones every day, many of them very old men.
Of course, her assumption that cutting off aid would reduce the number of Ukrainians killed and wounded is idiotic. Putin has shown no interest in any settlement that would not leave him with millions of Ukrainian slaves to torture, rape, and kill. Just watch subtitled Russian TV, and you'll know that.
Okay, with three and a half months to go, Biden has had fewer deaths from hostile action than Trump did (16 v 65). As for Reagan, over 200 Marines were killed and then (to get the disaster out of the headlines) invaded Grenada. He also traded arms for hostages with Iran.
And that has precisely jackshit to do with the discussion at hand or what's going on in world events today.
Your hatred for Ronny Raygun is noted. Go dust off your Sane/Freeze sign and stick it somewhere.
"Supporting Ukraine to the degree necessary to win the war means committing the United States to fighting a full-scale proxy war against Russia."……"Not supporting Ukraine to the degree necessary to defeat Russia and secure Ukrainian independence means prolonging the current conflict for many years to come, which will probably end on terms far more unpleasant for the Ukrainians than what Trump would insist on, not to mention the millions of young men and women who will die in the interim."
As far as I'm concerned, the analysis begins and ends here. I do not want us in a war with Russia.
"And he doesn't particularly like wars. " OMG ! Trump is certainly a different candidate.
Fuck you Weevil. Again, get your ass over there and bring a few family members. Then maybe we can talk. Asshole. Warmonger.
If 'donald' (a disgrace to a fine name) is going to go from thread to thread repeating his moronic insults, I'll just have to repeat my replies:
"Get yourself over to the nearest mental hospital, 'donald': you're raving. I have never suggested sending American troops to Ukraine, or Israel, and neither country is asking for them, or needs them. (In fact, Israel could have done without the sailors trying to build a pier in Gaza.) All they need is weapons, and wishing to provide them does not make me a 'chickenhawk'."
Of course, the war is already going on, and cutting off aid to Ukraine would only make it longer and bloodier, and more likely to spread to Poland or the Baltics, and much more likely to lead to a bloody breakup of the Russian empire, which of course makes 'donald' the warmonger.
Weevil: "Hahaha! Russia is still far more likely to collapse than Ukraine is, even without further US support."
The russkis are at about a zero probability of collapse...which our own govt was forced to admit quite awhile ago. Their economy is not completely sanctions proof, but well enough sanctions proof. There is black market selling of every commodity the russkis want to unload and anything they need in terms of finished goods comes from China and other willing sellers.
And thanks to the dems/GOPe, the russkis are more in bed with the ChiComs than ever. There will be no Victoria Nuland/State Dept/CIA designed color revolution there.
Field Marshall Freder: "Okay, with three and a half months to go, Biden has had fewer deaths from hostile action than Trump did (16 v 65). As for Reagan, over 200 Marines were killed and then (to get the disaster out of the headlines) invaded Grenada."
Your level of ignorance is truly impressive. And the fact that you advertise it is such a Dunning-Kruger manner is even more interesting.
Grenada was invaded because the Soviets, your current day to past day allies, were just about finished with their fancy shmancy 10,000 foot, military aircraft capable runway and airfield.
Between russki/commie bases in Cuba, Grenada and Nicaragua, they could have turned the Caribbean Sea into a Soviet lake, which the New Soviet Democraticals in the US would have loved Loved LOVED!
But that didn't work out for the dems, so they instead passed 3 different versions of the Boland Amendment, with different versions phasing in and out and causing massive confusion on the part of our own govt and allies....which the dems then used to attack the Reagan Admin with all the gusto of a Soviet Politburo meeting.
Apparently '*ago' hasn't heard that Russia raised its prime interest rate to 19%, expects food prices to rise 30% by the end of the year, and is running out of locomotives, train cars, harvest labor, and foreign exchange, while the ruble continues to drop against every other currency. And Ukraine keeps blowing up massive ammunition dumps, destroying weeks worth of production in a single night. The one in Toropets had just received a 96-car train from Belarus with four huge S-400 missiles in each car - that makes 384, all destroyed -, and the Ukrainians knew it was coming because as long as they hold Sudzha railroad station in Kursk oblast they have complete access to rail traffic information for the entire nation. Russia, like Iran and China, is closer to collapse than many would like to think.
"[S]he believes in the international rules-based order. So she looks at foreign policy in the sense of who is following the rules, "
Maybe if she gets elected, she can tell us where these "rules" are written down! Because it sure seems like we make them up as we go along.
The Biden strategy was to use Ukraine to make his family richer while our true allies, Israel and Taiwan, have been left poorer.
'Dr Weevil' knows that the Ukrainians will win because the Russians are sort of sub-human and the Ukrainians are a master race. But he's not a ... well, I don't want to get "spam filtered."
No, the neocon's plan was to use the corrupt Biden clan, same as they restored the corrupt Marcos clan to power in the Philippines to turn that country against its own largest trading partner. Just like we did by capturing the government of the Ukraine.
You do know that no country in the world recognizes Taiwan as anything other than a province of China, right? That includes the US.
She's learned a lot from Biden about Failure. There haven't really been any Biden regime foreign policy successes, with the world aflame.
'tim in vermont' just can't stop lying. I have noted before that Russians treat Ukrainians as if they were (a) identical to Russians but pretending to be different, and (b) sub-human, which shows something about the Russian self-image. There is certainly something seriously wrong with Russian culture, but it's not genetic, it comes from years of totalitarian rule.
But I have never in any way suggested that "Ukrainians are a master race", nor have any Ukrainians, so far as I know. They're just normal human beings who wish to be free and are willing to fight to achieve that.
By the way, I caught 'tim' telling a bald-faced lie about a German general seven posts down (1:34 comment here) and am still waiting for him to correct it, or even acknowledge it.
That's well said. Putin has failed to conquer Ukraine. Zelenskyy has failed to end the Russian invasion. NATO has proved that it can provide arms and materiel to defend against Russian aggression.
I have supported and still do support Ukraine, but wouldn't most Ukrainians be better off with a settlement that stopped the war, even if it required some "border adjustments"?
Is the alternative to "fight to the death of the last Ukrainian"?
Grin
I'm amazed at the ability of the pundit to totally fantasize foreign policy positions based on feels. We have no idea what Kamala's foreign policies are because she hasn't said. Trump's policies can be found both by listening to what he says and looking at what he did.
She's had some foreign experience. French, German and Italian wines.
Again, GFY Weevil. Get your ass over there. You won’t cause you talk shit, but have no balls. Go blow W. That’ll work for you.
Which that pos Weevil is literally slavering for. To the tune of over 20 posts on this thread alone. Go or shut the fuck up boy. Now go get all Dick Cheney and shit.
I've been thinking if it would be useful as a "reserve currency tax"
Just have to look at the actions of Harris/Walz in Asheville NC.
Policies? We don't need no stinkin policies!
Or maybe instead of us guessing what her policy would be, she can just tell us.
Well said, gentlemen!
Yes!
If anyone knows 'donald' in real life, or knows how to contact his friends or family, please try to get help for him. He clearly needs either a psychiatrist, a lawyer, an exorcist, or a geriatric social worker who can get him admitted to an Alzheimers ward. If reading the word 'chickenhawk' incites you to talk about "blow[ing] W", you're as senile as Joe Biden, living in a past where George W. Bush actually mattered and fools thought 'chickenhawk' an appropriate epithet, and prone to outbursts of idiotic foul-mouthed anger against people who have done you no harm. W has nothing whatever to do with Ukraine.
Over on the progressive side of reality, Trump has now been accused of "slut shaming" Kamala. It came about when he was asked a question about Kamala's race and when did he learn she was black. He said that at first he thought she was Indian and then she put out that she was black. So maybe she's black.
Well a progressive sees and hears what he, she, they want to see or hear. Trump used the words "put out"! Goldang he's slut shaming her. Put out is synonymous in this case with "said" or "argued' or "advocated" or "published".
I think they are a little touchy there about Ms. Harris's sex history. I don't give a tinkers toot either way since, as the late Kitty Wells once sang many a married man has caused a good girl to go wrong.
“The coddling of Russia was an Obama Hillary goal until she needed a club to beat off Trump.”
Hillary is wrong for that role. Harris has proved herself fit to beat off Trump. She’s a proven professional in that respect.
If anyone knows 'donald' in real life, or knows how to get hold of his friends or family, please try to get help for him. He clearly needs a psychiatrist, lawyer, or exorcist, or a geriatric social worker who can get him admitted to an Alzheimers ward. If reading the word 'chickenhawk' incites you to talk about "blow[ing] W", you're as senile as Joe Biden, living in a past where George W. Bush still mattered and fools thought 'chickenhawk' a devastating epithet, and prone to outbursts of foul-mouthed incoherent anger against people who have done you no harm.
Blessed are teh meme-makers…
Trumps track record is peace. Biden’s track record is war and death. Period
Weevil believes the russkis are near collapse. We have been hearing that for decades and here we are. The russki economy operates on many different levels and its people are incredibly resilient and able to endure much.
My point stands: there is zero probability the russkis are on any kind of a "collapse" trajectory, despite Weevil's fevered desires.
Instead, it is the US on the verge of a kamala installation as president and the establishment of a permanent one party state...which is completely aligned with a ChiCom Social Control model.
Currently Taiwan has 12 diplomatic allies that recognise Taiwan as the ROC (and thus do not have official relations with Beijing): Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Marshall Islands, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Eswatini and Tuvalu.
They are all countries.
Taiwan is functionally an independent country. And on that note- I graduated HS in 1973- and at that time, I could label all the countries in Europe with an outline map. As of today, I can't by memory recall all the new nations that have popped up. Nor can I name all the Stans that didn't exist as nations in 1973.
No reason for nations to not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation except for fear of the mainland Chinese government. The island wasn't part of China until the 1600s and was ceded to Japan in 1895, only to be taken over by the Republic of China in 1945, who were defeated on the mainland years later. But kept control in Taiwan. Why should the people of Taiwan (about 23 million) have less right to independence then the population of North Macedonia (about 2 million)? And why shouldn't North Macedonia be allowed to name itself Macedonia? Oh, wait, I can answer that. Because Greece insisted Mecedonia is a Greek province- and wouldn't recognize them as a nation if the did so...
'*ago' can't seem to handle rational arguments. Is what I wrote about the prime rate, inflation rate, and all the rest in Russia true or not? How are those not signs of possible economic and military collapse? Anyone who says there is "zero possibility" of that doesn't have a clue. And I have not been "hearing that for decades" - only lately, and before that in the '80s when the Soviet Union was in fact nearing the collapse that occurred in 1991. We shall see. And people who call them "russkis" are not exactly authorities on anything except snark.
Thank you, DclgFy! I appreciate your commentary also.
That's... Holy heck, they're really reaching on that one...
Dr Weevil's link takes you to % of GDP on aid to Ukraine, not share of GDP spent on defence where the target is 2% for NATO members. Here is a different link.https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=EU
Germany spends 1.4%. Austria 0.8%. UK spends over 2%
Trump nagged away at the likes og Germany to increase defence spending. Why should the US spend money on defending Germany if the Germans couldn't be bothered?
Well, yes, that's exactly what I said in my 3:02pm comment yesterday. I thought Gusty Winds was talking about US vs. European support for Ukraine, not US vs. European military budgets as percentage of GNP. Does he even know the difference? "It's time for the US to stop financing Zelensky" strongly implies that I was right in thinking it was about spending on Ukraine, not spending for self-defense.
In fact, I thought so partly because the the phrasing of the comment strongly suggested that, mostly because that's what people are arguing about on Twitter and (e.g.) Ace of Spades. I've seen lots of "Why are we sending Ukraine money that we need to spend here in North Carolina?", absolutely no "Why isn't the rest of NATO spending more so we could . . . spend more in North Carolina?", which doesn't even make sense.
Post a Comment