Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jopax]

Well of course, you gotta remind them who's the boss with the big stick, can't go treating them like equals with their own goals and desires, only as ways to further whatever agenda you're on now.

And Sheb, if your every attempt to help has only caused further chaos and damage I think considering not meddling anymore is a viable option. Otherwise people might start questioning how earnest your attempts at help are. Because let's face it, the last thing the US would want is a functional ME that works in some semblance of cooperation and autonomy, because then they can stand up for themselves and potentially tell the US to sod off. Just look at what happened to Iran after it became uppity and decided to not tow the line. Would the Iranian deal be needed had the US not turned them into a pariah of sorts after fucking with their government?

[martinuzz]

How's that ISIS propaganda?

In my opinion you're going a bit over the edge when trying to blame the US / Bush / Obama for the existence of ISIS and other chaos in the Middle East. Not saying that US interventions don't play a part, just not the sole, or even the most major part IMO.

[Sheb]

Ok Jopax: do you think the US should stop its current effort to support the Iraqi against ISIS?

[Dorsidwarf]

It's toe the line,  not tow.


Everyone's suddenly saying "tow" and it's mildly irritating

[Helgoland]

It was in too much threat of having a peaceful conclusion (one that didn't topple the government).

Did you just literally call victory by conquest 'a peaceful conclusion'? Now that's Orwellian. Not to mention that Gaddafi openly announced a post-conquest bloodbath. Do you really think that a long-time brutal dictator would not conduct massive campaigns of repression after such an uprising?

Oh, and you should also factor in that a second rebellion would only have been a question of time. Look up what Assad Sr. did in Hama back in 1982.



Jesus, this sort of thinking gets me pissed. You should really consider the situation of folks in Libya, not just the geopolitical implications for us in our comfy sofas.

[Sergarr]

You should really consider the situation of folks in Libya,

The situation of folks in Libya is that their country is still in a state of civil war between the "moderate jihadists" and the remnants of Gaddafi forces.

[smjjames]

Speaking of the situation in the ME, is it true that Tulsi Gabbard (whom I first became aware of from Max's praise of her in this very thread, or its last incarnation) is now under fire somewhat for going to the Syria on a fact-finding mission and basically coming back to report 'There are no moderate rebels - they're pretty much all ISIS'?

"They asked me, why is the United States and its allies supporting these terrorist groups who are destroying Syria when it was al Qaida who attacked the United States on 9/11, not Syria. I didn't have an answer for them"

“The reality is... every place that I went, every person that I spoke to, I asked this question to them, and without hesitation, they said, there are no moderate rebels. Who are these moderate rebels that people keep speaking of?

Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact”.

If so, it's a shame, because aside from the 'She's a woman! She's a minority!' aspect that was being pushed a bit hard (to clarify, these aren't negatives, I just don't believe they're anything worth putting on a resume), she'd seemed like a promising politician to keep an eye on.

She did come under fire for doing that and what also rankled her colleagues is that she did it secretly and without permission from a committee. And she did seem like a promising politician to keep an eye on, yeah.

[Jopax]

@Sheb, yes. Not immediately up and leave because that'd leave a sizeable power vacuum and we all know how fun those are. But an active and continued reduction of presence over a couple of years would be ideal, like they said they'd do before but instead did the opposite. Or if they want to be honest about it, call Iraq a territory and occupy it completely and then commit fully to fixing it, infrastructure and all, only fair to replace what you broke I'd say.

@dorisDorsidwarf, sorry, I hadn't even noticed I wrote it like that xD

Edit: Doubleshit, my eyes are just fucked today it seems, sorry again xd

[Dorsidwarf]

@doris, sorry, I hadn't even noticed I wrote it like that xD

It's Dor si dwarf

Q_Q

[Frumple]

I wonder if someone is trolling Congress, because surely, no one would try to terminate the Department of Education for real, right?

Nah, there's totally some folks in congress that would try. Hard to say exactly what's being proposed there, since there's nothing to go on besides the title (at the time of this post, anyway), but as should be obvious by the whole "Is sponsor and co-sponsors"* thing, there's people that think it's something worth pursuing.

Fortunately, there's a substantial difference between "try" and "manage". Fair amount of the GOP's kinda' fucked in the head so far as governance goes (particularly in relation to education), but even for them tearing down the DoE outright is a bit too blatant. If there's more than one or two dems that would support it, I'd actually be surprised. Pretty doubtful it'd pass a vote, basically, assuming it even gets out of that committee.

*Am I surprised one of them is from florida? Ha ha ha. _{I'd give even odds some of the critter's campaign money came from something related to private/charter schools. Bloody bastards have been trying to leverage their shit pretty hard over the last decade or so to pry open more of the state for their dickery.}

[sluissa]

Frumple:

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say starts with a "Ma" ends with a "etz" with a "tt Ga" filling in the middle?

Nutjob from a nutjob family and he's already pushed a few dumbass ideas just in the month or so he's been there.

[Frumple]

Something gaetz, yeah. One of the co-sponsors. Least I can blame that one on a different district, ha.

[palsch]

Still developing and pretty big story; Mike Flynn appears to have lied about discussing lifting sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

This story broke ages ago, but was denied and there was a conflict between different sources as to whether or not the conversation did take place. This piece is the best roundup of all the various stages up till yesterday evening and the confirmation in the Washington Post that the conversation did happen, was recorded and a transcript existed. This was based on nine separate sources.

Where this gets really spicy is that Pence himself issued a denial that the conversation happened. This has now been walked back, with a statement that Pence simply repeated what he was told by Flynn. It appears that now the White House is confirming this, although I can't find a primary source for that. The senior Democratic member of the House intelligence committee (who would have access to any transcripts of such a conversation IIRC) has called for his resignation in the last hour.

EDIT: Also, Trump blocks Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State because Abrams criticised him during the campaign. Finding experienced diplomats who haven't criticised Trump is going to remain tough.

[smjjames]

Pence has also said that "it's a problem" and appears to be taking it really seriously. Naturally, Russia has denied it. Also, the juicy bit is that it was caught by routine US intel eavesdropping on diplomats.

If Pence is troubled by it, Flynn might not have the position for a whole lot longer, though it's ultimately Trump's decision.

If Flynn is outed, I wonder who would replace him? Bannon? The entire Dem Congress would convulse from revulsion for sure, and there are some Republicans who don't like Bannon either.

EDIT: Also, Trump blocks Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State because Abrams criticised him during the campaign. Finding experienced diplomats who haven't criticised Trump is going to remain tough.

The guy is a neocon in the same vein as Bush 43 and friends anyway.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's toe the line,  not tow.


Everyone's suddenly saying "tow" and it's mildly irritating

They're saying that because the phrase has evolved and split into two phrases with distinct meanings.

Toe the line = Staying in the ideological limits given to you by your fellows, can also refer to riskily crossing over those limits but acting like you didn't.

Tow the line = Going out of your way to be the utterly dedicated martyr of whatever idea is at hand.