Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[JBS]

Is anyone asking when all these ISIS prisoners released through Trump's bungling are going to turn up in America, or start planning something retaliatory?

I'm amazed the talking heads aren't yelling this as loud as they can.

Apparently most of the ISIS fighters are from Iraq or Syria. About 1/5th (2000 or so) are non local, but most of them are from Europe, and would presumably head there first.

[BasilValentine]

Truly herculean feats of stupidity today, thank you Mick Mulvaney. What a dumb ass. And Baby Huey had a meltdown. John Oliver has aptly dubbed this affair Stupid Watergate II, the sequel no on wanted to the sequel no one wanted.

[Florestan]

     I'm certain there were. No doubt they evolved as the war progressed. We and the Kurds fought all the way from Mosul in Iraq to Raqqa in Syria to destroy ISIS from 2014 until a few days ago.

     Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve

The countries that directly participated in this part of the campaign were the United States (accounting for 75-80% of airstrikes on its own), Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.

According to this, then, there are no less than 10 countries that could have taken the place of the US in protecting the Kurds. They didn't move a finger though. Why?

[SimonNZ]

'He earned his spurs from a doctor': James Mattis mocks Trump
Ex-defence secretary responds to US president calling him 'the world's most overrated general'

"The former US defence secretary James Mattis has laughed off an insult hurled at him by Donald Trump.

Speaking at a New York charity event on Thursday, the day after the US president demeaned him as "the world's most overrated general", Mattis joked that he took it as a compliment.

"I'm not just an overrated general. I'm the greatest, the world's most overrated," he told diners at the annual Alfred E Smith Memorial Foundation dinner.

"I'm honoured to be considered that by Donald Trump because he also called Meryl Streep an overrated actress," he said. "So I guess I'm the Meryl Streep of generals, and frankly that sounds pretty good to me."

Trump lashed out at his former defence secretary on Wednesday during a contentious White House meeting with members of Congress.

The meeting was intended to be a bipartisan discussion of Trump's decision to pull US forces from northern Syria, but it broke up after a testy exchange between Trump and Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker.

Before the walkout, Trump disparaged Mattis, who had argued as defence secretary that US troops were needed in Syria to prevent a resurgence of Islamic State fighters.

Trump said Mattis was "the world's most overrated general. You know why? He wasn't tough enough."

"I captured Isis," Trump went on to say.

Mattis resigned last December after Trump said he intended to pull 2,000 American troops out of Syria. In his resignation letter, the retired Marine general told Trump he had "the right to have a secretary of defence whose views are better aligned with yours".

Since then, he has largely refrained from publicly criticising the administration, saying he owed the commander-in-chief "a duty of silence".

But he did save an insult for Trump at the gala.

"I earned my spurs on the battlefield ... and Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor," Mattis said.

[71 dB]

According to this, then, there are no less than 10 countries that could have taken the place of the US in protecting the Kurds. They didn't move a finger though. Why?

Could it be because those "no less than 10 countries" have used to diplomacy and international politics where you think, plan, consult and negotiate with others before acting?

[Florestan]

Could it be because those "no less than 10 countries" have used to diplomacy and international politics where you think, plan, consult and negotiate with others before acting?

I doubt it.

[drogulus]

According to this, then, there are no less than 10 countries that could have taken the place of the US in protecting the Kurds. They didn't move a finger though. Why?

     Many of the countries lack the kind of expertise, many lack logistics capability. They support what the U.S. does as long as the U.S. is doing it.

[milk]

Trump meeting was 'a stunt,' says bereaved parents' spokesman

(CNN)The grieving parents of a British teenager say they are "extremely angry" and feel they have been "taken advantage of" after a highly choreographed White House encounter with US President Donald Trump -- where he presented them with an unexpected offer to meet the woman involved in the crash that killed their son.

The family says that Trump surprised them with the "bombshell" news that Anne Sacoolas, the wife of a US diplomat stationed in the UK, was in an adjoining room. Photographers were waiting in the wings, said a family spokesman, who described the encounter as an ambush.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/harry-dunn-family-white-house-meeting-trump-intl-gbr/index.html

[71 dB]

I doubt it.

Well how about the "no less than 10 countries" being wise enough to stay away from the mess in Syria?

[drogulus]

Well how about the "no less than 10 countries" being wise enough to stay away from the mess in Syria?

     They lack the power and will to make and unmake a big mess. Sometimes they are critical in a way that implies that they could make a better one if only they had the means. It's a free lunch kind of thing. I understand how it works and don't read too much into it. Norway can leave any alliance it makes. France decided on a halfway position on NATO in 1966.

[Florestan]

     Many of the countries lack the kind of expertise, many lack logistics capability.

And yet Wikipedia mentions them as direct participants in the campaign.

I doubt that the UK or France or lack expertise and logistics capability. The former defeated Argentina in a blitzkrieg and the latter intervened  in Tchad and Lybia alright.

They support what the U.S. does as long as the U.S. is doing it.

Bingo!

We Romanians have a proverb: to take the chestnuts out of the fire with someone else's hand. That's exactly what they do: claptrap all day long about humanitarian interventions and international solidarity but when it comes to direct, decisive, military action they let the US do the dirty job. And when the US stop doing the dirty job they condemn it as not willing to take responsibility for the mess they (US, that is) created. This is disgusting hypocrisy.

[71 dB]

We Romanians have a proverb: to take the chestnuts out of the fire with someone else's hand. That's exactly what they do: claptrap all day long about humanitarian interventions and international solidarity but when it comes to direct, decisive, military action they let the US do the dirty job. And when the US stop doing the dirty job they condemn it as not willing to take responsibility for the mess they (US, that is) created. This is disgusting hypocrisy.

Except the US has not stopped "doing it." The US has thousands of troops in the middle east. Trump increased troops in Saudi-Arabia more than decreased in Syria at the same time. North Syria was the last place to bring troops backs, that thats where Trump did. The troops Trump himself sent there in 2018.

[Florestan]

Except the US has not stopped "doing it." The US has thousands of troops in the middle east. Trump increased troops in Saudi-Arabia more than decreased in Syria at the same time. North Syria was the last place to bring troops backs, that thats where Trump did. The troops Trump himself sent there in 2018.

The current discussion --- and the hypocritical moral outrage --- is about Syria, not Saudi Arabia. More specifically, about the fate of the Syrian Kurds. Not a single one of those countries who condemn US for abandoning them (the Kurds, that is) has done anything to alleviate their plight in all these years. Anything at all. Finland is no exception. Now they are all hand-wringing about it. Sheer, utter hypocrisy.

[drogulus]

And yet Wikipedia mentions them as direct participants in the campaign.

I doubt that the UK or France or lack expertise and logistics capability. The former defeated Argentina in a blitzkrieg and the latter intervened  in Tchad and Lybia alright.

     The UK has shrunk since the Falklands, they no longer have power projection capability at that level. France has more ability to support troops abroad. They tend to take care of their own back yard. These countries can't do air supremacy over the ME like the U.S. can.

This is disgusting hypocrisy.

     No, it is not. It's ordinary hypocrisy. It's a personal characteristic of over-friendly Americans to be upset about what they perceive as ingratitude. Why can't the world be more like us? Why can't the world like us more?

     I'm not on that wavelength. The most powerful country, no matter what uses it makes of that power, is not going to be liked, and certainly not in a puppydoggish way.

[BasilValentine]

The current discussion --- and the hypocritical moral outrage --- is about Syria, not Saudi Arabia. More specifically, about the fate of the Syrian Kurds. Not a single one of those countries who condemn US for abandoning them (the Kurds, that is) has done anything to alleviate their plight in all these years. Anything at all. Finland is no exception. Now they are all hand-wringing about it. Sheer, utter hypocrisy.

This accusation of hypocrisy is nonsense. The US made a specific commitment to defend the Kurds in exchange for the Kurds dismantling their defensive positions on the Turkey border and continuing to detain 10,000 ISIS prisoners. The Kurds kept their end of the bargain, the US reneged. But not only did the US (Trump administration) renege, they precipitously withdrew, giving the Kurds no time or means to make alternate arrangements before they were attacked by Turkey. None of the other countries were involved in this betrayal, which negated and rendered pointless whatever contribution to the effort these other countries had made. So the US betrayed all of the other supporting countries as well. These nations therefore have every right to be outraged by US actions in Syria and to say so.

[Florestan]

     The UK has shrunk since the Falklands, they no longer have power projection capability at that level. France has more ability to support troops abroad. They tend to take care of their own back yard. These countries can't do air supremacy over the ME like the U.S. can.

To protect the Kurds from the Turks you don't need air supremacy. You need (1) troops to act as a buffer between Turkey and the Kurds and (2) a clear statement that the Kurds are your allies. As long as the US ensured these conditions, Erdogan did nothing because he could do nothing.

No, it is not. It's ordinary hypocrisy. It's a personal characteristic of over-friendly Americans to be upset about what they perceive as ingratitude. Why can't the world be more like us? Why can't the world like us more?

     I'm not on that wavelength. The most powerful country, no matter what uses it makes of that power, is not going to be liked, and certainly not in a puppydoggish way.

I'm not American. This is not a question of gratitude or ingratitude, it's a question of verifiable facts: as long as the US is willing to do the dirty job, all is all right (and even so there is widespread outrage about "American imperialism"); the moment US stop doing the dirty job, there is outrage about US not willing to take their responsibilities which they created themselves by their imperialism. What is indeed morally ourageous for me is exactly this double standard.

[Florestan]

The US made a specific commitment to defend the Kurds in exchange for the Kurds dismantling their defensive positions on the Turkey border and continuing to detain 10,000 ISIS prisoners.

Source, please. Official US source, I mean.

[BasilValentine]

Source, please. Official US source, I mean.

You should do research before spouting off at half the nations on earth. I'm not going to do it for you after the fact.

[Florestan]

You should do research before spouting off at half the nations on earth. I'm not going to do it for you after the fact.

Nice try.

[SimonNZ]

the SEAL commander who killed Osama bin Laden writing in the NYT:

Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President

[...]"But, beneath the outward sense of hope and duty that I witnessed at these two events, there was an underlying current of frustration, humiliation, anger and fear that echoed across the sidelines. The America that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within.

These men and women, of all political persuasions, have seen the assaults on our institutions: on the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State Department and the press. They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own. They have seen us abandon our allies and have heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, "I don't like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!"

Those words echoed with me throughout the week. It is easy to destroy an organization if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great. We are not the most powerful nation in the world because of our aircraft carriers, our economy, or our seat at the United Nations Security Council. We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate.

But, if we don't care about our values, if we don't care about duty and honor, if we don't help the weak and stand up against oppression and injustice — what will happen to the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Syrians, the Rohingyas, the South Sudanese and the millions of people under the boot of tyranny or left abandoned by their failing states?

If our promises are meaningless, how will our allies ever trust us? If we can't have faith in our nation's principles, why would the men and women of this nation join the military? And if they don't join, who will protect us? If we are not the champions of the good and the right, then who will follow us? And if no one follows us — where will the world end up?

President Trump seems to believe that these qualities are unimportant or show weakness. He is wrong. These are the virtues that have sustained this nation for the past 243 years. If we hope to continue to lead the world and inspire a new generation of young men and women to our cause, then we must embrace these values now more than ever.

And if this president doesn't understand their importance, if this president doesn't demonstrate the leadership that America needs, both domestically and abroad, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it."