Secret CIA source claims Russia rigged 2016 election


#382

I agree on that, especially on the Syrian thing. It was one of the biggest blunders of his presidency, that effectively made using chemical weapons a viable choice for a lot of nations.


#383

It basically made doing ANYTHING a viable choice for a lot of nations. It said, quite clearly, “Obama is unwilling to engage in a full military engagement, at all, ever.”

It absolutely played into Russia’s later willingness to invade Crimea, because they knew that the US was not gonna actually get into a conflict over it. And Europe sure as hell wasn’t.

Trump’s macho bullshit is exactly that, bullshit, but there is truth to the statement that the best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war. Other countries need to believe that the US is willing to go to war for our ideals and interests. If not, they’re gonna assume you’re not a threat… and then that’s gonna leave you with the choice of either going to war for real to prove it, or just backing away from your ideals and interest and leaving the world in the hands of those willing to do what it takes.


#384

I think Obama inherited two wars from Bush, and was very reluctant to start a third.

Basically, I blame Bush.


#385

What’s disturbingly brilliant about this whole thing is how fake news was used to win the election and now, after that has come to light, as a defense of the same people. When Obama ran (or at least the Obama campaign), it was clear that the democrats had a much better understanding of social media. That has clearly changed.


#386

Sow Trump and Russia is Obama’s fault? Can I have a list a of what we’re allowed to blame Trump or the GOP for? I’m sure it’s not very long.


#387

I recognize the inclination… And honestly, he was what folks voted for. He basically campaigned on pacifism.

But from a practical perspective, I don’t think pacifism works in the real world.


#388

I think maybe you need to read the post, and its context.


#389

This is it. It’s the answer to how you wage propaganda effectively in the age of information. Muddy the waters to the point where no one can figure out what’s real and no one believes anything they read unless they want to believe it.


#390

I mean ultimately, yes. Both sides can be at fault, though.

Bush’s actions set up Obama for failure. To be fair to Obama he just did what people elected him to do, but that doesn’t mean it was necessarily the right call.


#391

Oh don’t worry. I did. The way you’re propping up Trump makes him a winner no matter what he does, which is exactly what he wants and how he sells himself.


#392

You realize that nothing I said there had anything to do with Trump at all?

The stuff we’re talking about took place years ago.


#393

Stop defending Trump already!

/s


#394

You referenced a past event and then linked Trump to it by actually using his name and his potential policies as a comparison.


#395

No, I specifically pointed out that Trump’s position is bullshit, while arguing in favor on the notion that a strong military and the willingness to use it is required in the world.

I mean, I literally say that in the first sentence there.


#396

Not exactly, because then you moved forward with the idea that you ensure peace by preparing for war. This allows someone to actually prepare for war, actually take a very aggressive stance and make the claim it’s all in the name of peace I guess right up until they declare actual war.

Remember the part where Donald kept asking about the nukes? Well that last part kind of backs that position as not bullshit.


#397

Let’s be clear. Obama killed a lot of people. He totally escalated the drone war in a lot of corners of the world. I won’t be surprised if, decades from now, we learn that he had the special forces to a lot more that we don’t know about today. That’s not a pacifist.

He’s against, what he literally said years ago, “stupid wars”.


#398

All our choices in Syria were terrible. They have state-of-the-art air defenses with Russian advisors, so air support or a no-fly zone would be hugely risky. Supplying arms to the rebels all but guarantees that some end up in the hands of Al Qaeda or ISIS. The red line speech certainly didn’t help things, but things were going to be crappy regardless.


#399

The fact that Trump has taken the notion of a true statement, which is that peace is ensured through strength, and then bastardized it into some macho bullshit, does not mean that believing in peace through strength equates to defending Trump.

And this further misses the actual point of the statements, pointing out flaws in Obama’s foreign policy, which does not somehow equate to support for trump. Whatever though. You do you. I do not care any more.

All our choices in Syria were terrible. They have state-of-the-art air defenses with Russian advisors, so air support or a no-fly zone would be hugely risky. Supplying arms to the rebels all but guarantees that some end up in the hands of Al Qaeda or ISIS. The red line speech certainly didn’t help things, but things were going to be crappy regardless.

When you draw a line, you are required to enforce it.

If you aren’t willing to, you don’t draw the line.

Period.


#400

Eh, there is some nuance to that. Historically no one has doubted the US would go to war. That’s the entirety of the Cold War after all. You don’t have to be aggressive, but you can’t have someone call your bluff and then not do anything. Don’t draw lines in the sand if you aren’t willing to back them up.


#401

Except isn’t that what Trump claims he is doing? Isn’t he asking about nukes for strength? Isn’t that why he thinks it’s silly to have nukes and not threaten to use them? He’s taking the strength position. Just because his words are extreme, which is always going to be the case because the man doesn’t really have a normal button, doesn’t mean his position is different than what your’e advocating. He thinks being an alpha male is puffing and pounding your chest, so that’s what he’s going to do.

So to say have this strength and be prepared for war but not really go to war is the thing to do but, oh not if it’s Donald, makes little sense. He’s using the policy.

What does make sense is no one is really sure if he will actually stop at the don’t declare war line. Is it even possible for a narcissist like him to back-off in any circumstance?