|
Post by lar on Jan 3, 2020 15:37:32 GMT -5
For all of Trump's faults, real and perceived, I have to give him some credit for taking action without telegraphing what he was going to do. During his campaign he said over and over that he would never reveal US strategy ahead of time.
I've never liked threats. The first time you don't carry one out the other side knows your bluffing and you've lost any leverage you might have gained with the threat.
The thought has occurred to me that for the bad actors of the world, knowing that Trump doesn't telegraph his blows and that with the right provocation he might just be crazy enough to go nuclear without warning, we might be just a hair safer.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 3, 2020 15:39:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 3, 2020 15:39:34 GMT -5
For all of Trump's faults, real and perceived, I have to give him some credit for taking action without telegraphing what he was going to do. During his campaign he said over and over that he would never reveal US strategy ahead of time. I've never liked threats. The first time you don't carry one out the other side knows your bluffing and you've lost any leverage you might have gained with the threat. The thought has occurred to me that for the bad actors of the world, knowing that Trump doesn't telegraph his blows and that with the right provocation he might just be crazy enough to go nuclear without warning, we might be just a hair safer. It worked for Reagan.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 3, 2020 15:46:43 GMT -5
The thought has occurred to me that for the bad actors of the world, knowing that Trump doesn't telegraph his blows and that with the right provocation he might just be crazy decisive enough to go nuclear without warning, we might be just a hair safer. And the converse is quite obviously true. Having a Washington that at its core believes in the universal goodness of all mankind except for that which lives and votes in America has led to a foreign policy where we not only are so predictable -- we actually don't do anything without the bad actors of the world's approval. And when we timidly act, we apologize immediately. It hasn't led to peace. It's led to the longest actions ever. Sure, fewer have died than the 3-5 years of real wars of history, but they never stop dying and we never stop fighting -- mostly with each other. We keep a war around for politicians to solicit our votes from. A problem solved is an issue lost.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 3, 2020 15:50:19 GMT -5
All these would-be Masters of The Universe and little Napoleons sitting around official Washington, filling the conference rooms, the martini bars, the right cocktail parties in all the right salons, with an endless blather about all the wonderful things they can do to correct the rest of the world. And somehow out of all that, a "policy" emerges. Yeah, but millring has all the beautiful women ! I never meant to have them all.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 3, 2020 15:51:57 GMT -5
Want a real eye-opener: Record some blathering head cable news shows, but don't watch them until 90 days later. After three months, and after you've watched them, ask yourself if any of those people are anything other than idiots. Yes. Let's see if we're at war with Iran in 90 days.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 3, 2020 15:56:17 GMT -5
Speak softly and carry a big stick - That's been US foreign policy for the last 100 years. Sometimes, it's fared us well. But rarely without having to resort to the Big Stick.
Trumpism is, "Speak LOUDLY while swinging that stick in the air." Will it lead to a safer world? I dunno. But I see more stick fights in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 3, 2020 15:58:50 GMT -5
Are you? Because it sounds to me as though you're begging the question. You've already accepted the "why" of the action when that is the very thing being debated. There's a term for that and it includes the word "question" but it's not the term you just used. I'm perfectly aware that I am assuming Trump is guilty as charged: twisting U.S. policy to advance his private agenda. I didn't know that was any longer in dispute. My understanding is that the mainstream of Senate Republicans have so decided, and are falling back on the defense that this is not impeachable. (And good luck with that.) So I guess you could say the question is eligible for begging. By the way, I'm not arguing the guy shouldn't have been killed. Maybe it will turn out to have been a strategic master stroke. But, given Trump's celebrated lack of any but the most superficial knowledge of the Middle East (or any other sphere of interest to the U.S.), and his refusal to learn (for example, by reading a book), and his refusal to listen to knowledgeable advisors (those that haven't been fired), and his evident proclivity for acting on whim without much if any regard to consequences, I somehow doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 3, 2020 15:59:31 GMT -5
Want a real eye-opener: Record some blathering head cable news shows, but don't watch them until 90 days later. After three months, and after you've watched them, ask yourself if any of those people are anything other than idiots. Yes. Let's see if we're at war with Iran in 90 days. I'd guess they'll wait to play something out right before the November election. Of course that could backfire. The country has a tendency to rally behind their President in times of crisis; even when the crisis is the result of the President's ill thought out actions.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 3, 2020 16:08:54 GMT -5
"I'm perfectly aware that I am assuming Trump is guilty as charged: twisting U.S. policy to advance his private agenda. I didn't know that was any longer in dispute."
It is in dispute. You must be listening to the never-Trump GOP. There is no, NO, evidence as to what his motivation may have been. The theories in evidence are all conjecture meant to fit an agenda. If you believe that story, and can find an actual mind reader certified by the scientific establishment as 100% accurate, you'll have been fooled again.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 3, 2020 16:14:30 GMT -5
Guys, guys, guys -- could we move on to something important, please? Good God, the Cowboys fired their coach!
(Could be fake news, though, from ESPN -- no official announcement from the team yet. And Emmitt Smith could not be reached for comment.)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 3, 2020 16:14:47 GMT -5
I'm perfectly aware that I am assuming Trump is guilty as charged: twisting U.S. policy to advance his private agenda. I didn't know that was any longer in dispute. It remains in dispute. It strikes me that you may not be aware of why it remains in dispute.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 3, 2020 16:15:51 GMT -5
Guys, guys, guys -- could we move on to something important, please? Good God, the Cowboys fired their coach! I hope they kept Emmitt Smith, though?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 3, 2020 16:15:57 GMT -5
Our intelligence supports that this was a good idea. Necessary, even. This is what they are telling us. The same “they” that have been ignoring or sneering at our intelligence community, it’s conclusions and recommendations for the past three years? Alrighty then!
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 3, 2020 16:20:15 GMT -5
Our intelligence supports that this was a good idea. Necessary, even. This is what they are telling us. The same “they” that have been ignoring or sneering at our intelligence community, it’s conclusions and recommendations for the past three years? Alrighty then! Were it not for the hypocrites, Washington would be empty.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Jan 3, 2020 16:29:05 GMT -5
Are you? Because it sounds to me as though you're begging the question. You've already accepted the "why" of the action when that is the very thing being debated. There's a term for that and it includes the word "question" but it's not the term you just used. I'm perfectly aware that I am assuming Trump is guilty as charged: twisting U.S. policy to advance his private agenda. I didn't know that was any longer in dispute. My understanding is that the mainstream of Senate Republicans have so decided, and are falling back on the defense that this is not impeachable. (And good luck with that.) So I guess you could say the question is eligible for begging. By the way, I'm not arguing the guy shouldn't have been killed. Maybe it will turn out to have been a strategic master stroke. But, given Trump's celebrated lack of any but the most superficial knowledge of the Middle East (or any other sphere of interest to the U.S.), and his refusal to learn (for example, by reading a book), and his refusal to listen to knowledgeable advisors (those that haven't been fired), and his evident proclivity for acting on whim without much if any regard to consequences, I somehow doubt it. Trump's short attention span, refusal to learn, and paying attention to his advisers is well known. Which is not the same thing as saying that all or any of that is true. We all had a chance to listen to the Bannon interview which refutes the idea that Trump doesn't listen or pay attention. Bannon may or may not be correct in his assertions. But I can't say that I find him any more or less credible than people who have claimed the opposite. I can say from my own experience, however, that at least some of the negative things that have been said about Trump's decision making is not unlike what happens in board rooms and CEO offices across the country. A brother-in-law worked for 30 years for a large insurance company in Chicago. Company policy forced him to limit his presentations to 2 double space typewritten pages. The company was highly successful and eventually was bought out by a rival for a huge sum. I worked for a couple of sizable banks and frequency made presentations to the boards. We didn't have a policy but it didn't take long for me to figure out that a two-page written report bolstered by brief additional comments and the ability to answer questions about the details of what I was proposing was the best way to reach them. During my career I've had the good fortune to work for some people that I greatly admired. I didn't always agree with their decisions and they didn't always agree with my opinions. In each case it was they, and not me, who had the responsibility to make the final decision and it was my job to carry out those decisions. I was always confident that I was given a fair hearing and that what I had to say was carefully considered even if things didn't go my way. I've always been mindful of the fact that decisions can sometimes be based on things the boss knows that I don't. In this particular case, as I understand it, Trump's decision was not a knee-jerk reaction. He considered it for at least a couple of days before going ahead. I'm not defending Trump in this case but I am saying that I'm wary of making judgments without more facts than I have at this point.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 3, 2020 16:30:15 GMT -5
Our intelligence supports that this was a good idea. Necessary, even. This is what they are telling us. The same “they” that have been ignoring or sneering at our intelligence community, it’s conclusions and recommendations for the past three years? Alrighty then! Were it not for the hypocrites, Washington would be empty. As it should be. There was never supposed to be a big government in Washington.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 3, 2020 16:52:31 GMT -5
I'm perfectly aware that I am assuming Trump is guilty as charged: twisting U.S. policy to advance his private agenda. I didn't know that was any longer in dispute. It remains in dispute. It strikes me that you may not be aware of why it remains in dispute. To add to a wealth of circumstantial evidence, multiple credible witnesses have said under oath (and from the White House press podium) that Trump held up the military aid as a way of bending the Ukrainian president to his will. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sonland said it, using the words "quid pro quo." Trump Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said it (quid pro quo) is the way things work in D.C., get over it. Veteran State Department officials, some of whom were Bush appointees, said it. I'd give you a complete list, but I gotta run.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 3, 2020 17:07:08 GMT -5
It remains in dispute. It strikes me that you may not be aware of why it remains in dispute. To add to a wealth of circumstantial evidence, multiple credible witnesses have said under oath (and from the White House press podium) that Trump held up the military aid as a way of bending the Ukrainian president to his will.. But that doesn't address the central question.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 3, 2020 17:14:59 GMT -5
It remains in dispute. It strikes me that you may not be aware of why it remains in dispute. To add to a wealth of circumstantial evidence, multiple credible witnesses have said under oath (and from the White House press podium) that Trump held up the military aid as a way of bending the Ukrainian president to his will. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sonland said it, using the words "quid pro quo." Trump Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said it (quid pro quo) is the way things work in D.C., get over it. Veteran State Department officials, some of whom were Bush appointees, said it. I'd give you a complete list, but I gotta run. But when asked about it they all say that Trump never said the words, they just assumed that's what he meant. I assume you were told the things you believe by an unnamed source.
|
|