Merkel says Germany and Europe must find their own path.

[whichphilosophy]

One of the defense blogs I follow said US commanders in Syria have zero interest in collaborating with the Russians. A fundamental rule we've learned at high cost is that a heavy hand creates more enemies than it destroys.

I am well aware.

I confess that I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around the right's embrace of Putin and Russia.

There is no reason to be on bad terms with Russia. The US and Russia do an awful lot of trade and the 2 are not at war. The US started the mess in Syria by funding rebels in the name of regime change. They can have talks to resolve any actual differences.

The two should work together to end the war and then in the long term counter the long term ISIS political ideology which it aims to spread worldwide, whether or not it is driven out of Syria in whole or in part.

The US has left a trail of destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria so it is not in the position to claim Russia is at fault for anything. Of course Russia lacks in human rights and a lot of things.

 

[blastula]

More WP fake news. The US didn't start the Syrian civil war.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I am well aware.

I confess that I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around the right's embrace of Putin and Russia.

There is no reason to be on bad terms with Russia. The US and Russia do an awful lot of trade and the 2 are not at war. The US started the mess in Syria by funding rebels in the name of regime change. They can have talks to resolve any actual differences.

The two should work together to end the war and then in the long term counter the long term ISIS political ideology which it aims to spread worldwide, whether or not it is driven out of Syria in whole or in part.

The US has left a trail of destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria so it is not in the position to claim Russia is at fault for anything. Of course Russia lacks in human rights and a lot of things.

The problem is that Russia would like to acquire some additional territory is Eastern Europe that is current inhabited by people who want to be sovereign. That puts us at odds against each other.

 

[whichphilosophy]

More WP fake news. The US didn't start the Syrian civil war.

As I said It started the mess.. which was just after the war. Perhaps the CIA was there earlier but this is just my opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Train_and_Equip_Program#Background

As the Syrian Civil War erupted in 2011 the Obama Administration began efforts to support the overthrow of the Assad Government in Damascus. At the direction of U.S. President Barack Obama, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was put in charge of the operations, worth about $1 billion annually, to arm anti-government forces in Syria[1][2][3][4] at the early stages of the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011. At first, the CIA only supplied the apparently moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid, but quickly began providing training, cash, and intelligence to selected rebel commanders.[5][6][7]
While the CIA-run programs to arm and train Syrian opposition factions began 2013,[8] on September 17, 2014 the House of Representatives voted to authorize the executive branch to train-and-equip Syrian rebels against ISIL forces.[9] One of the groups that United States intended to train-and-equip was the Islamist Army of Mujahedeen[10][11] while the Harakat Hazm group was already being supplied.[10] There were indications that the Army of Mujahedeen was still being vetted for support.[12] The United States was set to send 400 troops and hundreds of support staff to countries neighboring Syria to train 5,000 opposition soldiers a year for the next three years

 

[blastula]

Yes, you want to pretend it was a very neat war before the US got involved.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Merkel warns US, Britain no longer reliable partners

Europe "must take its fate into its own hands" faced with a western alliance divided by Brexit and Donald Trump's presidency, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday.

"The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I've experienced that in the last few days," Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich, southern Germany.

"We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands," she added.

I never expected a result this beneficial from Trump's election. Of course I expected very little of him, but this is actually surprisingly good in so many interesting ways.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Merkel warns US, Britain no longer reliable partners

I never expected a result this beneficial from Trump's election. Of course I expected very little of him, but this is actually surprisingly good in so many interesting ways.

Yea, what could possibly go wrong??!@#@!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What could go wrong with finally ending entangling alliances, especially one against a country that doesn't even exist anymore?

What could go wrong with not being the world policeman?

What could go wrong with countries that support their safety nets because they use our military having to use their own military?

In terms of what is good for the USA, absolutely nothing!

Years ago I heard a story, and I cannot verify its authenticity so don't ask, about some third world country experiencing a civil war. And both sides kept fighting because both sides expected that any day the USA would intervene on their side. And the USA didn't intervene at all. Finally both sides stopped fighting each other, got mad at the USA for ignoring them, and threatened to sue the USA for not intervening. I suppose you think they had a case.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What could go wrong with finally ending entangling alliances, especially one against a country that doesn't even exist anymore?

What could go wrong with not being the world policeman?

What could go wrong with countries that support their safety nets because they use our military having to use their own military?

In terms of what is good for the USA, absolutely nothing!

Years ago I heard a story, and I cannot verify its authenticity so don't ask, about some third world country experiencing a civil war. And both sides kept fighting because both sides expected that any day the USA would intervene on their side. And the USA didn't intervene at all. Finally both sides stopped fighting each other, got mad at the USA for ignoring them, and threatened to sue the USA for not intervening. I suppose you think they had a case.

Wow! This has to be one of the most desperate defenses of Trump that I've seen in awhile! NATO has lead to 67 years of the most stable period in European history. During that time, article V (NATO attack) was triggered once. Only once. And that was to attack Bin Laden after 9-11.

I would say that NATO has been a little aggressive in adding the warsaw pact countries. It's a dangerous situation. But is has probably preserved the sovereign state of these countries. However, NATO is clearly one of the most successful defensive pacts in history.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Defending Trump or being surprised that he actually did something right? Eh never mind, if you ever say that a stopped clock is right, that means you think that particular clock is always right. Saying anything nice about that particular clock is proof you love that clock, and you're not allowed to ever say anything nice about that clock.

Yes, the cold war was very stable. The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction that could happen at any moment almost the entire time NATO existed and was NATO's purpose was very stable. There is great stability of living under the shadow of imminent death. That stability was shattered when the enemy in the cold war disappeared. And now defenders of NATO are scrambling to find some reason for it to still exist.

But it was stable!

Since alliances must never end, must never be dissolved, I propose we reunite the alliance of Britain, Russia, Turkey, and Austria against France. It was successful in putting down Napoleon, so therefore it is still useful today.

 

[barbos]

What could go wrong with finally ending entangling alliances, especially one against a country that doesn't even exist anymore?

What could go wrong with not being the world policeman?

What could go wrong with countries that support their safety nets because they use our military having to use their own military?

In terms of what is good for the USA, absolutely nothing!

Years ago I heard a story, and I cannot verify its authenticity so don't ask, about some third world country experiencing a civil war. And both sides kept fighting because both sides expected that any day the USA would intervene on their side. And the USA didn't intervene at all. Finally both sides stopped fighting each other, got mad at the USA for ignoring them, and threatened to sue the USA for not intervening. I suppose you think they had a case.

LOL, I could certainly believe this story. It's a well known fact that US foreign policy is not very selective when it comes to friends and allies. I mean when it comes down to solving bigger problem US will bend their own rules and morals to sign up friends. How is Saudi Arabia a friend? right, because of Iran. How was Saakashvili a friend? right, because he was great at harassing Russia, same with current friends in all former USSR republics - good at isolating Russia.
With respect to Georgia&Saakashvili, his own friends in his own party after splitting expressed their frustration with this stupidity saying "To get US support all you need to do is to go and say that you don't like Putin and this is what Saakashvili did"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One of the defense blogs I follow said US commanders in Syria have zero interest in collaborating with the Russians. A fundamental rule we've learned at high cost is that a heavy hand creates more enemies than it destroys.

I am well aware.

I confess that I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around the right's embrace of Putin and Russia.

They want the money. They also prefer a right wing stalinist russia over a union of liberal european states.

It's not so difficult to understand.

 

[barbos]

I am well aware.

I confess that I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around the right's embrace of Putin and Russia.

They want the money. They also prefer a right wing stalinist russia over a union of liberal european states.

It's not so difficult to understand.

Yes, they explicitly demand gulags and communism. I think Hillary was simply terrible candidate with a lot of baggage.

 

[Deepak]

They want the money. They also prefer a right wing stalinist russia over a union of liberal european states.

It's not so difficult to understand.

Yes, they explicitly demand gulags and communism. I think Hillary was simply terrible candidate with a lot of baggage.

The right-wing hard on for Putin isn't really connected to Clinton.

 

[Philos]

Folks,

As a Brit, I've seen Britain as a pain in the ass for the EU over decades. Angela Merkel is just telling it how it is. After a messy divorce, do you really want to hang out with the other?

A.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

They want the money. They also prefer a right wing stalinist russia over a union of liberal european states.

It's not so difficult to understand.

Yes, they explicitly demand gulags and communism. I think Hillary was simply terrible candidate with a lot of baggage.

Hyperbole notwithstanding I could rephrase that and say that american conservatives prefer a strongman, right wing Russia that agrees with their authoritarian leanings over a liberal european union that disagrees with their authoritarian leanings. American conservatives do not want democracy and power sharing and free, fair elections.

And if you think they do I have some bridges for sale. And that isn't even mentioning the corporate and money interests that Russia offers.

Perhaps you are in denial about what american conservatives want. You really need to wake up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, they explicitly demand gulags and communism. I think Hillary was simply terrible candidate with a lot of baggage.

The right-wing hard on for Putin isn't really connected to Clinton.

This is key. The Trump supporters' hard on is because Trump has a hard on for Russia. If Trump wanted to invade Russia, his supporters would have a raging boner for invading Russia. Trump supporters can't think for themselves.

 

[barbos]

Yes, they explicitly demand gulags and communism. I think Hillary was simply terrible candidate with a lot of baggage.

The right-wing hard on for Putin isn't really connected to Clinton.

Yes, it's more general than that, it's connected to democrats. They like everything dems don't and dislike everything they like. If Clinton/Obama tried to be OK about Putin, Trump and his supporters would have been trashing him.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I am well aware.

I confess that I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around the right's embrace of Putin and Russia.

They want the money. They also prefer a right wing stalinist russia over a union of liberal european states.

It's not so difficult to understand.

They want a corporate friendly Stalin - which he wasn't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The right-wing hard on for Putin isn't really connected to Clinton.

Yes, it's more general than that, it's connected to democrats. They like everything dems don't and dislike everything they like. If Clinton/Obama tried to be OK about Putin,...

Obama tried to be okay with Putin like W did. It didn't work in either case.

Trump and his supporters would have been trashing him.

Trump supporters like anything Trump likes. Trump likes whatever gives him cash flow.