Has the US government been this unstable in the past 40 years?

[Takhisis]

Of course they do. They don't want the US to pull out of Syria because then it will fall to them to actually do something for once instead of just sitting back and waiting for the US to handle it.

Yyyyes and no. The US is breaking commitments left and right. Whether those were good and bad commitments is another thing, of course, but from outside everybody is thinking ‘how are they going to betray us next?’

Just because they disagree doesn't mean they are correct. I was one of the people stating from the beginning that we should not have become directly involved in the fighting in Syria. Funding and arming rebels and other proxies in the conflict was fine, but directly committing troops was a mistake. A mistake that is now being undone.

But now those rebels, proxies and so on are being hung out to dry. The reputation of the U.S. will suffer because of this. *spreads hands helplessly*

Trump should be allowed to murder people on 5th Avenue

I am so going to misquote this.

@Timsup2nothin

Those handlers are as true as the bogeyman hiding underneath your bed. The collusion accusation was a political ploy to keep the new administration under pressure, unable to carry out any of the program Trump had outlined in his campaign. The method employed to do this counted with the connivance of a portion of the faithful from the previous administration who are insiders in the state apparatus. There is no collusion, not treason. There is sedition through.

Trump has finally found the balls to ram through his own wishes. I hope he finds the balls to fire and prosecute those that have been hounding hi,m with false accusation.

If the americans don't like the man, and there is plenty not to like, they should fight him politically on those points they pretend not to like*. Not make up phony accusations in a (futile!) attempt to undermine him. It got him off-balance for a year or so but he has taken the measure of Washington establishment by now. It has ceased working.

* I say pretend not to like because the Democrats, the official opposition, are mostly "phony left". They care more for the health care services sellers (insurance, pharma and for-profit clinics) that for building affordable health care for the population. They care more for donations from large banking corporations that for preventing financial crisis. They care more for big investors than for the unemployed and underemployed wage-laborers. They're in politics for the money and prestige even more than Trump. Frankly, those deserve to be crushed electorally. Better to be robbed and exploited by a transparent oligarch than by the sanctimonious agents of oligarchs.

I didn't know you were renting out posting space to Rudy Giuliani.

I know you wish Trump replaced by someone better, both in vision and in competence. But doing politics in the US, promoting someone better as a candidate against him, and it's obvious he'll run for reelection, requires understanding Trump for what he is. Not for any of a number of attempted mockeries of him. The guy is not dumb, he's a political animal who knows the psychology of people attracted to power, and the power-plays within organizations. And he plays that very well. He's survived all that was thrown against him and that would have destroyed any other politician. The caricature of Trump as an ignorant buffoon made those people who wanted to support someone different entirely blind in their strategy.
Mocking Trump as ignorant, attacking him as an alleged racist (he's not any more racist that your average citizen), calling him senile or decrying the chaos in his administration, all seem to be "coping mechanist" for dealing with the fact that he won, and is still winning. You want him replaced, offer a real vision of an alternative for his country, offer a credible candidate to stand against him. Work on preparing that, don't waste your time laughing at caricatures of your adversary.

Hmmm. I'll point out that you are mistaking somebody who cunningly exploits a broken system for somebody truly intelligent. It's like those topscorers who play for powerful clubs and are allowed to score with their hands or from offside positions (i.e. Messi and CR<insertnumberhere>) and then get acclaimed as flawlessly talented gods of football.

Also, he's not surviving. Two years might seem like a lot due to the lightning-speed communications of our day and age, but it's not that much.
Now, you say that he's not any more racist than the average (U.S.) citizen, which might just be true, but only if you know the difference between average and median.

On other respects I agree. I live in a country that endured twelve and a half years of Trump-like madness and, well, anybody compared to the former delusional rulers will look better, but better isn't the same as best.

 

[tetley]

Incidentally, Israeli air strike on Syria tonight:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/25/mi...-intercepts/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

How this gets ho-hummed in the news and not internationally condemned is beyond me.

 

[Commodore]

Yyyyes and no. The US is breaking commitments left and right. Whether those were good and bad commitments is another thing, of course, but from outside everybody is thinking ‘how are they going to betray us next?’

I'm sorry, but exactly what treaty or formal agreement is the US violating by no longer committing forces to the Syrian civil war? The answer is none, therefore there has been no "betrayal" on the part of the US. This is just the rest of the world throwing a toddler-like tantrum because for once the US is refusing to fight everyone else's battles for them. If you Europeans are sooooo concerned about the situation in Syria, then why don't you send your sons and daughters to go die for them? I, for one, am tired of seeing our government sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for supposed "allies" that don't even appreciate that sacrifice.

Also, a small detail that everyone seems to be missing is that Trump did not say the US would halt all military action in Syria, just that any ground forces we have will be pulled out. Air strikes will still continue though. Basically, Trump is saying we are still going to help, we just aren't going to put any American lives in danger while we do it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that stance. I mean, why should Americans die for Syrians?

But now those rebels, proxies and so on are being hung out to dry.

Except we aren't hanging them out to dry. We agreed to arm and fund them, not fight the war for them. The fact that we actually decided to commit any troops at all should be seen as extremely generous.

 

[Berzerker]

apparently we're maintaining our forces in Iraq and those are probably focused on the NW where the Kurds are located... I dont know if its a good idea to carve up NE Syria to expand Kurdish conquests in this war, the fewer cross tribal intrusions the better to calm the situation

 

[Kaitzilla]

Has there ever been a government shutdown before with 1 party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency?

Also, remember to vote for James Mattis for President.

Mad Dog 2020

 

[Berzerker]

it happened several times under Carter

 

[Commodore]

Every time there is a government shutdown it reminds me of my idea for an amendment to the Constitution that would require Congress to pass a budget before a shutdown must occur or all 100 senators and all 435 representatives would be required to resign their seats and emergency elections held to refill them.

Pass an amendment like that and I guarantee you'd never see another government shutdown again.

EDIT: The amendment would also state that the president must sign any budget approved by Congress or must resign if he decides to veto it.

EDIT2: And in case it wasn't clear, the amendment would also bar any senator or representative that was forced to resign for not passing a budget from ever running for reelection to Congress again.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm sorry, but exactly what treaty or formal agreement is the US violating by no longer committing forces to the Syrian civil war? The answer is none, therefore there has been no "betrayal" on the part of the US. This is just the rest of the world throwing a toddler-like tantrum because for once the US is refusing to fight everyone else's battles for them. If you Europeans are sooooo concerned about the situation in Syria, then why don't you send your sons and daughters to go die for them? I, for one, am tired of seeing our government sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for supposed "allies" that don't even appreciate that sacrifice.

*sigh* I assume that asking the US to pay Iraq war reparations would be too much.

Also, a small detail that everyone seems to be missing is that Trump did not say the US would halt all military action in Syria, just that any ground forces we have will be pulled out. Air strikes will still continue though. Basically, Trump is saying we are still going to help, we just aren't going to put any American lives in danger while we do it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that stance. I mean, why should Americans die for Syrians?

This so reminds me of Nixon's sucessful strategy for the Viet Nam war.

Except we aren't hanging them out to dry. We agreed to arm and fund them, not fight the war for them. The fact that we actually decided to commit any troops at all should be seen as extremely generous.

The Turks are already demanding that the US retake its arms from the Kurds in Syria and, seeing how the US screwed the Kurds in Iraq only last year, I strongly suspect that the Donald simply has never had any four-letter words to give.

 

[Old Hippy]

Pass an amendment like that and I guarantee you'd never see another government shutdown again.

EDIT: The amendment would also state that the president must sign any budget approved by Congress or must resign if he decides to veto it.

EDIT2: And in case it wasn't clear, the amendment would also bar any senator or representative that was forced to resign for not passing a budget from ever running for reelection to Congress again.

I like your idea but will just mention you still have to deal with any amendments included in the budget... who gets to veto any shonky 'pork barreling' and who would decide what is 'pork barreling'

 

[Ajidica]

Also, a small detail that everyone seems to be missing is that Trump did not say the US would halt all military action in Syria, just that any ground forces we have will be pulled out. Air strikes will still continue though. Basically, Trump is saying we are still going to help, we just aren't going to put any American lives in danger while we do it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that stance. I mean, why should Americans die for Syrians?

Let's extend the question, why should Americans conduct airstrikes in Syria?
The Syrian Arab Republic certainly didn't ask us to conduct airstrikes, Congress never authorized the President (Obama or Trump) to conduct airstrikes, and neither the UNSCR (as far as I am aware) nor Congress authorized the United States to conduct airstrikes against uniformed Syrian personnel.
The United States has been championing airstrikes inside Syria to what end? Without cooperation from Syrian ground forces they devolve into a sordid and bloody farce analogous to the Vietnam body count trackers. While we cooperate with the Kurds, the more we help the Kurds the greater chance of kicking off another, even greater, regional conflagration as the one the Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran can agree on is that none of them want a Kurdish state. If the establishment of a Kurdish state and likely encouraging several more decades of regional conflagration like 'Africa's World War' which is still lurching along, then that is something which should be discussed instead of the US sleepwalking to as a result of myopic and asinine proxy war policies dredged up from some Cold Warrior's fever dream.

I like your idea but will just mention you still have to deal with any amendments included in the budget... who gets to veto any shonky 'pork barreling' and who would decide what is 'pork barreling'

One man's pork is another's regional economic development. The bridges built across the Mississippi in the Twin Cities to the south were largely built with federal money. Were they pork or regional economic development?

 

[Old Hippy]

One man's pork is another's regional economic development. The bridges built across the Mississippi in the Twin Cities to the south were largely built with federal money. Were they pork or regional economic development?

Here in Australia we would say they were infrastructure spending that was spent in a marginal electorate seat to favour the government that spent the money
In the Twin Cities example they were passed into the budget, so at one time a president decided that question... that they were not pork but were regional development (most likely) unless the swamp is that corrupt that they decided they were pork.... like in the Australian example

 

[Ajidica]

Here in Australia we would say they were infrastructure spending that was spent in a marginal electorate seat to favour the government that spent the money
In the Twin Cities example they were passed into the budget, so at one time a president decided that question... that they were not pork but were regional development (most likely) unless the swamp is that corrupt that they decided they were pork.... like in the Australian example

Well, that's a non-response if I've ever seen one.
"They were pork, unless they were not, but then of course they could have been."

 

[Old Hippy]

Well, that's a non-response if I've ever seen one.
"They were pork, unless they were not, but then of course they could have been."

we are talking about politicians promises...its appropriate

 

[Colonel]

The house is burning and we are arguing over how it was set on fire. Secretary Mattis resigning is a frightening development and will surely lead to disaster .

 

[Takhisis]

Hey, Commodore, I'll add in another example of earlier US pullouts, in this case a non-military one. Back in the late 80s and early 90s the US went about South America offering huuuge loans in exchange for the recipients' destroying their local economic infrastructure and societal ties, with the usual bribes to the appropriate officials. Then, after having ensured that the system depended on ever-increased periodic injections of foreign funding, around 2001 they decided to make an example of those countries, refused any further funding, and triggered a massive regional crisis. In its wake came scum like the self-proclaimed Bolivarian governments and others.

Nowadays in the middle east you have a structure in which the US' presence is necessary by its own actions and now you're bailing. It is a bit of an impossible situation, yes, and a lot of harm will come out of it whatever you do, but this way you're maximising the damage.

 

[Commodore]

The Turks are already demanding that the US retake its arms from the Kurds in Syria

They can demand all they want, doesn't mean we are going to comply. Hell, we don't even take our own arms back from warzones, so why would we waste the effort in trying to forcibly take arms away from the Kurds?

Nowadays in the middle east you have a structure in which the US' presence is necessary by its own actions and now you're bailing.

Necessary for who? Certainly not for the US. Quite frankly, we could leave that entire region to burn and most Americans wouldn't even think twice about it.

It is a bit of an impossible situation, yes, and a lot of harm will come out of it whatever you do, but this way you're maximising the damage.

Maximizing the damage for who? Certainly not the US. You have to remember that under Trump, our official foreign policy is "America First". That means our actions are going to be guided by whatever limits damage to American lives and interests, regardless of how much damage it may cause to others. And we are slowly but surely getting ourselves out of the business of putting our soldiers at risk for a bunch of foreigners who can't even be bothered to defend themselves.

Funny though however since the end of the Cold War the entire world has been screeching that the US needs to stop acting like the global police and like we own the world, yet now that we are actually starting to do that the world is now screeching about how we are turning our backs on them. Personally, I hope we continue to turn a deaf ear to the rest of the world. You want help? Go ask China or Russia.

 

[innonimatu]

This so reminds me of Nixon's sucessful strategy for the Viet Nam war.

It took him some years but he finally had the good sense to start the process of exiting. Vietnam has done zero harm to the US since it withdrew from the country. What greater success can you ask for?

Your political dislike for some people leads you to claim irrational things in an attempt to tar them. Attack them for the wrong they did (say, Nixon for delaying that peace for a while), not for the right things they did.

Funny though however since the end of the Cold War the entire world has been screeching that the US needs to stop acting like the global police and like we own the world, yet now that we are actually starting to do that the world is now screeching about how we are turning our backs on them.

The world is not. Those groups who got in power under the present structure and want stability (remain on top) in their countries and who have a great deal of control over mass media, are. They fear to face their own people without american protection. Not necessarily military, but also the propaganda cover that the "american empire" grants: allegedly having to align with the wishes of the foreign big power lets leaders get away with many abuses. That is the real reason for the hysteria every time an US government moves towards less interventionism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It took him some years but he finally had the good sense to start the process of exiting. Vietnam has done zero harm to the US since it withdrew from the country. What greater success can you ask for?

He could have started earlier.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Donald Trump was a sort of business man, and the questions a business man might ask are::

Q1: What are the current benefits (ROI) of having the US Army remain there on the ground in Syria?

Q2: What are the opportunities of having the US Army remain there on the ground in Syria?

Q3: What are the costs of having the US Army remain there on the ground in Syria?

Q4: What are the risks of having the US Army remain there on the ground in Syria?

If he concludes there is little benefit for the costs and risks incurred,
then why should he not order their withdrawal.

The way I (and I think Donald Trump) sees it, if Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wants them
there supporting their feud with Iran; the KSA need to get out its cheque book.

 

[Phrossack]

He could have started earlier.

Yeah, he deliberately sabotaged the peace talks the first time around for political gain, then continued the war for several very bloody more years. That is entirely his fault, and not just big bad Democrats who only hate him for being a Republican.