Trump Implementing the Palin. doctrin

Just another reference to your least favorite website.


Since I don't do Twitter, this is a convenient link to the series of Trump Tweets.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... rom-syria/

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Just another reference to your least favorite website.


Since I don't do Twitter, this is a convenient link to the series of Trump Tweets.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... rom-syria/

I assume the "Palin Dotrine" is "impulsively act without any knowledge of what the hell you're doing"? That would fit the name.

The most laughable part of that tweet rant was him trying to convince people Russia was one of the most unhappy nations at the idea of the US pulling out of Syria when safeguarding their own influence in Syria and the wider region and making sure the US didn't supplant them there has long been one of their priorities. Backstabbing the Kurds, one of the US's most reliable and loyal partners in the region, was a gift to Putin on a big silver platter.

gcomeau wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Just another reference to your least favorite website.


Since I don't do Twitter, this is a convenient link to the series of Trump Tweets.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... rom-syria/

I assume the "Palin Dotrine" is "impulsively act without any knowledge of what the hell you're doing"? That would fit the name.

The most laughable part of that tweet rant was him trying to convince people Russia was one of the most unhappy nations at the idea of the US pulling out of Syria when safeguarding their own influence in Syria and the wider region and making sure the US didn't supplant them there has long been one of their priorities. Backstabbing the Kurds, one of the US's most reliable and loyal partners in the region, was a gift to Putin on a big silver platter.

So you favor the US continueing to wage Forever Wars that no longer serve our interests?

The relevance of that question depends on whether or not you think it's in the US's interest to have ideologically compatible proxies in the Middle East.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Just another reference to your least favorite website.

So you favor the US continueing to wage Forever Wars that no longer serve our interests?

Forever wars no.

OPENLY BACKSTABBING the most stalwart and reliable allies the US has in the region after they spent 10,000 lives taking down ISIS and were given US assurances their security would be safeguarded and then serving them up to the Turks for what is widely expected to be an ethnic cleansing campaign the second Trump (and only Trump) thought he didn't need them anymore? Also no.

See how not hard that question is to answer? You know, if you have even a shred of honor or morality...

FFS, even full time Trump lapdogs like Graham and McConnell get this.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Just another reference to your least favorite website.

So you favor the US continueing to wage Forever Wars that no longer serve our interests?

gcomeau wrote:
Forever wars no.

OPENLY BACKSTABBING the most stalwart and reliable allies the US has in the region after they spent 10,000 lives taking down ISIS and were given US assurances their security would be safeguarded and then serving them up to the Turks for what is widely expected to be an ethnic cleansing campaign the second Trump (and only Trump) thought he didn't need them anymore? Also no.

See how not hard that question is to answer? You know, if you have even a shred of honor or morality...

FFS, even full time Trump lapdogs like Graham and McConnell get this.

The Canada should go and save the Kurds. If the President can achieve his goals through sanctions and non-military means, he should go for it.

There is a cost to limiting US military interventionism. This is such a cost. If this means having fewer nations wanting to support US adventurism, so be it.

PeterZ wrote:There is a cost to limiting US military interventionism. This is such a cost. If this means having fewer nations wanting to support US adventurism, so be it.

Yupp, and in this instance it'll cost something for decades to come - trust in the US as an ally. Which in the long run means a loss of geopolitical clout.

Joat42 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:There is a cost to limiting US military interventionism. This is such a cost. If this means having fewer nations wanting to support US adventurism, so be it.

Yupp, and in this instance it'll cost something for decades to come - trust in the US as an ally. Which in the long run means a loss of geopolitical clout.

Putin and Xi-Jinping must be rubbing their hands in utter glee.

But of course, as we all know, the Kurds did not help the US in Normandy. So they deserve to be thrown under Erdogan's tanks. I'm sure that SRM can explain that to us.

Still - perhaps if they explain that they had bone-spurs so could not get to the beaches Trump might understand.

What makes it even worse is that the US have been pushing the Kurds to dismantle their defensive fortifications to appease Turkey because US guaranteed they would restrain Turkey from attacking.

Squandered trust is hellishly expensive to regain...

Joat42 wrote:What makes it even worse is that the US have been pushing the Kurds to dismantle their defensive fortifications to appease Turkey because US guaranteed they would restrain Turkey from attacking.

Squandered trust is hellishly expensive to regain...

Very true. Yet, if to keep trust it means fighting endless wars and investment of the US military in every hot spot in the world, it may well be better to lose that sort of trust.

Now, we'll see if Turkey can be restrained without using the US military. If not, will sanctions hurt Turkey enough to deter other nations in the future? Time will tell.