Trump Implementing the Palin. doctrin

gcomeau wrote:

Oh please. Dilandu's entire schtick is to deride any possibility any strategy or tactic involving the US not giving Russia it's way could ever work and is stupid. I see he's currently on "Pffft... Diplomacy??? As if that works, you're so stupid for thinking that would work when obviously it wouldn't work because.... because."

Well, please suggest any solution that would not fell apart five minutes after it was adopted.

Currently you are only blabbering about "diplomacy" without any attempts to actually put some meaning to it.

WHAT could US gave Assad in exchange for basically giving away half of his country (and its major sources of income also)? A few years ago, he may be willing to give up on Kurds in exchange for stopping support for "democratic opposition". But now? He is winning; he have no need to bargain for survival. What could you give him that he could not took by force?

Money? It would require literally hundreds of billions, to compensate for the loss of oil fields in long therms, and Assad is thinking long-therms now. He have a nation to rebuild from ruins (which USA so selflessly helped them to turn into). Political support? Come on, do you really believe that any deal that would gave Assad serious advantages would NOT be torpedoed in Congress?

What could you give him? The diplomacy is an art of deals. If you have nothing that is of enough value for other side, the best you could is to swindle. And it does not work every time, you know...

He aided the FBI in an effort to spy on Americans. Your acquaintance interfered in our election. I don't care if he did it against Hillary Clinton, he participated in infringing an American's civil rights. That does hang America out to dry.

Furthermore, his participation with 2 FBI Intel assets set up Papadopoulos as a basis to justify FISA warrants for surveillance. Those agents prompted Papadopoulos to speak after they gave him the Intel to begin with. Downer did his job and reported what heard, FISA warrants were issued and renewed based on sham this wannabe aristocrat prick participated in.

So, if harming Trump by any means necessary, including screwing over other Americans, is acceptable to you, I would say you are willing to hand the US out to dry.

Daryl wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
After your High Commissioner played his part to set up George Papadopoulos for FBI's illegal attempts to spy on a US presidential candidate, I would say Australia is 1 up on hanging the US out to dry.

I can actually answer a couple of points about that comment.
The first is that we didn't "hang the US out to dry", in that Trump isn't the US. Even now as President he doesn't personify the country, and he wasn't President at the time anyway.
The other point is a little strange as I actually know Alexander Downer (The High Commissioner) a little. As when I was working in our Public Service he was a senior politician and I ended up on occasions working on the same committees and such. He did rise to be Opposition Leader representing the Liberal Party (our Republican equivalent).
Alex's public persona was as someone from the old English aristocracy would be; well educated, intelligent, naive, lacking common sense, and a "jolly good chap". In person that was reinforced. Someone less suited for devious skulduggery and spy plots is hard to imagine. He would have been politically aligned with mainstream Republicans, but would have regarded Trump with disdain, as being "not the right sort of chap".

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:

Oh please. Dilandu's entire schtick is to deride any possibility any strategy or tactic involving the US not giving Russia it's way could ever work and is stupid. I see he's currently on "Pffft... Diplomacy??? As if that works, you're so stupid for thinking that would work when obviously it wouldn't work because.... because."

Well, please suggest any solution that would not fell apart five minutes after it was adopted.

Considering the existing solution had held together rather well for far longer than 5 minutes you're just spewing your usual "nothing would work it's all stupid Russia would inevitably win and America would inevitably lose" signature line of argument again.

WHAT could US gave Assad in exchange for basically giving away half of his country (and its major sources of income also)?

1. He didn't have control of that part of his country already and everyone knew it.

2. Yeah, what on earth could the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth possibly do to exert any leverage over such a powerhouse as the guy who can't even maintain control over his own country with a rein of terror and chemical weapons attacks against his own population?

Maybe... just to start... the offer of not getting bombed or getting in a fight with the most powerful military on earth just to try to retake control of territory he never had a firm grip on in the first place. Then you freaking well work from there. It's what the State department is for... you know, before Trump eviscerated it.

(I will now wait for the inevitable condescension dripping outburst announcing that would never work because some incredulous list of declarations that all boil down to "it wouldn't work because I say it's stupid!")

PeterZ wrote:He aided the FBI in an effort to spy on Americans.

1. I repeat, even Trump's own head of the FBI stated Trump was not spied on.

2. You know what the "I" in FBI stands for right? And that the FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency so pretty much all of that I is SUPPOSED to be directed at Americans?


\

Your acquaintance interfered in our election.

He reported a suspected crime in progress based on significant probable cause.

Once again, as ethical and honest people are supposed to do.

I don't care if he did it against Hillary Clinton, he participated in infringing an American's civil rights. That does hang America out to dry.

Being investigated by the FBI for a potential crime you are committing is not an infringement of any civil right.

Furthermore, his participation with 2 FBI Intel assets set up Papadopoulos as a basis to justify FISA warrants for surveillance. Those agents prompted Papadopoulos to speak after they gave him the Intel to begin with. Downer did his job and reported what heard, FISA warrants were issued and renewed based on sham this wannabe aristocrat prick participated in.

Just our regular reminder that the entirety of the above is fantasy BS.

gcomeau wrote:

1. He didn't have control of that part of his country already and everyone knew it.

2. Yeah, what on earth could the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth possibly do to exert any leverage over such a powerhouse as the guy who can't even maintain control over his own country with a rein of terror and chemical weapons attacks against his own population?

Maybe... just to start... the offer of not getting bombed or getting in a fight with the most powerful military on earth just to try to retake control of territory he never had a firm grip on in the first place. Then you freaking well work from there. It's what the State department is for... you know, before Trump eviscerated it.

(I will now wait for the inevitable condescension dripping outburst announcing that would never work because some incredulous list of declarations that all boil down to "it wouldn't work because I say it's stupid!")

Just awesome. So basically you admitted that diplomacy could do nothing, and only military force could be an argument.

Now, try to justify WHY Assad could not took over Eastern Syria, considering that US did not recognize the Kurdish state? Legally, all Syria is Assad's Syria. He is the recognized ruler of the country. What justification you could use to not allow him to restore order?

You claim "to prevent him from ethnic cleansing"? Sorry, but why do you assume that he wanted to do it at all? During all the war, Assad side was the only one who were at least somewhat concerned about protection if religious and national minorities. You could not punish him for crimes he only MAY commit; this is the basic of all your legal system.

And, of course, the "small question" of Russia...

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:

1. He didn't have control of that part of his country already and everyone knew it.

2. Yeah, what on earth could the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth possibly do to exert any leverage over such a powerhouse as the guy who can't even maintain control over his own country with a rein of terror and chemical weapons attacks against his own population?

Maybe... just to start... the offer of not getting bombed or getting in a fight with the most powerful military on earth just to try to retake control of territory he never had a firm grip on in the first place. Then you freaking well work from there. It's what the State department is for... you know, before Trump eviscerated it.

(I will now wait for the inevitable condescension dripping outburst announcing that would never work because some incredulous list of declarations that all boil down to "it wouldn't work because I say it's stupid!")

Just awesome. So basically you admitted that diplomacy could do nothing, and only military force could be an argument.

No, I stated the prospect of getting in a fight with the US military is a great motivator to go to the freaking table. Whereupon you use those diplomats we discussed. That's what they have jobs for.

Which is also the answer to your many times already answered "why wouldn't Assad/Erdogan/Putin just invade anyway?" question you keep pretending hasn't been answered. The same thing that was *already* successfully preventing that before Trump handed everything to Putin on a silver platter.

I'm pretty sure I said this before but if the US had left with an agreement in place and then the agreement was violated afterwards at least it wouldn't be the US's fault. Any more than the US is responsible for the invasion of Crimea and Ukraine.

gcomeau wrote:No, I stated the prospect of getting in a fight with the US military is a great motivator to go to the freaking table. Whereupon you use those diplomats we discussed. That's what they have jobs for.

Actually... no. Because, to put it simply, how much damage could you do to Assad in short time?

Answer is - not much. Because such action as unprovoked US attack on Syria would NOT be taken kindly by the whole region. For example, neither Turkey, nor Iraq would let you use their airfields to support Kurds; they do NOT like Kurds, and they are tired of US incoherent actions.

Israel would likely stay out of that also. They have no reason to went into this mess, and have a good reasons (namely, A LOT of rocket, that could fell on their territory) not to go. They have no reason to support the Kurds and now have little reasons to attack Assad.

So, you would be forced to use only the aviation you could manage to bring on carriers - and, if I'm not mistaken, US carrier fleet currently in rather low readiness, which means that you would not be able to send an armada - and aviation from NATO bases in Europe. Not exactly the best positions for large-scale air campaign.

Most importantly, there are Russian bases in Syria. With all arrays of advanced sensors, and one of the best air defenses in the world. To put it simply, your air attack would lack the element of surprize, and even stealth planes would be forced to act with caution - they would be searched for by the sophisticated high-tech sensor network, the true abilities of which are not known to US military. Even if we would just provide Assad with the online information about what is going on in Syrian airspace, it would seriously hinder your strike capabilities. And what if we declare "closed airspace" over Eastern Syria? Would you be ready to challenge Russia for preforming the duty of allied support for legitimate government?

P.S. Of course, we would not explore that little facts, that intense bombings of Syria would kill hundreds, maybe thousands of Syrian civilians, and destroy what little chance they have to rebuild their lives... For you, Syrians are just dirty savages, that rejected the Light of Holy Democracy. You would probably prefer every single Syrian women and child to die, just to save a few Kurds - am I right, gcomeau?

You know, in your attempts to demonstrate how bad Assad is, you are basically suggesting that USA should be worse.

I Just thought... Actually, for Kurds the current situation is probably the most... promising, they could even get. They now have important common ground with the rest of Syria: they both have common enemies.

Syrians dislike Turks and hate USA. Kurds hate Turks, and (now) dislike USA. Having common enemies to hate could actually bring peoples together quite fine. Especially considering that for Syrians, Kurds now aren't "those traitorous bastards, who sided with Americans", but "those poor bastards, who were betrayed by bloody Americans".

Dilandu wrote:
Syrians dislike Turks and hate USA. Kurds hate Turks, and (now) dislike USA. Having common enemies to hate could actually bring peoples together quite fine. Especially considering that for Syrians, Kurds now aren't "those traitorous bastards, who sided with Americans", but "those poor bastards, who were betrayed by bloody Americans".

Pay attention Peter and TFLY. Pay real close attention to *why* Dilandu is cheerleading these actions.

He is all approving of the fact that the US flipped an ally into a potential enemy. Because that's the kind of outcome *he* wants to see. The US losing allies while Russia gains influence.