Yes and no.
We're inflicting pain, but it's not clear that the pain goes away if they stop fighting back. One of the consequences of Trumpian "diplomacy" is that he might hurt you even more if you surrender, just because. And then there's Israel's murky role in this.
It's Russian-in-Ukraine 2.
I don't recall the small, but presumably very elite, Nude Socialist Army, but I admit that would be a rather interesting development. Do they wear armor, and if so is that considered 'commando'?
The problem with even that scenario is that they can keep retaliating indefinitely. Trump can "declare victory" but he can't disengage without literally exiting the Middle East entirely.
I would love a Soulslike that was still very challenging, but not built around the frustrating boss fights. I love the exploration and discovery aspects.
From the perspective of China, a miserable US quagmire in Iran would be great news. As Iran cannot credibly threaten us domestically, we remain to buy what China produces. Meanwhile we throwing our military, diplomatic and economic advantages into the trash-bin.
I almost forgot about this mess from a Trump/1, years ago, and I used a specifically right-leaning source. Attempting to work with the Kurds was a point for both Bush and Obama, and wrecked under Trump.
www.cato.org/commentary/y...
Yeah, that's the job of annoying internet meme-posters like me!
To clarify, neither is correct.
The phrase, "American Exceptionalism" was coined to describe that the United States avoided the political paths that most European states did, especially regarding class conflict and political structure. It's not about being better (or worse).
Absolutely. But the normal process is broken. [Numbers made-up] If, in a "normal" year Customs collects $100B tariffs & issues $4B refunds, they would retain ~$1B quarterly for use.
Now they need $100B+. There's no system at that scale; the court needs to haul in Cabinet-level officials.
It will never stop being hilarious that the Trump Train went so far towards Crazytown that Taylor-Greene and Carlson are now *relatively* sane in comparison.
They're still crankish grifters, but they're at least smart enough not to ride the falling bomb all the way down.
I think Customs itself realistically cannot - they don't have the money anymore. The order would have to go to the Treasury Dept.
Also also, Customs should just fall under Treasury and not the increasingly-broken Department of Homeland Security and Orwellian Vibes
Now I understand you. I took that as a 1995 issue, but it mostly happened in '96.
Again, though, it was a legitimate border dispute, neither wanted violence, a total of three deaths occurred in a helo crash, it's not exactly obvious Turkey was in the wrong here... and they settled peacefully!
One of the few honest answers Trump has ever provided, I suppose.
First, Cyprus is not a NATO member.
Second, I'm not even sure what you are referring to back in 1996, which I remind you was an entire generation back. There was a border dispute issue in '95 yet tensions significantly eased in the late 90's.
Who, exactly, did they attack?
Honestly sounds like a great way to keep out AI submissions and no-chancers throwing out requests to everyone.
Well, we were.
That calculus gets real different, real quick if we're attacking NATO members.
I recognize that many commentators view Trump's lawless violence as a continuation of Republican policies. I disagree: they are a pure rejection of past conservative diplomatic goals, both in content and in strategy.
I'd go so far as to state it's a rejection of the very concept of strategy.
And that's just Iraq: remember that just before he left office the first time, Trump handed Biden the hottest of potatoes in effectively surrendering to the Taliban.
And unilaterally broke up the nuclear accords, following which we had 4 years of peace under Biden.
This is the exact opposite of Bush diplomacy, both in purpose and in concept. Former Pres. Bush, again whether he was morally right or wrong or did it badly, deliberately built a coalition, set achievable goals, and worked towards securing a post-war peace.
Trump is just shooting missiles.
We're at risk of creating a multi-way brawl over the Middle East, spending entire arsenals munitions, and now American lives too. The admin is considering a land war in Asia, one of the classic blunders*, and even they can't explain why.
*Yes, Princess Bride, but also just a fact.
In the specific, Trump is metaphorically pouring gasoline all over the soil of Iraq and then dropping lit matches. Sure, maybe we get lucky and nothing happens. But we could end up at war with Iraq*, or setting off a fresh civil war.
*Violations of sovereignty and murdering their people is a risk!
Again, good or bad, Bush intended to stabilize the region, and this was the aim of previous Republican diplomacy. That was the point: he believed the situation had become untenable.
Trump is deliberately creating conflicts with no clear goal at all and massive downside risks.
That brings us to the mess which just happened. First, Israel & the US, and Iran, slinging missiles and drones over Iraq is just a wee bit of a problem on its own.
Now Trump's admin killed innocent, and probably worried or confused, Iraqi soldiers for no reason in bombing a neutral country.
Right or wrong, successful or disastrous, Pres. Bush meant to fix the violence and repression that kept spilling over the region. There's a non-trivial argument this helped spark the Arab Spring.
Again, you can reasonably say it was bad, or badly done; my point is that it was not malicious.
I disagree on the latter. I view that while our [American] invasion of Iraq stretched our alliances and reputation very far, and may not have been worth the price in blood or treasure, it was meant sincerely and perhaps even succeeded, more or less. For a time at least Iraq was stabilizing.
I hold different views of Bush's military actions than most. I suggest most people think the American war against the Taliban was moral and successful, for a while anyway, but our war against Iraq very bad and failed anyway.
I want to explain why I think this is (a) very, very bad and (b) wrecking former Pres. George W. Bush's attempts statecraft.
So, to begin, I am more Conservative than most on BlueSky. I can, and will, appraise Presidencies differently. I am not now going to debate whether Bush was good or bad.
I used to think that our politicians weren't Superman, but they were better than Lex Luthor.
Then I thought our politicians might be less good than Lex Luthor, but at least they weren't the Joker.
Now I'm weighing whether or not the Joker would represent a meaningful improvement.
Let's not forget the two big secrets of his success was: (A) arrange to be somewhere else once his army was going to get wrecked, and (B) have Talleyrand backstab the government* and hand him supreme power on a platter.
*Again
