Thought for the Day

[sukumvit boy]

In response to the Saint Petersburg subway bombing Putin vows that those responsible for murdering Russian citizens will be hunted down and brought to justice , other than himself.

[bluesoul]

In response to the Saint Petersburg subway bombing Putin vows that those responsible for murdering Russian citizens will be hunted down and brought to justice , other than himself.

supposedly he'll also be hunting down and bringing to justice whichever asswipe painted this lovely picture of him in drag. vlad keeps it all too real sometimes

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...-putin-in-drag

[broncofan]

It's hard to imagine Russia behaving any worse than they are without launching WWIII. In 2013, in response to the Syrian regime using Sarin gas on civilians, the Russians promised they would make sure the Syrians did not retain chemical weapons capabilities. They failed in that endeavor as the Syrian government once again launched a deadly gas attack on civilians.

Trump's response was to strike the base from which the attack was likely launched. The military has said it was not their intent to destroy the base or prevent any operations from being launched from that base but to merely destroy some planes and munitions to let Syria know that chemical weapons attacks will not be tolerated. Trump did not have authorization to launch the attacks as the aumf covers attacks on Al Qaeda and possibly Isis, but can in no way be stretched to cover action against the Assad regime.

Russia's response to the attack has been to provide more support and weaponry to Assad. It is one thing to coordinate attacks against Jihadists with Syria, but quite another to bolster Syria's ability to do so when they've shown themselves so willing to use gas on civilians. In my view, Trump should have destroyed the entire base from which that attack was launched. Yes, that may seem extreme, but if the point was deterrence and this was not just some token action, that's the type of action that could deter Assad.

[fred41]

I think it was an appropriate response by President Trump. We can quibble about his personal reasons for doing it, but I think in total it conveyed exactly what I believe the intent was. It's also interesting to see the responses on social media and news sites in the 'comments' area - both extreme ends of people's political views seem to have been against it...for different, but often predictable reasons.
...and I agree to a lot of what you have stated in your post Bronc.

[fred41]

I also think this is a pretty balanced view on the Gorsuch nomination :
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/s...icle-1.3031486

[broncofan]

I have to admit, the article makes sense on this point. Even without the Republicans invoking the so-called one year rule, they could have just run out the clock by voting down every nominee put before them because they controlled Congress. It's a purely political move, but one they could have plausibly done. But I do mind the Republicans pretending like there should not be a confirmation in an election year. I am willing to bet if there is an opening on the court in 2019 and the Republicans have a majority in Congress, that person will be confirmed. As for the filibuster....does it protect the minority political party or just allow obstructionism and slow the pace of legislation? A little of each. I'm willing to judge it by how it's been used...often as a lever rather than to protect against extreme policies. But we'll see what happens going forward.

[blackchubby38]

I think it was an appropriate response by President Trump. We can quibble about his personal reasons for doing it, but I think in total it conveyed exactly what I believe the intent was. It's also interesting to see the responses on social media and news sites in the 'comments' area - both extreme ends of people's political views seem to have been against it...for different, but often predictable reasons.
...and I agree to a lot of what you have stated in your post Bronc.

I think it was an appropriate response as well. Although now the question becomes, what happens next and how much leverage is Congress and the American people going to give President Trump. As I see it, here are our options:

1. Regime change- Next.

2. Provide air support for the rebels so they have an fighting chance. The wrong fighter gets shot down and next thing you know its WW III.

3. Arm the rebels and provide them with logistical support. I would be for it we knew for 100% that the rebels would remain friendly to United States interests once they achieved victory. Or if we knew that those weapons wound't fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Wait it out and just let Assad know that the use of chemical weapons won't be tolerated. That's great and all but then he is just going to kill the rebels with conventional weapons.

5. Wait it out and hope for the best possible outcome. The rebels themselves are able to overthrow Assad and then it doesn't turn into a failed state.

6. Try for a diplomatic solution. At this point, I don't see it happening.

So unless the United States is able to form a coalition of nations to go in and aid the rebels in overthrowing Assad, I think things will remain the same as they were before the chemical attack.

[Stavros]

An alternative scenario, based on the prospect of the Russians deciding Asad is now too risky to be supported without looking to the end of the war and its aftermath without him, thus leading to a revival of the peace process in Geneva, but one that requires new thinking on all sides, much as happened with the peace process in Northern Ireland.

1. An end to the war -a commitment on all sides to stop fighting, possible with all except Daesh and fragmented groups, but violence that will have to be 'tolerated' while the main business continues.

2. A transitional arrangement that would see the Asad and Makhlouf families, and all current chiefs of staff in the military stripped of their official positions and denied any role in the transitional arrangement. To be replaced by a transitional government that would be representative of all the factions in Syria, including the Ba'ath Party, whose commitment would be over five years to draw up a new constitution for Syria and plan for the reconstruction of the worst affected areas of the country, a plan similar to that drawn up in the aftermath of the civil war in Lebanon, but guaranteed not to enrich current elites in the Syrian state.

3. These transitional arrangements to be endorsed by the Security Council of the UN with primary guarantors being the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey and either France or China.

4. Syria to be reformed as a federal state with powers devolved to regions in order to prevent Damascus from making decisions that affect the whole of the country. This would in any case reflect existing divisions in Syria between the historically rebellious Hauran in the south, for example, the merchant expertise of Damascus and Aleppo, and the more religious interests of the north-west and so on. However much one disapproves of these divisions, they exist, much as there is a large swathe of the USA populated by fanatical 'Christians' who believe the Bible is the 'word of God' and should be the foundation of the nation's laws.

5. A bi-cameral parliament will adopt an American model -two representatives from each devolved province sit in the Senate, representatives elected from each province sit in a House of Representatives, a revival of the parliamentary system that existed in Syria before 1970. It will be illegal for any political party in Syria to accept or solicit donations from any foreign political party, donor or government. There will be an executive Prime Minister drawn from the House, and a ceremonial President, in order to ensure that one man can no longer enrich himself and his family at the expense of the state as has happened in recent times with Milosovic in Yugoslavia, Putin in Russia and the American currently raiding the US taxpayer from his branded establishments in the USA.

6. Justice and reconciliation. This may be the hardest part of the the new dispensation of power, but it may be necessary to heal the wounds opened up by the autocracy associated with the Ba'ath Party and the Asad family and their hangers on. Whether or not this means that Bashar al-Asad should be prosecuted for war crimes I don't know, finding hard evidence that would stand up in a court of law would be difficult, and after all, former members of the Provisional IRA involved with the worst atrocities in the UK were let out of prison.

7. The plan needs a commitment by the Syrian people, and by the guarantors who should place the priorities of Syria above their own.

What is clear, is that the worthless gesture politics of the American President have made the situation in Syria worse, yet the USA for the time being continues to sit on the Security Council even if it has no coherent policy on Syria, but not surprising when amateurs suddenly find themselves having to make real decisions that affect real people. What advance has been made when a five-year old Syrian boy is cast as a threat to the security of the USA, or manipulated by a shameless liar and a crook to justify a military action that achieved nothing? No advance, only headlines.

But one lives in hope that once that crooked liar has been cleaned out of the White House someone in the USA will step forward with a plan that makes sense. McMaster looks the best bet right now. In fact the only one with the brains to do the job.

[broncofan]

My thought for the day is that a divide appears to be emerging (perhaps something that has been magnified on social media) between the "globalists" and "nationalists" who advise Donald Trump. The word globalist is used for anyone who does not want to shut down trade with the rest of the world and is not a Charles Lindbergh style America First-er on foreign policy. A nationalist is, in the style of Steve Bannon, for lack of a more charitable description, a xenophobic creep of the first order who's afraid of being displaced by a non-white person in the workplace and/or the bedroom.

Anyhow, the alt-righters believe Steve Bannon is the nationalist and Jared Kushner is the globalist. Now, in no narrative is Jared Kushner a hero or a stand-up guy or even minimally qualified to work in a lower level diplomatic position. But if it comes down to a choice between his view of the world, whatever that is, and Bannon's, I choose him. A choice between plutocracy and white supremacy. I can't imagine that Kushner is the bubbling cauldron of hate that Bannon is but I don't know very much about him except that like Bannon, he is not qualified to be a senior level adviser.

[fred41]

agreed.
I wish they would get rid of that shit stain Bannon once and for all. Of course, once Trump does that, he will lose the Alt right, Alex Jones, extreme-isolationist , right conspiracy theorist kook vote..
But I don't really see that as a problem, at this point, since Trump should just try to get through/fulfill a decent one term presidency. I believe guys like Bannon, will continue to cause embarrassing distractions...the kind of weirdo crackpot shit any presidency should do with out.

(Hopefully that might happen very soon, since there is no way on this Earth Bannon would agree with an act such as the air strike). Hopefully, from now on, Trump will only take advice from his chosen foreign policy and security experts.