Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Do They Want Him to Be President Forever?
I’m starting to think so. Here’s a few Monday morning examples:
As I write in @PostOpinions, if Trump isn’t a Russian agent, he’s doing a pretty good imitation of one: https://t.co/jNI2krCF4Z https://t.co/EBIUsLpfUD
— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) January 14, 2019
And yet another breathless accounting of how our lives have been shattered by the presidency of Donald J. Trump:
Two years into the Trump administration, @TheAtlantic has published Unthinkable: 50 norm-shattering moments that have defined the past 730 days. Read them all here: https://t.co/xfYtiwWc0P #TrumpUnthinkable
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) January 14, 2019
They do realize this behavior comes off as just a tad overwrought by the average American, right?
Published in Journalism
Great, fun with vocabulary words! Yes undermine does mean “to weaken” however in Mr. French’s case he used a modifier “substantially” this means: “to a great or significant extent, for the most part, essentially”
So it goes from the case is weaker to the case basically does not stand up. The case can’t really be made.
Obama gave Russia exactly what they wanted by granting them a leadership role in the region. Trump was tough for awhile then gave them what they want by leaving. That seems like a draw. The case still exists with weapon sales, nuke treaties, sanctions ect that Trump is tougher. This one issue does not “substantially weaken the argument”
No, it goes from the case is weaker to the case is significantly weakened. Do you really want to parse French’s words?
As someone who has made the case Trump has been tougher on Russia than Obama, Syria played a significant part in the argument. Withdrawing from Syria makes the argument much less persuasive.
I have linked to two articles outlining Trumps actions. The first does not even mention Syria. The second article Syria was one of nine line items. Syria did not play a significant part in the argument. It may play a part but not the largest part.
Yes I do want to parse French words. He is an attorney and a professional writer. He understands the need to choose your words carefully. Nothing about Syria “for the most part” or “essentially” undermines the case that Trump has been tougher than Obama.
I get that you dislike Trump and understand why you disagree with his position on Syria. You seem to be trying to go out of your way to defend French. It is possible for a smart guy to oversell his case.
This has nothing to do with my dislike of Trump, as I said, I have made the exact argument French is referring to. If we actually withdraw from Syria, I will cease to make that argument because the most persuasive element of the argument is no longer valid. Actually putting us in a position to kill Russian troops was the most persuasive element of the argument.
I simply believe you are mistaking the argument he is making. He is an attorney and a professional writer and I’m sure if he wanted to say the withdrawal completely undermined or thoroughly undermined the argument I have made, he very well could have.
Considering that the original argument – Trump is a Russian Agent – is a ludicrous conspiracy theory that can only be taken seriously by children, the most credulous of adults and the most desperate of Hollywood producers, and that as a conspiracy theory it is almost impossible to disprove, the evidence against it – that Trump isn’t doing Russia the favors one would expect a Russian agent to provide – is just as strong relative to the Russian Agent claim because the Russian Agent claim was and is completely without substance.
I think it is possible that both points are true, that (a) Putin and Russia benefit by our withdrawal from Syria and (b) Trump is not taking this action to support Putin but rather to keep a promise he has undoubtedly made to himself about not getting the American military involved in a quagmire.
The current situation is the worst use of our military possible and I always hated Obama’s policy for it. We’ve about 2,000 troops on the ground in Syria dispersed in various areas. They are there as fodder, not to win a war. Various players may want us there, but not because they have our interests in mind.
Get. them. out.
Fodder? Seriously?
What can they accomplish there? They’re not going to end the conflict. No one expects 2,000 men in such a complex conflict to resolve anything (would that all the factions could lose). It is an immoral policy to keep them there. I’m not the first and only to say this. They’re either going to get killed or maimed — to what end? Get. them. out.
There have been two American fatalities in Syria, your characterization of American forces serving as cannon fodder is absurd.
Those 2,000 troops have successfully played an integral role in liberating large areas from ISIS control and are an important, probably decisive, element in preventing a resurgence of ISIS in those areas. In addition, they deter Turkish action against our Kurdish allies.
There is nothing immoral about either mission.
2000 American troops are a match for considerably more troops of any other nation.
But they aren’t what you describe. They are symbolic. They are a placeholder. And they are at risk. Tell, me, Mr. Obama, what is worth the lives – or even the time – of these 2000 American men?
They are not merely symbolic, they are serving a real and important role in preventing ISIS from re-establishing control over large portions of Syrian territory. They are acting as force multipliers, increasing the lethality and effectiveness of other allied forces such as the Kurds.
Then why don’t we send more? Why not get it over with? Would it be better if 100 men were maimed or died every month in an effort to settle the matter or two men maimed or died every month with no end in sight?
I despise the lukewarm nature of our wars since Vietnam. We go into these things with no intention of winning. It’s a disservice to our troops and their families.
Get what over with? We rightfully have very limited objectives in Syria and those limited objectives require a limited force. Are you advocating we attack the Syrian national army and their Russian allies and occupy the country?
The force we have in Syria IS winning. One of the most important parts of any military operations order is the Commander’s Intent and part of that is the Definition of Success. Not every definition of success includes unconstitutional surrender nor should it. The force in Syria has successfully assisted in liberating large portions of Syrian territory from ISIS control and is successfully preventing ISIS from regaining control. That IS winning.