5 ms·

We can clearly hear the drums beating from across the Atlantic. A new adventure was already expected with the change of administration.

pirate787 5y ago
It's worth noting Trump was the first US President to not start a war in half a century.
- aplummer 5y ago
  - nxmnxm99 5y ago
    I don't think you're making quite the point you think you're making lol
    - aplummer 5y ago
      I’m just stating facts and providing references not making a point.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    What a trivial distinction. Either way you had to go back that far to find another president that didn't start a new war. It would be remarkable if it was 20 years.
    - aplummer 5y ago
      You only have to go back to Obama to find a president that didn’t “start a war”. As Obama only interceded in Libya and other ongoing conflicts.
      - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
        For the people who are getting shot and bombed, the distinction between "war", "operations" and "conflicts" are meaningless. It's semantics used to do an end-run around the fact that Congress needs to approve a declaration of war, but it doesn't change the nature of the activity.
        aplummer 5y ago
        I didn’t make a distinction between those. But there is a big difference between starting and interceding in any of those. American didn’t “start” ww2 for example, but did “start” the war in Iraq.
- krapp 5y ago
  He also launched more drone strikes than Obama, relaxed the rules of engagement and civilian oversight over the chain of command, and killed hundreds of civilians in airstrikes on Afghanistan and the first use of a MOAB in combat.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > He also launched more drone strikes than Obama And Obama more than Bush. Either way, the direction is monotonically increasing. Could it be the problem isn't who holds the presidency?
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      The technology was still in development under Bush, he can't really be compared to subsequent presidents who had full access to it. I do think there's a chance that just having the capability is inherently corrupting. I guess we'll see how Biden does, though.
- EricDeb 5y ago
  I'll give him credit for that. I didn't really like getting out of the nuclear deal with Iran however
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- einpoklum 5y ago
  Well, that's not for lack of trying. He subjected Iran to a strict regime of (illegal) sanctions, then assassinated Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. That could easily have started a war. Now, I should perhaps qualify the above, since there are reasons to believe that Trump was not really able to get his way, foreign-policy-wise, due to military-intelligence-industrial complex objections, plus his defense secretary, head of the CIA etc (poor staffing which is mostly on him).
- dreen 5y ago
  Give his some credit. Maybe he tried and failed, just like he failed in business many times.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  He also pardoned war criminals. So there's that. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallagher-trump-navy-seal-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallag...
steelstraw 5y ago
Something I don't get: Why is the Ukrainian president less concerned about invasion than the US president? Anyone have a good answer to this?
- pm90 5y ago
  The Ukrainian President is concerned about invasion, not sure where you’re getting the idea he’s not. His criticism is specifically about the handling so as to not cause panic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/28/ukraine-russia-us-nato-putin-macron/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/28/ukraine-russ....
  - azemetre 5y ago
    A more pragmatic look would just see this as political posturing to save face with the Russians to give off some look of independence and not wholly being lockstep with NATO geopolitical goals for the region. I'm not going to claim to be some geopolitical expert, but if you want to negotiate your way out of this mess it would seem to absolutely necessary to divert yourself away from the West (even partially) in order to come across as more autonomous. It would give talks much more credence rather than Russians seeing Ukraine as US puppets and not speaking for themselves.
  - steelstraw 5y ago
    I said less concerned, which still means concerned... but apparently a lot less than the US. What I was referring to is this disagreement: "US warns Russian attack may be 'imminent,' Ukraine disagrees" From President Volodymyr Zelenskyy down, the Ukrainian government has tried to urge calm, with senior officials making clear in recent days they don't see the risks now as any more heightened than over the last eight years of Russian-stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-warns-russian-attack-imminent-ukraine-disagrees/story?id=82463780 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-warns-russian-attack-immi...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 5y ago

pirate787 5y ago

It's worth noting Trump was the first US President to not start a war in half a century.

aplummer 5y ago
- nxmnxm99 5y ago
  I don't think you're making quite the point you think you're making lol
  - aplummer 5y ago
    I’m just stating facts and providing references not making a point.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- reedjosh 5y ago
  What a trivial distinction. Either way you had to go back that far to find another president that didn't start a new war. It would be remarkable if it was 20 years.
  - aplummer 5y ago
    You only have to go back to Obama to find a president that didn’t “start a war”. As Obama only interceded in Libya and other ongoing conflicts.
    - SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
      For the people who are getting shot and bombed, the distinction between "war", "operations" and "conflicts" are meaningless. It's semantics used to do an end-run around the fact that Congress needs to approve a declaration of war, but it doesn't change the nature of the activity.
      - aplummer 5y ago
        I didn’t make a distinction between those. But there is a big difference between starting and interceding in any of those. American didn’t “start” ww2 for example, but did “start” the war in Iraq.
krapp 5y ago
He also launched more drone strikes than Obama, relaxed the rules of engagement and civilian oversight over the chain of command, and killed hundreds of civilians in airstrikes on Afghanistan and the first use of a MOAB in combat.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > He also launched more drone strikes than Obama And Obama more than Bush. Either way, the direction is monotonically increasing. Could it be the problem isn't who holds the presidency?
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    The technology was still in development under Bush, he can't really be compared to subsequent presidents who had full access to it. I do think there's a chance that just having the capability is inherently corrupting. I guess we'll see how Biden does, though.
EricDeb 5y ago
I'll give him credit for that. I didn't really like getting out of the nuclear deal with Iran however
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 5y ago
Well, that's not for lack of trying. He subjected Iran to a strict regime of (illegal) sanctions, then assassinated Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. That could easily have started a war. Now, I should perhaps qualify the above, since there are reasons to believe that Trump was not really able to get his way, foreign-policy-wise, due to military-intelligence-industrial complex objections, plus his defense secretary, head of the CIA etc (poor staffing which is mostly on him).
dreen 5y ago
Give his some credit. Maybe he tried and failed, just like he failed in business many times.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
He also pardoned war criminals. So there's that. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallagher-trump-navy-seal-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallag...

steelstraw 5y ago

Something I don't get: Why is the Ukrainian president less concerned about invasion than the US president? Anyone have a good answer to this?

pm90 5y ago
The Ukrainian President is concerned about invasion, not sure where you’re getting the idea he’s not. His criticism is specifically about the handling so as to not cause panic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/28/ukraine-russia-us-nato-putin-macron/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/28/ukraine-russ....
- azemetre 5y ago
  A more pragmatic look would just see this as political posturing to save face with the Russians to give off some look of independence and not wholly being lockstep with NATO geopolitical goals for the region. I'm not going to claim to be some geopolitical expert, but if you want to negotiate your way out of this mess it would seem to absolutely necessary to divert yourself away from the West (even partially) in order to come across as more autonomous. It would give talks much more credence rather than Russians seeing Ukraine as US puppets and not speaking for themselves.
- steelstraw 5y ago
  I said less concerned, which still means concerned... but apparently a lot less than the US. What I was referring to is this disagreement: "US warns Russian attack may be 'imminent,' Ukraine disagrees" From President Volodymyr Zelenskyy down, the Ukrainian government has tried to urge calm, with senior officials making clear in recent days they don't see the risks now as any more heightened than over the last eight years of Russian-stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-warns-russian-attack-imminent-ukraine-disagrees/story?id=82463780 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-warns-russian-attack-immi...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
5y ago