The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

Not just Turkey trying to do a spot of ethnic cleansing. Iran has done that across Iraq, through Syria to the Mediterranean.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/iran-iraq-syria-isis-land-corridor

Trump vs. Trump: Kurds Edition | The Daily Show

Mulvaney gone slightly rogue?
Trump advisers and DOJ enraged by Mulvaney remarks
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7bd92e-f056-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

Energy Secretary Rick Perry, 1 of the '3 amigos' on Ukraine, tells Trump he plans to resign
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/energy-secretary-rick-perry-amigos-ukraine-resigns/story?id=66344000
 
Wow, where did that come from? I had to step out, if that is allowed.

So it is okay to you that Turkey is forcing people from their homes in another country?
its allowed... ;)

No, its not great, but what are the options? I think people want to live in peace, they want it to end.
If they have to move 20 miles I am sure that's a sacrifice most people would be willing to make.

And is the "corridor" supposed to be an empty wasteland? The agreement says the Turkish operation would end when the YPG forces complete their withdrawal. Where does it say that peaceful civilians have to move?

Edit: Just to add: "The Kurds are the largest ethnic minority in Turkey. According to various estimates, they compose between 15% and 20% of the population of Turkey".

There are 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, why would they exterminate Kurdish civilians in the "safe zone"
 
Last edited:
Hosting G7 at Trump Doral violates the Emoluments Clause: Napolitano
 
Mulvaney Tells Reporter: ‘Get Over’ Quid Pro Quo: ‘It Happens All The Time’ |
 
Hosting G7 at Trump Doral violates the Emoluments Clause: Napolitano
The only people that care about this choice already hates Trump. In the big picture, after he leaves office no one is even gonna remember it.

It is right next to the airport, perfect location. Everybody under 1 roof, better for security, probably even cheaper.
 
Its a 5 day cease fire, if the terms are respected its permanent cease fire, peace.

If that's the case, it's Turkey winning a war with less fighting and losses than expected. It would not exactly be the same kind of peace as if the war never happened.

Why not be optimistic for once, maybe a 40 year old conflict has been resolved, who cares if Turkey won?

300.000 people displaced from their homes do. And BTW, the conflict is way more than 40 years old; the kurds will continue seeking their independence, the governments among which their territory is divided will continue to stomp them.

If you think something like this will be resolved in a single day's worth of negotiations between a foreign power and the winning side, you are getting a naif, watercoloured dream.

The alternative was that the US stayed "forever". Now maybe there will finally be peace there and Syria can focus on rebuilding after a meaningless war.

Syria is still sunk in war from Damascus to the inner desert: part of the war is between Syria and groups of rebels unrelated to kurds, part of it is fighting against ISIS, part of it is a rebellion in turkish-controlled areas: the kurdish part was the one part where fightings had mostly ceased.

Turkey has brought new war and instability and repression and foreign control to Syria, not stopped it. Plus, now that many ISIS terrorists are once again free, that could get worse in that direction too.

And their plan is not rebuilding, is confining 2,5 million (syrian refugees) people in that 30 km strip. There will be no real rebuilding.

IF it works out, it was thanks to one man

Yes, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the one man who humiliated the US by making them lose a geopolitical conflict and then also come back on their knees begging him to take what he wanted in exchange for a bit of image-building.

The US image is now in tatters, and THAT is what is actually thanks to one man

, will he get any credit I wonder...

Erdogan? He doesn't need it, he won.

Trump? He managed to ridicule himself and the leading superpower in the world, I'd be angry if he didn't.

EDIT (Just read the other comment)

avanti said:
Edit: Just to add: "The Kurds are the largest ethnic minority in Turkey. According to various estimates, they compose between 15% and 20% of the population of Turkey".

This is a bright example of why the Turkish-kurdish conflict is not going to end anytime soon.

EDIT
 
Last edited:
its allowed... ;)

No, its not great, but what are the options? I think people want to live in peace, they want it to end.
If they have to move 20 miles I am sure that's a sacrifice most people would be willing to make.

And is the "corridor" supposed to be an empty wasteland? The agreement says the Turkish operation would end when the YPG forces complete their withdrawal. Where does it say that peaceful civilians have to move?

Edit: Just to add: "The Kurds are the largest ethnic minority in Turkey. According to various estimates, they compose between 15% and 20% of the population of Turkey".

There are 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, why would they exterminate Kurdish civilians in the "safe zone"


Sir Edward beat me to it.
 
The only people that care about this choice already hates Trump. In the big picture, after he leaves office no one is even gonna remember it.

It is right next to the airport, perfect location. Everybody under 1 roof, better for security, probably even cheaper.

I'll forgive you for not knowing what I'm about to state, since you're an Italian living in Italy.

Holding the G7 at Trump's private golf club will be a direct violation of the emoluments clause of the US constitution.
 
Republicans for the Rule of Law - new ad


Turkey fires artillery at American Troops and
US bombs its own military base in Syria to ‘reduce usefulness’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ent-factory-manbij-russia-video-a9159851.html


This not the first or second time the US has let down the Kurds, but remember General Jay Garner and his work with the Kurds in Iraq after Gulf War 1?

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/...urds-dreams-of-freedom-turn-to-disappointment

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/15/jay-garner-occupation-iraq-no-longer-exists

https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/07/15/seven-questions-jay-garner/
 
If that's the case, it's Turkey winning a war with less fighting and losses than expected. It would not exactly be the same kind of peace as if the war never happened.

300.000 people displaced from their homes do. And BTW, the conflict is way more than 40 years old; the kurds will continue seeking their independence, the governments among which their territory is divided will continue to stomp them.

If you think something like this will be resolved in a single day's worth of negotiations between a foreign power and the winning side, you are getting a naif, watercoloured dream.

Syria is still sunk in war from Damascus to the inner desert: part of the war is between Syria and groups of rebels unrelated to kurds, part of it is fighting against ISIS, part of it is a rebellion in turkish-controlled areas: the kurdish part was the one part where fightings had mostly ceased.

Turkey has brought new war and instability and repression and foreign control to Syria, not stopped it. Plus, now that many ISIS terrorists are once again free, that could get worse in that direction too.

And their plan is not rebuilding, is confining 2,5 million (syrian refugees) people in that 30 km strip. There will be no real rebuilding.

Yes, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the one man who humiliated the US by making them lose a geopolitical conflict and then also come back on their knees begging him to take what he wanted in exchange for a bit of image-building.

The US image is now in tatters, and THAT is what is actually thanks to one man

Erdogan? He doesn't need it, he won.

Trump? He managed to ridicule himself and the leading superpower in the world, I'd be angry if he didn't.

EDIT (Just read the other comment)



This is a bright example of why the Turkish-kurdish conflict is not going to end anytime soon.

EDIT
So how about offering some solutions? Its been going on for way more than 40 years you say, is the US supposed to stay there forever? And what did Turkey actually "win", a sandbox full of problems, let them have it, let them figure it out, it not a US problem.

US image in tatters, give me a break, bullshit.

Mr. Nice, I know about the emoluments clause , still, who cares.

How to say Trump was actually right but still call him "disastrous and incompetent"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/18/trump-syria-turkey-kurds-news-analysis-229858

Lost amid the understandable moral and strategic outrage over President Trump’s disastrous and incompetent decision-making on Syria is one politically inconvenient fact: Trump’s assessment of the situation there is not entirely wrong.

U.S. policy in Syria has been unclear, confused and unrealistic for nearly a decade—a never-ending mission impossible without realistic goals or the means to achieve them. Yes, people are rightly enraged at Trump’s willful abandonment of the Kurds and his disregard for U.S. credibility and interests. But this indignation should not obscure the fact: U.S. policy in Syria was headed for trouble. Chaotic and destructive as they are, Trump’s actions have served to lay bare some uncomfortable truths and realities about U.S. policy toward Syria. Yes, Trump has played the role of both arsonist and fireman. He can sanction Turkey and send Vice President Pence on any number of cease-fire missions. But there’s no going back. A new approach, and not a quixotic American vision of how we would like Syria to be, is now required.



Not since Barack Obama’s red line on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons turned pink, have we seen as severe a reaction to a foreign policy move. But when the outrage over the initial Syria decision settles, as it must, clear-eyed decisions must be made about the U.S. role in Syria and the Middle East more broadly. And that means facing facts. Here are five of them that ought to inform any reasonable debate going forward.
The U.S.-Kurdish relationship was never going to last.

Trump’s decision to abandon the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a mainly Kurdish-led militia of some 70,000 fighters, of which at least 40 percent are Syrian Arabs and other minorities, was as unforgivable as it was predictable.

Trump was never comfortable with a long-term investment in the SDF and reportedly told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as early as 2017 he wasn’t happy about hanging around Syria protecting Kurds. Thus, it should have come as no surprise that, after the SDF played a critical role in dismantling the ISIS caliphate, Trump would be looking for an exit from what he regarded (not without some justification) as the Syrian quagmire. Indeed, after a December 2018 phone call with Erdogan, Trump was all but ready not just to redeploy U.S. forces from the Turkish-Syrian border, but to withdraw them entirely. Pentagon and State Department planners should have realized that sooner or later Trump would return to the issue of withdrawal of U.S. support for the Kurds and were either unwilling or unable to prepare for this eventuality.

The U.S. commitment to the Kurds was highly cost-effective and productive in fighting ISIS as part of a “by, with and through” approach to harnessing Kurdish strength on the ground. But even without America’s long history of making promises to the Kurds it could not keep, it should have been clear that after the physical dismantling of the ISIS Caliphate, the U.S. relationship with the SDF would become increasingly fraught. Indeed, Washington eventually would have been faced with the choice of supporting either a Kurdish/Arab militia tied however loosely to the PKK, a designated terror group perceived by Turkey as an existential threat, or Turkey, a NATO member.

The SDF did not sacrifice its fighters out of love for America; rather, it hoped to harness U.S. power to help protect Kurdish territory and guarantee autonomy in a future Syria. Washington and the Kurds formed a marriage of convenience to defeat ISIS, but over the longer term there would have been a reckoning over divergent goals. The territory the SDF controlled was roughly the size of West Virginia and it is sandwiched between a deeply suspicious Turkey and an Assad regime equally resolved to bring all of Syria under its control. Consequently, survival of the SDF would have depended on Washington’s willingness to help protect the Kurds from Turkey and likely a long-term U.S. presence and security guarantees as well as support for Syria’s stabilization and reconstruction. Perhaps a future U.S. administration would have accepted these responsibilities in order to contain ISIS and gain leverage over the Assad regime. But the Trump administration was not about to get drawn into the Syrian vortex. And it is an open question whether the administration that follows Trump (be it in 2020 or 2024), Congress and the American public would be prepared to foot the bill of not just fighting jihadists but getting drawn into what would have been a nation-building exercise as well.
Russia is the key power broker in Syria.

Since Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria, the foreign policy establishment—the “blob”—has spilled a lot more ink complaining that his move benefits Russia than thinking about its actual effect on U.S. interests.

Russian President Vladimir Putin did what the Obama and Trump administrations would not—intervene in the Syrian civil war. Instead of fighting that war by proxy, Putin and his generals stepped in with air power, boots on the ground, and unexpected skill, determination—and yes, unspeakable brutality—and changed the course of the civil war. Putin saved Assad and by doing so reemerged as a major power broker in the Middle East. Putin won the Syrian civil war, and he deserves its spoils.

And what spoils they are—a war-torn society, a ruined economy, bombed-out cities, and millions of refugees. If Putin wants to take on the burden of rebuilding Syria, fixing what his air force destroyed, brokering peace among Syria’s many factions, and propping up Assad—in addition to balancing the interests of Russia’s regional partners Turkey, Iran and Israel—then we should let him. If there’s a downside to letting Russia manage the Syrian mess, it has more to do with U.S. pride and the understandable animus toward Putin that exists in Washington these days. But the idea that Putin’s Syria gambit will allow him to take over the Middle East is just silly. Frankly, he can’t do much worse than three U.S. presidents have done since the Iraq invasion and few, if any core U.S. interests—halting nuclear proliferation, preserving Israel’s security, preventing terrorist attacks against the homeland and maintaining the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf—are likely to suffer.

Some will argue that giving Russia free rein in the region is an unacceptable risk. But at this point the United States is not giving anything to Russia, Moscow is taking what it wants and the United States is not in a position to stop it unless it is prepared to escalate the confrontation with Russia, Iran, Turkey and the Assad regime, which even the most committed advocates of a more vigorous U.S. posture in Syria don’t want. Why not try harness Russian power and diplomatic skills to achieve something that will fall short of our aspirations for Syria, but will be better than the nightmare it has been through?
Assad is here to stay.

America’s abhorrence at dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad is understandable. He is a mass murderer and has committed war crimes, including using chemical weapons on his own people. But moral outrage, however justified and emotionally satisfying, is not a substitute for policy. It has been apparent for some time, except for those in denial, that Assad isn’t going anywhere—Russia and Iran have assured that. His regime now controls over 60 percent of Syrian territory. He is irrevocably committed to seizing the rest and now stands to control, if he can manage, 75 percent of Syria’s oil resources and a good deal of fertile agricultural land.

Assad and his allies constitute the most powerful array of forces on the ground in Syria. And even though the Syrian military is weak and stretched thin, it will likely extend regime control over additional territory committing war crimes and killing civilians in the process. Whether Assad will be able to establish control over the entire country is not the point: He controls the capital, Syria’s major cities, airports and seaports. He’s likely to remain something of an international pariah with few willing to fund the billions required to reconstruct the country. Washington doesn’t have to deal with Assad or his cronies. But we should not try to discourage—as we seem to have been willing to do with the SDF—other Syrian groups from doing so. Whether the Russians can find a way to broker a deal between Assad and Turkey to stabilize northeastern Syria, let alone to broker some kind of overall political settlement, remains highly doubtful.
There won’t be a second caliphate.

Rather than chase unrealistic ambitions, the U.S. should remain focused on what its core interest in Syria has been since 2011: countering the threat from ISIS. That will be harder now with the end of the U.S. partnership with the SDF but it is certainly not impossible. Coping effectively with this challenge requires accepting several propositions.

First, as long as Syria remains a broken country riven by sectarian hatred and a repressive Alawite regime, ISIS cannot be destroyed or even defeated because the conditions that created ISIS are not going to go away. But the threat it poses can be contained. Second, ISIS is not solely an American problem; it poses a more serious danger to most of our friends and allies in the region and beyond. As Trump has argued, these countries should pull their own weight in dealing with this common threat. Third, Washington should assume that at some point Assad and his allies will act in their own self-interest—and they all want to prevent a resurgence of ISIS even though their other agendas may well divert and distract them from a laser focus on combating the jihadis. Finally, the ability of ISIS and its affiliates to wreak further havoc in Syria and Iraq and carry out terror attacks in the region and in Europe is unquestionable. Indeed, the ISIS insurgency was gaining ground even before Trump’s retreat from Syria. ISIS fighters could take over some towns and villages and put pressure on others, but another caliphate is probably not in the cards if the U.S. and the other anti-ISIS actors in Syria take military action against it. More importantly, attacks by ISIS, while horrific for the people of Syria, should not be conflated with a heightened threat to the American homeland, which is exactly what Joe Biden did in the Democratic debate earlier this week with his semihysterical assertion that ISIS “is going to come here!”

Since 9/11, America has spent $2.8 trillion on homeland security. If at this point America is a sitting duck for ISIS, a ton of taxpayer money has been wasted. It has been 18 years since this country suffered a terrorist attack that was planned and executed by foreign jihadists. At one time there were thousands of jihadists rampaging around Iraq and Syria and there are jihadists all over the Middle East, Africa, south Asia, and Southeast Asia. If the U.S. has not been attacked in almost two decades, why would we be more vulnerable by the scattered remnants of ISIS in Syria? Attacks on the U.S. homeland may well continue to be committed by radicalized U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents inspired by jihadi propaganda and narratives. But that problem won’t be solved by maintaining American troops in Syria.

Moreover, the U.S. has options to keep ISIS down. The military has substantial combat aircraft, drones, intelligence platforms and logistics support around Syria, and would face no serious air defenses from ISIS, and it is doubtful that the Russians would interfere to defend ISIS fighters from American attacks. Intense and sustained attacks on ISIS positions are feasible, although it would likely require coordination with the Syrians and their allies. The U.S.’ Arab friends are unlikely to contribute ground forces to an anti-ISIS campaign in Syria, but they should allow the U.S. to stage military operations from their territory and pay for some of those costs. America’s NATO allies should also put some military skin in the game. After all, they’re the ones who have suffered the most from the chaos in Syria. The British and the French have some deployable combat brigades and air power to kill ISIS foot-soldiers in Syria. Finally, the U.N., U.S., the EU and Arab states with deep pockets should substantially increase funding to meet humanitarian needs in Syria.
Syria is not a vital U.S. interest.

In almost a decade, Washington has not found a sustainable or effective policy in Syria. And part of the reason is that we rightly don’t consider Syria a vital national interest. Two administrations have now made that fact clear by the choices they have made to minimize if not end the U.S. role there, with the exception of pursuing counterterrorism against ISIS and al-Qaida affiliates. Neither Congress nor the American public has the appetite to commit American blood and treasure in Syria. Iran, Turkey, Russia and the Assad regime are prepared to make these sacrifices and Syria is a much higher priority for them than it is for the United States. Trump has made the Syrian story much more tragic by deciding, in the most inept way possible, to cut and run. It’s unlikely, however, that U.S. sanctions against Turkey—not to mention a crude and patronizing letter by Trump to Erdogan—can reverse the Turkish leader’s resolve to defend what he believes to be his vital political and security interests in Syria.

The notion that Syria is a zero-sum game where any setback for the U.S. is an automatic gain for our adversaries invites both bad analysis and bad policy. Deeper Russian involvement in the middle of the Turkish/Kurdish/Syrian regime imbroglio—at best a situation that can be managed but not resolved—will not harm core U.S. interests: securing the free flow of oil; countering nuclear proliferation; and preventing an attack on the homeland. Israel has managed to constrain Iran’s more expansionist designs in Syria, and Russian and Iranian goals do not always coincide.

Syria is a complicated place that offers no one an unqualified win. Instead, it is a land where the majority of Syrians pay a terrible price at the hands of external powers and a minority brutal government determined to survive at any price. It will remain a money pit where plans for peace, good governance and stability go to die. And right now, there’s little Washington is willing or able to do about it.
 
 
So how about offering some solutions? Its been going on for way more than 40 years you say, is the US supposed to stay there forever? And what did Turkey actually "win", a sandbox full of problems, let them have it, let them figure it out, it not a US problem.

US image in tatters, give me a break, bullshit.

Mr. Nice, I know about the emoluments clause , still, who cares.

How to say Trump was actually right but still call him "disastrous and incompetent"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/18/trump-syria-turkey-kurds-news-analysis-229858

To an American, your stance is ridiculous. We care about our constitution and following the rule of law greatly here. Our founding document is very important to us, and violating it is not something that we take lightly. It can be amended, but it also must be followed.

 
So how about offering some solutions? Its been going on for way more than 40 years you say, is the US supposed to stay there forever? And what did Turkey actually "win", a sandbox full of problems, let them have it, let them figure it out, it not a US problem.

Turkey's influence has grown, Russia's influence has grown, Iran's influence has grown, the US influence has fallen sharply. This does not only apply there, but everywhere.

It is a solid indication of what is happening all around the world: the US are fading out slowly and the long period of peace they brought with them is going to end.

US image in tatters, give me a break, bullshit.

Well, it's been three years since it was clear that the US were going to slowly get away form their allies in one form or another. The North Korea crisis was a good try to take South Korea away from the US. The conflict to derail and divide Europe has been going on for quite some time (and we should never forget Merkel's 2017 words "Europe cannot rely on the US and Britain anymore"), the mixed results in South America speak for themselves and the rise of China in South-East Asia is making the US mostly on the waning side.

Now the Middle-East. Basically, there are few places on Earth where the US influence is growing rather than being reduced.

This now is a defeat for the US. A 10-year long defeat, if you so will, but a defeat nonetheless, completed with a disastrous and incompetent move.

And I found Politico's article interesting, but there is no point in trying to rationalize: the US have been defeated, Trump made it as worse as publicly possible and he now tries to appear the good guy while bending over backwards and aknowledging Turkey's requests on Syria's territory.

And of course the cease-fire is not likely to be respected.

In the meantime, to show how bad the US influence is going down, this happens.

Sorry, there is not much rationalization that can be done: things are changing fast, and Power is shifting away from Washington at an alarming pace. To me, given the alternatives and not even counting the disgraceful betrayal of allies, this is not a good sign at all.
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e35be9-4f5a-4048-8520-0baabb18ab63_story.html

Diplomat tells investigators he raised alarms in 2015 about Hunter Biden’s Ukraine work but was rebuffed

A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules surrounding the deposition.
Kent said he had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people. But when Kent raised the issue with Biden’s office, he was told the then-vice president didn’t have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue involving his son as his other son, Beau, was battling cancer, said the people familiar with his testimony.
 
Last edited:
If you have concerns about conflict of interest, why would you approach someone with a conflict of interest with the person you are worried about? GAO would probably be a better place to go with it.
 
Trump apparently watched a conspiracy theory video and now wants to sue CNN.

keS0OCw.jpg


B0UQnMf.jpg


bRWPkd2.jpg


JdHdacQ.jpg
 
If you have concerns about conflict of interest, why would you approach someone with a conflict of interest with the person you are worried about? GAO would probably be a better place to go with it.

That is about what I was thinking. At the very least, there is always the next person to report it to.
 
That is about what I was thinking. At the very least, there is always the next person to report it to.

But all perfectly legal.

Looks bad but legal, versus outright corruption.
 
I makes me wonder if that's why he was rebuffed, "If you have concerns about Hunter Biden, you can't bring those to Joe Biden, it's a conflict of interest." I deal with dual relationships and conflict of interest regularly, I don't address it with the client beyond referring them to another therapist - to continue to discuss it is, itself, a conflict of interest.
 
Top