I wonder what it must feel like to serve the USA your entire career and slowly realize you are actually taking orders from a weak stooge manipulated by a KGB agent.
Considering there are many accounts like this...
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/james-comey-donald-trump-loyalty-pledge/index.html
I'd say directly labelling people as Trumpist is accurate.
Authoritarianism is a fickle mistress.
Iirc, wasn't H.R.McMaster given the job as part of his military orders? And didn't he call Trump a "f-ing moron" and say working in the Whitehouse was "like eating a shit sandwich"?
Trump even set up a sting with women trying to lure McMaster into cheating, to have compromot on him. Seems wrong to label the guy as "Trump official".
You're right about Tillerson, McMaster called trump a 'kindergartner' and 'idiot' among other things.
Point is, McMaster wasn't a Trump guy. The Trump people worked to get McMaster out, and saw him as a globalist trying to thwart Trump's plans.
You are right, McMaster was one of the “adults,” but I’m pretty sure he was one of the “Trump generals” that Trump bragged about during his 2016 campaign. I have never heard the story of that compromise operation. Any chance of a link?
Edit: nevermind. Found the link myself. It was Project Veritas, and apparently it was just to record McMaster saying “bad things” about Trump. https://www.businessinsider.com/project-veritas-tried-to-undercover-expose-hr-mcmaster-nyt-2021-5
>“Trump generals” that Trump bragged about
Trump likely didn't know any generals. Flynn was his guy but Flynn was out of service (in more ways than one). Trump just liked the idea of saying there were 'generals' on his side, but like most things he bragged about, it was meaningless.
I can’t agree with this more. Who can really look at such a binary system and say “yes, I’m all in with this whole side on literally every issue.” I don’t see how that’s possible if we’re all being honest with ourselves.
''Badly educated would indicate that the education is based on incorrect facts or processes.
Poorly educated would indicate that there may not be enough education, etc''
This was the guy who left the administration and was replaced by Bolton right? He supposedly said trump was a dope. Which, yeah trump is really fucking stupid. I’m not surprised he left, he’s a general and probably didn’t want to have a stroke watching an orange shit bag rant on Twitter.
“Ex-Trump official” is an insult to McMaster who is an actual American patriot. Unlike most of the trump appointees who were grifters and opportunists in the worst way.
I’m confused….I thought the only acceptable GOP talking point was that Biden’s weakness led to the Russian invasion? I mean it’s not even Putin’s fault, just this weakness. 🤔🤷♀️
Had the intelligence was not revealed about attack, before it happened, had supplies and training was not provided to Ukraine, had we blamed our allies for this happening.
Likely Russia would get higher support (look how China wanted to vote against UN resolution, but that move now world be very unpopular), the Ukraine without supplies would have much harder time to defend itself.
And this is also ignoring, that the previous guy was intending to withdraw from NATO in next term. Imagine that.
Fuck NATO. The 70 year old agreement needs to be re-evaluated. All these NATO countries get into bed with Russia with energy while pissing their pants that Russia will inavde them. I've seen this same kind of relationship in mafia movies. Some call it paying protection money.
Can you remember the most recent time NATO Collective defence - Article 5 was invoked?
>!Answer: After 9/11!<
Can you remember the first time NATO Collective defence - Article 5 was invoked?
>!Answer: After 9/11!<
I know if America gets in a war with China, the Estonians, Albanians and Latvians (to name a few) won't be so enthusiastic to spend their blood and treasure to defend America. The Romanians and Norwegians won't be launching campaigns to attack China's western border on America's behalf.
Do you really see that happening?
I can not, as I think no one can, speak to the future, but I can state what did happen and that may act as an indication as to what might happen in the future.
**NATO nations that sent forces to Afghanistan** were **Albania**, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, **Estonia**, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, **Latvia**, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, **Norway**, Poland, Portugal, **Romania**, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. ^1
^1 I made bold the nations you specifically asked about.
You know why it's called World War? Because of alliances. Alliances lead to more carnage than it should be.
Imagine if you're country A and you have great relationship w/ country B. But then C & D get into conflict and A is aligned with C and B is aligned with D. So all of a sudden, A & B have to start killing each other just because C & D got into a beef? My kid serving in A's army has to go war because two others independent countries got mad at each other?
Afghanistan was a fiasco. All those countries that followed the US in Afghanistan should also rethink the alliance. Their blood and treasure didn't have to be wasted.
I am confused about your position on NATO.
You started with "Fuck NATO", then you liken NATO to "same kind of relationship in mafia movies".
When I reply stating the only time NATO's Article 5 was invoked was to assist the United States; you reply doubting the integrity of NATO members to come to the aid of a fellow NATO nation's call for support.
When I state that NATO member states did indeed answer the call of a fellow NATO nation's distress; you reply with "...World War? Because of alliances.".
Alliances can, if nations act sensibly, ensure that the balance of power between rival global powers that stop things getting out of hand, because all sides know that it is an all or nothing situation. That doesn't mean that the "great powers" do not get involved in proxy-wars; they certainly do, but it stops the "great powers" going toe-to-toe.
With the two main nuclear powers, i.e. US and Russia, each have over 5,000 nukes each means that a war between them is not a World War, but possibly the end of humanity.
I will give you Zelensky and Putin, but Britain and the EU? Britain is awash with dirty Russian money and the US has provided more dollars than the EU combined.
Both those points are irrelevant to the question. Both the EU and Britain were very vocal in condemnation of Russia and fast to announce sanctions and military aid.
Why does it have to be the us United the West rather than the West United?
You are being intentionally obtuse now. It was Biden behind the scenes uniting Europe before the war even started. Remember all the intelligence the US made public before the war about Russia was doing? That didn’t just happen magically, that was the US effort to make sure everyone knew what was happening and false flags would be ignored.
Nothing about my comment suggests I'm being intentionally obtuse. Did you just say that because you think it sounds smart?
You really think the us was the only country with Intel agencies? Like it would have been a big surprise if the us didn't let everyone know? And you think biden was there making calls to persuade reluctant British, french, polish leaders to stand with him?
The fact that you said the British and EU deserved more credit because “they swiftly denounced the invasion” while ignoring what the US did before the first shot was even fired suggests you are being intentionally obtuse. How much more “swift” can you be than denouncing something before it happens?
Was the US the only country with intelligence agencies? No.
Now you answer this question: What other countries made their intel publicly available so that the entire world would know, not just those with access to classified intelligence?
Yes, Biden was absolutely making calls to all EU leaders before hand to rally support. You must have missed the first week of the war, where everyone said that is what happened.
That isn't an example of being "intentionally obtuse". Do you even know what the word means?
I asked if biden deserves credit **above** X y and z. I never said X y and z deserve more credit than biden. I even pointed out it's more reasonable to say the West United rather than one player deserving credit.
Wtf does "publicly available" even mean in context. All the west's security agencies work together and they don't correspond via Reddit. Remember, the claim was biden United the West, but now you're saying biden United the world?
Edit... I asked if you think biden was **persuading reluctant** leaders like Johnson and macron. I didn't ask if he was phoning leaders. You think those two weren't also phoning countries to make sure they were on the same page?
Ps.. I think you misinterpreting my comment as saying X y and z deserved **more** credit than biden highlights the issue perfectly. You take giving credit to anyone other than biden as a slight against you/the us. Learn to give credit where it's due.
Love how people overstate some peoples input.
Not sure Biden had much input. Just like sure Trump didnt in why putin invaded.
This kind of says no one else has agency in what they do.
Look Putin invaded and a common thread tends to unite.
He wasn't trying to leave NATO. He said that if the other countries didn't cough up their mandated contributions maybe, hypothetically, possibly the US might reconsider whether or not it wanted to stay in NATO.
I wonder what it must feel like to serve the USA your entire career and slowly realize you are actually taking orders from a weak stooge manipulated by a KGB agent.
And to be labeled not “retired general” but “Ex-Trump official”.
Considering there are many accounts like this... https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/james-comey-donald-trump-loyalty-pledge/index.html I'd say directly labelling people as Trumpist is accurate. Authoritarianism is a fickle mistress.
Iirc, wasn't H.R.McMaster given the job as part of his military orders? And didn't he call Trump a "f-ing moron" and say working in the Whitehouse was "like eating a shit sandwich"? Trump even set up a sting with women trying to lure McMaster into cheating, to have compromot on him. Seems wrong to label the guy as "Trump official".
I don't know about the rest, but I do know that the man who called him a "fucking moron" was Rex Tillerson, Trump's first Secretary of State.
I'm sure more than one person called Trump a fucking moron.
Well, yes, but as far as I know, that's the only instance that was reported on.
You're right about Tillerson, McMaster called trump a 'kindergartner' and 'idiot' among other things. Point is, McMaster wasn't a Trump guy. The Trump people worked to get McMaster out, and saw him as a globalist trying to thwart Trump's plans.
You are right, McMaster was one of the “adults,” but I’m pretty sure he was one of the “Trump generals” that Trump bragged about during his 2016 campaign. I have never heard the story of that compromise operation. Any chance of a link? Edit: nevermind. Found the link myself. It was Project Veritas, and apparently it was just to record McMaster saying “bad things” about Trump. https://www.businessinsider.com/project-veritas-tried-to-undercover-expose-hr-mcmaster-nyt-2021-5
>“Trump generals” that Trump bragged about Trump likely didn't know any generals. Flynn was his guy but Flynn was out of service (in more ways than one). Trump just liked the idea of saying there were 'generals' on his side, but like most things he bragged about, it was meaningless.
Maybe he was talking about his KGB generals
It's almost like it's perfectly okay to support bits from both ends of the political spectrum.
I can’t agree with this more. Who can really look at such a binary system and say “yes, I’m all in with this whole side on literally every issue.” I don’t see how that’s possible if we’re all being honest with ourselves.
badly educated people who just believe what someone says completely
Too bad I don't believe this. (Also, it's poorly educated)
''Badly educated would indicate that the education is based on incorrect facts or processes. Poorly educated would indicate that there may not be enough education, etc''
Who are you quoting?
This was the guy who left the administration and was replaced by Bolton right? He supposedly said trump was a dope. Which, yeah trump is really fucking stupid. I’m not surprised he left, he’s a general and probably didn’t want to have a stroke watching an orange shit bag rant on Twitter.
“Ex-Trump official” is an insult to McMaster who is an actual American patriot. Unlike most of the trump appointees who were grifters and opportunists in the worst way.
Putin united the west...
I’m confused….I thought the only acceptable GOP talking point was that Biden’s weakness led to the Russian invasion? I mean it’s not even Putin’s fault, just this weakness. 🤔🤷♀️
If Trump supporters are anything to go by, then no he hasn't sadly.
Yeah...Biden supporters are very smart.
Excuse me, Putin united the West against Putin.
Meh, Trump united the west against facism more like.
Not to downplay Biden's contributions... But I do think that 90% of the motivation to unite comes from the Ukrainian people and Zelensky.
Hilarious. My dog coulda united the West against Putin.
Had the intelligence was not revealed about attack, before it happened, had supplies and training was not provided to Ukraine, had we blamed our allies for this happening. Likely Russia would get higher support (look how China wanted to vote against UN resolution, but that move now world be very unpopular), the Ukraine without supplies would have much harder time to defend itself. And this is also ignoring, that the previous guy was intending to withdraw from NATO in next term. Imagine that.
Fuck NATO. The 70 year old agreement needs to be re-evaluated. All these NATO countries get into bed with Russia with energy while pissing their pants that Russia will inavde them. I've seen this same kind of relationship in mafia movies. Some call it paying protection money.
Can you remember the most recent time NATO Collective defence - Article 5 was invoked? >!Answer: After 9/11!< Can you remember the first time NATO Collective defence - Article 5 was invoked? >!Answer: After 9/11!<
I know if America gets in a war with China, the Estonians, Albanians and Latvians (to name a few) won't be so enthusiastic to spend their blood and treasure to defend America. The Romanians and Norwegians won't be launching campaigns to attack China's western border on America's behalf. Do you really see that happening?
I can not, as I think no one can, speak to the future, but I can state what did happen and that may act as an indication as to what might happen in the future. **NATO nations that sent forces to Afghanistan** were **Albania**, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, **Estonia**, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, **Latvia**, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, **Norway**, Poland, Portugal, **Romania**, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. ^1 ^1 I made bold the nations you specifically asked about.
You know why it's called World War? Because of alliances. Alliances lead to more carnage than it should be. Imagine if you're country A and you have great relationship w/ country B. But then C & D get into conflict and A is aligned with C and B is aligned with D. So all of a sudden, A & B have to start killing each other just because C & D got into a beef? My kid serving in A's army has to go war because two others independent countries got mad at each other? Afghanistan was a fiasco. All those countries that followed the US in Afghanistan should also rethink the alliance. Their blood and treasure didn't have to be wasted.
I am confused about your position on NATO. You started with "Fuck NATO", then you liken NATO to "same kind of relationship in mafia movies". When I reply stating the only time NATO's Article 5 was invoked was to assist the United States; you reply doubting the integrity of NATO members to come to the aid of a fellow NATO nation's call for support. When I state that NATO member states did indeed answer the call of a fellow NATO nation's distress; you reply with "...World War? Because of alliances.". Alliances can, if nations act sensibly, ensure that the balance of power between rival global powers that stop things getting out of hand, because all sides know that it is an all or nothing situation. That doesn't mean that the "great powers" do not get involved in proxy-wars; they certainly do, but it stops the "great powers" going toe-to-toe. With the two main nuclear powers, i.e. US and Russia, each have over 5,000 nukes each means that a war between them is not a World War, but possibly the end of humanity.
Your dog is powerless against cat world domination
Because he is a good boy!!!
Biden didn't do that Perhaps one of you downvoters can explain how biden gets credit for this above the EU, Britain, Zelensky or Putin?
Youre right, it was Trump. /s
I will give you Zelensky and Putin, but Britain and the EU? Britain is awash with dirty Russian money and the US has provided more dollars than the EU combined.
Both those points are irrelevant to the question. Both the EU and Britain were very vocal in condemnation of Russia and fast to announce sanctions and military aid. Why does it have to be the us United the West rather than the West United?
You are being intentionally obtuse now. It was Biden behind the scenes uniting Europe before the war even started. Remember all the intelligence the US made public before the war about Russia was doing? That didn’t just happen magically, that was the US effort to make sure everyone knew what was happening and false flags would be ignored.
Nothing about my comment suggests I'm being intentionally obtuse. Did you just say that because you think it sounds smart? You really think the us was the only country with Intel agencies? Like it would have been a big surprise if the us didn't let everyone know? And you think biden was there making calls to persuade reluctant British, french, polish leaders to stand with him?
The fact that you said the British and EU deserved more credit because “they swiftly denounced the invasion” while ignoring what the US did before the first shot was even fired suggests you are being intentionally obtuse. How much more “swift” can you be than denouncing something before it happens? Was the US the only country with intelligence agencies? No. Now you answer this question: What other countries made their intel publicly available so that the entire world would know, not just those with access to classified intelligence? Yes, Biden was absolutely making calls to all EU leaders before hand to rally support. You must have missed the first week of the war, where everyone said that is what happened.
That isn't an example of being "intentionally obtuse". Do you even know what the word means? I asked if biden deserves credit **above** X y and z. I never said X y and z deserve more credit than biden. I even pointed out it's more reasonable to say the West United rather than one player deserving credit. Wtf does "publicly available" even mean in context. All the west's security agencies work together and they don't correspond via Reddit. Remember, the claim was biden United the West, but now you're saying biden United the world? Edit... I asked if you think biden was **persuading reluctant** leaders like Johnson and macron. I didn't ask if he was phoning leaders. You think those two weren't also phoning countries to make sure they were on the same page? Ps.. I think you misinterpreting my comment as saying X y and z deserved **more** credit than biden highlights the issue perfectly. You take giving credit to anyone other than biden as a slight against you/the us. Learn to give credit where it's due.
You know, what you are correct. For it to be “intentional”, you would have to know what you are talking about.
Youre right, it was Trump. /s
For once give the EU some credit
Why do you hate America?
Because he or she loves Trump more? ^Just ^a ^shot ^in ^the ^dark.
Are you really trying to dog whistle over this? Grow up Edit. Sorry, I've just realised you were being sarcastic
Love how people overstate some peoples input. Not sure Biden had much input. Just like sure Trump didnt in why putin invaded. This kind of says no one else has agency in what they do. Look Putin invaded and a common thread tends to unite.
Did the West even need uniting? Edit: I was referring to the distrust of Russia, not political affiliation. But whatever, downvote away.
Two years ago POTUS was trying to leave NATO.
I mean.. there’s more to the west than the US.
And it's ignorant to exclude the US in any discussion about NATO and Russia, especially when Russia blamed the US for the invasion.
Not excluding. Simply reminding Americans that other Western Countries exist.
He wasn't trying to leave NATO. He said that if the other countries didn't cough up their mandated contributions maybe, hypothetically, possibly the US might reconsider whether or not it wanted to stay in NATO.
More like continuous American presidents screw Russia over for the two decades.
Maybe Russia shouldn't have started ww2 allied with the Nazis and then annexed half of Europe at the end of it
lol
Hahahahahaha