Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
“…
During the call, which Trump took from his resort in Florida, he advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe, said a person familiar with the call, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
The two men discussed the goal of peace on the European continent and Trump expressed an interest in follow-up conversations to discuss “the resolution of Ukraine’s war soon,” several of the people said. …”
Flattery will get you everywhere.World leaders realize you manipulate ttump like you do a five year old. Trouble is, ttump’s capriciousness knows few bounds.
Military hawks and neocons are two different factions. Iraq War basically in the public consciousness intermixed these two interest groups, but historically speaking these two weren't necessarily aligned on the same interests. It might be hard to believe but the old school neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were against the Vietnam War, which just goes to show how these people work. Military hawks are almost always pro-war because war justifies their existence along with the entire MIC apparatus, whereas neocons are basically power hungry psychopaths who run think tanks, but because of their obsession with power (and how power often shifts in America according to the issue of the day) the neocons will change shirts all the time, which explains why so many have also become Democrats in the Trump era. They sell their soul to glom onto power and have no problem finding or inventing ways to justify why they should control the conversation / institutions / levers of power. In many ways they're for oligarchic totalitarianism, that is their fundamental ideology. Military ends aren't their primary avenue for achieving total oligarchy, so in many ways a person like Pompeo is a more trustworthy figure because at least you know where he stands whereas a Rubio (which btw, I dont think he's necessarily a neocon, he's more of just a straight up prostitute who will be controlled by whomever controls him at any one point in time, so it used to be the neocons who controlled him and now its Trump who will) isnt someone smart enough to create a neocon-friendly agenda on his own. The choice of Rubio seems to be a signal more about how Trump intends to focus on Latin America above anything related to neocons.Seems like some other factions are already freaking out over it. A whole “Stop Pompeo!” movement just to end up with Rubio. The neocons are back, baby!
Yeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.Military hawks and neocons are two different factions. Iraq War basically in the public consciousness intermixed these two interest groups, but historically speaking these two weren't necessarily aligned on the same interests. It might be hard to believe but the old school neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were against the Vietnam War, which just goes to show how these people work. Military hawks are almost always pro-war because war justifies their existence along with the entire MIC apparatus, whereas neocons are basically power hungry psychopaths who run think tanks, but because of their obsession with power (and how power often shifts in America according to the issue of the day) the neocons will change shirts all the time, which explains why so many have also become Democrats in the Trump era. They sell their soul to glom onto power and have no problem finding or inventing ways to justify why they should control the conversation / institutions / levers of power. In many ways they're for oligarchic totalitarianism, that is their fundamental ideology. Military ends aren't their primary avenue for achieving total oligarchy, so in many ways a person like Pompeo is a more trustworthy figure because at least you know where he stands whereas a Rubio (which btw, I dont think he's necessarily a neocon, he's more of just a straight up prostitute who will be controlled by whomever controls him at any one point in time, so it used to be the neocons who controlled him and now its Trump who will) isnt someone smart enough to create a neocon-friendly agenda on his own. The choice of Rubio seems to be a signal more about how Trump intends to focus on Latin America above anything related to neocons.
Hard to imagine anything stupider than kicking willing members out of our own mutual-defense pactYeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.
If I had to guess, he won't intervene in any conflicts in Africa, Southeast or Central Asia, or the Middle East unless Israel asks for help.
I think the big questions is how he would handle any Russian expansion into the Baltic countries and how he would respond to any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Would not be shocked if he didn't intervene or intervene with a token Force. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he rolled back NATO or maybe created NATO 2.0 to decrease the number of countries in the fold.
NATO 2.0. Lol.Yeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.
If I had to guess, he won't intervene in any conflicts in Africa, Southeast or Central Asia, or the Middle East unless Israel asks for help.
I think the big questions is how he would handle any Russian expansion into the Baltic countries and how he would respond to any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Would not be shocked if he didn't intervene or intervene with a token Force. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he rolled back NATO or maybe created NATO 2.0 to decrease the number of countries in the fold.
Hard to imagine anything stupider than kicking willing members out of our own mutual-defense pact
You don’t get points for pre-game smack talk.You are literally trusting Russian propaganda in making that comment, yet one of your revered sources of information publishes a story where trump is being firm, direct, and strong with Putin and that is your take on the info nycfan has provided so far? Score. Trump 1. Putin 0