Russia tried to murder US soldiers and Trump Ignored It

[Novus America]

RT is not balanced at all.

It is ideologically... although it is anti-establishment

It exists simply to extol Russia and trash the west..

True it is biased and it has an agenda. But the same is true of other media such as al-jazeera. and when a republican is in power, also all the western media except for FOX news.

Sure there is a horseshoe of left and far right willing to trash the west and extoll Russia, and RT will take ANYONE willing to trash the west and extoll Russia, regardless of their other positions. Without any real attempt at fact checking because that is irrelevant. It merely exists to muddy the waters, and thus is not useful for clarification of what is actually happening.

I realize that but the problem is that CNN and the western media is the same regarding the DNC and the west's technocrats.

Just because a point of view is pro-Russia does not mean it is propaganda.

Someone like Ansarre could profit from alternative points of view.

Simply having both “left” and “right” does not make it balanced as it still requires a certain political agenda.

Bringing on a far right guy to trash the west followed by a far right guy to trashed the west is not a balance because it still only shows one side of a particular point.

Sure CNN and Fox News are biased but it is a bit different in that they are not state propaganda outlets with as specific a mission.

And propaganda does not make it necessarily false, but RT does not really have high standards of integrity. It is not merely pro Russia, it exists solely to push the Russian government’s agenda.

[Red Intria]

Sure CNN and Fox News are biased but it is a bit different in that they are not state propaganda outlets with as specific a mission.

And propaganda does not make it necessarily false, but RT does not really have high standards of integrity. It is not merely pro Russia, it exists solely to push the Russian government’s agenda.

a state propaganda outlet with a specific mission vs corporate propaganda outlets with specific missions. I'm not seeing any side here with a claim on moral superiority.

RT, for all of its flaws, is a bit of a breath of fresh air because it knows what it is, we know what it is, and they know we know. They're the media equivalent of

[Novus America]

Sure CNN and Fox News are biased but it is a bit different in that they are not state propaganda outlets with as specific a mission.

And propaganda does not make it necessarily false, but RT does not really have high standards of integrity. It is not merely pro Russia, it exists solely to push the Russian government’s agenda.

a state propaganda outlet with a specific mission vs corporate propaganda outlets with specific missions. I'm not seeing any side here with a claim on moral superiority.

RT, for all of its flaws, is a bit of a breath of fresh air because it knows what it is, we know what it is, and they know we know. They're the media equivalent of

Many media outlets although having an editorial bias do not have really have a specific mandated mission, so individual reporters and writers have a higher degree of independence vs a straight propaganda organization.

[The Sovereign Realist State]

Many media outlets although having an editorial bias do not have really have a specific mandated mission, so individual reporters and writers have a higher degree of independence vs a straight propaganda organization.

That's the theory but is that the practice?

Do US media question anonymous intelligence sources anymore?

I mean, Iraqi WMD and Russiagate would indicate otherwise...

The NYT even publishes deep state anonymous sources verbatim in op-eds.

I mean, if that is not propaganda... what is?

[Cisairse]

Sure CNN and Fox News are biased but it is a bit different in that they are not state propaganda outlets with as specific a mission.

Well...

[Cisairse]

Do US media question anonymous intelligence sources anymore?

Yes.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Many media outlets although having an editorial bias do not have really have a specific mandated mission, so individual reporters and writers have a higher degree of independence vs a straight propaganda organization.

That's the theory but is that the practice?

Do US media question anonymous intelligence sources anymore?

I mean, Iraqi WMD and Russiagate would indicate otherwise...

The NYT even publishes deep state anonymous sources verbatim in op-eds.

I mean, if that is not propaganda... what is?

If by "deep state" you mean "allegedly works at the White House" then what's that say about your boi?

The Times is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

NYT didn't just get an "anonymous" script in the mail and publish it verbatim. The fact that you think they did shows that you haven't even read it.

Fair enough, it's behind a paywall and you're the honest type who respects a paywall. Good for you.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

[The author of this Op-Ed will publish a book in November 2019 titled “A Warning.”]

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.


We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

You will find out who this person is in November when they publish a book.
It's possible you'll find out before then, when Trump sacks them.

[Slavakino]

Doubt it.

>inb4 WAR WITH RUSSIA BECUZ THEY TRIED TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS N SHIEET

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Doubt it.

>inb4 WAR WITH RUSSIA BECUZ THEY TRIED TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS N SHIEET

"inb4" on page 8 of a thread isn't as smart as you think it is.

The President was briefed on this, which shows at least someone in intelligence thought it was credible.
If they provided the President with incredible intelligence, don't you think they should be sacked?

[Slavakino]

Doubt it.

>inb4 WAR WITH RUSSIA BECUZ THEY TRIED TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS N SHIEET

"inb4" on page 8 of a thread isn't as smart as you think it is.

The President was briefed on this, which shows at least someone in intelligence thought it was credible.
If they provided the President with incredible intelligence, don't you think they should be sacked?

I was mostly referring to OP as he is a known war monger and Neo-Con. But currently, these are just recent speculations

[Nobel Hobos 2]

"inb4" on page 8 of a thread isn't as smart as you think it is.

The President was briefed on this, which shows at least someone in intelligence thought it was credible.
If they provided the President with incredible intelligence, don't you think they should be sacked?

I was mostly referring to OP as he is a known war monger and Neo-Con. But currently, these are just recent speculations

You can't inb4 the OP, think about it man!

Any actual proof is safely behind the national security walls of Russia or the US.
It's still possible I guess that Trump decides to do something about it, and releases some details.

House or Senate could too, but I doubt it.

[Free Federal States]

I think the US should respond to Russia by deploying forces directly against Russian allies. We mobilize our reserves and tell the Russians to get the hell out of Syria. We give them one week to pack up and leave. At the end of that time, we kick the living crud out of Assad, and if any Russians are there, we warned them and they had a reasonable amount of time to withdraw. We increase arms sales to Ukraine, deploy more military advisors there, and maybe advocate for them to join NATO.

Here’s why I advocate this:
1) Russia needs to lose prestige AT THE HANDS OF THE UNITED STATES so we can prove that we are still a worthy ally, and that Russia is not.
2) In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians blinked first. They might blink first again. If they don’t, fighting a war against Russia ONLY INSIDE OF SYRIA is infinitely preferable to fighting them on a larger scale. We can simply issue new rules of engagement for the conflict that’s already ongoing and then launch a limited military operation.
3) Syria is preferable to intervene against than Iran. Syria is a smaller country with a smaller population, and fewer forces will be needed to hold it without an insurgency popping up (1:20 soldier to civilian ratio according to my history teacher a few years ago). Additionally, Syria has factions already on the ground who would want to ally with us if we were to intervene. Lastly, the country has been at war a long time. When our troops march into Damascus, the Syrians will be very tired and even hardliners might simply accept peace, choosing to push their agenda politically instead of militarily. When we’ve won, we let our Syrian allies create the replacement government and don’t do ANYTHING to try and create a system that looks remotely like ours. That just doesn’t work (cough cough, Iraq and Afghanistan). The end goal is to establish an anti-Russian regime that the people of Syria can live with, not a democracy.

If all goes well, the Russians will lose allies and prestige, and we might gain some of those. Russia will probably be very angry, but they started it by having our troops killed. Then, we use careful diplomacy to reduce tension. Longstanding anger can contribute to larger wars in the future (Franco-Prussian War leftover resentment contributed to World War I) but if managed correctly, we can demonstrate “the stick” by beating Assad and offer Russia “the carrot” if they change their ways and start contributing to world peace. We have to make it very clear that we will not roll over for Putin, but also very clear that we are willing to be their friends if a mutually beneficial relationship is desired by them.

Edit: I am aware that this is an extremely risky plan, and is probably a little bit extreme. However, I strongly believe that we have to demonstrate that we are better than the Russians. I feel like they are constantly getting the better of us, and this has embarrassed us and deteriorated our position as a world power. If we are to maintain international security and democracy, a little bloodshed now to stop a bully is better than a lot of bloodshed later (think Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy and you’ll get what I mean)

[Slavakino]

I was mostly referring to OP as he is a known war monger and Neo-Con. But currently, these are just recent speculations

You can't inb4 the OP, think about it man!

Any actual proof is safely behind the national security walls of Russia or the US.
It's still possible I guess that Trump decides to do something about it, and releases some details.

House or Senate could too, but I doubt it.

I mean, I see many people on 4chan >inb4 OP all the time. Then again most >inb4's are shitposts

I hope not, I see the US and Russia as good allies

[Nobel Hobos 2]

2) In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians blinked first. They might blink first again. If they don’t, fighting a war against Russia ONLY INSIDE OF SYRIA is infinitely preferable to fighting them on a larger scale.

Why would you want to do either?

And suppose you're successful, Russia pulls out of Syria and you overthrow Assad. What's your plan then?

[Free Federal States]

Why would I want to do that?
1) Russia loses allies
2) Russia loses prestige
3) If Russia chooses to fight, we beat them and they lose more prestige (and also some troops to make up for the ones they had killed)
4) America’s value as an ally is put on display and people see that we’re still worth keeping around, even after four years of Trump

What would we do after taking out Assad’s government? That’s explained.
-Allow local allies to take the lead in creating the new government
-We don’t impose an American-style democracy on Syria. If that’s what the Syrians want as a replacement, that’s what happens, but our goal is removing Russia and creating a stable Syria, not a democratic one

Edit: At the same time, I should mention that I support solving this diplomatically, but this is a strategy that I think will force Russia’s hand and might get them to quit doing inflammatory things
Edit 2: oh wait, you’re asking about fighting them in a larger war aren’t you? (Sry read over that first couple times). I don’t want to fight Russia in a larger war. That is not worth the potential cost. However, beating Russia in a small war potentially reaffirms American strength and shows that we’re not cowards like we seem to be acting. If we lose a small war, it’s just one more embarrassment on top of all the others and can be blamed on any number of factors.

[Plzen]

Why would I want to do that?
1) Russia loses allies
2) Russia loses prestige
3) If Russia chooses to fight, we beat them and they lose more prestige

Soldiers of a nuclear power coming home with bullets from a different nuclear power is highly detrimental to world peace. Some things are worth even that, but changing the Syrian government and one-upping Russia in a regional crisis are probably not one of those things.

(and also some troops to make up for the ones they had killed)

If "kill the enemy" is an objective and not the means to some other objective, there is something very wrong with your foreign policy.

What would we do after taking out Assad’s government? That’s explained.
-Allow local allies to take the lead in creating the new government
-We don’t impose an American-style democracy on Syria. If that’s what the Syrians want as a replacement, that’s what happens, but our goal is removing Russia and creating a stable Syria, not a democratic one

The social institutions an organisation needs to successfully overthrow a government are not the same social institutions an organisation needs to successfully install a government.

Egypt during the Arab Spring provides a worrying example. If Assad is removed, what keeps the peace between the allies that were only held together by a common rival?

[Free Federal States]

Syria has been at war for years. People get tired of war. Deploy enough troops (1:20 soldier to civilian ratio) to prevent an insurgency from arising, and then let all the opposing groups duke it out in a political arena instead of an actual battlefield.

[Free Federal States]

“Kill the enemy” is an objective to show that we won’t let them just kill our people without a response that hurts them way worse than it hurts us

[Plzen]

Deploy enough troops (1:20 soldier to civilian ratio) to prevent an insurgency from arising,

Syria had 20 million people before the war. The mass outflow of refugees probably reduced it by quite a lot, but 1/20 the population is still hundreds of thousands of troops.

If you're relying on local troops, you haven't actually solved the issue, and if you mean US troops, deploying 500,000 troops to a desert nowhere is going to be electoral suicide for any politician that tries.

[Free Federal States]

Also, the bounty program wasn’t about anything regional. It’s about a larger pattern of Russia attacking United States interests all over the world successfully. In at least one of those disputes, we need to utterly defeat them or we will look like pushovers. And if we look like pushovers, what stops someone from starting a world war and trying to take out our allies?

[Free Federal States]

I’m talking about joint troops. The idea with letting the Syrians create the new government is that other Syrians will see it as a Syrian creation, not imposed by the outside American imperialists. People are always more willing to work with a system established by others of their own nationality. That includes soldiers. If Syrian troops see themselves as loyal to Syria, not some American puppet, they will be willing to fight.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Why would I want to do that?
1) Russia loses allies
2) Russia loses prestige
3) If Russia chooses to fight, we beat them and they lose more prestige (and also some troops to make up for the ones they had killed)
4) America’s value as an ally is put on display and people see that we’re still worth keeping around, even after four years of Trump

What would we do after taking out Assad’s government? That’s explained.
-Allow local allies to take the lead in creating the new government
-We don’t impose an American-style democracy on Syria. If that’s what the Syrians want as a replacement, that’s what happens, but our goal is removing Russia and creating a stable Syria, not a democratic one

Edit: At the same time, I should mention that I support solving this diplomatically, but this is a strategy that I think will force Russia’s hand and might get them to quit doing inflammatory things
Edit 2: oh wait, you’re asking about fighting them in a larger war aren’t you? (Sry read over that first couple times). I don’t want to fight Russia in a larger war. That is not worth the potential cost. However, beating Russia in a small war potentially reaffirms American strength and shows that we’re not cowards like we seem to be acting. If we lose a small war, it’s just one more embarrassment on top of all the others and can be blamed on any number of factors.

You want the US to fight RUSSIA, 'cos you haven't had a proper war in a while ... and nation-building in Syria.

John Bolton, you're fired!

[Plzen]

I’m talking about joint troops. The idea with letting the Syrians create the new government is that other Syrians will see it as a Syrian creation, not imposed by the outside American imperialists. People are always more willing to work with a system established by others of their own nationality.

Which brings you right back to the problem of how you're going to get the local factions that are to supply these security troops and form the basis of a new government to actually cooperate. Someone, or a collection of someones, has to maintain a large military force to keep security. Someone, or a collection of someones, need to make the call on what is or is not a legitimate political faction or a grievance to address. Someone, or a collection of someones, will decide what kind of government Syria will have and who will be in it.

These things need concrete and specific answers, not vague handwaving to "local allies" and "joint troops".

[Free Federal States]

You want me to list specific groups out of the mess that is the Syrian Civil War? Just... no

[Plzen]

You want me to list specific groups out of the mess that is the Syrian Civil War? Just... no

And therein lies the problem. You say "local allies" will form the basis of government and provide joint security troops as if "local allies" is a well-defined set with clear distinctions between members and non-members.

It isn't, so who's going to be making the call about who's in and who's out? No matter who makes that call and what call gets made, it's going to make a lot of people very angry, and some of those people will be heavily armed.