A generation of GOP stars stands diminished: ‘Everything Trump touches dies’

[DiogenesLamp]

Russia has a very valid national security interest in Syria

Which are?

If you do not know what valid National Security interest that Syria is to Russia,   you need to stay out of this conversation.   

[DiogenesLamp]

A permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean, and hegemonic power in the Middle East.  Just to name a couple.

Russia has long had that Naval presence in Syria.   It is we who helped them achieve the hegemonic power by setting these insurgents on their Ally Assad.   


I believe Obama only did this because Bush took out Saddam,   and egomaniac little boy Obama felt like *HE*  had to topple a dictator too!   

Basically Obama had Penis Envy of Bush.   


Russia is now in the position of demonstrating that it will honor it's commitments while we look  like liars and fools.   

[r9etb]

Aaaaand we want Russia to have hegemonic power over the Middle East, why?

Whether you meant to or not, you asked what Russia's "very valid national security interests" might be.

Our very valid interests run along the lines of preventing that...

[HonestJohn]

If you do not know what valid National Security interest that Syria is to Russia,   you need to stay out of this conversation.   

Oh, I know.  I wanted to see if we knew the same things, though.  It gets irritating when two discuss what both think the other 'knows', only to find that both 'know' something completely different.

Outside of the Russian military base at Tartus and the maintenance of a useful client state in the region, I don't see any other interest Russia has.  Neither of which are at the level of a "National Security" interest.

And boxing Russia in is a valid national security interest of America.  Moreso after their hacks.

[r9etb]

Russia has long had that Naval presence in Syria.   It is we who helped them achieve the hegemonic power by setting these insurgents on their Ally Assad.   


I believe Obama only did this because Bush took out Saddam,   and egomaniac little boy Obama felt like *HE*  had to topple a dictator too!   

Basically Obama had Penis Envy of Bush.   


Russia is now in the position of demonstrating that it will honor it's commitments while we look  like liars and fools.

We mostly agree here.  My only quibble is that in Syria as elsewhere, I think Obama acted more out of sophomoric idealism than anything else.  The idea of realpolitik is alien to him, especially when it comes to recognizing that sometimes it's better to leave a bad guy in power, than to topple him without reference to who comes next.  (Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc.)

If you look at his record of destruction in the Middle East, you'll see it's the same thing everywhere.

[HonestJohn]

Whether you meant to or not, you asked what Russia's "very valid national security interests" might be.

Our very valid interests run along the lines of preventing that...

Well, increasing hegemonic power over a region is more of a foreign policy interest and not as much a national security interest.  Syria, Iran, Iraq... are not going to invade Russia.

And then it's not in our best interest to allow their moves into the Middle East, either.  It's not a vital national security interest of ours, either... but I'd say it's a high-priority on our foreign policy agenda.

[r9etb]

Outside of the Russian military base at Tartus and the maintenance of a useful client state in the region, I don't see any other interest Russia has.  Neither of which are at the level of a "National Security" interest.

You're talking like Putin's idea of "National Security" is the same as a typical American's idea of it. 

But if Putin's idea of National Security runs to a more imperialist flavor, then it all makes perfect sense.

[r9etb]

Well, increasing hegemonic power over a region is more of a foreign policy interest and not as much a national security interest.  Syria, Iran, Iraq... are not going to invade Russia.

And then it's not in our best interest to allow their moves into the Middle East, either.  It's not a vital national security interest of ours, either... but I'd say it's a high-priority on our foreign policy agenda.

Hm.  If that's the way you're trying to put it, I just don't see a meaningful distinction between foreign policy vs. national security. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Whether you meant to or not, you asked what Russia's "very valid national security interests" might be.

Our very valid interests run along the lines of preventing that...

Too late.  This is what happens when you allow idiots to run you country.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, I know.  I wanted to see if we knew the same things, though.  It gets irritating when two discuss what both think the other 'knows', only to find that both 'know' something completely different.

Outside of the Russian military base at Tartus and the maintenance of a useful client state in the region, I don't see any other interest Russia has.  Neither of which are at the level of a "National Security" interest.

And boxing Russia in is a valid national security interest of America.  Moreso after their hacks.

Another serious Russian interest in Syria is it's credibility.   Syria is an ally,  and if Russian abandoned Assad,   the rest of the world might get the idea that Russia is not a good ally.   

Credibility is probably the most significant Russian interest in Syria at this time.   

[DiogenesLamp]

We mostly agree here.  My only quibble is that in Syria as elsewhere, I think Obama acted more out of sophomoric idealism than anything else.  The idea of realpolitik is alien to him, especially when it comes to recognizing that sometimes it's better to leave a bad guy in power, than to topple him without reference to who comes next.  (Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc.)

If you look at his record of destruction in the Middle East, you'll see it's the same thing everywhere.

I believe Dictatorship is a necessary norm of Muslim Culture.    Their religion teaches that there is a pecking order from the lowliest slave all the way up to Allah,  and the Dictator is the natural extension of this belief system.   

This idea of "Democracy" in which people are equal is a product of Christian philosophy,  not Muslim.   


I believe we should tolerate Dictators in Muslim lands so long as they are benign to us.   


I do not like advocating pragmatism,   but it's logic is sometimes very compelling. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, increasing hegemonic power over a region is more of a foreign policy interest and not as much a national security interest.  Syria, Iran, Iraq... are not going to invade Russia.

And then it's not in our best interest to allow their moves into the Middle East, either.  It's not a vital national security interest of ours, either... but I'd say it's a high-priority on our foreign policy agenda.

I think with the advance of fracking technology and the worldwide collapse of oil prices,   our interests in the middle east are becoming increasingly less than what they were in the past.   


England is looking at developing it's huge gas field which has been discovered.   Israel now has a huge gas field to exploit.   


It would seem that Petroleum exporters are going to continue declining in significance.   

[jmyrlefuller]

You are naive.   The power of the super state simply continues to grow.   When she gets control of the Justice Department,  no criminal behavior on the part of her cronies will be prosecuted.  She will,  of course,  turn it's powers against any conservative group,  and after having already gelded the FBI,  who's going to stop her from investigating and prosecuting anyone she wishes? 

You do know that when she was first lady she "acquired"  FBI files on her Republican enemies?   Have you never heard of "File Gate"?     Do you have any idea what this behavior represents in both moral terms and threat terms?

What has stopped Obama? Do you honestly believe the likes of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are any less nefarious?

Remember, Obama defeated Hillary at her own game. Again, there is nothing Hillary can do that Obama hasn't done better.

Furthermore, what makes you think Donald Trump would not do the same? He is even more vindictive than Hillary Clinton is and could easily fill the same positions with cronies that are bent on destroying those who opposed him, especially in the primaries. He didn't even need government influence to coerce an endorsement from a man whose wife he personally insulted, citing an ad his campaign had nothing to do with, falsely accused him of rampant infidelity, and claimed his father was a co-conspirator to the JFK assassination. Think what he'd do with the Presidency!

Again, I may not be the oldest guy on this board, but I remember the Clintons well. I know what we're dealing with, and you still cannot convince me that Hillary Clinton is scary enough to make me vote for Donald Trump to stop her. We tried that notion four years ago and it failed.

[DiogenesLamp]

What has stopped Obama? Do you honestly believe the likes of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are any less nefarious?

Remember, Obama defeated Hillary at her own game. Again, there is nothing Hillary can do that Obama hasn't done better.

He beat Hillary in an election,   but he had the Media at his back,  and they pretty much control what the stupid half of the nation thinks.   Now she has the media at her back,   and she has a far more vicious mindset than does Obama. 


Obama was at least smart enough to vote "Present"  most of the time when he was in the Senate.   Hillary has done illegal things over and over again.   She has been a lightning rod of stupidity and corruption in her positions of power.     People don't like her,  and she will get even less respect than did Obama.   I predict she will react badly to slights,  because we already know she's a thin-skinned bitch that throws rage fits whenever she gets behind closed doors. 

Furthermore, what makes you think Donald Trump would not do the same?

Suppose he is?  Suppose he's a nutjob that wants to grind people into paste?   He won't be targeting Us,  he'll be targeting people who opposed him  like Liberals.   


Let's say for the sake of argument that he is equally bad as Hillary in the dictatorial sense.   Why wouldn't we want this weapon pointed at liberals instead of us? 

We should have no doubts that we will be the focus of Hillary's rage and agenda.   We can safely conclude that Trump will either support our agenda or ignore us.   What he will not likely do is use the force of government to attack us,  our churches and our businesses.   Why would he?   


If we are to have a bad dictator like ruler,   let us have one which is ruthless to our enemies and not ourselves.   

He is even more vindictive than Hillary Clinton is and could easily fill the same positions with cronies that are bent on destroying those who opposed him, especially in the primaries. He didn't even need government influence to coerce an endorsement from a man whose wife he personally insulted, citing an ad his campaign had nothing to do with, falsely accused him of rampant infidelity, and claimed his father was a co-conspirator to the JFK assassination. Think what he'd do with the Presidency!

I'm well aware of all that,  and I condemned him for doing it.   It was a sleaze ball thing to do,   but even Ted Cruz has come to recognize the danger that Hillary presents to our future.    Also,  the Media was helping Trump destroy Cruz,  and much of his attacks would not have worked if not for the Media helping him make them.   

The Clinton's wanted the candidate to be Trump because they thought he would be easily beatable.   I just saw an article today which claimed that Bill Clinton urged Trump to run for the office.   

Again, I may not be the oldest guy on this board, but I remember the Clintons well. I know what we're dealing with, and you still cannot convince me that Hillary Clinton is scary enough to make me vote for Donald Trump to stop her. We tried that notion four years ago and it failed.

You do not act like a person that knows what we are dealing with regarding the Clintons.   You don't act like someone who remembers the scandals they brought to the White House,  or the scandals in which they were embroiled prior to getting to the White House.   

As far as trying something four years ago,   we picked a very Liberal but  well mannered individual who didn't put up much of a fight against Obama.   He was always smiles and respect when he should have been vicious and cut throat. 

As Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)  points out,   "We tried "nice" with Romney and that didn't work,  so now we are trying something else."   

[HonestJohn]

Hm.  If that's the way you're trying to put it, I just don't see a meaningful distinction between foreign policy vs. national security.

National security is:

1. Defense of the nation
2. Defense of vital trade routes and sources
3. Defense of those with defense treatises (ie: allies)

That's really about it.  And the third one can be waived in extremis.

[HonestJohn]

Another serious Russian interest in Syria is it's credibility.   Syria is an ally,  and if Russian abandoned Assad,   the rest of the world might get the idea that Russia is not a good ally.   

Credibility is probably the most significant Russian interest in Syria at this time.   

Russia lost their credibility with Georgia and the Ukraine.

This doesn't repair it.

[beandog]

"We tried "nice" with Romney and that didn't work,  so now we are trying something else."

There's a huge amount of room between "nice" Romney and "nutty" tRump.  Too bad we didn't try that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Russia lost their credibility with Georgia and the Ukraine.

This doesn't repair it.

What are you talking about?   Russia's invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that they are not afraid to get into a war with someone over what they regard as their vital national interests.   


It makes them all the more credible.    If you are talking about their promise not to invade which that Idiot Bill Clinton negotiated,   then that's just being naive. 

The word mentioned upthread is RealPolitik. 

[DiogenesLamp]

"We tried "nice" with Romney and that didn't work,  so now we are trying something else."

There's a huge amount of room between "nice" Romney and "nutty" tRump.  Too bad we didn't try that.

One must work with the tools one gets,  not the tools one wishes they had. 


I wanted Ted Cruz.   I realize now the media would probably have destroyed him.   It's looking to me more and more that the only sort of fellow that can beat the media advantage is a bare knuckle fighter,  not a reasonable man.   

[r9etb]

National security is:

1. Defense of the nation
2. Defense of vital trade routes and sources
3. Defense of those with defense treatises (ie: allies)

That's really about it.  And the third one can be waived in extremis.

No, that's just your definition of it.  Russia doesn't seem to recognize your distinction between so-called "national security interests" and foreign policy.  Neither, for that matter, should we.

[r9etb]

One must work with the tools one gets,  not the tools one wishes they had. 

Well, the GOP certainly did get a tool.

[musiclady]

One must work with the tools one gets,  not the tools one wishes they had. 


I wanted Ted Cruz.   I realize now the media would probably have destroyed him.   It's looking to me more and more that the only sort of fellow that can beat the media advantage is a bare knuckle fighter,  not a reasonable man.

Not to mention one who assaults women just because he can get away with it.... 

Yep.  That's the guy we want to lead the country.  Yep.

[HonestJohn]

What are you talking about?   Russia's invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that they are not afraid to get into a war with someone over what they regard as their vital national interests.   


It makes them all the more credible.    If you are talking about their promise not to invade which that Idiot Bill Clinton negotiated,   then that's just being naive. 

The word mentioned upthread is RealPolitik.

The Ukraine was also a trading partner and member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the successor to the Soviet Union.

This would be like America invading Canada to seize Ontario.

It does not reassure allies and trading partners.

To illustrate, China kept quiet, but they were not pleasantly surprised.  And they made sure to extract compensation out of Russia afterwards.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not to mention one who assaults women just because he can get away with it.... 

Yep.  That's the guy we want to lead the country.  Yep.

Bill Clinton isn't running.  His enabler wife is though,  so she bears some responsibility for Billy's assaults. 

[DiogenesLamp]

The Ukraine was also a trading partner and member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the successor to the Soviet Union.

This would be like America invading Canada to seize Ontario.

We certainly tried,  but the Canadians and their British soldiers kicked our @$$e$.   

It does not reassure allies and trading partners.

To illustrate, China kept quiet, but they were not pleasantly surprised.  And they made sure to extract compensation out of Russia afterwards.

I didn't much keep up with the Ukraine invasion,  but I did read enough to recognize it as being the consequence of another Obama foreign policy disaster.  Apparently we were encouraging them to stage a coup against the Russian friendly President Viktor Yanuyovch.


Russia has a major Naval base in the Ukraine,  and much of the Ukraine is comprised of Russian descended people.   


Once again,  Stupid Affirmative Action man has had his meddling blow up in his face.   If he were a Republican,   the media would be hammering this disaster.