Idk - didn't Hillary's proposed Syria NFZ provide a pretty direct pathway to said conflict?
-
-
-
Yes, Hillary's NFZ also a terrible idea but fact that she + her whole foreign policy apparatus would have been *predictable* lowers risk
-
Without making a fetish of "stability," a foreign policy that is carried out in a predictable & coherent fashion lowers risk.
-
I dunno that saying "her regime change in Syria and likely resulting conflict with Russia would at least be predictable" is very comforting.
-
Yeah like a lot of decisions by predictable establishment experts have turned out very badly in the last few years/decades
-
I hear you–and yet. In late 2001, v few would have predicted Bush/Cheney would have responded with an invasion of… Iraq? A spasmodic choice.
-
I think phlegmatic predictability is of more value in helping to avoid great power conflict than asymmetric wars.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How can the Left simultaneously say 1/ Trump is more bellicose towards Russia than Clinton and 2/ that Trump is an ally/pawn of Russia?
-
This is what does my head in mate. Honestly.
-
To answer yr question: Whaddaya mean by "the Left" here, buddy? 24/7 Russia fixation is centrist liberals. Actual Left response is different
-
1/ If the Left wants to win it must get over its division into fragments. Nobody outside the tribe cares about Left's internal clubs.
-
2/ The Left's factions stand together in opposition to Trump, silent about each other's contractory claims. This looks bogus to outsiders.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Funny. I'm blocked by Cole, just for remembering he supported Iraq and Libya wars.
#shame -
Tweet unavailable
-
I couldn't believe it.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
"B-b-b-but..." -Me
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.