while americans are famous for their hypocrisy on human rights issues, we haven't seen this kind of openly deplorably abject hypocrisy in american foreign policy since poppy bush in the early 90s.

would you fight for this? would you fight to save this if you had to?

i would not. i would get out of the way and let it fall, and seek to start again, from first principles.

"but we can't have an election because there's a war"

that's what assad said.

verbatim.

i wasn't sure at first when they disastrously pulled out of afghanistan using the same logic they're using in syria, but it's been a few years and we can summarize what biden has done. call it the biden doctrine.

1. in his infinite stupidity, biden has completely reversed the very smart changes to foreign policy that were brought in by obama. he's wiped it all out. obama never happened.

2. he has instead thoroughly, wholeheartedly reintroduced the carter-reagan policy of funding mujahideen groups backed by regressive forces in the arab world to fight the soviets. i'm not sure biden sees any difference between putin and khrushchev or xi and mao; he's not fighting putin, he's fighting khrushchev.

3. in eastern europe, they're funding nazi groups instead of islamist groups, but islamism and nazism are ideologically indiscernible from each other. this is why they had to put a jew in charge of ukraine in a rigged election. speaking of which...ukraine's a little overdue for one of those, huh? websites now talk about the "next ukrainian presidential election" in language that is identical to hamas' rule in gaza or fatah' rule in the west bank. ukraine wants into nato and the eu, but it can't have regular elections? no. ukraine should face deep international sanctions if it doesn't immediately have a free and fair election, and the europeans should be the ones pressuring them to do it.

4. this was the policy that created the forces on the ground that led to 9/11.

5. the filthy, disgusting animal they've put in charge in syria is in fact an al qaeda member.

6. the cliche is that the definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting different outcomes, but that is not insanity. what it is is abject stupidity.

we're in the same place we were in in 1999ish, and i'd get ready for a very big attack in the next 5 years, as syria becomes a safe haven for terrorist groups to rebuild due to these al qaeda cells that the americans have stupidly placed directly in government, in the hopes that they'll fight the russians for them.

sadly, we will then need to go in and obliterate al qaeda in syria.

so, they're sending matt gaetz to jail, right?

let me be clear about this, because the only country that seems to not be retarded right now is israel.

if the west continues to support these kinds of actors in the region, it's going to experience extreme blowback that it might not be able to stop.

i understand that biden lives in the 1950s and actually stupidly thinks that arabs want to live under sharia law, but they don't, and especially not in syria, and this is going to create a disaster that will need to be responded to in the medium term. 

thankfully, the jews are cleaning up the mess the best they can, but this is not their responsibility and they can't be expected to take the lead on the issue. 

i do not want to see sanctions lifted on syria, or to have this group of bloodthirsty terrorists taken off the terrorist list. 

rather, i'd like to see serious sanctions placed on the turks for exporting terrorism to syria.

i am shocked and baffled that the europeans want to actually send people back to live in a repressive theocracy, when they should be doing everything they can to get the vulnerable out before it's too late, but it really demonstrates how much of an orwellian lie the concept of human rights has become in the west.

it is increasingly the truth that the term "human rights" in the west means "the ability to enforce archaic and repressive laws from the middle east in geographic spaces overseen by western legal systems without any adherence to western (or modern, really) concepts of human rights".

to the disgusting animal that has recently taken control of syria,

don't ever consider trying to take a picture with me unless you clean your face off first. as it is, if we're ever in the same room, i'd expect you respect social distancing to keep that bacteria-filled toilet face of yours away from me.

thanks,

jessica

so, when trump tells other world leaders he doesn't care about their sphere, is that because he intends to flex the monroe doctrine?

i would prefer the good neighbour policy.

however, i actually agree that it's crazy that the united states doesn't have troops on the panama canal. i'm not suggesting they need to go in there and take this guy out like they did noriega, or that they should occupy the whole country, but they should absolutely have a clear presence protecting the canal itself, including a blockade on the north american side to keep migrants south of the canal. it's a choke point.

they could always nuke it and open up the lanes a little (yes i'm joking).

the united states has invaded greenland and iceland before and will do so again if it has to. it's really up to the islanders, not to denmark or norway. if i lived there, i might think about it.

the media narrative around the situation has been rather surreal. apparently, trudeau is a bad boyfriend for dumping her over zoom.

?

let's wake up for a second and remember that the cabinet serves at the pleasure of the prime minister who, in fact, has the parliamentary task of assigning people to the roles he thinks are best suited for them. granted, trudeau looks like a goof because carney bailed on him. however, freeland's response has been insolent, entitled, self-centered and undemocratic and her temper tantrum for not getting what she wants has simply made herself look unelectable, in my perspective. 

she should have taken the role she was assigned, and i have absolutely no sympathy for her for getting demoted at all.

but, like i say, somebody has to lose this thing. let her do it.

if chrystia freeland really wants to be the one that loses this election, maybe the party ought to step aside and let her do it.

she thinks she's due for a "promotion", as though she works for a company called the government. she has zero connection with voters and zero ability to connect with voters. it's absurd.

somebody has to lose this election. if i was there, i wouldn't want to do it.