Nope. The Congo, where they tried to keep the country together despite the Belgian mineral interests.
But the lack of effectiveness of UN troops lately makes my point. Expecting them to go up against ISIS is stupid.
Well, if it was a real attack, they’re misrepresenting that the attack looked like that.
Meanwhile, you were misrepresenting your knowledge of whether there was an attack or not. So I don’t think I’m going to trust what you have to say about ABC, which makes a real effort to get their facts right, and usually does.
Anyhow, Trump has betrayed the Kurds. This comes on the heels of his holding up military aid to Ukraine that they need to hold off the Russians.
Why should any ally trust us now, and who will Trump betray next?
I think he should be impeached and removed to minimize the opportunity for that ‘next.’ What say you?
I don’t think I was. I suppose you’re getting that out of post #269 though, which is probably clumsily-worded enough to make such an interpretation possible. It was a response to your implied reading of the earlier post, and I didn’t hesitate to clarify when you asked for it. This seems like a particularly uncharitable interpretation.
For decades now the USA’s foreign policy position has swung back and forth on a number of matters as the White House changed hands (about every 8 years) from one party’s control to the other’s, and various other political considerations came into play. IMHO, foreign countries should probably be looking to ensure their own security without the need to rely on the USA.
I disagree. He campaigned as a bring-the-troops-home candidate who was going to make efforts to minimize our involvement in foreign entanglements. He won the election and this is just one example of him fulfilling that promise. I don’t think he should be impeached for that.
Yeah, people shouldn’t ally with democratic countries. Better to ally with dictatorships.
Given that he “brought home” 50 troops and then immediately sent out 2800 to Saudi Arabia makes this yet another false attempt to defend Dear Leader.
Besides, I don’t recall you defending Obama bringing home the troops in Iraq. In fact, I seem to remember you repeatedly castigating him for it. But then, you’re all about cheering on Presidents reneging on deals made by their predecessor. If it’s a Republican.
Yes, that would be completely unethical, and I hope the MSM would correct a misrepresentation like this. I don’t necessarily think this was done purposefully. It may have just been an honest fuck-up. Maybe ABC News did not do their due diligence if they acquired this footage from an external source and did not properly vet it. Or maybe some frazzled intern (who should know better) threw it in there to fill out the visual footage. Given that I generally see the MSM correct itself when it makes an error in reporting, I’m going to wait to hear if they have any response to this and acknowledge the error.
ETA: Oh, wait, looks like they did. This is what I expect from a news organization. Sometimes, they fuck up, but when they do, I want to hear them account for it and not just gloss right over it into the next lie.
Seriously? You think “after questions were raised about its accuracy” is ABC “account[ing] for it”? It wasn’t “questions”. It’s not like it’s still unknown whether the video was shot in Syria or Kentucky. Their misrepresentation was pointed out to them, and they downplayed it as “questions were raised about its accuracy”. What they’re leaving unsaid is that those questions have been answered. It plainly wasn’t accurate. They’re not owning that, they’re deflecting.
Yes. I do.
This reminds me of the Republicans’ defense to impeachment, focusing on some small “procedural” issue in order to try and deflect from the big issues at hand.
Here, the strategy is to focus on some low-level video archivist at ABC News who selected the wrong video, surely as part of a diabolical scheme to spread some hoax or conspiracy against the Dear Leader.
For what it’s worth, if the ABC investigation finds that the low-level video archivist knowingly used the wrong video, then that I think that might be grounds for dismissal. This isn’t really of much importance with regards to what’s happening in Syria right now, though, and feels more like a rabbit hole being frantically dug.
How many false or misleading statements has Trump made about the Kurds? Is it more than one? But you think an error on b-roll is more significant and substantive than Trump’s misstatements?
Also, are you asserting that civilians haven’t been killed by Turkey?
Trump announces sanctions on Turkey.
Even Mitch McConnell is on board, with a statement:
Looks like Congress is united in thinking Trump’s decision was a bad idea.
JM Rieger, Washington Post:
ABC just issued a correction. Now, when is Trump going to issue corrections to his thousands of lies?
This is the second time you’ve called it “b-roll”. I think that’s deceptively downplaying the central role of the video in the story. The narration says “This video right here appearing to show Turkey’s military bombing Kurdish civilians in Syrian border town” and “This video, obtained by ABC News, appears to show the fury of the Turkish attack …” (emphasis mine)
Not at all. According to Wikipedia, more than 100,000 civilians have been killed during the course of the civil war. Turkey has been a fairly active participant in that war, and I’m sure they’ve had a hand in killing at least some of those 100,000+ civilians that have died (as has every other major participant, I expect).
Trump owns this current mess.
100%. It was well known by anyone with a functioning brain cell that the only thing stopping Turkey from attacking was the US presence and the US saying “no, you will not”.
Once Trump green-lit the attack by Turkey, it was on.
And everyone knew that if Turkey attacked the Kurds in Syria, that the Kurds would need to re-deploy forces, and ISIS fighters currently under guard would escape. This WAS A GIVEN. Now Trump is BULLSHITTING that the Kurds are “doing this on purpose”. NO. Any idiot knew this would be a consequence of an invasion by Turkey. So of course it came as a surprise to Trump.
Trump is 100% responsible for the current shit-show in Turkey. And the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY is a collaborator. I hope they enjoy the show. They helped Trump’s destruction.
Why are you fixating on this? What do you think it proves? What would ABC News to have to gain by deliberately showing a “fake” example of the Turks bombing the Kurds, when there are plenty of real videos of the Turks bombing the Kurds?
Your smoking gun, so to speak, is that ABC News said a video “appears to show” something, but they were incorrect? But you aren’t denying that Turkey is responsible for what may be war crimes violations? And then ABC News ran a retraction to correct the story?
Gerald H. Crocks, you really fucking nailed them there. Let’s get a petition going to rename the Pulitzer Prize for this amazing dedication to the truth.
But tell me specifically: how, exactly, were you misled by this video footage? Like, how was your understanding of world events substantively impacted? What particular aspect of the war was either relieved or aggravated when you saw the ersatz video? When you learned it was broadcast in error, did your view of the war change? Any other commentary on how important the video was to the facts at hand?
If only there was an article in the Constitution that granted Congress the power to declare war. Then they could show their unity.
You mean beside it being a fake representation of what happened?
That doesn’t answer my questions. But of course, I suspect I will not get a substantive response to my question, because nobody was actually misinformed on a substantive matter.