191–200 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By only giving Ukraine $175,000,000,000, instead of $500B? Or $1T and American boots on the ground? When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them?
> When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them? I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us. The 1980s Cold Warriors would've been flabbergasted at how cheap taking out the Russian military at the knees would wind up being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
32 people[0] have died in ICE custody, and an additional 4 this year alone[1]. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_in_ICE_detentio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump will be gone in 3 years. Maybe fewer depending on his health. It's unlikely that this change will have any meaningful effect on US democracy. On the other hand, little drones are effectively munitions now. That means drone manufacturing capacity is effectively munitions manufacturing capacity. We're giving potential adversaries economies of scale building things that may be used to kill us. I'm generally a pret…
I don’t know if we should be so sure that he will be gone in three years. There is no incentive for him to relinquish control peacefully. We’ll have to give him a plea bargain, or a pardon of sorts, to incentivise him stepping down. Without one his back will be against a wall (or iron bars in this case), and he will gladly escalate to stay in power to avoid incarceration.
I'm sure the fact that Donald J. Trump Jr. is heavily involved in a drone and drone motor company named Unusual Machines has nothing to do with this.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1956955/000168316824...
https://theintercept.com/2025/07/28/donald-trump-jr-son-dron...
How does this interact with this[1] recent decision? Maybe I'm stupid but I don't think the article really explains the US Commerce Dept. decision outcome when the FCC ban is still in effect. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-commerce-department-d...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/supreme-court-ta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics (even when they did dubious stuff). The new administration has realized that there is no need for such pretense to stay in power. Previously Venezuelan attack would have been about "democracy" and "freedom" and "peace". Trump has made it clear that it is for oil. Overall it is probably…
No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans. That invasion turned out to be a complete disaster that probably benefited Islamist radicals more than anybody else. But it's a mistake to think that the neocons didn't believe their own bullshit. The top leadership really believed they could turn Iraq into a liberal democracy a…
When there was a large scale genocide in Bangladesh by Pakistan, US not only implicitly supported Pakistan, but also attempted to block/attack India (not clear the intentions, but Soviets got involved). There are many such cases.
For rest of the world to believe that US has only best intentions, they have to be really naive. In case Saddam, would US have the same enthusiasm for democracy if it was not for oil? US has toppled democratic governments when they were not aligned to its interest.
To put it in personal terms, would anyone trust someone with their money to person who only cheats 70% of times, while is honest 30% of times? The conclusion to be had is that those in incidents of honesty aligned with the interests of the person. Not because he or she was actually a good person.
They're gonna TACO this. It's too fast with no viable replacement path in sight. Classic trump administration. Do something splashy, then when the media hype dies there is a giant void and no plan whatsoever
Seeing how drone warfare has become the new hot front in 21st century conflicts like Ukraine, it's hard not to speculate on the implications of this as political unrest continues to rise in the U.S. It's no secret that the current U.S. regime views a sizeable portion of its own civilian citizens as enemy combatants. They are already shooting people in the face and not even putting up a pretense of acting shocked at t…
My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics (even when they did dubious stuff). The new administration has realized that there is no need for such pretense to stay in power. Previously Venezuelan attack would have been about "democracy" and "freedom" and "peace". Trump has made it clear that it is for oil. Overall it is probably…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics (even when they did dubious stuff). The new administration has realized that there is no need for such pretense to stay in power. Previously Venezuelan attack would have been about "democracy" and "freedom" and "peace". Trump has made it clear that it is for oil. Overall it is probably…
> My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics This is a perspective that continues to boggle my mind. Every record of the United States acting internationally has been either: Explicitly horrific (Invasion of Grenada, Vietnam, Firebombing then nuking Tokyo, Iraq etc…) Attempts to Subvert or ignore international law (IPCC, ICC, UN…