TheDemonRazgriz
No bio...
User ID: 3577
TheDemonRazgriz
1d ago
I trust Biden with the nuclear football infinitely more than Hegseth, Trump, Vance, or any of the people in that group chat.
Are you being sincere about this or exaggerating for effect? Biden was fully senile at the end, and it’s really not clear when in his term he crossed that line. I’m not so sure he was aware of his limitations, either. Trusting him over Trump I frankly can understand, Trump is erratic and underinformed and is himself clearly losing his sharpness with age (although I wouldn’t call him fully senile, yet). But Vance, for example, doesn’t seem any less competent than any other run-of-the-mill politician, he’s not even a hawk. I would absolutely trust him above Biden to make decisions in a crisis. Unless you mean you’d trust Biden’s advisors to steer him the right way when the shit hits the fan?
TheDemonRazgriz
2d ago
I don't think it's worth it if you already consider yourself to have an "addictive personality", so to speak. It definitely feels good, but once you start getting cravings that pretty much cancels it out, in my opinion. My now-fiancée and I both got into vaping for a couple years or so during college and, honestly, only decided to quit when our state banned all the non-tobacco flavors of vape cartridges and it became too much of a pain to support the habit. I found it surprisingly easy to quit given the reputation (it was kind of unpleasant for a week or so but then I felt back to normal) but she had an absolute bitch of a time, with physical withdrawal symptoms that went on for months. I'll still take a hit off a friend's vape or share a cigarette at a party once in a blue moon -- again it really is a nice feeling, especially in a party environment where you're talking to people and already a little tipsy -- but she's convinced (probably rightly) that if she tried it again at all it would kickstart the addiction all over again. So if you already think you're susceptible to that kind of thing, I think it's pretty much a guarantee that you'll end up with a proper addiction/dependency -- which in my view makes the juice very much not worth the squeeze.
TheDemonRazgriz
2d ago
My dad is a doctor, and his signature is allegedly his initials but is really just a sort of loopy squiggle that he can write quickly. It's distinctive so it's not like it needs to have legible letters I suppose; my own signature is also pretty much just a squiggly line with a passing resemblance to my name (to me, anyway: according to my fiancée nobody would ever identify the letter parts of the squiggle without me explaining what they are). When I was younger it more closely resembled actual letters but has smoothed/devolved over time. It's probably more consistent now than it ever was when I was trying to actually "write" it versus "drawing" it, if that distinction makes sense. I rather like it, personally. It's satisfying to quickly swoosh it out on a restaurant bill or the like.
How's your handwriting in general? I have never met a practicing doctor with good handwriting -- as best as I can tell that stereotype is very much based in fact. I suspect many doctors begin with a recognizable signature and then it devolves as they get used to writing it faster and faster, the same as their handwriting seems to inevitably deteriorate over time.
TheDemonRazgriz
2d ago
there may be another Jeffrey Goldberg [or (JG) generic user icon] who Waltz meant to invite, perhaps someone with top secret clearance in an intel agency who wasn’t expected to weigh in, but was supposed to stay informed
Yeah, I think this is plausible. I recall seeing that there is, in fact, a reasonably-high-up intelligence official with initials JG who could perhaps have been an intended invitee, although I can't remember the name off my head. Even so, that's still a very stupid/sloppy mistake to make given the subject matter.
TheDemonRazgriz
3d ago
This situation is comically stupid, even by the established standards of the Trump admin. I don't even really see much of a problem with them using Signal for sensitive communication, in theory (it's not like they were using Telegram); yes, the government should have its own internal secure platform for something like this but I would not be surprised if, in practice, that secure platform is just "email" which would be such a pain in the ass as to make me sympathetic to the signal-using officials. But, good lord, literally inviting a journalist into your government chat? What??? How did none of them notice he was in the chat? Clown world indeed.
Honestly, I don't buy the theories that this leak was intentional (or at least that the leak was intentional on the part of the Trump admin as an entity, it could've been intentional with the goal of embarrassing them) -- what would they stand to gain? They just look like a bunch of idiots. And the "intentional leak to embarrass the cabinet" theory doesn't make sense either since the invite came from the goddamn National Security Advisor. Therefore I have to conclude that this comes from simple gross incompetence. Defenses of this from sympathetic right-wingers are pretty weak as well, just compare it to the (justified) furor about the Hillary Clinton email server... this might not be worse in terms of practical effect, but that's mostly because the journalist himself chose not to do anything with the information he received until after the strikes took place. I'm a little surprised there isn't even more outcry from Democrats but I guess they don't tend to get riled up about national security the way Republicans do.
If I were President in this situation I would, honestly, fire the guy who invited the journalist on the spot. Everyone else involved here is breaching protocol, yes, and they really should have noticed that "hey, one of these guys isn't a government official", and sure, it's just one simple mistake -- but fat-fingering the invite for a group chat such that you leak the details of an upcoming military operation to the press seems to me to be so profoundly dumb (and utterly oblivious to any notion of OPSEC) as to disqualify you outright from serving in any sensitive position. If he had done it intentionally, this would arguably be treason.
If nothing else, it's terrible PR for the administration. I will be surprised if Waltz keeps his job longer than the next few days, especially given Trump's reputation for turnover.
TheDemonRazgriz
3d ago
A strike that doesn't kill the people it's aimed at doesn't make a point (or at least, it doesn't make the point you'd want to make by launching it).
TheDemonRazgriz
3d ago
I think the proposition that the US and allies secretly used a tactical nuke in combat (on a mostly-civilian target, in the 21st century, with no outcry from the UN, Russia, China, watchdog NGOs, or anyone else) falls firmly in the realm of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” So, let’s see it. Because on its face this claim is ludicrously implausible, to put it mildly.
TheDemonRazgriz
14d ago
No, not really, but I think that's heavily influenced by how they present themselves (hair, fashion, etc). I do think if they married white Americans the resultant children would be more-or-less indistinguishable from other white Americans (especially if you're including e.g. Italians in your "white American" bucket).
As I understand it, paella (which hails from Spain) is not even all that popular in Mexico, and certainly isn't "Mexican" per se. So I think there's an amusing double-layered inauthenticity going on here. In fact I don't think I've ever seen it in a Mexican restaurant, only in Spanish ones (although I live in the Northeast, so neither of us is really getting an authentic picture of Mexican cuisine... the one time I went to Mexico we stayed at a resort, but for what it's worth, the resort had both a Mexican and a Spanish restaurant: the Spanish restaurant had paella, and the Mexican one did not).
Anyway, for me, it has to be American-style spaghetti and meatballs. How could the Italians come up with each of spaghetti, meatballs, and marinara sauce and then not combine them in one dish?
TheDemonRazgriz
15d ago
Interesting -- I do see your point. I think the status quo of Canadian relations/border control would have to get a lot worse before I'd see neutrality as an upgrade, but that's not impossible. The fundamental problem is that it's hard for me to imagine a neutral Canada as more or even equally resilient to Chinese infiltration/influence than a status-quo Canada, such that "a convincing guarantee that China will never be able to threaten the US from the North" is basically impossible unless Canada is in a military alliance with the US (i.e., NORAD). I can't really imagine a scenario where a neutral Canada doesn't become a diplomatic and intelligence battleground between the US and China (as well as Russia and India, among others).
Annexing Canada outright would probably be desirable in an abstract sense but is entirely unrealistic; a much-more-subservient or "puppet" Canada would definitely be good for the US though. Especially given their sometimes very strange foreign policy choices (too deferential to China when the US is their open enemy, weirdly hostile to India when the US is trying to bring them into alignment -- as an aside I think the bad relationship with India is an ironic consequence of importing such an enormous number of poorly-assimilated Indian immigrants, they are importing grievances and political fractiousness along with them). If, as you said in your previous comment, Canada essentially gave up its foreign policy to US control then that would be a great outcome for the US, although of course that seems very unlikely.
I do wonder if Trump is aiming for that sort of outcome, albeit in his particular incompetent and clumsy manner. Perhaps he thinks he can bring the Canadian government to heel and force them into a subservient position internationally, or force them to take action on their immigration/border control fiasco... but trying to do this through an "all stick, no carrot" approach seems like a terrible idea. Not least because he's making the Canadian conservative party less popular through association, and if they get another liberal government (which is only even on the table because of the backlash against Trump spilling into a backlash against the Canadian right, prior to this diplomatic clusterfuck the conservatives were pretty much locked in to win, afaik) it will make pretty much every US goal harder to achieve.
TheDemonRazgriz
15d ago
I think the US would be fine with a Canada that has a formal commitment to neutrality.
Do you really? I’m curious about your reasoning because that seems far from obvious to me. With the status quo, even with a fairly dysfunctional Canada, the US gets a lot of value out of NORAD and, to a lesser but still meaningful extent, Canadian participation in the Five Eyes. There’s certainly room for improvement (e.g. Canada needs to be far more wary of foreign influence/espionage in its government, and needs to change its immigration policy before it becomes a source of illegal immigrants and smugglers like Mexico is) but a truly neutral Canada would seem to be strictly worse for the US.
TheDemonRazgriz
16d ago
The have Australia as well, IIRC.
TheDemonRazgriz
16d ago
It’s practically axiomatic that civilization requires (and arguably is) the control of young men.
This is an insightful framing that I haven’t seen before. I think you see the same concept in negative form in situations which we describe as “societal (or civilizational) breakdown.” When the structures of social control break down, such as in failed states like Somalia, we see uncontrolled young men follow their violent instincts, self-organize into warbands, and fight each other. Tribal societies where the elders have stronger control are less likely to fight each other compared to a situation where the younger men have more power.
TheDemonRazgriz
19d ago
Most countries pay lip service to the One China policy, yes, but in practice most countries do have separate relations with Taiwan, because Taiwan is de facto a separate country from mainland China and has been for decades.
Long-time lurker, first-time poster. Please allow me to begin by politely registering my disdain for your vagueposting.
I am informed, in fact, that this forum is overrun with Russian Propaganda, such that some no longer wish to participate.
I can sympathize with your sentiment, but while turnabout may be fair play, that does not make it good.
Anyway. For a little context, since of course nobody here knows who I am, I think my general political position is to the left of the median Motte attitude on many issues, but at the same time I have some views that would probably see me labeled a “dangerous fascist” or something like that in the deep-blue city in which I live. When it comes to the Russo-Ukrainian War, I would accept being labeled as something of a hawk. I believe we should have responded to the 2014 invasion of Crimea much the way we responded to 2022’s “full-scale” invasion. In fact, at the time I recall writing a short essay for my high school AP Lang class arguing in favor of sending Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian forces… but I digress.
So to answer each of your direct questions:
- I would provide weapons, money, training, and intelligence, much as we are now. Direct US military involvement, whether from the air only or with boots on the ground, would be foolish in the extreme. I doubt I need to convince anyone of that! However, I would have fewer strings attached to the support. I would have provided higher-end weapons sooner (with a concomitant greater urgency toward improving our own materiel production) and would apply far fewer, if any, restrictions on their use. Probably the only restriction I would apply is not to fire indiscriminately on civilian targets. Disallowing the Ukrainians from firing into Russian territory is/was, in my view, just nonsensical. This policy allowed the Russians to mass equipment just across the border, defeating the purpose of providing advanced long-range weapons in the first place. At that point you may as well not send any aid at all.
- The target end state of the war would be a formal peace treaty with a minimum of territorial concessions to Russia. Obviously Russia is the stronger country and a certain amount of concessions would be necessary, for example, I don’t see any realistic pathway to Ukraine getting Crimea back as part of the negotiations. We would be aiming for an outcome somewhat like Finland achieved at the end of the Winter War: losing on paper and giving up territory, but retaining independence and control over most of the country with formal recognition by the aggressor. This could in practice look something like giving up Crimea, probably Donetsk and Luhansk, and the occupied territory in Kursk while the Russians withdraw from the rest of their currently-occupied territories. After this treaty the Ukrainians would retain their democratic government and general pro-Western alignment.
- I suppose if Ukraine’s government collapsed, or if the country suffered demographic collapse, or if it looked like Russia was going to end the war stronger than when it started. Each of those would be fair grounds to call the US/Western backing a failure/waste, but frankly none of these really seem to be on the table as things stand.
To be honest, many of the right-wing-ish takes I’ve seen against aid for Ukraine (not necessarily yours, to be clear, I don’t really know what you personally think) seem to rely on an oddly naive view of the Russian Federation as a geopolitical actor, as though Putin is sitting at the table ready to sign a peace treaty and it is only Zelensky’s personal perfidy that is stopping this from happening. It takes two sides to end a war. The Russians have no incentive— none— to come to the table if the West ceases to back Ukraine. Let us not forget that the initial invasion plan was for an immediate decapitation strike to topple the Kyiv government and Russian troops parading in the streets on a days-long timetable. The big-picture goal has always been to absorb and annex certain territories (basically Crimea plus a connection to Russia proper) and turn the rump Ukraine into a subservient client state, like Belarus.
If the US drops its support for Ukraine, it will not lead to a swift end to the fighting, it will lead to an acceleration in fighting (even if after a pause) as the Russians press their newfound advantage. The only way this war ends in even a semi-permanent peace is for a formal treaty to be signed (probably involving some kind of UN, EU, or Turkish monitoring mission along the negotiated border), and that can only happen with Ukraine in a position of relative strength.
Ha! Yeah, give it a few years and I bet you'll be illegibly scribbling with the best of your field.
I'm an engineer but I've noticed my own handwriting deteriorate a bit compared to when I was in school, just from having to write fast to take notes during meetings and site visits. I have to consciously change how I write if I expect someone else to read it now.
More options
Context Copy link