@William72765420 Don’t follow—is Burke supposed to be holding up the view that the Church has been silent on just war, the protection of innocent human life, the duties of those waging war, etc?
🚨 BREAKING: Sean Hannity announces that he is abandoning his faith because the Pope doesn’t support Trump’s Iran war:
“I no longer consider myself a Catholic.”
“On this Veterans Day, let us resolve to make fewer veterans. For too long, Washington has sent Americans into harm’s way without clear political objectives and without keeping the public fully informed. We owe our men and women in uniform better,” says Cato’s @brandan_buck.
Robert Kagan: “Iran does not have the capability to strike American territory, and Trump's FP should be focused on national security: I don’t see how Iran threatens those interests..." [The war] "has been conducted essentially in Israel’s interest.” https://t.co/EzyTYUtybA
What did the midterms actually mean for the future of US foreign policy?
What is the future of "America First"?
Join @CatoFP and @Diplomacy_Peace November 17 for discussions of these questions. And we will buy you a beer afterward. Register here: https://t.co/2fosMkDRY0
Netanyahu is reportedly calling Trump every day urging him to renew military operations against Iran despite overwhelming public opposition to the war in the U.S.
Its hilarious that he singlehandedly blew up the conservative political movement in the U.S. with this war at the exact moment where Israel's standing with Democrats has plummeted towards open hostility.
I don’t want to fan Slantchev’s emotions any further, but “stopping Russia (at the line of control for now, regaining its 1991 borders in the future by peaceful means)” is a rather clumsy part of this expansive definition of Ukrainian victory.
Astonishing how much time these idiots pretend not to have heard things we said a million times. What a waste of space.
But lest @JustinTLogan there accuses me of not answering his question — another favorite tactic of these types that are constantly demanding personal explanations like they are paying me for them — Ukrainian victory would mean stopping Russia (at the line of control for now, regaining its 1991 borders in the future by peaceful means), keeping whatever government its people elect not what the Kremlin wants, security arrangements for deterrence of Moscow, EU membership, reconstruction finance (starting with the $300 bn in frozen Russian funds in Europe), no restrictions on its armed forces, a defense industry integrated with Europe, and being left alone by the fucking war criminals next door.
'Most decisions, with the perspective of time, will turn out to be the right ones, and that the perspective of history will judge the overwhelming majority of those decisions favorably.' - Donald Rumsfeld on Dec 8, 2006
But Ukraine can win. Thats why I back them. It’s a Russian talking point that Ukraine can’t win, cause Russia big blah,blah. If Ukraine kills enough Russians they will quit.
US official: 'The Russians have a bad taste in their mouths with the Europeans. They view it that the Europeans were the ones who killed the deal they had in Istanbul.'
Were you there? This person was, so your cocksuredness is interesting.
The person is a lockstep transatlanticist, including on the causes of the war. Claim is that Europe encouraged Ukraine to keep fighting and reject a deal, which it did. Perhaps it would have otherwise.
Strategic urban legend. There was no such draft deal that could be acceptable to both the main contenders. (Btw since when do Europeans have so much power?)
To win the approval of FDD any deal to end the war with Iran must include a full list of maximalist terms they have already been rejecting for years and on top of that should not include any concessions to them including sanctions relief. Why would anyone agree to this exactly? This is just a demand to continue the war indefinitely.