The point is get Scary Enemies. The Empire needs Scary Enemies for two reasons:
1. To justify why we can't have nice things. Healthcare? Infrastructure? Education? We don't have time for that now, don't you know we gotta fight Saddam/Milosevic/Bin Laden/Saddam again/Ghadaffi/Assad/ISIS/Putin/Hamas/Houthis/Iran ad nauseam.
2. To justify crackdowns on civil liberties. You and your namby-pamby Bill of Rights, you hate our freedom! What, are you on the side of the fascists/communists/Islamicists/Russians/Iranians ad nauseam?
It is strange that a former world champion chess player seems unable to foresee the likely outcome of his regime change wars, like driving his unprotected Queen into a row of pawns. Like, straight newbie shit.
The lunatics that run this country want division and chaos across the globe to deflect from their gross incompetence. I can't even imagine what they think they are going to install in Russia if they could force regime change. (Which thankfully, I don't believe they can.) All we know is it would be a debacle of gargantuan proportions--perhaps unprecedented even for us!
I'm all in for a regime change if it s here in the USA. Please folks don't reelect these sociopathic imbeciles. Begone with all of them. A reboot is in order.
Are you saying that soft-power, diplomatic strategic goals are unrealistic? Winning can definitely be defined by fostering the revival of a nation with a more ideologically aligned leadership. Is "regime change" A lofty, oft-unattainable to the extent to which ist is our ultimate benefit... yeah, usually. It's still, obviously, a core value in US strategic planning, probably because it's cheaper to get someone else to do what we want than physically bend their will with (declining) military might.
The point is get Scary Enemies. The Empire needs Scary Enemies for two reasons:
1. To justify why we can't have nice things. Healthcare? Infrastructure? Education? We don't have time for that now, don't you know we gotta fight Saddam/Milosevic/Bin Laden/Saddam again/Ghadaffi/Assad/ISIS/Putin/Hamas/Houthis/Iran ad nauseam.
2. To justify crackdowns on civil liberties. You and your namby-pamby Bill of Rights, you hate our freedom! What, are you on the side of the fascists/communists/Islamicists/Russians/Iranians ad nauseam?
It is strange that a former world champion chess player seems unable to foresee the likely outcome of his regime change wars, like driving his unprotected Queen into a row of pawns. Like, straight newbie shit.
It seems Kasparov has a one track mind.
The lunatics that run this country want division and chaos across the globe to deflect from their gross incompetence. I can't even imagine what they think they are going to install in Russia if they could force regime change. (Which thankfully, I don't believe they can.) All we know is it would be a debacle of gargantuan proportions--perhaps unprecedented even for us!
I'm all in for a regime change if it s here in the USA. Please folks don't reelect these sociopathic imbeciles. Begone with all of them. A reboot is in order.
Are you saying that soft-power, diplomatic strategic goals are unrealistic? Winning can definitely be defined by fostering the revival of a nation with a more ideologically aligned leadership. Is "regime change" A lofty, oft-unattainable to the extent to which ist is our ultimate benefit... yeah, usually. It's still, obviously, a core value in US strategic planning, probably because it's cheaper to get someone else to do what we want than physically bend their will with (declining) military might.