> The newspaper also reported, citing another unidentified official, that not all of the undisclosed deaths were directly tied to the months-long conflict but involved US personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities.
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
Are you, uh, mixing up the term "midrats" with something?
I've not seen this claim. The fact that they sent it immediately home for a port call (and had SecNavy visit for a pep talk) when the news of conditions on the Lincoln broke is probably indicative.
What logistics concerns are there? Isn't the US supposed to be one of the best at managing wartime logistics, which is why they have bases all around the world?
They put an alcoholic fox news host in charge of the military and he fired or otherwise forced out a ton of experienced leaders in the name of "the warrior ethos" and "high testosterone soldiers".
In a completely unrelated development the "worlds best logistics organization" is now having trouble with logistics.
The US has bases around the world because its auxiliary fleet is rather limited. Its always an advantage to have supplies nearby because shipping or flying anything thousands or half way around the world is just too hard.
Lose those advantages and even the US military is troubled and the results are what we see today. It cant invade Iran and it cant even bomb or launch an invasion of Houthi territory.
Did i mention the Ospreys which were built because of the Tehran Embassy hostages from the 1980s are grounded today or limited to very short trips because of constant mechanical failures ?
Smokes and mirrors, its not a smart thing to show your enemy your weaknesses.
> If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.
Were they at that base as a (say) mechanic servicing aircraft engines for flights over the Persian Gulf? Are the only reasons why the planes (and thus him) are there is because of the hostilities with Iran, as otherwise they would be States-side?
There’s often more ambiguity than that. “Died of a COVID linked complication with COVID and other issue that is also linked to that complication.” You can’t spend endless resources deciding if something is or isn’t responsible.
Systems use arbitrary buckets like if someone commits suicide in less than six months from coming home after a war might count it, while excluding every case after six months. That’s going to misclassify cases in both directions but means you don’t need to track millions of people for decades or look through mental health details.
Obviously people with more data to work with can make a convincing case you’re wrong, but higher levels accuracy get expensive. In the end we know more than 1 million Americans died of COVID for example, how many more isn’t precisely known but ~1 million is plenty useful for decision making around the next pandemic.
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
If Congress can get its act together, it can clearly tell this lunatic to fall in line and start performing according to his Job description, otherwise boot him out. But there's no chance they are going to do it.
They politicized fallen heroes from the Afghanisation withdrawal for their campaign time during RNC 2024. Current events clearly show they don't give a F about anything but themselves.
-isms of all kind are powerful. But the most powerful are those that give the believer a distant group of people for them to blame for all their troubles, which are often self-inflicted.
I guess people are reading a lot into what I said. If the shoe fits, yadda yadda.
Others pointed out the meta, which is that if you want -ism to hate some people, a good way to do that is to say that their -ism hates you. I suppose that could be extended to third or fourth levels of meta.
> False accusations of racism (and similar moral slander) is the first step in dehumanizing an outgroup.
Accurately describing the racism that motivates the politics and actions of a group is the first step in addressing the way they dehumanize their opponents.
We must be reading different charts — the only one I can see has consistent numbers among Republicans (50%) but high numbers for Democrats (90%) except for Whites (20%).
So your characterization is completely wrong: Republicans mildly think everybody does, while Democrats deny white people do.
We must be on different planets since America and its institutions are majority white.
> 94% of Democrats say Black people face at least some discrimination, compared with 54% of Republicans.
90% of Democrats say the same about Hispanic people, compared with 54% of Republicans.
83% of Democrats say Asian people face widespread discrimination, versus 51% of Republicans.
By contrast, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say that White people face at least some discrimination (55% vs. 21%).
Anti-vaxxers are a good example. Despite studies repeatedly debunking the link between vaccines and autism, plenty of people still believe vaccines cause autism. Many people who know someone who has experienced side effects from a vaccine start to believe vaccines are dangerous regardless of any studies demonstrating how exceedingly rare said side effects are.
Flat Earthers are another example. While undoubtedly some of their ranks are people just trying to be contrarian, the true believers will find alternative explanations for every piece of evidence you try to show them that Earth is indeed round.
People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).
They reinterpreted the constitution to say no president can be presidentmore than twice consecutively, even though it doesn't say that. Like how in Russia, the constitution obviously meant to say Putin will always be the president.
Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.
You're a couple decades late there, it was Clinton and the Third Way(tm) Democrats that abandoned blue collar workers.
(Of course, that doesn't capture the full story either -- before '92, white blue collar workers were already abandoning the Democrats to support Reagan while he and the Republicans gutted private sector unions.)
Time will tell how the votes will go in November. Right now the thing I'm hearing on podcasts is that a significant group of people who voted for Trump in 2024 might stay home. We'll know in less than two months.
> All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics ...
My Boomer mother tells me about this all the time. She said, growing up, people had absolute faith in everything the US government did or said; it was like religion. Then Vietnam happened. Specifically, the reporting around Vietnam and the number of casualties. My mother said that everyone knew someone who lost a family member in Vietnam, but the government was like, "Everything's fine."
Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it has never been this out in the open.
Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.
Is secret corruption or open corruption worse? It's an interesting question; each has unique cons.
I will say that open corruption is only better if people recognize it as corruption. The people in my life do not know about the things I mentioned, and they don't care to learn about it.
Only if it’s corrected, otherwise people naturally adopt a tit-for-tat and you end up quickly in a no trust society. The bigger problem is t Trump, it’s that everyone now kinda shrugs and we are all worse off.
No. Unpunished, open corruption among society’s leaders is the single fastest vector for rotting a society, because why should I believe you, or anyone, or any institution, when the only self-evident strategy that works is that power trumps everything. It trumps ethics and morality, it trumps consequences of our actions, and it trumps you - the outsider who is not me.
The pendulum you speak of, just like a physical pendulum, runs out of steam, slows down due to friction and the loss of energy. And the only way to restart it is a not with nudges. It’s with a huge push all at once. This may result in some pretty radical swings before things settle down.
Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
That’s… hilariously not exactly new either. It can be said that our enemies and allies in 2006 were the almost exact opposite of the conflict in the 1980’s when we were funding the afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
Seems exactly on the same side to me- Netanyahu was the one that pushed most for the US invasion of Iraq:
"Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel [...] also visited Washington in late 2002 to lobby for the invasion of Iraq.
Apparently referring to testimony on the Middle East that Mr. Netanyahu delivered to Congress on Sept. 12, 2002, when he was a private citizen, Mr. Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “The prime minister, as you will recall, was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush, and we all know what happened with that decision.”
Video of Mr. Netanyahu’s 2002 remarks — in which he said “I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice, it’s the right choice”
This is par for the course for US foreign policy in the region.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
Yeah, I was gonna say, as conspiracy theories go, this one is pretty much in the books at this point. Fuck man, Tom Hanks stars in a movie about it; that's about as mainstream as it gets.
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
"United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland"
"the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment"
Reading that it sounds like nothing is changing in terms of US military access to Greenland, and they’re essentially just reaffirming the existing agreement which provided broad and permanent US and NATO access to Greenland.
I think interacting with Trump is like interacting with a dementia patient who also is a malignant narcissistic and pathological liar, so I imagine Danish and US staffers had to find a way to frame the agreement to him that made it sound like he had gained something major, in order to get him to shut up about the issue and stop obsessing over his conquest ideas.
I recently fell into a rabbit hole of YouTube docs about wars from WW2's end till 2000
Most of those wars were mostly caused or perpetuated by the US or USSR not wanting countries to go to the other side.
In any video that shows the timeline of any war, there's scenes from the war, then it cuts to photos and scenes of politicians in the "master countries" sitting in their offices making decisions,
looking worried, on the phone, arguing, exasperated etc but otherwise comfortable, in their armchairs or on their sofas, far far removed from the people dying in the war..
Do you happen to know the video? I'm noticing a lot of channels putting out these history videos that tell a very anti us narrative because they leave out half the story.
Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.
You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.
The greatest career move a politician can make is to take an issue that lots of people are suffering from and make sure it is never solved but people still think they are the one who can solve it. This is Bernie's whole career (among others).
Being president pretty much ends your power/influence. So if you don't get what you want accomplished, you're not getting it done. As a Senator, you get 6 years every time you win an election. With that, some people are more effective not being president.
> so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
Reflexive lies are basically the policy of this administration and party. They have demonstrated no interest in telling the truth about anything. The proper question is: Why would they start telling the truth now?
Their base has already demonstrated that there is no red line. There is no lie they could tell that would suddenly disillusion the MAGA-types.
During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.
Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly
It's crazy just how bullshit this war has been. At least with Iraq, you can argue that Saddam Hussein used to own WMDs in the 90s. What the hell is America doing in Iran?
We’re attempting to degrade the capability of Israel’s primary regional opponent so that Israel can continue and accelerate its ethnic cleansing and land annexations in both the Palestinian territories it administers, and in the neighboring states of Lebanon and Syria. That’s what we’re doing.
(not really, it was more from how French, Belgians and Germans treated the African population they occupied) (not a fan of the US but I have to defend them here)
The F, B and Germans might have killed millions in Africa, but the American conquest of the West was different.
American built cities and killed the natives and started farms and introduced cattle and crops, while the Europeans mostly kept to a few strategic towns and cities and did neither.
Hitler was a big fan of American stories, just like Stalin loved westerns.
> The newspaper also reported, citing another unidentified official, that not all of the undisclosed deaths were directly tied to the months-long conflict but involved US personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities.
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
If they are killed by houthi drones and not iranian drones, I would think so.
If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.
But we don't know, so any concrete speculation is probably not very helpful.
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
Did it end up being true that the troops on that aircraft carrier had to catch rats and cook them to survive?
Are you, uh, mixing up the term "midrats" with something?
I've not seen this claim. The fact that they sent it immediately home for a port call (and had SecNavy visit for a pep talk) when the news of conditions on the Lincoln broke is probably indicative.
What logistics concerns are there? Isn't the US supposed to be one of the best at managing wartime logistics, which is why they have bases all around the world?
They put an alcoholic fox news host in charge of the military and he fired or otherwise forced out a ton of experienced leaders in the name of "the warrior ethos" and "high testosterone soldiers".
In a completely unrelated development the "worlds best logistics organization" is now having trouble with logistics.
The US has bases around the world because its auxiliary fleet is rather limited. Its always an advantage to have supplies nearby because shipping or flying anything thousands or half way around the world is just too hard.
Lose those advantages and even the US military is troubled and the results are what we see today. It cant invade Iran and it cant even bomb or launch an invasion of Houthi territory.
Did i mention the Ospreys which were built because of the Tehran Embassy hostages from the 1980s are grounded today or limited to very short trips because of constant mechanical failures ?
Smokes and mirrors, its not a smart thing to show your enemy your weaknesses.
The fleet's HQ got wiped.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-us-naval-base-bah...
> If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.
Were they at that base as a (say) mechanic servicing aircraft engines for flights over the Persian Gulf? Are the only reasons why the planes (and thus him) are there is because of the hostilities with Iran, as otherwise they would be States-side?
"With Covid, not of Covid," but for military casualties. One does see something new every day.
There’s often more ambiguity than that. “Died of a COVID linked complication with COVID and other issue that is also linked to that complication.” You can’t spend endless resources deciding if something is or isn’t responsible.
Systems use arbitrary buckets like if someone commits suicide in less than six months from coming home after a war might count it, while excluding every case after six months. That’s going to misclassify cases in both directions but means you don’t need to track millions of people for decades or look through mental health details.
Obviously people with more data to work with can make a convincing case you’re wrong, but higher levels accuracy get expensive. In the end we know more than 1 million Americans died of COVID for example, how many more isn’t precisely known but ~1 million is plenty useful for decision making around the next pandemic.
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
It depends who is president.
I will admit that after today's CNN report and subsequent CNN ban, I wondered why he is so annoyed. And now it makes more sense.
Might be also that AI slob screw up, that allmost lead to armed confrontation with china: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-f...
If Congress can get its act together, it can clearly tell this lunatic to fall in line and start performing according to his Job description, otherwise boot him out. But there's no chance they are going to do it.
They politicized fallen heroes from the Afghanisation withdrawal for their campaign time during RNC 2024. Current events clearly show they don't give a F about anything but themselves.
And all the republicans will still vote red for the lying, cheating, grifting man.
All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics for the most part. This admin has torn everything down and for what?
For a sizable fraction of people, when the facts conflict with their biases, they choose to reject the facts and double-down on their biases.
Racism is a very powerful belief system.
-isms of all kind are powerful. But the most powerful are those that give the believer a distant group of people for them to blame for all their troubles, which are often self-inflicted.
I guess people are reading a lot into what I said. If the shoe fits, yadda yadda.
Others pointed out the meta, which is that if you want -ism to hate some people, a good way to do that is to say that their -ism hates you. I suppose that could be extended to third or fourth levels of meta.
Are you saying that calling people racist is the worst bigotry?
no they're agreeing racism is bad
More likely something like describing Trumpism.
False accusations of racism (and similar moral slander) is the first step in dehumanizing an outgroup.
> False accusations of racism (and similar moral slander) is the first step in dehumanizing an outgroup.
Accurately describing the racism that motivates the politics and actions of a group is the first step in addressing the way they dehumanize their opponents.
Pretty fascinating dem vs rep split. Dems say everyone experiences racism. Reps say white people experience it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/05/20/views-of-how...
We must be reading different charts — the only one I can see has consistent numbers among Republicans (50%) but high numbers for Democrats (90%) except for Whites (20%).
So your characterization is completely wrong: Republicans mildly think everybody does, while Democrats deny white people do.
We must be on different planets since America and its institutions are majority white.
> 94% of Democrats say Black people face at least some discrimination, compared with 54% of Republicans. 90% of Democrats say the same about Hispanic people, compared with 54% of Republicans. 83% of Democrats say Asian people face widespread discrimination, versus 51% of Republicans. By contrast, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say that White people face at least some discrimination (55% vs. 21%).
It's more general than that.
Anti-vaxxers are a good example. Despite studies repeatedly debunking the link between vaccines and autism, plenty of people still believe vaccines cause autism. Many people who know someone who has experienced side effects from a vaccine start to believe vaccines are dangerous regardless of any studies demonstrating how exceedingly rare said side effects are.
Flat Earthers are another example. While undoubtedly some of their ranks are people just trying to be contrarian, the true believers will find alternative explanations for every piece of evidence you try to show them that Earth is indeed round.
From an outsider's perspective, it's to be expected given the existence of cognitive dissonance.
I just wish people would snap out of it _eventually_
People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).
I heard a good quote once: People don't vote to say thank you. People vote to say fuck you.
>People don't vote to say thank you.
How true is that? Plenty of older people I know vote consistently for one party because it did something good for them a long time ago.
I don't trust polling.
Both times Trump won, the polls predicted he would lose.
Legally can't run a third time or be voted for again. But then again, legality hasn't stopped the things he does. Others need to step up.
They reinterpreted the constitution to say no president can be presidentmore than twice consecutively, even though it doesn't say that. Like how in Russia, the constitution obviously meant to say Putin will always be the president.
Not by anything like the 8-9 points we're seeing in midterm polling right now.
Trump was president before. People didn't vote for him a second time if they wanted to improve the economy.
Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.
Ds are doing neither. They're just pretending if they don't change anything, everything will be alright.
You're a couple decades late there, it was Clinton and the Third Way(tm) Democrats that abandoned blue collar workers.
(Of course, that doesn't capture the full story either -- before '92, white blue collar workers were already abandoning the Democrats to support Reagan while he and the Republicans gutted private sector unions.)
They had a firm belief that the reports and statistics were fake. Let's see how this turns out.
*by "they" I mean the voters... the people that were elected were, and are well informed
How confident are we that they know it’s fake? I somehow doubt they close the door and pull out the real information.
That tells a lot about Christian values
Time will tell how the votes will go in November. Right now the thing I'm hearing on podcasts is that a significant group of people who voted for Trump in 2024 might stay home. We'll know in less than two months.
May I assume you ask "for what?" rhetorically?
Still have my fingers crossed that the guy in Kentucky gunning for McConnell's seat can pull off a historic upset.
> All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics ...
My Boomer mother tells me about this all the time. She said, growing up, people had absolute faith in everything the US government did or said; it was like religion. Then Vietnam happened. Specifically, the reporting around Vietnam and the number of casualties. My mother said that everyone knew someone who lost a family member in Vietnam, but the government was like, "Everything's fine."
Yeah I’m more talking things like the census. Or the report that they skipped a month of this year (inflation, jobs, I can’t recall for certain).
> ...and for what?
To keep the grift going, of course.
That's fair to say, but lacks details.
Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it has never been this out in the open.
Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.
Is secret corruption or open corruption worse? It's an interesting question; each has unique cons.
I will say that open corruption is only better if people recognize it as corruption. The people in my life do not know about the things I mentioned, and they don't care to learn about it.
Only if it’s corrected, otherwise people naturally adopt a tit-for-tat and you end up quickly in a no trust society. The bigger problem is t Trump, it’s that everyone now kinda shrugs and we are all worse off.
No. Unpunished, open corruption among society’s leaders is the single fastest vector for rotting a society, because why should I believe you, or anyone, or any institution, when the only self-evident strategy that works is that power trumps everything. It trumps ethics and morality, it trumps consequences of our actions, and it trumps you - the outsider who is not me.
The pendulum you speak of, just like a physical pendulum, runs out of steam, slows down due to friction and the loss of energy. And the only way to restart it is a not with nudges. It’s with a huge push all at once. This may result in some pretty radical swings before things settle down.
It'll remain bad unless these people face the proper punishment for selling out the country.
who cares?
no seriously.. who cares?
the administration sure doesnt, such cavlier attitudes to their own constituents is astounding.
It’s 2006. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
It’s 2026. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
> The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
The Republican President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
Fair point.
Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
That’s… hilariously not exactly new either. It can be said that our enemies and allies in 2006 were the almost exact opposite of the conflict in the 1980’s when we were funding the afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
>So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting
Canada?
There's some, uh, precedent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
Seems exactly on the same side to me- Netanyahu was the one that pushed most for the US invasion of Iraq:
"Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel [...] also visited Washington in late 2002 to lobby for the invasion of Iraq.
Apparently referring to testimony on the Middle East that Mr. Netanyahu delivered to Congress on Sept. 12, 2002, when he was a private citizen, Mr. Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “The prime minister, as you will recall, was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush, and we all know what happened with that decision.”
Video of Mr. Netanyahu’s 2002 remarks — in which he said “I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice, it’s the right choice”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/kerry-re...
This is par for the course for US foreign policy in the region.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
Disputed by who?
“Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken”[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
I also recommend the book “The Great War for Civilisation” by Robert Fisk
> Disputed by who?
Yeah, I was gonna say, as conspiracy theories go, this one is pretty much in the books at this point. Fuck man, Tom Hanks stars in a movie about it; that's about as mainstream as it gets.
Have you never been at school?
It's 2016. Candidate Trump rails on Bush and his decision to get involved in Iraq.
He's not just a liar. He sold out his country.
I can't find the citation, but I vaguely recall him saying that if Kamala Harris was elected, she would start a war with Iran.
He said it a bunch of times about Obama.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/6-times-trump-said-obama...
Zero service members died in our just announced de facto annexation of Greenland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/us/politics/trump-greenla...
They probably just re-extended the existing treaty so he could call it a win.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o
They already had these sorts of things (and Denmark, as a NATO member, was already pretty unlikely to permit Russian basing there).
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
"United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland"
"the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment"
etc.
Reading that it sounds like nothing is changing in terms of US military access to Greenland, and they’re essentially just reaffirming the existing agreement which provided broad and permanent US and NATO access to Greenland.
I think interacting with Trump is like interacting with a dementia patient who also is a malignant narcissistic and pathological liar, so I imagine Danish and US staffers had to find a way to frame the agreement to him that made it sound like he had gained something major, in order to get him to shut up about the issue and stop obsessing over his conquest ideas.
I recently fell into a rabbit hole of YouTube docs about wars from WW2's end till 2000
Most of those wars were mostly caused or perpetuated by the US or USSR not wanting countries to go to the other side.
In any video that shows the timeline of any war, there's scenes from the war, then it cuts to photos and scenes of politicians in the "master countries" sitting in their offices making decisions,
looking worried, on the phone, arguing, exasperated etc but otherwise comfortable, in their armchairs or on their sofas, far far removed from the people dying in the war..
...It's amazing how people keep agreeing to that.
Do you happen to know the video? I'm noticing a lot of channels putting out these history videos that tell a very anti us narrative because they leave out half the story.
Real Time History was one, and I think it's good. Includes the USSR's blunders as well e.g in Afghanistan etc. not just "anti US"
https://www.youtube.com/@realtimehistory
Don't worry! Trump has a solution for that!
He's gonna change the name of the Strait of Hormuz to "Large of America". And all ships will be able to pass because freedom.
Take that Iran!
now we get to wonder why
we're no strangers to troops dying due to ongoing conflict pretty much everywhere
so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
> so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
They deny everything, no matter how low the stakes. See, for example, the reflecting pool fuss.
Indeed it's likely foolish to read into all the pure stupidity at this point
That's the point, right? If you lie about everything, nothing really matters
I think they call this "flooding the zone"
Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.
> they can't lose.
Thanks for the laugh. The Dems have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.
The greatest career move a politician can make is to take an issue that lots of people are suffering from and make sure it is never solved but people still think they are the one who can solve it. This is Bernie's whole career (among others).
Bernie is one of the few politicians that have a voting record which aligns with their rhetoric, going back decades.
Bernie never won the presidency though?
Being president pretty much ends your power/influence. So if you don't get what you want accomplished, you're not getting it done. As a Senator, you get 6 years every time you win an election. With that, some people are more effective not being president.
I don't dislike Bernie, I'm pointing out a trend among politicians.
the same can be said about bigPharma
I never said it wasn't going to be an incompetence slugfest
> so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
Reflexive lies are basically the policy of this administration and party. They have demonstrated no interest in telling the truth about anything. The proper question is: Why would they start telling the truth now?
Their base has already demonstrated that there is no red line. There is no lie they could tell that would suddenly disillusion the MAGA-types.
> so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
Because they claimed a "flawless victory".
In today's information environment, why would you ever admit to anything that hurts you? There seems to be no penalty for dishonesty.
During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.
In a conflict, the side that is winning is the side that still has the will to fight.
Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly
US murdered 123 children in school, this has to be the top story of all world news for a year
It's crazy just how bullshit this war has been. At least with Iraq, you can argue that Saddam Hussein used to own WMDs in the 90s. What the hell is America doing in Iran?
We’re attempting to degrade the capability of Israel’s primary regional opponent so that Israel can continue and accelerate its ethnic cleansing and land annexations in both the Palestinian territories it administers, and in the neighboring states of Lebanon and Syria. That’s what we’re doing.
i never thought i would live to see the US support such a campaign by a clearly rogue terrorist ethnostate run by war criminals
Hitler learned his craft by copying how the USA treated Native Americans.
(not really, it was more from how French, Belgians and Germans treated the African population they occupied) (not a fan of the US but I have to defend them here)
The F, B and Germans might have killed millions in Africa, but the American conquest of the West was different.
American built cities and killed the natives and started farms and introduced cattle and crops, while the Europeans mostly kept to a few strategic towns and cities and did neither.
Hitler was a big fan of American stories, just like Stalin loved westerns.