Is President Trump tough enough on Russia? For Secretary of State-nominee Mike Pompeo, the answer comes down to simple body count, as he bragged up recent killings of Russian citizens inside Syrian territory.
At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo boasted that “the Russians met their match. A couple hundred Russians were killed,” referring to a US massacre of military contractors back in February. Pompeo insisted these killings prove Trump’s toughness on Russia.
The comments threaten to make this incident a bigger diplomatic row. The February 7 incident came after the US claimed Kurds had come under attack. In reality, an artillery barrage landed half a kilometer from a Kurdish base, and the US reacted by killing in excess of 200 pro-Syrian government fighters, declaring the killings “self-defense.”
At the time, there were concerns Russian citizens were among the slain, and US officials ultimately said “scores” of the dead may have been Russian. Now, Pompeo appears to be insisting they were all Russians, and that the killings were about being “tough” of the Russian government.
Russia’s government denied any knowledge of the incident at the time, and it appears the slain were private contractors working for the Syrian government, and not in concert with Russia’s government itself. That makes targeting them on the basis of their nationality potentially even more problematic.
Good grief. And this guy is going to be the nation’s top diplomat? Might as well have gotten Hilary Clinton her job back.
It makes sense killing Russians as we trained and equipped terrorists of all Isllamic cult brands. Since Syria and Russia defeated them, and the last pocket is about to br squeezed — somebody was so furious, advocating nuclear war so we can “win” in Syria. Watch them digging heals and thinking fast what other csnard too come up with. Oerhaps a chemical 9/11 somewhere to FUNALLY makes us patriotic again and support the wars pimping our armed forces to advance policies of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Those stupid Russiians, don’t they know that war kn terrorism is supposed to spread terrorists in order to smash sovereign countries and their institutions.
It appears ‘private contractors’ is a flexible concept in Russia , there is a gray area, and if one can manage to describe people as such it gives you some freedom on the home front not to retaliate if you choose to.
But it’s also clear the US in the process uses up all its credit and the chances for real retaliation and escalation increase.
What a Pompeo ass!
Perfect fit for this administration.
His Mum must be so proud…
Imagine being so gleeful about killing Russians, or anyone for that matter.
Sorry, reality check: that is what we do best.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2091670/Hitler-Stalin-The-murderous-regimes-world.html
“Imagine being so gleeful about killing Russians, or anyone for that matter.”
War is organized murder. Even when it is “defensive”. Of course you have a right to defend yourself. But not to going into other countries and killing people.
The usa has no rights whatsoever by law to be in syria. So to kill people in a land you have no right to be in is called?
naked aggression?
The three stooges of foreign policy are Pompeo, Bolton and her shrillness Niki Hailey. You would have to look long and hard to find another three more poorly suited for diplomacy. Must all be Netanyahu picks,
Adelson picks-the guy with the money.
Completely agree on characterization-total embarassments.
Pompeo is a perfect example of today’s Koch-branded conservatism. His philosophical influence is Ayn Rand, he went to Harvard Law and West Point, cut business deals in the MIC and wants a one-world government in the hands of the private elite. Morality is fungible.
Ayn Rand. Enough said. We already have elite led country, the new aristocracy. But peasants are coming with pitchforks, or Les Miserables, Les Deplorables… To spoil their balls.
Would that be the same Ayn Rand who opposed US entry into every war of her lifetime and who also opposed rule by “elite” mediocrities who accrued their wealth by surfing from scam to scam and exploiting political favors a la Donald Trump? That Ayn Rand there?
There are many faces of Ayn Rand. Opposing wars when against the interest of her narrowly defined humanity. And her elite, in spite of the professed admiration of excellence is the elite built by open, unsatisble greed. She disdained people who do work, as incapable of raising themselves into the world of success — however ttat success is achieved. Mediocrity does not deserve to live, only smart, clever ruthless ones. She did oppose wars that destroyed the wealth of her own priviledged class. But approved of expulsion and murder of Palestinians. Just sampling through her cult book, Atlas Shrugged, provides a good insight into a rational psychopatic mind. Religious folks call it absence of soul, psychiatrists — the lack of conscience. These are the kinds of people that bring destruction. Their zealotism has no. boundaries. I am definitely not a fan of ends justify means.
“Just sampling through her cult book, Atlas Shrugged”
Translation: You didn’t bother to actually read Ayn Rand but should be accepted as an expert on Ayn Rand.
I have a lot of problems with Rand, but you’ve ably demonstrated that you wouldn’t know her if she walked up behind you and whacked you across the ass with a bass fiddle.
This comment speaks volumes of your own prejudices, not about me. I am DEFINITELY not the only one with a thorough dislike of her unethical and immoral view of the value of human beings. And such ideologies based on superiority have brought grief to mankind many times before.
No doubt. You are joined by mass murderers, war mongers, looters, prohibitionists, priests, fundamentalists….all who share the value of a human being as a means to an end
Goodness, not only that you are taking this discussion of Ayn Rand too personally, but you resiort to irrational, emotional and need I say — disguisting attacks on thise who happen to disagree. Yep, you confirmed all my views of your heroine.
She’s not my heroine. As I am now saying for the third time, I disagree with her about a lot. But I bothered to actually understand what I disagreed with before disagreeing with it instead of just deciding I disagreed and then maybe finding some excuses to justify that disagreement.
BTW, Rand was on your side, not mine, vis a vis the legitimacy of the state as such.
You are joined by mass murderers, war mongers
Like Mike Pomp?
Yes, I know a lot of people dislike Ayn Rand. In a number of respects, I am one of them. In others, not so much.
Of course, I came by my dislikes by actually reading all of her major works and many of her minor ones, not just “sampling.” Or, to put it a different way, I bothered to know what I was talking about before talking.
I see. So to have the right to criticize Ayn Rand one has to read all her works, read every analysis, essey, or literary critiscism, else — hands off the inimitable Agn Rand. Try as you may, this kind of intellectual supremacism does not work on me. Reading everything? Why — in hope that some other personality would emerge? As a product of European classical education I understand your debate methodology. You are using it fairly frequently. You define your subject to the parameters you chose, to “win” the debate. In the case of Ayn Rand — what is your real objection to those who do not accept her elitist view of humanity? Sure — there are some sentences she wtote that I can agree with. Provided I can forget the broader sociopathy she wallows in. I do not intend to give credence to her or her cult folowing.
“So to have the right to criticize Ayn Rand one has to read all her works, read every analysis, essey, or literary critiscism, else — hands off the inimitable Agn Rand”
No. You have have the right to criticize anyone you want, for any reason that strikes you as relevant.
But if you want to be taken seriously in your criticisms, it’s probably not very smart to admit right up front that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are just throwing out some easy pickings from a sampling no doubt created precisely to give you something to parrot without having to bother thinking about it.
Here you go again. I have just as much right to criticize objectivism, and the author’s message in Atlas Shrugged. In fact, I would go further, as a litterary work, it is nit mych more then a good college try. Sampling? If I “sampled” I could have quoted any of her numerous unflattering quotes from her work, or life. That would have been easier. But I wanted to comment on Atlas Shrugged, as it does encapsulate the absurdity of her obsession with “producers”, vs corrupt, incompetent, weak and unimaginative. She would surely be proud of how IMF destroyed Africa in the name of productivity and efficiency. Destroying a delicate fabric of any society in the name of whatever productive intentions , is no different then the depradations of lazy and cirrupt that roam the corridors of power. In the history of mankind the strongest motivatir of social change was justice. Not greed, competence or selective compassion.
I am admitting freely to all that care to hear more of this riduculous discussion that by reading her BEST known work, and taking the time and trouble to read about OBJECTIVISM — that I have the absolutely the right to disapprove of her world view on the basis of reading her work. Period.
You can repeat yourself as a broken record that ONLY by reading ALL of her work, one is entitled to disapprove of her phylosophy. In her case, reading less goes a long way. Totally frankly, she was hardly worth my time.
Yes, you have just as much right to criticize Objectivism as anyone.
And I have just as much right to point out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
In order for me to repeat myself that only by reading her work, one is entitled to disapprove of her philosophy, I would have to say that in the first place. Which I didn’t.
Do you have to resort to deception?
For your information — and to set the record straight — I read her best known work, Atlas Shrugged. As I said before. And understand objectivism probably as good as you do. So, stop trying to put me down, especially by resorting to deception. You may have your reasons for liking some aspects of her work. And I have my reasons for fundamentally rejecting her worldview, no matter how packaged or repackaged.
This is a matter of a very different phylosophy that brings about very different system of values. Not claiming goodness, but the right to be different. So stop harrasing me by selectively and deceifully interpreting what I wrote.
Have your oppinion of Ayn Rand work, her phylosophy and ethics. AND I WILL KEEp MINE.
You are the one who started this conversation by claiming to have merely “sampled” Atlas Shrugged.
You are welcome to your opinion of Rand. That was never at issue. But when you indicate, first thing, that that opinion is not informed, why shouldn’t I believe you?
no, just one would suffice
In other words, you haven’t read anything by her…
You didn’t bother to actually read Ayn Rand
Who could slog through that unreadable dreck but another like minded crank.
A plagerist too, according to Raimondo, so I suppose she shouldn’t get all the blame.
“Who could slog through that unreadable dreck but another like minded crank.”
A number of people have actually read her work then criticized it.
As far as plagiarism is concerned, Raimondo’s case is that she had “influences” which she didn’t cite, which is not exactly plagiarism. She certainly went back and “rectified” her past, 1984-style, as she went from a strong Nietzschean influence to a more logic-bound Aristotelian approach.
As a novelist, she was 1) of her time and 2) though she would be angry at having it pointed out, a RUSSIAN novelist who happened to be writing in English in America. That can make for some tough going.
As a philosopher, she had some interesting ideas, some of them probably right — but also a strong tendency to make knee-jerk rulings on particular issues then come back and try to torture her philosophical system into endorsing those decisions.
Riamondo is far too kind on Rand’s theft of intellectual property – but it shouldn’t surprise, misanthropes tend to toward codependency.
Libertarianism is more a personality disorder than an ideology.
You do realize the primary protagonist in Atlas Shrugged was a day laborer?
Yep. Wesley Mouch, James Taggert, Floyd Ferris, Lillian Rearden…
I’m not fan of objectivism, but I have to say Atlas Shrugged nails something like, say, Trumpism to a “T.”
lol. Koch brothers seem to have had enough of the war mongering too.
So this is something to be proud of? Pompeo seems to be living in the good old cold war days (not that that is any excuse) but why is it that there is never any attempt at considering the lives of people who are not rich white Americans as having any value at all? Invading nations, overthrowing elected leaders, killing whoever is in the way, then sobbing about “children gassed by a tyrant killing his own people” when your Saudi allies are using your weapons to kill children daily in Yemen.
Change the name from pompeo to pompous ass.
He’s a Dr. Strangelove.
Meh. Around 9-20 Russian mercs at most, mostly caught up in a crossfire at Tabiya during an indigenous Syrian assault against SDF control over the Conoco natural gas field.
The U.S. has no intention of giving up its extralegal invasion, which does not seem to concern Congress at all, happily allowing it to be restated it as being tough with Russia.
“The Truth About the Russian Deaths in Syria” – Christopher Reuter, Mar. 2 2018, Spiegel. de
Not for nothin’ but is this the behavior we want to see in a chief intelligence officer? Loudly boasting about a dubious victory with questionable facts?
Could you see Bill Donovan, Willian Colby or Bill Casey acting like this?…Whatever you might think of any of the characters who occupied that office, they’ve managed to do so with some degree of dignity.