Lemdro.id
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
vegeta@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 8 months ago

More than 700 former military and national security officials endorse Harris, say Trump is 'impulsive and ill-informed'

www.cnbc.com

external-link
message-square
85
fedilink
698
external-link

More than 700 former military and national security officials endorse Harris, say Trump is 'impulsive and ill-informed'

www.cnbc.com

vegeta@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 8 months ago
message-square
85
fedilink
Hundreds of bipartisan former national security officials endorsed Harris in an open letter criticizing Trump as "impulsive and ill-informed."
  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Is that all you got? Really though, it was a pet project for bush and cheney. There’s pre 9/11 statements that suggest they were brainstorming ways to go to Iraq. The fact the WMD shit was never prosecuted is simply a failure of our political and legal systems.

    • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      There also pre911 data showing the government was aware of the potential threat of destroying WTC during Clinton. Gore would have gone to war

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Are you talking about this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

        No wars were started after the first WTC attack

        • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          8 months ago

          https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/us/clinton-aides-plan-to-tell-panel-of-warning-bush-team-on-qaeda.html

          https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2004/4/14/clinton-administration-blamed-for-9

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            not sure what point you’re making. Are you suggesting Gore would have prevented 9/11?

            • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              8 months ago

              He would not have prevented 9/11. Things would have played out exactly as they did

              • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                You could make an argument that supports such conjecture, but the reality is we don’t know that. At the end of the day we’re speculating about alternative realities. What if hitler was shot in WW1, would WW2 have happened? Probably. But it would have looked very different.

                I don’t see Gore invading Iraq, there’s nothing that supports that. There is however the idea that the Iraq invasion still occurs but at a later date because there’s a lot of people in US politics that wanted it.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        In Afghanistan? Sure, I’d accept that any administration faced with the successful WTC attack would likely have ultimately reacted a similar way. Though there is some data suggesting that intelligence agencies were a bit off due to the delay in transition from the Florida indecision, so a more decisive election either way might have caused the agencies to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Maybe there’s a case to be made of it being handled better, but I can’t think of any data to suggest either way how that hypothetical would have gone.

        However, the thread specifically mentioned the Iraq war, which was a distinctly Bush/Cheney adventure. Even in the vague “Middle East” starter, it would have been fewer, by virtue of at least limiting the engagement to Afghanistan. Iraq would have been left to its own devices in a Gore presidency.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          There was the option of going in with special Forces units only; essentially hunting and killing bin-Ladn without attacking the Taliban directly. Bush chose regime change because he wanted to build a pipeline across the country.

          • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I wasn’t aware that the US built a pipeline in Afghanistan, can you give more details?

            • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India_Pipeline#:~:text=The Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India (TAPI) Gas Pipeline%2C also known as,Limited with participation of the Asian Development Bank.

          • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s always about stealing resources

      • phar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Gore would not have gone to war in IRAQ. That is ridiculous.

politics @lemmy.world

politics@lemmy.world

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@lemmy.world

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 2.4K users / day
  • 7.69K users / week
  • 13.7K users / month
  • 28.4K users / 6 months
  • 50 local subscribers
  • 23.4K subscribers
  • 21.8K Posts
  • 594K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
  • aidan@lemmy.world
  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
  • 🌱 🐄🌱 @lemmy.world
  • Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
  • JuBe@lemmy.world
  • Lasherz@lemmy.world
  • UI: 0.19.8
  • BE: 0.19.9
  • Modlog
  • Legal
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org