Así, básicamente.
#36 ¿Entonces Trump no ha autorizado operaciones militares en Siria, Irak, Afghanistan, Libia o Yemen? ¿Estás muy seguro de eso?
Que no haya comenzado una guerra no significa que no haya autorizado intervenciones militares en otros países.
#37 la actividad de USA en operaciones en el exterior durante estos últimos años es muy inferior a las que había en anteriores mandatos, donde tenían miles y miles de tropas desplegadas, especialmente en Siria.
No he dicho que con Trump no hayan tirado ni un papel fuera como tú has querido decir, he dicho que no son ni comparables.
#38 ¿A nivel cuantitativo? Si, claro que hay diferencias. Pero el hecho en sí de intervenir en terceros países para hacer tus cosas de 'Murica lo han hecho todos.
Aparte, que la reducción de las tropas viene de antes de Trump, básicamente porque comprobaron que es inmensamente más eficaz desplegar fuerzas especiales con apoyo aéreo que divisiones de infantería o blindados.
#4 Toma este dinero para que me compres armas xD Y aún sobran 1000 millones que a saber en qué se lo gastan.
He rebuscado para releer la parte que me pareció más relevante de las actas filtradas por Wikileaks de aquella charla que Killary dio previo pago de 300k USD a Morgan Stanley en 2013 y lo dejo por aquí para quien le interese:
MR. BLANKFEIN: What do you -- I've always assumed we're not going to go to war, a real war, for a hypothetical. So I just assumed that we would just back ourselves into some mutually assured destruction kind of -- you know, we get used to it. That it's hard to imagine going to war over that principle when you're not otherwise being threatened. So I don't see the outcome. The rhetoric is there, prevention, but I can't see us paying that kind of a price, especially what the president has shown. We're essentially withdrawing from Iraq and withdrawing from Afghanistan. It's hard to imagine going into something as open ended and uncontainable as the occupation of Iran. How else can you stop them from doing something they committed to doing?
MS. CLINTON: Well, you up the pain that they have to endure by not in any way occupying or invading them but by bombing their facilities. I mean, that is the option. It is not as, we like to say these days, boots on the ground.
MR. BLANKFEIN: Has it ever worked in the history of a war? Did it work in London during the blitz or --
MS. CLINTON: No. It didn't work to break the spirit of the people of London, but London was a democracy. London was a free country. London was united in their opposition to Nazi Germany and was willing to bear what was a terrible price for so long with the blitz and the bombings. Everybody says that Iran, you know, has united --
MR. BLANKFEIN: Many -- they held out for an awful --
MS. CLINTON: They wanted -- yeah. But I mean, people will fight for themselves. They will fight for themselves, but this is fighting for a program. I mean, the calculation is exactly as you described it. It's a very hard one, which is why when people just pontificate that, you know, we have no choice. We have to bomb the facilities. They act as though there would be no consequences either predicted or unpredicted. Of course there would be, and you already are dealing with a regime that is the principal funder and supplier of terrorism in the world today.
Esta de bonus:
MR. BLANKFEIN: Isn't it amazing that we can go through and think of Europe as an afterthought?
MS. CLINTON: Our allies?
MR. BLANKFEIN: Our allies. The US is now oriented towards the Pacific and looking that way. It's another surprise, having grown up as we did, that our attention would be so focused on Asia. But I guess we have a training issue with the EU.
MS. CLINTON: Yes.
MR. BLANKFEIN: Of course everybody here in the financial service industry is very focused on trying to harmonize different -- but from our point of view what is incomprehensible is the governance of Europe and the consequences of Brussels and the single currency that no one has any account of, and the fact is they may not be as important if they don't get their economy in shape and they don't grow over the course of the next -- any observations there?
MS. CLINTON: Well, certainly we are always looking to Europe as our allies of first resort. Our common values, our common history. All of that is really just baked into the DNA of how we think about our future, and NATO remains the most important and really remarkable military alliance, I think, in human history. So there is a lot that we are still very attentive to and working on. There is no doubt that Europe is going through -- you know better than I -- some serious readjustments.
#34 el bombardear posiciones sirias porque los terroristas moderados fingían ataques químicos es algo bueno? vender a los kurdos después de que han derramado la tira de sangre para echar a isis? estirar la cuerda con Iran hasta provocar el derribo de un avión civil? no se, me parece hasta peor, porque parece que quiere desestabilizar la zona.
#3 hasta en la paz tienes un precio, para las aseguradoras de entre 90 y 150 mil euros.
Recordad todos que las fronteras de Europa son una anomalía en el mundo, en muchos sitios la frontera es una zona desmilitarizada donde alguna que otra vez cae una ráfaga de ametralladora o alguna bomba. Unas cuantas de Israel son así.
#45 Los bombardeos de los que hablas son con Obama, hace ya años de esto, el más clamoroso el del """ataque químico""" a Khan Shaykhun. Y sí, obviamente que el objetivo de USA era el de desestabilizar un país estable, por ese mismo motivo entro a "apoyar a los kurdos" (entre a tantos otros), desde el principio, para crear otra Libia que no molestara.
#51 que naranja que esta obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike
Y los kurdos necesitaban a alguien que les defendiera de turquia mientras se daban con isis, si estados unidos no hubiera estado allí hubieran aceptado la ayuda rusa.
