I think it's silly to say "treason is wrong period." The USA was born of a revolt against England.

If the south had wanted to secede for almost any other reason but the right to own human beings, then Lincoln would have been a monster to pursue such a bloody war to hold the union together. It would be as if the EU sent troops to force the UK to stay part of the EU.

I think there are plenty of examples in history of groups justifiably wanting to replace their leaders or separate from a political union.

Although the movie made it seem like the troops and boats were pretty helpless, it HARDLY conveyed the amount of bombing (according to this video) that was being done by the Germans. Good movie though. Constant suspense.

The problem is that this health care cost is so small, when you compare it their other health care costs.

DoD spent 1.9 billion on tobacco-related health care issues in 2009. I think that is more than the cost of health care for transgender troops.

They currently spend more on Viagra ($41.6m) than on health care for transgender troops ($8.4m).

The deeply conservative (!) "Die Welt" in Germany has two pieces by Sy Hersh, completely debunking the supposed chemical attack by the Syrians at Khan Sheikhoun. It also paints a highly disturbing picture of the decision-making process in both the White House and the Pentagon.

The first one is a rather short conversation that includes all the goodies: the chemical attack in Syria was, once again, not a chemical attack by Syrian forces -- they hit a stash, just like both the Syrians and the Russians claimed at the time.

The piece also details that US forces are keenly aware that it was not a chemical attack, that the response (Tomahawk strike on Syrian airfield) was equally ridiculous and dangerous, and that the bellicose stance of the US vis-a-vis Russia is complete lunacy.

The longer piece by Hersh himself and displays in great details the disconnect between Trump and his military advisers, as well as between the upper echelons of the military and the troops in the region.

Just a snippet about the strike itself:

A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground.

And the media went along for the ride, for the umpteenth time. Remember Brian Williams fawning about the beauty of the weapons?

At some point, this volatile mixture of warmongering and McCarthyism is going to start WW3, and they'll blame it on the Russians.

I think this quote illustrates the issue quite nicely:
“Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

Clash of Clans Update - New Village (Night Mod & Balancing Troops) - Date 22 MAY 2017
[url redacted]

What I understood him to be claiming was a large portion of 'anti Trump' people are stuck on the accusations about Russia, but there are so many other issues they are ignoring because of that focus, and I wholeheartedly disagree, with the constant non-Russia protests as my evidence. I just do not see the myopia he decries.
I also disagree the world is laughing at our claims about foreign interference in our election, they are laughing at the hypocrisy of America complaining about our M.O., but they think Russian interference is both real and serious for us and themselves.

I'm talking recent history, last 3 years. No point in rehashing the 20th century. Had NATO really been a thought, he would not have invaded Crimea nor annexed the East Ukraine. I see NATO troops as sacrificial lambs, put in harm's way to force member nations to act if they are over run by a hostile nation....and even then there's no guarantee any action will come, but it's easier to sell military action if some of 'our boys' are killed or captured.

Russia, Russia, Russia is about the implications of world, or at least super power war. If they did collude (like we often do in other countries) to subvert our election, that's an act of war that could lead to military action if not handled carefully and thoughtfully....something Trump is incapable of.

Is there evidence...apparently, according to the FBI and several prosecutors at least. Has the public seen enough of it to evaluate it for themselves...no. That means one should keep an open, engaged mind on the important subject....not act like he's already convicted, and not pretend there's nothing there but whining. Certainly not forget it and move on to the next scandal....I think we are capable of being outraged about numerous things at once....and again I point to constant protests as proof (not that they accomplish much).

To be fair, we have an obligation to physically defend Ukraine. They gave up their nukes for our promise (by treaty) to keep their borders secure. It was Putin starting a war by invading them, we just walked away from our obligation to avoid war.
And no, I don't want war with Russia, but neither do they. If we had mobilized troops into Ukraine, I doubt the Russian invasion would have continued to expand, but even if it did come to war that's what we promised, we lose all future credibility if we don't keep our international obligations.

Yes, I agree, Assad would be replaced tomorrow if he went against Putin, but he won't. He knows who butters his bread.

I don't think a targeted assassination was what Obama meant when he drew his red line in the sand over Assad gassing civilians. I expected, say, a no fly zone or US bombings of Assad's troops and headquarters, assisting the rebels without arming them. Agreed, that would be NO guarantee that another despot or worse wouldn't fill the void in power.
Perhaps the 'democratic" alternative would be separating Syria into 2 or more countries with local rule? That seems like it would have been better in Iraq than what happened.
Best would be if we could just stay out altogether and let them sort it out themselves, but that seems an impossibility for numerous reasons.

I can understand, it's not a simple issue, but this expansion happened 18-20 (invited in 97, members in 99) years ago. I simply can't grasp anyone being upset that NATO troops are in a long term NATO country.
If Putin/Russia hadn't been massing troops on it's borders, and then moving them into neighboring countries it now claims as part of Russia, the other bordering countries would not be asking for this safeguard, but to imply that NATO troops in Poland are somehow an attack on Russia is laughable. NATO troops would never invade Russia, that would certainly be WW3. As it stands, I feel like NATO probably wouldn't respond if it's troops were overrun by a Russian invasion of a member country, we (the US and others) certainly didn't help Crimea or Ukraine, even though we have a binding treaty requiring us to come to their defense, one paid for by giving up their nuclear arsenal.

Sadly, it's looking like there can be no stability/security in Europe with Russia either.

I would downvote this video just to shut up this guy. What shortsighted stupidity.

That guy from Kansas who is on a field trip to Estonia is there to demonstrate NATO commitment. No "massive numbers", no "offensive threat to Putin".

This guy speaks of the "border" with russia like its some desert wasteland where NATO and russian troops can move in and out at will. These are civilised countries with hundreds of millions of people living in them, currently in a defensive partnership with the USofA. I wonder what the "good deal" will be that the clown gets to sell out.

Poland doesnt even border the main part of Russia, only the Kaliningrad exclave.

Also dont forget that all these other countries also contribute troops to NATO. The only thing that the clown has right is that they should be contributing more.

No one knows what the clown is going to do on Monday. He will most certainly drop the sanctions at some point and let Putin keep Crimea. Ukraine is likely to stalemate long-term. If they can make a "good deal" he will hand Putin "eastern europe" on a plate. Never mind that he buys his brides there. RT just provides the philosophical sauce. These are whole countries full of human beings that are on the line, not some semantic details.

Rachel is a Hillary fan? What else is new?

The troops in Poland are purely symbolic. Troops are not necessary at this point. Commitment is important, but the clown is committed only to making himself look good.
What would be the point of getting Russian troops out of Eastern Europe if they could come back at will? How can you argue against NATO at the very time when Russia thinks it can take over any part of Europe that is not protected by NATO?

In any case you only want to publish stolen e-mails if there is something criminal in them. If not you are the criminal for stealing them.

If Hedges works for RT then he is a russian propagandist by definition. That does not mean that some of what he says cant be true.

@Fairbs
while i agree that russia is the aggressor in regards to crimea,can you provide evidence that our election was hacked by russia?

was there actually cyberspying going on?
probably,all major nation states play that game,and all deny participating.(looking at you china).

because i see a LOT of accusations,and declarations of russian hacking,but i don't see any actual..you know..evidence.so i remain skeptical of the russian hacking meme,and am even MORE skeptical that the hacking was intentionally to give trump an edge.

and you are right,maddow simply reported the troop deployment in poland.she reported that this deployment was rushed,and before schedule,,,

and then she did something very curious.
she posits the question,and implies that it will answer a previous question..that she does not actually STATE..but "after all the worry.we are actually about to find out..if...maybe..russia has something on the new president"?

this is the old "i am not saying your sister is a whore..i am just saying your sister is a whore".

she never directly speaks of russian hacks.
she never directly accuses putin of influencing our election.
she just puts it out there,that if trump withdraws troops,then maybe..possibly..he is sucking putins cock.

i'm juuuust saying.
with all due respect...
your sisters a whore.

look man,i adore maddow and i love her analysis,but can we have a moment of honesty here?
she is fairly biased,and is particular on the stories she will cover,and during the run up to the election and even during..she has engaged in some serious apologetics in regards to hillary clinton.

as for the host from secular talk.
this is just his opinion.maybe he did take some liberties,and made some assumptions but i agree with him on calling maddow out for her dog whistle tactics.

lately the democrats have been beating this drum like indians on meth,and when i see so many tv pundits all beating the same tune,without providing tangible evidence....my bullshit alarm starts to go off.

I think Maddow's argument "We're about to find out if the new President of our country is going to do what Russia wants once he's commander in chief" is utterly moronic. Implying that withdrawing a few thousands troops will mean he's Russia's puppet is intellectually dishonest. No mention of other actions he could take like reversing sanctions or undoing Obama's punishment of specific Russians after that latest reports that would show that. Or other possible justifications he would have for withdrawing the troops. No, just a black and white yes/no based on one action.

It calls to mind the endless repetition of Republican talking points on fox news. They don't expect their viewer to think at all just absorb a few basic scraps of info and come to a firm conclusion that they can easily repeat like a mantra and block all opposing views because they are so sure they are right.

I don't even know where to start with how wrong his logic is. Russia is the agressor in Crimea; Russia has hacked our elections. Does the logic carry that if the molester in chief pulls those troops back then he's in the back pocket of Russia? Not really, but it does look questionable. And the inquiry into the connections is another piece.

Yelly is putting a lot of words in her mouth too. She's not saying send more troops or even particularly taking a stance on. She's reporting that this is happening.