34
votes
Donald Trump won’t rule out deploying US troops to support rebuilding Gaza, sees ‘long-term’ US ownership
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Trump and Netanyahu hold talks as US president warns 'no guarantees' fragile peace in Gaza will hold
- Published
- Feb 4 2025
- Word count
- 1153 words
This is an absolutely psychotic thing to say. Who could possibly support this?
he was reading a script during the press conference, it sounds like more than just one of his crazy word salads.
Do you really believe that?
This, like tariffs and mass deportations, seems to be another one of those things that’s a long term fixation for him. Jared Kushner was talking the same way during Trump’s first term.
This administration is a 4-way deal between movement conservatives, billionaire tech oligarchs, America’s enemies abroad, and Donald Trump. The first three entertain every demented Fox News grandpa thought that goes through Trump’s head and let him play at being the big man. In exchange the oligarchs are allowed to dissolve the administrative state and loot the treasury. The movement conservatives are allowed to try and reintroduce segregation and ensconce Christian nationalism as the operative principle of American government. Finally, the anti-American faction is permitted to destroy American soft power (USAID) and intelligence capabilities so they can combat the spread of liberal democratic values and American influence.
Fox News
Honestly shocking that so many comments I'm seeing on that article are against the idea. Maybe trump's support will dry up quicker than anyone expects.
I keep hoping that will happen. His supporters have been remarkably impervious to reality so far.
I took a little glance at r/conservative on reddit yesterday. This isn't about Gaza, but there were some comments there celebrating that the tariffs were a successful bargaining chip and show what a great businessman he is. I'm not going to bother creating a comment there (because it would be deleted anyway), so I'll make a comment here:
The tariffs were ignorant stunt and a disaster. It made Trump look like a fool to the whole world, and undermined the reputation of the United States. It also contributed to the isolation of the country from the rest of the world, as former trusted trade partners look to other places in the world for favored trade. Constant brinkmanship is not a valid negotiation tactic, it is too easily countered with "tit for tat" by anyone who has heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
It's also quite likely that he just did it to manipulate the market as it swung back and forth.
The thing that shocks me about that subreddit is that they don’t see
as a problem, they see it as a good thing.
If I’m remembering my history classes at all, I’m pretty sure “America First” the first time, was one of the contributing factors to WWII / WWII becoming as WW as it did. (But I guess they just…don’t see that as a bad thing?)
I would not be surprised at all if a key difference in empathy involves brain structure . There are very early (and controversial) studies about the brain and they did find with some 80+% accurracy that progressive and conservative people actually react to risks with different parts of their brains.
Honestly, I'm not very empathetic. I don't buy the arguments that the US needs to bend over backwards to care for the economic issues and well being of other countries, and I find the frequent arguments that the Democratic party makes to that effect very disingenuous. On the surface, you could call me an "america first" person. I don't know if that makes me unusual for a progressive, but I still absolutely consider myself one.
The issue I have with trump and his ethos is that it's not America first. It's going out of our way to make enemies and antagonize our allies, which is not within our self interest at all. It's like a friend who continually fucks you over, so eventually when someone breaks into his house, you miraculously are busy when he needs help cleaning up.
Alliances, treaties and working relationships aren't developed by countries out of the goodness of their hearts, they're developed out of self interest, so when you trash those agreements, you're not only hurting the other party, you're hurting yourself.
If there was a real proposal that fucked over another country while helping the US long term, I'd honestly be fine with that. I'm a US citizen, so is virtually everyone I'm close to. It would be within my best interests to support that kind of proposal. Diplomacy doesn't work like that though. It's not a zero sum game. Peace, prosperity and cooperation is good for the whole world, not just the US. So even from a purely self interested perspective, these choices make no rational sense.
You're not unemptathetic, you're empathetic for specific things.
The kinds of people agreeing with these policies are not empathetic to their fellow Americans to begin with. That empathy maybe ends with their family, and even that is a stretch.
And they clearly are not seeing the bigger picture of why we don't and shouldn't antagonize our only 2 neighbors. North America is effectively impenetrable and being friendly with the two people who don't need to overpower the Coast Guard only makes it harder to invade.
As for foreign policy : my tldr is simply that you attract more bees with honey than smoke. The US doesn't have all the resources to be self sufficient for modern society these days. So our choices for resources else where is either to be friendly and trade money, resources, and talent, or go imperialist and just take their land as ours. I'd rather not go back to the former. (even if yes the US has done so in relatively recent times).
I could believe it. But like the studies on how wine/chocolate/<insert any other human treat> is actually really good for you, I am cautious in exercising my biases.
These are relatively early studies into the vast complex of the brain, and aren't making literal statements that confirm my biases. I'd need to find it again, but it was mostly about how your brain reacts when gambling to gain $500 or $1000 when you win nothing , or $1000, both on a coin flip. It didn't directly have much to do with sympathy itself, but the parts of the brain activated was interesting. It definitely implies that upbringing has a huge effect on how you react to world as a whole.
r/conservative is where MAGA chuckleheads complain about lack of free speech on Reddit while restricting their entire sub to flaired conservative users only. They’re a pretty good demonstration of the extent to which support for the Republican party today is motivated more by insularity and cope than any sort of principled conservatism.
I appreciate your dedication to good discussion. I've considered doing the same thing many times, posting my responses here (or in an equally civilized part of the online space) so that I can get the benefit of good-natured argument.
Please enjoy these comments on a post about "isle campers" in grocery stores. (there were many, many comments about spelling errors.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Like, some of the arguments feel like they have a strong root (frustration with people not being aware of their own presence within a 3-D space), but then when it's time to formulate an opinion around it, they drop the ball.
Maybe I'm the one in the wrong for thinking that these individuals are too far gone. It seems to be infecting the entire Reddit ecosystem. I don't know what to refer to it as. "Misery"⸮ "Global-Cynicism"⸮
Your thoughts?
This reminds me of the twilight zone episode The Mind And The Matter
There main character is a misanthrope who imagines all other people disappearing, then finds out what that would be like.
I’ve been watching old episodes lately and that show is extremely appropriate watching for our current world. There is a stunning amount of fiction that warns us against hatred and demagoguery but I guess nobody has been paying attention.
I'll have to get into that show. I've absorbed a lot of it through cultural osmosis, but never took the time to watch through the old episodes (or the Jordan Peele-hosted ones, either.)
I might as well, while I'm amassing a sci-fi collection
To be frank, these all sound like people who need to just take a deep breath and and stop rushing through life. Waiting an extra few minutes in line is not going to ruin your life.
To take a good faith approach : the internet is a good place to rant and prettier issues are a perfect place for that. Probably too petty for their personal audiences but relatable enough for "content".
In bad faith: these people just need to eat the cost and use online ordering if they are truly this disrupted by the system. And yes, that has a huge premium. But you're delegating your tasks while you focus on whatever is important. Costco is not a place to go if you want to be "quick".
Brick and mortar stores aren't even designed to be efficient in the first place. Ever wonder why the milk is always at the back of the store? It's used or spoiled often so they want you to browse their store and find other items as you journey to the milk.
The New York Times continues to understate just how bad Trump's ideas are. This is straight up ethnic cleansing. Trump was always worse on Gaza than any of the Democrats, but I'm still surprised to see him propose going this far. I think the biggest logistical problem is that any neighboring countries would be committing political suicide taking in two million Palestinian refugees.
Edit: also Bibi's related comments are really bad. Pretty much what you'd expect from any world leader that wants to curry favor with Trump by tickling his ego. Except for the context of ethnically cleansing Gaza.
So he wants to resettle them elsewhere, then invite them back? I'm as confused as these poor journalists who have to report on this lunacy.
Also you'd think the US would have learned a thing or two about nation building in hostile environments after the whole Afghanistan fiasco. I'm sure it will go better this time. Give the radical Islamists sunbeds and umbrella drinks, and I'm sure they'll be more chill.
I'm truly worried that Trump's main goal for the next four years is to expand the territory of the US. The whole world is in for (at least) four very bad years.
I share similar concerns. Best case scenario, someone convinces Trump the D in D.C. stands for Donald, or Puerto Rico changes their name and becomes a US state. Expansionism is a dead-end ideology; I really hope it doesn't become mainstream again in this century.
I can imagine him believing he was conquering a foreign country by making Puerto Rico a state.
That would be great if we could trick him into making PR a state, but Congress will stop it dead as it would add Democratic seats to both the Senate and House. Same goes for making DC a state. If Democrats ever get the Oval Office and majorities in Congress again, making these two states should be a priority. They won't because it will upset the "bipartisan vibes" they're trying to make....
Regardless of how it benefits "our side" it'd really be for the best of PR gets self-determination.
You mean becoming independent from the US? As far as funding goes, becoming a state would give them a huge amount of financing to fix their infrastructure issues. They're already Americans, so I'd prefer to see them given more representation rather than casting them off to deal with the world on their own.
As I said, self-determination. I'd rather they decide that for themselves. Any change to the status quo would have a process, not a kick to the curb. If we don't already have an ethical one, we should create one.
I just think the whole point is to stop insisting we get to decide their future. My opinion is the same as yours, I'd rather they be a state. But my opinion shouldn't matter to the outcome.
Agreed. They've been strung along way too long.
Isn't the problem that they need 60 Democratic senators to make DC and Puerto Rico states, and they can't get 60 Democratic senators without DC and Puerto Rico as states?
Would PR be automatic 2 D Senate seats? Same question but for House seats.
Though DC 100% would be all D.
I'm not keyed-in at all to PR politics, but I know their political party set up is different out there. And I just don't know how that meshes with mainland 2-party system.
I think assuming Puerto Rico would be reliably blue would be making the same mistake that Democrats have been making for years regarding Latin American voters in states like Texas and Florida, and more recently with black and Gen Z men.
Yes. Before state Hawaii and Alaska were admitted, it was expected that Hawaii would be Republican due to the business interests of the Big Five, while Alaska would be Democratic due to low population and influence of Alaska Natives.
Yup, that's exactly what I was thinking. We, people, the media, etc, keep thinking that "Oh they're Hispanic/Latino, they all speak Spanish, so they're all the same!" Which is not at all correct. Issues that Puerto Ricans face are likely very different from other Latino Americans issue. For example, border and immigration probably don't come into play like they may for other groups. For obvious reasons (well obvious to everyone except the current head of govt and his supporters 🙄)
Plus other numerous differences. So yeah, I don't think PR would automatically be D seats, either. I think it's way more nuanced and complex than that.
Good question. I've heard people say those seats would go D, but I personally don't have enough knowledge to say for sure. Additionally, we've made the mistake in the past of considering the Latino vote as being monolithic. There are MAGA Latinos, and the number seems to be growing.
Aside from the horror and atrocities and moral depravity involved in killing or relocating 2 million people, I think Trump has no concept of the scale, the expense, the morale damage to our volunteer military if they are asked to accomplish this.
I can't begin to imagine the consequences and risks of the entire Moslem world and many worldwide enraged at us Americans.
Well, guess we’re gonna see a Trump International Hotel and Golf Course along the Gaza Coast…
It's the Trump Strip from now on.
Before the election I was saying Donald Trump was going to turn Gaza into a parking lot. I was wrong. He's going to turn it into another Trump property. <cynicism>Good job people who stayed home during the election because they didn't like how Joe Biden was handling Gaza and they wanted to "send a message". </cynicism>
At least someone is getting what they voted for
It ain't getting better chief. Bibi has now publicly doubled down on restarting the war in Gaza: https://www.ft.com/content/a8ec7bd0-5e0b-4b64-b12b-bc7abb711509
This whole conference was a shit show. Bibi was smiling like a boy who had just received a new toy and Trump was saying things like « everything is destroyed, who would want to live there » with the culprit of this destruction right next to him. Trump again showed that he has no idea what he’s talking about or just don’t care.
Having just watched the video @cutmetal posted here, I wonder if the idea is to make this a new tech-billionaire land startup where they can found one of their first micro-nations.
Countries are not Pokemon!