Who the hell advised Trum to bomb Syria?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Apr 8, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes.
    Dozens of cruise missiles, made by a corporation Trump has stock in. And a large increase in Obama's already high rate of drone strikes, and a screwed up assault on some poorly scouted target (boots on the ground), and a large requested boost in the military budget, and so forth. All profiting the Donald directly, in addition to their roles otherwise.
    Acted impulsively as she has never acted before? Followed through on some big talk she only delivered after being excluded from power? You're sure? Then acknowledge the possibility that Assad wouldn't have gassed anybody with a crazy and belligerent Clinton strutting her stuff in the White House like that. That Putin would have vetoed the idea.
    And my observation was that Trump was very well known, and Clinton wasn't a murderous warmonger. That is: you were completely wrong.
    And your linkdweeb was even wronger, if possible:
    Uh, dude: yes, they could. They should have. They most definitely and positively should have made exactly that assumption. As responsible voting adults facing Trump's campaign and character it was their duty to make that assumption. Grownups, people of voting age, should never allow themselves to be conned so obviously, so blatantly, with so much contempt, by a self-interested power-seeking bully. It's irresponsible, it's negligent, it's utterly foolish of them to have cooperated in that.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Why not? This is what she was known to do - she has started two illegal wars, in illegal ways (Libya, Syria). This is what she promised openly in the campaign. Impulsively or not is not the point - the war is what one would have to expect.
    Irrelevant, because Assad has anyway not gassed anybody. The fake attack was predictable. That another one will follow, after the successful first one, too.
    I have not had any reliable sources to know something about Trump. And that Clinton is a murderous warmonger is well-known, given her record in Obama time.

    About predicting Trump would betray his campaign promises:
    So, all you have as evidence that he would betray this particular most important campaign promise is that he talked a lot of nonsense otherwise, so that it was quite obvious that campaign promises are not worth a lot for him?

    Sorry, but this gives only, at worst, a 50:50 prediction. This would be if his campaign promises are absolutely nothing for him.

    So, we have 95% war with Russia (Clinton, campaign promise, 5% probability of betrayal) vs. 45% war with Russia (Trump, obvious betrayal of very important campaign promise, with only 5% that he cares at all about what he promised). So, it remains reasonable to assume that Trump is less dangerous, even if Trump is considered extremely unreliable (as he was).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    None of that is accurate.
    You mean you have not had any sources you are willing to rely on about Trump? Then you shouldn't have jumped to conclusions in the face of so many people - including the ones with excellent track records of analysis - telling you you were wrong. You behaved as if you had good information - even dismissing better informed corrections of what were obviously badly muddled and ignorant assessments of the guy.

    Meanwhile, after the developments with Trump, why not review your assumptions about Clinton? They seem fully as bereft of sense and information, you saw yourself how vulnerable you are to even ham-handed Hillaryhate video from famously bad sources, and they run counter to almost any leftwing American's view of this long-familiar politician. She's a policy wonk. If she sat on a hot stove she would form a study commission to write a white paper of recommended action. Sure, she's violent and goes along with violence - all rightwing authoritarians have that flaw, and she compromises on everything - but that's a lot different from starting wars oneself.

    And the correction of the entire worldview for which Hillaryhate and fascism blindness are anchor points, would be enlightening. My guess.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, no, no. Recall: Trump is familiar to Americans. He's not an unknown, he's a damn walking stereotype. And he's predictable accordingly - regardless of promises.
    Again, you have the percentages screwed up - Clinton not only doesn't want war with Russia, but knows how to avoid it. Trump is fascist - fascists with armies get into wars, sooner or later with everybody.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,632
    I see you have a similar relationship to reality as Trump does.
    If you expect a habitual liar to start telling the truth for no apparent reason, you will always be disappointed.
    With Clinton, we might have gone to war if war was the only way to protect the United States. With Trump, we may go to war when someone sends him a mean tweet. I prefer the former.
     
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    With Clinton, you have already started two wars, above in completely illegal ways, namely with the CIA giving money and weapons to terrorists. You obviously like this type of behavior.

    Gaddafi made one serious error: To give up his own program for getting nuclear weapons. He has paid for this. The dictators of this world have learned this lesson. Nobody else will repeat this error.
    The sources I'm willing to rely on have not made any claims about what Trump will really do. So, I also have not made any claims about what Trump will really do.

    You are certainly not a source I'm will to rely on.
    Why? The only new information I have seen - more or less by an accidental google search - was the interview I have linked and quoted. Which was even worse than what I had expected, so that I have, correspondingly, slightly corrected my assumptions, in the direction of her being even more dangerous than I have assumed. Fortunately, this is irrelevant.

    Being familiar as an entertainer and a businessman does not mean predictable as a politician. That his promises mean nothing serious was clear. And that's why I have said, many times, that it is not plausible at all that Putin has supported Trump. Officially he was completely neutral, and it was not clear at all if he really supported Trump.
    She had a non-fly zone in Syria in her campaign promises. That means, war with Russia. Because it is well-known that Russia does not accept such a zone, it has already vetoed such proposals, and that Russia is ready for war over Syria has also already been clarified, so that there was no chance to get a no-fly zone without war.
    Nonsense. "Fascist" used by iceaura is nothing but a bad word for a right-wing politician, and means nothing more. And even real fascists like Franco or Pinochet have not gone to war.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No it doesn't. Russia wouldn't want a war with the US. They pretend to be crazy for strategic purposes, but they are rational actors. We can call their bluff if necessary.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Trump wasn't unknown, he was a thin-skinned, easily angered authoritarian who delighted in military fantasies like defeating ISIS by carpet bombing entire regions. He supported increasing the military budget and withdrawing from long standing mutual defense agreements.

    Hillary was a mild mannered statesman. If you didn't want war, the choice was always obvious.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,914
    Apropos of nothing:

    Did this thread always contain the typo in the subject? Or is that new?
    While browsing the forum, I've encountered this thread about 50 times, and this is the first time I noticed the typo.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Yeh, mea culpa.
    oops
    ok, as far as typos go, maybe better I missed the p and not the T?

    ................................................
    I'm fairly convinced that the missile attack had more to do with Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un than with Bashar al-Assad.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It means fascist, technically and rigorously identified. It is the accurate and easily fitted term for the political movement and ideology that has captured the Republican Party in the US. It does not mean "rightwing politician". Clinton, for example, is not fascist. Neither is Mitt Romney. Neither was HW Bush, despite his family ties and military connections.
    W&Cheney were and are. Trump is.
    Trump was a known quantity, easily predicted, and his behavior in office so far was in fact predicted - by the same people who accurately predicted W's behavior in office, the direct intellectual heirs (and some of the same people) of the people who accurately predicted Reagan's behavior in office. You blew them off, based on a naive and ignorant assessment of Trump and Clinton as manipulated by American professional propaganda.
    Silly boy.
    Franco and Pinochet launched and fought major civil wars - using their national military forces, army and air force and so forth, against rebels and insurgents.
    Franco's was a full scale campaign - the first use of aerial bombing against entire cities, the development of modern concentration camps and exterminations, among other innovative military tactics. His pre-WWII bombing of Guernica remains famous, a milestone of modern warfare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
    Pinochet's was more modest, in a sense, but still produced tens of thousands of dead and hundreds of thousands of refugees from national military combat operations (as well as the organization of large scale State torture and terrorism, the flagship infrastructure of fascist governance, explicitly favored and promoted by Trump).
    In addition, Pinochet started a war with Argentina that was only prevented from becoming full scale combat by Argentina's unilateral withdrawal (behind a mountain range) due to severe domestic economic and political troubles (Pinochet then aided the British in the Falklands conflict http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/304516.stm), and Pinochet joined with several other SA countries in Operation Condor, a rolling "anti-terrorist" campaign involving international cooperative military campaigns against each other's rebels and insurgents, again using their national military forces.

    Even small-time fascists go to war, to the extent they can. Trump has the US military, and hundreds of bases world wide - including some in regions he has major economic interests and investments. The notion that Trump was the less likely of the two to launch war had no support in evidence, and was in conflict with the assessments of those who did know what they were talking about and had solid track records.

    The basic error of your approach is your assumption that a chaotic, weakened, fractured US will be more peaceful and less likely to wreak further havoc in foreign lands. That is dubious reasoning, to put it gently.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That makes sense. Pin that for future reference.

    Exactly. You guessed way wrong about Trump, and you similarly lack information about Clinton - time for a review of your assumptions.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    In other words, Clinton wanted to play chicken with Russia, which, if Russia does not run away, would end in war. And that means war.
    Fine, so it means not only right-wing, but some right-wing iceaura does not like very much. At least, your classification is not based on any serious criteria.

    Probably because non-establishment. But this is no longer a problem, once he has started to do establishment politics, like W and Obama/Clinton, there is no longer any problem of the Western establishment with him.
    In the case of Franco, this was the civil war to get power. Once he got power - thus, reached the state Trump already has - he has not started wars. In case of Pinochet, there was nothing serious at all. I was, at that time, yet a communist boy, and hoped a lot for some civil war against this fascist, but there was none.
    Of course, this is dubious reasoning. That's why I have not made any such reasoning.
    Given that I have not made any precise prediction about his behavior, I have not been "way wrong". To reevaluate my judgement about Clinton I see no reason too, first of all because she plays no role anymore anyway. (Except, possibly, as a deep state player, who knows, but I don't know the deep state decision makers anyway. I can only judge about them by looking at the US policy.)

    My prediction, btw, was that Trump will be a weak president, because he has yet to fight the deep state, and it is completely unclear how this fight ends. Actually, the fight is finished, Trump has lost, the deep state rules. After this, even Trump as a person is no longer very interesting.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You continue to spin fantasies of murderous and decisive war-mongering around a compromising and diplomatic policy wonk well acquainted with Putin and Russia and entirely without any personal history of taking risks.
    No, rightwing I do not like very much includes Romney and Clinton and many other non-fascists. Just like I posted. Read the post, follow the post, you are on the path to comprehension of the post.
    After Franco took power by military conquest, open war as is typical of fascists, WWII had been launched all around him. Spain was poor and heavily damaged - he did not have the resources to play with the big boys.

    And while small fascists fight small wars, like Pinochet's, they are nevertheless wars - measured by casualties and refugees and the like, Pinochet's largest war (of the three) was about the size of this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War. Fought differently, of course.

    Fascists start and fight wars, as a rule. Trump will be a notable exception, if he doesn't.
    That was a paraphrase of your posting - you made that argument. You favored Trump in part because you expected him to further a weakening of the US, helping to usher in a "multipolar" world you regard as better for freedom etc.
    Your description of Trump has having been at odds with the deep state, and losing some kind of fight, reveals that you thought Trump would naturally and if left to his own devices behave much differently than he has. That was mistaken thinking. Way wrong. Trump's behavior has been completely consistent with his well-known and life-long self, and was predicted to be just what it has been by many Americans who knew who and what he was. No "deep state" is required to explain his current behavior.
     
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Not taking risks, but simply starting two wars?

    Given that you do not have (at least have not presented) precise criteria, neither economic nor political, to distinguish what you name fascist from what you name simply right-wing, "fascist" remains not more than a degree of distaste.
    There were a lot of small boys participating in WW II. Of course, on the side of one of the big boys, but participating. Franco did not, despite being really a fascist. Trump is fascist only in the sense of you distaste, otherwise he is a democratically elected American president. Being an American president is what increases the probability of starting a war very much. Much more than iceaura not liking him, given that Obama has started two wars, finished none, and been at war all the time.
    American presidents start and fight wars, as a rule. Trump will be a notable exception, if he doesn't.
    I mentioned that he will be a weak president. Because he cannot do what he likes against the establishment. Any conclusion that it follows he will be peaceful is your fantasy. Of course, I favor further weakening, given that it is the most aggressive, murderous state of the world. But I'm aware of the point that a weakened aggressor may become even more aggressive. Such is life. You think I'm obliged therefore to hope that the aggressor becomes stronger? Of course, America will be most peaceful if it rules the whole world, so I have to hope for the US ruling the whole world? Sorry, no.
    No, because I did not think at all about whatever Trump personally likes. You forget that I have never much reasoned about Trump himself. I was talking about the faction of the elites which supported Trump. American-based industry. Those who are ready to give up the globalist project of ruling the whole world and ready to accept a peaceful transition toward a multipolar world. This faction exists, else Trump would not have been able to win anything. It appeared to weak to win, such is life.
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Trump launched one missile barrage in Syria, which is way less that peace loving President Obama, who got a Nobel Peace Prize. Why not use President Obama's peace prize allowed number of weapon launches, as a zero point. The reason is the left is dishonest. Even the peace prize was a scam, done upfront, before he disrupted the middle east and displaced millions of civilians. The left is so conditioned to think in terms of two faced propaganda, they are not longer even rational enough to listen too. Just assume they are scamming, you to buy a used car that only a liberal drove.

    The way I look at it, Trump launched a single missile barrage in response to chemical weapons. He was not trying to overthrow the Syrian Government. This gesture shows US capability and extrapolates to Trump doing the same to nuclear weapon use, since these are similarly taboo, to most civilians. It was a one shot deal, with maximum diplomatic impact, worldwide. Trump is very efficient and under budget.

    The left extrapolates this into world war 3, yet nothing has happened, other than violent states being placed on notice to play by the rules. Trump is nevertheless showing he is flexible in terms of valid forms of engagement. Nothing more will be done in Syria unless another line is crossed. President Obama and Hillary set the wrong example world wide and now Trump has to reset these relationships. Power respects power if done by the rules. The scamming Democrats made the word unstable and full of players acting up.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    What she did was low risk, given the miserable choices - her contribution, which as Secretary of State could not have involved any military initiative on her own say - came in long after US involvement in those countries had taken its basic shape. She started nothing, coming in the middle like that ( although her significant contribution made things worse, and the entire US role in the region she was contributing to has been evil for decades).
    What a weird thing to say - as if being a democratically elected President somehow conflicted with being fascist.
    Trump is almost stereotypically fascist. Look at his supporters, the Americans who know him best. Look at his administration. And this is invisible to you, for some reason: you really don't see these guys coming.
    No, what you said was that the weakening of the US was inevitable under Trump, and Trump was a lower risk of nuclear war than Clinton because he was less therefore less likely to engage in military assaults. You specifically named nuclear war as the event most feared, and small hostilities getting out of hand as the most likely spark, and a weakened US under Trump as the less likely to launch them because of his nature and weak circumstances: more rational, less impulsive, less violent, etc, because a businessman; more inclined to negotiate, compromise, etc, because weaker.
    That was your fantasy, not mine.
    So with nuclear war on the table, front and center in your concerns, the idea that a more chaotic and weakened US under an irrational and shallow-thinking Trump would be a much higher nuclear war risk is not something you can spin and say: "Such is life".
    You did "reason about Trump himself", quite a bit, and always in error. Part of your reasoning involved being mistaken about who supported him. I pointed that out, at the time.

    Briefly, again: That faction of anti-globalists exists. They almost all opposed Trump. The faction that supports him has a quite different approach.

    Trump supporters wanted a stronger US military throwing its weight around more, as Trump obviously wanted to do and would do if he could.
    Or even more briefly: What do think "Make America Great Again" meant? More liberal and leftwing multipolarity? Years of wimpy negotiating?
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    well Schmelzer what did "Make America great again" mean? What did/do you believe he meant?
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Curious that you think that you can speak for "Trump supporters".
    Did you mean "all Trump supporters"?, "most Trump supporters"? , "a plurality of Trump supporters"?, "some Trump supporters"?, "a few Trump supporters"?, "one or two Trump supporters"?
    or
    Just your imaginary Trump supporters?
     
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Why do you ask me? The specialist for Trump's thoughts is iceaura.
    LOL. She took office Jan. 2009. The Syrian revolt started 2011. In Libya too 2011. Thanks for admitting that all these "peaceful protests" were nothing spontaneous, but prepared long ago in Bush time by the CIA, so Clinton and Obama could not even stop them. But, sorry, even if I do believe that US foreign policy is made by the deep state, and not by Obama and Clinton, I do not believe that they could not stop this. They could - the deep state is not that deep that Obama and Clinton had nothing to say at all - they were part of it, and not a completely irrelevant one.
    So I see - your notion of "fascism" is simply defined by some (unknown, one would guess popular among the left) stereotypes. Like those presented by the left media about his supporters. Looking at his administration, I see the usual American deep state, nothing else.
    More accuracy, please. I have never said anything about his size, less or not than Hillary. I have judged about the likelyness based on their campaign promises, completely acknowledging that this is, always in democracies, extremely unreliable information about what he will really do, and in the case of Trump even more.
    Quote please, liar, no fantasies. I named nuclear war, and therefore there was my special focus on relations with Russia, where the nuclear war danger would be the most serious one. What remains are your fantasies combined with some bits I have used in very different contexts.
    First of all, we can talk here what we want, this will not change even a little bit in the fate of mankind. Such is life. Or, if there will be a nuclear war, such was life.
    Then, if he would have started normal relations with Russia, as promised, different from Clinton which promised war with Russia, mankind would have been much safer. Trump ruled by the war faction of the deep state is certainly not optimal. But there was at least some (however small) probability that with Trump the war faction would not rule. With Clinton, it was clear that the war faction would rule.
    I'm not talking about some irrelevant leftist freaks, but about a faction of the elite.
    You are the specialist for election campaign phrases. Liberal leftwing multipolarity? What's this? The left elites are much more globalist. It seems easier to list exceptions from the rule leftist = globalist (say, Latin America, Greece, what else?).

    The meaning for the anti-globalist faction of the elites could have been an attempt to sell isolationism for the American public. But, Anyway, what is the point of evaluating the meaning of campaign promises which have been already broken? Whatever it was meant, actually he is following Obama, making America even weaker than it was.
     

Share This Page