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
    You said Hillary started the wars in Libya and Syria. Started. From scratch. From her position as Secretary of State. In the middle of the mess created by the Iraq invasion of 2003, US Middle East policy disaster since WWII, the incoming matters of Qaddafi going Mao and Assad continuing Assad, you claimed that.
    We are familiar with your eyesight. We are also familiar with the magical properties of the disembodied "deep state", as it grows and shrinks and changes its mind and does invisibly whatever needs to be done to align the behavior of the US government and its officials with your preconceptions.

    You don't see fascism. You don't need to keep telling me that.
    You were claiming to be choosing on that criterion - that was your emphasis, your central issue.
    Do you remember what you were told about Trump and his promises? About what "normal relations" is among fascist strongmen? About the multipolarity of the threat of nuclear war?
    Yes, we noticed. And getting them wrong. For exactly the same reason you get almost everything about American domestic politics wrong: it's heavily influenced, for centuries, by what has coalesced into fascism, and you never see that coming.
    It's the viewpoint of a faction of wealthy and powerful people you claimed to be telling me about - kind of unfamiliar to you, I know.
    But in the real world, it wasn't.
    Responding to your posts.

    The matter of more interest is what campaign promises Trump actually made - because neither his electoral base nor his accumulating elite support seem to be much disappointed so far. His voting base may be simply misled, but not his elite backing. Apparently, he has not betrayed his elite backers, whoever they are. So your assumption that he has broken promises to them is not likely.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Of course, Hillary started the wars. Of course, the CIA is prepared to start regime change operations everywhere in the world - which requires long years of preparation - but this does not mean, say, that Obama has already started, say, a terror war against France or Germany, even if the refugee crisis was used for corresponding CIA preparations. Such preparations are done everywhere, and they can be used everywhere, if the deep state finds this necessary or useful. Say, if Le Pen wins.

    So, the real action started 2011, in the middle of Hillary's work.
    I see fascism where you don't see any. In the Ukraine. Completely classical fascism, open fascism, in the tradition of the open fascist Stepan Bandera and his UPA, which has murdered Jews, Polish and Russian civilians to create a pure Ukrainian state. These fascists came to power with full support of Obama, that's why you support them too.
    I know myself that promises are worth nothing in democracies. In the US even less, and in the case of Trump it was clear that his promises count even less. No need to teach me trivialities. It was clear from the start that the chance that he will hold his promises is very low. Nonetheless, even in this situation it makes sense to prefer one who promises peace to one who promises war.
    Look at the relations between Russia, Iran and China. All of them evil strongmen. Such relations of all of them with the US too, and the world would be fine, far from ideal, of course, but not close to war. This would be named "multipolar world".
    As I have said: The specialist for interpreting Trump's election campaign promises is iceaura, not me.
    One part of his voting base are those who hate PC. They cannot be disappointed, as long as what they hear out of the White House is not PC talk. Those Trump supporters who hate the Greens is not betrayed, but quite satisfied.

    Most of the strong opposition against him came from the war faction. Once the war faction has taken over, it means it no longer fights Trump. This is much more important than some loss of support by those who feel betrayed, given that the peace faction was anyway not strong enough to win against the war faction.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    W invaded Iraq, and Syria refused cooperation or support - which pissed off the W&Cheney admin, famous for holding a grudge;
    and that would be the ordinary point at which a historical account would pick up a brief narrative of the current Syrian war.
    And where, besides out of your ass, did you get the idea that I don't see fascism Ukraine, or that I support the current regime there?
    No, it didn't. Favoring Trump because one favored peace made no sense whatsoever. The people who voted for Trump voted for an increase in belligerence and coercion in US foreign policy, and a greater employment of military aggression and coercion compared with Clinton or Obama.
    Neither Iran or China has a strongman government, let alone a fascist one. Despite almost overwhelming economic and organizational priorities, Russia under Putin has been quite busy militarily - including military annexation of borderlands, a step it shares with China and Israel and essentially nobody else since WWII, and quite significant.
    As cute as you are in your innocence, the notion that Trump's faction is "the peace faction" is over the top. You gotta know better than that.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    No problem - W has started preparations for this. But starting preparations is not starting the war. Which was done by your heroes Obama and Clinton.
    I have checked all your mentioning Ukraine, and found that in all these cases you supported the Ukrainian fascist position. For example, talking about "Putin's launching of a murderous invasion of Ukraine". (Learn the difference: If you ask me to support my claims about you, I do it. You refuse to justify your fantasies with quotes.)
    No. Among the Republican candidates all were more belligerent than Trump, and in particular belligerent against Russia (this with the nuclear weapons). Clinton was more belligerent too, in their program as well in their promises.
    Yes. And therefore one can be sure it is your fantasy. And, indeed, it is. Learn to read. I have not said anything about Trump's faction being a peace faction. The peace faction is essentially irrelevant in the US. This irrelevant faction has supported Trump, for the same reasons I have explained many times. But this does not make Trump supporters a peace faction. It means only that the probability that a Trump supporter is a member of the peace faction is two times greater than in among the average population. So, 2% instead of 1% or so. Ok, 10% instead of 5%.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Putin claims that the CIA is a rogue element of the deep state, and “an expression of the will of world oligarchy and their vision for a New World Order.

    Suffice it to say, the CIA exists today as part of America – but it is certainly not American. “The CIA does not work on behalf of the American people or act in their interests.”

    .........................................
    one wonders
    Who really runs the spooks?
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Your claim about me is false. Your quote does not support your contention. You will not be able to find one that does - let me save you the trouble. I have never praised or defended the Ukrainian government, that I can recall.
    You appear to have confused my evaluation of Putin's invasion and annexation with some kind of approval or defense of the Ukrainian government.
    Apparently, you are getting your notions of "Party line" defense from introspection.
    That's not true. You are going by speeches again, right? You said you weren't going to do that any more.
    W did much more than "start preparations", Clinton did somewhat less than actually start the war. And note that whatever Clinton did was by persuasion of others in the US government - she did not have the authority to start a war like that on her own say.
    I quoted you contrasting the war faction with the peace faction, and claiming the war faction opposed Trump
    You're wrong about that. There was no peace faction of elites supporting Trump.
    The percentages would be reversed, or more - the only peace faction supporters of Trump would be those persuaded by the worst of the Hillaryhate bs into thinking she was some kind of monster.

    Essentially no Americans would regard Trump as anything other than belligerent and prone to violence rather than diplomacy.
    They didn't set up Cheney's torture prison system on their own, or by the direction of any "deep state".
     
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    What you have said, and not said, is quite sufficient for me. I see an anti-"fascist", who fights fascism everywhere, except in the only state which is ruled by open fascists, where, instead, claims of these fascists are supported and presented as if they were facts. I do not need open praise of the fascists to make this point.
    Feel free to correct me by telling which of the other candidates was more peaceful, with evidence. Rand Paul may be a candidate, but he looked far different from his fathers position. But, whatever, evidence please.
    LOL. Nobody had the legal authority to start wars by supporting terrorists.
    The point being? The question of war and peace was not the main. As usual in America, the peace faction plays no role, but this does not mean that the war faction should be really large.
    Maybe. But sources I consider to be much more reliable than you have expressed other opinions about this.

    By the way, a nice article titled "The President Formerly Known as Hitler" with some satirical answers to the question of this thread. Have fun.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There's nothing like that here for you to see.
    This was the "point":
    What you need to make that point is the presence of support for the Ukrainian fascist position, in my posts. There isn't any.
    Almost all of them, especially Clinton - whose entire career has featured compromise in the face of confrontation and risk, who has never had military support among the more reckless, whose voting base does not celebrate violence, who surrounded herself with similar people, and who has never taken a visibly decisive and violent action in her career.
    You say so,
    but you don't read my posts with comprehension, and you post straight from very crude and silly American rightwing propaganda sources that you find persuasive (once you have posted - sincerely - one of those Hillaryhate videos, even adopting the juvenile vocabulary and issue framing, your credibility as an American source evaluator is shot).

    So there's no telling what you're talking about there, or what it actually said.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Ah paranoia, conspiracy theorists, unsupported bunk. Hillary hate, Trump hate, all a deep state hate... any one with money is not to be trusted. Power corrupts is the flag being waved.
    What is wrong with taking stuff on face value for a change instead of constantly looking for drama and intrigue that doesn't exist except in paranoid speculative ramblings?
     
  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    um your boy putin is a fascist
     

Share This Page