|
Post by epaul on Aug 5, 2016 0:48:13 GMT -5
Oh, and I realize it would not be nice of Israel to nuke its Arab neighbors and I probably shouldn't have said it would be fine with me. All I can say is that I am a little over half-way through Daniel Silva's latest book, "The Black Widow", and whenever I am reading Silva, Israel's nuking the Arabs always seems like a reasonable proposition to me (as does Trump's ban on Muslim immigration, at least during our wars with ever rotating groups of them...especially, that is, if the Muslim ghettos of France and Belgium are the "enemy within" hellholes Silva portrays them to be.) Silva has never "pulled his punches", but he is really letting go with some roundhouses in this one. He mailed in the plot (yawn), but his perspective on recent and ongoing events in the Middle East (that we are up to our necks in) is interesting.
.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 5, 2016 5:30:24 GMT -5
Trump is many things, but I have hard time thinking of him as being more likely to start WWIII, or any other war, than Hillary. Hillary would be a continuation of our current, largely bi-partisan, foreign policy. How likely is that Trump will be either nuttier or more dangerous? There is no room, none, on the "nuttier side" of the ledger and very little, and rapidly disappearing, room on the "more dangerous" end of the stick. Our four previous "mainstream" presidents have kept this country mired in nearly thirty-years of non-stop war in the Middle East. And after thirty-years of nearly non-stop war, the situation in the Middle East is worse now than it has ever been. And what is Hillary's most likely contribution to this thirty-years of costly pointlessness? She is likely to double down on the side of the Syrian rebels and step up the efforts to dump Assad. GREAT! So, we will go toe to toe with Iran and the Russians in order to support fucking Al Qaeda and Saudi/Sunni Apocalyptic Wet Dream. Yep, those "Anti-Assad" freedom fighters we are supporting are hand in glove with Al Qaeda and are fundamentally no different than ISIS. So, just who in the hell is this country shedding blood and treasure for over there for? And Why? Hillary won't get us out. Hillary will just dig us in deeper and end up locking horns with Putin just to show how "determined and strong" she is... all for the sake of Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia? And Israel will be standing safely on the sidelines cheering it all on. If Israel feels it has to nuke its neighbors, fine. It has some reason to. But there is no reason for this country to be involved in a bloody insane Middle East mess it has no chance in hell of improving, fixing, or solving. The record is clear, the cards are face up on the table, this country has no idea what it is doing in the Middle East or who it is doing it to... our 70-year involvement in the Middle East's affairs has led to not one damn bit of good, only to deeper and more hopeless shit. Dumb Trump's foreign policy will be insane and dangerous? Just what the F*ck have our smart people motared us into? A chance to go toe to toe with Iran and Russia in order to further the agenda of our good friends, the Saudis and their team of sharia-loving Al Qaeda clones. Fucking Islam can have its apocalypse without us. And Israel can take care of itself by whatever means necessary or pack it in and come home to America (the best option). You obviously missed the utopian "Arab Spring".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 6:58:54 GMT -5
Sure let's worry about Trump using nukes when Iran has been given a green light and those lunatics have, basically, promised to use them. More Calvinball.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 5, 2016 7:00:35 GMT -5
What a lot of people don't get (esp. americans) is that a lot of US bases all over the world is the new colonialism. The 19th century model (the brits or other euro types) taking over and controlling/ruling entire countries is passé.
The modern (more efficient (and that's arguable!)) colonialism version is to put bases all over the place. Why take over the whole country when a base or few will do instead?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 5, 2016 11:15:54 GMT -5
You don't understand, JD, every nook and corner of the globe is our business. And the farther away it is the more important it is to us. Hillary understands this. Who the hell knows what Trump understands. Other than late night Tweets. Trump understands Tweeting.
We're fucked.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Aug 5, 2016 11:52:16 GMT -5
I'd like to see the President's salary be about 50 million a year to draw the best and brightest and instead of an election process it's a combination talent show and physical and mental competition ala American Idol meets American Ninja Warrior with winner take all.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 5, 2016 12:12:06 GMT -5
You don't understand, JD, every nook and corner of the globe is our business. And the farther away it is the more important it is to us. Hillary understands this. Who the hell knows what Trump understands. Other than late night Tweets. Trump understands Tweeting. We're fucked. Feel the Johnson:
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Aug 5, 2016 15:38:12 GMT -5
Epaul, I agree that any president might get us into WWIII (and what I'm talking about is a nuclear Armageddon) by steering us in a bad policy direction. What I fear about Trump is a lot simpler and more stark: his tendency to let his mouth run ahead of his brain. People who were on the inside during the Cuba missile crisis have said we came within a hair of blowing up the world, or a good deal of it, with everything hinging on subtleties of communications and interpretations. We're all familiar with the dynamics of escalation, that it's possible by a single poorly thought-out word or action to start a chain of actions that can't be stopped. I really, really, really wouldn't like to see Donald Trump sitting in JFK's old seat behind the Roosevelt Desk and dealing with such a situation.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 5, 2016 16:27:05 GMT -5
Epaul, I agree that any president might get us into WWIII (and what I'm talking about is a nuclear Armageddon) by steering us in a bad policy direction. What I fear about Trump is a lot simpler and more stark: his tendency to let his mouth run ahead of his brain. People who were on the inside during the Cuba missile crisis have said we came within a hair of blowing up the world, or a good deal of it, with everything hinging on subtleties of communications and interpretations. We're all familiar with the dynamics of escalation, that it's possible by a single poorly thought-out word or action to start a chain of actions that can't be stopped. I really, really, really wouldn't like to see Donald Trump sitting in JFK's old seat behind the Roosevelt Desk and dealing with such a situation. Since JFK and Roosevelt both got us into wars I guess I can see your point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 17:17:11 GMT -5
Epaul, I agree that any president might get us into WWIII (and what I'm talking about is a nuclear Armageddon) by steering us in a bad policy direction. What I fear about Trump is a lot simpler and more stark: his tendency to let his mouth run ahead of his brain. People who were on the inside during the Cuba missile crisis have said we came within a hair of blowing up the world, or a good deal of it, with everything hinging on subtleties of communications and interpretations. We're all familiar with the dynamics of escalation, that it's possible by a single poorly thought-out word or action to start a chain of actions that can't be stopped. I really, really, really wouldn't like to see Donald Trump sitting in JFK's old seat behind the Roosevelt Desk and dealing with such a situation. Since JFK and Roosevelt both got us into wars I guess I can see your point. Don't forget Wilson and Truman. Those darn Demoncrats!
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 5, 2016 17:18:43 GMT -5
Since JFK and Roosevelt both got us into wars I guess I can see your point. Don't forget Wilson and Truman. Those darn Demoncrats! Don't remind me. I'm trying to forget.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 5, 2016 19:10:14 GMT -5
Hillary is easily the most qualified and prepared presidential candidate this country has had since George H. Bush, Sr.
Following a long-standing and bi-partisan foreign policy, in 1990 President Bush invaded and for all practical purposes destroyed Iraq and its government in order to keep the Middle East looking the way America and Europe wanted it to look. Made perfect sense at the time. It has been 26 years since that so successful invasion. And we are still there. And the accumulated suffering in Iraq and here that has followed that so sensible and agreed upon by everyone in DC invasion has been incalculable. And the suffering ain't done. Not by a long shot.
I'm not worried about a cartoon screwball like Trump who falls asleep during strategery briefings being dangerous, it is the Smart People with Plans for what the rest of the world should look and act like that worry me. Maybe it is time for an untrained amateur who isn't even interested in the rest of the world to take control of our nigh unstoppable foreign policy machine...and pull the plug on the damn thing.
(in my current thread role as devil's advocate)
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 5, 2016 20:10:06 GMT -5
Trump finally endorses...!
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Aug 6, 2016 11:28:40 GMT -5
Since JFK and Roosevelt both got us into wars I guess I can see your point. Don't forget Wilson and Truman. Those darn Demoncrats! If you want to consternate a Democrat, state that the major wars of the 20th century (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam) were all started by Democrats and ended by Republicans. (To save you the trouble of Googling WWI, Harding formally ended that one.) This used to be a favorite line of Bob Dole.
|
|