annatar1914 wrote:Westerners are so silly. They'll trust anyone in those parts with an AK-47 and can speak in garbled English; ''we want democracy'', and shovel dollars at them like a moonstruck drunk at a stripper on saturday night.
I don't know how I missed this. That's painting with a broad brush, but certainly very accurately describes the neocons and is also quite funny. Well done sir.
annatar1914 wrote:But time heals all wounds, right?
It also wounds all heals, right?
B0ycey wrote:When Bush bombed Iraq, Nixon/JFK Vietnam, they didn't antagonise the entire world just those regions.
Which Bush? The second invaded Iraq, and certainly pissed off quite a lot of people in the process--Jacques Chirac among them. JFK didn't bomb North Vietnam. Arc Light and Rolling Thunder were Johnson ops. Linebacker and Linebacker II were Nixon ops.
B0ycey wrote:Trump is so dedicated to America first (which makes them worse off), that he is willing to trade friends for votes and his policies have pissed off the whole world (especially the ones Atlantis highlighted).
The world loves the Kurds so much that they've committed how many troops to their defense? Get real. The world doesn't care fuck all for the Kurds.
B0ycey wrote:Say what you like about America (and I am no fan), no other president other than Trump has stepped on more toes around the world and as such have not been as hated.
You must be young. Do you remember Nixon or Reagan?
Potemkin wrote:But how is it morally worse than the actions of, say, JFK or Johnson or Nixon or Bush I & II or Clinton et al.?
Or Obama. Obama's policy in Syria produced the largest humanitarian crisis since WWII with hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced, and a fundamental rupture of the European center-left political consensus.
Atlantis wrote:I'm the last person to defend US imperialism; however, what Trump does is of an entirely new dimension. At least the old imperialists were predictable, which provided a degree of stability. That has gone out off the window with Trump. Unpredictability in geopolitics is a recipe for disaster.
You prefer the predictability of a new war every three or four years, to the unpredictability of a guy trying to stop the US war machine?
Atlantis wrote:Even when he is predictable and he doesn't chicken out of something like leaving the Paris Accord because it doesn't have any immediate consequences for him, his actions are potentially far more damaging than anything ISIS could ever have done, and certainly no previous US president would ever have done.
Bush II and Reagan would both have pulled out of something like the Paris accord.
Atlantis wrote:Arriving at an international consensus for fighting climate change is infinitely difficult, with the primary polluter leaving the Paris Accord, and thereby empowering climate change deniers the world over, managing climate change will become effectively impossible.
America isn't the world's biggest polluter. That designation belongs to China.
B0ycey wrote:And that is more to do with his remarks rather than his actions.
That's a statement you should file away. It's something you should be ashamed of. Politicians fool millions of people like you with what they say rather than what they do.
B0ycey wrote:As for morals, he, like his predecessors are morally corrupt. He more so I guess because he is so vocal and even willing to backstap allies whereas other presidents never crossed specific lines.
The Kurds aren't a US ally. We don't even have a memorandum of understanding with them. Betrayal is best described by what the Democrats did to South Vietnam.
Potemkin wrote:Backstabbing allies? What about JFK backstabbing Diem in South Vietnam? Ho Chi Minh said at the time that he had not believed the Americans could be so stupid as to overthrow Diem. It made North Vietnam's final victory all but inevitable. And what about the Bay of Pigs fiasco? And then there's his attacks on organised crime, despite the fact that his daddy made most of his money from supplying gangsters with the ingredients they needed to make moonshine during Prohibition, and the Mafia helped get JFK elected as a favour to his daddy. Lots of people had lots of reasons for whacking JFK; the miracle is that he lasted as long as he did. Trump looks clean as a whistle compared to JFK.
No kidding. The hatred for Trump doesn't seem to be based on anything he's done, but rather a dislike of his personality. I sure hope B0cey is like 20 years old or something. At least that would explain why he sounds like such a naïf.
B0ycey wrote:Are we to pretend that South Vietnam was anything more than a pawn against Communism?
Kennedy said outright:
JFK wrote:Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
So are the rest of us seriously supposed to believe that the US is allied with one of a multitudinous morass of ethnicities within the exterior borders of Syria?
B0ycey wrote:Why bring either up?
Your venomous vitriol for Trump makes no sense in view of history. It's as though Obama killing over 100k people, displacing millions of people and destablizing the political consensus in Europe is just a-okay because he was a slave to political correctness, but Trump having done none of these things is an unpardonable, irredeemable reprobate because he says phrases like "illegal aliens." Words matter more than deeds? Really?
B0ycey wrote:So whilst globally JFK was missed and everyone knew where they were when he was shot, should the same fate fall on Trump, no leader will shed a tear.
Yes, but among the right in the United States, Trump will be a martyr. By contrast, nobody would shed a tear for anyone else you call "leader." Who would seriously cry except the establishment if Hillary Clinton were to be shot, or Teresa May, or Angela Merkel or Emmanuel Macron? They're hated by their own countrymen as much as they hate their own countrymen.
B0ycey wrote:A pawn is someone/thing that you support on a specific agenda and ultimately use and an ally is someone/thing that is a formal cooperation.
Okay, so now that you've redeemed yourself from the realm of sheer idiocy, maybe you could explain why the Kurds aren't a pawn, but rather an ally of the United States?
B0ycey wrote:JFK was a womaniser and was corrupt. That alone is enough to only consider any merits he had within the realms of political diplomacy and not in terms of respect.
Well, that's pretty much how you should evaluate all politicians. You'll never get to know them personally and you can't rely on the media for an accurate depiction of anyone. Policy and implementation--actions--that's what matters. The rest of it is just ancillary drama.
Beren wrote:And the Bay of Pigs wasn't exactly a JFK thing, it was a CIA thing approved by Eisenhower.
Yes, but JFK was the POTUS and pulled air support. That's fucked up. Trump made it clear years ago he wanted to get out of Syria. Nobody should be surprised by what he's doing. It's only unpredictable if you are, as Trump might put it, a stone cold idiot. He told you what he was going to do--knock the hell out of ISIS and bring the troops home.
Potemkin wrote:Besides, the Kurds aren't exactly angels either.
The Kurds aren't even a country. If we are the Kurd's allies, then we are naturally the enemies of Turkey--a NATO ally.
Finfinder wrote:Personally I think the smart move would have been to pass on the semantics (crime vs hate) and just say the world is a better place without that piece of shit. Not sure what political capital there was to gain by your ilk's position.
It shows, however, that the globalists were in league with ISIS. Al Baghdadi's death has broken their little hearts.
Beren wrote:Nobody says the Kurds are angels, they just should have their own country.
Why? Where? They'd be landlocked anyway and surrounded by enemies. Only oil around Mosul would make such a state viable.
Beren wrote:It was an ongoing operation approved by the former president, so he let it go, but then he was blamed for the failure because he denied air support.
In other words, he was rightly blamed for the operational failure.
Beren wrote:It would make geopolitical sense because the West don't have any reliable allies in that key region except Israel.
The Egyptian military is pretty much an American foreign legion. So is Saudi Arabia--although, SA can pay for their own military whereas Egypt cannot. Turkey is a formal part of NATO. Do you think they should not be? The US is a reliable ally of Israel, but Israel a reliable ally of the US? When have they demonstrated that?
Beren wrote:If I didn't know anything about you, I'd believe you're a "progressive" idiot on campus.
What about B0ycey? Thinks what politicians say is more important than what they do? Good lord...
Stormsmith wrote:But President Kennedy did a fairly good job of upholding the constitution whereas President Trump has not, starting with trying to keep all Muslims from moving to the US.
Good God! Do none of you know anything about history? Do you know how many Muslims there were in the United States in 1960? There was very little net migration to the US, because mass migration in the late 19th and early 20th Century almost led to communism here--like it's doing right now. Do you seriously think Kennedy was letting millions of Muslims into the US? Be honest. Please...
Stormsmith wrote:President Kennedy also fought hard to integrate schools.
Brown v. Board of Education was under Eisenhower. It was Eisenhower who sent troops to Little Rock, AR. Not Kennedy.
Stormsmith wrote:Trump, by contrast, put Betsy DeVos in charge of stripping schools of their money and giving it to privately owned schools.
Good. Public schools suck, are administered by leftists and staffed by underperforming labor union workers who are more interested in teaching LGBTQ values than math, which they now regard as racist.
Stormsmith wrote:Many South American families have been torn apart, and caged the kids. This will result in thousands of families who will never be together again, and the children will suffer with disorders all their lives.
They did that to themselves. If Canada would just allow them asylum at their embassies in Central America, Justin Trudeau could dress up in a serape and sombrero and greet them when they get off the plane in Ottawa with bowls of tortilla chips and nacho cheese.
Stormsmith wrote:President Kennedy helped farmers by encouraging electriflying more farms.
The Rural Electrification Act was FDR in 1936.
Stormsmith wrote:He also gave them farm insurance and encouraged soil conservation whereas President Trump has made farmers lives difficult due his trade tariff gizmo, not mention pulling out of the Paris treaty on conservation
Crop insurance and soil conservation was also FDR.
Stormsmith wrote:My point is President Kennedy did mess about, but he did good things too.
You sound like my Irish grandmother--attributing a lot to him that he didn't do. He extended a lot of programs. He did amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to not discriminate against women. He allowed professional sports teams to pool their television rights. He established the Peace Corps as a good will cover for CIA ops.
Stormsmith wrote:I can't see where President Trump 's done much to brag about.
The First Step Act and his tax reforms will resonate with a lot of people. His actions on trade and immigration also resonate with a lot of people. Disagreeing with it doesn't mean he hasn't done anything that his supporters wanted.
Beren wrote:Well, it was supposed to be a moral argument. They are a 30-45 million people without a country, although there's clearly a territory that could or even should be Kurdistan.
So you are for ethnic nationalism then? Not saying it's wrong, it's just a very interesting political position coming from a Trump detractor.
Tainari88 wrote:I think the British need to stop with the imperial ambitions.
Well, I for one would like to see them retake London and Leeds.
Tainari88 wrote:Everyone is a victim of ethnocentrism in the world. You are no exception to that rule.
Nor you.
Atlantis wrote:You might as well have said that the US back-stabbed the Shah of Persia because it didn't defend his corrupt and repressive regime. That is very different from backstabbing the Kurds.
Well, it's also an excellent example. It was another Carter-era fuck up. I also tire of people lamenting Mohammed Mossadeq as though he were some sort of fountain of virtue. He was trying to overthrow the government and got what he deserved.
Potemkin wrote:The Dutch are worse. Look into your heart, Tainari - you know it to be true.
How about the Belgians? Frigging Belgian Congo!
Atlantis wrote:The US should not have abandoned its best fighting force to be slaughtered by the Turks after they defeated ISIS.
They have not been slaughtered by the Turks. By the way, the Turks are NATO allies and the US more or less runs Incirlik.
Atlantis wrote:The US should have negotiated a deal with Ankara to prevent Turkey invading Syria.
Why should we do that? The US and Turkey are NATO allies. The US invaded Syria. Why shouldn't Turkey? Aren't we setting an example for our allies on how to act?
Atlantis wrote:The US should also have negotiated a deal with Damascus to give the Kurds a chance to at least hold on to a degree of autonomy inside Syria before announcing the troop withdrawal.
I'm guessing that the Assad regime isn't too happy with the United States right now, and probably wouldn't be too interested in advice on how to run Syria.
Tainari88 wrote:The British still stuck on monolingualism that doesn't impress.
Don't say that in Wales if you know what's good for you.
Atlantis wrote:Even if Trump claims the merit, Bagdhadi was killed despite him and because of intelligence provided by the Kurds.
Thank you for the explanation, but we don't need it clarified that presidents don't actually go and do the fighting themselves. They do, however, give the high level orders.
skinster wrote:Lol at anyone who believes this bullshit story. It's about as believable as the we-killed-Osama-and-buried-him-at-sea-in-a-respectful-Muslim-burial.
The US military held him in detention in Iraq, so they had his DNA and it matched.
skinster wrote:This is about the U.S. controlling some of Syria's oil.
It's about keeping that oil out of al Qaeda/ISIS hands. Syria isn't exactly an oil prize for the US.
skinster wrote:Trump does not give a fuck about you about as much as Hillary wouldn't give a fuck about you if she was in charge right now.
No. However, his surprise victory in 2016 was probably a surprise to him too. It depended on doing what the people of the US want, which may at times seem pretty heartless--like deporting 20M Central Americans illegally in the country. So Trump does have to please his base to avoid impeachment and prison, and if he does his detractors have to worry about the same for themselves. We know our politicians don't love us. We just want to make sure they are afraid of us.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden