[Atlantis]

Then let them carve it out for themselves. Why should we do it for them?

That's not how geopolitics works. The US should not have abandoned its best fighting force to be slaughtered by the Turks after they defeated ISIS. The US should have negotiated a deal with Ankara to prevent Turkey invading Syria. 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. After the decision to withdraw, neither the US nor the Kurds have any leverage whatsoever.

The US should have done so for American interests first and for Kurdish interests second. Trump's decision only serves Russian interests.

This is basic geopolitics a 5-year old could understand.

[Tainari88]

I don't mean to doubt Potemkin's virtues, @Tainari88, but we agree perhaps that he's just a fallible human being too.

Oh Beren, I know he is a fallible human being. He is also the most beautiful man in many ways.

He never visited Latin America before. I think he decided to give it a whirl because of me. Lol.

I don't know many British people Beren. My life has been one of diversity of all cultures. But British culture I have had almost zero experience with. And Potemkin? Almost zero Puerto Ricans in Scotland he knows....

Intercultural exchange...it is great thing. It enriches people's lives.

The worst fight I ever had with him was about British imperialism. I still smile about that one. Hee hee hee.

[Tainari88]

That's not how geopolitics works. The US should not have abandoned its best fighting force to be slaughtered by the Turks after they defeated ISIS. The US should have negotiated a deal with Ankara to prevent Turkey invading Syria. 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. After the decision to withdraw, neither the US nor the Kurds have any leverage whatsoever.

The US should have done so for American interests first and for Kurdish interests second. Trump's decision only serves Russian interests.

This is basic geopolitics a 5-year old could understand.

I have my doubts about the moves that 45 MIERDA que apesta presidente Trompetista is really about the USA's interests. That man is a total unpredictable freak. He could be beholden to Putin or someone in some mafia scene in Russia. I have my doubts.

You are thinking the American political scene is a predictable thing based on nationalism and classic capitalism. You have not taken into account total sellout mentality and a weasle out to become rich being backed by shadiness...that Mojon apestoso president 45 is not your regular imperialist arms race egomaniac. He is not.

@Potemkin said:

By British standards, I was being outgoing and sociable with him, Tainari. I was listening attentively to him and engaging with his talk by asking questions at appropriate moments. Most British people would have been gazing off into the middle distance while he was talking to them, or looking at their watch every couple of minutes. They certainly wouldn't have asked any questions. I thought I was making a good impression.... Lol!

Latino society is not British society. You are supposed to be flattering, warm and social, verbose and at the end? You tip him a lot! Success. Good impression.

Now you know....lol. You handsome wonderful man you....

I don't think I ever met anyone who loves eating pozole as much as you do. Truly.

@Potemkin said:

The Dutch are worse. Look into your heart, Tainari - you know it to be true.

The Dutch are competing in the stingy sweepstakes with the Scottish stereotypes. But they are Polyglots. Multilingual people and I like those kind. The British still stuck on monolingualism that doesn't impress. The Dutch though....embrace some bad liberal thoughts and patronizing crap....and they are the world's banker mentality people....that is a point against them. I don't know.....I don't know....the British have great sense of humor....but the Dutch tend to be better at football....let me think about this....Deep into my heart? The Orangemen? I hate Betsy DeVos of the Dutch Fascist religious kind...that is a point against them for sure...but they are not into English only....hmmm. I am looking deep in my heart....

[Atlantis]

Betraying an ally is always a choice, a choice for another ally:



Even if Trump claims the merit, Bagdhadi was killed despite him and because of intelligence provided by the Kurds. It's reasonable to assume that Turkey wasn't too keen on tracking down Bagdhadi, who had moved in areas controlled by Turkish proxies for months.

Kurdish informant provided key intel in operation that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

[Tainari88]

Betraying an ally is always a choice, a choice for another ally:



Even if Trump claims the merit, Bagdhadi was killed despite him and because of intelligence provided by the Kurds. It's reasonable to assume that Turkey wasn't too keen on tracking down Bagdhadi, who had moved in areas controlled by Turkish proxies for months.

Kurdish informant provided key intel in operation that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

I am starting to fall in love with your commentary. I should subscribe to you Atlantis if you had a youtube channel I would hit the subscribe button. Lol.

Made me smile with that political cartoon.

[skinster]

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 Kurds appear to have aligned themselves with the SAA from what I gather. About time...

This is about the U.S. controlling some of Syria's oil.

Lol also at anyone who thinks billionaire Trump has their interests at heart. I mean what level of moron do you have to be to believe that anyone leading the U.S. in our lordless year of 2019 cares about anything besides lining their own pockets / maintaining their own power? 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. As anarchist says, WAKE UP.

In other words, appearances and myths matter more than reality? Okay, gotcha.

You're speaking to someone who plans to vote for the Liberal Democrats in the next U.K. elections while armed with the facts of what they've voted for, because "Brexit".

[B0ycey]

You're speaking to someone who plans to vote for the Liberal Democrats in the next U.K. elections while armed with the facts of what they've voted for, because "Brexit".

Don't be hasty Skinster. I might vote Labour, because "Brexit".

#anyonebutJohnson

[blackjack21]

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.

But time heals all wounds, right?

It also wounds all heals, right?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are we to pretend that South Vietnam was anything more than a pawn against Communism?

Kennedy said outright:

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

President Kennedy helped farmers by encouraging electriflying more farms.

The Rural Electrification Act was FDR in 1936.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think the British need to stop with the imperial ambitions.

Well, I for one would like to see them retake London and Leeds.

Everyone is a victim of ethnocentrism in the world. You are no exception to that rule.

Nor you.

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.

The Dutch are worse. Look into your heart, Tainari - you know it to be true.

How about the Belgians? Frigging Belgian Congo!

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.

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?

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.

The British still stuck on monolingualism that doesn't impress.

Don't say that in Wales if you know what's good for you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[B0ycey]

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.

I hate how you fragment your posts BJ. But this quote has some relevance I guess so will address this.

I have never claimed that the Kurds are US allies. Nor have I mentioned them much within this thread either. And it is clear America do not care about them I might add. But they have been used and more importantly than that have also been instrumental in halting Daesh. If America do not support them now in regards to what they have done, then you have to question why any small fraction should support America again in the future. There is a reason why the Taliban were once US friends that became US enemies. And should the Kurds become terrorists themselves and fly planes into buildings, rather than cry about it shouting "freedom", remember your remark. "The world doesn't care fuck all for the Kurds". If so, why should they care "fuck all" for the world?

[Atlantis]

ISIS will have a brilliant future as long as the US and other powers are determined to use proxy forces to do the dirty work in their geopolitical games.

New IS leader takes over following Baghdadi’s death

The death of the Islamic State’s erstwhile caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, raises major questions about the eschatological group’s future. It is difficult to predict how IS' momentum and popularity will change in Iraq and Syria in the aftermath of Baghdadi’s death. It is also unclear how this symbolic event will play out in terms of the terror group's operations, strategies, tactics, priorities and structure. As the extremist group fights to regain influence and power in these two countries, the ascendancy of Baghdadi’s successor could lead to divisions and internal struggles that severely weaken IS. By the same token, new leadership also has the potential to re-energize the terror franchise and help IS achieve its goals.

It is logical to assume that IS began preparing for Baghdadi’s death long ago. Ever since many state and non-state actors began waging military operations against the group in 2014 — with the capture or killing of Baghdadi a high priority for many of them — he was a target at every moment throughout the final years of his life. In August, the IS-linked Amaq news outlet reported that Baghdadi anointed his successor, Abdullah Qardash. The decision to select a successor was never confirmed by IS, and some have disputed the authenticity of the Amaq statement.

Who is Qardash and why did Baghdadi select him?

Qardash claims to hail from the Quraysh tribe, a requirement for the caliph under Sunni jurisprudence. In addition to his family’s lineage and his education, Qardash’s roles in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the US occupation and the years of the caliphate’s existence are important factors too.

From the mostly Sunni district of Tal Afar, Qardash, who has Turkmen roots, graduated from the Islamic Sciences college in Mosul. Nicknamed "the professor,” he served in Saddam's army as an officer. Following the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq and the subsequent capture of the Iraqi dictator in 2003, Qardash joined many other Iraqi Sunnis in turning to violent extremism. Along with Baghdadi, Qardash was imprisoned at Camp Bucca near the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border after being captured by US forces because of his links to al-Qaeda, for which he served as a religious commissary and a general Sharia jurist. While incarcerated in Camp Bucca, Qardash and many other future al-Qaeda/IS militants first met Baghdadi and were influenced by his radicalization, earning the prison the name of the birthplace of IS.

Fast forward to 2014, five years after Baghdadi’s release from Camp Bucca. The two men reunited when Qardash welcomed Baghdadi to Mosul, supported his leadership and pledged allegiance to him as IS took control of the city. During the caliphate’s existence in western Iraq and eastern Syria, Qardash served as one of Baghdadi’s lieutenants, establishing himself as a brutal policy-maker.

Trained by Saddam’s regime, Qardash is closely connected to a class of former Iraqi officers who gained experiences during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). While serving Baghdadi in IS, Qardash gained a reputation for brutality. Analysts have called him as cruel and authoritarian based on his elimination of those within IS who challenged Baghdadi, earning Qardash another nickname: "the destroyer." Qardash also earned the respect of many within IS.

Yet only time will tell whether Qardash can successfully fill the shoes of IS' first leader. Baghdad’s charisma and special status among Salafist-jihadists made him a unique leader. It would be difficult for anyone to truly replace him, given the powerful image that Baghdadi created for himself and the level of influence that he had over many Sunni extremists worldwide.

As IS' project faces new realities in Iraq and Syria, it is too early to know how many of the IS fighters who pledged allegiance to Baghdadi will extend their loyalty to Qardash. As the remnants of IS are currently scattered throughout Iraq and Syria, there are divisions between different sub-groups with various leaderships from different Arab countries. Such dynamics call into question whether influential figures within IS will reject the legitimacy of Qardash as the franchise’s leader and how power struggles could play out. It will also be important to look at the group’s offshoots around the world to see when or if they decide to officially accept Qardash’s authority.

Looking ahead, there is every reason to conclude that IS will remain relevant regardless of how the succession process plays out. Unless the terror group's ideology becomes widely discredited within the world of Salafist-jihadism, the apocalyptical group’s narratives will continue to sit well with extremists in Iraq, Syria and many other countries from Burkina Faso to Afghanistan. Within this context, Qardash will likely be able to count on backing from committed and loyal IS supporters that Baghdadi led for years.

Unquestionably, groups like IS will always take advantage of chaotic situations such as the fall of the Iraqi and Libyan regimes in 2003 and 2011 and the Syrian uprising that erupted in 2011 to gain influence. As long as violence and widespread instability continue to spread throughout the greater Islamic world, there will always be new generations of extremists and new leaders to step up and take command of such projects. It would be misguided to expect IS to have lost its relevance as a result of Baghdadi’s death. In fact, there is a real possibility that the terror franchise will become more dangerous in the post-Baghdadi period.

[Tainari88]

I hate how you fragment your posts BJ. But this quote has some relevance I guess so will address this.

I have never claimed that the Kurds are US allies. Nor have I mentioned them much within this thread either. And it is clear America do not care about them I might add. But they have been used and more importantly than that have also been instrumental in halting Daesh. If America do not support them now in regards to what they have done, then you have to question why any small fraction should support America again in the future. There is a reason why the Taliban were once US friends that became US enemies. And should the Kurds become terrorists themselves and fly planes into buildings, rather than cry about it shouting "freedom", remember your remark. "The world doesn't care fuck all for the Kurds". If so, why should they care "fuck all" for the world?

B0ycey, what amazes me is why anyone in any nation (and you are in England currently right?) thinks that the USA gives a damn about building alliances? If they build an alliance it is because they will use and abuse. That is what notions of being imperialists breeds. Users and abusers. Who don't care about anything but their own very very narrow views. And each crazy political philosophy reflects a value system. The one with imperialism and arrogance breeds selfish backstabbing behavior. It goes hand in hand. Imperialism=backstab, betray and selfish.

If you analyze why a nation is interested in invasions and in interfering in other governments and other people's business and territories? It is to gain something they either want, need or covet. What do you expect from that mentality. Honorable behavior? Loyalty? Equality? Respect? They don't know the meaning of that word. Low life people reflect imperialism B0ycey. Unfortunately you have to experience the other end of that ugliness to truly understand what it is about...because the ones residing in the imperialistic nations are told lies about noble deeds and good diplomacy and fair trade.

A pack of lies and falsehoods is what is peddled in Empires as to the true motivations of all the intervention and invasion and military coups and bad and tricky weak alliances. They DON'T CARE. They only whine and cry like spoiled brats when they are PRESSURED into giving up power due to political mismanagement and losing wars and losing money. That is the only way they actually change B0ycey.

I never have to explain a damn thing about imperialism to Mexicans or Puerto Ricans or Cubans or many others who have been invaded systemically by Empires. They know what that experience is like. The ones who need constant explanations are the ones who live in the UK, or the USA or some place that never lost a war massively been taken over and who have arrogant people dictating shit in their own countries and who try to belittle them in every way and replace their own languages, cultures and histories with LIES and bullshit that the conquerers want the natives to believe to have their power move validated. Period.

@blackjack21 not understanding the costs involved in building empires states:

Well, I for one would like to see them retake London and Leeds.

You think invading India and Pakistan, and taking some islands over all over the world and etc etc has no complications or costs involved BJ? They got to negotiate with the ones who invaded London and Leeds. Lol. They got to share some little things with the çonquered....that is history for you....you wind up screwing around endlessly with other folks and other lands and they wind up in your own land and your own territory. You want to push the thing back to where everyone is pure and no one has to tolerate seeing 'foreigners' in their homeland. Sorry, that era is over with BJ. You got to cope with diversity, and multiculturalism. It is here to stay. No getting away from it. Suck it up...good little kid now....swallow that pill...a spoon now Blackjack, open your mouth.....swallow that bitter brew....the ones who are not Anglo have taken over London and Leeds....because the British invaded Africa, Asia and so on....and now they got to pay the price of the invasions with the foreigners hanging around and so on....open the mouth for the multiculturalism pill.....not too bad...LOL!

[Atlantis]

B0ycey, what amazes me is why anyone in any nation (and you are in England currently right?) thinks that the USA gives a damn about building alliances? ...

Oh, but they do! The US got big by building alliances. From the world wars to Obama, from the "allies of WWII" to the "alliance of the willing" of Bush and the "alliance against terror", the US has tackled every international conflict by building alliances. After the Vietnam war, the allies that had fought the war along the US even took care of the refugees of that war, the Vietnamese boat people. All of that has changed with Trump. Trump believes that the US is so strong that the US doesn't need allies. Trump also believes that the US has no responsibility for the consequences or the refugees of the wars the US has fought. Trump believes, or pretends to believe, the narrative that Americans intervene abroad out of the goodness of their heart. That is of course absurd, the US never stations even a single soldier abroad if it is not to defend US interests.

[Tainari88]

Oh, but they do! The US got big by building alliances. From the world wars to Obama, from the "allies of WWII" to the "alliance of the willing" of Bush and the "alliance against terror", the US has tackled every international conflict by building alliances. After the Vietnam war, the allies that had fought the war along the US even took care of the refugees of that war, the Vietnamese boat people. All of that has changed with Trump. Trump believes that the US is so strong that the US doesn't need allies. Trump also believes that the US has no responsibility for the consequences or the refugees of the wars the US has fought. Trump believes, or pretends to believe, the narrative that Americans intervene abroad out of the goodness of their heart. That is of course absurd, the US never stations even a single soldier abroad if it is not to defend US interests.

Let me clarify my point with you Atlantis. The USA builds alliances that are really about their interests. For me true allies and true friends are about not self interest at all but true spirit of giving and supporting. Not for selfish gain but for empathy and the code of wanting to serve others in need. Real friendships and real alliances of the best sort? Is about that.

Most countries are filled with alliances that are selfish and self serving Atlantis.

I find that disgusting. I always have. You want to go and come up with selfish shit? I am not interested in alliances with selfish user nations, selfish user people. You either come here with a spirit of equality and service or go to hell.

That is tough but that is what needs to happen if human beings need to make things better with the threats that face us. Climate change is going to change it all Atlantis.

Either human nations and their gov'ts learned to get along and to cooperate fully and respect each other's interests or they will perish in a series of wars and realize that they are affected by what other people do and other people think.....

Time is running out for selfish crappy politics Atlantis. If we hold on to that old and crappy self interested thought process? The planet will make the tough choices for us....the Planet Earth will say....who are the parasites making all this so difficult? Causing the discomfort? The species extinction? The lack of pure water to drink? The temperature rising and the sea levels rising? The stripping and the problems? That pesky selfish species I allowed to have a bit of agency eh? I think it is time to teach them who is in charge.....kill about 99 per cent of them off. And if the one percent survive? Let them scramble for existence for the next ten thousands years. I got six billion more years to go. I can see if they make it out of there still ignorant or still selfish...if they do? Kick their ass again and again. Til they get it right.

Mother Nature's internal dialogue with humanity and their need to be selfish bastards.

[B0ycey]

B0ycey, what amazes me is why anyone in any nation (and you are in England currently right?) thinks that the USA gives a damn about building alliances? If they build an alliance it is because they will use and abuse. That is what notions of being imperialists breeds. Users and abusers.

Completely agree @Tainari88 on everything you write. This especially. You talk of British or Dutch imperialism being the worse. Both have lost their empires today and only pawns for the true evil. American Imperialism. Nobody is worse than the Yanks today at being users and abusers and Britain and the West are merely yesmen to that empire.

Having said that what surprises me with Blackjack is not that he agrees that the Kurds are nothing to America, but he doesn't care that they have been used for their illegal war and left to rot as they are killed by the Turks. I bet he'd care if they start flying planes into American buildings. Ultimately America is a target for terrorism not because terrorists hate the West. But because the Americans interfere in other peoples lands/politics and then fuck off leaving the mess behind.

[Atlantis]

Most countries are filled with alliances that are selfish and self serving Atlantis.

Realpolitik is all about acknowledging national interests. To deny the fact of national interest may sound romantic but is, in fact, a dangerous game, as it leads to delusional politics. There is nothing wrong about defending your national interests. In fact, it's the sacred duty of every national leader to defend the interest of her country. The point is to understand national interest properly. It is my national interest that my neighbor can live in peace and prosperity; because, ultimately, I can only live in peace and prosperity when my neighbor lives in peace and prosperity. Thus, my national interests is to promote peace and prosperity abroad. You won't need any walls between the US and Mexico, just like we don't need any walls between Germany and France, if there is peace and prosperity on both sides of the border, or if the difference is not too big.

[Tainari88]

Realpolitik is all about acknowledging national interests. To deny the fact of national interest may sound romantic but is, in fact, a dangerous game, as it leads to delusional politics. There is nothing wrong about defending your national interests. In fact, it's the sacred duty of every national leader to defend the interest of her country. The point is to understand national interest properly. It is my national interest that my neighbor can live in peace and prosperity; because, ultimately, I can only live in peace and prosperity when my neighbor lives in peace and prosperity. Thus, my national interests is to promote peace and prosperity abroad. You won't need any walls between the US and Mexico, just like we don't need any walls between Germany and France, if there is peace and prosperity on both sides of the border, or if the difference is not too big.

I wish that were the case Atlantis. But my personal experience tells me that politics in the USA is tainted with some heavily horrible things. Racism, classism and warmongering and drug addiction and dependence, bad values and wanting to dominate. Again sellout crap Atlantis. That is the reality. Pena Nieto pissed off Mexican voters bad. Mainly for being an asskisser. He lost the elections for being an asskissing rich corrupt man with rumours of bisexuality and killing his wife.

It is the reality that those with rotten values in any society will get that reflected in their politics. That is the reality.

[late]

Realpolitik is all about acknowledging national interests. To deny the fact of national interest may sound romantic but is, in fact, a dangerous game, as it leads to delusional politics. There is nothing wrong about defending your national interests. In fact, it's the sacred duty of every national leader to defend the interest of her country. The point is to understand national interest properly. It is my national interest that my neighbor can live in peace and prosperity; because, ultimately, I can only live in peace and prosperity when my neighbor lives in peace and prosperity. Thus, my national interests is to promote peace and prosperity abroad. You won't need any walls between the US and Mexico, just like we don't need any walls between Germany and France, if there is peace and prosperity on both sides of the border, or if the difference is not too big.

Realpolitik tries to get short term gain, at the cost of a larger, long term loss.

You seem a bit confused, because it's not about promoting peace and prosperity.

"The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian."

That's because people that call themselves Realpolitik ARE Machiavellian.

"In either case, the working hypothesis is generally that policy is chiefly based on the pursuit, possession and application of power (see also power politics)."

Our long term interests can be best reached with enlightened self interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

[Tainari88]

Completely agree @Tainari88 on everything you write. This especially. You talk of British or Dutch imperialism being the worse. Both have lost their empires today and only pawns for the true evil. American Imperialism. Nobody is worse than the Yanks today at being users and abusers and Britain and the West are merely yesmen to that empire.

Having said that what surprises me with Blackjack is not that he agrees that the Kurds are nothing to America, but he doesn't care that they have been used for their illegal war and left to rot as they are killed by the Turks. I bet he'd care if they start flying planes into American buildings. Ultimately America is a target for terrorism not because terrorists hate the West. But because the Americans interfere in other peoples lands/politics and then fuck off leaving the mess behind.

Do you think I am going to cry over American imperialists like Blackjack21 who are callous and unfeeling people who only care about their own group?

B0ycey I like you a lot. I am going to be honest with you of why I never considered moving back to my homeland of Puerto Rico. I will be very frank. Mexico is a country with a lot of poverty and so is Puerto Rico now. Mexico has crime. Mexico has problems galore. So does Puerto Rico. But I can't move back to Puerto Rico because I have to deal with the pollution that the Yankee war machine left behind and that killed off my mother. My mother whom I loved more than I can put into words.

The Yanks moved in to Vieques because in order to do well invading Iraq they needed someplace to practice their invasions in.....they chose a beach reknown for its beauty and turquoise waters and its relatively pristine environment. They threw depleted uranium in that beach. It blew over the land and it scared the fish away and made it hard for the native fishermen to fish there....they were told by the Yank gov't. Just get on food stamps and stay out of the bombing range. They kept throwing their chemicals. People got cancer in mass numbers, the children were born with learning disabilities. They were getting cancer at early ages. Dying. One bombing run they killed a security guard by mistake. The locals exploded with anger and they started mass protests...against the USA Navy presence. The USA Navy began arresting people. The Puerto Rican senate got involved, and many others.....mass protests continued demanding they clean it up and stop the contamination. Finally they got an admission that the USA Navy was making money renting out that beach to other armies around the world and that since Puerto Rico is politically powerless and has no voice in congress or the senate? There are no consequences to all that contamination. Many people died of that depleted uranium and it causes aggressive cancers.

My mother died of that cancer. I looked at her dying and thought....they are killing people for their war games. What did they accomplish in Iraq? Did they get control of all the oil? Did they get a stable puppet regime? What exactly did they accomplish with their need to contaminate and dominate except kill off a bunch of people who love their beaches and their island? Nothing really but vanity and chaos.

If I went back to Puerto Rico and have to see closed schools, a destroyed university, 80% unemployment, some conservative asshole governor who was forced to resign and he was the most right of all the Puerto Rican political figures? And he got ousted for corruption...he was favored by Trump initially....lol.

And I have to see the destruction and then some American fools thinking they are going to move in and set up Crytocurrencies and gated communities and not pay taxes and destroy that society completely to go and throw more bombs on the land and not lift up any of the people and just let it all die and destroy and destroy? I would get so furious that I would get VIOLENT. And will start going for some blood. Ugly ugly blood.

And I thought....no. Got a child to think about. Got a life to live. And Mexico is a good spot for Puerto Ricans who are pro independence to land if the Yanks decide to go after the ones fed up with their bullshit and decide to tie themselves to buildings and to protest a lot.

Lol. I am getting Mexican citizenship. The government here in Mexico is run by a socialist. He will cover and protect all the Latin American socialists without exception. Including ours. So? The Yanks are out of luck for the next six years with me.

I don't give a shit about their excuses about being great and envy and whatever....their own bad values will determine how much blowback and violence they will generate. All the lack of caring and callous disregard for human lives and being humane and respectful to the Earth and to other human beings and their homelands? Will have dire consequences for these selfish bastards.

Of that I have no doubts.

This term @late used is very interesting.

It is basically about how to cope with unjust political forces. These politicians all don't pay attention....a nationalist Puerto Rican by the name of Perdro Albizu Campos @B0ycey said famously that the only way to get the Yankees to pay attention to what others wanted was with bullets....he said famously, "Los oidos de los yanquis se abren con balas." I paraphrase...lol.

Why did he say that B0ycey? He said that because they don't respect what they should respect. Civility and civil negotiation. But if someone comes along with a gun and the threat to them is real and they think someone might off them completely...they start considering negotiating with some real thought behind it.

They wait for things like the Civil Rights movement, the Civil War, losing in Vietnam....fiascos in Iraq...etc etc. to finally sitting down and considering that they are making mistakes based on what?

Selfish, short sighted agendas. That go nowhere. Would have gotten way better results by investing in Iraqi infrastructure products and rebuilding and actually being predictable and good stewards of things and being able to hand over power to local people with a lot of dedication to what matters to most human governments. Being able to keep stability, provide jobs, educate, and create sustainable fountains of income and investing in their own people. To be reliable sources of information, understanding, and skills. Real nation building. Not nation destroying chicken shits. But that is what they are.

The Yanks really don't get it do they? They keep up with the go it alone chicken shit selfish war machine drunken sailor spending? The whole thing comes crashing down on them. They alienate enough people? Enough nations? And they will be left in the dustbin of history. Do you know how many wars were fought for power in Mayan history? In Aztec history? In Spanish history? French history? African nations and their many wars for power since Egypt, the Congo, and in South Africa and many places? In China, Japan, and India, etc? How many human civilizations with egos the size of mountains fighting for absolute control of the world and were ultimately not successful and had to go lick their wounds and be like you just described Dutch and British etc ex Empires....lol.

Yet they continue with delusions of grandeur.

The climate change situation is going to be their undoing. If they have too many enemies and they spend the last of their funds on vanity wars? No one is going to cry for them....not Argentina or anyone else....LOL.

Cry for me Argentina....Argentina will just sell their beef to the PRC....


What was the USA someone in the year 2098 asks a history teacher?

A nation that kept thinking it was invincible and kept spending on wars that got them nowhere....

Why? Hubris. They thought they could control the world...but didn't they learn anything from WWII? No, they did not. They thought they were different from the ones who thought a Master Race was possible. They kept with false ideas...what a loss...

Don't cry for me Argentina:

Even Peron never thought Argentina can take over the world. Lol. Got to be realistic @B0ycey

[B0ycey]

Your story reminds me of Marx @Tainari88. I read him again the other day to find relevance with Brexit as it seems to be more of a certainty to happen today than even a month ago. And when he spoke of capitalism as a spectre engulfing the world he wasn't wrong. It infiltrates poor nations and in return they become dependent on it. We lose skills and culture and we become dependent on the system to survive and he saw that and spoke of it. But that isn't to say I am now a Marxist because I do think a free market has its place, but it does annoy me that due to the contradictions found in Capitalism, the US has to poison the well to keep its imperialism pumping - even if that means throwing uranium on other nations beaches. They even sell their shitty toxic banking assets and plunge the global economy into meltdown so the Trumps of the world can build another tower by bankrupting their own people.

[Tainari88]

Your story reminds me of Marx @Tainari88. I read him again the other day to find relevance with Brexit as it seems to be more of a certainty to happen today than even a month ago. And when he spoke of capitalism as a spectre engulfing the world he wasn't wrong. It infiltrates poor nations and in return they become dependent on it. We lose skills and culture and we become dependent on the system to survive and he saw that and spoke of it. But that isn't to say I am now a Marxist because I do think a free market has its place, but it does annoy me that due to the contradictions found in Capitalism, the US has to poison the well to keep its imperialism pumping - even if that means throwing uranium on other nations beaches. They even sell their shitty toxic banking assets and plunge the global economy into meltdown so the Trumps of the world can build another tower by bankrupting their own people.

All the despotic regimes do that thing B0ycey. They are callous and careless even with their own nation's resources and peoples. They can't help being that way...again that value system they have embedded in their brains is dictating their actions.

They should learn from history. They don't. Or they choose to think they are the exception. Human beings genes have not changed that much. Your genes now in this year 2019 is not that different from the genes of someone born in 1890. But the environment does turn on or off specific little markers and tendencies...all of us are linked. Annatar is right about that.