Militarists for Peace!

[donquixote99]

I came across this description of a Head of State as a child, age 12: "He is very arrogant, extremely smug and quite taken with himself...is offended at the slightest comment, plays the injured party and more than occasionally gives an impudent answer; furthermore, he is unbelievably lazy and slovenly." link (https://books.google.com/books?id=PkI_2mOMdc8C&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22extremely+smug+and+quite+taken+with+himself% 22&source=bl&ots=AHnShAC-zf&sig=ACfU3U0hCrlNRQBFux5WPMjXoO0qXc8pqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLns6x-ZDhAhWh6IMKHRa5BzIQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22extremely%20smug%20and%20quite%20taken%20with %20himself%22&f=false)

Sounds like someone we now know, but in fact the description is of the future Kaiser Wilhelm II, from his MOTHER, Queen Victoria's daughter Vicky. Wilhelm's character would later be seen as a major cause of WW I.

Trumps personality deficiencies and militarism seem to present a grave danger of history repeating, except the death toll could be in the billions this time, as opposed to WW I's millions. It's ironic that some still repeat the fantasy that he was the 'peace candidate' compared to war-mongering Hillary.

[Dondilion]

Trump militarism?

[donquixote99]

How can you even ask? His bloated defense budgets? His demands for more nukes? His preference for generals as staffers? His policy of militrizing space? His attempt to militarize Pennsylvania ave?

[Dondilion]

His efforts to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan.

[Dondilion]

His efforts not to let Poroshenko use him to serve Poroshenko's local politics.

Space effort is justified in view of China's significant advance in anti satellite warfare.

And are you serious with this Penn business?

Militarists are essentially adventurists; Trump is an isolationist.

[donquixote99]

There are certainly other possible explanations for the cold shoulder for Poroshenko.

It's a judgement call. Penn Avenue serious; we're looking for indicators of mindset and attitude. The military equipment parade wish is indicative of a childish woody for military weapons and display.

[BlueStreak]

I came across this description of a Head of State as a child, age 12: "He is very arrogant, extremely smug and quite taken with himself...is offended at the slightest comment, plays the injured party and more than occasionally gives an impudent answer; furthermore, he is unbelievably lazy and slovenly." link (https://books.google.com/books?id=PkI_2mOMdc8C&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22extremely+smug+and+quite+taken+with+himself% 22&source=bl&ots=AHnShAC-zf&sig=ACfU3U0hCrlNRQBFux5WPMjXoO0qXc8pqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLns6x-ZDhAhWh6IMKHRa5BzIQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22extremely%20smug%20and%20quite%20taken%20with %20himself%22&f=false)

Sounds like someone we now know, but in fact the description is of the future Kaiser Wilhelm II, from his MOTHER, Queen Victoria's daughter Vicky. Wilhelm's character would later be seen as a major cause of WW I.

Trumps personality deficiencies and militarism seem to present a grave danger of history repeating, except the death toll could be in the billions this time, as opposed to WW I's millions. It's ironic that some still repeat the fantasy that he was the 'peace candidate' compared to war-mongering Hillary.

Looks about right.

[BlueStreak]

There are certainly other possible explanations for the cold shoulder for Poroshenko.

It's a judgement call. Penn Avenue serious; we're looking for indicators of mindset and attitude. The military equipment parade wish is indicative of a childish woody for military weapons and display.

I'm waiting for the day, fat ass Donnie Bonespurs shows up in a quasi-military uniform. Maybe something similar to the pansy ass Campus Cadet uniform he chased pussy in as Daddy paid off professors to pass his dumb ass at Wharton.

[donquixote99]

http://www.politicalchat.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3405&stc=1&d=1555281844

This image is popular with the base--there's a market for art prints and hand painted copies in oil!

[Dondilion]

Wilhelm got in trouble essentially because he was an alliance guy. Trump wants to cut alliance.

[finnbow]

Wilhelm got in trouble essentially because he was an alliance guy. Trump wants to cut alliance.

Nope. Like Hitler, he wants an alliance with other despots (Putin, Kim, and the Nationalist numbskulls in Europe and Brazil).

[nailer]

Nope. Like Hitler, he wants an alliance with other despots (Putin, Kim, and the Nationalist numbskulls in Europe and Brazil).

Unlike Adolf, Donald wants Putin to invest in his Russian hotel and resort business. Kim is attention getting theater and a counter punch to keep his enemies off balance. The numbskulls are his base's cousins.

[finnbow]

Unlike Adolf, Donald wants Putin to invest in his Russian hotel and resort business. Kim is attention getting theater and a counter punch to keep his enemies off balance. The numbskulls are his base's cousins.

Hitler and Stalin had a non-aggression pact (until they didn't). No historical parallels are perfect, but there are plenty of similarities between 1930's Germany and today's America.

[Dondilion]

So Trump is both Wilhelm and Hitler. WTF.

[BlueStreak]

So Trump is both Wilhelm and Hitler. WTF.

With an admiration for Mussolini. Yeah, not good. I would say he is also a bit like Tojo except Tojo wasn't a fat, stupid, lazy, draft dodging vagina.

[finnbow]

So Trump is both Wilhelm and Hitler. WTF.

Nope. Trump is an Adolph wannabe, trying to overthrow the establishment (Wilhelm) while the establishment enables it.

[nailer]

Hitler and Stalin had a non-aggression pact (until they didn't). No historical parallels are perfect, but there are plenty of similarities between 1930's Germany and today's America.

You are correct about the similarities, but have a country wrong and the time predates Hitler's Germany. The correct country is America.

What are the historical parallels between the nonagression pact, and Trump and Putin? They don't have to be perfect.

[nailer]

Nope. Trump is an Adolph wannabe, trying to overthrow the establishment (Wilhelm) while the establishment enables it.

Trump's trying to beat up the establishment. The establishment can cope wth a bloody nose, black eye and a few bruises. If Trump is delusional enough to think he can replace the establishment with himself, his cronies and your delusion brown shirts, he's doomed to failure.

[Dondilion]

Trump's trying to beat up the establishment. The establishment can cope wth a bloody nose, black eye and a few bruises. If Trump is delusional enough to think he can replace the establishment with himself, his cronies and your delusion brown shirts, he's doomed to failure.

Trump believes that the establishment is in collusion with our major trading partners, especially the Chinese, to undercut America.

His big disadvantage is that he is garrulous. He does not have the finesse to make his case.

[nailer]

Nope. Trump is an Adolph wannabe, trying to overthrow the establishment (Wilhelm) while the establishment enables it.

Hitler overthrew a weak government. The industrialists went along because he was good for them. The military and bureaucracy for the same reason. Turned out Nazi Germany was not good for them and by the time Germany realized this it was too late.

How is Trump using the establishment to overthrow the government?

[donquixote99]

Trumps goals are different than Adolph's, and his methods not nearly as clever and effective, fortunately. But there are of course similarities in a number of basic values, and methods to a point.

My OP was about basic similarities in personality between Trump and what was noted of Kaiser Bill as a child. The main point is that thinking such personalities are likely to be good at preventing big wars is, on the evidence, misguided.

[Dondilion]

Trumps goals are different than Adolph's, and his methods not nearly as clever and effective, fortunately. But there are of course similarities in a number of basic values, and methods to a point.

My OP was about basic similarities in personality between Trump and what was noted of Kaiser Bill as a child. The main point is that thinking such personalities are likely to be good at preventing big wars is, on the evidence, misguided.

The main point from the OP is that such personalities lead to big wars.

"Wilhem's character would later be seen as a major causeof WW1.

Trumps personality deficiencies and militarism seem to present a grave danger of history repeating, except the death toll could be in the billions this time, as opposed to WW1's millions."


Worse:
"It's ironic that some still repeat the fantasy that he was the 'peace candidate' compared to war-mongering Hillary."

The fact is: Trump was the peace candidate. Every time he reach out to the other major nuclear entity he was hammered for doing so.

[donquixote99]

The main point from the OP is that such personalities lead to big wars.

"Wilhem's character would later be seen as a major causeof WW1.

Trumps personality deficiencies and militarism seem to present a grave danger of history repeating, except the death toll could be in the billions this time, as opposed to WW1's millions."


Worse:
"It's ironic that some still repeat the fantasy that he was the 'peace candidate' compared to war-mongering Hillary."

The fact is: Trump was the peace candidate. Every time he reach out to the other major nuclear entity he was hammered for doing so.

You seem to be suggesting that Trump lacks notable personality deficiencies?

You see him, perchance, as an admirable fellow whose good intentions have been frustrated by cruel, malicious back-stabbing domestic enemies? That is, as he see himself?

That other major nuclear entity rather poisoned the well of amity with its 2016 election interference. Trump's doubtless saintly peace efforts were spoiled by his conduct with regard to same. Maybe you could trust him, but I assure you many others never will.

[nailer]

The main point from the OP is that such personalities lead to big wars.

"Wilhem's character would later be seen as a major causeof WW1.

Trumps personality deficiencies and militarism seem to present a grave danger of history repeating, except the death toll could be in the billions this time, as opposed to WW1's millions."


Worse:
"It's ironic that some still repeat the fantasy that he was the 'peace candidate' compared to war-mongering Hillary."

The fact is: Trump was the peace candidate. Every time he reach out to the other major nuclear entity he was hammered for doing so.

What war are you referencing?

[Dondilion]

We want to peg Trump as a sellout to the other major nuclear power and at the same time promote the idea that he would likely lead us in a war with billions of casualties.


This is what happens when we want our villain to be in all the bad checking areas. It leads to bad analysis.

[Pio1980]

He's pretty much a bumbling clueless arrogant nincompoop.
I expect nothing exhibiting any strategic thinking that doesn't inflate his fragile ego or line his pockets from him, much less anything vaguely in the national interest that doesn't coincide with the previously mentioned priorities.

[bobabode]

We want to peg Trump as a sellout to the other major nuclear power and at the same time promote the idea that he would likely lead us in a war with billions of casualties.


This is what happens when we want our villain to be in all the bad checking areas. It leads to bad analysis.

Who is this mythical "we"? You and your friends in Little Odessa? ;)

[Dondilion]

:oWho is this mythical "we"? You and your friends in Little Odessa? ;)

Time for you to present something substantive to the discussion.


Is Trump a warmonger, who will likely engender a war with billions of casualties or is Trump a sellout a quisling, an appeaser even?

What do you (no mythical) say?

[Dondilion]

He's pretty much a bumbling clueless arrogant nincompoop.
I expect nothing exhibiting any strategic thinking that doesn't inflate his fragile ego or line his pockets from him, much less anything vaguely in the national interest that doesn't coincide with the previously mentioned priorities.
I understand your utter frustration with this guy. Plus you are saying he is essentially a hustler...everthing leads in that direction...no need for complex or possibly bad analysis.
Fair enough.

[Dondilion]

What war are you referencing?

Peace candidate in relation to a possible nuclear conflagration. Notice the use of 'billions'.

[donquixote99]

Dond, you are expecting logical consistency from a person who acts impulsively. And you scoff at billions with regard to a CinC whose been quoted as questioning ' why can't we use nuke ?' And what are you going to do now, go around calling me "Bad Analysis Don?'

This isn't anything deserving the description 'analysis,' this is chatter, but I stand by it.

[Dondilion]

Dond, you are expecting logical consistency from a person who acts impulsively. And you scoff at billions with regard to a CinC whose been quoted as questioning ' why can't we use nuke ?' And what are you going to do now, go around calling me "Bad Analysis Don?'

This isn't anything deserving the description 'analysis,' this is chatter, but I stand by it.

I am reacting to your OP. I agree this is chatter and therefore I am overreacting.
I have great respect for you. You bring quality to this site.

[nailer]

We want to peg Trump as a sellout to the other major nuclear power and at the same time promote the idea that he would likely lead us in a war with billions of casualties.


This is what happens when we want our villain to be in all the bad checking areas. It leads to bad analysis.

It's why he's being conflated with Hitler, which has sure improved WaPo's and NYT's bottom lines.

[nailer]

:o

Time for you to present something substantive to the discussion.


Is Trump a warmonger, who will likely engender a war with billions of casualties or is Trump a sellout a quisling, an appeaser even?

What do you (no mythical) say?

He's none of your multiple choices.

[nailer]

Peace candidate in relation to a possible nuclear conflagration. Notice the use of 'billions'.

He's not a Cold Warrior like Hillary and our congressional warmongers. IOW, peace candidate.

[bobabode]

:o

Time for you to present something substantive to the discussion.


Is Trump a warmonger, who will likely engender a war with billions of casualties or is Trump a sellout a quisling, an appeaser even?

What do you (no mythical) say?

Yawn. Your sentimental love for Putin and his bitch, Trump is quite amusing.

When somebody starts pulling the 'Hillary is a warmonger' schtick out of their ass, you get what you get, tovariche.

[bobabode]

He's none of your multiple choices.

Bingo!

[nailer]

Bingo!

And we don't have a winner. And quit copying off my paper dude. Come on! Let's see a contribution to the discussion.

[donquixote99]

I am reacting to your OP. I agree this is chatter and therefore I am overreacting.
I have great respect for you. You bring quality to this site.


Thanks. I'm sure I over-reacted in turn.

[d-ray657]

I think it is quite possible that Trump can be both a warmonger and an appeaser. It depends on what he sees on Fox news that morning. The only thing he is consistent about is his distaste for immigrants from anywhere but Slovenia. Otherwise he will just spout what he thinks makes him look good. He will associate himself with Putin to look like a tough guy, and threaten to bomb Iran to look like a tough guy.

[nailer]

I think it is quite possible that Trump can be both a warmonger and an appeaser. It depends on what he sees on Fox news that morning. The only thing he is consistent about is his distaste for immigrants from anywhere but Slovenia. Otherwise he will just spout what he thinks makes him look good. He will associate himself with Putin to look like a tough guy, and threaten to bomb Iran to look like a tough guy.

Right on target counselor.

Trump also wants Putin to help make him richer. Putin is rich (potential investor) and can ensure Trump's projects will encounter no government interference.

[BlueStreak]

Hitler overthrew a weak government. The industrialists went along because he was good for them. The military and bureaucracy for the same reason. Turned out Nazi Germany was not good for them and by the time Germany realized this it was too late.

How is Trump using the establishment to overthrow the government?

As in America, German industrialists in the 1930s were to a large degree, the German military industrial complex. So, yes, military build up was a boom to business for them. However, once the tide turned against Germany, allied bombing raids proved disastrous for their bottom line. Also as we've seen in America, Capitalists are not known for their long term vision...……...

It would be more accurate to say Trump is using the Republican Party to destroy American Democracy and put control of the government directly in the hands of American Corporate bosses. Some might call this "Fascism".

I do.

[Pio1980]

As an Obama supporter, it's painful to have some of my reservations on his policies and decisions confirmed by a nonpolitically motivated credible source.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/james-mattiss-blistering-criticism-of-obama/

[donquixote99]

Obama's distaste for geopolitics either went too far, or not nearly far enough.

[Pio1980]

Bergen: Mattis had problems with Trump -- and with Obama, Biden and Bush

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/05/opinions/mattis-had-problems-with-trump-and-with-obama-biden-and-bush-bergen/index.html

[Dondilion]

Generals are not usually the ones to indicate to their nation that it's overextended.

It is illuminating: Mattis is griping about the effect of immigrant/refugee on Europe.

[Dondilion]

Obama always had a measured distaste for anyone who had this strident view of American power. Breedlove comes to mind.

[BigElCat]

I'm glad to see you guys aren't wearing the MAGA ball caps on this website.

Want to post my prediction here, already said it on AK in the gas prices thread.

We (the USA) are going to invade Iran. We'll be in by February, 2020.

IMHO, the refinery 'attack' in Saudi Arabia was a false flag operation. Shit like that is going to keep happening until the invasion starts.

Unfortunately Trump will become more popular.

[JJIII]

Welcome!

[bobabode]

I'm glad to see you guys aren't wearing the MAGA ball caps on this website.

Want to post my prediction here, already said it on AK in the gas prices thread.

We (the USA) are going to invade Iran. We'll be in by February, 2020.

IMHO, the refinery 'attack' in Saudi Arabia was a red flag operation. Shit like that is going to keep happening until the invasion starts.

Unfortunately Trump will become more popular.

Good to see you here, BigElCat. Welcome.

[Pio1980]

Not sure where this belongs, so I'll put it here, with the statement that the most conciously patriotic act I've performed in my entire life was to deliberately vote for Hills over this arrogant incompetent menace.
Retired Marine Gen. John Allen: 'There is blood on Trump's hands for abandoning our Kurdish allies'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/13/politics/syria-marine-general-john-allen-trump/index.html

[bobabode]

Not sure where this belongs, so I'll put it here, with the statement that the most conciously patriotic act I've performed in my entire life was to deliberately vote for Hills over this arrogant incompetent menace.
Retired Marine Gen. John Allen: 'There is blood on Trump's hands for abandoning our Kurdish allies'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/13/politics/syria-marine-general-john-allen-trump/index.html

Seconded.

[BigElCat]

My world POV (point of view) is so bizarre, you guys will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that I'm crazy / delusional.

I almost voted for Hillary just because she had dignity, could act like a Statesperson.

But I couldn't get past the fact that the Clinton legacy / dynasty was funded by the dark money of the narcotics industry. White Water and the whole Savings and Loan Crisis had to with money laundering, IMHO. Everything we know about that was media hogwash.

My vote doesn't count anyway. The democratic electoral votes are suppressed by the republican votes in my state. Has been since before I was born in 1964.

Trump doesn't really make his own decisions. The intelligence community has enough dirt on him they can yank his chain whenever they need to. In his case, it's probably a bunch of compromising pictures, and a financial rug they can pull out from underneath him at any time.

The military/industrial complex wants a war. Iran is a good choice. I'm on board only to extent that Iran's nuclear facilities should be destroyed. The gratuitous 'blowing up' of everything else will be sad.

[Pio1980]

We were on the road to rapprochement with Iranian moderates before the vainglorious babbling incompetent nitwit blew it up and pushed them out of play for the hard liners.
Until then, the impending nuke problem was in North Korea with his fellow authoritarian bestie.

[BigElCat]

But North Korea is not a threat to Israel. Iran is.

We all live at the mercy of the Rothschild's monetary supply. The World Bank and the IMF.

I only worry about Korea in the event of WW3. North Korea will attack South Korea when China goes for Taiwan. Might happen if the USA forces are mired down somewhere else.

Iran wouldn't be any more difficult to take down than Iraq, but I bet they have a few surprises up their sleeve.

[Pio1980]

But North Korea is not a threat to Israel. Iran is.

We all live at the mercy of the Rothschild's monetary supply. The World Bank and the IMF.

I only worry about Korea in the event of WW3. North Korea will attack South Korea when China goes for Taiwan. Might happen if the USA forces are mired down somewhere else.

Iran wouldn't be any more difficult to take down than Iraq, but I bet they have a few surprises up their sleeve.

Financial internationaism is a reality of world citizenship and trade, regardless of the names, it used to be Morgan here. Rothschild was a German Jewish ragpicker that exploited an opportunity that built an international banking empire, another name. Trash salvage, entertainment, and finance were the only occupations good Christian society permitted Jews, as usury was beneath such fine folk. Americans were less fastidious in that respect, without losing the stick up their own ass in others related to interpersonal relations and race.

Attacking Iran without taking full responsibility for the consequences, foreseen and otherwise, will give us another Iraq morass entanglement. I'd rather another reset with the moderates.
North Korea could set the entire far East and our relationship with it on fire, assuming our babbling nincompoop doesn't destroy that first.

[Pio1980]

Seconded.
From, of all sources, the American Enterprise Institute;

https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/on-kurds-and-normandy-alliances-and-abandonment/

[BigElCat]

Strategically, the invasion of Iraq was a complete success.

It's weak, destabilized, and available for use as a corridor for a larger Middle East war.

I'm not going to debate the morality of war, or even think about how the world would be if I was in charge. I'm just going talk what I think is going to happen.

[BigElCat]

The US betrayed the Kurds during the Iraq war.

They're not surprised this time either.

[Pio1980]

The US betrayed the Kurds during the Iraq war.

They're not surprised this time either.

Lessons learned by all and sundry, we are isolating ourselves from any/all meaningful alliances of any lasting consequence.
Iraq is a mess of wreckage from our own doing, it will become what it will become without us, and keep the oilfields that were supposed to be the purpose spoils of the invasion.

[BigElCat]

Keeping the oil fields would not have gone over very well with the rest of OPEC, or Russia, or anybody.

That would have been funny, though. Tell the Sauds "We're going to keep this one".

I guess we could have made it the 51st State.

Alliances come and they go. The US over-powered England and France during the Suez Crisis. We would have fought them if they didn't back down.

Our alliance with Israel is the only one that is unshakable, as far as I can tell.

[Pio1980]

Keeping the oil fields would not have gone over very well with the rest of OPEC, or Russia, or anybody.

That would have been funny, though. Tell the Sauds "We're going to keep this one".

I guess we could have made it the 51st State.

Alliances come and they go. The US over-powered England and France during the Suez Crisis. We would have fought them if they didn't back down.

Our alliance with Israel is the only one that is unshakable, as far as I can tell.

Probably, but it isn't reasonable for them to expect us to rubber stamp anything and everything they do because of that assumption, including land grabs.

[bobabode]

From, of all sources, the American Enterprise Institute;

https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/on-kurds-and-normandy-alliances-and-abandonment/

A conservative voice whinging in the wilderness. Too bad those feckers have been busy little bees tearing down the constitution and buying up the media and airwaves since Nixon.

[Oerets]

Our alliance with Israel is the only one that is unshakable, as far as I can tell.


Bet ya after Mr T stabbed the Kurd's in the back last week every country is now rethinking USA and it's word. May be it is better to build a Tower in their capital anymore.

[Pio1980]

Re Iran;
The consequences of our problematic relation is purely of our own doing, and ours to undo with realistic diplomacy. Otoh, 9-11 was purely the product of Saudi salafist radicals, with planes hijacked by Saudi nationals. Al Quaida is a Saudi Salafist creation.
I assume Trump has holdings in Saudi Arabia and none in Iran, hence the misdirection, aided by Russian trolls.

[Dondilion]

Strategically, the invasion of Iraq was a complete success.

It's weak, destabilized, and available for use as a corridor for a larger Middle East war.

I'm not going to debate the morality of war, or even think about how the world would be if I was in charge. I'm just going talk what I think is going to happen.

John Bolton 2nd ?

[Dondilion]

Iraq was once Sunni dominated and a counter to Iran. Now it is Shia governed and with close links to Shia Iran.

[finnbow]

Iraq was once Sunni dominated and a counter to Iran. Now it is Shia governed and with close links to Shia Iran.

And that was the problem with Iraq. 30% of the population (Sunni) dominated 70% of the population (Shia). That's a recipe for disaster preordained by how the victors in WWI drew borders in the Mideast.

[BigElCat]

Iran had a fairly astute political leader some 70 years ago.

He wanted to be in charge of his own country, Nationalized the oil industry.

We couldn't allow that. Blowback gave rise to radicalized influence in Iran.

John Bolton 2nd ? Hardly.

[finnbow]

Iran had a fairly astute political leader some 70 years ago.

He wanted to be in charge of his own country, Nationalized the oil industry.

We couldn't allow that. Blowback gave rise to radicalized influence in Iran.

John Bolton 2nd ? Hardly.

An understatement, to be sure. We and the British orchestrated a coup of Mohammad Mosaddegh, the first democratically elected leader in the Mideast, in order to maintain control of Iranian oil.

[BigElCat]

When I said I wouldn't speculate on what we should do, I guess I lied.

First thing we need to do is get those old gravity dropped nuclear warheads out of Turkey.

They say we have 50 to 60 Big Bombs warehoused there, waiting to be stolen.

We're on the brink of a major Middle East war. We're withdrawing from Syria because of the build up in Saudi Arabia. People think it's because Trump is stupid. I'm telling you, he's a puppet. The perfect CIC to get us into a war. And if he can't get us out, it doesn't matter to the people in charge.

If Erdogan gets those warheads, somebody will be obligated to bomb the snot out of Turkey.

[BigElCat]

Ah.

Now I see my discussion should be in one of the other sub-forums.

The history that brought us to this point is very relevant. I've read T.E. Lawrence, and several books about the history of the oil industry.

[Dondilion]

Strategically, the invasion of Iraq was a complete success.



How a complete success when the outcome increased considerably Iran's influence in the region?

Iraq now is to some degree an extension of Iran.

[BigElCat]

How a complete success when the outcome increased considerably Iran's influence in the region?

Iraq now is to some degree an extension of Iran.

Success from 'militaristic' point of view.

Didn't you ever play the game Risk?

It was Iraq first, now Iran.

You realize we've been assisting the Saud's fight with Iran in the country of Yemen. And ISIS is supposedly backed by Iran.

[BigElCat]

Here's the history of why Saudi Arabia wants Iran to go down;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations

Coincidentally, the Political Zionists (Israel) also want to ensure that Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons.

As they say, "my enemy's enemy is a friend of mine".

[donquixote99]

http://www.politicalchat.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3423&stc=1&d=1571513976

[Oerets]

Wouldn't you just love playing poker with these guys!

[BigElCat]

A little more weight to my prediction.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bad-news-israel-iran-missile-092200808.html

The Republicans stuck by President Trump at the latest impeachment circus.

I'm thinking we'll see a major war in the spring of 2020.

This is relevant to the 'history' sub-forum, because history repeats.

[Pio1980]

Trump's chaotic arrogance-driven toxic incompetence is the worst substitute for responsible informed leadership imaginable. Yet, this fails to sink in to the self-styled party of "patriotic values".

[donquixote99]

So far, for them, Trump = victory. To PROFESSIONAL politicians, nothing else matters enough to overcome that.

[barbara]

If they were professional politicians they would put country over self interest.

[donquixote99]

If they were professional politicians they would put country over self interest.
There's more that one meaning for 'professional.' There's the sense that means doctors, CPAs, and others that have official codes of ethics and authority to police their own ranks. But politicians are professionals more in the sense of 'sex workers.'

[JJIII]

Bam!


...

[Pio1980]

There's more that one meaning for 'professional.' There's the sense that means doctors, CPAs, and others that have official codes of ethics and authority to police their own ranks. But politicians are professionals more in the sense of 'sex workers.'

Especially those that serve to pleasure this "president".

[BigElCat]

The USA is ramping up slowly. We're not going to deploy 50,000 troops. Not at the same time. I bet it's going to build to 50,000 by Christmas.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-military-sending-thousands-troops-083000113.html

[donquixote99]

50,000 is a lot. Would take longer than that.

[BigElCat]

50,000 is a lot. Would take longer than that.
In 1990, we put 500,000 soldiers into Saudi Arabia in 5 months. We could do it faster this time, because that infrastructure is still available (AFAIK).

The 3000 that were recently transferred to Saudi Arabia are (if my prediction is correct) getting the place ready for a large build up.

[donquixote99]

I stand corrected.

[Pio1980]

In 1990, we put 500,000 soldiers into Saudi Arabia in 5 months. We could do it faster this time, because that infrastructure is still available (AFAIK).

The 3000 that were recently transferred to Saudi Arabia are (if my prediction is correct) getting the place ready for a large build up.
What drives present foreign policy?
Guess.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/18/donald-trump/donald-trumps-claim-no-financial-interests-saudi-a/

[Dondilion]

What drives present foreign policy?
Guess.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/18/donald-trump/donald-trumps-claim-no-financial-interests-saudi-a/
Such a weak article.

[Chicks]

Such a weak article.

Laughable, typically meaningless comment from someone who takes a buffoon like Fucker Carlson seriously. You’re hopelessly misguided.

[Pio1980]

Such a weak article.

Not at all, the obvious point of just this one of many examples is that this grifter's personal interests literally "trump" those of the Nation and hard-won long term relationships.
Absolutely deservedly impeachable under the laws of the Republic of laws.

[Dondilion]

Not at all, the obvious point of just this one of many examples is that this grifter's personal interests literally "trump" those of the Nation and hard-won long term relationships.
Absolutely deservedly impeachable under the laws of the Republic of laws.

Re Saudi Arabia there is nothing to "trump". Trump's support for the Saudi is consistent with what underpins the support of other admins, dems and repubs.

[finnbow]

Re Saudi Arabia there is nothing to "trump". Trump's support for the Saudi is consistent with what underpins the support of other admins, dems and repubs.

Other administrations didn't greenlight and/or excuse the murder and dismemberment of a US resident by the Saudi government.

[Dondilion]

Other administrations didn't greenlight and/or excuse the murder and dismemberment of a US resident by the Saudi government.

Up to now 9/11 is wrapped in classified re the Saudis.

[Pio1980]

Up to now 9/11 is wrapped in classified re the Saudis.
Since Saudi Salafists were responsible.

[bobabode]

Up to now 9/11 is wrapped in classified re the Saudis.

Lemme guess... it's Obama's fault. :rolleyes:

[BigElCat]

Up to now 9/11 is wrapped in classified re the Saudis.
I think Michael Moore was telling the truth in Fahrenhype 451 re; the Bin Laden family. They were the only people exempt from the 'no fly' emergency following 9/11.

Ironic that a family member is said to be responsible for the attack.

[Pio1980]

I think Michael Moore was telling the truth in Fahrenhype 451 re; the Bin Laden family. They were the only people exempt from the 'no fly' emergency following 9/11.

Ironic that a family member is said to be responsible for the attack.

I'll go with this for now:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/flights-of-fancy/

[Pio1980]

It is difficult to credit folks who blindly refuse to recognise the arrogant narcissistic blatantly incompetent buffoon in the WH as anything other than the obvious.

[BigElCat]

I stand corrected; not 'exempt' but among the first to be flying when the ban was lifted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversies

[Pio1980]

I stand corrected; not 'exempt' but among the first to be flying when the ban was lifted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversies
Technically a strategic ally, so awkward to say the least. Our relationship with the Kingdom has always had an awkward aspect, 9-11 compounded it.

[JONRID]

The USA is ramping up slowly. We're not going to deploy 50,000 troops. Not at the same time. I bet it's going to build to 50,000 by Christmas.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-military-sending-thousands-troops-083000113.html

TRUMP IS PULLING US TROOPS OUT - NOT ADDING TROOPS.

Trump doesn't give a whit about nation building for a bunch of goat herders.

Being a businessman Trump only sees the mid east as a bunch of oil fields. We will send enough troops to protect the oil - that's it, and bring the rest home.

It's Liberals wetting their pants over human rights that think we can turn bunch of tribal shepherds into a democracy.

[finnbow]

It's Liberals wetting their pants over human rights that think we can turn bunch of tribal shepherds into a democracy.[/COLOR][/B]

Actually, that was precisely the theory behind the NeoCon's "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

[BigElCat]

Actually, that was precisely the theory behind the NeoCon's "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

It was the NeoCons, but that was more propaganda than theory, IMHO.

When the USA supplied weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq War, and I think they realized that our Armed Forces would most likely be facing the 'winner' of that conflict at a later point in time.

Sadam annexed/over-ran Kuwait in a desperate attempt to repay the debt from that war.

I think we wanted to weaken the military powers in that region. For all I know, that might not have been a bad idea.

[Pio1980]

I suspect our nonresponse to Saddam's gestures to annex Kuwait was intended a green light for the invasion, as a pretext to justifiably make a unified sanctioned military response to decimate and neutralize Iraqi military forces.

[BigElCat]

I suspect our nonresponse to Saddam's gestures to annex Kuwait was intended a green light for the invasion, as a pretext to justifiably make a unified sanctioned military response to decimate and neutralize Iraqi military forces.
And yet, the Kuwaitis adore us as liberators.

I guess some things are better left unsaid.

[BigElCat]

I said the Iran/US war would kick off in Feburary, 2020. Made the prediction months ago.

The fact we did not do a massive build-up (like prior to Dessert Storm) is not good.

The USA will lose many more troops than the 1100 killed in that war. And that's at the beginning of the conflict. It's going to get ugly.