living sounds
Well-known member
It's curious how yesterdays problems look suddenly rather quaint. Wow. What's happening these days gives me the creeps.
Donald trump. what is your take on him?
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Yup, worry about Trump instead of that call to prayer thingy down your street.
Winnie's bust back in the Oval Office- CHECK!
44 never understood the presidency. Maybe by his fourth or fifth autobiography?
Winnie's bust back in the Oval Office- CHECK!
44 never understood the presidency. Maybe by his fourth or fifth autobiography?
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
sodderboy said:
#languagebarrier #englishismy2ndlangauge SAD!
DaveP said:
Iranian boats are patrolling their own territorial waters, 10 miles off their coast. Those US warships are 7'000 miles away from US coastlines, passing through the sovereign waters of Iran and Oman. They need the permission of both countries to transit.
Easy to forget the Strait of Hormuz is not an international waterway, and easy to forget the US military can't just do whatever it wants. Nevermind the history of US warships entering Iranian territorial waters and blowing passenger planes out of the sky...
I'm not taking any sides in this Middle-East issue (it's too complicated for any single person understanding it all IMO).mattiasNYC said:
Just saying that the threat of terrorist retaliation should not justify giving up. It would be like letting the bullies intimidate or letting the hoods control a neighborhood for fear of aggravation.
Pls translate in Terranean language...sodderboy said:
Maybe; anyway I wish 45 understands it at least as well as 44...
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
abbey road d enfer said:
I'm confused. Who is the bully in your view? Is it the US that overthrew democratically elected Mossadegh and put a despot in his place? The US that supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran? The US that made deals with Iran so that support could be funneled to Nicaraguan terrorists which even resulted in a ICJ conviction of the US for supporting terrorism? The US that attacked, invaded and occupied TWO of Iran's neighbors?
Or is it Iran, who never did any of the above against the US?
I'm just trying to figure out just who the villain is here and just how that's determined.
As I wrote, I'm not taking any sides. I'm just saying more generally that doing nothing for fear of terrorist reprisal is not a constructive decision, and cannot be the justification for inaction, independantly of whatever alleged or proven guilt, that's all.mattiasNYC said:
living sounds
Well-known member
sodderboy said:
The church?
abbey road d enfer said:
Winnie = that great American Winston Churchill. Obama removed a bust of Churchill from the Oval Office and in its place put a bust of Abraham Lincoln (He also added a bust of MLK to the Oval Office). THE HORROR!!!!!! No wonder America's right wing loons are up in arms.
Of course, there's still a bust of Churchill outside the Treaty Room, but...but...but....
I'm sorry, but of all the idiocy that wingers get in a lather about, that is certainly among the most trivial. At least it actually happened, which is more than can be said of many of the insane conspiracy theories they hold so dear.
musika
Well-known member
For US citizens, you can still sign these petitions on the U.S. White House website (big wheels are slow to change). I've done it and anything is worth a try.
This one to force Trump to divest his business interests:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/divest-or-put-blind-trust-all-presidents-business-and-financial-assets
This one to insist that Trump releases his tax information:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance
This one to force Trump to divest his business interests:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/divest-or-put-blind-trust-all-presidents-business-and-financial-assets
This one to insist that Trump releases his tax information:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance
It starts by not having a selective memory. These are what you forgot to mention:-
US embassy hostage crisis.
Missiles passed to Hezbollah, for proxy war with Israel.
Fomenting trouble in the Yemen for proxy war with Saudi Arabia.
Having a secret nuclear programme.
Arguments are never convincing when you leave out the parts that don't fit your agenda.
DaveP
nielsk
Well-known member
I hoped this would quiet down a little, but I guess that will not happen for some time.
Things I am watching;
The Obama administration released (declassified) the cache of OBL letters/papers on his way out the door. One obvious speculation is there may be something embarrassing in there. OBL had the wikileaks data in his files, and communications (arguments) with the Al quaeda of Iraq, that later morphed into ISIS. Speaking of embarrassing, does anybody think that Russia doesn't have more dirt on Hillary? Academic at this point but they thought she would win so likely held back some dry powder to use for influence later.
Pretty heavy bombing campaign in Libya, with drone follow up to kill ISIS militants. Turkey and Russia performed joint bombing missions on ISIS in Syria. Assad government is buying oil from ISIS which is a major source of revenue for them. The US has supplied so much ordinance in the middle east lately that they had to move some missiles down from storage in europe until they can be resupplied.
A historical number of commutations, including numerous drug convictions involving weapons charges. Draw down on Gitmo (around 40 left), and even commuting Chelsea Manning's espionage act court martial (over Ash Carters objections). Reportedly Julian Assange replied that he would consider transfer to the US if his rights (?) are preserved (he has the right to remain silent.) I don't expect him to get a heroes welcome if he comes here. Still unresolved, Snowden, Bowe Bergdahl, etc... Bergdahl's court martial has been scheduled for Feb 2017, I wonder how mad dog feels about him?
Some continued good news in Mosul as ISIS continues to lose ground. Iraq forces took over Mosul university and shut down the ISIS war college there. They neutralized the car bomb making operation that was used effectively by ISIS. Reportedly ISIS was running short of suicide bomber (seriously
).
Some puke on social media told me I had been "coned", because I was ignorant. I guess it was just a typo. 8)
JR
Things I am watching;
The Obama administration released (declassified) the cache of OBL letters/papers on his way out the door. One obvious speculation is there may be something embarrassing in there. OBL had the wikileaks data in his files, and communications (arguments) with the Al quaeda of Iraq, that later morphed into ISIS. Speaking of embarrassing, does anybody think that Russia doesn't have more dirt on Hillary? Academic at this point but they thought she would win so likely held back some dry powder to use for influence later.
Pretty heavy bombing campaign in Libya, with drone follow up to kill ISIS militants. Turkey and Russia performed joint bombing missions on ISIS in Syria. Assad government is buying oil from ISIS which is a major source of revenue for them. The US has supplied so much ordinance in the middle east lately that they had to move some missiles down from storage in europe until they can be resupplied.
A historical number of commutations, including numerous drug convictions involving weapons charges. Draw down on Gitmo (around 40 left), and even commuting Chelsea Manning's espionage act court martial (over Ash Carters objections). Reportedly Julian Assange replied that he would consider transfer to the US if his rights (?) are preserved (he has the right to remain silent.) I don't expect him to get a heroes welcome if he comes here. Still unresolved, Snowden, Bowe Bergdahl, etc... Bergdahl's court martial has been scheduled for Feb 2017, I wonder how mad dog feels about him?
Some continued good news in Mosul as ISIS continues to lose ground. Iraq forces took over Mosul university and shut down the ISIS war college there. They neutralized the car bomb making operation that was used effectively by ISIS. Reportedly ISIS was running short of suicide bomber (seriously
). Some puke on social media told me I had been "coned", because I was ignorant. I guess it was just a typo. 8)
JR
I am aware of all of that, but the points I mentioned should have been added as well for a balanced view.
Neither do I favour Sunni over Shia, the militant fundamentalists among them are as bad as each other.
Various US governments have intervened in these countries as you say and I don't/didn't approve of any of it. (with the exception of ISIS)
The US is about to build an ABM shield to protect you from North Korea and Iran nukes, so maybe they already have or can acquire the technology and it's no longer a secret.
You seem to have missed the object of the point I made. When weakness is perceived, people take advantage of you. When strength is perceived they don't. I mean the man at the top, not the military.
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
Sorry Dave, there's no selective memory at work here, only putting things into a historical and geographical context. So let's just do that with what you bring up:
DaveP said:
Occurred AFTER the CIA threw out the democratically elected Mossadegh which came to power AFTER the Iranian people threw out the Shah. Sure we do care about cause and effect, and whether or not something is in response to something else, yes?
DaveP said:
Is it your assertion that when a weapon is used by what we presume is an aggressor, whomever sold that aggressor the weapon is fighting a proxy war? Is that the principle you're applying?
If so, shall we look at the history of US arms sales and the resulting usage and thereby confirm which proxy wars the US is fighting?
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I'd like to know if that's how we're supposed to evaluate this.
And again; is this before or after the CIA overthrew Iranian secular democratic leaders?
DaveP said:
- That's the business of the US exactly in what way? Assuming that's 100% true of course.
- Secondly, how do you judge when a nation is allowed to "foment trouble" and fight proxy wars?
And yet again; is this before or after the CIA overthrew Iranian secular democratic leaders?
DaveP said:
Having a nuclear program does not equal having either a nuclear weapons arsenal or even a nuclear weapons program. Do you remember the last time our beloved intelligence agencies supposedly clearly told us someone had WMD stockpiles?
Secondly, Iran is a signatory of the NPT, which prohibits it from acquiring or distributing nuclear weapons. So, again, let's put this in both a geographical and historical context:
- Israel is currently NOT a signatory to the NPT, DOES have nuclear weapons, IS currently engaging in colonialism and land theft in violation of international law. I expect you take a critical view of its actions; but if you do not, I would like to know just why it is justified in its actions yet Iran can't do the same, and if you do I'd expect you to support at least the same actions against it as you'd support against Iran..... so?
- The US is currently a signatory of the NPT and is the only country to ever have used nukes, twice, on a civilian target. The US is the one who overthrew Iranian leadership, invaded and occupied its neighbors. So with this record of not only acquiring nukes and invading countries but also using the worst WMDs known to man on civilian targets, again; why is Iran not justified in developing its own arsenal? Is it because it signed the NPT? If so, it could just withdraw and everything would be fine, no?
DaveP said:
Look, I don't have a damn "agenda", that's just nonsense.
Further more, I'm absolutely 100% willing to stick to one guiding principle and then apply that principle equally to all people regardless of their ethnicity, race or tribal affiliation. You however, and the people with your conviction, are not. I'm sure you will say that you are, but the problem when you apply things universally without regard for what I mentioned, is that you end up with your own kind getting caught in the crossfire so to speak.
So again: You tell me what the principles are, and we can look at each individual case and see how they apply.
Or could it be that;
- "they" are simply "bad" because of what they do
- "we" are simply "good" despite of doing the same
?
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
Dave, I think this is a fallacy, and I think it's due to contemporary media's "journalism".
When you argue in support of action against Iran, it is as a result of something that happened. That in turn necessitates that we view things in a historical context, which in turn necessitates the usage of time which leads to the argument of cause-effect. In other words we support this because they did that.
So again - and I understand that my previous reply is actually now a bit out of sequence - you can't just pile everything up on respective sides of "pluses" and "minuses" without regard for just who did what for what reason and when.
Your reasoning is akin to the Bully's mother saying "Well, I think that in order for us to have a balanced view on this situation we need to take into account Billy's (bully) injuries sustained when Joe (his victim) fought back." In other words, no cause-effect, no recognition of which actions preceded others.
It's similar to a lot of other "journalism" in that "the controversy" should be taught and "all sides" must be represented. But when you have ONE climate scientist explaining global warming and ONE self-proclaimed scientist stating it isn't happening the impression is that there are two sides to the issue, and that there is generally a dispute, because it's about equal support for either position. That's the result of "balancing" the way you appear to be doing it right now.
DaveP said:
Nobody is going to launch any significant military attack against a nation with nuclear weapons. I don't think it has ever even happened. Any serious threat during a military hostility will only result in the usage of said weapons leading to annihilation of at the very least the attacker. The US is safe in that sense.
Other than that I will only note that by continuously electing "strong" leaders we only perpetuate bully behavior, because that's what these leaders are.
PS: It is not without irony that you imply that the weak are bullied by the strong and that strong leadership is necessary as a result of that, because when Iran had a weak democratic secular leadership the CIA overthrew it, which resulted in a stronger leadership, one which the world now is whining about. So, you sort of got what you asked for.
The principles as I see it are that Persia, as it was, was a fairly liberal country under the Shah, women could dress how they liked and had more freedom than they have now. Iran since the religious revolution has followed Saudia Arabia into the suppression of women's rights and freedoms. That is a bad and backward move IMO.
Most of the free world has classified Hezbollah as a terrorist group, Iran supplies them with missiles to fire at Israel, that is another reason I don't like their government.
Obviously, you are correct in judging the US meddling in foreign countries affairs in the past as wrong , they probably thought it was part of the Cold War fight for influence. But I am basically talking about the Obama and Bush years, not further back into Cold War history, Iraq was an ally against Russia back then.
Obama gave weapons to rebels in Syria (some were stolen by hostile groups) as he hoped to unseat Assad, are you saying he was wrong to do that?
It is pointless keeping on going on about the US using nukes twice in WW2, that was well before the current climate and was in a time when entire cities were being destroyed by 1000 bombers at a time, it is no longer relevant to current events, so give it a rest.
Yemen is a very poor country with a water shortage and I think it is being used by Iran to cause trouble for Saudia Arabia as part of a much larger power contest between them in the middle east. This is to counter their support for the anti Assad rebels, I can only infer that if you are an Iran sympathiser, you also support Assad.
I think that Obama knew that Iran had a nuclear weapons programme or else there would have been no point in making an agreement for them to stop it would there?
No I don't think that all countries are the same in terms of stability and maturity to be allowed nuclear weapons, that is why there is a NPT. I think there is a very big chance that there will be a nuclear exchange in the next 20 to 30 years, not between the UN security council members, but by smaller countries. I think that religious fundamentalists are the greatest danger in this respect.
DaveP
Most of the free world has classified Hezbollah as a terrorist group, Iran supplies them with missiles to fire at Israel, that is another reason I don't like their government.
Obviously, you are correct in judging the US meddling in foreign countries affairs in the past as wrong , they probably thought it was part of the Cold War fight for influence. But I am basically talking about the Obama and Bush years, not further back into Cold War history, Iraq was an ally against Russia back then.
Obama gave weapons to rebels in Syria (some were stolen by hostile groups) as he hoped to unseat Assad, are you saying he was wrong to do that?
It is pointless keeping on going on about the US using nukes twice in WW2, that was well before the current climate and was in a time when entire cities were being destroyed by 1000 bombers at a time, it is no longer relevant to current events, so give it a rest.
Yemen is a very poor country with a water shortage and I think it is being used by Iran to cause trouble for Saudia Arabia as part of a much larger power contest between them in the middle east. This is to counter their support for the anti Assad rebels, I can only infer that if you are an Iran sympathiser, you also support Assad.
I think that Obama knew that Iran had a nuclear weapons programme or else there would have been no point in making an agreement for them to stop it would there?
No I don't think that all countries are the same in terms of stability and maturity to be allowed nuclear weapons, that is why there is a NPT. I think there is a very big chance that there will be a nuclear exchange in the next 20 to 30 years, not between the UN security council members, but by smaller countries. I think that religious fundamentalists are the greatest danger in this respect.
DaveP
