PDA

View Full Version : Trump on ISIS and Assad


phuckphace
October 26th, 2016, 05:53 PM
"Trump says Clinton policy on Syria would lead to World War Three"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-exclusive-idUSKCN12P2PZ

In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, Trump said defeating Islamic State is a higher priority than persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, playing down a long-held goal of U.S. policy.

pretend you have literally no idea who said this and focus on content only: this is quite simply true and you should nod along regardless of your political views. Assad is not and never was a serious threat to American interests, and this isn't pre-2003 when there were plausible-sounding reasons to topple Middle Eastern dictators. there aren't anymore.

Trump questioned how Clinton would negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin after demonizing him; blamed President Barack Obama for a downturn in U.S. relations with the Philippines under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte; bemoaned a lack of Republican unity behind his candidacy, and said he would easily win the election if the party leaders would support him.

“If we had party unity, we couldn’t lose this election to Hillary Clinton,” he said.

party unity will only come once the small-gubmint/neocon cru is [-]purged[/-] ousted. this is a higher priority than defeating Clinton. the holdouts clearly value their ideological purity more than they do the future of the country - and a discredited ideology to boot, wanted by literally nobody except Party donors.

"What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.

I'm holding out hope that our top brass will explicitly disobey any Presidential order that would escalate the situation to nuclear war. it's pretty easy to picture the shitlords at NORAD telling Madame President to fuck off.

"You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.

this is also true. Putin was confirmed for not giving a fuck a long time ago - this is the same guy who (hilariously) brought his dogs to a meeting with Angela Merkel just to fuck with her, knowing that she's afraid of them. you can pretty much bet that going toe-to-toe with Putin won't end on the same note that Iraq and Libya did.

after engaging in baseless fear-mongering about Bush reinstating the draft throughout the 2004 election cycle, the Left has now decided that fear-mongering is, in fact, silly:

Clinton's campaign dismissed the criticism, noting that both Republican and Democratic national security experts have denounced Trump as unfit to be commander-in-chief.

"Once again, he is parroting Putin's talking points and playing to Americans' fears, all while refusing to lay out any plans of his own for defeating ISIS or alleviating humanitarian suffering in Syria," Clinton spokesman Jesse Lehrich said in a statement.

*destroys Libya for no good reason*

it's funny how selective our concerns for some vaguely distant suffering on the other side of the globe can be.

StoppingTom
October 26th, 2016, 09:21 PM
in all seriousness, how in the world do you see military brass explicitly defying the Commander-In-Chief without getting shitcanned or committing suicide with two gunshots in the back of the head

and on that same line of thinking, what makes you think military brass would be more likely to tell someone with Secretary of State experience (she killed bin laden herself, ppl forget that) to fuck off and not doing the same for Trump? pls keep in mind the "hardass football coach/General MacArthur" stereotype is no longer a thing

PlasmaHam
October 26th, 2016, 09:52 PM
I agree very much with your sentiment here. I also find it so typical of Clinton to respond to a policy issue by throwing unrelated insults, like shown in your last quote.

America has almost never had good results in the Middle East. We've arguable made it worse actually. Training and arming Afgan rebels during the Cold War, only to have that used against us. Invading Iraq and leaving a power void that sprung up ISIS. The Middle East has such strong cultural divides that getting rid of one enemy will just result in another.

That is one reason why I don't support getting involved in Syria. Toppling Assad's regime will likely just result in a different dictator from a different cultural group taking over. Assad's regime, while not great, does not seem to be a threat to American interests. We can't guarantee that a rebel-lead government will share that feeling. As we saw in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator can keep a Muslim country in check, give Muslims power and it will just result in a power struggle and oppression by either the Sunnis or Shias.
I'm holding out hope that our top brass will explicitly disobey any Presidential order that would escalate the situation to nuclear war. it's pretty easy to picture the shitlords at NORAD telling Madame President to fuck off.
I really don't see how people keep seeing Trump as the one to start WWIII. Clinton is the one advocating for us to go against another nuclear power for extremely petty reasons. This here is the only real difference I see between Obama and Clinton. Hillary Clinton is far more hawkish than Obama, and I don't trust nuclear codes to someone who is willing to risk so much for so little.


this is also true. Putin was confirmed for not giving a fuck a long time ago - this is the same guy who (hilariously) brought his dogs to a meeting with Angela Merkel just to fuck with her, knowing that she's afraid of them. you can pretty much bet that going toe-to-toe with Putin won't end on the same note that Iraq and Libya did. I have to admit, I admire Putin for being one tough cookie. He'll see through the lies and empty threats that guided Clinton through her Secretary of State career with no difficulty. She will not know how to handle a superior.
it's funny how selective our concerns for some vaguely distant suffering on the other side of the globe can be.Yep, a government possibly using chemical warfare against rebel terrorists? unspeakable. An African slave trade and extreme oppression of women? Not even worth mentioning.
in all seriousness, how in the world do you see military brass explicitly defying the Commander-In-Chief without getting shitcanned or committing suicide with two gunshots in the back of the head Dude, don't you know that anyone that defies Clinton gets two gunshots in the head automatically? There is no need for suicide, just ask James Bunch, Clinton will do it for you!
(she killed bin laden herself, ppl forget that)WOW! Clinton actually killed Bin Laden herself!? I guess Seal Team 6 was just her back-up forces, and I guess the all the other military and government personal tracking down Bin Laden actually just sat around and let Clinton do all the work. Yes! That makes perfect sense, because a career politician should take all the credit for tracking down and planning a precision military strike to take down an international terrorist leader!
pls keep in mind the "hardass football coach/General MacArthur" stereotype is no longer a thing. I have a family friend who just retired from a high military position, he would of lost his career in a second instead of following a completely idiotic order that would threaten society as a whole. So I'm not sure why you think the military will just roll over for the presidency.

Vlerchan
October 27th, 2016, 03:49 AM
I'll write a full response to the broader points later later but two brief reminders:
ISIL is folding in on itself as we speak and this one-or-the-other logic when it comes to it an Asaad is incorrect if not outright disingenuous.
If Asaad wins Russia get naval bases on the Mediterranean and adjacent to the Suez.
---

Bonus reminder#1: Russia has spent most of its history as a consolidated state manoeuvring to hegonomise the Balkans and establish itself over historical-Constantinople for reasons that boil down to believing itself the Orthodox Christian Empire - their claim to legitimacy and rights over their culturally-heterogenous territories. Syrian naval bases in particular place it within striking distance of the Balkans and allow it to effectively pincer the Turks who - Bonus Reminder#2(!) - Russia has been carefully drawing away from its NATO allies.

Bonus Reminder#3: If Russia controls the Balkans and Turkish spaces it can block the supply of trade - in particular: energy - to Europe-proper across land. Recall Reminder#2 that Russia can dock ships adjacent to the Suez: Or, as I like to refer to it, within effective blockade distance.

This got longer than I thought it would but then I figured most of this forum probably needs the dots connected for them. In conclusion: please don't elect the Russophile.

---

(Edit#1: I am also quite sure that Russia will decline as a geo-strategic threat across the next three decades for a number of structural-economic and demographic reasons - same that blight Iran - but in the meantime it's not a state that one should be underestimating. Like sometimes I get the feeling that people think it's in the Middle East out of the goodness of its heart.)

StoppingTom
October 27th, 2016, 07:16 AM
I agree very much with your sentiment here. I also find it so typical of Clinton to respond to a policy issue by throwing unrelated insults, like shown in your last quote.

America has almost never had good results in the Middle East. We've arguable made it worse actually. Training and arming Afgan rebels during the Cold War, only to have that used against us. Invading Iraq and leaving a power void that sprung up ISIS. The Middle East has such strong cultural divides that getting rid of one enemy will just result in another.

That is one reason why I don't support getting involved in Syria. Toppling Assad's regime will likely just result in a different dictator from a different cultural group taking over. Assad's regime, while not great, does not seem to be a threat to American interests. We can't guarantee that a rebel-lead government will share that feeling. As we saw in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator can keep a Muslim country in check, give Muslims power and it will just result in a power struggle and oppression by either the Sunnis or Shias.
I really don't see how people keep seeing Trump as the one to start WWIII. Clinton is the one advocating for us to go against another nuclear power for extremely petty reasons. This here is the only real difference I see between Obama and Clinton. Hillary Clinton is far more hawkish than Obama, and I don't trust nuclear codes to someone who is willing to risk so much for so little. I have to admit, I admire Putin for being one tough cookie. He'll see through the lies and empty threats that guided Clinton through her Secretary of State career with no difficulty. She will not know how to handle a superior.
Yep, a government possibly using chemical warfare against rebel terrorists? unspeakable. An African slave trade and extreme oppression of women? Not even worth mentioning.
Dude, don't you know that anyone that defies Clinton gets two gunshots in the head automatically? There is no need for suicide, just ask James Bunch, Clinton will do it for you!
WOW! Clinton actually killed Bin Laden herself!? I guess Seal Team 6 was just her back-up forces, and I guess the all the other military and government personal tracking down Bin Laden actually just sat around and let Clinton do all the work. Yes! That makes perfect sense, because a career politician should take all the credit for tracking down and planning a precision military strike to take down an international terrorist leader!
I have a family friend who just retired from a high military position, he would of lost his career in a second instead of following a completely idiotic order that would threaten society as a whole. So I'm not sure why you think the military will just roll over for the presidency.

joke
------
your head

Porpoise101
October 27th, 2016, 03:34 PM
pretend you have literally no idea who said this and focus on content only: this is quite simply true and you should nod along regardless of your political views. Assad is not and never was a serious threat to American interests, and this isn't pre-2003 when there were plausible-sounding reasons to topple Middle Eastern dictators. there aren't anymore.

First off, ISIS is deteriorating on all levels. Only a separate, but affiliated organization in its sphere, Boko Haram, is growing. And that is only really operating in the West African Front.

You are correct that Assad was not a serious concern of ours, we only intervened as a favor to the Saudis. Those people we propped up. We made what Saudia Arabia has become, and as such, we want to see a loyal puppet-state (like Israel) to succeed. For the Saudis, success is propagating Sunni-led Islamic governments as a way to combat the Iranians and their system. The Iranians and Russians aren't innocent either, they have ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime, and probably the Houthi rebels in Yemen. You see, this is a new Cold War. You pick the side of the Shi'as and Russia or you pick the side of the oil princes and America. Sadly, stable regimes which are normal are getting ruined on all fronts; states such as Syria and Jordan are just a few sad victims of this new geopolitical struggle.


party unity will only come once the small-gubmint/neocon cru is [-]purged[/-] ousted. this is a higher priority than defeating Clinton. the holdouts clearly value their ideological purity more than they do the future of the country - and a discredited ideology to boot, wanted by literally nobody except Party donors.

I dunno. Both parties seem to be fracturing at the moment. I doubt the Republicans can get it together before next midterm election even.


I'm holding out hope that our top brass will explicitly disobey any Presidential order that would escalate the situation to nuclear war. it's pretty easy to picture the shitlords at NORAD telling Madame President to fuck off.

Well, to be fair to Clinton, she has a reputation of being a good listener. I'm pretty sure that the advisers will get things done properly and they will find a way to avoid nuclear war at the least. I am also confident that Clinton will listen. She may have an agenda, but she won't risk her death (DC would be the first place to get fried in a nuclear war).


this is also true. Putin was confirmed for not giving a fuck a long time ago - this is the same guy who (hilariously) brought his dogs to a meeting with Angela Merkel just to fuck with her, knowing that she's afraid of them. you can pretty much bet that going toe-to-toe with Putin won't end on the same note that Iraq and Libya did.

Putin does care, that is just the image he wants the public at large to see him as. If you see how he operates, he is a vicious opportunist, always taking the perfect opportunity. Be that the ousting of Yanukovich in Ukraine or the protests resulting from the torturing of children by the Syrian government, he has made tactful moves to expand Russia's influence and power.


reinstating the draft throughout the 2004 election cycle, the Left has now decided that fear-mongering is, in fact, silly:

*destroys Libya for no good reason*

it's funny how selective our concerns for some vaguely distant suffering on the other side of the globe can be.

I do not support baseless fear-mongering. Trump does not seem like a person with much know-how in foreign affairs. Granted, he may be decent at finding someone who does.

As for humanitarianism, I think it is definitely worthwhile, especially when done by charities and such. With government it's a little different. To me, it is worthwhile to alleviate the pain of those fleeing certain death.

Vlerchan what you are saying I agree with. If it wasn't for British and French cooperation, the Middle East would have been Russian. Something you missed: The Russians have been searching for warm-water ports with ocean access for their entire existence. Geographic determinists will say that's why they wanted Sevastopol in Crimea for instance. Historically, the Russian Empire gave up on it's quest in the Middle East after they settled with Britain, and they shifted to trying to acquire ports in the broken Chinese Empire. The Japanese put a stop to that. Now that China is a power again, Russia has to look to the Southwest again.

Vlerchan
October 27th, 2016, 05:25 PM
Something you missed: The Russians have been searching for warm-water ports with ocean access for their entire existence.
Is there a special significance to warm-water ports other than what seems blatantly obvious - such as no icing. I had no idea of this anyways.

StoppingTom
October 27th, 2016, 10:57 PM
Is there a special significance to warm-water ports other than what seems blatantly obvious - such as no icing. I had no idea of this anyways.

I'm pretty sure it's just that. People don't want to have to travel all the way to Ymir's butthole to trade things, plus warm water ports=more presence with countries that use that port.

Porpoise101
October 28th, 2016, 03:42 PM
Is there a special significance to warm-water ports other than what seems blatantly obvious - such as no icing. I had no idea of this anyways.
Yeah. It allows for year-round usage without icebreakers, which were only invented in the last century. They have three big ports today: Murmansk (a remote bay in northern Russia), Vladivostok (which can freeze up, on the Pacific), and Sevastopol (in Crimea, but is dictated by the Dardanelles). All of these have limitations. If the Russians have a warm-water port with open sea access they get more efficient/cheaper shipments of goods (don't have to run icebreakers) and strategic military and naval benefits.

phuckphace
November 2nd, 2016, 10:27 AM
I am also quite sure that Russia will decline as a geo-strategic threat across the next three decades for a number of structural-economic and demographic reasons - same that blight Iran - but in the meantime it's not a state that one should be underestimating. Like sometimes I get the feeling that people think it's in the Middle East out of the goodness of its heart.

lol at the bolded bit - Russophiles unironically believe this, I've seen it myself.

for clarification: I'm asserting that Russia and Assad are the lesser of several evils. being a Ba'athist he's infinitely preferable to anything else the Middle East can come up with - towelheads simply cannot maintain a democracy or republic without a strongman at the top to put down sectarian towelhead violence. if Assad loses, Syria is permanently fucked - ISIL may fold but will be quickly replaced by the next ultra-fundamentalist group to come along and the slaughter continues as usual.

conspiracy theories are floating about that the US is fighting a proxy war at the behest of Israel to topple their regional opponents and expand their influence in the region. I'm somewhat skeptical because you hear this from the same people who think Israel is behind everything that goes wrong - but on the other hand, being surrounded by hostile Muslim states isn't a situation anyone wants to be in. I'd put this down as being the snowballing consequences of foreign meddling, and the supposed American interests I think are vastly overstated.

to put it another way, who the fuck cares? we've got our own shit to worry about. we could've already created infinity jobs if we weren't blowing all this cash over there in sandland to no discernible benefit to the common man.

did you know we're at war with Yemen? most Americans don't, and most Americans can't even find Yemen on a map. I'm getting very sick of this shit - I don't care about Yemen and I don't think anybody else I know does either.

Porpoise101
November 2nd, 2016, 04:57 PM
did you know we're at war with Yemen? most Americans don't, and most Americans can't even find Yemen on a map. I'm getting very sick of this shit - I don't care about Yemen and I don't think anybody else I know does either.
Did some looking into this myself a while back. We aren't doing much there (surprisingly). Instead, it is mostly Saudi Arabia's war against rebel groups (propped up by Iran). Now they are droning them to death, including civilians. Somehow, the Saudis are doing a worse job than the US does at not killing civilians.

It's not good news to be sure, but Yemen was a failed state prior to this because of an abortive Arab Spring movement in the country. Things aren't looking much brighter either as they are probably going to be the first country in the world to run out of water in a decade or so.

Stronk Serb
November 6th, 2016, 03:17 AM
Did some looking into this myself a while back. We aren't doing much there (surprisingly). Instead, it is mostly Saudi Arabia's war against rebel groups (propped up by Iran). Now they are droning them to death, including civilians. Somehow, the Saudis are doing a worse job than the US does at not killing civilians.

It's not good news to be sure, but Yemen was a failed state prior to this because of an abortive Arab Spring movement in the country. Things aren't looking much brighter either as they are probably going to be the first country in the world to run out of water in a decade or so.

Well, the Saudis don't care about civilians. It is their little holy war to fight the Shias, just like the Catholics used to crusade against heretics in Bosnia.