monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Lash wrote:
I don’t think it’s because we support moderate countries.

Opposition to democracy is the reason why they attack us. They want Islamic State to govern them, and we try to make them have freedom and democracy.

Lash wrote:
I think it’s because we murder their families by remote control.

Self defense is hardly murder.

And they attacked us first, in response to our support for freedom and democracy. Our dronestrikes are the defense that came after they started murdering us.

Lash wrote:
Ask yourself how you’d respond.

I'd not have been attacking freedom and democracy in the first place.

You can’t possibly believe something so simplistic.

There is a long, ruthlessly embarrassing history between our country and the people of the Middle East.

I used to hate it when people would throw down an encyclopedia full of **** as a part of a conversation.

I don’t expect you to read this now, but if you want to speak about this issue with any real credibility, you must know this first. If you decide to read it and verify the facts presented and then respond, I’ll be glad to talk about it.

I strongly prefer that these things weren’t true, but that’s an asinine world to
live in.

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/ancient-history-us-conduct-middle-east-world-war-ii-folly-intervention

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

And they attacked us first, in response to our support for freedom and democracy.

You keep advancing this vicious lie when you have not the slightest bit of evidence to back up your notion. In fact you desperately flee from numerous chances given to you to support this evil lie.

How has it come to be that supposedly rational, thinking adults cannot grasp that it is totally impossible for Arab hijackers to have been involved because they simply cannot have melted or vaporized WTC steel?

Who among you can't see how totally flimsy, how totally nonexistent is evidence for the USGOCT?

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

You can’t possibly believe something so simplistic.

Why not? It's true.

Lash wrote:

There is a long, ruthlessly embarrassing history between our country and the people of the Middle East.

I see no cause for embarrassment.

Lash wrote:

I used to hate it when people would throw down an encyclopedia full of **** as a part of a conversation.

I don’t expect you to read this now, but if you want to speak about this issue with any real credibility, you must know this first. If you decide to read it and verify the facts presented and then respond, I’ll be glad to talk about it.

I already know about it. I also already have real credibility on this issue. But I'll be happy to respond to the article.

Lash wrote:

I strongly prefer that these things weren’t true, but that’s an asinine world to live in.

Actually one of them isn't true. The Iran coup nonsense in that article is a work of fiction.

Anyway, here is my response to the article:

The article's first complaint is that we protect the world's oil supply from being controlled by evil dictators. That is actually a good thing. It also fits with my point about the US being a positive force in the region.

The article's second complaint is about the Iranian coup. However, its description of the coup is a work of fiction.

In reality the primary drivers of the 1953 coup were the same Iranian clerics who rule Iran today. Outsiders played only a minor role.

The US also started off trying to mediate and avoid the coup, and only switched to supporting the coup when it was clear that the Iranian clerics were going to overthrow their government with or without us.

The article also neglects to mention the fact that British claims to the oil were legitimate. It was wrong for Iran to steal the UK's oil, and reasonable for the UK to want to act against this theft.

The article's next complaint is Israel. Half the article is whining about Israel. Suffice it to say that Israel are the good guys, and the Arabs are evil aggressors who will not stop attacking Israel. The US is completely in the right on this front.

The article's next complaint was the Suez crisis. The US certainly isn't to blame for that. That's down to France and the UK.

France and the UK had a legitimate grievance. It is wrong for Arabs to steal other people's property, and quite reasonable for people to act against their theft when they do so.

The article's last complaint (besides returning to Israel over and over again) is that the US opposed Communism. That as well was a good thing. The Soviets were a malign power out to destroy us.

So in summary, the article is wrong about the 1953 Iranian coup. Otherwise it refers to incidents where the US was a force for the cause of good.

0 Replies

So, rather than attacking us ‘for our freedom’, you’d admit that Middle Eastern citizens attack us because we’ve been conducting military interventions, some of them quite massively violent, in order to maintain lucrative connections to regional oil?

You just think that’s our right.

Your claim that ‘they attacked us first’— you do see that our controlling, meddling, regime changing, etc went on for decades before they responded violently.

2 Replies

Giving credit where it is due:

Quote:

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway says she has "no reason not to believe" the women who accused White House aide Rob Porter of domestic abuse.

"In this case, you have contemporaneous police reports, you have women speaking to the FBI under threat of perjury ... you have photographs, and when you look at all of that pulled together, Rob Porter did the right thing by resigning," Conway said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"I have no reason not to believe the women," Conway added.

CNN

0 Replies

Trump’s History of Defending Men Accused of Hurting Women

Quote:

Rob Porter is ‘very sad now’ ...
Roy Moore ‘totally denies it’ ...
For Al Franken, the ‘picture is really bad’ ...
Bill O’Reilly ‘is a good person’ ...
Roger Ailes ‘helped’ some of his accusers ...
‘How do you know those bruises weren’t there before?’ ...
... ... ...

0 Replies

Apparently some people who voted for Brexit say if there was a second vote on the referendum they would vote to stay.

As Britain Stumbles Over Brexit, Support Grows for 2nd Vote (NYT)

Quote:

FFORESTFACH, Wales — In a 2016 referendum, Stephanie Holtom voted to leave the European Union, worried about immigration and convinced that other countries were telling the British government what to do.

But outside a supermarket recently in a large, suburban strip mall not far from the Welsh city of Swansea, Ms. Holtom conceded she might have been wrong.

“I agreed to come out of Europe, but I am beginning to have second thoughts. I think it’s a mess, and I’m sick to death of it,” said Ms. Holtom, who is retired, as she collected her shopping cart. She added that, if there were a second referendum, “people would vote to stay.”

0 Replies

I think I am beginning to see (with all the news it is hard to keep with the news which actually have an impact) why democrats seem to have dropped the urgency over immigration. It is because of the court ruling by federal court judge in San Francisco blocked Trump's action on the grounds that young immigrants would suffer "irreparable harm."

AP FACT CHECK: Why Trump's March 5 deadline is all but moot (abc news)

But wouldn't treating that ruling like a fix be a bit of a danger? Say March 5th comes and goes, soon a higher court ruling might rule the other way. Then it will be too late, all the dreamers will then be deported.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Quote:

Say March 5th comes and goes, soon a higher court ruling might rule the other way.

You can usually count on higher courts to do what is sensible, just, fair, decent, but that comes with a caveat - it is the USA.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

So, rather than attacking us ‘for our freedom’, you’d admit that Middle Eastern citizens attack us because we’ve been conducting military interventions, some of them quite massively violent, in order to maintain lucrative connections to regional oil?

For Iraq, the UK and the USA have been there stealing their oil wealth since 1926.

Quote:

You just think that’s our right.

oralloy is hardly alone. Really none of us have been speaking out for what has essentially been over a century of US/UK/Australia/Canada/... Nazism.

It's not just the ME, it has been Central and South America, SE Asia, Africa, pretty much the whole world that has been brutalized with the exception of WHITE countries.

Quote:

Your claim that ‘they attacked us first’— you do see that our controlling, meddling, regime changing, etc went on for decades before they responded violently.

And oralloy is dead wrong on that. It was as big a false flag as the Gulf of Tonkin, the Maine, ... .

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

So, rather than attacking us ‘for our freedom’,

Not for our freedom. For our support of freedom. They want to be governed by Islamic State. We force them to be governed by sane governments that value human rights.

Lash wrote:

you’d admit that Middle Eastern citizens attack us because we’ve been conducting military interventions, some of them quite massively violent, in order to maintain lucrative connections to regional oil?

You just think that’s our right.

It IS our right.

The world has every right to prevent fanatics and evil dictators from seizing control over the world's energy supplies.

Lash wrote:

Your claim that ‘they attacked us first’— you do see that our controlling, meddling, regime changing, etc went on for decades before they responded violently.

That's like a bank robber who murders a police officer claiming that the police officer interfered with his robbery before he killed him.

Us imposing sane governments on people who want to be governed by Islamic State is not justification for them murdering people.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

For Iraq, the UK and the USA have been there stealing their oil wealth since 1926.

Hardly theft for the UK to purchase oil in a fair deal.

What was theft was Iran keeping the oil after the UK paid for it.

The US has never stolen any oil either.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Military occupation, US/UK brutal always right wing dictatorships, do not talk of buying anything.

People who create death squads, like in Indonesia, that saw people beheaded, garroted, hacked to death, saw the US/UK proxies bragging about watching US gangster movies for new and inventive ways to slaughter people, are not people who are interested in 'buying' anything.

1 Reply

@camlok,

We pay fair market value for our oil.

That means we buy it fairly.

1 Reply

Geebus! Even grow a set couldn't get this thread so far off topic.

Seems the MSM is now blaming prez Trump for historical sex abuse by people he had no contact with.

I guess, when you're under the pump for historical crimes yourself, you need some scapegoats to take the heat off yourself.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Quote:

Seems the MSM is now blaming prez Trump for historical sex abuse by people he had no contact with.

No, he's being attacked because his behavior and statements suggest that he doesn't take sexual harassment and abuse seriously. To be fair(ish) he's in a bad position, his history of similar crimes buzzing around him like a swarm of
bung flies and the fact that they are people on his team who served loyally. He'll bob and weave for a while and hope that maybe the story will go away.

2 Replies

@hightor,

I'd say the reason he is being attacked is because liberals are lunatics who attack decent people.

False accusations from feminist nutcases shouldn't be taken seriously.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

No, he's being attacked because his behavior and statements suggest that he doesn't take sexual harassment and abuse seriously.

Maybe he should get his old mate Hillary on the job. She has a ****-ton of experience defending sex offenders.

And here's one for the BBC fans.

https://aangirfan.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/the-mccanns-versus-worlds-biggest-mafia.html?spref=fb

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Well, Finn, if these opinion columns, commentaries, and puff pieces bug you that much, maybe you should wait until the investigation has concluded. I don't know why this particular piece is any worse than the crap that was regularly being floated about the Nunes memo by rightists here and all over the web. I think everyone realizes that journalists are treading water when they write reviews of other people's reviews of shows they haven't even seen or books they haven't read. It's all very "meta", and it's analogous to cows chewing cud while awaiting entrance to fresh pasture.

Finn wrote:

In the wake of the Nunes memo, Resistance soldiers in the media have been scrambling to conduct damage control. This article is little more than an attempt to rally any among the troops whose morale of commitment to The Truth may be flagging.

Time to drop the silly "Resistance" meme. And time to open your eyes — the Nunes memo was a bust. There was no need to "rally the troops" because the memo failed to live up to its hype.

Finn wrote:

In reality it is not only an attempt to mischaracterize the status and results of the investigation thus far, it is an effort to make the case through speculation, presumption, biased opinion and innuendo that Trump associates and Trump himself is guilty as hell of criminal and corrupt activity. You, blatham and the Junior Mounties all admire it so much because it succeeds in its attempt and it is that, and not the truth, which you so fervently desire

Yeah, okay. And no one on your side ever does anything remotely similar, I'm sure. As I said, if this sort of thing annoys you, don't read it. Use the convenient "thumb down" feature rather than wasting your time responding to a speculative opinion piece as if it were a doctoral thesis.

NORMAN L. EISEN, CAROLINE FREDRICKSON and LAURENCE H. TRIBE wrote:

As public scrutiny exposes deep flaws in the memo from the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, about alleged F.B.I. surveillance abuses, the committee’s Republicans are increasingly downplaying its significance. Mr. Nunes’s colleagues are right to seek some distance from this caper — not to mention other similar memos he has hinted at releasing. That’s because by writing and releasing the memo, the chairman may just have landed himself, and his staff members, in the middle of Robert Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation.

op cit

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Time to drop the silly "Resistance" meme. And time to open your eyes —

Good point, hightor! And not just Finn, right?

Did you delete that post of yours?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know