monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

From hither and thither on the insane (insaner?) right

Quote:

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL).

TPM
As you'll see at the link, even Ann Coulter is pissed off at Trump now. But the main reason I quoted the above is to point to the flagrant misuse of the term "neoconservative". It is misused above and it is misused commonly by people who just have been too lazy to do some reading. While McCain and Rubio share some limited notions with neoconservatism, they aren't the thing. And earlier, someone described Trump and Hillary as neoconservative and that's way off the beam. "Neoconservative" does NOT mean ready to use the military.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you consider the many killings ( both intended and unintended) involved in Obama's many drone assassinations to have been murder as well ? If so it's odd that you didn't complain about them.

Remove your head from your tuchas. There was a lot of loud criticism from the left over Obama's addiction to the drone and the indiscriminate abuse of remote bombing military and civilian targets.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

If it wasn't for our natural borders, we'd be living in a war zone.

Right, which is why it's imperative that we eliminate those "unnatural" borders on our north and south sides. It's just that it's so hard to decide which enemy to invade and eliminate first--hosers or pepper-bellies.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Sturgis wrote:
I did complain about the drone killings under Obama.

Why? Dead terrorists are good terrorists.

We've killed a lot of women and children. Their sons and brothers are coming for you.

Yeah. That's the best way to grow a bumper crop of terrorists.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It is impossible to tell which is why it's not worth speculating about. Over the last ten years or so who knows what sort of mischief Saddam could have caused.

Qadafi's fall was all Hillary Clinton's doing...with help from the savage locals.
She wanted a notch in her belt.

And what a wonderful notch to have. The victims of Lockerbie all rest easier now.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

I realize that mentioning WWIII seems hyperbolic, but who doesn't see the progression?

Anyone who is watching the news.

Quote:

Why would Assad gas his people?

Really? Why did he do it the first time?

It's very effective, and after he heard Trump Administration officials talking about how the US didn't really care about the war in Syria, he saw it as a green light.

Quote:

So if he had no reason to gas his people, think about who did.

A rag-tag rebel group who can't possibly have access to chemical weapons?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

giujohn wrote:
I recognize the sarcasm...I'm making an additional point.

No sarcasm. I like the idea of toppling bad guys without sticking around to do "nation building" afterwards.

Imagine if we'd put a bullet in Saddam's head the same day we captured him and then brought all our troops home from Iraq before Xmas 2003.

It does have a certain allure...But I'm thinking about putting an end to radical Islamic doctrine by allowing Muslims to exercise their religion freely...Until they start killing in the name of God. Them I want them to feel the swift lawful boot of American justice on their ******* neck. They need to be civilized or eradicated. No more different that the Nazis or Tojos minion's.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Military force is an unfortunate, but necessary tool of diplomacy, but it's of little use if it isn't widely seen being used.

Right. Who was it that first called American battleships "an acre of floating diplomacy" (sumthin like that)? Whoever it was got it right.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

oralloy and guijohn can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Trump's approval rating by the majority of Americans is in the dumps in historic terms.
Nothing like living in an alternative reality.

He now struck at Syria without congressional approval. That was illegal.

So go call a cop.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Ya gotta admit. Hes Obama "light" now. (Of course , except for the pathological lying and narcissism thing)

4 Replies

@farmerman,

Alt-right turns on Donald Trump.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2017/04/alt-right-turns-on-trump-over-syria-strikes.html

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The proof in the pudding is that with all of Obama's brainy and measured use of the military, all of our global foes became more bold and brazen during his administration.

As opposed to when Bush held office when they weakened, reduced in numbers and ran for cover? That's not close to being a description of reality.

The primary failing in your notion, shared by many on the right, is using simplistic framings of these matters for your cognitive convenience. Trump and Trump supporters can and surely will go forward with the idiotic confidence spouted by Cheney and Rumsfeld et al re how easy it will be to solve the problems of the middle east and of Muslim (or other) perceptions that America is an entity which produces evil in the world and is thus an entity which must be engaged as an enemy. And this will be accompanied by an emotional satisfaction in acting punitively - which is a consistent motivation of many on the right.

2 Replies

@layman,

Mad Dog got it right when he said (paraphrasing):

Quote:

Be professional. Be courteous. But have a plan to kill everyone in the room before you walk in.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I was not criticizing Obama's global military strategy but I think he should have enforced his own "red line" on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

edit:

Quote:

And there is the implication in all of this that maybe only military actions and acts of war are workable tools of international affairs.

Acts of war are part of the toolbox. Threats of it too, if credible. Obama made an explicit military threat to Assad and then failed to carry it. That was a mistake. I see this strike as long overdue.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Anyway, you made the statement that a bullet used as a U.S. assassination of Hussein would have made a full withdrawal of our troops a reality in a span of under two weeks.

No. I made a proposal that we should have shot Saddam in the head and then withdrew immediately. I did not make any logistical assessments about how long it would take to withdraw.

If my home by Xmas comment is logistically impossible, I still suggest that we should have shot him and then begun an immediate withdrawal.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ya gotta admit. Hes Obama "light" now. (Of course , except for the pathological lying and narcissism thing)

Uh yeah...I don't think so. He responded when children were gassed. Obammy pussyed out.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Gaddafi was never a "Good Guy, but he was a lot less crazed than the other megalomaniacs in that region of the world. Once Reagan spanked him hard he became content with dictating to Libyans.

We very often lose sight of how these miscreants think.

They have repeatedly shown that they are more than willing to do horrific things none of would ever imagine doing and so to think of them as rational in the sense of 90% of the rest of the world is a huge mistake.

#1 is them, and it's all about them

#2 is strength and weakness. They come to power by being more savage than any of their opposition. It's what they understand, and it's why simple threats and feckless diplomacy never works -- they see it as weakness. They are canny, brute animals that need to be treated as such.

2 Replies

@blatham,

So now Ann Coulter is one of your favored cons? Very Happy

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

#2 is strength and weakness. They come to power by being more savage than any of their opposition. It's what they understand, and it's why simple threats and feckless diplomacy never works -- they see it as weakness. They are canny, brute animals that need to be treated as such.

Quote:

YUP!

0 Replies

@blatham,

Poor Trump doesn't have a friend any more.

Quote:

Putin: Missile Strikes on Syria Deal 'Serious Blow' to US-Russia Ties

Yahoo View•April 7, 2017

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know