36
   

The "When will Donald Trump leave office in disgrace?" Pool

 
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 09:26 pm
Nikita Khrushchev threatened 'we will bury you" and Trump bought Putin a shovel. Trump is so damn grateful.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 09:54 pm
@glitterbag,
During the Cold War the Soviets were actually trying to take over the entire world.

Putin is not trying to take over the entire world. Every single one of his invasions have centered on former USSR territory with a large population of ethnic Russians.

This is not to say there is no danger. The Baltic NATO states are former USSR territory with a large population of ethnic Russians. If Putin were to miscalculate and invade the Baltic NATO states it would lead to a nuclear war.

But it isn't like it was in the Cold War, when the USSR wanted to conquer every square inch of the entire planet in the name of Communism.
Blickers
 
  4  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 10:08 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Every single one of his invasions have centered on former USSR territory with a large population of ethnic Russians.

That's where it starts. Say that a country has a lot of ethnics of your country, so you can invade. If nobody stops you, then move on to invading countries that don't have a lot of your specific ethnic people.

See Hitler and the Sudetenland. Modern version: Russia and Ukraine.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 03:14 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
That's where it starts. Say that a country has a lot of ethnics of your country, so you can invade.

So far all the invasions have been former USSR land and have been areas with lots of ethnic Russians.


Blickers wrote:
If nobody stops you, then move on to invading countries that don't have a lot of your specific ethnic people.

If Putin ever invades a country that is outside the former territory of the USSR or does not have lots of ethnic Russians, feel free to speak out about it when it happens.

Not really fair though to denounce someone for something they haven't done and haven't shown any inclination to do.
Builder
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 04:30 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Not really fair though to denounce someone for something they haven't done and haven't shown any inclination to do.


I don't think "fair" comes into the equation in many foreign policy deals, myself.

0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 10:10 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
That's where it starts. Say that a country has a lot of ethnics of your country, so you can invade. If nobody stops you, then move on to invading countries that don't have a lot of your specific ethnic people.

See Hitler and the Sudetenland. Modern version: Russia and Ukraine.


You are delusional, Blickers, seriously delusional, typical of Americans. Nobody on the planet has invaded more countries than the USA, the world's all time leading war criminals and terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 09:22 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
So far all the invasions have been former USSR land and have been areas with lots of ethnic Russians.

Well, hell, that changes everything.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
If Putin ever invades a country that is outside the former territory of the USSR or does not have lots of ethnic Russians, feel free to speak out about it when it happens.

Not really fair though to denounce someone for something they haven't done and haven't shown any inclination to do.

Are you serious?

Hungary 1956:
http://i67.tinypic.com/1ftets.jpg

Czechoslovakia 1968:
http://i68.tinypic.com/2mr9qg7.jpg

camlok
 
  -1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 09:30 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
Are you serious?


Are you serious, Blickers? You have got to be one of the worst, and there are many, brainwashed Americans ever.

And this is only up to the early 1960s. I know though, that you will read on, balanced person that you are.

Quote:
A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present

by William Blum

Z magazine , June 1999

The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

* making the world safe for American corporations;

* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;

* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

China, 1945-49:

Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:

Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:

Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:

U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:

After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:

The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:

The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:

Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:

A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:

The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:

Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:

For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.

One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:

The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.

Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:

Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.

Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:

In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.

Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil, 1961-64:

President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.

For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.

Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66:

In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.

Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.

A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.

Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

Cuba, 1959 to present:

Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.

The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Indonesia, 1965:

A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.

It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

camlok
 
  -2  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 09:32 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Nikita Khrushchev threatened 'we will bury you" and Trump bought Putin a shovel. Trump is so damn grateful.


Any propaganda is good for Americans even if it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

So many brain dead people in the land of the zombies.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -2  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 09:34 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
During the Cold War the Soviets were actually trying to take over the entire world.


You can't write stupid bigger than this.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 10:22 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
oralloy wrote:
So far all the invasions have been former USSR land and have been areas with lots of ethnic Russians.

Well, hell, that changes everything.

Yes. It is significantly different from a concerted effort to take over the entire world.


Blickers wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If Putin ever invades a country that is outside the former territory of the USSR or does not have lots of ethnic Russians, feel free to speak out about it when it happens.
Not really fair though to denounce someone for something they haven't done and haven't shown any inclination to do.

Are you serious?

Always.


Blickers wrote:
Hungary 1956:
Czechoslovakia 1968:

Unless time machines are somehow involved, Putin did not perpetrate either invasion.
Blickers
 
  2  
Tue 18 Jul, 2017 10:35 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Yes. It is significantly different from a concerted effort to take over the entire world.

No, it doesn't, because so many previous attempts to take over large amount of territory started off as the invading country claiming it's defending it's own people in the other country. Russia has pulled this act before, and Hitler before that. When are you going to to stop making excuses for Trump's capitulation to Putin's foreign policy plans?

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Unless time machines are somehow involved, Putin did not perpetrate either invasion [Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslavakia in 1968].

Putin is merely the latest top dog in the totalitarian state that is Russia. They might have changed the name of their economic system and all, but one thing which remains the same is the fact that the Russian state operates on the principle that they crush anyone that someone doesn't stop them from crushing.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Wed 19 Jul, 2017 01:54 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
No, it doesn't, because so many previous attempts to take over large amount of territory started off as the invading country claiming it's defending it's own people in the other country.

That's a logical fallacy. The fact that some attempts to conquer the world started with a small invasion does not mean that all small invasions are the beginnings of an attempt to conquer the world.


Blickers wrote:
When are you going to to stop making excuses for Trump's capitulation to Putin's foreign policy plans?

Insisting that Putin be treated fairly and only be condemned for things he has actually done is not making excuses for anything.


Blickers wrote:
Putin is merely the latest top dog in the totalitarian state that is Russia. They might have changed the name of their economic system and all, but one thing which remains the same is the fact that the Russian state operates on the principle that they crush anyone that someone doesn't stop them from crushing.

One thing that doesn't remain the same is their desire to conquer the world, a desire which stemmed from that economic system that they no longer adhere to.
camlok
 
  1  
Wed 19 Jul, 2017 01:47 pm
Gee, that's just not like you Americans to directly avoid the evils of your every government official. Y'all are usually so honest and direct dealing with your myriad evil transgressions.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Thu 20 Jul, 2017 10:37 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Insisting that Putin be treated fairly and only be condemned for things he has actually done is not making excuses for anything.

Of course you are making excuses for Putin. He invades Georgia, he invades Ukraine because they had the nerve to try to join the EU, and you say, "Well, those countries USED to be part of the Soviet Union, and I think it's very unfair to criticize Putin as being expansionist until he takes over countries that weren't part of the Soviet Union at one time."

I don't even think official paid Kremlin publicists would dare to try that one, yet here you are, complaining that the real victim in these Russian invasions is Vladimir Putin.
Blickers
 
  2  
Thu 20 Jul, 2017 10:47 pm
@camlok,
Quote camlok's list of "complaints" against US foreign policy:
Quote:
Germany, 1950s:

The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

You are a riot, you know that? Russia takes over all of Eastern Europe during WWII, and keeps those countries captive and forced to use Russia's go-nowhere economic system. East Germany was one of those captive countries. With West Germany prospering, East Germans were moving to the West in droves, so the Russian-stooge East Germans built a wall to keep them in. And now decades later, people like you are repeating, with a straight face, the same imbecilic East German excuses for walling in their own people that had the world laughing at them back in the sixties.

Keep the commie crap coming, Camlok. I don't read you often, since your particular insanity is best experienced in small doses, but when I do I frequently get a chuckle.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Thu 20 Jul, 2017 11:04 pm
@Blickers,
Well, Trump has decided to stop arming Syrians fighting against Assad (because that will make Putin happy), Putin wants his spy facilities returned and allow his spys back in the US at New York, and on the Eastern Shore of Maryland......Yes, of course that sounds reasonable.....So, what did Trump get in return for these outrageous capitulations to a hostile nation???? Adoption???? Oh hell no. The Russians resumed the long range aviation bomber runs about 8 years ago...Anybody want to guess what LRA bombers carry???? It ain't k-rations. Oh, anyone what to guess the route of the LRA bombers......hahahahahahaha....we are screwed.




Blickers
 
  2  
Thu 20 Jul, 2017 11:22 pm
@glitterbag,
Did Trump actually agree to give Russia back it's spy dachas in Maryland?
glitterbag
 
  3  
Thu 20 Jul, 2017 11:47 pm
@Blickers,
No, not yet. But he doesn't seem to be opposed to the idea.....after all, Putin can suck the Crome off a bumper....or maybe he will just hint he will. Trump's knees are weak just at the possibility.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Fri 21 Jul, 2017 12:55 am
Trump's presidency continues to lurch from one crisis to another, even his lawyers can't agree with one another.

Quote:
The spokesman for US President Donald Trump's personal legal team has resigned, media reports say.
Mark Corallo was a spokesman for Marc Kasowitz, who is defending Mr Trump in an inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in last year's election.
Reports said that Mr Corallo disagreed with the alleged strategy of Mr Trump's lawyers to discredit or limit the team directing the investigation.
There has been no comment from him or the Trump team.
Mr Corallo is close to Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the Russia investigation, and has praised him publicly, Politico website reports.
He had grown frustrated with the operation of the legal team and the warring factions and lawyers, the report adds.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40678397
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 05:35:05