Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

02-03-2017 , 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
I still don't see how this is going to work. Who's going to invade? US soldiers who are currently in a 14 year war in Afghanistan and just getting out of Iraq? Who's going to lead the new government? Not the hardliners, and not the more liberal Iranians who might like Americans but are nationalists and would fight just as hard as the hardliners any invasion. You're going to either have a total war or an occupation, neither of which the US really has the chops for.
We missed our "Arab Spring" moment with the more liberal modern Iranians. Maybe we get another one?
02-03-2017 , 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
I still don't see how this is going to work. Who's going to invade? US soldiers who are currently in a 14 year war in Afghanistan and just getting out of Iraq? Who's going to lead the new government? Not the hardliners, and not the more liberal Iranians who might like Americans but are nationalists and would fight just as hard as the hardliners any invasion. You're going to either have a total war or an occupation, neither of which the US really has the chops for.
You're thinking like an intelligent person.

Try thinking like Donald Trump.
02-03-2017 , 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
They also happen to be one of the biglyest nations for sponsoring terrorism. This also goes back to the hostage crisis of the 70's.
Like the power elite gives a **** about that.

There's only one reason they have a hard on about Iran. Oil. That's it. Because oil=$.
02-03-2017 , 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
Hezbollah and Hamas, neither are for peace.
Hezbollah is a little different because it's kind of the Iranian government acting in Lebanon (I think), but Hamas is not for peace in the same way the Israeli government is not for peace. It should not be presupposed that peace cannot be made with Hamas and agreements should not be precluded on its elimination. It shouldn't be treated like Al Queda.
02-03-2017 , 01:30 PM
02-03-2017 , 01:31 PM
02-03-2017 , 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
not my words:

"State Department report finds Iran is top state sponsor of terror"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politi...ort-terrorism/

"On Iran, the report said that country "remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world.""
LOL. Yea but let's be honest. That's what you were talking about. You don't give a **** about a terrorist attack in some random country on the other side of the world.
02-03-2017 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Hezbollah is a little different because it's kind of the Iranian government acting in Lebanon (I think), but Hamas is not for peace in the same way the Israeli government is not for peace. It should not be presupposed that peace cannot be made with Hamas and agreements should not be precluded on its elimination. It shouldn't be treated like Al Queda.
Not sure I 100% agree with all of your assertions here, but the main point that it's ridiculous to lump Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran in together is an important one that I (unfortunately) am pretty certain the Trump administration has no clue about.
02-03-2017 , 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUberBob
You're thinking like an intelligent person.

Try thinking like Donald Trump.
post count numbers is fake
02-03-2017 , 01:39 PM
What's it called when the executive branch spontaneously destroys the legal residency status of over 100,000 people in one day?

I don't think the words "travel ban" really do it justice. Come on, media, you can do better.
02-03-2017 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV Life
LOL. Yea but let's be honest. That's what you were talking about. You don't give a **** about a terrorist attack in some random country on the other side of the world.
No actually I do.
02-03-2017 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUberBob
I'm more bothered by this:



I honestly have no idea what he's talking about.

I was skeptical of an invasion of Iran but now I don't know. Seems that he's hammering away on them for whatever reason.
Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, afaik. I don't know if he means Iran is actually accumulating territory themselves or if the groups they are sponsoring are accumulating territory. If it's the latter, Trump is most likely correct. Ramadi, Mosul, ect...
02-03-2017 , 01:41 PM
Hezbollah is a kind of "homeland defense" organization. They don't go kill people in Paris or NYC. Israel attackedLebanon, they defended. Foreign powers came to the Lebanon in the '80s, they attacked them (right or wrong) because they felt that these powers were aggressors. The 80s were a **** show all around with everyone doing violent stuff in the Lebanon. Heck, Israel's complicity in the Sabra/Shatillah massacres resulted in more civilian deaths in one episode than Hezbollah has caused in 3 decades.

The one wrinkle is their involvement in Syria, which I think is a terrible departure for them.
02-03-2017 , 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Can't overstate how atrocious the TV media has been on this. I'm currently watching MSNBC and the PREMISE OF THE SEGMENT IS HOW KELLYANNE GOEBBLES SHOULD HANDLE HER MISTAKE.

THERE WAS NO MISTAKE YOU DUMB MOTHER****ERS
Write to them. Tell them you will take your viewership elsewhere of they refuse to report the news correctly
02-03-2017 , 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Ingram
do you wanna grab her by the pussy?
Maybe dinner and a movie first?
02-03-2017 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayhawks
Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, afaik. I don't know if he means Iran is actually accumulating territory themselves or if the groups they are sponsoring are accumulating territory. If it's the latter, Trump is most likely correct. Ramadi, Mosul, ect...
Worth noting that A. Iran is fighting against ISIS for ****'s sake and B. the power vacuum in Iraq is like, distinctly the result of Western interference.
02-03-2017 , 01:49 PM
I'm not sure what problem you would be trying to solve by attacking Iran but they have nothing to do with ISIS, for example. They're not on the same side in the Shia vs Sunni war.
02-03-2017 , 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
I still don't see how this is going to work. Who's going to invade? US soldiers who are currently in a 14 year war in Afghanistan and just getting out of Iraq? Who's going to lead the new government? Not the hardliners, and not the more liberal Iranians who might like Americans but are nationalists and would fight just as hard as the hardliners any invasion. You're going to either have a total war or an occupation, neither of which the US really has the chops for.
It would be ugly, worse than Iraq. This is why, in my opinion, the Iran nuclear deal was bad. By agreeing to reduce their nuclear development, Iran had their sanctions lifted which resulted in assets being unfrozen and oil revenues to increase. Where do you think a lot of the money is going?
02-03-2017 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeroDeniro
Hezbollah is a kind of "homeland defense" organization. They don't go kill people in Paris or NYC. Israel attackedLebanon, they defended. Foreign powers came to the Lebanon in the '80s, they attacked them (right or wrong) because they felt that these powers were aggressors. The 80s were a **** show all around with everyone doing violent stuff in the Lebanon. Heck, Israel's complicity in the Sabra/Shatillah massacres resulted in more civilian deaths in one episode than Hezbollah has caused in 3 decades.

The one wrinkle is their involvement in Syria, which I think is a terrible departure for them.
Can confirm this, I was there then at least in the early 80's.
02-03-2017 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukraprout
There are some good pages in The Selfish Genes about evolution and game theory. Like, there is a Nash equilibrium where a certain percentage of a species end up being *******s and the others being nice because it's the optimal strategy for every individual.
Yeah, very interesting stuff. I've read The Selfish Gene and some more stuff that covered some lizard and fish species especially where there are multiple immensely different types of individuals.
02-03-2017 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
Worth noting that A. Iran is fighting against ISIS for ****'s sake and B. the power vacuum in Iraq is like, distinctly the result of Western interference.
could be said about most of the Middle East
02-03-2017 , 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayhawks
It would be ugly, worse than Iraq. This is why, in my opinion, the Iran nuclear deal was bad. By agreeing to reduce their nuclear development, Iran had their sanctions lifted which resulted in assets being unfrozen and oil revenues to increase. Where do you think a lot of the money is going?
Modernizing and liberalizing their society. Large investments especially in tech startups. They are smart, educated people who want freedom and prosperity.
02-03-2017 , 01:54 PM
Spicer just completely walked back everything on Israeli settlement policy Trump etc. have put forth so far.
02-03-2017 , 01:56 PM
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/now...you-1791959502
Quote:
Today we have two widely expected pieces of financial lawmaking news from the Trump administration: Gary Cohn—who went directly from the president’s office at Goldman Sachs to take a job as Trump’s top financial advisor—says that the White House will begin plans for “scaling back” the Dodd-Frank law, which was Congress’s best attempt to make our financial system safer in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. On top of that, the Trump administration will also halt the implementation of the fiduciary rule, the purpose of which was to prevent financial advisers from ripping you off.

I am not exaggerating. The point of the fiduciary rule was that when you, the average person, go in to some financial adviser to learn what you should invest in for your retirement, you should be able to know that that advisor is recommending investments because they are good for you, and not because they are earning some kickback on the investment. In other words it protected consumers from predatory behavior from their hired financial experts. The one and only reason to roll back this rule is to allow people to once again be exploited by financial professionals—to allow them to make more money for themselves by costing you money. (Here https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/art...es-true-threat is a good explanation of why the objections to the fiduciary rule are dishonest bull****). It is extremely straightforward. The Trump administration has gained power and will now use that power to allow a small class of money people exploit everyone else. The Dodd-Frank rules are a bit more arcane, but the general reason for dismantling them is the same: to allow Wall Street to make more money. Our financial system is about to get both more dangerous and more exploitative. This is the outcome of the “blue collar billionaire” who fed people slogans about “Draining the Swamp” and then immediately turned over our government regulatory system to Wall Street insiders.

Regular people do not win from these actions. The rich win and you lose.
02-03-2017 , 01:56 PM
So what exactly is Bannon's goal? All Bannon quotes seem to suggest that he just wants complete chaos. But surely he must have some ideology (beyond "white people are best") that he's going for? I understand he's trying to get rid of muslims within his own country's borders, making immigration to the States harder/impossible, etc. But what is he going for re: foreign politics? I keep reading quotes how he wants to break the EU, but why? What's his ultimate agenda?

Sorry if it's a stupid question, I just keep reading these scary quotes but never really seen his bottom line ideology explained.

      
m