Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump uses murderous Turkey to force Kurds to negotiate.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rutger
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post


    The Pentagon had no plan,although this was an easy job, this proves that the Pentagon was sabotaging the orders of the president .


    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    In the pat, but not now. Wars now are a proven way to get the economy moving.

    What as the purpose of Viet Nam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Certainly not any form of actual conquest, but several major corporations benefited hugely. And we are always willing to to go to war for oil. Problem is that we no longer win anything nor do we derive any national benefit.
    The wars in the Middle East are as much about the Petro Dollar as the interests of any individual or group of corporations. They are also about keeping our European allies economically viable. Wars are won or lost in logistics and economics are at the heart of logistics. As we move deeper into the second round of the cold war it is important that the economic war be won.

    The question is if the U.S. And it's Western allies can remain solvent as the cost of military hegemony and the welfare state spiral out of control. Trump seems to be the first president in modern history to face the reality that the U.S. cannot afford to police the world. Our allies have to step up and make the painful choice to cut domestic spending and trade ties that offer only short term security.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I know three things:

    1 The CIC is responsible for everything that happens including for making sure that his subordinates follow the his orders. In fact, if you had any experience about leadership, you would have known that the latter (making sure orders are followed and executed correctly) is crucial

    2 You are not in a position to know more about the Pentagon than me

    3 You make claims without evidence that the Pentagon did not follow Trump's orders.
    Great...a Pentagon self-proclaimed expert. Present your credentials so we can check them out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

    I think we have to be careful assigning financial motives to war. In fact assigning financial motives to the competition of commerce is an oversimplification. There is a more primordial aspect to conquest, a primitive instinct that drives even our closest relative in the animal kingdom to make war. Chimpanzees do not seem to be driven by resource scarcity to attack neighboring groups but rather the mere existence of the "other" seems sufficient motivation. To conquer for the sake of conquest alone explains the observable nuances.

    No better example of the will to power can be found than Hillary Clinton. She represents the new "elite" nicely. By Arkansas standards she is old money but like the Kennedy's her claim to the right to rule has no deep roots. In fact any claim she may have to membership in a elite based technocracy seems difficult to justify. Rather the elites today are functional equivalent to the war lords who gave rise to the nobility of Europe. They are the second, third and fourth generation of robber barons, the priestly class generated in universities, or those lucky enough to fall into favor with these classes. Their knights are the bureaucrats that enforce the class consensus. The peasants, the unenlightened smelly Wal-Mart shoppers, the deplorables and clingers.

    The socialist would be overlords, the wall street bankers, the neo cons and neo liberals are an expression of the primordial instinct not the force itself. The proof is in their inability to rule themselves while they seek to fulfill the primordial imperative.




    In the pat, but not now. Wars now are a proven way to get the economy moving.

    What as the purpose of Viet Nam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Certainly not any form of actual conquest, but several major corporations benefited hugely. And we are always willing to to go to war for oil. Problem is that we no longer win anything nor do we derive any national benefit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    You would be accurate to say that Trump tries to do now what he refused to do during the phone call. Your "salient" point is nothing more than an attempt for damage control
    One of the tricks to successful negotiation is knowing when to move, and when not to. Trump has played it right.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    It is a combination of both : power and money . The elites are the children of the revolution of 1968 .
    Take Hillary : she was first a supporter of Goldwater,but very soon she became a leftist democrat with a very intolerant program, but this did not prevent het to accept billions of bribery of all the despotes on earth .Bill was the same : he did not hesitate to accept money from Putin, a man who stood for everything that was the opposite of the ideology of Bill .

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Follow the money...as in, "who benefits"? It's not about "freedom" or any of the PC nonsense, so take a good look at the parties involved.
    I think we have to be careful assigning financial motives to war. In fact assigning financial motives to the competition of commerce is an oversimplification. There is a more primordial aspect to conquest, a primitive instinct that drives even our closest relative in the animal kingdom to make war. Chimpanzees do not seem to be driven by resource scarcity to attack neighboring groups but rather the mere existence of the "other" seems sufficient motivation. To conquer for the sake of conquest alone explains the observable nuances.

    No better example of the will to power can be found than Hillary Clinton. She represents the new "elite" nicely. By Arkansas standards she is old money but like the Kennedy's her claim to the right to rule has no deep roots. In fact any claim she may have to membership in a elite based technocracy seems difficult to justify. Rather the elites today are functional equivalent to the war lords who gave rise to the nobility of Europe. They are the second, third and fourth generation of robber barons, the priestly class generated in universities, or those lucky enough to fall into favor with these classes. Their knights are the bureaucrats that enforce the class consensus. The peasants, the unenlightened smelly Wal-Mart shoppers, the deplorables and clingers.

    The socialist would be overlords, the wall street bankers, the neo cons and neo liberals are an expression of the primordial instinct not the force itself. The proof is in their inability to rule themselves while they seek to fulfill the primordial imperative.





    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

    It's hard to define who's interests are being served in such a chaotic environment.
    Follow the money...as in, "who benefits"? It's not about "freedom" or any of the PC nonsense, so take a good look at the parties involved.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    The interests of the establishment.
    I wouldn't give them that much credit

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

    It's hard to define who's interests are being served in such a chaotic environment.
    The interests of the establishment.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    The problem is that Russia fights in Syria FOR something : to save Assad and their influence in Syria . The Elites in the US OTOH want to remain in Syria for a negative mission = to eliminate Assad, for them the war against ISIS is secundary, Obama used ISIS against Assad . That's why the Elites ( Deep State ) refuses to leave Syria after the defeat of ISIS. They do not care if this results in countless Kurdish or US losses . They want to repeat in Syria what they did in Libya. They did not care about the victims in Libya, they do not care about the victims in Syria and the additional victims in Europe .
    The Elites are waging an ideological war, as they did in Libya and Iraq .As they did/do in Egypt, Ukraine, Israel, Britain .
    It's hard to define who's interests are being served in such a chaotic environment.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Or so the TDS befuddled will claim proving once again that the left and their neo Con counter parts are incapable of seeing the World as it is.

    The salient point is that if Trump's ceasefire and peace arrangements work out he will have saved more Kurdish lives than any president in history. Proving once again that the Elites are not only corrupt but incompetent.
    The problem is that Russia fights in Syria FOR something : to save Assad and their influence in Syria . The Elites in the US OTOH want to remain in Syria for a negative mission = to eliminate Assad, for them the war against ISIS is secundary, Obama used ISIS against Assad . That's why the Elites ( Deep State ) refuses to leave Syria after the defeat of ISIS. They do not care if this results in countless Kurdish or US losses . They want to repeat in Syria what they did in Libya. They did not care about the victims in Libya, they do not care about the victims in Syria and the additional victims in Europe .
    The Elites are waging an ideological war, as they did in Libya and Iraq .As they did/do in Egypt, Ukraine, Israel, Britain .

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Pentagon opposed the withdrawal from Syria,withdrawal that Trump wanted already more than a year ago .
    We have seen the results of this obstruction .

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I know three things:

    1 The CIC is responsible for everything that happens including for making sure that his subordinates follow the his orders. In fact, if you had any experience about leadership, you would have known that the latter is crucial

    2 You are not in a position to know more about the Pentagon than me

    3 You make claims without evidence that the Pentagon did not follow Trump's orders.

    Wow, am I surprised to find that out....

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    1 You don't know much about the Pentagon jungle
    2 The Pentagon knew that sooner or later ( better : at the first occasion ) Trump would give the order to withdraw . It was their duty to be ready if they received the order . They were not,which means that they were incapable or that they sabotaged the order .
    If tomorrow Trump would give the order to leave immediately Afghanistan, the Pentagon should be ready to execute the order .
    3 The potus is responsible if the Pentagon follows his orders, he is not responsible for whatever the Pentagon is doing .
    4 There are people EVERYWHERE in the administration( not only in the DOJ) who sabotage the orders of Trump .
    I know three things:

    1 The CIC is responsible for everything that happens including for making sure that his subordinates follow the his orders. In fact, if you had any experience about leadership, you would have known that the latter (making sure orders are followed and executed correctly) is crucial

    2 You are not in a position to know more about the Pentagon than me

    3 You make claims without evidence that the Pentagon did not follow Trump's orders.

    Last edited by pamak; 19 Oct 19, 15:39.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X