CJackson wrote:earthmansurfer wrote:Amsterdam wrote:
My questions to you all is the following:
1. There are numerous reports that under this administration, the use of Al Queda has been used extensively in Syria, much like they were used in Afghanistan against Russia. Aren't they our sworn enemy? or Are WE missing something? The arming by a U.S. citizen of an enemy combatant is akin to treason...no?
2. The Saudis arm these same folks buy buying waepons from allies from the stock pile of "acquired" weapons from both Iraq and Libya.
But what really really really. boggles my mind, is how passive and forgiving the citizens of this, our Country have become regarding the support and funding of these guys.
Seems that H.C. is in line with the use of them as proxies, (again see Afghanistan), apparently the missing emails prove this.
So Trump is a loose nut, we all agree, but don't dismiss everything he says. He's highlighting rumors mainstream media doesn't want to touch.
1. It is very clear we created many of these terror groups that we are now fighting. We did create Alqaida in Afghanistan to "fight" the soviets. And I'm not sure how much we helped with ISIS, especially in light of the invasions into Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
It really seems like the higlaelian dialectic - problem reaction solution. Some people at the top are, well, the only words I have are evil. They know no boundaries, borders, allegiance, etc.
There is project paperclip and a host of other disgusting projects the government has taken part in on record, and we just assume - that is the past, it isn't happening now, etc. But it just continues.
WWII didn't end the Nazi's, remember, most of them came over and worked for our government and I'm sure some of what we have seen, is just more of their work. Disgusting and I hope enough people high up in the Military and enough regular people eventually take these criminals out of power. And btw, I do think Hillary/Bill (Kissinger, Bush's,etc.) are DEEPLY connected to these criminals.
And yes, Trump is a loose nut, but through all his craziness, immaturity and mostly his big mouth, he is our best chance to get these people out of power, but I really think their connections run deep and are wide. It is going to take more than one person, but Trump has some pretty dark connections (I hear), so hopefully he can start something that should have been started when they took Kennedy out.
You're right. The U.S. did essentially facilitate the birth of Al Qaeda.
The art of the dark ops were perfected by Republican administrations. The right's hero Reagan was dirtier than dirt with his undisclosed slush funds used to fund rebel wars in South America. That these kinds of missions continue under a democratic administration should come as no surprise so we should be able to agree that when people go bonkers about Clinton destroying the world she is hardly an originator of the conditions that destabilized the ME. She certainly did not create ISIS contrary to claims of her inaction. If anybody should get credit for those honors it goes to the Bush administration.
The U.S. is not a kind government. It aligns itself with "American Interests". Allies are allies because they support "American Interests" and vice versa per the enemies of record.
The kinds of evil some of you guys are flipping out is really old school now. Did we ever really weep for the dead Viet Namese and Cambodians we left in our wake? Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Kissenger, they all decimated populations and screwed up our own country in the process with unnecessary cultural divisions over "patriotism".
So I find many of you completely unhinged with your wild yelpings about Clinton the destroyer. I agree with the Iran deal and the work to disarm their nuclear plants. Kerry was on the job for that, but that is totally in Clinton's wheelhouse. But here you have frothing at the mouth Trumpers yelling about WW3 while simultaneously saying we capitulated to Iran. Sorry guys, you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth and expect to be taken seriously.
You want to change things by electing Trump. That's pathetic. Just not to be taken seriously. Yeah, he'll handle our foreign affairs better according to you. What kind of alarmist BS are you shilling when you say just because Clinton is part of the admittedly imperialistic military-industrial estate that Trump will not ruin all of our international relations and leave us in a more combative, isolationist position with nobody to turn to?
Trump will burn all bridges and you consider that the answer? That's your reset button. What a load of horse apples. Trump is psychotic and completely manic and unhinged. Drop the morality schtick for a second and consider that Trump can't focus on anything for more than ten seconds and he only focuses on his grudges and he is a completely juvenile and you want him to run our government. Sorry, but that is rubbish.
No, it is not better than Clinton.
Like I said, cut it out with the juvenile assertions that Trump can do this job. He's an idiot and a loose cannon and he would blow stuff up out of spite. If he could tweet a nuclear strike he would.
Go find a real candidate. Until then, enough with the nonsense that Trump is an alternative.
Sorry, you don't like Clinton. I get it. I don't like imperialistic assassination squads much myself. But Trump is not a candidate and Mrs. Giuliani as Secretary of Defense is simply not an option.
Go find a real candidate next time. You're stuck with Clinton, but don't pretend Trump is an actual alternative.
There are a lot of studies and literature to suggest that US foreign policy in general has been more about prevention of a central accumulation of power and resources than it has been about "nation building". The US has no interest in the unification of the Middle East to rise up against an ISIS threat, and would actually prefer numerous small weak states that rely on the US for assistance. Trump's assertion that US policy should be to entirely evacuate the Middle East or to go full blast into it rather misses the overall objective.
