Donald Trump and US politics

An open letter to the "Principled-Conservative" Never-Trumpers:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/01/sorry-nevertrumpers-but-you-dont-get-to-dismount-your-high-horse-today/#more-128005

=^[.]^=

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

If Assad felt threatened by USA presence I'm 100% sure ISIS and him would cooperate to oust. Prolly Turkey too if they felt we were giving kurds too much.

It's a brier patch stay out

I don't think Assad is all that bad. Comparatively speaking to who's ruling other countries in the region. He's someone who might cooperate with the USA if the USA wasn't intent on ousting him. He's not a hard line Islamist, and is relatively moderate. War hawks in the USA want Assad gone just because the Israelis don't like him. Because Assad works with Hezbollah who's at war with the Israelis. That's at the core of why the Americans want Assad gone.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

40 million died in WW1 60 million in WW2 who started those? Germany. I'm not bashing Germany just using it as an big example saying no one has a providence on violence so blaming muslims for violence is BS. 99% of wars are business. Sure they may rally around a ideological thing for stupid people but men pulling strings it's about money. These wars in ME are about money. Pipelines. It's basically whos gonna supply gas and oil to wealthy EU market. Russia and Iran or the Gulf sheikhs and syria/iraq is the battle ground with proxies.

No President makes me nervous. Even Obama didnt. I'm very conservative but I get emotionally invested. I'll be fine no matter whos in power. So will you. Hysteria by left is so funny.

I stand corrected.
You also didn't say you included the both world wars. So I have a little wiggle room on my statement.
The vast majority of those deaths were civilians and many were from indirect causes such as the flu, starvation and other diseases. I also think you could reverse those numbers because there were more deaths as a result of the first world war. (pretty sure).

A horrendous loss of human life which really boggles the mind after the first 30 or 40 million.

Now. I'm not a liberal and never have been. I spent the last 10 years of my mother's life taking her to polling stations where she voted only liberal because her dead husband told her to.
So I was taking her there for nothing because she neutralized my vote every time.

AS for hysteria I think I'm justified in saying that liberals don't have a monopoly on hysteria.

I don't understand why you guys fight so much about politics. The instant Americans face a common enemy suddenly all strife disappears and you walk shoulder to shoulder into battle.

Anyway. I hope Donald doesn't try to open up the war of 1812 again as I don't think it would go too well for us.

Cheers

Does anyone really think that US soldiers may just land in Syria and do their business? Without international sanctions and permissions of syrian, russian, and to a lesser extent iranian, governments?

Breaking news - americans may barely use their air forces, and it's because russians permitted, but are watched closely.

If american ground troops ever put a foot there, they will act in close coordination with above mentioned forces. And unlikely will be set loose to determine the faith of Asad.

The scenarios you discuss are unrealistic, and are based on lack of relevant information about this conflict.

The latest Trum statement on Syria made him either delusional, or he already had a deal which is unlikely. As I don't remember him meeting any of the sides in the syrian conflict, and it's about serious conversations and negotiations, which don't happen in phone calls.

Aim_D I'm pretty sure the 50k figure was for a no-fly-zone, not any old refugee safe zone. I get that the point of no-fly is to protect refugees, but if we have the cooperation of Syria and Russia, there's no need for the extra manpower and machinery of AA systems. Furthermore, assuming that cooperation (which seems safe since Saudi's and UAE are on board + Putin's past statements), we'll need less of a force still, since other countries will be contributing.

I'm guessing that Trump will threaten to play hardball with pulling out of NATO/UN, or demanding vast changes to those systems unless they send troops to enforce the safe zones too. EU countries will probably jump at the chance because:

1) they believe that the madman will actually pull out of those two orgs (see: TPP already)
2) this removes Turkey's leverage over them if their migrants can relocate closer to their country
3) they may see it as a way to facilitate cozier relationships with the new US administration

Everyone involved should be able to sell it to the folks back home - the refugee crisis is a global problem now - it's only fair that it has a global solution.

"

torturo wrote:

Does anyone really think that US soldiers may just land in Syria and do their business? Without international sanctions and permissions of syrian, russian, and to a lesser extent iranian, governments?

Breaking news - americans may barely use their air forces, and it's because russians permitted, but are watched closely.

If american ground troops ever put a foot there, they will act in close coordination with above mentioned forces. And unlikely will be set loose to determine the faith of Asad.

The scenarios you discuss are unrealistic, and are based on lack of relevant information about this conflict.

The latest Trum statement on Syria made him either delusional, or he already had a deal which is unlikely. As I don't remember him meeting any of the sides in the Syrian conflict, and it's about serious conversations and negotiations, which don't happen in phone calls.

It's a quagmire that could turn into a meat grinder. Besides.
I hear Putin is beating the drums in Ukraine. Maybe trying to take advantage of the disarray in the US right now.
Maybe Donald will let him take it for future considerations.
Who knows?

Putin is just using Ukraine as a bargaining chip. I don't think he's serious. He's basically trying to counter Trump's methodology of demanding more than you actually want from a deal so the negotiations are more likely to get you exactly what you wanted in the first place.

Crimea wasn't too bad because the vast majority of the population there desired to become part of Russia. The means to that end left something to be desired, but the right end anyways. Very low death count (3 on each side). Sanctioning Russia for Crimea was ridiculous.

Ukraine itself isn't so clear-cut. There seems to be a split, with some pro-Russian Ukrainians, but not nearly the same level of support. Many more deaths already. Having allowed Russia an inch (which we should have), they now want a mile. Many (not all) Ukrainians wish to maintain independence from Russia; we should respect that.

irony?

edit:

Protesting students at Cal Berkley currently setting fire to the campus because their feefees are hurt over someone's free speech. Having successfully coerced Milo out of talking, the most serious criminals should be charged with domestic terrorism.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38837142