Trump Implementing the Palin. doctrin

gcomeau wrote:
You do know who "you" and "we" is when he speaks here right? That is "America lost, Russia won".

Keep that in mind when you're enthusiastically agreeing with his claims about how much he likes what Trump is doing. There's a reason he likes it. He is not exactly cheering for America here.

Seriously, your paranoia is almost 1950s level. Of course I'm not cheering for America here. What I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to you, is that Trump is not the only one to blame for the current situation. He inherited the initially extremely bad strategic position, that he could neither hold, nor advance anyhow.

Your assumption that "those tiny garrisons prevented Turkey from invading" just did not correspond with reality. Turkey perfectly understood, that those troops are nothing more than symbolic, and that they could not be reinforced in any practical way. You seems to be completely unable to comprehend, that the mere existence of the small garrison - even small garrison of a great power - did NOT make much of deterrence. There were numerous cases when such isolated garrisons were attacked and destroyed - Falkland war, for just the first example. Argentine dared to challenge one of the major military & economical powers of this time - nuclear power, capable of destroying the whole Argentina, actually. And yet they invaded Falklands.

P.S. And frankly, considering the situation in Syria - would you deny, that in THAT case, we, Russians, were on the side of "good guys"? Assad may not be exactly the "best ruler of the year" nominate, but he is the only one who could bring peace and stability to what remains of Syria in short time. This conflict cost hundred of thousand peoples their lives; millions fled the country. The ancient nation with millenia-long history was nearly ruined. And as we could see in Lybia and numerous other places on Middle East - the victory of "democratic opposition" led just to more fighting now among the "democrats" and more destruction.

Sorry, but for the sake of Syrian peoples, the faster Assad establish his firm control over all country the better.

gcomeau wrote:
The NATO alliance has been extremely reliable, with the notable recent exception of the United states.

Yeah? So, Turkey is not a NATO member? Oh, let me guess: it's Trump fault again? How exactly - he order Erdogan to invade, or what?

gcomeau wrote:It was being handled quite adequately actually.

Yeah, as long as US agreed with Turkey position.

gcomeau wrote:No kidding. Trump and "coherent strategy" should never be spoken in the same statement except to point out they don't mix.

Here, I'm not protecting Trump; I'm just stating the facts. By the way, your precious idiot Obama have zero coherent strategy besides "emmmm... let's kill a bit more Syrians, maybe?"

I thought that I would comment by taking a trip in the Wayback Machine.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/ ... out-096128

The point here is that the Syrian Shit Storm is a legacy of the Obama-Clinton, Arab Spring insanity.

Keep in mind that I am one of the people who supported the Iraq invasion. I am also one of the few who continues to reject the "Bush Lied! People Died!" mantra. Bush merely misoverestimated Iraq's WMD programs which Saddam Hussein was simultaneously denying while covertly simulating to deter Iran. To be blunt, given the level of the Iraq nuclear weapons program that was documented after the first Gulf War, we knew that the Iraqis had mastered ALL of the technologies needed to build nuclear weapons and were only months away from having one. The Gas Centrifuge Uranium isotope seperation method is simply to easy, to cost effective and to concealable for it to be possible to verify that a country that has mastered the technology isn't producing bomb grade Uranium by national technical means. The cheating on the oil for food program that Turkey and other NATO "allies" so eagerly enabled gave Bush more reason to believe that Iraq was going nuclear.

By 2013 it was irrefutable that:

Saddam Hussein had been waiting until sanctions were lifted to reconstitute his WMD programs. If Bush had not invaded, our European "allies" would have lifted sanctions so that they could buy Iraq oil at bargain prices while gleefully selling Saddam everything he needed for his WMD programs.

The Neo Conservative dream of civilizing the Muslim world by exporting democracy at the point of a bayonette wasn't going to work.

Even worse, Obama's bungling of the Bin Laden assasination and subsequent grandstanding on it had discredited the somewhat moderate government of Pakistan, empowering the militant Islamists who are now so eager to support terrorists who will provoke India so that they can have a pretext to nuke India.

Added to this toxic reality is the Obama-Clinton incitement and enabling of the Arab Spring insanity. As you no doubt do not recall, Daffy Gadaffy had surrendered his WMD to Bush and Condi Rice. The very implicit deal was that the US would not invade Lybia or incite a rebellion against Gadaffy. The US reniged on that deal and Whitch Hillary even gloated "we came. We saw. He died." in response to the video of Gadaffy being sodomized with a bayonet. The very unequivacal message to every dictator on the planet is that you dare not surrender your nukes to the US and that you actually need nukes to survive.

Given the ugly realities that have evolved since 9-11-2011, Governor Palin's pythy quip accurately summarizes the only remaining, cogent strategy for the Middle East. We simply do not understand the Islamic peoples well enough to differentiate between the mythical "good Muslims who support freedom and democracy" and the radical Islamists who want to kill the dictators who have been preventing them from killing infidels. As ugly as Assad is and Hussein was, they were supported by the minority Christians who understood that rule by radicalized Islamic fundamentalists would result in genocide. Now thanks to Bush, Obama, and Clinton medling in the Middle East, most of the Christians are dead.

I firmly believe that Trump's abandonment of Syria is a stratagem against Turkey. Turkey incited the Iraq invasion by supporting Saddam by enabling the smuggling of oil. The US needs to abandon the delusion that Turkey is an ally. If Turkey gets to brutal in Syria, even the EU might support expelling them from NATO.

This is not a good thing for Russia.

Trump: Abandons allies to die because loyalty is only a one way road to him

TFLY: ah, yes, this must be part of an intricate geopolitical plan

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
You do know who "you" and "we" is when he speaks here right? That is "America lost, Russia won".

Keep that in mind when you're enthusiastically agreeing with his claims about how much he likes what Trump is doing. There's a reason he likes it. He is not exactly cheering for America here.

Seriously, your paranoia is almost 1950s level.

I literally only pointed out exactly what you said.

Explain the paranoia part.

Of course I'm not cheering for America here. What I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to you, is that Trump is not the only one to blame for the current situation. He inherited the initially extremely bad strategic position, that he could neither hold, nor advance anyhow.

Except as has already been pointed out to you, that statement is utter bullshit. The ONLY thing he had to do was leave that token force in place. That is IT.

The Kurds were handling ISIS.

The Turks weren't going to move as long as there were US troops in the way. Neither was Assad. The Kurds could have finished cleanup on ISIS as they got more and more established in the autonomous zone and negotiations about their long term status were conducted while the security agreement that had been in place between the Kurds/Turks/US along the border held because it was fucking working.

ALL Trump had to do was NOTHING. And he screwed that up.

Your assumption that "those tiny garrisons prevented Turkey from invading" just did not correspond with reality. Turkey perfectly understood, that those troops are nothing more than symbolic

Turkey understood that they were a tripline. They were there so that if Turkey had attacked they would have been attacking American soldiers. Which they were NEVER going to do. Which is why Erdogan manipulated Trump (the most easily manipulable US president in history) into withdrawing them out of the way so he could launch his attack.

, and that they could not be reinforced in any practical way. You seems to be completely unable to comprehend, that the mere existence of the small garrison - even small garrison of a great power - did NOT make much of deterrence.

You seem to not understand that "if you launch this attack you will be attacking the US military and bringing with it all the military, economic and political repercussions that follow from that" is a fucking gigantic deterrent.

(Actually, let me take that back, I'm sure you do understand that and you're just full of shit right now)

There were numerous cases when such isolated garrisons were attacked and destroyed - Falkland war, for just the first example. Argentine dared to challenge one of the major military & economical powers of this time - nuclear power, capable of destroying the whole Argentina, actually. And yet they invaded Falklands.

Because they were morons. And they got their ass kicked as a result.

Erdogan may be a ruthless dictator, but he isn't brain damaged.

P.S. And frankly, considering the situation in Syria - would you deny, that in THAT case, we, Russians, were on the side of "good guys"?

They guy who deployed chemical weapons against civilian populations? Yes, I can fucking well deny that was "the good guys". Putin doesn't support Assad out of altruism, he supports him because he needs him for his own power play in the middle east.

I am a isolationist by nature. The US troops should not be used as policeman. The US government should be making plans to withdraw from Iraq and Syria. If Gcomeau wants to stop the slaughter he should send Canadian troops to patrol in Syria. Trump is only fulfilling his campaign pledges.

gcomeau wrote:
They guy who deployed chemical weapons against civilian populations? Yes, I can fucking well deny that was "the good guys". Putin doesn't support Assad out of altruism, he supports him because he needs him for his own power play in the middle east.

Yeah, right. So we should believe that Assad used outdated and known to be ineffective chlorine to achieve absolutely nothing, against targets that did not worth it, immediately after he was strongly warned not to do exactly that.

Oh, and some "victims" of said attacks were later presented in Hague being in perfect health, without any symptoms of chlorine poisoning. How inconvenient.

Seriously, if you believe in this bullshit, you probably believe in flat Earth too.

smr wrote:I am a isolationist by nature. The US troops should not be used as policeman. The US government should be making plans to withdraw from Iraq and Syria. If Gcomeau wants to stop the slaughter he should send Canadian troops to patrol in Syria. Trump is only fulfilling his campaign pledges.

Then why are the troops actually staying to guard the oil fields instead of protecting the Kurds?

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
They guy who deployed chemical weapons against civilian populations? Yes, I can fucking well deny that was "the good guys". Putin doesn't support Assad out of altruism, he supports him because he needs him for his own power play in the middle east.

Yeah, right. So we should believe that Assad used outdated and known to be ineffective chlorine to achieve absolutely nothing, against targets that did not worth it, immediately after he was strongly warned not to do exactly that.

As every single investigation (except, OF COURSE, the Russian one) found... yes. We are to believe he did what he fucking did.

The UN mission investigation found that very large amounts of Sarin were used. Guess who was the only force operating in the region who HAD very large amounts of Sarin to deploy?

The UNHRC investigation found strong evidence that the Sarin used came from the Syrian army's stockpile, and absolutely CONCLUSIVE evidence that Syrian warplanes employed chemical weapons munitions in the battle of Aleppo.

The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission discovered Sarin and VX precursors in Syrian government research labs where they weren't supposed to be.

The UN-OPCW JIM investigation assigned responsibility for the attacks to the Syrian government, right from the very top.

Oh, and some "victims" of said attacks were later presented in Hague being in perfect health, without any symptoms of chlorine poisoning. How inconvenient.

Uh huh... that's quite the counter point to the results of extensive multi year investigations by the UN research teams.

gcomeau wrote:The UN mission investigation found that very large amounts of Sarin were used. Guess who was the only force operating in the region who HAD very large amounts of Sarin to deploy?

Incidentally it was not used in public-hype attack against civilians. What a pity for Holy Democracy; they were forced to use chlorine for their dumb provocation because the only sarine was used was actually used against opposing side combatants.

gcomeau wrote:
Uh huh... that's quite the counter point to the results of extensive multi year investigations by the UN research teams.

Actually it is. Because "UN investigation" nowadays is basically "we wrote what US ordered us to". But of course, the fact that video that UN used as evidence was staged means nothing to you. Because you already was indoctrinated to the Holy Truth - "never ever doubt the Pillars of Holy Democracy; it is heresy to think outside of Approved List of Completely Free Thoughts of Holy Democracy" - you could not even explain WHY Assad need to do it?