Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
You're overlooking the fact that Russia is said to hold some pretty personally damning intel against Trump.
Who says this, what is their track record, and where is the concrete evidence?If Trump acts, he loses the support of the Libertarian/non-interventionist crowd that helped put him in the WH. He may well do so, and this will be interesting to watch as well as further confirm what I have been saying for a long time: we are in the final phases of collapse as an empire.
In the end, that is a good thing of course. As a multipolar world is preferrable, and disrupts globalism.
If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
SilverSixer said:
frankenstein12 said:
Zod said:
frankenstein12 said:
Zod said:
PRTVR said:
Zod said:
o, knaves or fools like you raise this "obvious question" to excuse Assad. The real question is why wouldn't he when he knows he will get away with it, thanks to Russian protection.
Get away with it ? World wide condemnation, even trump against him , for what gain ?Here is a question.
If it is the case that he feels free to use chemical weapons as he has "got Away" with doing so before when he is already condemned and vilified and is protected by Russia who have been involved for 2 plus years why only now when he is actually making big strides in winning with the US talking about possibly starting to work with him and starting to get more support from western government would he launch a chemical weapons attack ?
Why would he risk throwing away all his gains and possibly getting America and its volatile presidents hackles up? A president who has shown himself to be quick and rash in decision making who would possibly take a very dim view of Assad using chemical weapons and unlike Obama launch a retaliation?
Proper trolling sir. You had me you really did until this post. Nobody not even someone from another planet would be unaware of Trump and how volatile and unpredictable he can be.
I don't know if Russia has this intel. I claim no knowledge. I'm just saying this situation could well put that issue to bed either way. Unless Russia does have the intel and decides to save it for an even rainier day. But this could be their opportunity to plunge the US into utter political chaos, and it wouldn't be too fanciful to speculate that they've done it deliberately.
(Small credential declaration: an interest in Russian affairs dating back to Soviet times including a degree in Russian Studies, which includes historical and political studies amongst other things - however I make no claims that this gives me any inside knowledge of the current situation, but a decent background in how Russia/USSR often acts which informs my opinions/take on the matter).
Lets say Russia has done all that is claimed and helped put Trump in the white house for their own purposes.
To what end would it benefit Russia since according to what everyone wants to believe they put Trump in the white house?
Given Trump has taken a more reasoned stance on Syria and the Assad regime to what end does it benefit Assad to launch a chemical weapon attack knowing Trump will come under pressure to react thereby compromising both their biggest supporters Russia who are accused of putting Trump in office?
A chem weapon attack by Assad would be bad for Trump and bad for Russia and therefore bad for Assad who could lose support from Russia for antagonising the US and compromising the softening relationship the Russians have with Trump.
Its also a zero sum. If Trump does nothing people will claim Russia is stopping him as they have dirt.
As such his only alternate would be to take action against Syria risking a full blown war and even then people will still claim he is Russias lackey.
frankenstein12 said:
SilverSixer said:
frankenstein12 said:
Zod said:
frankenstein12 said:
Zod said:
PRTVR said:
Zod said:
o, knaves or fools like you raise this "obvious question" to excuse Assad. The real question is why wouldn't he when he knows he will get away with it, thanks to Russian protection.
Get away with it ? World wide condemnation, even trump against him , for what gain ?Here is a question.
If it is the case that he feels free to use chemical weapons as he has "got Away" with doing so before when he is already condemned and vilified and is protected by Russia who have been involved for 2 plus years why only now when he is actually making big strides in winning with the US talking about possibly starting to work with him and starting to get more support from western government would he launch a chemical weapons attack ?
Why would he risk throwing away all his gains and possibly getting America and its volatile presidents hackles up? A president who has shown himself to be quick and rash in decision making who would possibly take a very dim view of Assad using chemical weapons and unlike Obama launch a retaliation?
Proper trolling sir. You had me you really did until this post. Nobody not even someone from another planet would be unaware of Trump and how volatile and unpredictable he can be.
I don't know if Russia has this intel. I claim no knowledge. I'm just saying this situation could well put that issue to bed either way. Unless Russia does have the intel and decides to save it for an even rainier day. But this could be their opportunity to plunge the US into utter political chaos, and it wouldn't be too fanciful to speculate that they've done it deliberately.
(Small credential declaration: an interest in Russian affairs dating back to Soviet times including a degree in Russian Studies, which includes historical and political studies amongst other things - however I make no claims that this gives me any inside knowledge of the current situation, but a decent background in how Russia/USSR often acts which informs my opinions/take on the matter).
Lets say Russia has done all that is claimed and helped put Trump in the white house for their own purposes.
To what end would it benefit Russia since according to what everyone wants to believe they put Trump in the white house?
Given Trump has taken a more reasoned stance on Syria and the Assad regime to what end does it benefit Assad to launch a chemical weapon attack knowing Trump will come under pressure to react thereby compromising both their biggest supporters Russia who are accused of putting Trump in office?
A chem weapon attack by Assad would be bad for Trump and bad for Russia and therefore bad for Assad who could lose support from Russia for antagonising the US and compromising the softening relationship the Russians have with Trump.
Its also a zero sum. If Trump does nothing people will claim Russia is stopping him as they have dirt.
As such his only alternate would be to take action against Syria risking a full blown war and even then people will still claim he is Russias lackey.
Again, this is speculation on my part and no concrete elephants will hove in to view.
SilverSixer said:
Preferable to right wing nationalist nutcakes, perhaps. Pan-nationalism and globalism drives peace.
If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
I did read your post. If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
Globalism and the destruction of national borders are, like all concentrations of power, the antithesis of freedom; they are imperialism under another name. The multipolar world is the opposite of the globalist, unipolar world.
The Brexit set (if this is who you mean by right-wing nationalist nutcases) would be in favor of a multi-polar world; in this respect you seem confused.
People now in the West are far less trusting of their leaders when they hint they want to launch a fresh war.
After the WMD lies on Iraq, and the tenuous 911 / Taliban Afghanistan invasion, people are far more wary when they see reports of "Assad chemical monster". The reports may or may not be accurate, but they do seem to be teeing up Westerners and testing the waters for another possible war / invasion / regime change.
After the WMD lies on Iraq, and the tenuous 911 / Taliban Afghanistan invasion, people are far more wary when they see reports of "Assad chemical monster". The reports may or may not be accurate, but they do seem to be teeing up Westerners and testing the waters for another possible war / invasion / regime change.
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
Preferable to right wing nationalist nutcakes, perhaps. Pan-nationalism and globalism drives peace.
If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
I did read your post. If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
Globalism and the destruction of national borders are, like all concentrations of power, the antithesis of freedom; they are imperialism under another name. The multipolar world is the opposite of the globalist, unipolar world.
The Brexit set (if this is who you mean by right-wing nationalist nutcases) would be in favor of a multi-polar world; in this respect you seem confused.
We are getting off topic.
Yipper said:
People now in the West are far less trusting of their leaders when they hint they want to launch a fresh war.
After the WMD lies on Iraq, and the tenuous 911 / Taliban Afghanistan invasion, people are far more wary when they see reports of "Assad chemical monster". The reports may or may not be accurate, but they do seem to be teeing up Westerners and testing the waters for another possible war / invasion / regime change.
It isn't even fresh. The events in Ukraine and the proxy war in Syria are related, both are efforts to neuter Russia and its remaining satellites and to expand US influence. It's another dot on the PNAC roadmap. After the WMD lies on Iraq, and the tenuous 911 / Taliban Afghanistan invasion, people are far more wary when they see reports of "Assad chemical monster". The reports may or may not be accurate, but they do seem to be teeing up Westerners and testing the waters for another possible war / invasion / regime change.
The endgame is a unipolar world. Should Russia be absorbed or go down, China is next, as it is the only member of the breakaway BRIC block that could challenge the United States and its vassals (which, laughably, now includes Montenegro). The flaw in all of this is, of course, that this path leads to destruction of all the major players, as neither Russia or China is going to roll over.
SilverSixer said:
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
Preferable to right wing nationalist nutcakes, perhaps. Pan-nationalism and globalism drives peace.
If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
I did read your post. If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
Globalism and the destruction of national borders are, like all concentrations of power, the antithesis of freedom; they are imperialism under another name. The multipolar world is the opposite of the globalist, unipolar world.
The Brexit set (if this is who you mean by right-wing nationalist nutcases) would be in favor of a multi-polar world; in this respect you seem confused.
Your understanding of globalism is another issue entirely.
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
Preferable to right wing nationalist nutcakes, perhaps. Pan-nationalism and globalism drives peace.
If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
I did read your post. If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
Globalism and the destruction of national borders are, like all concentrations of power, the antithesis of freedom; they are imperialism under another name. The multipolar world is the opposite of the globalist, unipolar world.
The Brexit set (if this is who you mean by right-wing nationalist nutcases) would be in favor of a multi-polar world; in this respect you seem confused.
Your understanding of globalism is another issue entirely.
SilverSixer said:
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
Preferable to right wing nationalist nutcakes, perhaps. Pan-nationalism and globalism drives peace.
If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
I did read your post. If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
Globalism and the destruction of national borders are, like all concentrations of power, the antithesis of freedom; they are imperialism under another name. The multipolar world is the opposite of the globalist, unipolar world.
The Brexit set (if this is who you mean by right-wing nationalist nutcases) would be in favor of a multi-polar world; in this respect you seem confused.
Your understanding of globalism is another issue entirely.
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
scherzkeks said:
SilverSixer said:
Preferable to right wing nationalist nutcakes, perhaps. Pan-nationalism and globalism drives peace.
If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
I did read your post. If you read my post, I said nothing about concrete elephants. It's a discussion, not a place where everybody has to acceded to your world view or shut up. We're all pissing in the wind.
Globalism and the destruction of national borders are, like all concentrations of power, the antithesis of freedom; they are imperialism under another name. The multipolar world is the opposite of the globalist, unipolar world.
The Brexit set (if this is who you mean by right-wing nationalist nutcases) would be in favor of a multi-polar world; in this respect you seem confused.
Your understanding of globalism is another issue entirely.
I enter discussion to share ideas and maybe broaden my views and understandings, as well as hope that my participation helps others do likewise. The mere fact you use the term "back out" shows you're here to "win" arguments. Maybe you should change your approach a bit. We're none of us right about everything.
And again, we digress. What do you think of the points I made about Trump/Russia in relation to the current situation in Syria?
QuantumTokoloshi said:
La Liga said:
People on PH know better than our intelligence services.
Iraqi WMD anyone? Guess the "intelligence services" knew better in that case. Libya, and the bright shining future after Gaddafi. Guess the "intelligence services" knew better in that case too. That's like trying to prove aeroplane travel is dangerous because on rare occasions they crash.
frankenstein12 said:
La Liga said:
frankenstein12 said:
It has nothing to do with our intelligence services they know jack diddly squat about what actually happened.
You are, in the most obvious way possible, in no position to say what they do and do not know. frankenstein12 said:
Even if they did I can guarantee the Gov will spin it as being done by Assad as it suits their narrative.
You can't guarantee anything of the sort. frankenstein12 said:
I know how our government works.
And evidently the intelligence services. Quite the repertoire. What you and others are saying is you know better than our intelligence services.
La Liga said:
o? That doesn't mean you know what the intelligence services know and do not know or can guarantee state would do with the information.
What you and others are saying is you know better than our intelligence services.
If he had any level of security clearance that would give him enoguh knowledge to post useful insights here, he would not be posting about it here. His claim to work for the government, whether true or not, is therefore worthless as a bolster to his arguments.What you and others are saying is you know better than our intelligence services.
La Liga said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
La Liga said:
People on PH know better than our intelligence services.
Iraqi WMD anyone? Guess the "intelligence services" knew better in that case. Libya, and the bright shining future after Gaddafi. Guess the "intelligence services" knew better in that case too. That's like trying to prove aeroplane travel is dangerous because on rare occasions they crash.
I'd have hoped we would have learned from the past not to blindly trust what Governments say is 100% fact when Military Force is being considered as an option, based on what happened previously, yet we seem to be allowing the images to dead children to be used as emotional blackmail (same as the current EU refugee crisis) without any actual "proof" being given as to who the perpetrator is.
La Liga said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
La Liga said:
People on PH know better than our intelligence services.
Iraqi WMD anyone? Guess the "intelligence services" knew better in that case. Libya, and the bright shining future after Gaddafi. Guess the "intelligence services" knew better in that case too. That's like trying to prove aeroplane travel is dangerous because on rare occasions they crash.
frankenstein12 said:
La Liga said:
frankenstein12 said:
It has nothing to do with our intelligence services they know jack diddly squat about what actually happened.
You are, in the most obvious way possible, in no position to say what they do and do not know. frankenstein12 said:
Even if they did I can guarantee the Gov will spin it as being done by Assad as it suits their narrative.
You can't guarantee anything of the sort. frankenstein12 said:
I know how our government works.
And evidently the intelligence services. Quite the repertoire. What you and others are saying is you know better than our intelligence services.
Zod said:
La Liga said:
o? That doesn't mean you know what the intelligence services know and do not know or can guarantee state would do with the information.
What you and others are saying is you know better than our intelligence services.
If he had any level of security clearance that would give him enoguh knowledge to post useful insights here, he would not be posting about it here. His claim to work for the government, whether true or not, is therefore worthless as a bolster to his arguments.What you and others are saying is you know better than our intelligence services.
scherzkeks said:
Who says this, what is their track record, and where is the concrete evidence?
If Trump acts, he loses the support of the Libertarian/non-interventionist crowd that helped put him in the WH. He may well do so, and this will be interesting to watch as well as further confirm what I have been saying for a long time: we are in the final phases of collapse as an empire.
In the end, that is a good thing of course. As a multipolar world is preferrable, and disrupts globalism.
Which empire would that be?If Trump acts, he loses the support of the Libertarian/non-interventionist crowd that helped put him in the WH. He may well do so, and this will be interesting to watch as well as further confirm what I have been saying for a long time: we are in the final phases of collapse as an empire.
In the end, that is a good thing of course. As a multipolar world is preferrable, and disrupts globalism.
Phil
scherzkeks said:
It isn't even fresh. The events in Ukraine and the proxy war in Syria are related, both are efforts to neuter Russia and its remaining satellites and to expand US influence. It's another dot on the PNAC roadmap.
The endgame is a unipolar world. Should Russia be absorbed or go down, China is next, as it is the only member of the breakaway BRIC block that could challenge the United States and its vassals (which, laughably, now includes Montenegro). The flaw in all of this is, of course, that this path leads to destruction of all the major players, as neither Russia or China is going to roll over.
How was Obama part of your theory during his 8 years?The endgame is a unipolar world. Should Russia be absorbed or go down, China is next, as it is the only member of the breakaway BRIC block that could challenge the United States and its vassals (which, laughably, now includes Montenegro). The flaw in all of this is, of course, that this path leads to destruction of all the major players, as neither Russia or China is going to roll over.
IMO Russia will implode (financially) without control of Europe's gas supply and it's only a matter of time until Israel takes it's slice (a big one) of that pie. It has little oil and De Beers have the diamond rights. What other exports do they have left? I ceased eating caviar when it reached £95 for 113 grams at Sainsbury's some years back.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/noble-energy-gives-go...
Saudi is of course keeping the taps full on which keeps the worlds oil price low - this hurts Iran and to a degree Russia also. Without other exports said countries are buggered.
Just my 2c, your mileage will vary.
Phil
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff