The Kurds fought side by side with America against ISIS and Assad and lost 10-11,000 fighters killed.

Trump abandoned them, and this is what he said.


"The Kurds weren't there when we invaded Normandy." (1944 - 75 years ago)
"They weren't there at Omaha Beach". (1944 - 75 years ago).
"The Kurds didn't help us in WW2".

This brain-dead moron actually said these things. I'm sure it's on YouTube.

Note : When Trump's turn came to fight for his country, he paid a doctor to lie that he had bone spurs. His only battle, he later said, was with VD.

What lousy excuses to throw TRUSTED and RELIABLE allies against ISIS under the bus! Do we recall that our NATO partners the Turks were slow to help our Air Force and troops in that same fight as the Kurds were making the ultimate sacrifices? I guess those Turkey properties and the wishes of Vlad are more important than doing whats right.

Looks like though his repub sycophants aren't on board with this move. About damned time, unless this is just lip service. We'll see won't we. Do I have to point out the dufus lies surrounding this issue? Even the nose holders can see that you would think.

The Turks are true slime: They have harbored terrorists, offered free passage for terrorists through Turkey into Syria to attack Syrian Arab Army forces, been against Russia one week and siding with them the other week, effectively stole Cyprus from the Greeks, held Europe hostage through coercion of threating to permit "more" refugees through into Europe unless Europe buckled to their demands (they want into the E.U.), committed genocide against Kurds and Armenians AND NEVER BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE! (DAMN OUTRAGE!!!), been allied with the Germans in WWI and almost in WWII,......I mean, there is probably more but those are the ones that come to mind, right now.....Why in the heck are we still licking their backsides?

I know you guys on here despise Russia but Russia has been right about Turkey....and Russia was on the right side of history in Syria and with the farce called "The Arab Spring" (a total abortion that is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost)…...We are worried about Iran and Syria and Russia but Turkey is right there with them: THEY SUCK!

All this puts me in a weird place: backing a Marxist group in the PPK against the Turks....never thought that would happen!

Dumbest foreign policy call I've seen in years .
I am reminded of the times after the Gulf War .We recognized the Kurds as our indispensable ally during the Gulf War . After the war GHW Bush said it would be a neat idea if the people of Iraq rose up against Saddam and removed him . Well the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south took him seriously and rose up against Saddam. But the cease fire agreement we had with Saddam allowed the Iraqis to use helicopters ;which they did with devastating effect as gunships against the Shia and Kurds while the American Army was on the ground watching . We eventually set up no fly zones after the damage had already been done. We betrayed them then ,and we are betraying them today .

His comments are ignorant and just plain stupid . Forget what they did in 1944 . What did they do during the last 2 decades ?
The Kurds assisted in the fight against Saddam ;against the baath insurgency ,against AQ in Iraq ,against ISS both in Iraq and Syria . Not only assisted ….they were the point of the spear ;the boots on the ground against ISIS . There is absolutely no strategic advantage for the President to sacrifice Syrian Kurds to the Islamic dictator of Turkey . I opposed him for his isolationist positions during the campaign and have opposed his impulsive tendencies in foreign policy in general since .
On the one hand we have Turkey ,a purported ally who denied American troops access to Iraq's northern border during Operation Desert Storm .That denial prevented the US from opening a 2nd front and I believe had an impact on the eventual
insurgency in Iraq . Fast forward to the emperor's plan funneling jihadists and weapons into Syria through Turkey to assist the insurgency against Assad ( how many ISIS recruits passed through Turkey is unknown. ) Then Turkey shot down a Russian MiG and the emperor had a typical
spineless response to go along with his faux red lines . Turkey used that as a justification to break with the US and cozy up to Moscow .Putin then sold Turkey S-400s and I guarantee they are not aimed at Russian planes.
Meanwhile Turkey's dictator Erdogan has become more militant Islamist He orchestrated a faux coup against himself to consolidate his power and further eroded democracy in the country . Turkey also has a long history of repression of the Kurds.
The emperor's and Trump's bad decisions should bear no weight on the Kurds' legitimate fight for statehood. Imagine this: a large Middle Eastern nation, rich in resources, protective of human rights, and friendly to America.
Surely this would be better than entrusting regional security to nations that already don't like us.

Fast forward to the emperor's plan funneling jihadists and weapons into Syria through Turkey to assist the insurgency against Assad ( how many ISIS recruits passed through Turkey is unknown. ) Then Turkey shot down a Russian MiG and the emperor had a typical spineless response to go along with his faux red lines.


You just couldn't leave Obama out of this, could you? And you were doing so well.

There is a rumor that Erdogan somehow threatened Trump Tower in Istanbul. That would explain Trump putting his personal interest ahead of the national interest. But it's still only a rumor.

Associates of Giuliani who have been photographed with Trump have been arrested at Dulles Airport with a one-way ticket out of the country. Trump says he doesn't know them, but there's that incriminating photograph. They're connected to Ukraine and Russia and an American Congressman channeling money to and from the players. Of course, Trump denies knowing them. Damn photograph! Giuliani had lunch with them an hour before they were arrested. They're each being held on one million dollar bail. This is NOT a rumor!

The noose tightens.

Trump's comments are ludicrous, by his definition any nation that wasn't present on the beaches of Normandy doesn't qualify for assistance, by his definition any person not present doesn't count, this includes him. Where was he when Turkey was carrying out it's pogroms in Armenia? in Anatolia? He is a despicable person and as far as his america first idea is concerned, I think he should be first in line to be sodomised by a turkish bayonet

What does that have to do with his decision in Syria ? I don't know enough about the arrest of
Giuliani's associates to comment at this time .When there are more facts I'll have something to say . All I can say right now is that the swamp is deep and wide and bipartisan .


As for the emperor ;his decision to funnel arms to the so called the "Free Syrian Army" (jihadists all) led to the Benghazi disaster . Trump's decision ranks right up there in bone headed policy.

I will add that the rumor I heard was that the US forces there ,in an effort to easy tensions ,convinced the Kurds to dismantle defenses right before Trump stabbed the Kurds in the back.

One thing terrorist can get are tools to terrorize, all they need is an opportunity and a small consulate is a tempting target. I doubt the special forces in Syria saw the dufus betrayal coming. I think the Kurds will seek their protection while this mess the dufus made gets resolved, but much blood will flow in the meantime, and this is but the beginning.

I doubt the special forces in Syria saw the dufus betrayal coming. they didn't

Athos: My opinion only, but really not impressed with the grabbing of two gentlemen who know Giuliani.....Same tactics Mueller tried by "going after" those around Trump and trying to coerce them to turn on Trump: only the little turd scumbag Cohen did so and he was totally useless...guy was/is a rat.....same for these two: don't hang you hopes on these peons. If Giuliani had anything to hide, he wouldn't be roving around in public with them, would he? Giuliani, as you recall, is no dummy: He had a heck of a record as a prosecutor, bring down a ton of organized crime figures.....got to give him some credit.

I agree that there is a noose is tightening but its another noose I reference...its going to make you hate Trump even more!: Have you heard about Barr interviewing people all over the globe on various subjects pertaining to Democrats? Expectations are that a fuselage of subpoenas are heading out in 10 days or so. Looks like Trump has decided to match the Democrats subpoena for subpoena.

How is it that Assad is the bad guy STILL when his Syrian Arab Army did more than anyone to destroy ISIS? Don't even try to say it was a "Civil War" because it was Syrians fighting outsiders, for the most part.

The Kurds and Assad have had a pretty good relationship through all of this, with the common bond being the extermination of terrorists.

Hey Vac come out of the vacuum for a moment. Assad was fighting his arab rebels, AKA american armed terrorists, it was the Kurds who did the heavy lifting against ISIS in Syria, this is why they now have terrority to defend, let's see if Assad will step up and defend Syrian territory

Paraclete: Assad is a Western educated doctor.....he is not some wild eyed crazy like the ones the U.S. supported or the one McCain called "The Moderate Rebels" who de'stroyed churches and cut 8 year old kids heads off. Assad's Baathist government is secular and it has no problems with Christians or any other religion....some of the oldest operating churches in world exist in Syria. I think Assad has a good record fighting and killing terrorists.....and the Syrian Arab Army fought ISIS everywhere: How do you think they retained territory and kept the regions around Damascus from being overrun?

Assad allowed AQ jihadsts fighters to enter the Iraq rat line through Syria to fight against Americans . It is pure schadenfreude that those fighters turned on Assad . I know certain Dems think Assad is not an enemy of the US . But they are wrong. He has American blood on his hands .

Associates of Giuliani who have been photographed with Trump have been arrested at Dulles Airport with a one-way ticket out of the country. Trump says he doesn't know them, but there's that incriminating photograph. They're connected to Ukraine and Russia and an American Congressman channeling money to and from the players. Of course, Trump denies knowing them. Damn photograph! Giuliani had lunch with them an hour before they were arrested. They're each being held on one million dollar bail. This is NOT a rumor!

The noose tightens. campaign finance violations . hmmmm does the name John Huang ring a bell ?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1997/03/the-chinese-connection.html

Haung got slapped on the wrist and the money got returned. The difference here with these two grifters is they aren't even legit businessmen that conned Rudy the old NUT job whose client is a lying cheating dufus trying to get re elected and stay out of jail. So much for vetting those you deal with worse, ignoring your advisors and generals and following your big fat greasy gut.

The death toll in Syria just started at the hands of the Turks. Nobody but the Turks seem happy about yet another bonehead dufus decision which has to involve personal enrichment given all his decisions have involved personal enrichment.

The genesis of all this is The Arab Spring! Obama, whether by design through an adventurism CIA planor because he was just naive, got the U.S. embroiled in the Arab Spring: Its been nothing but an abortion since the very beginning.....We overthrew Gaddafi, who was actually working with the U.S. to knock off terrorist cells...then overthrew Mubarak, who was a 30 year U.S. ally in Egypt....then the plan was to take our Assad: Assad is charismatic leader...and the Syrian people rallied around him to stave off the crazy, Saudi and Turk backed Jihadist.....who were also backed by the likes of John McCain and Linsey Graham and others in the Senate and Congress.

We need a different course of action with regards to Syria: They may be THE ONLY SANE NATION in the M.E. and they have a track record of killing terrorists!

The minority Alawite reign has been one of repression since his old man Hafez seized power in 1970 . The ruse Bashar pulled on many in the West was that he was some kind of western educated reformist ruler . That was not the case . He has been as brutal to the people as his old man was . I remind you of the 1982 Hama massacre where 40,000 people were slaughtered by the Assad family. I remind you of the chemical bombings in Douma in the recent civil war .

tomder55: With respect, I remind you that Hama was a restive, jihadist hotbed that the old man Assad put to bed for about 40 years once he showed them how the cow ate the cabbage: They tried to kill him and he returned the favor in spades! Do you think that is wrong? If we had done the same things throughout history, we would have had a lot less troubles now. You can't view that area of the world through the prism of how we in the U.S. operate: They are still feral by our standards but, perhaps, more pure in the sense that if you hit them, they are going to hit you back harder...Assad knew that they couldn't be rehabilitated without a realization that they would be crushed.....just like in NATURE: Always follow NATURAL LAW and THE LAWS OF NATURE! Its good advice.

Assad had to take an "Executive Decision: Douma was hiding a load of terrorists, hiding amongst civilians......cancer cells hiding amongst good cells.

What I said here is RAW TRUTH....not condoning or condemning Assad....but bear in mind: Assad kills Jihadist in bunches!

You have just condoned the actions of the Assads

Paraclete: Until you have terrorist Jihadis from all over the world flooding into you country, I think you can't predict what lengths you would go to eliminate them.....Neither the U.S. or Australia has had to put up with that kind of onslaught inside their own borders.....that is why you can't judge them.

Paraclete: Until you have terrorist Jihadis from all over the world flooding into you country, I think you can't predict what lengths you would go to eliminate them.....Neither the U.S. or Australia has had to put up with that kind of onslaught inside their own borders.....that is why you can't judge them.

who is it I am judging, the turkish terrorists who supported IS and are now going to unleash them again. The turkish terrorist who is going to unleash millions upon the EU once again. The US has its own home grown terrorists only too willing to slaughter the innocents in schools, etc . As to Australia, we are fortunate our security forces are not hamstrung by rediculous notions of freedom, and so we have been relatively free of terrorist attacks, also our border protection policies do a good job of keeping them out. The Kurds should be supported against this oppressor who seeks to impose some rediculous solution to a problem they helped create. My thoughts are that if the Kurds are not wanted there they have shown themselves to be a people who should be resettled here

Assad was heavy handed with dissidents and reaped the whirlwind, the people of Syria are entitled to democracy but they didn't need the US creating a proxy war, pure opportunism and who suffered, the people of Syria, the people of Greece and other European states. How many refugees did the US take, people displaced by their foreign policy?

Paraclete: Total agreement about the Turks....they are nothing but trouble.

There is not one functioning democracy in the M.E....least not in the vision of we have of democracy being...so nothing really measures up.....but we shouldn't be trying to impose democracy all over the world, either: it doesn't fit in some cultures.....that is hard for us to accept.

Paraclete: Total agreement about the Turks....they are nothing but trouble.

There is not one functioning democracy in the M.E....least not in the vision of we have of democracy being...so nothing really measures up.....but we shouldn't be trying to impose democracy all over the world, either: it doesn't fit in some cultures.....that is hard for us to accept.

What is hard for you to accept is your interference is not welcome.

Giuliani, as you recall, is no dummy: He had a heck of a record as a prosecutor,

Giuliani without a doubt IS a dummy. Yes, at one time he was an effective prosecutor and mayor. But since then he has become unhinged (even his colleagues from then agree). He is currently under investigation by his old office, the Southern District New York. He is deeply involved in the Ukranian mess and Trump is carefully distancing himself from Rudy just like he did Cohen.


Have you heard about Barr interviewing people all over the globe on various subjects pertaining to Democrats?

Of course I've heard. Everybody has. Barr is supposed to be the Attorney General, not a snoop going worldwide looking for Democrat party stuff. He's going to get his arse impeached or charged with a crime. Trump, Barr, Pompei, Mitch, Graham - what an ungodly collection of grifters.

Wonder what the turks have on the dufus to make him allow an incursion into Syria, and get the US boxed in by not just the Turks, but Assad and Vlad too?

Wonder what the turks have on the dufus to make him allow an incursion into Syria, and get the US boxed in by not just the Turks, but Assad and Vlad too?

Somebody suggested Trump Tower in Istanbul. But even Trump could not stoop so low to jeopardize lives for some building. Or could he?

Its business

The dufus business is not in the nations interest though taking tax payer money or anybody's, friend or foe, is profit in his pocket! That may be illegal. He gets a million bucks to have his name hanging on those Istanbul towers and how easy is that to use against him to get your way politically, or militarily?

The dufus business is not in the nations interest though taking tax payer money or anybody's, friend or foe, is profit in his pocket! That may be illegal. He gets a million bucks to have his name hanging on those Istanbul towers and how easy is that to use against him to get your way politically, or militarily?

No military business, let's see what contracts emerge afterall Turkey has been buying Russian weapons

Reporting has it that the turks are shelling dangerously close to American position and a complete withdrawal is being considered as thousands of Kurds are seeking protection of the Americans. This is bound to get rather messy real quick if we completely evacuate out troops. Don't know how running from the Turks help us or the dufus in the eyes of the government or the world.

Can't beleive the dufus didn't see this coming, or perhaps he did and did it anyway. What a dufus, despicable as he always is.

Reporting has it that the turks are shelling dangerously close to American position and a complete withdrawal is being considered as thousands of Kurds are seeking protection of the Americans. This is bound to get rather messy real quick if we completely evacuate out troops. Don't know how running from the Turks help us or the dufus in the eyes of the government or the world.

Can't beleive the dufus didn't see this coming, or perhaps he did and did it anyway. What a dufus, despicable as he always is.

Trump obviously had different priorities and no doubt had assurances the americans would not be targetted if they withdrew, which of course is the coward's position from both sides. Why should Trump be concerned about Turkey they have shown themselves to be in the Russian camp lately.

Moscow Mitch the senate leader has said he is against a wholesale troop withdrawal from Syria and wants a reversal of the dufus feckless policy and hinted of a super majority in the House and senate to carry that out. He better get on it, or there won't be anything left to reverse. The dufus meanwhile has issued sanctions against some Turks, feckless on it's face, and wants to negotiate a cease fire, as he plans to evacuate all the troops soon.

Vlad will start his Turkey/Syria border patrol very soon, and the Nationals threaten to sweep the Cardinals.

Tal I have no objection if Russians patrol the Turkish border, better that they come under fire than my people, they can then settle some of those long standing issues with Turkey who will no doubt run to NATO and the US for protection. Turkey is an opportunist nation and should be dealt with accordingly

Good luck expecting Vlad to solve your problems. Maybe he has suggestions if you meet his price.

Good luck expecting Vlad to solve your problems. Maybe he has suggestions if you meet his price.

What I like about Vlad is he has no time for Muslim extremeists

That's not a virtue because he has no time for anyone who stands in his way. Extremists, muslims, journalist, political opponents, traitors, defectors, entertainers, and YOU if you get in the way.

Well, the boys ain't coming home, they will be redeployed to guard the oil in Iraq? What kind of leader runs policy by phone before he has given his troops time to prepare for such actions he wants carried out, and without consulting his generals and advisors, or the leaders of such counties?

Our troops are in Syria WITHOUT Congressional approval: That means that they are there ILLEGALLY: How can we make any argument for them to stay in Syria when they had no business being there in the first place.....U.S. SOLDIERS ARE THE BEST IN THIS WORLDbut they shouldn't be there! If we want to keep them there, CONGRESS NEEDS TO VOTE TO KEEP THEM THERE: Trump should ask Congress to vote on this measure immediately.

Our troops are in Syria WITHOUT Congressional approval: That means that they are there ILLEGALLY: How can we make any argument for them to stay in Syria when they had no business being there in the first place.....U.S. SOLDIERS ARE THE BEST IN THIS WORLDbut they shouldn't be there! If we want to keep them there, CONGRESS NEEDS TO VOTE TO KEEP THEM THERE: Trump should ask Congress to vote on this measure immediately.

Why would Trump ask Congress, a Demonrat Congress, to vote on something he doesn't agree with anyway? Honestly Vac, you need to think these issues through. The US troops are there under Presidental fiat, Obama Fiat, and Trump may withdraw them by fiat. Should the Demonrats want them there, they can vote and give Trump the opportunity to once more go against them. Anyway the Pence negotiated cease fire seems to be holding so less argy bargy must be agood thing

That's a great point, but more an example of the incompetent, do nothing congress not doing their job as a co equal branch of government and ceding authority to the executive branch. I also think that a few thousand troops maintaining some sort of stability to an unstable region is a good thing and vastly different that the hundreds of thousand we had their before and certainly preferable to the chaos that looms now. I mean a better plan would have been better that an arbitrary thrown together withdrawal.

Our guys didn't even have time to pack up. There is a wrong way and a right way to do things I think, and the dufus does things the wrong way. What's up with guarding the oil any way? What makes sending troops anywhere by a president LEGAL, is the failure of the congress to say otherwise.

Iraq just said they won't allow the US troops to stay in their country coming from Syria, (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-iraq-idUSKBN1X10RE) even though we have 5000 troops there as trainers already! Guess he should have called Bagdad first!

Well that settles it: Bring them all home......Oh, and SCREW YOU BAGHDAD, you ungrateful a$$ wipes.....now, go eat your sand!

Can you blame any reaction from out of the blue actions? Especially from a dufus threatening to take somebody elses oil who moves troops in without notice. Would you trust such an idiot?

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it". Noam Chomsky

Uh oh. Run run run as fast as you can, tRump!
Russian President Vladimir Putin says US dominance is ending after mistakes 'typical of an empire'
https://abcnews.go.com/International/putin-us-dominance-ending-mistakes-typical-empire/story?id=58611354

Uh oh. Run run run as fast as you can, tRump!
Russian President Vladimir Putin says US dominance is ending after mistakes 'typical of an empire'
https://abcnews.go.com/International/putin-us-dominance-ending-mistakes-typical-empire/story?id=58611354

Substitute Trump for Empire, and Putin is correct.

Guys AND Girls: Why would you give credence to or believe ANYTHING Putin says?

I never considered the U.S. to be an EMPIRE: What countries did we invade and stay in for any length of time? Where have we expanded beyond our borders? EMPIRE is a word not befitting the U.S.

I never considered the U.S. to be an EMPIRE: What countries did we invade and stay in for any length of time? Where have we expanded beyond our borders? EMPIRE is a word not befitting the U.S.

Please read my post. I dropped empire and replaced it with Trump.

Guys AND Girls: Why would you give credence to or believe ANYTHING Putin says?

I never considered the U.S. to be an EMPIRE: What countries did we invade and stay in for any length of time? Where have we expanded beyond our borders? EMPIRE is a word not befitting the U.S.
Texas used to be part of Mexico. Now Texas is ours. This country used to be populated by indigenous tribes. Now it's ours. How did we get it?

And Putin was the one who used the word "empire." Is he unhappy with his friend now?

Guys AND Girls: Why would you give credence to or believe ANYTHING Putin says?

I never considered the U.S. to be an EMPIRE: What countries did we invade and stay in for any length of time? Where have we expanded beyond our borders? EMPIRE is a word not befitting the U.S.

Are you blind or just not taught History. The american empire may have commenced with the invasion and annexation of territory from Mexico. There was the spanish-american war and the Philippines was added, you have various territories in the Pacific and a presence in countries you invaded. Like other empires you have released some of your possessions to independence

W.G. & Paraclete: Hold on a second: The U.S. didn't do the attacking or the starting in any of the conflicts you mention here......Let me enlighten you:

1) First off: MEXICANS are an amalgamation of Native American and Spanish....there were NO MEXICANS in what is MEXICO when the Spanish Conquistadors arrived and started slaughtering the natives and breeding with the native women to form what is today called a MEXICAN.....there is no PURE STRAIN of people that are MEXICAN, they have varying percentages of Native/Indian and Spanish blood coursing through their veins. MEXICANS ARE CERTAINLY NOT A SPECIES OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THEIR MIXTURES ARE INCONSISTENT.

2) U.S. never ANNEXED ANY TERRITORY, AND THAT INCLUDES MEXICO. The truth is much different: Mexico decided to attack the U.S. and this action precipitated the Mexican-American War.....the U.S. won this war and our troops marched down to Mexico City and right into the Mexican Emperors palace and presented him a document that effective said if you agree to cede the territories of California, Texas, and a defined area in between, we can have peace: The Mexican Emperor signed the damned document: END OF STORY! The U.S. didn't steal a damn thing, it was all entirely earned IN AMERICAN BLOOD when we beat an aggressor's (MEXICO'S) backsides black and blue!

3) So you want to say that the "U.S. TOOK" the land we are living in from the Native Americans? Really? How do you know THEY WERE THE NATIVE AMERICANS? What makes them INDIGENEOUS? More likely than not, what we are calling "natives" and indigenous peoples actually came here some time before and EXTERMINATED the actual natives: Land Bridge from Asia ring a bell with you?

4) Any description of people COMING TO AMERICA and occupying parts of it was conducted WAY, WAY, WAY before there was ever a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Lets see....first the Spanish came.....then the English came......then the French came.....then the Russians came.....the U.S. came later on....and the United States, even back then, was a mixture of different peoples. All the United States did was "UNITE" all the scattered territories under one umbrella.

5) SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR: So the arrogant Spanish decided to start some crap up with the U.S. by blowing up the U.S.S. Battleship Maine in Guantanamo Bayand got their rear-ends busted but good! As a consequence of their profound miscalculation, they lost several of their territories: The U.S. has never "possessed" any of these....they were named protectorates.

Nobody is going to succeed in any argument trying to pigeon hole the U.S. into any box claiming that we are the grabbers of land....that just doesn't square with history: We had more than ample opportunities to do exactly that in years gone by, or even today, we could be doing that very thing.

The only reason ANY country has any freedom today or that there are as many countries existing in the world as it is and there isn't a few countries that have made the entire world a cooperative is because THE UNITED STATES EXISTS. We are not now nor have we ever been a nation that took other nations lands.

I don't know what is currently the state of affairs between Russia and the U.S.....What I do know is that the relationship we have now is as retarded as it could be: You could write any year into the relationship the U.S. has with Russia from 1946 to 2019 and it would be the same relationship WHAT IS BEWILDERING IS WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE THINK IT DOESN'T NEED TO CHANGE? Like the man or not, when Trump came into office, he wanted to change the U.S.-Russian relationship but his opponents did everything they could to foul-up those plans so that we could maintain the same old retarted status quo relationship with them: WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION TO KEEP IT THE SAME?

Bagdaddy DEAD!


Good Riddance as another one bites the dust! (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/baghdadi-the-ghost-jihadist-chief-who-oversaw-is-rise-and-fall/ar-AAJqg47?ocid=spartanntp)

Bagdaddy DEAD!


Good Riddance as another one bites the dust! (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/baghdadi-the-ghost-jihadist-chief-who-oversaw-is-rise-and-fall/ar-AAJqg47?ocid=spartanntp)
tRump says it's even BIGGER news than killing Obama killing Osama!!! ("Mine's bigger than yours, ha ha....")


V7 posted -- 3) So you want to say that the "U.S. TOOK" the land we are living in from the Native Americans? Really? How do you know THEY WERE THE NATIVE AMERICANS? What makes them INDIGENEOUS? More likely than not, what we are calling "natives" and indigenous peoples actually came here some time before and EXTERMINATED the actual natives: Land Bridge from Asia ring a bell with you?
Doesn't matter what THEY did. We're talking about what WE did.

LOL, by that thinking JL, how do we know that the Euros were indigenous to their regions? Given the tribal nature of man and conflicts with other tribes, chances are the winners wrote the history, and made the rules of those they conquered including language, customs and traditions which made up the culture.

The people of Europe are the result of successive invasions from the East, The people of the US followed the same path fulfilling their" "manifest destiny" as they like to think of it. The one difference is language, the people of the US are united by one language but they too will secombe to invaders

Are you crazy? Nobody's going to invade us.

Are you crazy? Nobody's going to invade us.

No I'm not crazy, just a student of history. Your invasion has already begun, peoples of the south are moving north, migration is the real threat. A century from now, we will not recognise your country

Paraclete: I could say that in a century from now, why would any of us care because we'll all be deader than a door nail.....but: The U.S. is going to "Stop" the "INVASION" as you call it: While most American have gone ballistic over the hard-edges of Trump on the "Border" subject and how he wants to address it, you can bet that Trump is just the start of the attention: There will be more Trumps to come in the U.S., that is inevitable: The next succession of Trump-like leaders will be even more hard-edged about the border situation.....the U.S. will prevail and retain the English language: We won't become a FRANCE.

There will be more Trumps to come in the U.S., that is inevitable: The next succession of Trump-like leaders will be even more hard-edged about the border situation.....the U.S. will prevail and retain the English language: We won't become a FRANCE.
Oh, I pray you are wrong!!!

Paraclete: I could say that in a century from now, why would any of us care because we'll all be deader than a door nail.....but: The U.S. is going to "Stop" the "INVASION" as you call it: While most American have gone ballistic over the hard-edges of Trump on the "Border" subject and how he wants to address it, you can bet that Trump is just the start of the attention: There will be more Trumps to come in the U.S., that is inevitable: The next succession of Trump-like leaders will be even more hard-edged about the border situation.....the U.S. will prevail and retain the English language: We won't become a FRANCE.

Who would want to become France, Vac, but you are in danger of becoming Spain, which is a basket case or is that basque case country

W.G. & Paraclete: Hold on a second: The U.S. didn't do the attacking or the starting in any of the conflicts you mention here......Let me enlighten you:

1) First off: MEXICANS are an amalgamation of Native American and Spanish....there were NO MEXICANS in what is MEXICO when the Spanish Conquistadors arrived and started slaughtering the natives and breeding with the native women to form what is today called a MEXICAN.....there is no PURE STRAIN of people that are MEXICAN, they have varying percentages of Native/Indian and Spanish blood coursing through their veins. MEXICANS ARE CERTAINLY NOT A SPECIES OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THEIR MIXTURES ARE INCONSISTENT.

Your last line reads like it came right out of Mein Kampf.

If Mexicans are not a "species of people", what are you? By your own moronic reasoning, an American is a mixture of dozens of ethnicities. You personally are a mixture of whatever you are a mixture of, maybe two, maybe five - do you know? - different peoples.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You're not helping your case by all the dopiness you consistently post here with your fractured history.

Athos: I appreciate your candidness: What I meant by the comment about Mexican and "species" (probably not the best word to use!): If you are in China, the people are almost a pure strain....Mexicans are neither Native Americans nor are they Spanish: they are two peoples combined......Nothing derogatory was meant by the comment other than to say it is factually incorrect for Mexicans to say "our people" or pretend to be a pure people and say "Mi Raza" (My Race), not only is that categorically wrong (Mexicans ARE NOT A RACE!) but doesn't that really sound a lot like the calls of Aryanism?

Athos: I appreciate your candidness: What I meant by the comment about Mexican and "species" (probably not the best word to use!): If you are in China, the people are almost a pure strain....Mexicans are neither Native Americans nor are they Spanish: they are two peoples combined......Nothing derogatory was meant by the comment other than to say it is factually incorrect for Mexicans to say "our people" or pretend to be a pure people and say "Mi Raza" (My Race), not only is that categorically wrong (Mexicans ARE NOT A RACE!) but doesn't that really sound a lot like the calls of Aryanism?

Let us review that, after the battle of Midway, Churchill referred to the american race, did anyone correct him and say we are a polyglot collection a non race

Paraclete: No, they did not, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE....Even a great man like Churchill can make a mistake.....The U.S. is far from "A RACE" of people. We have to stop this "RACE" thing as an identity marker....we need to IDENTIFY BY NATIONAL CONTEXT.

we need to IDENTIFY BY NATIONAL CONTEXT.

Which is EXACTLY what the Mexicans do!! Foot in mouth again.

2)

U.S. never ANNEXED ANY TERRITORY, AND THAT INCLUDES MEXICO. The truth is much different: Mexico decided to attack the U.S. and this action precipitated the Mexican-American War.....the U.S. won this war and our troops marched down to Mexico City and right into the Mexican Emperors palace and presented him a document that effective said if you agree to cede the territories of California, Texas, and a defined area in between, we can have peace: The Mexican Emperor signed the damned document: END OF STORY! The U.S. didn't steal a damn thing, it was all entirely earned IN AMERICAN BLOOD when we beat an aggressor's (MEXICO'S) backsides black and blue!

#2 -------

"The truth is much different", you say. Well, I'll agree with that! Almost nothing you write in this #2 is remotely true. I think you invent these things and just spill them onto these pages.

Briefly, Americans settled in the northeast section of Mexico which was sparsely inhabited at the time and ruled by Mexico. When the Americans introduced slavery, Mexico objected (Mexico had previously abolished slavery, decades before the US did). Several battles ensued - long story short.

Now calling themselves Texans, they were helped by the United States in their fight against Mexico. The US defeated Mexico and by way of treaty ANNEXED what is today the Southwest, all or part of 9 states. There was NO emperor, NO emperor's palace, and the peace treaty was signed in a church. Texas would soon join the US as a slave state.

SO, YES, THE US ANNEXED A LARGE SECTION OF MEXICO!! END OF STORY!!

Not the whole story though and as Athos points out very inaccurate. The west was won by self entitled white euro conquerors shedding the enemies blood and taking the spoils of victors like every other nation in the history of the world was built despite the glorification by those victors. Everybody has done it and we are no different Vac. It's the way of humans.

They called it manifest destiny in America.

They called it manifest destiny in America.

I think the general idea is might is right and it took root in america. Not every nation thinks this way

Paraclete, Talaniman, & Athos: We have to be very guarded right now: I know you don't like Trump but do you want to replace him with some war loving NEOCONS? Do you want something like Paul Wolfowitz whispering in the next POTUS's ear. The Military-Industrial Complex is still hanging around, looking to set up shop. Trump may/is a lot of things, be he is not a war mongering POTUS and he isn't a NEOCON. I think people forget how close we came to being continuously embroiled in wars for as far as the eye could see when GWB was in office: He was surrounded by NEOCONS! I feel like these types are still waiting in the wings, waiting for a time to strike! Trump sacked Bolton, so give him credit for doing that!

And the Media loves these conflicts! They honestly do.....it means ratings......Its so incestuous between all these groups.

That's your excuse for supporting the dufus? The neocons are coming? The military industrial complex is waiting for more waes? You have got to be kidding? If bringing the troops home no matter who you throw under a bus is okay with you, so be it, If one guy can make a unilateral deal with dictators and screw our allies then say so. That's not good enough for me nor do I have an innate fear of those ghosts that send chills down your spine. Conservatives love to say how great we are and saved the world from tyrants but the truth is it was a joint effort that took YEARS, as we have joints efforts now that will take years.

You don't get to holler how great you are and spend all the loot on the military then wimp out like a coward when murderous dictators say so. That's totally screwed up and nothing to be proud of or make us great. If find it remarkable that the two defenders on this forum swear they don't support the dufus when their words say just the opposite.

That's your excuse for supporting the dufus? The neocons are coming? The military industrial complex is waiting for more waes? You have got to be kidding? If bringing the troops home no matter who you throw under a bus is okay with you, so be it, If one guy can make a unilateral deal with dictators and screw our allies then say so. That's not good enough for me nor do I have an innate fear of those ghosts that send chills down your spine. Conservatives love to say how great we are and saved the world from tyrants but the truth is it was a joint effort that took YEARS, as we have joints efforts now that will take years.

You don't get to holler how great you are and spend all the loot on the military then wimp out like a coward when murderous dictators say so. That's totally screwed up and nothing to be proud of or make us great. If find it remarkable that the two defenders on this forum swear they don't support the dufus when their words say just the opposite.

Tal you must understand it is a problem with the system. It may have been alright in the agricultural age to have an executive with certain power because internal travel was difficult and those engaged in Congress needed to attend to their affairs. But today either you permit the President to make decisions or all his decisions must just be a rubber stamp of Congress. The President made a decision consistent with the platform on which he was elected. However, you want to criticise him for doing so because he didn't ask permission of a hostile Congress

Syria is not Trump's war, it was Obama's and Trump is perfectly valid to withdraw now he has persisted with the war on terror and dealt with a terrorist

That's part of the problem Clete, ISIS popped up and had to be dealt with but rather foolish to think it's over once you cut off the head. You know how it works, someone always takes the bosses place in any criminal or loony organization.

Dealing with A terrorist in a den of terrorists is hardly the end of the terrorists is it? What of Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Africa. Just because you ain't there doesn't mean they aren't fighting and terrorizing. Just because the dufus leaves such a conflict doesn't mean the end of the conflict. If 2000 troops bring stability then what the freak sense does it make to give in to murderous dictators?

Obama's war? That's a cop out to what was really going on now isn't it? Least we forget the terrorist owned cities and land they leveraged to enrich themselves, increase their power and recruit other terrorist of bad intent. The land has been liberated and the dictators are moving in to claim their spoils which is okay with you, and the dufus for sure. Russia can have Syria and Assad, whether Turkey likes it or not, but those Turks slow to support the crusade against ISIS was happy enough to be the terrorist highway for such rabble.

Wonder who was buying all that oil that funded the caliphate?

The ENDLESS string of U.S. Military involvement in the M.E. should end: Do ANY of you think that A SINGLE U.S. Soldier's life is worth protecting M.E. oil that the U.S. does not need? Do any of you want to put a price tag on that soldier's life? LET THE NATIONS THAT DEPEND ON THE OIL DEFEND THE OIL!

RIGHT NOW, ANY U.S. TROOPS DEPLOYED IN SYRIA ARE THERE ILLEGALLY! If you want troops in the M.E. so bad, why doesn't Congress vote on their deployment to make it LEGAL? Stop the talking out both sides of the mouth and VOTE ON TROOP DEPLOYMENT! And, you know why Congress won't vote on this, right? Because they don't want have their NAMES ON A VOTING RECORD FOR TROOP DEPLOYMENT, THAT'S WHY! THEY WANT ANONYMITY IN HAVING NO VOTING RECORD: ITS CONVENIENT FOR THEM! No, Congress would much rather criticize Trump for having troops in the M.E. AO THAT THEY CAN SAY HE IS PROTECTING OIL and then criticize him again if he wants to pull them out....that way they get the best of both worlds.

Why in the name of hell does the left love all these long drawn out, protracted conflicts in the M.E.? Why does the left side ALIGNING THEMSELVES with the filthy Neocons on this subject? The left condemns the Neocons and takes their same positions when it comes to the deployment of troops in the M.E.

All this discussion would NOT even be happening now if the left didn't take the tool of Head Of State Assassination away from the CIA back in the post-Watergate Church Committee of the '70's. If we had not put the brakes on the CIA's capacity to kill the vermin of the world, we could have avoided Ayatollah and Saddam and any number of other problem children before all the crap got traction. The U.S. took the Marxist Allende out in Chile and they got Pinochet to replace him: That was a mistake.....We don't always get it right. However, its way better to take this route than it is sending U.S. Soldiers to die.

Wonder who was buying all that oil that funded the caliphate?

Same people who were buying it from the caliphate, Turkey

@VAC-The ENDLESS string of U.S. Military involvement in the M.E. should end: Do ANY of you think that A SINGLE U.S. Soldier's life is worth protecting M.E. oil that the U.S. does not need? Do any of you want to put a price tag on that soldier's life? LET THE NATIONS THAT DEPEND ON THE OIL DEFEND THE OIL!


Protecting a non producing oil field makes no sense to me, certainly not with highly skilled and trained special forces, but I suspect Guarding oil is just a cover story for keeping them in the area. Nobody depends on the oil from the fields we are so called guarding, and I doubt any company is running to get the stuff either.



RIGHT NOW, ANY U.S. TROOPS DEPLOYED IN SYRIA ARE THERE ILLEGALLY! If you want troops in the M.E. so bad, why doesn't Congress vote on their deployment to make it LEGAL? Stop the talking out both sides of the mouth and VOTE ON TROOP DEPLOYMENT! And, you know why Congress won't vote on this, right? Because they don't want have their NAMES ON A VOTING RECORD FOR TROOP DEPLOYMENT, THAT'S WHY! THEY WANT ANONYMITY IN HAVING NO VOTING RECORD: ITS CONVENIENT FOR THEM! No, Congress would much rather criticize Trump for having troops in the M.E. AO THAT THEY CAN SAY HE IS PROTECTING OIL and then criticize him again if he wants to pull them out....that way they get the best of both worlds.


Much of what you say is true to a great extent. The congress is incompetent sycophants all to willing to not take a stand on anything the executive branch does. Cowards. The dems criticize, from repubs we get crickets. Nobody liked the Kurds being thrown under the bus, but that lip service produced no actions even though the Kurds played a huge role in getting Bagdaddy, and his so called second in command.



Why in the name of hell does the left love all these long drawn out, protracted conflicts in the M.E.? Why does the left side ALIGNING THEMSELVES with the filthy Neocons on this subject? The left condemns the Neocons and takes their same positions when it comes to the deployment of troops in the M.E.


It started with WMD, morphed into get Saddam, became the Syrian Civil War, and then chasing ISIS. They're still chasing ISIS. From 100,000 troops to 2000. You got facts to go with that rant? I do. The bring the boys home from Syria is a crock, since he just deployed 14,000 to Saudi Arabia...wait for it...to help guard their oil!



All this discussion would NOT even be happening now if the left didn't take the tool of Head Of State Assassination away from the CIA back in the post-Watergate Church Committee of the '70's. If we had not put the brakes on the CIA's capacity to kill the vermin of the world, we could have avoided Ayatollah and Saddam and any number of other problem children before all the crap got traction. The U.S. took the Marxist Allende out in Chile and they got Pinochet to replace him: That was a mistake.....We don't always get it right. However, its way better to take this route than it is sending U.S. Soldiers to die.


Like you said, we don't always get it right, and we sure don't want to add to Americans being targets here, or abroad. Maybe we should give this some thought before we bring back those covert assassination days. Seen a few in my day and the effects are profound and nation changing.

Kind of wild with that aren't you?

You got facts to go with that rant?

Our friend V7 is rarely troubled by facts. That's part of his charm.

3)

So you want to say that the "U.S. TOOK" the land we are living in from the Native Americans? Really? How do you know THEY WERE THE NATIVE AMERICANS? What makes them INDIGENEOUS? More likely than not, what we are calling "natives" and indigenous peoples actually came here some time before and EXTERMINATED the actual natives: Land Bridge from Asia ring a bell with you?

Yes, the "US took" the land from Native Americans. Exterminate is a closer word to what the Europeans did to the natives. I know they were native Americans because they were the first people to inhabit what became the United States. They are indigenous for the same reason. They arrived anywhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago. There was no one here then for the indigenous people to exterminate. Yes, Asian land bridge rings a bell with me. How about you? Do you have a bell that rings when you write words without any basis in fact? Apparently not. Otherwise you'd be deaf.




4)

Any description of people COMING TO AMERICA and occupying parts of it was conducted WAY, WAY, WAY before there was ever a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Lets see....first the Spanish came.....then the English came......then the French came.....then the Russians came.....the U.S. came later on....and the United States, even back then, was a mixture of different peoples. All the United States did was "UNITE" all the scattered territories under one umbrella.

Before "uniting", the US finished off the Native American genocide, and kept several millions Africans in slavery until wiser heads stopped the practice of slavery. The more you write, the weaker your argument becomes.

Athos: This world is built on blood.....all of it....and that process started way before there was a United States. We STILL have not advanced enough in the United States to produce a DICTATOR like those pompous arse Europeans have successfully done over the years or Asians or Africans or South Americans....but there is still time left yet!

Officially: THERE WERE PEOPLE IN NORTH AMERICA BEFORE THE "NATIVE AMERICANS" as we call them today: The oldest skulls in America were found to be Caucasian, reference the following link:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/kennewick_man.htm

So, what this means is that the "Native Americans", as they are popularly called, came to the Americas (at least North America) and KILLED OFF/EXTERMINATED the REAL INDIZGENOUS PEOPLE who were already living here.

But you can't completely lay all the blame at the feet of the United States because the killing off of the "Native Americans"/Indians (not P.C., I know) was started in the America a long time before there was a UNITED STATES. Also, Slavery of Africans was started a long time before there was a UNITED STATES....It is true that once the United States was born, the killing of "Native Americans", as we call them, and the institution of Slavery continued...Slavery lasted in the U.S. from 1781-1865: that's on us.

Officially: THERE WERE PEOPLE IN NORTH AMERICA BEFORE THE "NATIVE AMERICANS" as we call them today: The oldest skulls in America were found to be Caucasian, reference the following link:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/kennewick_man.htm
(http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/kennewick_man.htm)That link doesn't exist. Wanna try again?


what this means is that the "Native Americans", as they are popularly called, came to the Americas (at least North America) and KILLED OFF/EXTERMINATED the REAL INDIZGENOUS PEOPLE who were already living here.

It means nothing of the sort. Your "caucasion skull" people could have simply died off. A single skull is not proof of who came first. It is simply the oldest skull to be found to date.


But you can't completely lay all the blame at the feet of the United States

I didn't. Read my post.


It is true that once the United States was born, the killing of "Native Americans", as we call them, and the institution of Slavery continued...Slavery lasted in the U.S. from 1781-1865: that's on us.

Quod est demonstrandum.

Vac you have your assumptions wrong again. kennewick man has been shown to be related to the north americans of the area and to be 8.5k-9.5k before now so not preexistent.

Slavery in what became the United States probably began with the arrival of "20 and odd" enslaved Africans to the British colony of Virginia, in 1619. It officially ended with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865./National Geographic

Athos: O.K., here is a link that should work: https://www.science-frontiers.com/sf109/sf109p02.htm

Kennewick man is a Caucasian "of skeleton" and Caucasian terms have been given to Ainu of northern Japan, so the man may have not been "White" but he sure as heck wasn't "Native American"/Indian, either.

Yes, there may be a "Native American" skull hiding somewhere that we haven't found but with so many people searching to try and delegitimize Kennewick Man as being older than "Native Americans", don't you think we would have found one? Probably means there isn't one! "native Americans" were fairly blood thirsty when it came to rivals: Kennewick Man most likely died at the hands of "Native Americans".

Athos: No, I'll admit: Some 80 years after the creation of the U.S., we did, in fact, continue Slavery AND PROBABLY would have continued it longer if not the Southern States not attempted to succeed from the Union and precipitated The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

No, I'll admit: Some 80 years after the creation of the U.S., we did, in fact, continue Slavery AND PROBABLY would have continued it longer if not the Southern States not attempted to succeed from the Union and precipitated The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

I think you are a little one eyed and still carry the stars and cross bars. The Civil War began when there was succession, this is true, However, the anti-slavery movement precipitated this. Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves because he was as racist as any in america and did not want negros in the US, it became politically expedient to emancipate the slaves in order to pressure the South. The strategy didn't work, the South did not immediately collapse. I personally cannot see why the south could not have been allowed to succeed without the need for war, they were not an industrial economy and eventually would have wanted to rejoin

Yes, there may be a "Native American" skull hiding somewhere that we haven't found but with so many people searching to try and delegitimize Kennewick Man as being older than "Native Americans", don't you think we would have found one? Probably means there isn't one! "native Americans" were fairly blood thirsty when it came to rivals: Kennewick Man most likely died at the hands of "Native Americans".

Nonsense.


The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

Typical "soth'ren" revisionist history.

By the way, to both of you - the word is "secession" NOT "succession".

either way it sucks

Paraclete and Athos: The PRIMARY CAUSE of the Civil War was the Tariff Of Abominations/Tariff Of 1828 that threatened to cripple the Southern economy...this provoked eventual SECCESSION (thank you Athos for straightening me out on the spelling!): The Civil War was not fought for the HIGH MORAL REASON of freeing Slaves! What a joke: White men killing each other for the benefit of Slaves? YOU MUST BE KIDDING! Didn't happen. Northern high-browed ideas floated out there that they did makes them feel "more honorable than the South", is pure fantasy. Ask yourself: Where are RACE relations better today, North or South? Answer who has had RACE RIOTS? Its not the South, its the more "liberal" areas of the country: Detroit, Boston, L.A......you can even go back and research it, the South "gets along" with race better than the North: We grew up with Blacks, worked with Blacks, played with Blacks, eat with Blacks, fought with Black, and prayed with Blacks: I have know MANY, MANY Northerners than did know, play, fight, work, or eat with any Blacks growing up! Yet, those same individuals will be quick to condemn the South and Southern people...to them, I politely say "go to hell."

Paraclete: Stars and Bars in the eyes? That dog won't hunt! I don't have any affiliation to "the South" in terms of heritage: My heritage came to the U.S. after the Civil War, on both sides of the family. I do love the Southern U.S. and wouldn't live anywhere else, by choice.

Athos: "Native Americans" claim as "THE" original INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of the Americas is highly suspect with the finding of evidence that counters that claim....not a sure thing, anymore. I know that the "Native Americans" wanted to monopolize this arena of CLAIM but that is questionable now.

The Civil War started when the confederacy fired on Fort Sumter in 1861 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter), and yes southerners always try to rewrite the history to make it about everything, but slavery, that was the main issue and economics of it. They didn't want it abolished, plain and simple.

We can update the white boy skeleton story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man)a bit with subsequent facts being revealed.

Paraclete and Athos: The PRIMARY CAUSE of the Civil War was the Tariff Of Abominations/Tariff Of 1828 that threatened to cripple the Southern economy...this provoked eventual SECCESSION (thank you Athos for straightening me out on the spelling!):

You still don't have the spelling right - one "C".

The rest of your rant is just that - a rant.


Athos: "Native Americans" claim as "THE" original INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of the Americas is highly suspect with the finding of evidence that counters that claim....not a sure thing, anymore. I know that the "Native Americans" wanted to monopolize this arena of CLAIM but that is questionable now.

Your "caucasian skull" has been definitively identified via DNA as North American Indian heritage. The courts affirmed this and the remains were handed over to the Native Americans for burial. See Tal's link.

So, no more "questionable". Easily found via an internet search. It's becoming more and more apparent you're less interested in the truth than in your own fantasies.

You still don't have the spelling right - one "C".

The rest of your rant is just that - a rant.


.

You see they will just have to face it, there were native peoples indigenous to the americas before they were " liberated " using tactics somewhat familiar in the twentieth century. What you call manifest destiny, Hitler called living space

Paraclete: The U.S., like Australia, has plenty of lebensraum. Population density is not a problem…..arable land is not a problem in the U.S., either.....there may have been a lust for more land by people but lebensraum was not the driving force. Germany had a desire for lebensraum based of the factual population densities of the time and the projected growth expectations of the Reich going forward and they looked eastward. However, in one of the most boneheaded decisions in history, the Wehrmacht entered a very Germanic seeded Ukraine, where people were overjoyed to have them come in and liberate them from the Bolsheviks, and immediately sealed their fate by the wholesale slaughter of the people there by the S.S. units that followed up the rear.....these stupid actions turned even German blooded Ukrainians against German occupation and effectively invited partisan efforts against them.

Paraclete: The U.S., like Australia, has plenty of lebensraum. Population density is not a problem…..arable land is not a problem in the U.S., either.....there may have been a lust for more land by people but lebensraum was not the driving force. Germany had a desire for lebensraum based of the factual population densities of the time and the projected growth expectations of the Reich going forward and they looked eastward. However, in one of the most boneheaded decisions in history, the Wehrmacht entered a very Germanic seeded Ukraine, where people were overjoyed to have them come in and liberate them from the Bolsheviks, and immediately sealed their fate by the wholesale slaughter of the people there by the S.S. units that followed up the rear.....these stupid actions turned even German blooded Ukrainians against German occupation and effectively invited partisan efforts against them.

Well you might think we have plenty but we actually don't, we have lots of desert and little water, towns and cities are running out of water, so please don't come unless you bring your own. Noone doubts the nazi were stupid, but you are a denyer that the same policies once had favour in your nation

Paraclete: The U.S. used to fight TOTAL WAR before bastard politicians involved themselves in military affairs: It was much cleaner and very decisive in terms of the U.S. WINNING THE WAR. Once the politicians got involved, the U.S. was satisfied with police actions and conflicts: not decisive actions where the enemy was brutally beaten into UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER so that their mindsets would be forever changed and their aggressive behaviors eliminated (i.e. threat removed): IT WAS CALLED FINISHING THE JOB so there was no debate about who won the damn war. We fought TOTAL WAR against the "Native Americans", that's what you are referencing. Hitler fought TOTAL WAR. However, the similarities between Nazi Germany and The U.S. stop right there: The U.S. didn't build extermination camps or slave labor camps like the Germans....or the Italians....or the Soviets.....or the Japanese....or the North Koreans....or the ChiComs: You do see the difference, don't you?

Like Veit Nam Korea and Africa, Iraq? Naw we didn't even win WWII without a lot of help from others Vac. Stop trying to rewrite history like we can just go and take over. America is great because we have great alliances, and that's the truth. It's still not a slam dunk!

V7, you conveniently forgot you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WWII. Until Pearl Harbour it was just a profitable opportunity for you while the rest of us did the heavy lifting and even in 1945 it was the Russians who brought Germany to unconditional surrender. Back then that difference existed, I'm unsure it still does

Paraclete: America should be dragged KICKING AND SCREAMING into ANY WAR! We should avoid war whenever possible and not be so happy to rush into wars or other conflicts. The world's problems are not always the U.S.'s problems.....and we should be very selective about the fights that we engage in: Any conflict that the U.S. enters into should be based upon a decision of whether or not the U.S. getting into that particular conflict is in the best NATIONAL INTEREST of the U.S.....and that should be the only determinant for entry. The world has proven, time and time again, that it doesn't much like the U.S. and, so, the U.S. should not volunteer itself or avail itself of its most precious of resources so easily.

Paraclete: You may have also forgot the U.S. got TRICKED into joining WWI by Mr. Winston Churchill, who was Minister Of War at the time: He publicly broadcast that the Lusitania was carrying armaments when he knew that it wasn't but he knew it was carry U.S. citizens....this ploy was so that Germans would torpedo the Lusitania and the U.S. would enter WWI. This is the kind of sh&$ that we have to be on guard for: WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

I think Iraq screwed up our minds and the terrorists attacks didn't help either.

Paraclete: America should be dragged KICKING AND SCREAMING into ANY WAR! We should avoid war whenever possible and not be so happy to rush into wars or other conflicts.
Those two sentences negate each other.

Vac, I was calling your hypocrasy, you cannot play the good guy and sit on the fence

W.G.: How do you figure that those two sentences negate one another? When I say "America SHOULD BE dragged kicking and screaming into wars" I mean that we should debate, protest, and fight not to go to war FIRST before we actually go to war! Its better to really examine the issues and the stakes before blindly walking into something from which you cannot so easily extract yourself......it means we SHOULD AVOID WARS if possible.

Paraclete: No, the U.S. needs to change tactics and change its WORLDVIEW: We don't have to be the "GOOD GUYS" any more than any other nation needs to be the "GOOD GUYS"....and, we have every right to sit on the fence for eternity, if we wish: If being the "GOOD GUYS" means getting involved in every violent conflict around the world, we certainly don't need to be the "GOOD GUYS"......The U.S. needs to break the cycle of pain that the Military-Industrial Complex has involved us in: Just because we HAVE NICE WEAPONS doesn't mean we have to use them.....and involving yourself in a conflict and having nice weapons but not using them is entirely RETARDED: If we do fight, the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT should be such that preserving every U.S. Service Member should be the ultimate goal: To hell with fighting fair!

W.G.: How do you figure that those two sentences negate one another? When I say "America SHOULD BE dragged kicking and screaming into wars" I mean that we should debate, protest, and fight not to go to war FIRST before we actually go to war! Its better to really examine the issues and the stakes before blindly walking into something from which you cannot so easily extract yourself......it means we SHOULD AVOID WARS if possible.
They are two different things. Your explanation makes no sense.

W.G.: No, it means the same thing: RESIST THE URGE TO GO TO WAR! War is a last resort, not the first choice but the last choice! And war should not be used as an acceptable means of achieving the goals of statecraft: What I said first was the same thing.

W.G.: No, it means the same thing: RESIST THE URGE TO GO TO WAR! War is a last resort, not the first choice but the last choice! And war should not be used as an acceptable means of achieving the goals of statecraft: What I said first was the same thing.
Nope, you didn't. "Should be dragged into" does NOT mean "debate, protest, and fight not to go to war."

War should be the last resort, after you have exhausted every other avenue to avoid it. We have avoided a few wars though, like with Russia over Crimea, and Ukraine, using sanctions and such, didn't stop the their military not one bit, but no war with Vlad. Didn't work so good with Iraq, but Bush and the boys didn't look for anything other than a military solution, so what about NOW? What specifically are you talking about? If you mean not sending troops for those skirmishes and conflicts with criminals and terrorists or not answering the call for help by some of those people fighting them I don't know but let's be fair, it's our own government that allows the president to act with no oversight or check and balances.

That's the lesson Bush taught us, the congress gave him the greenlight and he ran with it. Now we got this dufus who isn't even asking for permission or advice. He just makes a phone cal to a murderous dicator(S), and they start the tanks rolling.

W.G.: You don't honestly not know what I meant, do you? You are nailing me on this....O.K., I went back and looked at what I wrote: You are right: What I should have said was "We should never be dragged into a war UNLESS WE ARE kicking and screaming", as in: "Don't gleefully and happily proceed into war"...that's what I meant.

Using Syria as an example, I would have blown the Syrian Army to non existance for gassing it's own people, and no way would I have invaded Iraq, but would have exposed and revamped the plan of oil for food which was rife with huge abuses. For sure folks I wouldn't just fire off 48 Tomahawk missles and blow up an empty building and put some holes in an airstrip! That was silly and costly and made no difference.

W.G.: You don't honestly not know what I meant, do you? You are nailing me on this....O.K., I went back and looked at what I wrote: You are right: What I should have said was "We should never be dragged into a war UNLESS WE ARE kicking and screaming", as in: "Don't gleefully and happily proceed into war"...that's what I meant.
Those nevers and nots are very important. Adding them totally changes what the sentences say. Grammar 101.

W.G.: Yes, Mrs. Teacher, I will do better next time, Mrs. W.G.-:) No, seriously and sincerely, thank you for the correction: I needed to clarify that....once again, I let my fingers run past my little mind!

Talaniman: Its the "little skirmishes" that are demoralizing to the military.....and the I am in full support of the U.S. staying out of these conflicts.....There is a strong possibility that the Syrian Gas Attacks were "FALSE FLAG" initiative of the terrorists in Syria who got ahold of poisonous gas and made it look like Assad did the attacks (I know you can't stand Assad but this is something I heard).

W.G.: Yes, Mrs. Teacher, I will do better next time, Mrs. W.G.-:) No, seriously and sincerely, thank you for the correction: I needed to clarify that....once again, I let my fingers run past my little mind!
You may now get off the naughty chair and go out to the playground with the other students. And please don't pull little Sally's pigtails!

You better keep an eye on that one, he's a NUT!

..There is a strong possibility that the Syrian Gas Attacks were "FALSE FLAG" initiative of the terrorists in Syria who got ahold of poisonous gas and made it look like Assad did the attacks (I know you can't stand Assad but this is something I heard).

This was reported by a far right fringe source. It had no facts behind it and was soon dropped. Stop reading those crazy websites. Or, at least, temper it with normal sites.

You know how it goes Athos only a right wing fruitcake could even go for right wing loony TV. Most people can tell the diffrence between crazy stuff and real stuff, no matter what a liar tells them. The normal reaction to constant lying as much as the dufus does is to ignore him, or be PO'd enough to tell hiim to shut the heck up, but noooo! Fringers on the right just gobble that stuff up and beg for more and the dufus hasn't dissapointed them yet.

Is that downright insane or what?

Athos & Talaniman: Well, there may have been some fringe Right Wing sites espousing the idea that the Syrian gas attacks were False Flags but I got this information not from one of those sites, I got it from RT World News! I know what you guys think of RT now, but I didn't know any of that when I saw it...I thought they were straight-shooters! You didn't enlighten me about this bunch until earlier this week!

Which brings me to another question: Do you consider RUSSIA, today, to be left or Right? I consider them to be on the Right but I could be wrong. Seems that Russia is closer to a Fascist state now.....I know that they have a neo-Nazi element going strong there and the Russian Government has not done much to stem its growth....This Russian neo-Nazi group filmed themselves beheading Chechen Muslims in a forest a few years ago: vile, nasty bunch of SOBs.

Left or right leaning doesn't matter I just don't TRUST the Russian government. I think they will lean in whatever direction that gives them what they want, and have used ideology to target specific groups in specific places. Weaponizing the air waves is what they do.

Do you consider RUSSIA, today, to be left or Right?

Russia today, like Soviet Russia, is a totalitarian society. Totalitarianism, left or right, has some minor differences but is essentially the same.

Like Tal said, Russia will be whatever it has to be for the current crop of rulers to stay in power. Its promotion of the US right wing and its documented interference in US elections help to support Trump who has been an enormous boon to Putin and the Russians.

The Russian neo-Nazi crowd likes Trump because they see him as one of their own.

Yuck! This whole neo-Nazi element in everything today is getting to be overwhelming: Just heard today where Dresden, of all places, has declared a "Nazi Emergency"! Not making this up! Didn't we beat these bastards about 74 years ago? How can they STILL be hanging around? And, in Russia, too, where they were responsible for about 21,000,000 deaths! WORLD HAS GONE CRAZY!

The pendulum has swung back to that sort of thinking across the world, Vac, and those sneaky neo Nazis are able to comeback and make noise to take advantage of that conservative reaction to liberal policy making the last few years. Like the dufus has done here through stoking fear and blaming that fear of those who are successfully labeled the others. Of course conservative politicians are capitalizing on that fear and gaining power and influence on the promise of fighting for their frustrated and afraid of change constituents.

It is not surprising Tal with Trump channelling his inner Hitler with the echos of making "america" great again

As much as I have blasted the dufus for his words, antics and behavior I have stayed away from that specific comparison with Hitler, though I certainly do draw parrallels to his racist tendencies. You have actually put into words what many actually have been thinking everytime we hear that MAGA proclamation from the dufus. He does reach and excite the racists in his base with such language doesn't he?

Yes it is such a grab from the fiery rhetoric employed in the Reich, whether it is MAGA or threatening to rain destruction still you haven't reached the night of the long knives yet

True but we have mass murders in public places to keep us busy while the south rises again. The dufus seems to have emerged as the leader of such ilk.

True but we have mass murders in public places to keep us busy while the south rises again. The dufus seems to have emerged as the leader of such ilk.

Trump as leader of the south? who would have thought, although he has expressed a wish to migrate to Florida

Wait a second: You boys are misinformed about Florida being part of the SOUTH....its getting to be that the only thing SOUTHERN about Florida is its geography: There's more New Yorkers, New Jersians, New Englanders, and Midwesterners in Florida than there are natives. it seems: Don't mind them coming, just wish they would leave their attitudes.

Wait a second: You boys are misinformed about Florida being part of the SOUTH....its getting to be that the only thing SOUTHERN about Florida is its geography: There's more New Yorkers, New Jersians, New Englanders, and Midwesterners in Florida than there are natives. it seems: Don't mind them coming, just wish they would leave their attitudes.

Come on now everyone wants a place in the sun, I'm fortunate the sun shines here all the time

Wait a second: You boys are misinformed about Florida being part of the SOUTH....its getting to be that the only thing SOUTHERN about Florida is its geography: There's more New Yorkers, New Jersians, New Englanders, and Midwesterners in Florida than there are natives. it seems: Don't mind them coming, just wish they would leave their attitudes.

What attitude would that be, and are you not bringing your SC attitude also? Are you saying people are not entitled to their own attitude wherever they go in America?

Texas isn't considered the south, it's where the WEST begins. That's our attitude.

Texas isn't considered the south, it's where the WEST begins. That's our attitude.

and yet it is further south than the rest, and yet what about Kansas, is it not west. But it is all relative to where you are standing

Wait a second: You boys are misinformed about Florida being part of the SOUTH....its getting to be that the only thing SOUTHERN about Florida is its geography:

In the hinterland of Florida away from the tourist traps, Florida is as southern as it gets.

Athos: I will have to agree with you on that, North Florida, the Panhandle, and certain areas in the central part of the state are pretty darned Southern....got some relatives from New Smyrna and they are pretty, well, "hickish" (I know, that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black!). I will say that I love what some of the born and bred Floridians have on their vehicles: "We Don't Care How You Do It Up North" and "Native"......one not subtle and one subtle, but the message is clear.