Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

The prior idea of benefits from Trump was that he will not start a war with Russia.

And that was a terminally stupid idea of a benefit from anybody like Trump.

In the first place: Of course he probably wouldn't set out to do that, on purpose. Nobody would, on purpose - certainly not Clinton or Obama. But by mistake? By getting cornered and acting on impulse? By cornering others - such as North Korea or Iran or Pakistan or Israel? He isn't competent, you know, and he is fascist - which sooner or later brings him into confrontation with other fascists, such as Putin, for dominance. You do know that?

In the second: Unless you are - as you deny, but appear - simply on board with strongman Putin whatever he does, you have some conflicts among your professed goal of beneficial multipolarity from a weaker US, Russia's current weakening of the US, and your professed fear of American war with Russia above all other wars. A military-based expansion of Russian territorial influence increases the chances of American war with Russia, and greatly reduces any anticipated benefits of multipolarity in general.

He has not started yet. Except for the Syrian airbase bombing, on the most dangerous battle field Trump behaves more adequate, less criminal and more in accordance with international law in comparison with Obama.

Nonsense. He ramps up the bombings, increases the funding and resources devoted to violence, restores the CIA to its former role of drones and other deniable military involvements under W (who as the previous Trump faction representative in the White House launched this entire "most dangerous battlefield"), revokes treaties and defies diplomatic agreements limiting military violence in the area, and turns governing oversight of the entire battlefield over to military commanders with no larger scale responsibilities or diplomatic experience or accountability to civilian concerns.

US diplomacy does not exist in the classical meaning of diplomacy. It is support for color revolutions and local terrorists all over the world. So what you whine about is what I really like.

As tiresomely repeated for your information already several times: All the stuff you don't like is increasing under Trump. The sound and "classical" diplomacy is being cut back, not the stuff you don't like. As predicted, by anyone capable of recognizing the ideology of Trump and the US Republican Party.

Instead, simply more money for the military may not have big negative consequences

We can of course hope. Because what we learn from the past, from everything we see in the past and recognize in the present, might be wrong this time. Sure. But that's not the way to bet.

The increasing instability inside the US has been created by the Clintonoids,

No. Hell no. Who told you that?

But this was not an attack against Russia, but against Syria,

And so you weren't worried about Russian involvement, in Clinton attacking Syria?

I realize this, and classify this as an ad hominem argument which is quite irrelevant for me,

It's not an argument at all - it's a piece of information. And it's directly relevant to the argument being made, which is that your vulnerability to such propaganda is at the root of your inability to recognize the fascism it promulgates.
Look at this, for example:

given that the content does not depend on some neutrality or so of the author, and, moreover, does not hide that he is right-wing

The content does, in fact, depend completely on the agenda of the author, and the author successfully concealed that agenda from you. It is manipulated to deceive the ignorant and destroy public discussion about the ascendency of the current Republican Party. And it worked: guys like you - dupes of that book - can no longer think sensibly or coherently about domestic American politics.

And since American foreign policy is so predominantly driven and influenced by domestic American politics, that means you can no longer think sensibly or coherently about the American involvement in the Middle East, including Syria.

 

[Schmelzer]

Reading some political commentaries about this, it appears that the victory of the Iraqi army taking Kirkuk was the key event of the last weeks, with decisive importance not only for Iraq, but for Syria too. After taking control over the Kirkuk oil fields and Kirkuk itself - a region which was after the raise of Daesh controlled by the Kurds, but not predominantly Kurdish - there is not even a need to take the really Kurdish regions, simply because they are economically worthless, and not viable against a simple blockade of all the roads into it. They would have even nothing to smuggle. So, the Iraqi part of the problem of Kurdish separatism is solved.

And because one essential aspect of this was, on the one hand, the US support of the referendum (not officially, but on the ground, by the local CIA guys there) and the doing nothing of the US against the Iraqi army fighting the Kurds, the obvious lesson for everybody around is that one cannot trust US support. It looks like this lesson has been understood by at least some of the Syrian Kurds too. So, there have been declarations that the Syrian Kurds do not want to separate at all, only some autonomy inside Syria to be negotiated about. And some SDF leader was travelling to Moscow, for whatever reasons.

And that was a terminally stupid idea of a benefit from anybody like Trump.

Up to now he has not started a war with Russia.

He isn't competent, you know, and he is fascist - which sooner or later brings him into confrontation with other fascists, such as Putin, for dominance. You do know that?

No, I don't. I know of some examples of fascist who have lived quite peaceful, after taking power, and chosen not to fight with other fascist nations for dominance, like Franco. I think nobody doubts that Franco is a fascist. Pinochet will count too, and Pinochet is, IYO, probably also fascist, not?
Looks like fascism is IYO some personal trait, some sort of psychic disorder or so, and nothing about the properties of the political or economical system of the society.

A military-based expansion of Russian territorial influence increases the chances of American war with Russia, and greatly reduces any anticipated benefits of multipolarity in general.

What do you name "military-based expansion of Russia"? I would guess some actions like the defense of South Ossetia against the US-inspired Georgian attack, or support for people in Crimea or Donbass after the US-paid Bandera-fascist coup, or the support for the Syrian legal government after years of US-paid terrorist war against it? I tell you a simple secret: Without aggressive US behavior where will be no such reaction from Russian side.

All the stuff you don't like is increasing under Trump. The sound and "classical" diplomacy is being cut back, not the stuff you don't like.

There was no sound and classical diplomacy under Obama to be cut back. There was organization of terrorism and color revolutions instead of diplomacy.

No. Hell no. Who told you that?

Right-wing fascist propaganda sources, of course. At least this is how you would name them.

And so you weren't worried about Russian involvement, in Clinton attacking Syria?

Of course, I was. Because her aim was to attack the Russians, not the Syrians. Remember, a no-fly-zone in the terrorist-controlled region?

It's not an argument at all - it's a piece of information. And it's directly relevant to the argument being made, which is that your vulnerability to such propaganda is at the root of your inability to recognize the fascism it promulgates.

So what? Your ad hominem information is, for me, irrelevant. Because your fantasies about my vulnerability to right-wing propaganda (which is your way to handle my immunity against your cheap propaganda attempts) are irrelevant.

Look at this, for example:
The content does, in fact, depend completely on the agenda of the author, and the author successfully concealed that agenda from you. It is manipulated to deceive the ignorant and destroy public discussion about the ascendency of the current Republican Party. And it worked: guys like you - dupes of that book - can no longer think sensibly or coherently about domestic American politics.

Of course, he conceals an agenda which is your fantasy, and does it quite successful. And he does this in a very clever way. I'm no longer able to think political correct, following your Party line, about domestic American politics, because of my vulnerability to his propaganda. So, you have to learn a little bit from them to become comparably successful in your propaganda.

 

[iceaura]

Up to now he has not started a war with Russia.

Or Mexico - your point?

No, I don't. I know of some examples of fascist who have lived quite peaceful, after taking power, and chosen not to fight with other fascist nations for dominance, like Franco. I think nobody doubts that Franco is a fascist. Pinochet will count too, and Pinochet is, IYO, probably also fascist, not?.

So soon you forget? : We visited Franco's actual record, and "choices", last time you strolled down this bullshit boulevard - including his role in the invention of aerial bombing of civilians, and the Spanish Civil War, and his alliances during WWII. We also took a look at Pinochet's military ventures, his role in doing all that bad stuff in other people's countries you claim to think Trump would be likely to withdraw from (and are now blaming on evil deep State influence - ha!). Fascists in power do not live peacefully, as a rule, especially when things on the home front are not working out - and Trump has not only a belligerent and impulsive and touchy personality but also a seriously capable military, on top of the mercenaries and "intelligence agency" irregulars he is rendering even less accountable (moving to restore W&Cheney's setup, apparently).

You never seem to learn anything from such digressions into information, facts, history, etc. Why do you suppose that is?

Looks like fascism is IYO some personal trait, some sort of psychic disorder or so, and nothing about the properties of the political or economical system of the society.

You reveal yourself too much with that. Cover up - it's ugly.

Right-wing fascist propaganda sources, of course. At least this is how you would name them.

Of course, as a general reference. That kind of idiocy has no other origin. But there's more than one specific source - and that item was kind of clownbox spectacular, worth marking. The "Clintonoids" are quite the invention for explaining Trumpian pratfalls and betrayals and disturbing behaviors - much better than the "deep State" - and promise to be much longer lived, as bogeys go, than the Clintons will be themselves. Be fun to track that one to its source. (But then why would I ask you, of course - I keep forgetting what I'm dealing with here. Never mind).

Of course, I was. Because her aim was to attack the Russians, not the Syrians.

So? Do you imagine it matters what Trump's aims are - or that he has any, in particular?

So what? Your ad hominem information is, for me, irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It's just ignored. That's not the same as irrelevant.

Because your fantasies about my vulnerability to right-wing propaganda (which is your way to handle my immunity against your cheap propaganda attempts) are irrelevant.

Suit yourself. You can't say nobody warned you.

Meanwhile, from last spring https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-administration-sending-troops-syria
and summer https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/trump-and-covert-operations-in-syria-a-not-so-artful-deal/
until now https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...on-multiple-battlefields/ar-AAtSugw?li=AA5a8k

many Americans have been having the same trouble figuring out what Trump is trying to do in Syria as you are.

 

[Schmelzer]

Or Mexico - your point?

A war with Russia would be dangerous for mankind as a whole, if there is some truth behind the "nuclear winter" theory. A war with Mexico would be a local conflict.

So soon you forget? : We visited Franco's actual record, and "choices", last time you strolled down this bullshit boulevard - including his role in the invention of aerial bombing of civilians, and the Spanish Civil War, and his alliances during WWII.
We also took a look at Pinochet's military ventures, his role in doing all that bad stuff in other people's countries

Learn to read, I wrote "after taking power", thus, explicitly excluded what he has done during the Civil War. And, whatever Franco's sympathies, they did not result in a participation in WW II. And regarding Pinochet there was not much you have presented too. The closest thing to a war, the Beagle conflict, was not a case of aggression by Chile.

So? Do you imagine it matters what Trump's aims are - or that he has any, in particular?

My claim was about Clinton's aims.

many Americans have been having the same trouble figuring out what Trump is trying to do in Syria as you are.

Which is, and not only about Syria, what I expected. With Clinton, it would have been clear: Support for terrorists fighting Assad, to overthrow Assad, not caring at all about the consequences, like genocide against Alewites and Christians and so on. And quite unclear what Trump will do or not do.

Whatever, what he has done on the most dangerous for starting WW III battlefield, in Syria, was better for world peace than what Obama has done, and much better than what Clinton has promised.

 

[iceaura]

A war with Russia would be dangerous for mankind as a whole, if there is some truth behind the "nuclear winter" theory. A war with Mexico would be a local conflict.

War with Mexico would involve oil, as with Russia. Neither one was even a farfetched possibility until after Trump's election. Now we're on a tightrope - with Iran, Syria, NK, Chad, China even. Trump's blend of incompetence and belligerence is dangerous - as W's was, with consequences everywhere visible nearly a generation later.

Learn to read, I wrote "after taking power", thus, explicitly excluded what he has done during the Civil War {yadda yadda}

We walked this bullshit boulevard already, remember? You do not learn. (Pinochet was installed by the CIA, recall, and acted as an agent of American power http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20000919/).

My claim was about Clinton's aims.

As fed to you by the likes of Goldberg and the wingnut video purveyors - we noticed. And compared with Trump's inevitable and in character actions - which you whiffed on as completely, and are currently denying even as they happen in front of you.

And quite unclear what Trump will do or not do.

It was clear to others, long ago. You simply never saw Trump coming - your blind spot. It was predicted to your face, and your various attempts to explain things by casting about for deep States and "Clintonoids" have not led to your coming to your senses.

Whatever, what he has done on the most dangerous for starting WW III battlefield, in Syria, was better for world peace than what Obama has done, and much better than what Clinton has promised.

It has been significantly worse than Obama's more moderate approach, as predicted - a rollback to W belligerence and militarization, including the CIA drone strikes and sub rosa operations you particularly objected to - and your Clinton is of course a bogey of Breitbart's creation, posted here for entertainment apparently (remember those videos?).
Meanwhile, Pakistan and Iran and NK and China and Central Africa and Israel and even Russia are all of them more threatening of WWIII than Syria. Islamic jihad terrorism is not going to start WWIII, and neither is Assad.

 

[Schmelzer]

There have been claims that the Syrian army has taken the T2 pumping station. Other sources reject this. The T2 pumping station, together with the airbase, is the last important point under Daesh control in the desert West of the Euphrat, so, if it will be taken this will be an important step.

War with Mexico would involve oil, as with Russia. Neither one was even a farfetched possibility until after Trump's election.

Wrong. There have been very dangerous situations in Syria already in Obama time. And there was the open plan of Clinton for declaring a no-flight-zone where the Russian planes flow. Which could have been enforced only by shooting them. During the Obama time, essentially a Cold War with Russia was started.

We walked this bullshit boulevard already, remember? You do not learn. (Pinochet was installed by the CIA, recall, and acted as an agent of American power http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20000919/).

Learn to read - your quote was not about Pinochet. And I have never raised any doubt that Pinochet was a CIA installation.

As fed to you by the likes of Goldberg and the wingnut video purveyors - we noticed.

The "wingnut videos" where extracts from her interviews. You have not claimed that they were faked, only that one of them was out of context - but adding the context was not a problem. And what has been compared was, at that time, simple speculations based on his campaign claims, with real actions of Clinton (starting two illegal wars).

This is a serious problem of democracy - that it is not clear at all if candidates will fulfill their promises - and in this sense unavoidable that a lot of speculation is involved. Moreover, it was completely unclear if Trump would be simply able to fulfill his promises even if he would seriously try, given the deep state support for Clinton. Given this background, I'm up to now quite satisfied with how much of my expectations have been fulfilled.

Moon of Alabama characterizes the US now as ruled by the military. http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/10/above-all-the-junta-expands-its-claim-to-power.html

The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.
All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.)

This is quite close to what I think. That Trump was supported by parts of military and FBI I have known. I preferred a Pentagon/FBI rule over America to CIA rule. And continue to prefer it. Because Pentagon rule is compatible with a multipolar world - the aim to reach world power for the Pentagon is classical war, and they know a classical war with Russia or China is too dangerous, thus, will not attack the other two poles. The CIA rule would, instead, fight for the unipolar world, using the now well-known methods (support of terrorists and color revolutions everywhere). And they would not hesitate to attack Russian and China with these methods, but intensify them.

There is, of course, the danger that Pentagon and CIA make peace on conditions where the CIA gets all they want. But how does it look like actually? The CIA may get legal torture, legal murder of "terrorist" families, revival of Guantanamo, drone wars. Quite horrible for the US population - those who will be, in the end, tortured and imprisoned. Even if this will be officially not allowed initially, it is possible to extend this to US citizens too, precedence cases have been already tried with the drone killing of the son of this American islamist preacher. But dangerous for the multipolar world? Not really. You can make drone war in Pakistan, but not in Russia or China. You can imprison and torture Americans, and citizens of the de-facto colonies, without problems. But doing this against some citizens of other sovereign states creates diplomatic trouble, and will not give any advantages, because it cannot be done on a large scale. Moreover, all these CIA toys discredit the US itself worldwide. Which essentially weakens the US positions in the infowar.

What about the really dangerous things? The terrorist funding has been reduced in Syria. The US embassy in Russia (which is the place necessary to start a color revolution in Russia) has been heavily reduced (ok, this was the Russian counteraction - but so what, the US action has delivered a nice pretense. To get US visa for Russian citizens is now much more difficult. Putin likes this. Trump has not cared about the conflict SA vs. Qatar, the main supporters, as US proxies or not, of international terrorism. Now both visit Moscow. Of course, for successful cooperation with Moscow you have to stop funding terrorists. Now the non-support of the Kurdish separatists in their fight against the Iraqi army - even if only after supporting sub rosa the referendum - is yet another step in the same direction.

Don't forget, we have obviously quite different interests. You whine about all what was Obama's attempt to preserve the unipolar world, I'm not.

From this point of view our disagreement makes sense: Obama was, indeed, much better in the aim of preserving the unipolar world - first of all, by focussing on the infowar, removing the main failures of W with Guantanamo, torture and so on, expanding instead drone war (which could be sold as anti-terrorist), and on color revolutions. But this is not what the Pentagon likes to worry about. The Pentagon is fine if they get a lot of taxpayers money, a few little wars may be useful for this, but not a big war, and on the propaganda front terrorists are as good as Russians as the enemy, maybe even better (for the FBI at least). The military is not even really interested in world rule, some foreign enemies, strong enough to justify more money for the military, is better than world rule with no strong enemy at all.

Meanwhile, Pakistan and Iran and NK and China and Central Africa and Israel and even Russia are all of them more threatening of WWIII than Syria. Islamic jihad terrorism is not going to start WWIII, and neither is Assad.

Syria is the place were both US and Russia are fighting, and not only their local proxies, but their armies. And fighting on different sides. The probability of WW III was low, indeed, but even a low probability of a nuclear war between US and Russia is horrible enough.

Neither Pakistan nor Iran, NK or Central Africa are threatening a WW III. Of course, NK would lead to millions of victims. But it would not be a WW.

 

[iceaura]

Don't forget, we have obviously quite different interests.

I have consistently compared your posts with your own claimed interests - not mine. So you can tell that I haven't forgotten them - and won't.
Whether you actually know anything about my interests is unclear - you consistently misrepresent my posts and seldom follow my arguments, but several explanations exist for that.

Syria is the place were both US and Russia are fighting, and not only their local proxies, but their armies.

Yes. So incompetently managed belligerence by the American President - such as, in Syria, significant increases in bombings and rocketings of civilians, assaults on air bases heavily used by Russians, betrayals of allies via inconsistent support and cooperation with enemies, etc - is kind of a concern.
Right?
But to go back:

This is quite close to what I think. That Trump was supported by parts of military and FBI I have known. I preferred a Pentagon/FBI rule over America to CIA rule.

As I have pointed out, that directly conflicts with your claim that Trump's candidacy was opposed by the "deep State" and the "Clintonoids"- unless, as I mockingly pointed out, you imagine a "deep State" without membership of the military/industrial complex, big oil, Wall Street, the FBI, and so forth.
It is also reveals an odd view of the the CIA - the idea that the CIA would be likely rulers of America is kind of bizarre.

What about the really dangerous things? The terrorist funding has been reduced in Syria. The US embassy in Russia (which is the place necessary to start a color revolution in Russia) has been heavily reduced (ok, this was the Russian counteraction - but so what, the US action has delivered a nice pretense. To get US visa for Russian citizens is now much more difficult. Putin likes this.

And a sensible person would see, there, an increase in the risk of war with Russia - clear away the bs about color revolutions in Russia launched from the US embassy and every rebel in Syria being a "terrorist", and you have two nuclear armed countries facing a breakdown in diplomatic communication while embroiled in a hot proxy war over oil and territory.
One of them has a fascist government - Putin's.
The other one is on the brink of adopting one - Trump's.
They both have serious militaries - and nuclear weapons.

Moon of Alabama characterizes the US now as ruled by the military- - - -
- - -
This is quite close to what I think.

For "military", in the US, read "military/industrial complex".
And that describes fascist government. Which is why you keep pretzeling yourself trying to find benefits in the US actually adopting fascist governance, trying to avoid recognizing the nature of Trump's ascendancy, etc.

Because Pentagon rule is compatible with a multipolar world - the aim to reach world power for the Pentagon is classical war, and they know a classical war with Russia or China is too dangerous, thus, will not attack the other two poles.

Apparently on your planet people only start big wars on purpose, intending that they blow up in their faces. And on your planet countries like Russia or China would never attack anyone, CIA style or otherwise, because only the US does that kind of thing. And nobody else exists - maybe Israel.

But dangerous for the multipolar world? Not really. You can make drone war in Pakistan, but not in Russia or China. You can imprison and torture Americans, and citizens of the de-facto colonies, without problems. But doing this against some citizens of other sovereign states creates diplomatic trouble, and will not give any advantages, because it cannot be done on a large scale.

Same as the last fifty years, then?

The Pentagon is fine if they get a lot of taxpayers money, a few little wars may be useful for this, but not a big war, and on the propaganda front terrorists are as good as Russians as the enemy, maybe even better (for the FBI at least).

You seem to have no idea how a war on "terrorists", with the corporate powers of Russia and China and the US all cooperating of course, could affect the benefits you imagine the magic of "multipolarity" would bring.
That's my call for the center of your delusion: you don't comprehend corporate power. All evil is from government. And so you can't see Trump coming - or Putin, for that matter.

Putin likes this.

What Putin likes appears to be your only real criterion. Nothing else makes sense of your posting. You don't even bother to get information about anything else, and will post anything concordant with what Putin likes, from any source whatsoever.
Look at this:

The "wingnut videos" where extracts from her interviews. You have not claimed that they were faked, only that one of them was out of context - but adding the context was not a problem. And what has been compared was, at that time, simple speculations based on his campaign claims, with real actions of Clinton (starting two illegal wars).

Like I said - gullible in the extreme. You will believe anything - no matter how idiotic, how comically stupid - those American professionals want you to believe, unless it's something Putin doesn't like (claimed Assad atrocities, say). You have no intellectual defenses against what Putin likes.

And that is where our "interests" differ, primarily.

Which brings us back to the maps - the rolling tragedy of what's happening, in Syria, whether Putin likes it or not.

 

[Schmelzer]

So incompetently managed belligerence by the American President - such as, in Syria, significant increases in bombings and rocketings of civilians, assaults on air bases heavily used by Russians, betrayals of allies via inconsistent support and cooperation with enemies, etc - is kind of a concern.

Right. And I'm concerned. But openly anti-Russian managed belligerence by Clinton would have been worse. Consequent support and cooperation of terrorist allies by Clinton would have been worse.

As I have pointed out, that directly conflicts with your claim that Trump's candidacy was opposed by the "deep State" and the "Clintonoids"- unless, as I mockingly pointed out, you imagine a "deep State" without membership of the military/industrial complex, big oil, Wall Street, the FBI, and so forth.

I have always stated that I think that the deep state is actually split into factions which fight each other. Only such a split made Trump possible - against a unified deep state he would not have had the slightest chance.

On the other hand, I think the globalist/Clintonid faction is yet stronger. So, Trump does not really have the power - only part of the power. The other part is controlled by the Clinton faction.

It is also reveals an odd view of the the CIA - the idea that the CIA would be likely rulers of America is kind of bizarre.

If you believe into a harmless CIA without any power, doing only what is allowed to him by US law, your choice. It is, of course, a very powerful organization, able to do a lot of things illegal according to US law, with a large budget from worldwide illegal operations (all the Afghanistan narcotraffic for example) which is not controlled at all by the Congress or so. To present them as lone rulers of the US would be an exaggeration too. Moreover, "CIA" stands also for all the many US intelligence services, with NSA the most famous other big player.

And a sensible person would see, there, an increase in the risk of war with Russia - clear away the bs about color revolutions in Russia launched from the US embassy and every rebel in Syria being a "terrorist", and you have two nuclear armed countries facing a breakdown in diplomatic communication while embroiled in a hot proxy war over oil and territory.

Clear away what is important and what remains is misleading. You completely ignore the problem that the State Department is a main power base of the Clintonoids. So, what Trump is doing with the State Department is simply part of the US-internal power fight. Of course, there is the second aspect, namely the isolationist aspect of "making America great again". Other countries are considered as places to sell American weapons, and not much else. One does not need a big State Department to manage this.

For "military", in the US, read "military/industrial complex".
And that describes fascist government. Which is why you keep pretzeling yourself trying to find benefits in the US actually adopting fascist governance, trying to avoid recognizing the nature of Trump's ascendancy, etc.

I have not tried to avoid it. I was even ready to adapt it, switching to a wider notion of fascism, which includes all governments of this type. Inclusive that of Obama. But, given that you have no precise definition of fascism, beyond "Trump is fascist but Obama not", or at least are not ready to give it here, I have preferred to return to my former use of "fascist" as those who openly support traditions of openly fascist movements.

Apparently on your planet people only start big wars on purpose, intending that they blow up in their faces. And on your planet countries like Russia or China would never attack anyone, CIA style or otherwise, because only the US does that kind of thing. And nobody else exists - maybe Israel.

On my planet countries like Russia and China are, indeed, much more peaceful than the USA. Because this is part of their imperial traditions, and has a rational geopolitical background: Both are land powers, with many neighbors, if they would be aggressive, their neighbors would unify against them and destroy them. Once they are basically peaceful, they have to react only on external aggression by single players, not by a united front of all neighbors, and are in this case strong enough to win. "Russia does not start wars, it ends them" is a quite popular phrase in Russia.

Instead, GB and the US are essentially sea powers. To attack them is not easy at all, you need a fleet to reach them. So, they may be aggressive without much fear to be stopped by a coalition of all their neighbors.

That's my call for the center of your delusion: you don't comprehend corporate power. All evil is from government. And so you can't see Trump coming - or Putin, for that matter.

Your fantasy. I see corporate power as the main problem of democracy. The big corporations can, and do, control the government, even if it is formally democratic. And therefore all the evil power of the government is in the hand of the big corporations. How Putin, who is famous for removing the oligarchs from their power positions and returning power to the state itself is connected with the danger of corporate power is not clear, I would guess that's simply because Putin is an evil fascist, so he has to be.

The usual "you are stupid" nonsense disposed.

Putin is a quite good politician, intelligent, it is interesting to hear his speeches. I see that it is good that he appeared in Russia, because this has preserved the world from the US victory. He was certainly good for the Russian population, taking the oil income away from the oligarchs back to the state and using it to improve the life of the population in a quite serious way. The alternative would have been the collapse of Russia similar to that of the Soviet Union. As a libertarian, I have a lot to object against some of his policies. But I don't discuss here these problems related with domestic Russian politics.

For the multipolar world a sufficiently strong counterweight to the US is a necessity. The protection against big states is, in fact, one of the most serious problems of libertarian theory, so that up to now we need Russia to prevent a US ruled world government. So, Putin is an important ally in the fight against the world government.

Which brings us back to the maps - the rolling tragedy of what's happening, in Syria, whether Putin likes it or not.

There is war, and war is always tragedy. But the right guys are actually winning this war, and this is the best way to end these tragedies.

 

[CptBork]

Your fantasy. I see corporate power as the main problem of democracy. The big corporations can, and do, control the government, even if it is formally democratic. And therefore all the evil power of the government is in the hand of the big corporations. How Putin, who is famous for removing the oligarchs from their power positions and returning power to the state itself is connected with the danger of corporate power is not clear, I would guess that's simply because Putin is an evil fascist, so he has to be.

It's too bad you're only being sarcastic about Putin's fascism, otherwise your statement would have been at least half correct. 80% of Russia's economy is now owned by the "state". The assets of the state itself are in turn controlled by Putin's KGB and Judo buddies, who are entitled to embezzle and waste billions of dollars every year as long as they remain loyal to Putin and don't "overdo" it. Apparently Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller has blown $320 billion of Russian state funds over the last 16 years, but he remains in charge to this day... guess that's "multipolar democracy" for you.

Putin is a quite good politician, intelligent, it is interesting to hear his speeches.

They said the same thing about Hitler.

I see that it is good that he appeared in Russia, because this has preserved the world from the US victory.

But the US already won. Their economy continues to grow every year and they still have lively political debates. You on the other hand live in squalor, your only daily thrill being to come here and lie about how mighty your homeland looks on state television, waiting for some autocrat to seize power, re-occupy East Germany, ban German-language schools and make you science minister with your useless theories. Plus I notice Kiev remains in the Western camp now despite your promises to retake it years ago, as are several other former Soviet colonies.

He was certainly good for the Russian population, taking the oil income away from the oligarchs back to the state and using it to improve the life of the population in a quite serious way.

Your homeland's quality of life is now worse than it was 10 years ago. The Russian state itself already is nothing more than an oligarchy, and has been for several centuries now. All that happened is that the multipolar oligarchy created under Yeltsin was replaced by a unipolar oligarchy run exclusively by Putin.

The alternative would have been the collapse of Russia similar to that of the Soviet Union. As a libertarian, I have a lot to object against some of his policies. But I don't discuss here these problems related with domestic Russian politics.

You're about as libertarian as I am Shia Muslim. The alternative to Putin would have been to act like civilized human beings and stop calling for global domination by the droopy-eyed master race.

For the multipolar world a sufficiently strong counterweight to the US is a necessity. The protection against big states is, in fact, one of the most serious problems of libertarian theory, so that up to now we need Russia to prevent a US ruled world government. So, Putin is an important ally in the fight against the world government.

The counterweight is in development with free nations such as Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, East Germany etc., and hopefully within a few decades Russia will lose even more of its colonial territories, such as Chechnya. Unfortunately, your rapist heritage means these free nations have to seek American protection for the time being. Learn to stop raping, maybe at least use a condom from time to time, and perhaps these nations won't beg to join our camp anymore.

There is war, and war is always tragedy.

It's been nothing but entertainment for you, actually, as long as it doesn't involve Russians fighting against superior forces such as Chechen rebels with modern armaments.

But the right guys are actually winning this war, and this is the best way to end these tragedies.

The best way to protect Syria from America is by wiping more than half of it off the map, so America can't bomb it first?

 

[iceaura]

. But openly anti-Russian managed belligerence by Clinton would have been worse. Consequent support and cooperation of terrorist allies by Clinton would have been worse.

Unlikely, by the evidence.
More likely the moderation of the Obama era, or something like it, would have continued (such as continuing the restrictions on military operations launched by the CIA). She was Secretary of State under Obama, remember.

I have always stated that I think that the deep state is actually split into factions which fight each other.

In abstract, when pressed. But you cannot point to any actual split, or describe in even general terms who's on different sides, with any coherency or sense. The only consistency in your evocation of the US deep State is your assigning the CIA to it. And your continual resort to that kind of handwaving - (Trump restored CIA drone assassinations, contrary to your predictions? Deep State influence) - confuses things further.
You don't seem to know enough about the shallow State and its normal operations to have any idea what a US deep State would look like.

If you believe into a harmless CIA without any power, doing only what is allowed to him by US law, your choice. It is, of course, a very powerful organization, able to do a lot of things illegal according to US law, with a large budget from worldwide illegal operations (all the Afghanistan narcotraffic for example) which is not controlled at all by the Congress or so.

So? They aren't going to rule the US. Rule of the US by the CIA is not a likely scenario, at all - you are being silly.

Moreover, "CIA" stands also for all the many US intelligence services, with NSA the most famous other big player.

And also ignorant. And it hurts your case. Right in there, for instance, would be a promising place for you to look for one of those deep State splits you think allowed Trump: the CIA might want Trump, to get their drones and torture prisons and fun stuff back, the NSA might be more wary of Trump's Russian collusions and cyber vulnerabilities, and the FBI might be split itself - the Mob guys don't want the Russian Mob in the White House, the Drug War guys don't want the racial and wiretap stuff under Clinton's jaundiced eye. Not saying this is the case - but it's definitely a place to look. But first, you have to acquire information about the shallow State - and you can't.

On my planet countries like Russia and China are, indeed, much more peaceful than the USA. Because this is part of their imperial traditions,

You mistake lack of opportunity for virtue - an especially odd mistake in view of the creation and enforced cohesion of the Soviet "Union", the military conquest and army enforced unity of the largest land empire the world has ever seen, not that long ago - but likewise odd in its revision of Chinese history.

"Russia does not start wars, it ends them" is a quite popular phrase in Russia

And in the US. With approximately equivalent justification - historically, anyway.

so that up to now we need Russia to prevent a US ruled world government. So, Putin is an important ally in the fight against the world government.

Living and learning about fascism.

And therefore all the evil power of the government is in the hand of the big corporations.

Already you miss the point. As I said - you think all evil resides in government.

Putin is a quite good politician, intelligent, it is interesting to hear his speeches. I see that it is good that he appeared in Russia, because this has preserved the world from the US victory

Living and learning about fascism. You never see it coming.

You completely ignore the problem that the State Department is a main power base of the Clintonoids.

There aren't any Clintonoids, and the State Department is not a major domestic power base.

So, what Trump is doing with the State Department is simply part of the US-internal power fight.

What Trump did is boost the Military and the CIA and diminish State, with implications mainly and directly in foreign policy. That is a warning, btw, about Trump's leanings toward foreign countries.

Of course, there is the second aspect, namely the isolationist aspect of "making America great again". Other countries are considered as places to sell American weapons, and not much else. One does not need a big State Department to manage this.

And once again the role of the corporation in a fascist government you completely overlook. There is no "isolationist" aspect of "Making America Great Again". There is only the manner in which the interests of the corporations involved will be furthered - wherever they reside.

There is war, and war is always tragedy. But the right guys are actually winning this war, and this is the best way to end these tragedies

Assad and Putin are winning this war - they are bad guys.

 

[CptBork]

You mistake lack of opportunity for virtue - an especially odd mistake in view of the creation and enforced cohesion of the Soviet "Union", the military conquest and army enforced unity of the largest land empire the world has ever seen, not that long ago - but likewise odd in its revision of Chinese history.

How Russians can kill orders of magnitude more people than the US in every single decade of the last century, and still call themselves pacifists... I guess that's the kind of math you get from ordinary Joe Blows who think they're smarter than Einstein.

 

[Schmelzer]

... guess that's "multipolar democracy" for you.

Democracy is nothing I value, as a libertarian anarchist, and multipolar is about the world order, not about particular states.

But the US already won.

Be happy about this. Who cares what you think?

Plus I notice Kiev remains in the Western camp now despite your promises to retake it years ago, as are several other former Soviet colonies.

I have never made nonsensical claims about retaking it. I have explained that it is nonsense to claim that the Russian army is fighting there - in this case, the result would be very different. The Russians gave the Novorussians the minimal amount of help necessary to survive the attack, and after this stopped the civil war in Minsk. Russians have no interest in taking West Ukraine.

Your homeland's quality of life is now worse than it was 10 years ago.

You don't even know where I live actually. I have been in Russia 2008 the last time, lived there during my university years, that's all. The land where I have grown up and spend most of my lifetime is Germany.

Even more stupid nonsense disposed.

 

[Schmelzer]

More likely the moderation of the Obama era, or something like it, would have continued (such as continuing the restrictions on military operations launched by the CIA). She was Secretary of State under Obama, remember.

The "moderation" of crying "Assad must go" and giving money and weapons to childheadcutting terrorists would have, of course, continued. Instead of being stopped or at least reduced by Trump.

In abstract, when pressed. But you cannot point to any actual split, or describe in even general terms who's on different sides, with any coherency or sense.

That you refuse to accept that my position is coherent is a triviality, thus, not worth to be commented. Of course, given that neither Trumps behavior nor that of his supporters is really coherent, a coherent picture can be anyway only an oversimplification. But such an oversimplified split I have given - globalists vs. America first.

You don't seem to know enough about the shallow State and its normal operations to have any idea what a US deep State would look like.

Maybe, but your claim is nothing but a cheap claim, without any useful information, neither about the shallow state nor the deep state. So -> wastebasket.

So? They aren't going to rule the US. Rule of the US by the CIA is not a likely scenario, at all - you are being silly.

Given that we agree that they do not yet rule the US, but are only one, even if very powerful, part of the deep state, your last attack is completely off.

Right in there, for instance, would be a promising place for you to look for one of those deep State splits you think allowed Trump: the CIA might want Trump, to get their drones and torture prisons and fun stuff back, the NSA might be more wary of Trump's Russian collusions and cyber vulnerabilities, and the FBI might be split itself - the Mob guys don't want the Russian Mob in the White House, the Drug War guys don't want the racial and wiretap stuff under Clinton's jaundiced eye. Not saying this is the case - but it's definitely a place to look. But first, you have to acquire information about the shallow State - and you can't.

Feel free to look and to describe what you have found. Of course, I can research such things. But this requires time. Is it worth?

You mistake lack of opportunity for virtue - an especially odd mistake in view of the creation and enforced cohesion of the Soviet "Union", the military conquest and army enforced unity of the largest land empire the world has ever seen, not that long ago - but likewise odd in its revision of Chinese history.

The Soviet Union was not in the Russian imperial tradition, but ruled by an aggression Western (anti-Russian) ideology. And, again, your "you are wrong" without argumentation does not count. Other claims without arguments disposed.

Assad and Putin are winning this war - they are bad guys.

Thank's for clarifying this. Your "good guys", Al Qaida and ISIS, are losing. Bad luck for you.

 

[iceaura]

The "moderation" of crying "Assad must go" and giving money and weapons to childheadcutting terrorists would have, of course, continued. Instead of being stopped or at least reduced by Trump.

And so we compare "moderations" - in rhetoric and exaggerated symbolism and propaganda material, vs in bombings and CIA drone strikes and soldiers on the ground and expanded military violence.

Maybe, but your claim is nothing but a cheap claim, without any useful information

On the contrary: the information that you do not know how the US shallow State works would be very useful to you, such as by preventing you from posting that you preferred the military/FBI as rulers rather than the CIA, or that by the "CIA" you were meaningfully referring to the US intelligence agency cabal that included the NSA etc. But you do not allow such information in.

The Soviet Union was not in the Russian imperial tradition, but ruled by an aggression Western (anti-Russian) ideology.

The Soviet Union was ruled from Moscow, was united and held together by military coercion under the command of Moscow, spoke Russian as its official language. And it was not peaceful, or nonviolent, or even close.
Neither were the Russian empires under the Tsars, or the Chinese empires under various regimes.
Neither is Putin's regime, as it bids to expand.

Of course, I can research such things. But this requires time. Is it worth?

Only if you want to post on the topic without saying silly and foolish things - like imagining a choice between the CIA and the "Pentagon/FBI" as competing for rule of the US, or that Trump required support from a faction of some invisible "deep State" to gain the Presidency,

or that Trump's renewal of W&Cheney's focus on military force in the Middle East, his expanded belligerence of rhetoric coupled with diminution of State Department influence globally, and his increased redistribution of domestic resources into military and "intelligence" operations rather than economic or diplomatic ones, together with his incompetence, represent a reduced risk of war. With anybody.

 

[Schmelzer]

And so we compare "moderations" - in rhetoric and exaggerated symbolism and propaganda material, vs in bombings and CIA drone strikes and soldiers on the ground and expanded military violence.

Giving training, money and weapons to childheadcutting and cannibal terrorists is "rhetoric and exaggerated symbolism"? Ok, there is, of course, some symbolism there. And the cannibal and the childheadcutters were aware of this symbolism when they have made videos of their behavior and distributed them. And even more symbolism in that these same masters of symbolic art have been supported by the US even after these presentations of symbolism.

But I would say there is also some symbolism of bombing by the Pentagon - now increasingly - the very guys paid, trained and equipped by the CIA.

On the contrary: the information that you do not know how the US shallow State works would be very useful to you, such as by preventing you from posting that you preferred the military/FBI as rulers rather than the CIA, or that by the "CIA" you were meaningfully referring to the US intelligence agency cabal that included the NSA etc. But you do not allow such information in.

You know very well that I'm aware of that large number of secret services, and refer to "CIA" only as a simplification. A list of all the secret services would give nothing, to nobody here, so I will continue with this. If you have any meaningful information about the shallow state which would tell us that it is, instead, preferable to make the CIA rule instead of military/FBI, give it.

The Soviet Union was ruled from Moscow, was united and held together by military coercion under the command of Moscow, spoke Russian as its official language. And it was not peaceful, or nonviolent, or even close.
Neither were the Russian empires under the Tsars, or the Chinese empires under various regimes.
Neither is Putin's regime, as it bids to expand.

Of course, empires are not nonviolent or peaceful. Triviality. But there are quite important differences in the different imperial traditions. If you prefer to ignore them, to favor one of the most aggressive and evil of them, the US empire, your choice. And the Soviet Union did not follow the tsarist tradition, not at all, it was based on Western ideology, and aimed at world rule.

Only if you want to post on the topic without saying silly and foolish things - like imagining a choice between the CIA and the "Pentagon/FBI" as competing for rule of the US, or that Trump required support from a faction of some invisible "deep State" to gain the Presidency,

Feel free to think that this is wrong, and to name it however you like. As long as you give no information which contradicts these points, your blabla is irrelevant.

or that Trump's renewal of W&Cheney's focus on military force in the Middle East, his expanded belligerence of rhetoric coupled with diminution of State Department influence globally, and his increased redistribution of domestic resources into military and "intelligence" operations rather than economic or diplomatic ones, together with his incompetence, represent a reduced risk of war. With anybody.

And, as usual, not without defamations and lies.

 

[iceaura]

Giving training, money and weapons to childheadcutting and cannibal terrorists is "rhetoric and exaggerated symbolism"?

No, that was the exaggerated propaganda part.

But I would say there is also some symbolism of bombing by the Pentagon - now increasingly - the very guys paid, trained and equipped by the CIA

You can do even better - the bombing by the Pentagon of the guys paid, trained, and equipped by the Pentagon. And the rocketing by the CIA of the guys paid, trained, and equipped by the CIA.
Can you see how a Trump presidency, restoring the W tenure budgets and authorities to these dysfunctional foreign policy disaster operations, is not a good thing from anyone's point of view except the corporate profiteers?

You know very well that I'm aware of that large number of secret services, and refer to "CIA" only as a simplification.

That makes your contrasting of CIA vs "Pentagon/FBI" rule over the US sillier yet.
Why not "CIA/Pentagon" vs "FBI"? Or better: "CIA/Pentagon" vs "FBI/NSA"?

Of course, empires are not nonviolent or peaceful. Triviality. But there are quite important differences in the different imperial traditions.

They all say your description of the Russian empires - any of them - as peaceful, was a crock.
So far, same old.
But then this:

"or that Trump's renewal of W&Cheney's focus on military force in the Middle East, his expanded belligerence of rhetoric coupled with diminution of State Department influence globally, and his increased redistribution of domestic resources into military and "intelligence" operations rather than economic or diplomatic ones, together with his incompetence, represent a reduced risk of war. With anybody. "
And, as usual, not without defamations and lies.

Now that's interesting. Because everything in that half a paragraph is a simple fact, and none of it is on its face defamatory except possibly the word "incompetence" - which is simple fact as well, but involves a judgment.

So how does that end up striking someone as lies? And why is a simple short list of some of Trump policies and budgetary line items directly relevant to the Syrian conflicts, defamation?

 

[Schmelzer]

You can do even better - the bombing by the Pentagon of the guys paid, trained, and equipped by the Pentagon. And the rocketing by the CIA of the guys paid, trained, and equipped by the CIA.

Indeed, such things happen too.

Can you see how a Trump presidency, restoring the W tenure budgets and authorities to these dysfunctional foreign policy disaster operations, is not a good thing from anyone's point of view except the corporate profiteers?

Of course it is a bad thing. But we do not live in the land of wishful thinking. The choice in the last election was between very evil and extremely evil, with very evil as the winner.

Why not "CIA/Pentagon" vs "FBI"? Or better: "CIA/Pentagon" vs "FBI/NSA"?

This is simply what different sources think about this, that's all. One can make some weak plausibility arguments that a split globalists vs. isolationist would be sufficiently natural along these lines (there is no chance of military conquest of the whole world, but one to control the whole world with CIA methods like color revolutions exists, thus, one can argue that military and police may favor isolationism but the CIA globalism) but these are only weak plausibility arguments, the real split may be along different lines too.

They all say your description of the Russian empires - any of them - as peaceful, was a crock.

Maybe, but given that you provide no evidence for this, this is a useless remark.

Now that's interesting. Because everything in that half a paragraph is a simple fact, and none of it is on its face defamatory except possibly the word "incompetence" - which is simple fact as well, but involves a judgment. So how does that end up striking someone as lies? And why is a simple short list of some of Trump policies and budgetary line items directly relevant to the Syrian conflicts, defamation?

Ok, I admit that I would have better quoted the begin of your lie too: "Only if you want to post on the topic without saying silly and foolish things - like ". What makes this a lie is the suggestion that I have said such things, while all this is your "simple fact". You may believe A is correct, but suggesting I have said silly things like A will be a lie. Note: If you make statements about what other people think, you should be able to prove this with quotes. You are unable to do this, and in most of the cases you start "you think" or "you claim" one does not even have to read what follows but can simply add a "yet another lie", with some 98% or so success rate.

Just to get the facts straight about what I think. I do not share your characterization of Trump's politics, because it is quite one-sided anti-Trump, and in reality we see quite confused politics, with some positive as well as some negative elements. You list some negative ones, and add a "represent a reduced risk of war". Suggesting that I argue that these negative elements represent a reduced risk of war. A lie. Some of them increase the risk of various wars, some are less dangerous than you think, but that does not mean they reduce the risks of wars. Then, what I compare with is what I would have expected - given her program as well as her criminal record in Obama time - from Clinton. I do not compare Trump with some more or less reasonable president (like, say, Bush I or Carter or so) because no reasonable candidate had a chance. So, I recognize very well that it would be important for peace to have consistent politics instead of Trump's chaos. Of course, there is an exception of this rule, namely a consistent policy of warmongering is even worse. But that does not mean that I think the chaos of Trump, and the one caused by the internal fighting inside the US, is not dangerous.

Some are wrongly described, say, what you see as a reduction of "diplomatic" "operations" are a reduction of illegal attempts to overthrow foreign governments. So, while I would think that using really diplomatic means would be good for world peace, I think that to reduce what you name "diplomatic" is even better for world peace. Combining your interpretation of what happens with my conclusion from my interpretation of the situation is a lie.

 

[iceaura]

Indeed, such things happen too.

But not in your description - which you argued from.

. The choice in the last election was between very evil and extremely evil, with very evil as the winner.

The more evil - by a lot - won.

This is simply what different sources think about this, that's all.

No, it's a comparison of reality with what you posted, which was silly.

I do not share your characterization of Trump's politics, because it is quite one-sided anti-Trump, and in reality we see quite confused politics, with some positive as well as some negative elements.

My view is accurate - any accurate view is going to look one-sided and anti-Trump. Fascism is nasty stuff - not much good comes of it.

Most of your proposed "positive" elements (likely isolationism, likely reduction of CIA influence, Trump as an "unknown", etc) do not exist, the ones that do fail to support your positive assessments. The confusion we see in reality does not support your positive assessments either - it's confusion among evils, with large inevitable downsides and small potential benefits.

You list some negative ones, and add a "represent a reduced risk of war". Suggesting that I argue that these negative elements represent a reduced risk of war. A lie.

No such suggestion appears - therefore, no such lie.

Then, what I compare with is what I would have expected - given her program as well as her criminal record in Obama time - from Clinton.

You compared delusions of Trump with delusions of Clinton - that I focused there on your delusions of Trump, by contrasting them with his behavior, is reasonable. And my specific comparison with Obama's behavior while Clinton was Secretary is solid evidence to set beside your gullible reposting of rightwing American agitprop - don't you think? Why speculate when evidence is easily available.

Some are wrongly described, say, what you see as a reduction of "diplomatic" "operations" are a reduction of illegal attempts to overthrow foreign governments.

I did not describe a single attempt to overthrow a foreign government as "diplomatic operations". I simply pointed to Trump's shift of money, effort, personnel, and rhetorical focus away from diplomacy and toward military and paramilitary violence and threats, including CIA operations. In Iraq and Syria and nearby regions, of course, it's immediately effective - but also globally, where things will play out in the months and years to come.

And obviously, that kind of shift in governing approach is both 1) typically fascist, and exactly what anyone would expect 2) an increase in the risk of war, of all kinds, including anything that could be started by mistake or mischance in the Middle East.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, it's a comparison of reality with what you posted, which was silly. My view is accurate - any accurate view is going to look one-sided and anti-Trump. Fascism is nasty stuff - not much good comes of it.

It is quite funny that you think naming the own opinion "reality" would be an argument in its favor. It only discredits yourself. What would be a reasonable argument would be, for example: "Source A (link) argues that this really happens".

Americans do not seem to learn in childhood the basic rule of decent behavior that "self-praise stinks". Leave it to others to praise your views as accurate.

Most of your proposed "positive" elements (likely isolationism, likely reduction of CIA influence, Trump as an "unknown", etc) do not exist, the ones that do fail to support your positive assessments. The confusion we see in reality does not support your positive assessments either - it's confusion among evils, with large inevitable downsides and small potential benefits.

Where are big differences of what we consider as benefits and downsides between us. Some of them are simply the results of different interests. Quite objectively, the chaos of American foreign politics decreases the political influence of Washington in the world. Former allies will no longer rely on Washington's promises, and establish connections with other, more reliable players (SA and Kurds may be examples). Other allies see aspects of US foreign policy which are obviously harmful for themselves - like the actions directed against Northstream II, which have to (even openly declared) aim to sell more expensive US gas to Europe, so they have to fight US influence in their countries simply to defend their own economic interests. South Korea has now an increasing survival interest to get rid of the actual US policy.

The consequences are clearly negative for the US: They lose political influence, that means, power, in other countries. This loss is for a long time, even if the Clintonoids retake power, the other countries know that there is now a sufficiently strong part of the US elites which supports Trump-like politics, and they may retake power in the future too. So, what has been certain in the past - that US elections do not matter in they key questions of foreign policy - no longer holds. The US became much more unreliable as a long term partner, and this will remain so for a longer time. Thus, the loss of political influence we observe now is also for long.

You will, naturally, not like this loss of political power of your country. I like it, a lot.

No such suggestion appears - therefore, no such lie.

Maybe I have misinterpreted something. My recommendation: Stop to make claims about what I claim or think, and you will not receive replies that you lie. It is a very simple technique to reduce confrontation. Make, instead, claims about reality, or what you think is reality, with some links to evidence in favor of this.

You compared delusions of Trump with delusions of Clinton - that I focused there on your delusions of Trump, by contrasting them with his behavior, is reasonable.

Except that "your delusions of Trump" are more your fantasies about what I think than my delusions. If you would simply reduce to presenting facts about Trump's behavior, which are really in contradiction with what I think about this, this would be much more efficient for you too. I would not only be unable to claim that you lie, but would not have a motivation to do this. I would, instead, take a look at your links, and possibly (if I would think it is necessary) modify my position.

And my specific comparison with Obama's behavior while Clinton was Secretary is solid evidence to set beside your gullible reposting of rightwing American agitprop - don't you think? Why speculate when evidence is easily available.

Why don't you - instead of making such claims - simply present some evidence which shows that my claims, or those of your beloved rightwing agitprop - are wrong?

I did not describe a single attempt to overthrow a foreign government as "diplomatic operations".

But this is what will be effectively reduced if, in particular, the US embassy in states like Russia is heavily reduced (as a symmetric countermeasure against the US actions against Russian diplomats, but a predictable one, so that one can say that this was intentional). Or if the embassy in Cuba is severely reduced on the base of some insane accusations. (It is clear that the aim of Obama's reduction of tension with Cuba was switching strategy to overthrow Cuba - from open fight with sanctions to organizing a color revolution in some future.)

I simply pointed to Trump's shift of money, effort, personnel, and rhetorical focus away from diplomacy and toward military and paramilitary violence and threats, including CIA operations. In Iraq and Syria and nearby regions, of course, it's immediately effective - but also globally, where things will play out in the months and years to come.

And what is your point? Have I objected against your mentioning them? I object against your fantasies about what I think, fantasies, defamations and lies which distort our discussion, without giving anything valuable.

And obviously, that kind of shift in governing approach is both 1) typically fascist, and exactly what anyone would expect 2) an increase in the risk of war, of all kinds, including anything that could be started by mistake or mischance in the Middle East.

I agree. Some part of what Trump is doing is dangerous, and some part of it is typically fascist. Some other part of it is useful (stopping at least some of the flow of money toward jihadi terrorists in Syria and Iraq), some is simply stupid and weakens the US without creating any danger (threat of sanctions against European firms participating in Northstream II), some is stupid and creates some danger (supporting the Kurdish referendum but then leaving the Peshmerga without any support they have expected created the danger of civil war in Iraq, but ended with a disaster for the Kurds, thus, weakening them as well as the US influence), some is stupid and unpredictable (NK rhetorics may appear harmless if nothing follows, but catastrophic if a real war is started - but most observers think nothing follows). Some (torture, drone war revival) is stupid and creates harm, but the worldwide response to it will result in a weakening of the US in the infowar, so that the overall effect will be positive (preventing future misuse of US media power which could be much more harmful). The world is quite complex, the outcome of what Trump does too.

 

[iceaura]

Americans do not seem to learn in childhood the basic rule of decent behavior that "self-praise stinks". Leave it to others to praise your views as accurate

It's not praise. There's no great credit in pointing to the obvious, which is that any accurate description of Trump (mine or anyone's) is going to be one-sidedly negative.
It's information for you, and an insult for you (the implicit assumption that you need instruction in such basic facts so starkly visible). That you regard it as bragging shows just how disconnected you are from the reality of Trump and the Republican Party in the US - you simply can't see fascism. You are blind to it.
You actually reject descriptions of Trump that are almost entirely negative, on the grounds that there have to be significant and visible positive aspects of his Presidency. WTF?
That is exactly how you arrive at most of the hardcore goofy you post here - you assume that what strikes you in your state of ignorance as "one-sided" descriptions are biased and politically influenced (for example: that global warming has to be encouraging the spread of many good organisms as well as bad).

But this is what will be effectively reduced if, in particular, the US embassy in states like Russia is heavily reduced (as a symmetric countermeasure against the US actions against Russian diplomats, but a predictable one, so that one can say that this was intentional). Or if the embassy in Cuba is severely reduced on the base of some insane accusations. (It is clear that the aim of Obama's reduction of tension with Cuba was switching strategy to overthrow Cuba - from open fight with sanctions to organizing a color revolution in some future.)

Historically, the threat of war is increased when diplomatic communications between armed and hostile powers are cut off, treaties are repudiated, and threats are made in public. Trump's behavior and policies have increased the threat of war, of all kinds with anyone.

Meanwhile: You don't know jack shit about Obama's "aims" in Cuba, because you don't know the domestic US political circumstances. That will also prevent you from saying anything sensible about the Trump administration's policies toward Cuba - except that the threat of military violence is a bit higher with Trump of course (The entire history of US policy regarding Cuba is driven by domestic politics, not foreign ambitions. Cuba has little oil, no diamonds, no coltan - lucky for Cubans).

Not so lucky for Iraq's neighbors. Syria was in the wrong place at the wrong time.