The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

You keep posting silly crap like that because you lack information.
For example: you apparently have no idea what Bolton's influence and power has been, even the basic biography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
and you have no clear idea of Clinton's role in US policy in Syria, for comparison.

The origin of the crap was, in this case, your crap: "John Bolton bears as much or more responsibility for the Syrian war than Clinton". Either elections matter, than Bolton as a Rpublican extremist has no power during Obama time, thus, cannot bear responsibility for the Syrian war which started 2011 in Obama time, or not. Your choice. I would like to prefer at least some consistent description of your reality.

You supported the candidate most likely to have the US do exactly what you claimed you didn't want it to do, the candidate whose administration would most resemble the administrations whose behavior you most deplored, the candidate most likely to have the US behave as you claimed you didn't want the US to behave.

Strangely, up to now, this evil candidate did a lot of things I liked. And already half of the time is over. It looks like he may now do a serious thing which I don't like - namely to start a war in Venezuela.

Now he is doing that - and you are flailing around looking for some "deep State" to explain what was right in front of you all along.

That it was impossible for Trump in the anti-Russian anti-Trump hysteria started by the liberals to start better relations with Russia is obvious, there is not even a need for a deep state, the anti-Russian anti-Trump mass media are open and obviously anti-Russian and anti-Trump.

They were neither stupid nor accidental. They were the rhetorical claims, the bullshit line, of a very good, very able con man (and likely blackmail victim).

So essentially we agree - these were well-designed rhetorics. Let's add that the proposal also made sense. Because the worst thing for a reasonable US strategy would be a Russia-China-Iran alliance. Once one wants to fight China as well as Iran, fighting at the same time Russia is the greatest imaginable strategical stupidity.

In fact, after Trump's election, some of the nationalist Russian commentators were afraid of this scenario, Trump establishing good relations to Putin and Russia going back to the Western side, cooperating with the US against China. I doubted that this has a chance. Whatever - it has not happened, and, given that this helps to finish the US unipolar world earlier than other possibilities, that's fine.

In fact, there are already two things the anti-Trumpers have done which have been good for the world, and bad for the US unipolar world: 1.) preventing a union with Russia, and forcing Russia into a Russia-China-Iran alliance, 2.) boosting Saudi Arabia because of this murder case in the embassy. I tend to shift toward the position that it does not really matter who rules the US, but that it is important that there is a split, and that they hate each other so much that both sides don't care about side effects in their in-fights.

You actually believe they were evidence of well-thought US foreign policy, for chrissake. (While ignoring the ones you didn't like, such as more nuclear weapons and more overseas military violence and more torture prisons and more taking oil by coercion and so forth).

There was some danger of a well-thought US foreign policy, namely of a correction of Obamas main stupidity, to force Russia and China into a strategic alliance. Fortunately, this has been prevented by the anti-Trumpers.

And now you have Bolton and Abrams to look at, as predicted by the better informed.

We have something to look at. Fine, so what? We will look at.

In fact, what do Russian commentators think about Venezuela? Quite different things. Many note that a large part of the inner problems is the economic stupidity of socialism. Other think the more important cause of the problems is the US fighting the Chaves regime from the start. There is agreement about the people there hating gringos very much so that a direct US war will not be something they will easily win, but, instead, something much more horrible than Afghanistan, and even with a lot of what is opposition to Maduro now switching sides. Moreover, there is the racist component - the opposition to Maduro being the rich white, with the poor natives behind Maduro. A constellation where you cannot expect many people switching sides because the US wins. To localize the war by motivating Brasil or Bolivia to start a war already fails, thus, without direct US involvement, there will be nothing but a few US-paid terrorists coming from Bolivia, with the danger of a revival of FARC in Bolivia as an answer. In comparison with Venezuela, both Bolivian as Brasilian armies are not a big problem. Thus, there will be nothing without the US itself fighting there. In other words, a new Vietnam for the US, which is already overstretched in Afghanistan and Syria. Once a military failure so close to the own border would be horrible, one can expect that the US gives a shit about Syria and Afghanistan and possibly even more in Eurasia. So, a plausible imaginable outcome of the whole game would be the return of the US to Monroe, South America being ruled by the US, but Eurasia left to Russia and China Once this would be a sort of acceptance of a multipolar world, this would be not that problematic too - and all this even if the US succeeds in Venezuela.

If they fail, like in Vietnam, even better. What would be necessary for this? The Venezuelan army is prepared for this, they have been aware for the danger for years, and they know that the army itself can hardly withstand against the US itself, thus, they have done all that is useful for a long term partisan war against US occupants. They will have the support of the people. Some more foreign support would be useful, of course. No problem. Cuba can get everything heavy they need for this from Russia, and then Cuba can organize the transfer to Venezuela.

So my guess is that what will be started will be yet another terrorist war, similar to Syria. With the Army being able to control this, at worst with some provinces under terrorist control similar to Idlib now. Something Hillary would have liked to do too.

 

[iceaura]

So essentially we agree - these were well-designed rhetorics.

You posted the claim that they were well-thought foreign policy decisions. That claim was idiotic, and reflects your ignorance of Trump as well as your vulnerability to US rightwing propaganda.

That it was impossible for Trump in the anti-Russian anti-Trump hysteria started by the liberals

You have no clue where, when, or by whom, anti-Russian hysteria was started in the US. None.

We have something to look at. Fine, so what? We will look at.

No, you won't.
You will post something like this, instead:

In fact, what do Russian commentators think about Venezuela?

Irrelevant.
You supported the US political faction that includes John Bolton and Elliot Abrams, for the White House.

So my guess is that what will be started will be yet another terrorist war, similar to Syria.

And by the same people who have started such wars in the past: Bolton, Abrams, a Republican President, the usual suspects in the CIA and Pentagon, the back channel influence of capitalist corporations such as Exxon et al.

Those are the US interests you supported, when you supported Trump.

Either elections matter, than Bolton as a Rpublican extremist has no power during Obama time, thus, cannot bear responsibility for the Syrian war which started 2011 in Obama time, or not. Your choice.

Bolton's power and influence was most significant during W's time.. That was a direct consequence of elections. That's when the current situation in Syria "started" - not 2011. Nothing the US is doing in the mideast "started" in 2011.

Strangely, up to now, this evil candidate did a lot of things I liked.

He didn't.

Except give way to Putin's agenda of military expansion and sanction removal. He did some of that - why, remains to be seen in court.

 

[Write4U]

You bit - hook, line, and sinker

Maybe he is getting paid?

 

[Schmelzer]

You posted the claim that they were well-thought foreign policy decisions. That claim was idiotic, and reflects your ignorance of Trump as well as your vulnerability to US rightwing propaganda.

Except that the idiotic foreign policy strategy was the one of Obama, forcing Russia and China into an alliance, and Trump's strategy one of the two ways out of this idiocy. That is simple geopolitics.

Bolton's power and influence was most significant during W's time.. That was a direct consequence of elections. That's when the current situation in Syria "started" - not 2011. Nothing the US is doing in the mideast "started" in 2011.

Ok, no problem, starting a terrorist war in Syria needs preparation time, fine. As if this would help you. The open terrorist war started in 2011.

Either W was able, as a president, to start the preparation. Then Obama was able, as a president, to stop it short before 2011, and is, therefore, the responsible guy. Or both were unable to change anything, given the deep state decision to start it. In this case, elections don't matter. Your choice.

By the way, if terrorist wars have to be started many years before the actual fighting begins, and are, once started, unstoppable even by elected presidents when the question appears who is responsible for starting the terrorist war in Venezuela? The time to stop these wars was essentially the same for Obama then and for Trump now. So, who started this war in such a way that it became unstoppable? Good old W again? So, even 8 years Obama have not been sufficient to stop the preparations for this terrorist war against Venezuela? But elections somehow matter?

Just to clarify my position: You are correct that the preparations for all these wars have been made during W time, by the deep state. Obama and Clinton did not object at all.

The real position of the president in the deep state hierarchy is not clear to me, but I think they are not only president actors but have some power too. As a consequence of this hypothesis, they are (among others) responsible for this terrorist war too. Even if they acted only as actors in the "elections matter" propaganda show, so what - they accepted these roles, despite that they had to play the roles of criminal murderers there.

The basic line is quite simple: If elections matter, then Obama and Clinton (and not Bolton) are responsible for the Syrian war.

 

[iceaura]

Except that the idiotic foreign policy strategy was the one of Obama, forcing Russia and China into an alliance, and Trump's strategy one of the two ways out of this idiocy. That is simple geopolitics.

Your third attempt to change the subject.
You claimed Trump's rhetoric was evidence of "well-thought decision" about US foreign policy. That was you being an idiot, due to lack of information about Trump.

Ok, no problem, starting a terrorist war in Syria needs preparation time, fine. As if this would help you. The open terrorist war started in 2011.

The bad news in Syria was started by Bolton's, Wolfowitz's, et al, crowd and their immediate predecessors going back to Reagan. The "terrorist" contribution came from W's invasion and occupation of Iraq. The precipitating event seems to have been a drought researchers regard as an effect of AGW. Subsequent contributions by Obama even - much less Clinton, while in the State Department and not in charge of such matters - were comparatively small.

Just to clarify my position: You are correct that the preparations for all these wars have been made during W time, by the deep state. Obama and Clinton did not object at all.

They were made by the Republican administrations involved, people you refuse to name or assign responsibility.

The real position of the president in the deep state hierarchy is not clear to me,

Nothing about US politics is clear to you, because you don't know anything about it.

The basic line is quite simple: If elections matter, then Obama and Clinton (and not Bolton) are responsible for the Syrian war.

That's stupid. Elections matter because people like Bolton will gain influence and do bad things with bad consequences if you elect people like W or Trump. That's why elections matter.
- - - -

By the way, if terrorist wars have to be started many years before the actual fighting begins, and are, once started, unstoppable even by elected presidents

They don't and they aren't, in general. We were talking about Syria, remember?

when the question appears who is responsible for starting the terrorist war in Venezuela?

We'll see. We know that the current Republican administration is setting one up, exactly as predicted by informed people, exactly as Republican administrations have been doing since Reagan. You supported it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Either W was able, as a president, to start the preparation. Then Obama was able, as a president, to stop it short before 2011, and is, therefore, the responsible guy. Or both were unable to change anything, given the deep state decision to start it. In this case, elections don't matter. Your choice.

Bollocks... Not according to eye witnesses in Syria at the time....
You have this hatred for the USA hat is totally distorting your ability to assess evidence properly.
I personally know of two eye witnesses, people who were on the ground in Syria during this time and the USA had very little to do with it.
Alas even USA citizens believe they are somehow responsible, such is the distrust of their own government.

 

[Write4U]

Bollocks... Not according to eye witnesses in Syria at the time....
You have this hatred for the USA hat is totally distorting your ability to assess evidence properly.
I personally know of two eye witnesses, people who were on the ground in Syria during this time and the USA had very little to do with it.
Alas even USA citizens believe they are somehow responsible, such is the distrust of their own government.

Yes, it a dark aspect of freedom of information. You can find lies next to truths and we get an alternative truth....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, it a dark aspect of freedom of information. You can find lies next to truths and we get an alternative truth....

According to my research notes at the time and subsequent interviews with those two persons mentioned, The USA didn't get involved until after the first gas attack by Assad's forces as they attempted to quell the revolution they triggered by murdering a teenage graffiti artist as an example of those who defy the regime. Assad's brother was in charge of the military at the time and the revolution threatened his narcotics and oil dollars smuggling via Afghanistan to Russia. ( as understood by those on the ground at the time)
So to state that the USA Started the war in Syria is utter nonsense...
The first causality of war is the truth ... So you have to deal with what happened at the time and not what is reported later....

 

[Schmelzer]

Your third attempt to change the subject.
You claimed Trump's rhetoric was evidence of "well-thought decision" about US foreign policy. That was you being an idiot, due to lack of information about Trump.

You distort (as usual, and as usual without evidence) my position, and correcting you by explaining my position is "an attempt to change the subject"? Funny. Of course, your subject is the usual one, namely that I'm stupid, but that subject is not worth to be discussed at all. So, again, the strategy to have good relations with Russia was well-thought as election rhetorics, as well as well-thought as a foreign policy strategy. Both are facts - the election strategy was obviously successful, and the foreign policy strategy to attack Russia, China, and Iran at the same time, forcing them into an alliance, is obviously stupid.

Subsequent contributions by Obama even - much less Clinton, while in the State Department and not in charge of such matters - were comparatively small.

Nice try to avoid the answer. Was he able to stop this, and has not stopped it? Not doing anything, given that a horrible criminal action is about to start and you can prevent it is enough to make Obama responsible. And Clinton too - the way to avoid such responsibility was quite simple - resignation if this crime will not be stopped. She did not - thus, she is responsible. Was he unable to stop it? In this case, elections do not matter.

They were made by the Republican administrations involved, people you refuse to name or assign responsibility.

I assign the responsibility to the deep state. I see the presidents, even if their power in the deep state differs from their official power, as deep state players, thus, also as responsible for what happens. So, I do not refuse to name or assign responsibility. It is you who refuses to assign responsibility for Libya and Syria to Obama and Clinton.

That's stupid. Elections matter because people like Bolton will gain influence and do bad things with bad consequences if you elect people like W or Trump. That's why elections matter.

Once Bolton can start terrorist wars even during the time when Obama and Clinton rule, elections do not really matter. If elections matter, Bolton cannot start a war 2011, only Obama can do such things.

They don't and they aren't, in general. We were talking about Syria, remember?

So who started the terrorist war in Syria 2011? Obama or Bolton? (Or do you want to sell the "the Syrian people fighting against the dictator" fairy tale here?)

We'll see. We know that the current Republican administration is setting one up, exactly as predicted by informed people, exactly as Republican administrations have been doing since Reagan.

And exactly like the Obama administration did in Syria. It follows the same scheme even in details. You have the "peaceful protest of the people", you have the terrorist gangs with US weapons and money in the neighboring country prepared to start the terrorist war, you have the Western media fighting the information war, you have the "humanitarian aid" games for delivering weapons to terrorists inside, everything as usual.

For propaganda victims who believe in the

Assad's forces ... murdering a teenage graffiti artist as an example of those who defy the regime.

First, you would better get the story as sold more correctly. Most of the various versions of this hero of the revolution are alive, even according to the media which distribute that nonsense.
For example this one, named Mouawiya Syasneh, sold by the Spiegel in Germany, which has received even a price: http://www.spiegel.de/plus/mouawiya...begann-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000158024647 Unfortunately, the story is a lie, as has been acknowledged even by the Spiegel itself. The article https://uebermedien.de/34149/die-legende-des-jungen-der-angeblich-den-krieg-in-syrien-ausloeste/ (in German, too) evaluated in this relation the many different variants of this fairy tale sold in various Western and pro-Western media.

Assad's brother was in charge of the military at the time and the revolution threatened his narcotics and oil dollars smuggling via Afghanistan to Russia. ( as understood by those on the ground at the time)

Smuggling drugs from Syria to Russia via ..... Afghanistan ... LOL You made my day. But you have forgotten about the route from Syria via Medellin to the US.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer
You may wish to rely exclusively on media sources but i don't. You can quote media until the cows come home, but until you find collaborating evidence you are really just playing the propaganda game.
Do you know the exact time the young grafiti artist was murdered?
Do you know what happened in the first 60 minutes afterwards?
Or do you only believe what you cherry pick from the propaganda media?

Based on what i have come to know, there is a high possibility that the severe oppression and brutal treatment of the Syrian population by the Assad regime caused the revolution and was triggered by the murder of young boy who was doing grafiti.

USA involvment only occurred after gas attacks were being used, under the command of Assad's brother.

 

[Schmelzer]

You may wish to rely exclusively on media sources but i don't. You can quote media until the cows come home, but until you find collaborating evidence you are really just playing the propaganda game.
Do you know the exact time the young grafiti artist was murdered?
Do you know what happened in the first 60 minutes afterwards?
Or do you only believe what you cherry pick from the propaganda media?
Based on what i have come to know, ...

you probably have been the victim of yet another of the many versions of that boy's story, in this case not by the media, but by someone who sells a version of the fairy tale too dubious even for the Western media.

Ok, sometimes I believe even propaganda media - namely if they have been caught, and admit some of their lies, like the Spiegel in this case. Quite natural, many people tend to believe criminals who admit in court their crimes, not? But these are clear exceptions. The other source I have quoted simply described and compared what different pro-Western media sources have claimed - including the contradictions between the various variants sold to the propaganda victims. This is easy to check information, moreover, made by a small player against big media, thus, with a quite low probability of distortion.

The story itself is of a type which I do not even consider seriously as a story. A small scale horror story about the torture of children, easy to invent, impossible to falsify by the side blamed, part of war propaganda in essentially every war. There should be some quite extraordinary evidence for such personal horror stories, like videos of the facts itself, before I start to take such stories seriously. Like in the this case https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872 , where the US did not even stop its support of a gang after this gang, headcutted a boy and distributed a video of this crime.

 

[iceaura]

You distort (as usual, and as usual without evidence) my position,

That is not true. You made a very silly claim, and now you want to talk about something else.

Of course, your subject is the usual one, namely that I'm stupid,

You have been corrected on that falsehood too many times to count.

So, again, the strategy to have good relations with Russia was well-thought as election rhetorics, as well as well-thought as a foreign policy strategy.

And you double down on your silly claim of Trump having a well thought "foreign policy strategy".
It was a conman's schtick, and one Trump was pressured into. You fell for a con.

Not doing anything, given that a horrible criminal action is about to start and you can prevent it is enough to make Obama responsible

Even if he could have - which is not likely, given his embattled position - not as much as the people who set it up and set it in motion. As noted: comparatively trivial.

I assign the responsibility to the deep state.

Because you don't know who's responsible, and you don't know who's in the deep State US, so you figure they have to be the same people? That would make a little sense anyway.
But you do know who's responsible - if you have been paying attention to better informed people, and checking for yourself.

So who started the terrorist war in Syria 2011? Obama or Bolton?

Bolton more than Obama. Neither one owns the situation.

And exactly like the Obama administration did in Syria. It follows the same scheme even in details

Not at all. There was no Iraq War next door to Venezuela, for starters.
Although you are very nearly endorsing that aspect of the Syrian war you spent so much typing denying: that oil and gas are central.

Once Bolton can start terrorist wars even during the time when Obama and Clinton rule, elections do not really matter.

And since that never happened, we are back to reality: elections matter. A lot.

It is you who refuses to assign responsibility for Libya and Syria to Obama and Clinton.

I do not. I assign them their responsibility, and blame them - Clinton especially, for voting W war powers in Iraq. It's just that their responsibility is less than Bolton's, or W&Cheney's, or the other major US evildoers in the region - people you never name.
Just as, for all the bad he did, Bill Clinton's responsibility for this incoming Venezuelan atrocity is less than Reagan's, Bush's, W's,

or Trump's. The US political faction you support.

 

[Quantum Quack]

you probably have been the victim of yet another of the many versions of that boy's story, in this case not by the media, but by someone who sells a version of the fairy tale too dubious even for the Western media.

Ok, sometimes I believe even propaganda media - namely if they have been caught, and admit some of their lies, like the Spiegel in this case. Quite natural, many people tend to believe criminals who admit in court their crimes, not? But these are clear exceptions. The other source I have quoted simply described and compared what different pro-Western media sources have claimed - including the contradictions between the various variants sold to the propaganda victims. This is easy to check information, moreover, made by a small player against big media, thus, with a quite low probability of distortion.

The story itself is of a type which I do not even consider seriously as a story. A small scale horror story about the torture of children, easy to invent, impossible to falsify by the side blamed, part of war propaganda in essentially every war. There should be some quite extraordinary evidence for such personal horror stories, like videos of the facts itself, before I start to take such stories seriously. Like in the this case https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872 , where the US did not even stop its support of a gang after this gang, headcutted a boy and distributed a video of this crime.

None of the above alters the facts that were available at the time or very near in time proximity to the events they describe.

A nurse ( Canadian expat) after a few hours of discussion gave credible data, later corroborated by another expat ( a teacher ) independently. Which was further corroborated by news breaking immediately after the event that triggered this mess in Syria leads me to grant strong credibility to the initiating circumstances of this war. It is also the general consensus of Syrian refugees that I have talked to locally.

Further in researching I delved in to Bashar Assad wishing to profile him and found that it was most likely his brother who ordered the chem attack which generated USA interest. There was reason to believe at the time that Bashar ( including his wife) were being seriously manipulated by his Brother Maher. I don't believe the reporting of the supposed accidental death of the heir Bassel al Assad either.

It is actually a really interesting journey... including the link associated with the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, it's confrontations in Iraq with Saddam, etc. but you got to look a bit deeper than later produced media...
that is if you are actually interested in the truth or as close to it as possible, of course...

 

[Schmelzer]

And you double down on your silly claim of Trump having a well thought "foreign policy strategy".
It was a conman's schtick, and one Trump was pressured into. You fell for a con.

No reason to double down. Trump's foreign policy strategy, as proposed during the campaign, was objectively superior to that of all of his opponents. Because all of his opponents argued for aggression against Russia, therefore forcing Russia even more into the alliance with China and Iran, which is obviously stupid.

Bolton more than Obama. Neither one owns the situation.

Ok, at least you start to admit some responsibility at Obama. I can, correspondingly, admit that elections matter a little bit, but the deep state (in this case represented by Bolton, who did not have any position to start such things officially) matters more.

The greatest responsibility has, of course, the guy who finally decided if the war should be actually started. You assigned this responsibility, and therefore also this role, to Bolton. Thus, elections do not really matter, the decisions to go to war or not, which are the most important decisions, are made by non-elected persons.

Not at all. There was no Iraq War next door to Venezuela, for starters.
Although you are very nearly endorsing that aspect of the Syrian war you spent so much typing denying: that oil and gas are central.

Thanks for remembering another similarity - Venezuela is full of oil.

A nurse ( Canadian expat) after a few hours of discussion gave credible data, later corroborated by another expat ( a teacher ) independently.

Western foreigners as the source makes the whole story even less credible.

Further in researching I delved in to Bashar Assad wishing to profile him and found that it was most likely his brother who ordered the chem attack which generated USA interest.

LOL, "generated USA interest". The interest was there from the start, even your own propaganda rupors admit this:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/6/timeline-syria-civil-war-and-us-response/

Aug. 18, 2011: President Barack Obama calls on Assad to resign and orders Syrian government assets frozen.
Aug. 20, 2012: Obama says the use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” that would change his calculus on intervening in the civil war and have “enormous consequences.”
March 19, 2013: The Syrian government and opposition trade accusations over a gas attack

Note that openly robbing money of another state is a war-like act of aggression. In this sense, the US has started war against Syria already 2011. And the red line claim of 2012 was a direct invitation for the terrorists to fake such an attack.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Does any one else think that the abrupt ending of the Summit in Vietnam and the damning testimony in congress by Cohen are somehow associated?

 

[Quantum Quack]

No reason to double down. Trump's foreign policy strategy, as proposed during the campaign, was objectively superior to that of all of his opponents. Because all of his opponents argued for aggression against Russia, therefore forcing Russia even more into the alliance with China and Iran, which is obviously stupid.

Ok, at least you start to admit some responsibility at Obama. I can, correspondingly, admit that elections matter a little bit, but the deep state (in this case represented by Bolton, who did not have any position to start such things officially) matters more.

The greatest responsibility has, of course, the guy who finally decided if the war should be actually started. You assigned this responsibility, and therefore also this role, to Bolton. Thus, elections do not really matter, the decisions to go to war or not, which are the most important decisions, are made by non-elected persons.

Thanks for remembering another similarity - Venezuela is full of oil.


Western foreigners as the source makes the whole story even less credible.

LOL, "generated USA interest". The interest was there from the start, even your own propaganda rupors admit this:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/6/timeline-syria-civil-war-and-us-response/

Note that openly robbing money of another state is a war-like act of aggression. In this sense, the US has started war against Syria already 2011. And the red line claim of 2012 was a direct invitation for the terrorists to fake such an attack.

from your link...

March 2011: Protests erupt in the city of Daraa over security forces’ detention of a group of boys accused of painting anti-government graffiti on the walls of their school. On March 15, a protest is held in Damascus‘ Old City. On March 18, security forces open fire on a protest in Daraa, killing four people in what activists regard as the first deaths of the uprising. Demonstrations spread, as does the crackdown by President Bashar Assad’s forces.​

Errors in reporting: "Group of boys were detained." Immediately the news is now developing fictional content.
From what I was told, a young boy was summarily executed in the streets by soldiers in a show of authority.
Leading to extreme passionate responses by those who witnessed it.
Both witnesses I talked to stated the same critical point independently of each other.. "One boy, executed in the street for painting graffiti".
Conclusion:
The USA did not start the uprising in Syria.
The USA is not the cause of the war in Syria.
The USA was reacting to reports of atrocities being committed against civilians.
The USA was vexed as to how they should react to later news of chemical weapons use.

Perhaps if your interest was more in the truth than for bringing down the USA you might actually see it...
When I referred to "generating USA interest" I was referring to military. Sorry about the confusion. Sanctions IMO are not a military intervention, but maybe they are to you...

 

[Write4U]

Ok, at least you start to admit some responsibility at Obama. I can, correspondingly, admit that elections matter a little bit, but the deep state (in this case represented by Bolton, who did not have any position to start such things officially) matters more

Michael Cohen’s testimony on Trump business reveals conduct that’s widespread in corporate America

https://theconversation.com/michael...-thats-widespread-in-corporate-america-112657

There is your deep state (of corruption).........

The government is a not-for-profit organization. You do not get into politics to get rich. Business men get into politics to make their private organizations richer.

Which Trump has exploited to the maximum and will be called on the carpet for that, I'm sure. We may yet get to see a public RICO trial of a sitting president . Confiscation of all property acquired by illegal organizational means .....aaauchhhh.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's funny, here the media is reporting on the abrupt nature of the ending of the summit.
the NPR says it a lot more softly..... "They agreed to meet again....."
hee hee what a joke...

My guess is that Kim has been watching the news from congress and dumped in Trumps lap.
"a liar, con man and cheat......" and Trump cracked it....

 

[Write4U]

It's funny, here the media is reporting on the abrupt nature of the ending of the summit.
the NPR says it a lot more softly..... "They agreed to meet again....."
hee hee what a joke...

For being fast buddies, neither looked too happy.

My guess is that Kim has been watching the news from congress and dumped in Trumps lap.
"a liar, con man and cheat......" and Trump cracked it....

More than half of Fortune 500 companies with earnings of more than US$3.8 trillion paid zero taxes for at least one year between 2008 and 2015. More recently, Amazon paid nothing on $9.4 billion in profits in 2018.

Of course, we won’t know precisely how successful Trump was in avoiding taxes until his tax returns are revealed.

https://theconversation.com/michael...-thats-widespread-in-corporate-america-112657

 

[Schmelzer]

Michael Cohen’s testimony on Trump business reveals conduct that’s widespread in corporate America

There is your deep state (of corruption).........

Which is what I try to explain to you all the time. There is a lot of corruption, and if one would seriously try, one would find a lot of things. So, once the anti-Trumpers try to find something, they will find something.

Both witnesses I talked to stated the same critical point independently of each other.. "One boy, executed in the street for painting graffiti".
Conclusion:
The USA did not start the uprising in Syria.
The USA is not the cause of the war in Syria.
The USA was reacting to reports of atrocities being committed against civilians.
The USA was vexed as to how they should react to later news of chemical weapons use.

Two expats tell you a nice story, even as witnesses, about a single case of some boy being killed. Sorry, but there is already an established term for this political technology - sacral victim. If you want a political uprising, it is known to be very helpful to kill some people and to attribute this to the police. In Ukraine, there have been several such sacral victim operations. The last one was killing a hundred of demonstrators as well as police, done by snipers from Georgia. Once you want to believe such horror stories, your choice. I do not take such stories seriously.

Sanctions IMO are not a military intervention, but maybe they are to you...

There is a difference between sanctions and the robbery of foreign government money named "freezing".