PDA

View Full Version : Here it comes - Bolton new US NSA


Heathrow Harry
23rd Mar 2018, 10:39
President Donald Trump is replacing US National Security Adviser HR McMaster with Bush-era defence hawk and former United Nations ambassador John Bolton.Mr Trump tweeted to thank Gen McMaster, saying he had done an "outstanding job & will always remain my friend". Mr Bolton, who has backed attacking North Korea and Iran, told Fox News his job would be to ensure the president has "the full range of options". He becomes Mr Trump's third national security chief in 14 months.

Gen McMaster is the latest high-profile departure from the White House. Last week, Mr Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by a tweet, replacing him with former CIA Director Mike Pompeo
Mr Bolton's appointment does not require US Senate confirmation. He will take the job on 9 April. The National Security Adviser is the key counsellor to the president on national security and foreign policy issues, and acts as a conduit for policy proposals coming from various government departments, including defence and state.

Responding to the move, Mr Bolton said he was looking forward to working with President Trump and his team "to make our country safer at home and stronger abroad".

Who is John Bolton?

Mr Bolton, 69, has been a foreign policy hawk in Republican circles for decades, having served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush.
The second Bush appointed him as US envoy to the UN, during which time diplomats privately criticised Mr Bolton's style as abrasive. A strident neo-conservative, Mr Bolton helped build the case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong. Known for his walrus moustache, Mr Bolton does not appear to have greatly moderated his views since his last spell in government. He stands by the invasion of Iraq and has advocated in newspaper op-eds using military force against North Korea and Iran.

Lonewolf_50
23rd Mar 2018, 13:26
In the immortal words of Moon Unit Zappa: gag me with a spoon.

Sorry to see that President Trump no longer finds McMaster to be the man for the job. I though he was a good choice. But sorrier to see the choice of the replacement.

Hypothetical text to the newest NSA: Mr Bolton, it is important that you do a good job, but I am not optimistic. Your hunger for access to the highest levels of government is reasonably well known. Your "sell by" date expired a while back. Please surprise me.

SASless
24th Mar 2018, 01:39
And this has what to do with Military Aviation and not Jet Blast?

chopper2004
24th Mar 2018, 03:17
Interesting - I have a copy of the late Tom Clancy’s Armoured Warfare where the then LtC HR McMaster is interviewed ..talking from his West Point days to Desert Storm.

Also mentions how thanks to playing rugby (organised by exchange British army major at West Point) he met his wife to be.

Also for those who watched the BBC three part documentary Future War presented by Michael Ignatieff, HR is interviewed in the first part.


Cheers

minigundiplomat
25th Mar 2018, 23:08
Joined the National Guard to avoid the draft to Vietnam because he had 'no desire to die in a South East Asian rice paddy'.


Other than having worn a uniform (even if it was to escape the draft), he has everything in common with the other political 'hawks' who advocate war, but have never experienced it.


Interesting how John McCain (I disagree with much of his politics) is much more considered when it comes to decisions regarding troops.

Ogre
25th Mar 2018, 23:14
I was completely confused by the title, I had visions of a top secret government department responsible for monitoring signals traffic opening up west of the Pennines.

All those Mancunian accents trying to work out what the rest of the world was talking about.....

racedo
25th Mar 2018, 23:22
he has everything in common with the other political 'hawks' who advocate war, but have never experienced it.
.

Senate wouldn't ratify him as US Ambassador to UN last time I believe............ which says it all.

Another Chickenhawk happy to spill some other parents child's blood.

vapilot2004
26th Mar 2018, 01:13
On the face of it, going from the removal of the white nationalist CoS, Steve Bannon to Bolton might seem like progress.

The NSC has been the critical center for such bad decisions as Kennedy's Bay of Pigs and Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair, and good decisions such as Obama's killing of Osama bin Laden, and Bush senior's stance on the reunification of Germany.

Meanwhile, there is concern of there being few "adults in the room" as the field of serious people willing to serve under this president is not the widest, nor deepest. Bolton's never met a war he didn't like, and statements suggesting 'Israel bombing Iran would be good for the Middle East', and 'let's start a war with North Korea' are not exactly what the Peace Doctor ordered.

While the new NSA is not within any military or civilian chain of command, Bolton's ideas of 'world order' will now be elevated to the NSC, and there are certainly concerns of this foreign policy-challenged president being led by the nose to provocative action, including a possible war in the ME or the Korean Peninsula.

Uncle Fred
26th Mar 2018, 01:28
I could almost, and I stress that word heavily here, understand if a rational acting POTUS (or any leader for that matter) was rolling out someone like Bolton as a marker of sorts--to use him to prompt the North Koreans, as an example, to start taking things seriously.

However...I have serious doubt that Bolton is being trotted out as a fear catalyst to get negotiations moving in a certain direction. To do so would require a deft touch to say the least and that is sorely lacking in Washington these days.

What worries me most is that the Saudis would most likely to see the US take out the Iranian threat for them. Frankly I think the US is being played on this one and with Bolton in the saddle it might very well fall for it. He has been champing at the bit for years on wanting to go to war against the Iranians and probably thinks his life's work is not finished until he can see one started.

Can you imagine the glee in Riyadh if they could get the Yanks to commence kinetics against Iran? What a mess that would be.

Lonewolf_50
26th Mar 2018, 02:43
Uncle Fred, just what "saddle" do you think Bolton is in? He is not part of the national command authority; Mattis is still Sec Def. What he will have is Trump's ear, for a while, and that is hardly a position of power given how Mr "You're Fired" doesn't appear to listen to much of anyone. It is my guess that Bolton got the nod since he was the only person who answered the phone call with "Sure, I'll be happy to."

vapilot2004
26th Mar 2018, 03:38
Bolton has the Putin stamp of approval. Putin's government has been seeking a relationship with the US-based pro-gun lobby, the NRA, and Bolton was appointed to the international relations arm of the NRA by David Keene in 2011. Here Bolton is in a pro-gun video, made at the request of a long-time Putin crony and high ranking official of the Russian Federation, Alexander Torshin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=aPM-FXHj5gA

Torshin is one focus of the FBI's Russia meddling investigation, where allegations of illegal contributions to the NRA by Torshin in support of electing Donald Trump are currently being examined under the Federal microscope.

Uncle Fred
26th Mar 2018, 05:57
Lonewolf,

Though the adviser and not carrying a portfolio such as Mattis does, Mr. Bolton will have an office in the WH will he not? I thought that this proximity to the POTUS himself and the fact that he would be drawing pay and benefits was his saddle.

Part of the reason we have these discussions, for those of us who read and post on these threads, is that we are interested in which way world affairs unfold. Perhaps you are correct in that Bolton was the only one who answered the phone--entirely possible. Frankly however, he seems a worrisome figure in how events could unfold in the next months.

vapilot2004
26th Mar 2018, 07:56
Though the adviser and not carrying a portfolio such as Mattis does, Mr. Bolton will have an office in the WH will he not?
NSC offices are typically right next door, in the EEOB.

Perhaps you are correct in that Bolton was the only one who answered the phone--entirely possible. Frankly however, he seems a worrisome figure in how events could unfold in the next months.

There is a history of diametrically opposed viewpoints held by various members of the NSC. Probably Rice and Powell v Cheney and Rummy the Dummy are the best known examples of what happens when rational minds are pitted against myopic hawks, and it goes in favor of the hawks.

Are there any doves (or rational minds) in the current president's NSC that have the power of persuasion to walk him back from a bad (Bolton) idea?

A short, academic history of the NSC from its inception to 1997 can be read here, History of the National Security Council, 1947-1997 - Federation of American Scientists. (https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/NSChistory.htm)

Hempy
26th Mar 2018, 08:47
I wouldn’t be too worried, his title is National Security Advisor. It’s a quantifiable fact that Trump doesn’t listen to advice from anyone.

vapilot2004
26th Mar 2018, 08:52
:D

........

Lonewolf_50
26th Mar 2018, 22:26
I wouldn’t be too worried, his title is National Security Advisor. It’s a quantifiable fact that Trump doesn’t listen to advice from anyone. Hempy, while I am pleased to see you agreeing with me, I suggest that in the future, in order to avoid charges of plagiarism, that you footnote the post of mine from whence you stole your content. :} :E ( a few posts above your post). :cool:


@Uncle Fred: the exam question for anyone assessing Candidate Trump as a president, beyond "can this guy actually get elected" (he surprised a lot of people in answering that question with "yes") was "who wants to work for him?" The answer to that concern is 'a great many people don't.'


That concern has been coming true in spades, as he's not filling some of the appointed positions, and those in some positions don't last long.
Churn at the top isn't healthy for the organizations in question, in terms of cabinet posts.

Not A Cabinet post. National Security Advisor: that position is a curious one, because none of the advice is binding.
Two outliers: Henry Kissinger parlayed his value to Nixon as Nat Sec Advisor into a cabinet post. Condoleeza Rice did similarly with G W Bush.

The amount of influence of that office varies significantly with the personality in the oval office and in the job of Nat Sec Advisor. Quick: without going to google, can you name any of President Obama's national security advisers? The only one I can remember off the top of my head is James Jones.

racedo
26th Mar 2018, 22:55
The only one I can remember off the top of my head is James Jones.

Thought he died in Guyana after they murdered Congressman Leo Ryan............

Lonewolf_50
26th Mar 2018, 22:57
Suggest you do a bit more research before sounding off, racedo. James Jones was a retired USMC general, and Obama's first national security advisor.


(If you meant that as a jest, I suggest you use a smilie face as a tipoff)

Uncle Fred
27th Mar 2018, 00:30
@Uncle Fred: the exam question for anyone assessing Candidate Trump as a president, beyond "can this guy actually get elected" (he surprised a lot of people in answering that question with "yes") was "who wants to work for him?" The answer to that concern is 'a great many people don't.'


That concern has been coming true in spades, as he's not filling some of the appointed positions, and those in some positions don't last long.
Churn at the top isn't healthy for the organizations in question, in terms of cabinet posts.

Not A Cabinet post. National Security Advisor: that position is a curious one, because none of the advice is binding.
Two outliers: Henry Kissinger parlayed his value to Nixon as Nat Sec Advisor into a cabinet post. Condoleeza Rice did similarly with G W Bush.

The amount of influence of that office varies significantly with the personality in the oval office and in the job of Nat Sec Advisor. Quick: without going to google, can you name any of President Obama's national security advisers? The only one I can remember off the top of my head is James Jones.

Points well made Lonewolf and your points are well taken on this side. I could not name a single of President Obama's NSAs.

I can understand a bit of churn in an incoming administration as a POTUS or PM realizes competence is the key and that those who helped propel one into office might not be as helpful in running things day to day. Not that they are incompetent per se, but rather that there seems to be a decidedly different skill set necessary to manage a portfolio the size of a cabinet level position.

Yet as you mention, churn is parasitic drag after the time has come for the right people to be in the right places and doing their work effectively.

Those on this thread are well aware of the responsibilities of the staff--provide good information and help frame options. Sure there is a "decider" at the end of that process (PM or POTUS) but the staff has to work well enough to be able to collate and present info to that decider in a frank and open way.

Does that ideal always hold? No, of course not, but it is what worries me about Bolton. That like Cheney, he will threaten to gain an outsize level of control over that process--a process that should be rather inviolate imho.

Of course there is also the concern that Mr. Trump seems to prefer to govern by instinct. Indeed a necessary strength for a politician, but not always the best path in some decisions.

racedo
27th Mar 2018, 22:51
Suggest you do a bit more research before sounding off, racedo. James Jones was a retired USMC general, and Obama's first national security advisor.


(If you meant that as a jest, I suggest you use a smilie face as a tipoff)

Keep your hair on................. fact i knew who the congressman was that was murdered and nope didn't need to look it up shows I knew who was who.

Smilie faces are overdone :rolleyes:

racedo
27th Mar 2018, 22:55
Of course there is also the concern that Mr. Trump seems to prefer to govern by instinct. Indeed a necessary strength for a politician, but not always the best path in some decisions.

Bearing in mind that JFKs cabinet was well trained and seen as probably one of the greatest concentration of brilliant minds. They then sanctioned Bay of Pigs invasion and assummed nobody would blame the US or believe it was behind it.

There is a long list of experience Governments doing similar..............

flash8
27th Mar 2018, 22:57
Bolton looks like a mean SOB.... he really does... sh*t... that must count for a lot surely on its own!

galaxy flyer
27th Mar 2018, 23:15
It should be apparent nobody tells Trump what go do. Why will Bolton be any different?

GF

Uncle Fred
27th Mar 2018, 23:44
It should be apparent nobody tells Trump what go do. Why will Bolton be any different?

GF

That is certainly what is worrying allies of the US--that he seems to be so staff independent.

Some good reporting as to whether Bolton is going to try to pick a fight with SECDEF Mattis. I just finished a good piece in the NYT Magazine regarding Mattis and he is indeed an impressive figure.

What would this fight be over? Apparently Mattis has a deep amount of influence (good) on the President. He also has been very careful to involve the elements of statecraft in decision making where he can--for example his first call when visiting a country is to the US ambassador there. He seems to very much be a coalition builder but with a firm whip hand. Bolton might not like any position that stands in contraposition to his.

Of course as Lonewolf mentioned, Bolton is not in a cabinet position whereas Mattis is.

Bolton has done, I was surprised to read, quite a bit of work on the nuclear surety problem--one that very much involved a lot of allied and former USSR state involvement. Obviously it is something I am not up to speed on, but I will look at it again should I see it as it does speak to his ability to work within the process when needed. All else being said, no one can accuse him of being a neophyte when it comes to knowing how the governmental agencies fit together and how to navigate their corridors of power.

vapilot2004
28th Mar 2018, 03:41
It should be apparent nobody tells Trump what go do.

GF

You mean other than Fox News. :p

The problem with a man like Bolton whispering into Trump's foreign-policy challenged ears, is he (Bolton) has the potential to legitimize any irrational thoughts Trump may have of military action against North Korea or Iran. What's worse, Congressional or UN approval mean nothing to this president, as do longstanding international agreements, so the customary backstops are ineffectual.

Another concern, is a "wag the dog" situation. If and when team Mueller presents information that the GOP members of Congress cannot ignore, an impeachment proceeding may unleash the dogs of war, as I would not put it past this president, who will, apparently, stop at nothing to detract and/or deflect from any unflattering allegations pointed in his general direction.

Were that to proceed successfully, we are still not out of the woods. VP Pence is not much better at the helm, with regards to thinking rationally. This is a man that believes Jesus had a pet dinosaur, and the Christian "end-times" are upon us. Oh, and apparently, Jesus speaks to him directly.

We are left only with the sobering influence* of the Joint Chiefs, upon whom Trump claims to place his respect and, hopefully, trust. All that would be required to tip the scales here is but one, possibly two, being in agreement with Mr. Bolton.

*Four out of seven uniformed men at the top of our military (USN, USAF, USMC, and USA) have all come out publicly against Trump's racist and intolerant remarks in the past, surprisingly, while under his command. While there are some that might suggest a general or admiral never met a war they didn't like, we should recall that nearly all wars and "police actions" in recent history were begun at the behest of civilians in the White House.

racedo
28th Mar 2018, 19:34
What's worse, Congressional or UN approval mean nothing to this president, as do longstanding international agreements, so the customary backstops are ineffectual.


So can you tell me what US President they did make a difference to ?

After all US happily claiming that its agreement with Gorbachev not to expand NATO eastwards was made with Bush 1 so no other President is bound by it.

Lonewolf_50
28th Mar 2018, 21:48
So can you tell me what US President they did make a difference to ? After all US happily claiming that its agreement with Gorbachev not to expand NATO eastwards was made with Bush 1 so no other President is bound by it. Ah, this lie resurfaces again, repackaged in the usual fashion. When you can drop by with the Senate approved treaty on that topic, your comments will perhaps be valid. (Remember what happened to Wilson's 14 points when our Senate refused to ratify?) As to the promises thing, it is very important to understand how getting into NATO happens. First, a country asks to join, and then, the members deliberate on yes or no. I was around for a bit of the first 3 (Czech, Poland, Hungary) in terms of the prep work/ground work, where 16 nations increased to 19. Wasn't around when it went final. We (at any rate, the NATO folks I was working with) were already working cooperatively (within some constraints) with the Russians at that point (before Belgrade got bombed in '99) on a variety of efforts to reduce tension rather than increase it. In 95-96 it was to me a great sign that the US and Russians were in the same sector together in re the Bosnia peace enforcement ops after Dayton agreement was signed. There were some sincere efforts at working together, not against each other. Your attempt to post hoc mischaracterize how the NATO growth process goes shows raw ignorance of the process involved. A whole lot of things happened, time does not stand still. (That said, I am still of the opinion that the GW Bush desire to add Republic of Georgia to NATO was misguided in the extreme).

As to smilies on the matter of Jones: OK, point taken. :cool: :}

vapilot2004
28th Mar 2018, 22:26
So can you tell me what US President they did make a difference to ?


As far as I can recall, every single one since the inception of the UN, including Bush 43, as his administration went to great pains to convince them (and Congress) to go along with talk of "yellow cake", "smoking guns", "aluminum tubes", and WMDs - all of which was later discovered to be completely bogus, with blame laid, rather disingenuously it turned out, at the feet of the IC.

racedo
28th Mar 2018, 22:45
As far as I can recall, every single one since the inception of the UN, including Bush 43, as his administration went to great pains to convince them (and Congress) to go along with talk of "yellow cake", "smoking guns", "aluminum tubes", and WMDs - all of which was later discovered to be completely bogus, with blame laid, rather disingenuously it turned out, at the feet of the IC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446

Strange that some countrys non adherence to a UNSC resolution gets them bombed.............. what exactly have US done on this ?

Oh wait give them more military aid.

vapilot2004
29th Mar 2018, 00:37
Sorry Racedo, your last transmission was garbled. Say again please?

Uncle Fred
29th Mar 2018, 04:34
Lonewolf makes a very good point about the Americans and Russians working cheek by jowl in the Balkans.

Last year I read a book by the former SECDEF Dr. Wiiliam Perry in which he speaks of the solid working relationships that had been built in the early to mid 1990s--both official and unofficial interaction.
Some top talent on both sides.

Perry's book was not to settle scores but rather to both bemoan that these interactions are no more and to warn of the future.

He does though mention that serious voices warned against pushing NATO too far too fast. Both sides of the aisle can take blame there.

racedo
29th Mar 2018, 23:00
Sorry Racedo, your last transmission was garbled. Say again please?

US Security Council resolution on Israel that US did not veto regarding illegal settlements in West Bank.

It is a UNSC resolution but US ignores it yet it uses others to bomb countrys who don't comply.................... where is this adherence to UN resolutions as they are binding and lets face it Carter / Reagan / Bush 1 / Clinton / Bush 2 / Obama seemingly ignored.

racedo
29th Mar 2018, 23:02
He does though mention that serious voices warned against pushing NATO too far too fast. Both sides of the aisle can take blame there.

It was we won the Cold war so lets make them pay nutters ..................... how has that worked out for US taxpayer ?

vapilot2004
29th Mar 2018, 23:21
US Security Council resolution on Israel that US did not veto regarding illegal settlements in West Bank.

It is a UNSC resolution but US ignores it yet it uses others to bomb countrys who don't comply.................... where is this adherence to UN resolutions as they are binding and lets face it Carter / Reagan / Bush 1 / Clinton / Bush 2 / Obama seemingly ignored.

Received five by five, Racedo. Thank you. Actually we abstained from voting on that one, alongside the UK and Norway. Israeli settlements are an entirely different kettle of (gefilte) fish, aren't they?

I take your point, and still feel my point, ordering unilateral military action by this president, bypassing Congress and UN is entirely possible, given evidence of his recklessness so far.

racedo
30th Mar 2018, 00:06
Received five by five, Racedo. Thank you. Actually we abstained from voting on that one, alongside the UK and Norway. Israeli settlements are an entirely different kettle of (gefilte) fish, aren't they?

I take your point, and still feel my point, ordering unilateral military action by this president, bypassing Congress and UN is entirely possible, given evidence of his recklessness so far.

So when did Congress approve action in Syria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Gove rnment_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons

vapilot2004
30th Mar 2018, 00:34
Some Federal and constitutional legal experts say the Obama administration was within the earlier AUMF to act against ISIS and that is the stance Obama took. This is the original AUMF, still active, and was designed to give President Bush the power to use force and defend against future acts of terrorism:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

In an attempt to clarify, the Obama administration drafted a request for a new AUMF but it stalled in our dysfunctional Congress, mainly because Democrats did not want troops on the ground in Syria, while some Republicans did not want to limit the president's authority over military matters. Still too, other Republicans did not want to approve anything that came out of the Obama White House for purely political reasons, despite national security concerns. Go figure, the GOP being the self-touting party of National Security. But I digress...

It's a real catch-22, and, despite going on over two centuries, there is still debate on exactly what powers the executive has regarding military action. It's all a bit of a hair-splitter, innit? I doubt we can solve it here and now, but what the heck, I've got a few minutes. You?

racedo
30th Mar 2018, 00:52
Some Federal and constitutional legal experts say the Obama administration was within the earlier AUMF to act against ISIS and that is the stance Obama took. This is the original AUMF, still active, and was designed to give President Bush the power to use force and defend against future acts of terrorism:

In an attempt to clarify, the Obama administration drafted a request for a new AUMF but it stalled in our dysfunctional Congress, mainly because Democrats did not want troops on the ground in Syria, while some Republicans did not want to limit the president's authority over military matters. Still too, other Republicans did not want to approve anything that came out of the Obama White House for purely political reasons, despite national security concerns. Go figure, the GOP being the self-touting party of National Security. But I digress...

It's a real catch-22, and, despite going on over two centuries, there is still debate on exactly what powers the executive has regarding military action. It's all a bit of a hair-splitter, innit? I doubt we can solve it here and now, but what the heck, I've got a few minutes. You?

US troops are and have been on the ground in Syria for more than 5 years..................... strange that it took the Russians to beat ISIS/AQ and US with all their equipment never saw the flights supplying IS/AQ.

CaptOveur
30th Mar 2018, 01:27
What's worse, Congressional or UN approval mean nothing to this president, as do longstanding international agreements, so the customary backstops are ineffectual.

Yeah, sorry, can't resist piling on to this one.

Q: How many undeclared wars (aka "police actions") has the U.S. been involved with since WWII?

A: All of them

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm

Since that time [Congress] has agreed to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations and oversight. Houston, we have a problem!

glad rag
30th Mar 2018, 08:59
US troops are and have been on the ground in Syria for more than 5 years..................... strange that it took the Russians to beat ISIS/AQ and US with all their equipment never saw the flights supplying IS/AQ.

Lay of your Russia is great carp.

It is a despotic regime ruled by a modern day hitler.

They don't have or use ROE to prevent collateral just carpet bomb.

We have had to re invest millions [but it will keep the bankers rubbing their hands] due to their war mongering and asymmetric attacks on British citizens here in the UK.

racedo
30th Mar 2018, 13:20
Lay of your Russia is great carp.

It is a despotic regime ruled by a modern day hitler.

They don't have or use ROE to prevent collateral just carpet bomb.

We have had to re invest millions [but it will keep the bankers rubbing their hands] due to their war mongering and asymmetric attacks on British citizens here in the UK.

Really

So all those Afghani wedding parties or family gatherings that NATO tageted were what ?

If NATO ROE's are so great then why so many deaths ? / What about the MSF hospital in Kabul ?

How much have US / UK / Saudi's done to start rebuilding Raqaa.................... I see zero.

Bearing in mind number of innocent civilians killed by NATO forces since 2001..................... How many members of the military have gone to jail ?

Ex-CIA director: US meddles in foreign elections for a 'very good cause' | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374372-ex-cia-director-us-meddles-in-foreign-elections-for-a-good)

As for despotic................... ex CIA director openly boasting of interfering in elections.

vapilot2004
30th Mar 2018, 20:11
The polarization caused by Trump, fake news, and Russian interlopers is working propagandist magic on sane people.

Witness this thread where we have people denigrating Western military actions in an apparent defense of ISIS/ISIL, Putin, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorists, all in what appears to be support for the American president's choice of a known war monger from a previous administration that started a war in the Middle East aka Mess O'Potamia, based upon lies.

racedo
31st Mar 2018, 12:13
The polarization caused by Trump, fake news, and Russian interlopers is working propagandist magic on sane people.

Witness this thread where we have people denigrating Western military actions in an apparent defense of ISIS/ISIL, Putin, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorists,.

A family living outside of Boston they working getting by, raising their kids, looking forward to grandchildren, don't have any interest in politics.
Country invaded by people who deem themselves have a right to do whatever they want led by a foriegn leader in a city overseas.
Family have sons arrested and accused of being rebels, interrgated and abused at a jail.
They never appear again believed dead or dumped in some jail for life overseas on some island in the Carribeen.
Family get home raided as they now have sons who were deemed rebels, armed people come in and smash the place to pieces claiming there must be evidence, kill the animals they raising for food.
But somehow the people doing all this must be lauded as heroes where as the family getting destroyed are terrorists and the people sending this army in just make more money and talk about looking after their "interests".

vapilot2004
31st Mar 2018, 21:15
I am in agreement - what you describe does not sound like America nor any application of 'Western ideals', Racedo. We seem to be trapped in an ever-tightening vicious circle. Mistakes are being made on all sides, but only one 'side' purposely targets innocent civilians. I suppose that's small consolation for families of the 'innocent'.

Most of the troubles in the ME have tribal roots, with added unrest fomented by bad decisions, based mostly upon greed, we in the West have been making for them for decades, going back more than a century.

I believe the worst thing that ever happened to the Middle East was the discovery of oil beneath the sands during a time where Colonial and Imperialist dogmas like "Manifest Destiny" ruled foreign policy.

racedo
31st Mar 2018, 23:31
I am in agreement - what you describe does not sound like America nor any application of 'Western ideals', Racedo.


My time period for the Boston family was 1775.


We seem to be trapped in an ever-tightening vicious circle. Mistakes are being made on all sides, but only one 'side' purposely targets innocent civilians. I suppose that's small consolation for families of the 'innocent'.

Most of the troubles in the ME have tribal roots, with added unrest fomented by bad decisions, based mostly upon greed, we in the West have been making for them for decades, going back more than a century.

I believe the worst thing that ever happened to the Middle East was the discovery of oil beneath the sands during a time where Colonial and Imperialist dogmas like "Manifest Destiny" ruled foreign policy.

The one side "purposely" targeting innocent civilians is what Govts would like the home front to believe, reality is a lot different.

Even during WW2 it was supposedly only the Germans who were slaughtering unarmed soldiers when captured....... reality was somewhat different but the victors write history.

The videos and recording of Fallujah and Ramadi including the US helicopter crew who attacks a minibus and then mocks the soldier trying to save the life of a child is out there to be seen.

Hell its 50 years since My Lai, one person went to jail. Even at the time it was regarded that My Lai was only the tip of the large iceberg of what was happening.

Journalists are controlled by being embedded so the state censors what is being published. Anyone who strays from that is "unpatriotic", siding with terrorists with the same media who clamoured for war all saying the same.

American ideals are great........... Freedom and Democracy.... problem is your Governments and Business men have long since abandoned them.

Instead in search of money and power and killing 10,000 in the process is just a number be it in Central or South America or Africa or Middle East.

US Govt is bought and paid for by the size of campaign contributions .............. anyone speaking out against Israels find AIPAC will fund their deselection, the Saudi's have now got in on the act as well in funding and want US to fight Iran on both its and Israels behalf.

US was a beacon for many............. sadly now its seen as something else.
It blew the peace dividend from the Cold War.
It blew the goodwill of the World post 9/11 where even Russians allowed US to move its military equipment to Afghanistan and back.

Too many wish for perpetual war as that is how they make their money, they are again setting up again for war.............. Eisenhower warned of this.

My clear reading of Russian history is that 27 million dead in WW2 is known by all, its population has still not recovered to what it should be, they won't sit back until someone is at gates of Moscow AGAIN......... no matter what some Think Tank believes.

West Coast
1st Apr 2018, 08:04
What a small view you have.

There are things the US government has done that I won’t even try to justify, yet there are things the US government has done that improve the lives of many outside our borders. I’ve personally carried food into schools in Somalia when I wore the uniforms. The US government has done much for AIDS in Africa. The US govt has built schools in the Philippines and has come to the aid of our neighbors and friends after natural disasters.

So,while I acknowledge some of what you mention, I reject your notion that “US was a beacon for many............. sadly now its seen as something else”. To say so shows a lack of understanding of the many facets of the government.

vapilot2004
1st Apr 2018, 12:11
Racedo, I cannot argue with your factual outline, but must say in our defense, "we tried", and will continue "trying". It may have not always been our best effort, but it's helpful to keep in mind that much of the worst in the world was decided by a handful of people, often with some "best interest" or even good intent in mind.

I reject your notion that “US was a beacon for many............. sadly now its seen as something else”.

I wish I could reject the notion, West Coast, but unfortunately, that is how we're sometimes seen. Intentions mostly good, actions speak louder...

The good news is, the light is still burning.

West Coast
1st Apr 2018, 15:56
wish I could reject the notion, West Coast, but unfortunately, that is how we're sometimes seen. Intentions mostly good, actions speak louder...

Racedo speaks in past tense, if you’re drinking water from a well paid for by the US taxpayers you might have a differing view. Soft power goes a long way towards winning the hearts and minds but isn’t covered by the media. Accidentally killing someone who didn’t need killing dominates the headlines. Not saying it shouldn’t but it skews the image and presents a picture that isn’t entirely accurate. The danger is that if we’re to be judged as Racedo does, without balance that the taxpayer will tire of their humanitarian efforts seemingly being wasted and demand an end or scaling back to it. Don’t think it can’t happen. There are wells to be dug, hospitals in need of being built in the US as well and that isn’t lost on folks who tire of one sided, anti US rhetoric.

will demand we pull the plug