Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jeb Bush  

So DNC, sure was a good idea to back Clinton over Sanders, eh? Clinton is just so much more electable.

[get prepped for some ramblings]    I get more depressed than scared.    Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till

Email via WikiLeaks (note that the date is wrong, it should be Dec. 31, 2012):
 

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war. Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria. The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015 The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes. Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So an autistic Briton living in the country illegally for 18 months tried to grab a cop's gun at a Trump rally and shoot Donald?

Old Tied was right when he titled this thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3651241/Authorities-Man-Vegas-rally-said-wanted-kill-Trump.html

 

 

It has been pointed out before that violence against the Trump campaign will only serve to legitimize it and delegitimize its opposition.

 

So if these people want Trump to get elected, by all means, continue these high profile but completely ineffectual attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit, Hillary Clinton fomented the war in Syria to try to help Israel get a leg up on Iran: http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-destroy-syria-for-israel-the-best-way-to-help-israel/5515741

What's happening to US diplomats after Kissinger?

It seems like they only get worse and worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asking myself if there has ever been a major party candidate quite like the Donald before, someone with the following qualities:

 

Unrestrained ego

Tendency for self-aggrandizement

complete lack of political experience/office holding

Disregard for the platform of his own party

Incompetent at his actual profession

 

After giving it some thought, I could only think of one candidate that matches Trump in these characteristics and I had to go all the way back to 1864 to do it.  Democratic candidate for president George "Little Mac" McClellan.   

 

PlatIllus12w.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analysis of the situation is pretty off. For one thing McCellan was competent at his job such as: A. Kicking Lee's ass in what would become West Virginia securing that state's existence B. Turning the Army of the Potomac from a mob to a very effective fighting force C. Winning the first major victory for the Union in the Eastern Theater. McClellan was also an active member of the democratic party and only differed on one issue, his position on which he made abundantly clear. So it's entirely the Democratic Party's fault if they really wanted a peace platform. Still it makes sense that the party would nominate McClellan since he was the only in the party at that point who could easily gain the necessary 2/3 vote in order to secure the nomination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analysis of the situation is pretty off. For one thing McCellan was competent at his job such as: A. Kicking Lee's ass in what would become West Virginia securing that state's existence B. Turning the Army of the Potomac from a mob to a very effective fighting force C. Winning the first major victory for the Union in the Eastern Theater. McClellan was also an active member of the democratic party and only differed on one issue, his position on which he made abundantly clear. So it's entirely the Democratic Party's fault if they really wanted a peace platform. Still it makes sense that the party would nominate McClellan since he was the only in the party at that point who could easily gain the necessary 2/3 vote in order to secure the nomination.

If the commander in chief has to write a letter to a general with says this:

 

"If you don't want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while. Yours respectfully, A. Lincoln."

 

...I think it's fair to assume that the recipient of such a letter may be terrible at his job.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the commander in chief has to write a letter to a general with says this:

 

"If you don't want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while. Yours respectfully, A. Lincoln."

 

...I think it's fair to assume that the recipient of such a letter may be terrible at his job.  

 

No it fucking isn't, his three successors were all aggressive and guess what? They all got their shit kicked in and showed little gains for their losses. Let's not forget one of his successors literally wanted to overthrow the Government and replace it with an autocratic dictatorship:

 

"Nothing would go right until we had a dictator, and the sooner the better"

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it fucking isn't, his three successors were all aggressive and guess what? They all got their shit kicked in and showed little gains for their losses. Let's not forget one of his successors literally wanted to overthrow the Government and replace it with an autocratic dictatorship:

 

"Nothing would go right until we had a dictator, and the sooner the better"

The point of the letter is not that McClellan lacked aggressiveness (although he did), it was that he was insubordinate.  The fact that Burnside, Hooker and Pope (who was not really a successor to McClellan since he commanded the Army of Virginia while McClellan retained command of the Army of the Potomac) sucked at their jobs does not alter the fact that McClellan was a poor battlefield commander.  Grant and Sherman were aggressive, and guess what, they won the war.  Lee and Jackson were aggressive as all fuck and they are remembered as legends.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Collimatrix's rules for hegemony:

 

0)  Pay your goddamn soldiers.  If you don't pay them, they won't be yours for very long.

 

1)  Don't believe your own propaganda.  The point is to deceive your opponents, not yourself.

 

 

 

That's all I have right now.  It's an evolving list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Collimatrix's rules for hegemony:

0) Pay your goddamn soldiers. If you don't pay them, they won't be yours for very long.

1) Don't believe your own propaganda. The point is to deceive your opponents, not yourself.

That's all I have right now. It's an evolving list.

Promote on competence, not birth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...