With Assad's head on the table, a devil's deal has been made and is "non-negotiatiable", in which another 100,000 boots will be back on Iraqi soil - no point for the puppets to protest, is there?

[lo yeeOn]

With Assad's head on the table, a devil's deal has been made and is
non-negotiatiable in which another 100,000 boots will be back on Iraqi
soil - no point for the puppets to protest, is there?

Lindsey Graham just gave an ugly speech to tell fellow American Donald
Trump to "go to hell".

Where did he himself recently go?

Iraq - where we've recently opened up the gates to Hell - along with
John McCain, his constant companion in the business of selling the
neocon brand of US foreign policy.

The neocon brand of US foreign policy is one which is to ignite and
perpetuate wars of hatred around the planet and ensure that the threat
of terrorism never dies.

In Iraq they delivered the tidings to its Prime Minister al-Abadi that
the US will soon send 10,000 boots, along with 90,000 more from Gulf
State countries, to his country.

Despite protests from Abadi, they said the arrangement was
"non-negotiable"!!

Apparently Assad's head was on the table for the Saudi princes to be
interested. So, you can probably say that it was a devil's deal that
the neocons have just committed the American people to.

What kind of etiquette for a US senator was it for Graham to spew
forth?

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go
to hell," Graham said ...

The fact that millions of American voters have embraced Trump seems to
have escaped Graham. They embraced Trump clearly not because America
was great until Trump came along and made popular that expression.

Graham said that what the U.S. needs to do is embrace the "99%" of
Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have died "by the
thousands" trying to fight it, and it needs to invest in the Middle
East and giving people and women opportunity there.

"That's how you win the war. A hopeful life versus a glorious death.
And what Mr. Trump is doing is undercutting everything we stand for,"

Iraq was secular and prosperous until we went and devastated the
country on the ground that the country had a "monster". Under that
"monster", women had the same opportunity as men. But after we have
destroyed the country, the government we propped up was sectarian,
forcing women back to the Middle Ages.

It was precisely the callous war McCain and Graham advocated that took
away hope from those who survived among the tens of thousands of death
that created ISIS. So, how do they propose to return hope back to the
Iraqi people by backing yet another 100,000 foreign troops into the
country with the tyranny of our military might, indeed our diktat to
that powerless country?

And finally, can we hear from Graham how he might propose to "embrace
the 99%" of Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have
died "by the thousands" trying to fight it?

How does he propose to identify even one member from such a group,
assuming that those who have died are beyond the reach of Lindsey's
creepy "embrace", unless he was already thoroughly acquainted with the
person?

You know one Muslim we all know today is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He was,
according to court testimony, a gentle and loving person, until he was
caught perpetrating a terrorist act. And he lived in Cambridge,
Massachusetts in the United States - one of the least probable neighborhoods
for terrorism in this country.

So, if Graham can't tell us not to embrace Mr. Tsarnaev, an 18 year
old at the time of the Boston Marathon attacks, exactly how he would
recommend for us to "embrace" who is outside of this country?

So, obviously, Trump has offered a strategy that makes more sense than
Graham's creepy "embrace". Which Muslim would be so dumb as not to be
weary of a stranger from the United States bearing such gifts as bombs
or foreign boots to their soil?

The neocons' War on Terror begat ISIS. Mearsheimer, a famed American
political scientist and Middle East expert, has just explained that
ISIS/ISIL won't be defeated. It's because the devil's deal we've made
will deepen the ideology that gave rise to ISIS/ISIL.

And so, no bombs or boots will kill the ideology. Since ISIS/ISIL is
primarily an ideology, a war against ISIS/ISIL will not succeed. This
is Mearsheimer's Cartesian logic and I think he is right.

lo yeeOn

--------------------------------------------------------------------

100,000 foreign troops incl. Americans to be deployed in Iraq, MP claims
Published time: 10 Dec, 2015 13:21 Edited time: 10 Dec, 2015 15:47
https://www.rt.com/news/325477-arab-army-iraq-plan/

The US is to send some 10,000 troops to Iraq to provide support for a
90,000-strong force from the Gulf states, a leading Iraqi opposition
MP has warned. The politician said the plan was announced to the Iraqi
government during a visit by US Senator John McCain.

During a meeting in Baghdad on November 27, McCain told Prime Minister
Haider Abadi and a number of senior Iraqi cabinet and military
officials that the decision was "non-negotiable", claimed Hanan
Fatlawi, the head of the opposition Irada Movement.

"A hundred thousand foreign troops, including 90,000 from Saudi
Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Jordan, and 10,000 troops from America will
be deployed in western regions of Iraq," she wrote on her Facebook
page.

She added that the Iraqi prime minister protested the plan, but was
told that "the decision has already been taken."

McCain and fellow hawk Senator Lindsey Graham have both been calling
for a tripling in the current number of US troops deployed in Iraq to
10,000, and also advocate sending an equal number of troops to Syria
to fight against the terrorist group Islamic State (IS, formerly
ISIS/ISIL) and the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The
Americans would prop up a 90,000-strong international ground force
provided by Sunni Arab countries like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

"The region is ready to fight. The region hates ISIL - they are coming
for Sunni Arab nations. Turkey hates ISIL. The entire region wants
Assad gone. So there is an opportunity here with some American
leadership to do two things: to hit ISIL before we get hit at home and
to push Assad out," Graham argued during the joint visit to Baghdad in
November.

"Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey - hey have regional armies and they
would go into the fight if we put [the removal of] Assad on the table.
Most of the fight will be done by the region. They will pay for this
war," he said.

The US currently has about 3,600 troops in Iraq, including 100 special
operations troops deployed last month to take part in combat missions
involving hostage rescue and the assassination of IS leaders. The
White House is reluctant to commit a large ground force, citing the
cost in human lives and money and the possible political ramifications
of what will be portrayed by America's opponents as yet another
Western invasion of the Arab world.

The McCain-Graham plan also poses the risk of direct confrontation
between the proposed coalition force and Russia and Iraq, which are
both militarily assisting the Assad government and may not stay out of
the fight - something which the hawkish duo have not factored into
their plan.

This is especially true after Turkey's downing of a Russian bomber
plane on the Turkish-Syrian border, which Moscow considered a stab in
the back and which sent relations with Ankara to a low not seen for
decades.

Baghdad has its own concerns about a Turkish presence on its territory
after Ankara sent troops into western Iraq and refused to withdraw
them, despite Iraqi protests. Ankara claimed the incursion was made
under a 2014 invitation from Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi.




--------------------------------------------------------------------

Lindsey Graham: 'Tell Donald Trump to go to hell' By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 9:31 AM ET, Tue December 8, 2015
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-go-to-hell-ted-cruz/

Sen. Lindsey Graham said it's time for Republicans to rebuke
presidential hopeful Donald Trump, urging his party to tell Trump to
"go to hell".

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to
hell," Graham said on CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday, picking up on the
GOP front-runner's famous slogan, "make America great again.".

The South Carolina Republican was responding to Trump's statement
released Monday calling for the U.S. to ban all Muslims from entering
the country.

"He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," Graham told Alisyn
Camerota. "He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represents the
values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for.
... He's the ISIL man of the year."

Graham said Trump's rhetoric benefits ISIS in helping them recruit
people to their cause. He said having traveled to the Middle East 36
times as a lawmaker and in the Air Force reserve, he knows the troops
and diplomats on the front lines are very concerned.

"What Mr. Trump is doing -- and I don't think he has a clue about
anything. He's just just trying to get his numbers up and get the
biggest reaction he can," Graham said. "He is helping the enemy of
this nation. He is empowering radical Islam. And if he knew anything
about the world at all, you would know that most Muslims reject this
ideology."

Graham said that what the U.S. needs to do is embrace the "99%" of
Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have died "by the
thousands" trying to fight it, and it needs to invest in the Middle
East and giving people and women opportunity there.

"That's how you win the war. A hopeful life versus a glorious
death. And what Mr. Trump is doing is undercutting everything we stand
for," Graham said. "Going to a military high school, Donald, is not
military service. You've never worn the uniform. ... So knock it
off. You're putting people at risk."

Trump has been leading the Republican primary in nearly every poll,
recently hitting 36% in a CNN survey. Graham has been languishing at
the bottom of the race, failing to hit even 1% in some polling.

The senator has become increasingly outspoken about the direction his
party is headed, trying to position himself as the voice of reason
even as his campaign struggles.

Graham said it's a "dirty little secret" of American history that
there has always been an appetite for bigotry and exclusion, but a
presidential candidate should "bring us together."

Calling out Cruz, Party

Graham also called out other presidential candidates for not being
stronger against Trump, saying the entire party needs to speak out
against the mogul.

He specifically spotlighted his fellow GOP presidential candidate,
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for not condemning Trump strongly enough.

. . .

[jdeluise]

***@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:

<snip>

Do you follow current events? Trump wants boots on the ground in Syria
and Iraq, and to go after terrorists' families.

[lo yeeOn]

Post by jdeluise
<snip>
Do you follow current events? Trump wants boots on the ground in Syria
and Iraq, and to go after terrorists' families.

Trump wants a database on Syrian refugees. If you have specific info
on Trump about his desire to put boots on the ground in Syria and
Iraq, please post it to help clear the air. Trump has been known to
be "dovish" on foreign policy. (He wants to make America great again,
not pour another trillion down a rat hole.)

But what you brought up about Trump is besides the point. It's very
easy to see that if Trump had wanted "boots on the ground" in those
places, the neocons would have loved him, instead of telling him to
"go to hell" - isn't it clear?

Of course, the reason why McCain and Graham are so incensed by Trump
is because Trump is clearly not going to carry on with the PNAC agenda
anymore if he is elected president.

And the reason why Cheney appeared to be so concerned about Trump is
because if Trump gets elected, Cheney and his pal George W Bush would
have a lot to answer for.

Finally, this news that McCain and Graham have just rudely delivered to
Abadi means that Iraq will be invaded for the third time in less than
30 years - talking about preventing a wound from healing, do you have
any humanity inside yourself, jdeluise?

lo yeeOn

P.S.: It's not clear that the Saudis will ever get to reap Assad's
head, even as they are willing to waste many more Iraqi lives to get
it done. Have the Saudis win any war of significance lately? With
the unprincipled approach taken by the neocons headed currently by
McCain et al., America is more endangered and our living standards
will simply go down further - such as keeping old people from retiring
until 70, or even later.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: With Assad's head on the table, a devil's deal has been made
and is "non-negotiatiable", in which another 100,000 boots will be
back on Iraqi soil - no point for the puppets to protest, is there?

With Assad's head on the table, a devil's deal has been made and is
non-negotiatiable in which another 100,000 boots will be back on Iraqi
soil - no point for the puppets to protest, is there?

Lindsey Graham just gave an ugly speech to tell fellow American Donald
Trump to "go to hell".

Where did he himself recently go?

Iraq - where we've recently opened up the gates to Hell - along with
John McCain, his constant companion in the business of selling the
neocon brand of US foreign policy.

The neocon brand of US foreign policy is one which is to ignite and
perpetuate wars of hatred around the planet and ensure that the threat
of terrorism never dies.

In Iraq they delivered the tidings to its Prime Minister al-Abadi that
the US will soon send 10,000 boots, along with 90,000 more from Gulf
State countries, to his country.

Despite protests from Abadi, they said the arrangement was
"non-negotiable"!!

Apparently Assad's head was on the table for the Saudi princes to be
interested. So, you can probably say that it was a devil's deal that
the neocons have just committed the American people to.

What kind of etiquette for a US senator was it for Graham to spew
forth?

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go
to hell," Graham said ...

The fact that millions of American voters have embraced Trump seems to
have escaped Graham. They embraced Trump clearly not because America
was great until Trump came along and made popular that expression.

Graham said that what the U.S. needs to do is embrace the "99%" of
Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have died "by the
thousands" trying to fight it, and it needs to invest in the Middle
East and giving people and women opportunity there.

"That's how you win the war. A hopeful life versus a glorious death.
And what Mr. Trump is doing is undercutting everything we stand for,"

Iraq was secular and prosperous until we went and devastated the
country on the ground that the country had a "monster". Under that
"monster", women had the same opportunity as men. But after we have
destroyed the country, the government we propped up was sectarian,
forcing women back to the Middle Ages.

It was precisely the callous war McCain and Graham advocated that took
away hope from those who survived among the tens of thousands of death
that created ISIS. So, how do they propose to return hope back to the
Iraqi people by backing yet another 100,000 foreign troops into the
country with the tyranny of our military might, indeed our diktat to
that powerless country?

And finally, can we hear from Graham how he might propose to "embrace
the 99%" of Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have
died "by the thousands" trying to fight it?

How does he propose to identify even one member from such a group,
assuming that those who have died are beyond the reach of Lindsey's
creepy "embrace", unless he was already thoroughly acquainted with the
person?

You know one Muslim we all know today is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He was,
according to court testimony, a gentle and loving person, until he was
caught perpetrating a terrorist act. And he lived in Cambridge,
Massachusetts in the United States - one of the least probable neighborhoods
for terrorism in this country.

So, if Graham can't tell us not to embrace Mr. Tsarnaev, an 18 year
old at the time of the Boston Marathon attacks, exactly how he would
recommend for us to "embrace" who is outside of this country?

So, obviously, Trump has offered a strategy that makes more sense than
Graham's creepy "embrace". Which Muslim would be so dumb as not to be
weary of a stranger from the United States bearing such gifts as bombs
or foreign boots to their soil?

The neocons' War on Terror begat ISIS. Mearsheimer, a famed American
political scientist and Middle East expert, has just explained that
ISIS/ISIL won't be defeated. It's because the devil's deal we've made
will deepen the ideology that gave rise to ISIS/ISIL.

And so, no bombs or boots will kill the ideology. Since ISIS/ISIL is
primarily an ideology, a war against ISIS/ISIL will not succeed. This
is Mearsheimer's Cartesian logic and I think he is right.

lo yeeOn

--------------------------------------------------------------------

100,000 foreign troops incl. Americans to be deployed in Iraq, MP claims
Published time: 10 Dec, 2015 13:21 Edited time: 10 Dec, 2015 15:47
https://www.rt.com/news/325477-arab-army-iraq-plan/

The US is to send some 10,000 troops to Iraq to provide support for a
90,000-strong force from the Gulf states, a leading Iraqi opposition
MP has warned. The politician said the plan was announced to the Iraqi
government during a visit by US Senator John McCain.

During a meeting in Baghdad on November 27, McCain told Prime Minister
Haider Abadi and a number of senior Iraqi cabinet and military
officials that the decision was "non-negotiable", claimed Hanan
Fatlawi, the head of the opposition Irada Movement.

"A hundred thousand foreign troops, including 90,000 from Saudi
Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Jordan, and 10,000 troops from America will
be deployed in western regions of Iraq," she wrote on her Facebook
page.

She added that the Iraqi prime minister protested the plan, but was
told that "the decision has already been taken."

McCain and fellow hawk Senator Lindsey Graham have both been calling
for a tripling in the current number of US troops deployed in Iraq to
10,000, and also advocate sending an equal number of troops to Syria
to fight against the terrorist group Islamic State (IS, formerly
ISIS/ISIL) and the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The
Americans would prop up a 90,000-strong international ground force
provided by Sunni Arab countries like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

"The region is ready to fight. The region hates ISIL - they are coming
for Sunni Arab nations. Turkey hates ISIL. The entire region wants
Assad gone. So there is an opportunity here with some American
leadership to do two things: to hit ISIL before we get hit at home and
to push Assad out," Graham argued during the joint visit to Baghdad in
November.

"Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey - hey have regional armies and they
would go into the fight if we put [the removal of] Assad on the table.
Most of the fight will be done by the region. They will pay for this
war," he said.

The US currently has about 3,600 troops in Iraq, including 100 special
operations troops deployed last month to take part in combat missions
involving hostage rescue and the assassination of IS leaders. The
White House is reluctant to commit a large ground force, citing the
cost in human lives and money and the possible political ramifications
of what will be portrayed by America's opponents as yet another
Western invasion of the Arab world.

The McCain-Graham plan also poses the risk of direct confrontation
between the proposed coalition force and Russia and Iraq, which are
both militarily assisting the Assad government and may not stay out of
the fight - something which the hawkish duo have not factored into
their plan.

This is especially true after Turkey's downing of a Russian bomber
plane on the Turkish-Syrian border, which Moscow considered a stab in
the back and which sent relations with Ankara to a low not seen for
decades.

Baghdad has its own concerns about a Turkish presence on its territory
after Ankara sent troops into western Iraq and refused to withdraw
them, despite Iraqi protests. Ankara claimed the incursion was made
under a 2014 invitation from Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Lindsey Graham: 'Tell Donald Trump to go to hell' By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 9:31 AM ET, Tue December 8, 2015
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-go-to-hell-ted-cruz/

Sen. Lindsey Graham said it's time for Republicans to rebuke
presidential hopeful Donald Trump, urging his party to tell Trump to
"go to hell".

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to
hell," Graham said on CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday, picking up on the
GOP front-runner's famous slogan, "make America great again.".

The South Carolina Republican was responding to Trump's statement
released Monday calling for the U.S. to ban all Muslims from entering
the country.

"He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," Graham told Alisyn
Camerota. "He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represents the
values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for.
... He's the ISIL man of the year."

Graham said Trump's rhetoric benefits ISIS in helping them recruit
people to their cause. He said having traveled to the Middle East 36
times as a lawmaker and in the Air Force reserve, he knows the troops
and diplomats on the front lines are very concerned.

"What Mr. Trump is doing -- and I don't think he has a clue about
anything. He's just just trying to get his numbers up and get the
biggest reaction he can," Graham said. "He is helping the enemy of
this nation. He is empowering radical Islam. And if he knew anything
about the world at all, you would know that most Muslims reject this
ideology."

Graham said that what the U.S. needs to do is embrace the "99%" of
Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have died "by the
thousands" trying to fight it, and it needs to invest in the Middle
East and giving people and women opportunity there.

"That's how you win the war. A hopeful life versus a glorious
death. And what Mr. Trump is doing is undercutting everything we stand
for," Graham said. "Going to a military high school, Donald, is not
military service. You've never worn the uniform. ... So knock it
off. You're putting people at risk."

Trump has been leading the Republican primary in nearly every poll,
recently hitting 36% in a CNN survey. Graham has been languishing at
the bottom of the race, failing to hit even 1% in some polling.

The senator has become increasingly outspoken about the direction his
party is headed, trying to position himself as the voice of reason
even as his campaign struggles.

Graham said it's a "dirty little secret" of American history that
there has always been an appetite for bigotry and exclusion, but a
presidential candidate should "bring us together."

Calling out Cruz, Party

Graham also called out other presidential candidates for not being
stronger against Trump, saying the entire party needs to speak out
against the mogul.

He specifically spotlighted his fellow GOP presidential candidate,
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for not condemning Trump strongly enough.

. . .

[jdeluise]

Post by lo yeeOn

Post by jdeluise
<snip>
Do you follow current events? Trump wants boots on the ground in
Syria and Iraq, and to go after terrorists' families.

Trump wants a database on Syrian refugees. If you have specific info
on Trump about his desire to put boots on the ground in Syria and
Iraq, please post it to help clear the air. Trump has been known to
be "dovish" on foreign policy. (He wants to make America great again,
not pour another trillion down a rat hole.)
But what you brought up about Trump is besides the point. It's very
easy to see that if Trump had wanted "boots on the ground" in those
places, the neocons would have loved him, instead of telling him to
"go to hell" - isn't it clear?

"They have great money because they have oil. They have much oil,"
Mr. Trump said via phone on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Any place where
they have oil, I would knock the hell out of ‘em, and I would put
boots on the ground in those areas; I would take the oil. Because what
you're doing is you're cutting off a big portion of their money
source."

"The other part of their money source, by the way, happens to be
banks. Money is flowing in through banks in Saudi Arabia and other
places — you have to cut that off," he continued. "But I would knock
out the source of their wealth, the primary source of their wealth,
which is oil."

"And in order to do that, you would have to put boots. I would knock
the hell out of ‘em, but I'd put a ring around it, and I'd take the
oil for our country," he said. "I'd just take the oil."

...


"With the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care
about their lives, don't kid yourselves. But they say they don't care
about their lives. You have to take out their families."


lo yeeOn, you know very well he has said all of these things and more
unless you're a very selective reader, shying away from anything that
might distort the "reality" you have created for yourself.

Your contention that Trump doesn't want US armed conflicts in Syria and
Iraq merely because "the neocons don't like him" is ludicrous.

[TT]

Post by jdeluise
Your contention that Trump doesn't want US armed conflicts in Syria and
Iraq merely because "the neocons don't like him" is ludicrous.

Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?

[jdeluise]

Post by TT
Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?

Repubs don't like him because he's a loose cannon and hasn't put in the
hard yards in the GOP, and yet is sweeping through a field of career
politicians as a celebrity. I think there is a great deal of mistrust
in him, he holds no particular allegiance to the party and has
threatened to run as a third party if not nominated.

None of this precludes him from putting troops in Iraq and/or Syria,
especially considering he has said he'd do it.

[lo yeeOn]

Post by jdeluise

Post by TT
Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?

Repubs don't like him because he's a loose cannon and hasn't put in the
hard yards in the GOP, and yet is sweeping through a field of career
politicians as a celebrity. I think there is a great deal of mistrust
in him, he holds no particular allegiance to the party and has
threatened to run as a third party if not nominated.

The fundamental tenet of democracy does not require the president to
have allegiance to a particular party. He just have to have a
majority of the voting public supports him. The question is why
should the neocons care about that? The neocons are neoconservatives
who spread across party line.

So, TT asked "Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?" and you talked about
Republicans not liking him. Let's be clear: While many politicians
who do business out of Washington are Republicans, not all neocons are
Republicans. Many Democratic party politicians who do business out of
Washington are also neocons.

There is no indication that Trump is a "loose cannon". People who aim
to destroy Trump may use that term to belittle him but the correct way
to identify X as possessing quality Y, they need to say what he said
or did that would qualify him to have the stated quality. If Trump
were a "loose cannon", he would have blurted out his plan and his
adversaries would have used the information to defeat him. I haven't
seen that happen yet, how about you?

The mistrust comes not from the average Joe but from the establishment
who wants to retain control over the direction of US foreign policy.
To me and many others, it's obvious that Trump wants to change our
foreign policy direction and since the "donor class" does not control
him and since the Washington establishment is essentially working on
behalf of the same "donor class" - a monolithic power structure, Trump
has made the establishment nervous.

We ought to see why the hawks like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, the
Bush brothers, and the owners of major media outlets have been hostile
to Trump while the typically anti-war Republican political writer and
former GOP presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan believe in Trump.

Who your friends and your enemies are tell people a great deal about
who you are. In that light, the football players like Hershel Walker
and Shawne Merriman, both of whom are black, as well as Tom Brody, who
is white, are Trump supporters, why? Trump might be a "loose cannon"
for those who are nervous about him but he is "honest" for his many
supporters - and that's the primary reason why they think highly of
him.

The neocons are nervous about the honest Trump because Trump is
telling the truth about 9/11 under George W Bush's negligent watch,
because Trump has broken the taboo about the criminal nature of the
Iraq war as well as the current administration's responsibility in
regime change in Libya and Syria, of which Hillary Clinton is culpable
due to her role as Secretary of State in the Obama presidency. Trump
makes the neocons nervous because they are afraid too much truth is
being revealed to the American people. And maybe that's why the
neocons think Trump's a "loose cannon" and can't be trusted.

"Oh, no, Trump will make us look naked. Trump will make us to be a
bunch liars who have hijacked the government to do our bidding," so
better say he's a loose cannon and can't be trusted. Also, since when
did he mop the floor for us? Well, Jeb didn't either but then, we are
working for his dad, so... Jeb is different... And George W is also
different - for the same reason. Uh-oh, but what about Mitt Romney.
How did we manage to place our trust in him?

So, you get the picture! Hard yards are just excuse to discriminate.
As far as the establishment is cconcerned, it is a tool for
discrimination - to rule out people we don't like. It matters not
what the grassroots think. The GOP grassroots don't count. In fact,
the voters at large don't count. We the establishment choose our
twiddledum and twiddledee and whoever win will carry water for us, all
the same...

So, you get the picture of why the attack of Trump in the media is so
pitched.

It's because Trump has, so far, refuse to sing the neocons are red
song where the sun rises in the morning. And that's a no-no.

lo yeeOn

Post by jdeluise
None of this precludes him from putting troops in Iraq and/or Syria,
especially considering he has said he'd do it.

If Trump is accused of having said many things and being a "loose
cannon", then there is no point counting the chicken before they are
hatched. This is particularly true when he has also repeatedly made
blunt denunciation of regime change and called our involvement in Iraq
and Syria a disaster and a disservice to humanity.

lo yeeOn

--------

1) Here's Trump for Lady Hillary's lovers in America - Iraq war was
worse than "Oh, it's not worth it" but rather "a disaster" and "a
disservice to humanity", according to the Donald

Donald Trump issued a remarkably blunt denunciation of the Iraq War
during the debate Updated by Andrew Prokop on December 16, 2015, 12:20
p.m. ET
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10296032/donald-trump-gop-debate-iraq-war

Midway through the GOP debate Tuesday night, Republican poll leader
Donald Trump offered a blunt and brutal denunciation of the last
Republican president's main foreign policy initiative - the Iraq War.

Indeed, Trump went further even than most Democratic politicians
would, calling the war "a tremendous disservice to humanity" - and
added that it achieved nothing whatsoever, except to leave the Middle
East "a total and complete mess." Here's what he said:

"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that,
frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4
trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all
of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we
have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that
right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East -
we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that
have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for
what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is
totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4
trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right
here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports,
and everything else that are all falling apart!"

As Matt Yglesias pointed out on Tuesday, this, like much of what Trump
says, exists outside the bounds of normal political discourse. Even
for Democrats who criticize the Iraq War, it's considered gauche to
say that so many veterans died and were injured for nothing (though
many likely believe this in their hearts).

And even those Republicans who now think the war was a mistake would
hesitate to call it "a tremendous disservice to humanity." Beyond
that, they certainly wouldn't suggest the money spent on the war could
have been plowed into increasing domestic spending, which they
generally argue won't improve things.

Yet again, Trump has identified an opportunity left open by the
polarized two-party system. By pairing his tough rhetoric and persona
and avowed nationalism with various efforts to play to Americans'
racial anxieties on immigration and terrorism, he can convincingly
tell conservatives the Iraq War has been a disaster. And here again,
he may come off to voters as more honest and straight-talking than the
other candidates.

-----

2) Trump: World would be '100%' better with Hussein, Gadhafi in power
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/politics/donald-trump-moammar-gadhafi-saddam-hussein/

(CNN) - Donald Trump believes the world would be much better off if
ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi were still
in power.

"100%," Trump replied when asked that question in an interview with
CNN's Jake Tapper that aired Sunday on "State of the Union."

Trump said he believes Iraq and Libya, the respective countries of the
since-deceased dictators, would be less fractured and promote a more
stable Middle East if the two had not been forcefully pushed out of
power. Hussein fell from power following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003 and Gadhafi was ousted following violent civil strife in 2011
that ultimately drew a NATO-led military intervention.

"I mean, look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Iraq used to be no terrorists.
He (Hussein) would kill the terrorists immediately, which is like now
it's the Harvard of terrorism," Trump said. "If you look at Iraq from
years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy,
but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a
training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya, nobody even knows
Libya, frankly there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It's all broken
up. They have no control. Nobody knows what's going on."

Both Gadhafi and Hussein committed atrocities against their own people
and were among the world's worst human rights abusers. NATO decided to
intervene in Libya as Gadhafi appeared poised to commit a
genocidal-like massacre.

But Trump said human rights abuses continue to plague Libya and Iraq
and claimed, "They're worse than they ever were."

"People are getting their heads chopped off, they're being drowned.
Right now, they are far worse than they were, ever, under Saddam
Hussein or Gadhafi," he said.

[lo yeeOn]

Post by jdeluise

Post by TT
Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?

Repubs don't like him because he's a loose cannon and hasn't put in the
hard yards in the GOP, and yet is sweeping through a field of career
politicians as a celebrity. I think there is a great deal of mistrust
in him, he holds no particular allegiance to the party and has
threatened to run as a third party if not nominated.

The fundamental tenet of democracy does not require the president to
have allegiance to a particular party. He just has to have a majority
of the voting public supports him. The question is why should the
neocons care about that? The neocons are neoconservatives who spread
across party lines.

So, TT asked "Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?" and you talked about
Republicans not liking him. Let's be clear: While many politicians
who do business out of Washington are Republicans, not all neocons are
Republicans. Many Democratic party politicians who do business out of
Washington are also neocons.

There is no indication that Trump is a "loose cannon". People who aim
to destroy Trump may use that term to belittle him but the correct way
to identify X as possessing quality Y, they need to say what he said
or did that would qualify him to have the stated quality. If Trump
were a "loose cannon", he would have blurted out his plan and his
adversaries would have used the information to defeat him. I haven't
seen that happen yet, how about you?

The mistrust comes not from the average Joe but from the establishment
who wants to retain control over the direction of US foreign policy.
To me and many others, it's obvious that Trump wants to change our
foreign policy direction and since the "donor class" does not control
him and since the Washington establishment is essentially working on
behalf of the same "donor class" - a monolithic power structure, Trump
has made the establishment nervous.

We ought to see why the hawks like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, the
Bush brothers, and the owners of major media outlets have been hostile
to Trump while the typically anti-war Republican political writer and
former GOP presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan believes in Trump.

Who your friends and your enemies are tells people a great deal about
who you are. In that light, the football players like Hershel Walker
and Shawne Merriman, both of whom are black, as well as Tom Brody, who
is white, are Trump supporters, why? Trump might be a "loose cannon"
for those who are nervous about him but he is "honest" for his many
supporters - and that's the primary reason why they think highly of
him.

The neocons are nervous about the honest Trump because Trump is
telling the truth about 9/11 under George W Bush's negligent watch,
because Trump has broken the taboo about the criminal nature of the
Iraq war as well as the current administration's responsibility in
regime change in Libya and Syria, of which Hillary Clinton is culpable
due to her role as Secretary of State in the Obama presidency. Trump
makes the neocons nervous because they are afraid too much truth is
being revealed to the American people. And maybe that's why the
neocons think Trump's a "loose cannon" and can't be trusted.

"Oh, no, Trump will make us look naked. Trump will make us to be a
bunch of liars who have hijacked the government to do our bidding," so
better say he's a loose cannon and can't be trusted. Also, since when
did he mop the floor for us? Well, Jeb didn't either but then, we are
working for his dad, so... Jeb is different... And George W is also
different - for the same reason. Uh-oh, but what about Mitt Romney.
How did we manage to place our trust in him?

So, you get the picture! These "Hard yards" are just an excuse for
the powers-that-be to discriminate. As far as the establishment is
concerned, it is a tool for discrimination - to rule out people they
don't like. It matters not what the grassroots think. The GOP
grassroots don't count. In fact, the voters at large don't count.
The powers-that-be's thinking: "We the establishment choose our
twiddledum and twiddledee and whoever wins will carry water for us -
all the same...."

So, you get the picture of why the attack of Trump in the media is so
pitched.

It's because Trump has, so far, refuse to sing the neocons are red
song where the sun rises in the morning. And that's a no-no.

lo yeeOn

Post by jdeluise
None of this precludes him from putting troops in Iraq and/or Syria,
especially considering he has said he'd do it.

If Trump is accused of having said many things and being a "loose
cannon", then there is no point counting the chickens before they are
hatched. This is particularly true when he has also repeatedly made
blunt denunciation of regime change and called our involvement in Iraq
and Syria a disaster and a disservice to humanity.

lo yeeOn

--------

1) Here's Trump for Lady Hillary's lovers in America - Iraq war was
worse than "Oh, it's not worth it" but rather "a disaster" and "a
disservice to humanity", according to the Donald

Donald Trump issued a remarkably blunt denunciation of the Iraq War
during the debate Updated by Andrew Prokop on December 16, 2015, 12:20
p.m. ET
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10296032/donald-trump-gop-debate-iraq-war

Midway through the GOP debate Tuesday night, Republican poll leader
Donald Trump offered a blunt and brutal denunciation of the last
Republican president's main foreign policy initiative - the Iraq War.

Indeed, Trump went further even than most Democratic politicians
would, calling the war "a tremendous disservice to humanity" - and
added that it achieved nothing whatsoever, except to leave the Middle
East "a total and complete mess." Here's what he said:

"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that,
frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4
trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all
of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we
have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that
right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East -
we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that
have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for
what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is
totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4
trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right
here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports,
and everything else that are all falling apart!"

As Matt Yglesias pointed out on Tuesday, this, like much of what Trump
says, exists outside the bounds of normal political discourse. Even
for Democrats who criticize the Iraq War, it's considered gauche to
say that so many veterans died and were injured for nothing (though
many likely believe this in their hearts).

And even those Republicans who now think the war was a mistake would
hesitate to call it "a tremendous disservice to humanity." Beyond
that, they certainly wouldn't suggest the money spent on the war could
have been plowed into increasing domestic spending, which they
generally argue won't improve things.

Yet again, Trump has identified an opportunity left open by the
polarized two-party system. By pairing his tough rhetoric and persona
and avowed nationalism with various efforts to play to Americans'
racial anxieties on immigration and terrorism, he can convincingly
tell conservatives the Iraq War has been a disaster. And here again,
he may come off to voters as more honest and straight-talking than the
other candidates.

-----

2) Trump: World would be '100%' better with Hussein, Gadhafi in power
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/politics/donald-trump-moammar-gadhafi-saddam-hussein/

(CNN) - Donald Trump believes the world would be much better off if
ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi were still
in power.

"100%," Trump replied when asked that question in an interview with
CNN's Jake Tapper that aired Sunday on "State of the Union."

Trump said he believes Iraq and Libya, the respective countries of the
since-deceased dictators, would be less fractured and promote a more
stable Middle East if the two had not been forcefully pushed out of
power. Hussein fell from power following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003 and Gadhafi was ousted following violent civil strife in 2011
that ultimately drew a NATO-led military intervention.

"I mean, look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Iraq used to be no terrorists.
He (Hussein) would kill the terrorists immediately, which is like now
it's the Harvard of terrorism," Trump said. "If you look at Iraq from
years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy,
but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a
training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya, nobody even knows
Libya, frankly there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It's all broken
up. They have no control. Nobody knows what's going on."

Both Gadhafi and Hussein committed atrocities against their own people
and were among the world's worst human rights abusers. NATO decided to
intervene in Libya as Gadhafi appeared poised to commit a
genocidal-like massacre.

But Trump said human rights abuses continue to plague Libya and Iraq
and claimed, "They're worse than they ever were."

"People are getting their heads chopped off, they're being drowned.
Right now, they are far worse than they were, ever, under Saddam
Hussein or Gadhafi," he said.

[jdeluise]

Post by lo yeeOn
The fundamental tenet of democracy does not require the president to
have allegiance to a particular party.

Who said he or she did? I certainly did not.

Post by lo yeeOn
He just has to have a majority of the voting public supports him.

That is false on many levels. Anyone who knew anything about the
election process (or American history) wouldn't make such a novice
blunder.

Post by lo yeeOn
So, TT asked "Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?" and you talked about
Republicans not liking him. Let's be clear: While many politicians
who do business out of Washington are Republicans, not all neocons are
Republicans. Many Democratic party politicians who do business out of
Washington are also neocons.
There is no indication that Trump is a "loose cannon".

Yes there is, he makes rash statements without thinking them through,
else he wouldn't have praised potential murder committed by Putin as
"running his country" and as an example of great leadership.

In fact, it's quite obvious to anyone with an objective mind that Trump
speaks through both sides of his mouth on most issues.... Simultaneously
blasting policies in the middle east by the current and previous
administration while threatening to do the same (boots on the ground,
taking their oil, air raids killing terrorists' families) himself.

You see, he has no real plan... he flies by the seat of his pants with
increasing bluster because he knows the most unintelligent *fools* in
the US will fall for it ever time...

Post by lo yeeOn
If Trump were a "loose cannon", he would have blurted out his plan and
his adversaries would have used the information to defeat him. I
haven't seen that happen yet, how about you?

What plan? He doesn't have one. In fact, he failed to identify
important figures in the conflicts, later responding with the
unconvincing:

"By the time we get to office, they’ll all be changed. They’ll be all
gone. I knew you were going to ask me things like this," Trump
said. "But as far as the individual players, of course I don’t know
them. I've never met them. I haven’t been, you know, in a position to
meet them. If, if they're still there, which is unlikely in many
cases, but if they’re still there, I will know them better than I know
you."

"The names you just mentioned, they probably won’t even be there in
six months or a year," Trump added. "And you know what? In that case,
first day in office, or before then, right at the day after the
election, I’ll know more about it than you will ever know. That I can
tell you."

Trump is a loose cannon, a fool, and full of hot air. The change we
need (and that you expect) will not be coming with Trump at the reigns.

[Joe Cooper]

Post by jdeluise
Yes there is, he makes rash statements without thinking them through,
else he wouldn't have praised potential murder committed by Putin as
"running his country" and as an example of great leadership.

Actually, Trump is doing what he has always done in business: Open
negotiations with the most outrageous claim he can think of, so that when
he backs off from that claim, his demands will seem reasonable and be
accepted.

I recommend reading "The Art of the Deal" if you want to understand Trump's
campaign.
--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS." ISIS:
"We've contained Obama."

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who didn’t
ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"We are a people who won’t be played for fools by a president in the grip
of dangerous denial about the identity of the enemy and its dramatic
successes. We are a people who remember an important lesson from World War
II: believe tyrants who tell us who they are and what they plan to do.
Above all, we are a people who refuse to be guilt-tripped into national
suicide"--Joy Overbeck

[lo yeeOn]

Post by TT

Post by jdeluise
Your contention that Trump doesn't want US armed conflicts in Syria and
Iraq merely because "the neocons don't like him" is ludicrous.

Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?

Because he's too independent. But more to the point, lo yeeOn absurdly
claims that the fact that neocons don't like Trump "proves" that he
wouldn't put boots on the ground in the Middle East. It's truly
laughable analysis, as usual from that poster.

I certainly didn't make such a claim. It was, however, supporting
evidence for sure. And I am really surprised that you would even
invented the quote "proves"! Who were you quoting, may I ask?

You think you can pull the wool over people's eyes? How ludicrous!

The farthest I went was that it was easy to see. So, you have to
invent a false quote in order to say

"lo yeeOn absurdly claims that the fact that neocons don't like
Trump..."

I was responding to jdeluise's assertion who had loudly claimed that
Trump wanted "boots on the ground" in Syria and Iraq.

Of course, Trump didn't say he "wanted boots on the ground".

In fact why did Linsey Graham tell Trump to go to hell, if Trump
finally agree with them?

Recall that Graham and McCain had just returned from Iraq, having
delivered the "non-negotiable" ultimatum to the Iraqi government about
a 3rd American invasion of that country in less than 30 years!

So, it was perfectly logical for me and others to see that if Trump
had wanted "boots on the ground" in those places, the neocons would
have loved him, instead of telling him to "go to hell".

And so, it should be instructive to take another look at what I wrote
again.

As for you bmoore, you are once again showing your neocon operative's
credentials that used to identify you at the soc.culture.china until
you finally lost all your credibility to hang out there any more,
isn't it true, bmoore?

lo yeeOn

Subject: It will be the 3rd Iraq War in <30 years! Re: With Assad's
head on the table, a devil's deal has been made and is
"non-negotiatiable", in which another 100,000 boots will be back on
Iraqi soil - no point for the puppets to protest, is there?

<snip>
Do you follow current events? Trump wants boots on the ground in Syria
and Iraq, and to go after terrorists' families.

Trump wants a database on Syrian refugees. If you have specific info
on Trump about his desire to put boots on the ground in Syria and
Iraq, please post it to help clear the air. Trump has been known to
be "dovish" on foreign policy. (He wants to make America great again,
not pour another trillion down a rat hole.)

But what you brought up about Trump is besides the point. It's very
easy to see that if Trump had wanted "boots on the ground" in those
places, the neocons would have loved him, instead of telling him to
"go to hell" - isn't it clear?

Of course, the reason why McCain and Graham are so incensed by Trump
is because Trump is clearly not going to carry on with the PNAC agenda
anymore if he is elected president.

And the reason why Cheney appeared to be so concerned about Trump is
because if Trump gets elected, Cheney and his pal George W Bush would
have a lot to answer for.

Finally, this news that McCain and Graham have just rudely delivered to
Abadi means that Iraq will be invaded for the third time in less than
30 years - talking about preventing a wound from healing, do you have
any humanity inside yourself, jdeluise?

lo yeeOn

P.S.: It's not clear that the Saudis will ever get to reap Assad's
head, even as they are willing to waste many more Iraqi lives to get
it done. Have the Saudis win any war of significance lately? With
the unprincipled approach taken by the neocons headed currently by
McCain et al., America is more endangered and our living standards
will simply go down further - such as keeping old people from retiring
until 70, or even later.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: With Assad's head on the table, a devil's deal has been made
and is "non-negotiatiable", in which another 100,000 boots will be
back on Iraqi soil - no point for the puppets to protest, is there?

With Assad's head on the table, a devil's deal has been made and is
non-negotiatiable in which another 100,000 boots will be back on Iraqi
soil - no point for the puppets to protest, is there?

Lindsey Graham just gave an ugly speech to tell fellow American Donald
Trump to "go to hell".

Where did he himself recently go?

Iraq - where we've recently opened up the gates to Hell - along with
John McCain, his constant companion in the business of selling the
neocon brand of US foreign policy.

The neocon brand of US foreign policy is one which is to ignite and
perpetuate wars of hatred around the planet and ensure that the threat
of terrorism never dies.

In Iraq they delivered the tidings to its Prime Minister al-Abadi that
the US will soon send 10,000 boots, along with 90,000 more from Gulf
State countries, to his country.

Despite protests from Abadi, they said the arrangement was
"non-negotiable"!!

Apparently Assad's head was on the table for the Saudi princes to be
interested. So, you can probably say that it was a devil's deal that
the neocons have just committed the American people to.

What kind of etiquette for a US senator was it for Graham to spew
forth?

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go
to hell," Graham said ...

The fact that millions of American voters have embraced Trump seems to
have escaped Graham. They embraced Trump clearly not because America
was great until Trump came along and made popular that expression.

Graham said that what the U.S. needs to do is embrace the "99%" of
Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have died "by the
thousands" trying to fight it, and it needs to invest in the Middle
East and giving people and women opportunity there.

"That's how you win the war. A hopeful life versus a glorious death.
And what Mr. Trump is doing is undercutting everything we stand for,"

Iraq was secular and prosperous until we went and devastated the
country on the ground that the country had a "monster". Under that
"monster", women had the same opportunity as men. But after we have
destroyed the country, the government we propped up was sectarian,
forcing women back to the Middle Ages.

It was precisely the callous war McCain and Graham advocated that took
away hope from those who survived among the tens of thousands of death
that created ISIS. So, how do they propose to return hope back to the
Iraqi people by backing yet another 100,000 foreign troops into the
country with the tyranny of our military might, indeed our diktat to
that powerless country?

And finally, can we hear from Graham how he might propose to "embrace
the 99%" of Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have
died "by the thousands" trying to fight it?

How does he propose to identify even one member from such a group,
assuming that those who have died are beyond the reach of Lindsey's
creepy "embrace", unless he was already thoroughly acquainted with the
person?

You know one Muslim we all know today is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He was,
according to court testimony, a gentle and loving person, until he was
caught perpetrating a terrorist act. And he lived in Cambridge,
Massachusetts in the United States - one of the least probable neighborhoods
for terrorism in this country.

So, if Graham can't tell us not to embrace Mr. Tsarnaev, an 18 year
old at the time of the Boston Marathon attacks, exactly how he would
recommend for us to "embrace" who is outside of this country?

So, obviously, Trump has offered a strategy that makes more sense than
Graham's creepy "embrace". Which Muslim would be so dumb as not to be
weary of a stranger from the United States bearing such gifts as bombs
or foreign boots to their soil?

The neocons' War on Terror begat ISIS. Mearsheimer, a famed American
political scientist and Middle East expert, has just explained that
ISIS/ISIL won't be defeated. It's because the devil's deal we've made
will deepen the ideology that gave rise to ISIS/ISIL.

And so, no bombs or boots will kill the ideology. Since ISIS/ISIL is
primarily an ideology, a war against ISIS/ISIL will not succeed. This
is Mearsheimer's Cartesian logic and I think he is right.

lo yeeOn

--------------------------------------------------------------------

100,000 foreign troops incl. Americans to be deployed in Iraq, MP claims
Published time: 10 Dec, 2015 13:21 Edited time: 10 Dec, 2015 15:47
https://www.rt.com/news/325477-arab-army-iraq-plan/

The US is to send some 10,000 troops to Iraq to provide support for a
90,000-strong force from the Gulf states, a leading Iraqi opposition
MP has warned. The politician said the plan was announced to the Iraqi
government during a visit by US Senator John McCain.

During a meeting in Baghdad on November 27, McCain told Prime Minister
Haider Abadi and a number of senior Iraqi cabinet and military
officials that the decision was "non-negotiable", claimed Hanan
Fatlawi, the head of the opposition Irada Movement.

"A hundred thousand foreign troops, including 90,000 from Saudi
Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Jordan, and 10,000 troops from America will
be deployed in western regions of Iraq," she wrote on her Facebook
page.

She added that the Iraqi prime minister protested the plan, but was
told that "the decision has already been taken."

McCain and fellow hawk Senator Lindsey Graham have both been calling
for a tripling in the current number of US troops deployed in Iraq to
10,000, and also advocate sending an equal number of troops to Syria
to fight against the terrorist group Islamic State (IS, formerly
ISIS/ISIL) and the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The
Americans would prop up a 90,000-strong international ground force
provided by Sunni Arab countries like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

"The region is ready to fight. The region hates ISIL - they are coming
for Sunni Arab nations. Turkey hates ISIL. The entire region wants
Assad gone. So there is an opportunity here with some American
leadership to do two things: to hit ISIL before we get hit at home and
to push Assad out," Graham argued during the joint visit to Baghdad in
November.

"Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey - hey have regional armies and they
would go into the fight if we put [the removal of] Assad on the table.
Most of the fight will be done by the region. They will pay for this
war," he said.

The US currently has about 3,600 troops in Iraq, including 100 special
operations troops deployed last month to take part in combat missions
involving hostage rescue and the assassination of IS leaders. The
White House is reluctant to commit a large ground force, citing the
cost in human lives and money and the possible political ramifications
of what will be portrayed by America's opponents as yet another
Western invasion of the Arab world.

The McCain-Graham plan also poses the risk of direct confrontation
between the proposed coalition force and Russia and Iraq, which are
both militarily assisting the Assad government and may not stay out of
the fight - something which the hawkish duo have not factored into
their plan.

This is especially true after Turkey's downing of a Russian bomber
plane on the Turkish-Syrian border, which Moscow considered a stab in
the back and which sent relations with Ankara to a low not seen for
decades.

Baghdad has its own concerns about a Turkish presence on its territory
after Ankara sent troops into western Iraq and refused to withdraw
them, despite Iraqi protests. Ankara claimed the incursion was made
under a 2014 invitation from Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Lindsey Graham: 'Tell Donald Trump to go to hell' By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 9:31 AM ET, Tue December 8, 2015
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-go-to-hell-ted-cruz/

Sen. Lindsey Graham said it's time for Republicans to rebuke
presidential hopeful Donald Trump, urging his party to tell Trump to
"go to hell".

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to
hell," Graham said on CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday, picking up on the
GOP front-runner's famous slogan, "make America great again.".

The South Carolina Republican was responding to Trump's statement
released Monday calling for the U.S. to ban all Muslims from entering
the country.

"He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," Graham told Alisyn
Camerota. "He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represents the
values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for.
... He's the ISIL man of the year."

Graham said Trump's rhetoric benefits ISIS in helping them recruit
people to their cause. He said having traveled to the Middle East 36
times as a lawmaker and in the Air Force reserve, he knows the troops
and diplomats on the front lines are very concerned.

"What Mr. Trump is doing -- and I don't think he has a clue about
anything. He's just just trying to get his numbers up and get the
biggest reaction he can," Graham said. "He is helping the enemy of
this nation. He is empowering radical Islam. And if he knew anything
about the world at all, you would know that most Muslims reject this
ideology."

Graham said that what the U.S. needs to do is embrace the "99%" of
Muslims who reject radical, violent extremism and have died "by the
thousands" trying to fight it, and it needs to invest in the Middle
East and giving people and women opportunity there.

"That's how you win the war. A hopeful life versus a glorious
death. And what Mr. Trump is doing is undercutting everything we stand
for," Graham said. "Going to a military high school, Donald, is not
military service. You've never worn the uniform. ... So knock it
off. You're putting people at risk."

Trump has been leading the Republican primary in nearly every poll,
recently hitting 36% in a CNN survey. Graham has been languishing at
the bottom of the race, failing to hit even 1% in some polling.

The senator has become increasingly outspoken about the direction his
party is headed, trying to position himself as the voice of reason
even as his campaign struggles.

Graham said it's a "dirty little secret" of American history that
there has always been an appetite for bigotry and exclusion, but a
presidential candidate should "bring us together."

Calling out Cruz, Party

Graham also called out other presidential candidates for not being
stronger against Trump, saying the entire party needs to speak out
against the mogul.

He specifically spotlighted his fellow GOP presidential candidate,
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for not condemning Trump strongly enough.

. . .

[lo yeeOn]

Post by TT

Post by jdeluise
Your contention that Trump doesn't want US armed conflicts in Syria and
Iraq merely because "the neocons don't like him" is ludicrous.

Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?

Of course, I never said or suggested:
Trump doesn't want US armed conflicts in Syria and Iraq merely
because "the neocons don't like him"

Rather, it's more like Trump doesn't want US armed conflicts in Syria
and Iraq because Trump doesn't like America to get involved and bogged
down in armed conflicts abroad. And maybe Trump also doesn't like
neocons for that reason. Of course, jdeluise's got it backward!

But the fact that the neocons distrust Trump can be an indication that
Trump is really not one of them.

The logic is very clear and all jdeluise has to do is calm down and
think about it.

As for TT's question: "Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?", I think the
best I can help is to cite the vox article appended after my signature:
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10296032/donald-trump-gop-debate-iraq-war

This article stemmed from what Trump said at the Vegas GOP debate:

"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that,
frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4
trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all
of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we
have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that
right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East -
we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that
have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for
what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is
totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4
trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right
here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports,
and everything else that are all falling apart!"

Trump didn't have to say it. It was a GOP presidential candidates'
debate. It could cost him. He isn't running this campaign to lose.
So why did he volunteer such a huge statement?

The shortest answer is he felt it was part of his "make America great
again" approach - to disengage America from the last decade and half's
obsession in chasing monsters around the world. The disengagement is
important to any rebuilding of America. Get out of the wars so we can
rebuild America, free from the hugely consumptive burden of endless
foreign wars, wars that are never winnable, given how they have killed
people.

The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped
away - and for what? It's not like we had victory. [Trump said.]

It was not the first time he denounced the neocons' PNAC belligerence!

He said it again and again. Just before the Vegas debate, he talked
about Hillary Clinton's role in getting hundreds of thousands of
Syrians killed. (Check out the interview he had with Chris Wallace.)

So, Trump was at least consistent when he once again denounced the
Iraq war of George W Bush.

But the Vegas debate offered him an opportunity to speak in greater
bluntness of his feeling toward the mess that the neocons created,
using the American taxpayers' money - "four trillions" Trump cited.

So according Vox:

Donald Trump offered a blunt and brutal denunciation of the last
Republican president's main foreign policy initiative - the Iraq
War.

Indeed, Trump went further even than most Democratic politicians
would, calling the war "a tremendous disservice to humanity" - and
added that it achieved nothing whatsoever, except to leave the
Middle East "a total and complete mess." Here's what he said:

"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that,
frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4
trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and
all of the other problems - our airports and all the other
problems we have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell
you that right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East -
we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that
have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for
what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East
is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had
the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent
right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads,
airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!"

So, there's the answer for your question of
"Why wouldn't neocons like Trump?"

Of course, Trump may just turn out to be a typical new millennium
Washington politician that we have gotten so used to seeing. They all
end up carrying water for the neocons - chasing monsters around the
world and ending up killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people
and causing millions more homeless. But so far, Trump appears to his
supporters to be a lot more like a real deal than the others,
including Hillary Clinton.

lo yeeOn

Donald Trump offered a blunt and brutal denunciation of the last
Republican president's main foreign policy initiative - the Iraq War.
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10296032/donald-trump-gop-debate-iraq-war

Indeed, Trump went further even than most Democratic politicians
would, calling the war "a tremendous disservice to humanity" - and
added that it achieved nothing whatsoever, except to leave the Middle
East "a total and complete mess." Here's what he said:

"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that,
frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4
trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all
of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we
have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that
right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East -
we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that
have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for
what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is
totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4
trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right
here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports,
and everything else that are all falling apart!"

As Matt Yglesias pointed out on Tuesday, this, like much of what Trump
says, exists outside the bounds of normal political discourse. Even
for Democrats who criticize the Iraq War, it's considered gauche to
say that so many veterans died and were injured for nothing (though
many likely believe this in their hearts).

And even those Republicans who now think the war was a mistake would
hesitate to call it "a tremendous disservice to humanity." Beyond
that, they certainly wouldn't suggest the money spent on the war could
have been plowed into increasing domestic spending, which they
generally argue won't improve things.

[jdeluise]

Post by lo yeeOn
Rather, it's more like Trump doesn't want US armed conflicts in Syria
and Iraq because Trump doesn't like America to get involved and bogged
down in armed conflicts abroad.

Donald Trump on Saturday knocked President Barack Obama's decision to
deploy fewer than 50 Special Operations forces on the ground in Syria,
suggesting the strategy is a half-measure.

"I think we have a president who just doesn't know what he's doing,"
Trump told CNN. "You either do it or you don't do it. Fifty people. He
puts 50 people."

Don't be fooled, Trump will be more than happy to use his "new toys" if
he is to be elected. Sadly, Trump has proven that he can be
bought... after all, Putin merely had to stroke Trump's significant ego and
Trump was willing to praise a campaign of murdered journalists as
"running his country". Regardless of whether the allegations are true
or not, Trump seemingly had no problem with it.

[lo yeeOn]

Post by jdeluise

Post by lo yeeOn

Post by jdeluise
<snip>
Do you follow current events? Trump wants boots on the ground in
Syria and Iraq, and to go after terrorists' families.

Trump wants a database on Syrian refugees. If you have specific info
on Trump about his desire to put boots on the ground in Syria and
Iraq, please post it to help clear the air. Trump has been known to
be "dovish" on foreign policy. (He wants to make America great again,
not pour another trillion down a rat hole.)
But what you brought up about Trump is besides the point. It's very
easy to see that if Trump had wanted "boots on the ground" in those
places, the neocons would have loved him, instead of telling him to
"go to hell" - isn't it clear?

"They have great money because they have oil. They have much oil,"
Mr. Trump said via phone on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Any place where
they have oil, I would knock the hell out of ‘em, and I would put
boots on the ground in those areas; I would take the oil. Because what
you're doing is you're cutting off a big portion of their money
source."
"The other part of their money source, by the way, happens to be
banks. Money is flowing in through banks in Saudi Arabia and other
places — you have to cut that off," he continued. "But I would knock
out the source of their wealth, the primary source of their wealth,
which is oil."
"And in order to do that, you would have to put boots. I would knock
the hell out of ‘em, but I'd put a ring around it, and I'd take the
oil for our country," he said. "I'd just take the oil."
...
"With the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care
about their lives, don't kid yourselves. But they say they don't care
about their lives. You have to take out their families."
lo yeeOn, you know very well he has said all of these things and more
unless you're a very selective reader, shying away from anything that
might distort the "reality" you have created for yourself.
Your contention that Trump doesn't want US armed conflicts in Syria and
Iraq merely because "the neocons don't like him" is ludicrous.

Trump was talking about depriving ISIS' sources of financing: Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and their subsidies in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.

It would be just like if Congress refused to fund the Pentagon for our
war on terror.

In both cases, no money => no fighting => no wars => everyone is
better off.

Trump wasn't talking about sending American troops into Syria. Trump
has in fact welcomed Putin's decision to bomb ISIL in Syria while Jeb
Bush, Marco Rubio, and Hillary Clinton have all wanted to put American
boots on Syrian ground. In fact, Bush, Rubio, and Clinton all wanted
to bring down Assad "as well as ISIS".

In fact, their calculus is way over-constrained to defeat ISIS.

They either have no brains or they don't care about defeating ISIS.

They are more interested in bringing down Assad. And that's precisely
the reason why they hate Putin (and Trump).

"I want to punch Putin in the mouth,"

Kasich the tough talker who probably would be the first to run if
Putin shows up at his front door. Putin knows his Jujitsu. Kasich
has only a big mouth. It's so ludicrous that it is beyond laughable.

I think that's why Trump again won the Vegas debate, according to most
polls. So far Trump's supporters seem to see a real deal in him
despite the squeaks and squeals of the anti-Trump crowd.

And what I have put on the subject line - about McCain and Graham
having gone to Iraq and delivered their "non-negotiatiable" ultimatum
to Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi - was widely reported and it
was a correct assessment of the political situation. The source was
in fact a woman MP who was in the know.

With Assad's head on the table, a devil's deal has been made and is
"non-negotiatiable", in which another 100,000 boots will be back on
Iraqi soil - no point for the puppets to protest, is there?

Whatever you said, you were just cherry-picking what Trump had said.
Trump would be the last of all the major party candidates, except
perhaps Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, to want prolonged conflicts in
Iraq or Syria.

Trump has been consistently critical of the Iraq war and other wars
that John McCain and Linsey Graham have actively promoted. And the
intensity of opposition to his candidacy from that quarter of the
Washington establishment is just another indication that they came to
the same conclusion as I did about Trump. To me, someone who wants
America to stop playing with fire abroad and to start rebuilding our
infrastructure and economy, Trump may be a ray of hope. To the
neocons, Trump is someone to be discredited and destroyed politically.

Let's look at this assessment of Trump from a political commentator
again:
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10296032/donald-trump-gop-debate-iraq-war

Donald Trump offered a blunt and brutal denunciation of the last
Republican president's main foreign policy initiative - the Iraq
War.

Indeed, Trump went further even than most Democratic politicians
would, calling the war "a tremendous disservice to humanity" - and
added that it achieved nothing whatsoever, except to leave the
Middle East "a total and complete mess." Here's what he said:

"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that,
frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4
trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and
all of the other problems - our airports and all the other
problems we have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell
you that right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East -
we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that
have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for
what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East
is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had
the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent
right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads,
airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!"

As Matt Yglesias pointed out on Tuesday, this, like much of what
Trump says, exists outside the bounds of normal political discourse.
Even for Democrats who criticize the Iraq War, it's considered
gauche to say that so many veterans died and were injured for
nothing (though many likely believe this in their hearts).

And even those Republicans who now think the war was a mistake would
hesitate to call it "a tremendous disservice to humanity." Beyond
that, they certainly wouldn't suggest the money spent on the war
could have been plowed into increasing domestic spending, which they
generally argue won't improve things.

I'm sort of glad that my view of Trump is not alone. But I'm sad to
see that people like you continue to ignore the fact that Trump is
different in terms of how he would approach our foreign policy as
president. Naturally, he might turn out to act differently - which is
the norm for American politicians. But that is another subjecet for
another day.

So, let's wind up our discussion today with a couple more relevant
reads about America's hegemonic foreign policy:

1) US has an unseemly role in Syrian tragedy;
2) Secret US mission in Libya revealed after air force posted
pictures ...

lo yeeOn

1) Letter: US has an unseemly role in Syrian tragedy
Posted: 09/09/15, 10:47 AM PDT | Updated: on 09/09/2015
http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/20150909/letter-us-has-an-unseemly-role-in-syrian-tragedy

US has an unseemly role in Syrian tragedy

Did you see the picture of the little 3-year-old boy in blue trousers
with a red shirt lying on the sand, his hands at his side,
dead. Drowned.

One of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, fleeing the death
and destruction of the Syrian civil war that our ambassador Robert
Ford encouraged.

Hillary Clinton's State Department was oriented toward regime change -
Libya, Ukraine, Syria...

In 2012 Clinton deliberately sabotaged the United Nations in its
efforts to resolve the conflict by insisting that Bashar al-Assad go
before there could be talks. She preferred that Syria endure a
massively destructive civil war than to work with Assad in resolving
the conflict. To Hillary, the war was necessary to weaken Iran and
appease Saudi Arabia.

Clinton regrets that Barack Obama prevented her from sending lots of
weapons to the Syrian rebels, not enough gasoline to put out the fire.

As the self-proclaimed world leader, exceptional and indispensable,
the United States has much responsibility for the conflict and the
refugees.

I can't imagine how the United States can repair the lives and
destruction.

Why they "hate" us is not because of our freedoms, but our actions.

Thankfully, Bernie Sanders believes in conflicts resolving conflicts.

- Lucy Cooke, Butte Valley.

-------

2) Secret US mission in Libya revealed after air force posted pictures

Facebook post, accompanied by four pictures, said 20 armed soldiers
arrived wearing bulletproof jackets
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/17/secret-us-mission-in-libya-revealed-after-air-force-posted-pictures
Chris Stephen in Tunis Thursday 17 December 2015 18.21 EST

------

Deployment fail: US special ops forces arrive in Libya, immediately
told to leave
Published time: 18 Dec, 2015 05:15 Edited time: 18 Dec, 2015 05:16
https://www.rt.com/usa/326377-usa-special-operations-forces-libya/

Libya's air force said in a Facebook post that 20 US commandoes
arrived at Wattiya airbase and disembarked "in combat readiness", only
to be told to leave. Pentagon sources confirmed the US had sent a
special forces unit to Libya as part of a mission.

The Libyan Air Force said the 20 soldiers arrived at the airbase on
Monday, but left soon after local commanders asked them to go because
they had no right to be at the base "without prior coordination with
protection force base".

The Libyan air force published a Facebook post on Wednesday which
included photographs of the special forces unit. It noted the 20
soldiers had disembarked "in combat readiness wearing bullet proof
jackets, advanced weapons, silencers, handguns, night vision devices
and GPS devices."

When questioned by Libyan soldiers, the American troops said they were
"in coordination with other members of the Libyan army," the Libyan
Air Force said. The Libyans were unconvinced.

"The response from your heroic army stationed at Wattiya base was to
tell them to depart immediately and the group left, keeping their
equipment with them," the post added.

The photographs show three men armed with assault rifles, boarding a blue-and-white-striped passenger plane and driving a yellow dune buggy.

Read More: Fight against ISIS should be extended to Libya - French PM

Pentagon sources confirmed to NBC News that the special forces unit
was part of a mission sent this week, but it was unclear if the
soldiers had left the country. Commandoes have been "in and out of
Libya" for "some time now", unnamed US officials told NBC, but the
outlet reported they were there "purely to advise Libyan forces rather
than conduct combat operations or training".

. . .

According to the Associated Press, the failed debarkation happened
just as Libya's rival parliaments signed a landmark United
Nations-sponsored deal to form a government in the war-torn
country. Libya has been in chaos ever since Muammar Gaddafi was
overthrown by NATO-backed rebels in 2011.

The Guardian reported that the embarrassing incident marks the first
confirmed deployment of American forces to Libya since July of last
year, when "Delta Force commandos seized Ahmed Abu Khattala, now on
trial in New York accused of the 2012 killing of US Ambassador Chris
Stevens."

-----

Libya militia chases away US troops
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35131367

US forces flown to Libya to support government troops had to leave
after landing because of demands from a local militia group, US
officials say.

Photos posted on Facebook claim to show US troops getting back on
their plane shortly after landing
Loading Image...

It follows reports that 20 US special forces troops, equipped with
advanced weaponry, landed on Monday at an airbase in western Libya.

The troops chose to leave "in an effort to avoid conflict", a US
Africa Command (Africom) spokesman told the BBC.

Libya has been in chaos since the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

Africa Live: BBC news updates
Lawless Libya: Can peace be achieved?

The US forces had travelled to Libya in order to "foster relationships
and enhance communication with their counterparts in the Libyan
National Army", Africom spokesman Anthony Falvo told the BBC.

The soldiers left without incident, he added.

Analysis: Rana Jawad - BBC North Africa correspondent

It is undoubtedly an embarrassing revelation for the Americans.

The timing of the incident, so close to the long-awaited deal signed
by Libya's rival parliaments on Thursday, has fuelled speculation
among Libyans over what they see as the ulterior motives of the US and
other Western nations.

There has been increasing suspicion that foreign troops are looking to
establish their presence on the ground in Libya, especially with the
so-called Islamic State grabbing more territory in recent months.

Reactions on social media ranged from accusations that the US was
promoting one side of the conflict, to questions over the West's
long-term military aims in Libya.

Western nations have repeatedly spoken of their intent to support
Libyan armed forces to help secure the country and combat extremism.

However, if nothing else, the incident chiefly serves as a reminder of
the challenges foreign military forces will face trying to operate in
a country with no central security structure.

Mr Falvo did not elaborate further on why the troops' landing at
al-Wattiya airbase had seemingly not been cleared with the relevant
Libyan groups on the ground.

The airbase is not controlled directly by the Libyan army, but by a
militia affiliated to it, which may explain the apparent breakdown in
communication.

Unnamed Pentagon officials told national media that US forces had been
"in and out of Libya" for some time, operating in an advisory, but not
a combat role.

The people said to be US troops were pictured with assault rifles
equipped with silencers
Loading Image...

Photos of the secret mission were published on the official Facebook
page of the Libyan Air Force, saying the troops had landed "without
prior coordination".

It described the forces arriving "in combat readiness wearing bullet
proof jackets" carrying night-vision goggles, GPS devices and assault
rifles.

Libya's rival power bases (as of August 2015)

Intenationally recognized government (aqua blue)
Toubou militia (pink)
Libya Dawn militia alliance (light green)
Tuareg militia (gray)
Islamic State-allied groups (black)
Ansar al-Sharia (red)
Other jihadists (brown)
Loading Image...

Libya has two rival governments, one based in the main city, Tripoli,
and the other about 1,000km (620 miles) away in the port city of
Tobruk.

Representatives of the two groups signed a deal in Morocco on
Thursday, agreeing to form a national unity government, however their
respective leaders voiced their reservations.

[jdeluise]

Post by lo yeeOn
I'm sort of glad that my view of Trump is not alone. But I'm sad to
see that people like you continue to ignore the fact that Trump is
different in terms of how he would approach our foreign policy as
president. Naturally, he might turn out to act differently - which is
the norm for American politicians. But that is another subjecet for
another day.

But he's already stated how he'd handle it....

"And in order to do that, you would have to put boots. I would knock
the hell out of 'em, but I'd put a ring around it, and I'd take the
oil for our country," he said. "I'd just take the oil."

This has nothing to do with "depriving" them of financing, this was an
outright threat of violence.

Can you quote any other candidate who has made a more unambiguous
assertion of his or her intentions with regard to ISIS?

I think it's ludicrous that you support Trump. I'm starting to think
you actually didn't know he said these things (how?) and are now in full
blown damage control, trying to save face... I know I'd be embarrassed
if I were in your shoes :)

[lo yeeOn]

Post by jdeluise

Post by lo yeeOn
I'm sort of glad that my view of Trump is not alone. But I'm sad to
see that people like you continue to ignore the fact that Trump is
different in terms of how he would approach our foreign policy as
president. Naturally, he might turn out to act differently - which is
the norm for American politicians. But that is another subjecet for
another day.

But he's already stated how he'd handle it....
"And in order to do that, you would have to put boots. I would knock
the hell out of 'em, but I'd put a ring around it, and I'd take the
oil for our country," he said. "I'd just take the oil."
This has nothing to do with "depriving" them of financing, this was an
outright threat of violence.
Can you quote any other candidate who has made a more unambiguous
assertion of his or her intentions with regard to ISIS?
I think it's ludicrous that you support Trump. I'm starting to think
you actually didn't know he said these things (how?) and are now in full
blown damage control, trying to save face... I know I'd be embarrassed
if I were in your shoes :)

Actually, I found his "boots on the ground" not equal to the "outright
threat of violence" you claimed he was making.

My understanding of his words, in the context of all that he has said
about the new millennial American foreign policy, is that he would
first bomb the oil facilities under ISIS control ... and then, send in
members of the US Marine Corps to secure the perimeter of such a
facility.

I would not necessarily equate his approach to defeat ISIS with
Hillary Clinton's or Jeb Bush's "boots on the ground" for regime
change.

I know Trump isn't a pacifist. And I don't need to save face, I think
Trump is just so much better than Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, whose
idea of fighting ISIS is to prolong ISIS so that the neocons can go
off and make their regime change.

I think Trump's blunt denunciation of the Iraq war is the best defense
of my support of Trump. I certainly did not even expect him to do
that at Vegas. That he did made me go and vote him the winner of the
debate! Does it look like I need to save face? Do I look like I need
to do damage control? Truth is what I always try to tell and it sets
me free!

lo yeeOn

--------

Donald Trump's blunt and brutal denunciation of the last Republican
president's main foreign policy initiative - the Iraq War.

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10296032/donald-trump-gop-debate-iraq-war

Donald Trump offered a blunt and brutal denunciation of the last
Republican president's main foreign policy initiative - the Iraq War.

Indeed, Trump went further even than most Democratic politicians
would, calling the war "a tremendous disservice to humanity" - and
added that it achieved nothing whatsoever, except to leave the Middle
East "a total and complete mess." Here's what he said:

"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that,
frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4
trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all
of the other problems - our airports and all the other problems we
have - we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that
right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East -
we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that
have been killed, the people that have been wiped away - and for
what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is
totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4
trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right
here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports,
and everything else that are all falling apart!"

As Matt Yglesias pointed out on Tuesday, this, like much of what Trump
says, exists outside the bounds of normal political discourse. Even
for Democrats who criticize the Iraq War, it's considered gauche to
say that so many veterans died and were injured for nothing (though
many likely believe this in their hearts).

And even those Republicans who now think the war was a mistake would
hesitate to call it "a tremendous disservice to humanity." Beyond
that, they certainly wouldn't suggest the money spent on the war could
have been plowed into increasing domestic spending, which they
generally argue won't improve things.

----------

2) Letter: US has an unseemly role in Syrian tragedy
Posted: 09/09/15, 10:47 AM PDT | Updated: on 09/09/2015
http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/20150909/letter-us-has-an-unseemly-role-in-syrian-tragedy

US has an unseemly role in Syrian tragedy

Did you see the picture of the little 3-year-old boy in blue trousers
with a red shirt lying on the sand, his hands at his side,
dead. Drowned.

One of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, fleeing the death
and destruction of the Syrian civil war that our ambassador Robert
Ford encouraged.

Hillary Clinton's State Department was oriented toward regime change -
Libya, Ukraine, Syria...

In 2012 Clinton deliberately sabotaged the United Nations in its
efforts to resolve the conflict by insisting that Bashar al-Assad go
before there could be talks. She preferred that Syria endure a
massively destructive civil war than to work with Assad in resolving
the conflict. To Hillary, the war was necessary to weaken Iran and
appease Saudi Arabia.

Clinton regrets that Barack Obama prevented her from sending lots of
weapons to the Syrian rebels, not enough gasoline to put out the fire.

As the self-proclaimed world leader, exceptional and indispensable,
the United States has much responsibility for the conflict and the
refugees.

I can't imagine how the United States can repair the lives and
destruction.

Why they "hate" us is not because of our freedoms, but our actions.

Thankfully, Bernie Sanders believes in conflicts resolving conflicts.

- Lucy Cooke, Butte Valley.

-------

3) Secret US mission in Libya revealed after air force posted pictures

Facebook post, accompanied by four pictures, said 20 armed soldiers
arrived wearing bulletproof jackets
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/17/secret-us-mission-in-libya-revealed-after-air-force-posted-pictures
Chris Stephen in Tunis Thursday 17 December 2015 18.21 EST

------

3a) Deployment fail: US special ops forces arrive in Libya,
immediately told to leave
Published time: 18 Dec, 2015 05:15 Edited time: 18 Dec, 2015 05:16
https://www.rt.com/usa/326377-usa-special-operations-forces-libya/

Libya's air force said in a Facebook post that 20 US commandoes
arrived at Wattiya airbase and disembarked "in combat readiness", only
to be told to leave. Pentagon sources confirmed the US had sent a
special forces unit to Libya as part of a mission.

The Libyan Air Force said the 20 soldiers arrived at the airbase on
Monday, but left soon after local commanders asked them to go because
they had no right to be at the base "without prior coordination with
protection force base".

The Libyan air force published a Facebook post on Wednesday which
included photographs of the special forces unit. It noted the 20
soldiers had disembarked "in combat readiness wearing bullet proof
jackets, advanced weapons, silencers, handguns, night vision devices
and GPS devices."

When questioned by Libyan soldiers, the American troops said they were
"in coordination with other members of the Libyan army," the Libyan
Air Force said. The Libyans were unconvinced.

"The response from your heroic army stationed at Wattiya base was to
tell them to depart immediately and the group left, keeping their
equipment with them," the post added.

The photographs show three men armed with assault rifles, boarding a
blue-and-white-striped passenger plane and driving a yellow dune
buggy.

Read More: Fight against ISIS should be extended to Libya - French PM

Pentagon sources confirmed to NBC News that the special forces unit
was part of a mission sent this week, but it was unclear if the
soldiers had left the country. Commandoes have been "in and out of
Libya" for "some time now", unnamed US officials told NBC, but the
outlet reported they were there "purely to advise Libyan forces rather
than conduct combat operations or training".

. . .

According to the Associated Press, the failed debarkation happened
just as Libya's rival parliaments signed a landmark United
Nations-sponsored deal to form a government in the war-torn
country. Libya has been in chaos ever since Muammar Gaddafi was
overthrown by NATO-backed rebels in 2011.

The Guardian reported that the embarrassing incident marks the first
confirmed deployment of American forces to Libya since July of last
year, when "Delta Force commandos seized Ahmed Abu Khattala, now on
trial in New York accused of the 2012 killing of US Ambassador Chris
Stevens."

-----

3b) Libya militia chases away US troops
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35131367

US forces flown to Libya to support government troops had to leave
after landing because of demands from a local militia group, US
officials say.

Photos posted on Facebook claim to show US troops getting back on
their plane shortly after landing
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/5453/production/_87278512_234796c5-34dd-4695-8c30-1cd8348f03fd.jpg

It follows reports that 20 US special forces troops, equipped with
advanced weaponry, landed on Monday at an airbase in western Libya.

The troops chose to leave "in an effort to avoid conflict", a US
Africa Command (Africom) spokesman told the BBC.

Libya has been in chaos since the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

Africa Live: BBC news updates
Lawless Libya: Can peace be achieved?

The US forces had travelled to Libya in order to "foster relationships
and enhance communication with their counterparts in the Libyan
National Army", Africom spokesman Anthony Falvo told the BBC.

The soldiers left without incident, he added.

Analysis: Rana Jawad - BBC North Africa correspondent

It is undoubtedly an embarrassing revelation for the Americans.

The timing of the incident, so close to the long-awaited deal signed
by Libya's rival parliaments on Thursday, has fuelled speculation
among Libyans over what they see as the ulterior motives of the US and
other Western nations.

There has been increasing suspicion that foreign troops are looking to
establish their presence on the ground in Libya, especially with the
so-called Islamic State grabbing more territory in recent months.

Reactions on social media ranged from accusations that the US was
promoting one side of the conflict, to questions over the West's
long-term military aims in Libya.

Western nations have repeatedly spoken of their intent to support
Libyan armed forces to help secure the country and combat extremism.

However, if nothing else, the incident chiefly serves as a reminder of
the challenges foreign military forces will face trying to operate in
a country with no central security structure.

Mr Falvo did not elaborate further on why the troops' landing at
al-Wattiya airbase had seemingly not been cleared with the relevant
Libyan groups on the ground.

The airbase is not controlled directly by the Libyan army, but by a
militia affiliated to it, which may explain the apparent breakdown in
communication.

Unnamed Pentagon officials told national media that US forces had been
"in and out of Libya" for some time, operating in an advisory, but not
a combat role.

The people said to be US troops were pictured with assault rifles
equipped with silencers
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/2D43/production/_87278511_d6e823b4-c05a-4a96-862c-5fba2057feca.jpg

Photos of the secret mission were published on the official Facebook
page of the Libyan Air Force, saying the troops had landed "without
prior coordination".

It described the forces arriving "in combat readiness wearing bullet
proof jackets" carrying night-vision goggles, GPS devices and assault
rifles.

Libya's rival power bases (as of August 2015)

Intenationally recognized government (aqua blue)
Toubou militia (pink)
Libya Dawn militia alliance (light green)
Tuareg militia (gray)
Islamic State-allied groups (black)
Ansar al-Sharia (red)
Other jihadists (brown)
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/81052000/gif/_81052882_libya_strikes_624v2.gif

Libya has two rival governments, one based in the main city, Tripoli,
and the other about 1,000km (620 miles) away in the port city of
Tobruk.

Representatives of the two groups signed a deal in Morocco on
Thursday, agreeing to form a national unity government, however their
respective leaders voiced their reservations.

[jdeluise]

Post by lo yeeOn
My understanding of his words, in the context of all that he has said
about the new millennial American foreign policy, is that he would
first bomb the oil facilities under ISIS control ... and then, send in
members of the US Marine Corps to secure the perimeter of such a
facility.

I fail to see much of a difference. "secure the perimeter of such a
facility" is the easy part. To reach his stated goal of "taking the oil
for our country" would require securing supply lines,
ie. protecting/patrolling pipelines, supply routes into cities, securing
ports and vessels to export the oil from the country. These are not
things that are easily accomplished, I guarantee the type of "boots on
the ground" you envision he means would lead to the same type of
violence and domination you claim to rail against.

Clearly you've succumbed to Trump's erratic and arrogantly delivered
rhetoric. I feel sorry for you!

[TT]

Post by lo yeeOn
is that he would

Post by lo yeeOn
first bomb the oil facilities under ISIS control

So Trump's answer would be environmental terrorism. Would he also fly
planes to skyscrapers?

[lo yeeOn]

Post by TT

Post by lo yeeOn
is that he would

Post by lo yeeOn
first bomb the oil facilities under ISIS control

So Trump's answer would be environmental terrorism. Would he also fly
planes to skyscrapers?

He flies his Trump One plane around skyscrapers everyday in and out of
NYC - you didn't know that?

But bombing oil facilities under ISIS control is nothing new! Obama
has done that for more than a year and is still doing that - you
didn't know that?

And Obama is supposedly an environmentalist and a Nobel Peace prize
winner - did you know that?

And of course, the Paris attacks this year were a direct ISIS response
to Francois Hollande's decision to send French bombers to Syria and
bomb ISIS-controlled oil depots.

Every participant in the "anti-terror" coalition has committed plenty
of environmental terrorism. Otherwise, where did all the video
footage of mass burning of anything that burns on earth came from? In
Ukraine, in Syria, in Libya, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, the earth
just got all burned up. And that's war. And that's why it's so
unacceptable for George W Bush to have invaded Iraq under false
pretenses.

For people like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Hillary Clinton to want to
fight ISIS while aiming to pull down the current government of Syria
at the same time, it is entirely unacceptable from an environmental
and humanitarian point of view. You know that their belligerent aim
simply over-constrains the problem they're claiming to solve and
consequently their political greed prevents a solution, if one exists.

And if anything, Trump is exposing the neocon candidates hypocrisy.
To quote Eric Zeuss:
What's refreshing about Trump is the directness with which he
expresses his psychopathy. For example, candidates such as Hillary
Clinton sugar-coat their psychopathy, or even find ways to get their
interviewers to join eagerly in their expressions of it (camaraderie
with power-holders), but they don't say such blatant things as (to
paraphrase Trump here), ...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/donald-trump-says-the-u-s-should-have-stolen-iraqis-oil-after-destroying-their-country.html

Zeuss' article further reveals:
The recently released "Gallup 2015 Global Emotions Report"
interviewed a thousand citizens of each of 148 countries and
found: "Iraqis Are the Saddest & One of the Angriest Populations in
the World. Furthermore, Iraqis were found to have the world's
"Highest Negative Experience" Scores, which is a misery-index.
Therefore, Trump is accurate to say that the American government did
such a thing as that, to the people of Iraq.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/donald-trump-says-the-u-s-should-have-stolen-iraqis-oil-after-destroying-their-country.html

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of Tariq Aziz, the
late Iraqi foreign minister in the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein
and who died an extremely angry man. His anger: The American
government (under George W Bush) had destroyed Iraq.

Tariq Aziz was a Christian too. Who knows all those propaganda lies
about the regime he was a part of. My personal belief is that lines
such as "Saddam is a monster, no question!" are just propaganda lies.
And because of those lies, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died
and many more became homeless, miserable, and angry as hell. And it
is a pity that the media and the government are still trying to cover
up our real intention for Iraq and other Middle Eastern and Central
Asian countries. And the neocons are still hush hush about their
"non-negotiable" ultimatum to Iraq to surrender her sovereignty, like
a woman getting raped three times in less than as many days.

lo yeeOn

[lo yeeOn]

Post by jdeluise

Post by lo yeeOn
My understanding of his words, in the context of all that he has said
about the new millennial American foreign policy, is that he would
first bomb the oil facilities under ISIS control ... and then, send in
members of the US Marine Corps to secure the perimeter of such a
facility.

I fail to see much of a difference. "secure the perimeter of such a
facility" is the easy part. To reach his stated goal of "taking the oil
for our country" would require securing supply lines,
ie. protecting/patrolling pipelines, supply routes into cities, securing
ports and vessels to export the oil from the country. These are not
things that are easily accomplished, I guarantee the type of "boots on
the ground" you envision he means would lead to the same type of
violence and domination you claim to rail against.

I see your point of view. But my interpretation is that he simply
won't do what you've just outlined. He would explain his position,
when pressed, thus:
"Taking the oil for our country? It would drain our treasury too
much. George W Bush and Barack Obama have burned a big hole in our
treasury. We're trillions of dollars in the hole and our country is
currently badly in disrepair. We don't even have money for NASA and
all its wonderful projects any more. And that's because my
predecessors have engaged our countries in regime change that
necessarily obliges us to fight an endless war on terrorism.

"Our primary goal is to make America great again.

"To that end, we need to just cut off the finance to ISIS and other
groups that are trying to hurt us. Without the financing,
terrorism will just wither. Actually, my administration has been
engaging secret negotiations with all relevant parties to make the
world safe to live in again. I can't tell you too much because
we're still in delicate negotiations. But I can tell you that I am
telling Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf states that they should
cease and desist trying to fund terrorist groups in order to pick a
fight with their neighbors and nurture more terrorism.

"And remember the Death Band which was performing in Paris in 2015
where scores died from terrorist attacks. What the press didn't
mention much - for whatever the reasons they had - was that none of
the members of the band were hurt. And it turned out that the
reason they weren't hurt, even though the terrorists were on that
same stage where they were performing is because the ISIS central
command made explicit instruction to the attackers not to hurt the
Americans - it was for ISIS a lesson for France for their decision
to bomb their oil facility.

"So, my advisers and I have decided that enough is enough. We have
no intention to lord over you if you swear you will not send
suicide bombers to our cities and hurt our citizens. I know what
you might be thinking. You might still believe that they came and
took down our world trade center. Well, the situation was more
complex than what you've been made aware of. In that regard, I'm
asking the Attorney General to see if the Justice Department can
get those 28 pages of top-secret information made public as have
been requested by Senator Bob Graham of Florida and others have
worked on to be declassified. In any case, the people of the
Middle East have suffered enough. We need to take our warriors
home and leave the Middle East to the people to whom it belongs.

"I want America to be great again. We can't do that if we continue
to make a lot of the people in the Middle East angry. We have to
come home. America, come home - and that's my message. It's like
that prodigal son that Jesus talked about. It's been long enough.
America needs to come home to rebuild itself and be great again.

"Thank you."

Now it may not be exactly like that. But I know Trump, Trump is not a
deceptive person, like G W Bush or Hillary Clinton. Trump may not get
there, especially given how much behind he is in terms of his ground
organization in Iowa. But if he gets elected, he will be more like a
Reagan than the neocon-driven administrations we have seen.

Post by jdeluise
Clearly you've succumbed to Trump's erratic and arrogantly delivered
rhetoric. I feel sorry for you!

If it makes you feel more superior, go ahead. But frankly, my message
is very focused. I care about America and I support anyone who
genuinely wants to take America out of the viscious cycle of killing
and focus on rebuilding the country. Go Trump or Paul.

But the point about picking your candidate is just to rank the bunch.
In that light, which candidate do you trust more to do what you want?

Based on the totality of Trump, Paul, Sanders, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio,
and Hillary Clinton have said, who do you trust more.

Easy! The first three, yes. But never the last three.

And then, among those you trust, who is most likely to win? Trump!

So, it's that easy.

What Trump said about taking their oil is way less credible than his
repeated condemnation of George W Bush's invasion of Iraq and our
continuing occupation of Afghanistan - which makes absolutely no sense
other than to hold on to the sprawling Bagram base in Northeast
Afghanistan for god-know-what purpose. Trump's aversion to military
adventure is much more palpable. The media is largely beholden to the
neocons' agenda - which is also the State Department's and the
Pentagon's - agenda. So, the frenzy of attacks against Trump by the
MSMS and the likes of John Kasich who wants to punch Putin in the
mouth if he gets to see him and Linsey Graham who just went with his
Bobbsey twin McCain to Iraq to deliver their "non-negotaible"
ultimatum of surrending Iraq's sovereignty simply convince me that the
attacks against Trump is simply malicious and serving the neocons!

lo yeeOn

P.S.: Other people who support Trump ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/3guykz/donald_trump_is_both_the_most_reasonable/

Donald Trump is both the most reasonable Republican Candidate, and
the one most likely to beat Hillary or whatever other Democrat, and
I'm a Sanders-supporting Democrat who thought Trump's candidacy was
a joke as of 3 weeks ago. (self.PoliticalDiscussion)
submitted 4 months ago * by tuna_HP

I am a person that supports Sanders and would probably support
Hillary or whatever other Democratic candidate before any
Republican, but having watched the Republican primary race
attentively over the past few weeks, and having come away with some
new opinions of Donald Trump, I now feel that I completely
understand his popularity. This isn't about a disaffected base. This
isn't about people reacting against their party. This is about Trump
honestly being the best of the available Republican candidates.

Yes I still think that Trump is a blowhard, a braggard, completely
tasteless, immature, petty, and vindictive, and not nearly as
talented a businessman as he deludes himself into believing, but he
is also an extremely effective communicator who is reaching people
because he eschews the nonsense-talk of political campaigns, a
flag-bearer for patriotism and national pride, and a candidate who
is stunning the right wing media with candid and reasonable
responses to their moronic gotcha litmus tests.

They try to pin him into the same short-bus corner as all the
Republicans by making him support going as far as shutting down the
government to stop funding to Planned Parenthood, and you know what
Trump says right to Sean Hannity: 'no, frankly Planned Parenthood is
an effective organization that does a lot of good and I don't
support abortion but I support the other things they do'. They try
to make him support a flat tax and he says, 'no, frankly I think
that wealthy people like me can afford to pay a higher percentage of
their income, it doesn't sit well with me that someone making so
much less money than me would pay the same percentage taxes'. They
try to make him support free market healthcare and he says, 'no,
universal healthcare works well in Canada, it works very very well
in Scotland, Obamacare is terrible and I will replace it but with a
system that costs much less just like the systems in other
countries'.

Trump is running circles around the other candidates in his personal
magnetism and charisma, but also in his response to real tough
policy questions. Now compare this to the other Republican
candidates:

Jeb Bush represents the continuation of the Bush Family WASP
American aristocracy neo-con worldview where America's job is to
go around dominating the world regardless of how costly and futile
it is. He has never disowned his brother's disastrous legacy which
set our economy back 20 years and destroyed America's international
prestige. He has the same entitled sort of attitude towards wealth
disparity as Romney, seeming to believe that poor people are poor
because they're lazy takers and he's rich because he worked hard...
could have nothing to do with the fact that his family has more
connections and influence than jesus.

. . .

[jdeluise]

Post by lo yeeOn
I see your point of view. But my interpretation is that he simply
won't do what you've just outlined. He would explain his position,

SNIP
SNIP
SNIP

Post by lo yeeOn
"Thank you."

er, those are all things *you* would have said, not Trump. Perhaps we
need to add delusions of grandeur to the list of your many afflictions?

[lo yeeOn]

Post by jdeluise

Post by lo yeeOn
Trump wasn't talking about sending American troops into Syria.

"And in order to do that, you would have to put boots. I would knock
the hell out of 'em, but I'd put a ring around it, and I'd take the
oil for our country," he said. "I'd just take the oil."
lo yeeOn, you would deny that it's raining while you were getting
soaked. It's over - maybe you should quit while you're behind. You might
even feel better :-)

See my response to jdeluise for this dumb, out-of-context quote.

As for you, isn't it your slimy wishful thinking that I should quit so
as to make the neocons' narrative to continue to flourish while the
real truth continues to be hidden? This is exactly the story about
the way the Washington Establishment and the MSM has been treating
Donald Trump! What a coincidence!

You're the one who bent so low as to incite violence against me simply
because I was the messenger who decried the neocons' New American
Century Project (PNAC).

On 24 March 2013, around the time of the ten (10) year anniversary of
George Bush' coldly calculated invasion of Iraq that caused enormous
destruction to the country and enduring suffering to its people, there
was a series of posts on the subject addressing exactly the same issue
that Dennis Kucinich has again brought out this week. In this series,
bmoore wrote:

">Given your defense of not only Saddam, but Kadaffy and the North

Post by jdeluise
Korean monsters, you deserve to have the shit beaten out of you."

when I asked the question:

Why did so many Iraqis have to die because Saddam was "such a
monster". Indeed, "monster" to whom? Re: If Saddam was "such a
monster" and had caused so much "carnage" when Tony Blair decided to
go to war with G W Bush, then why did they have to resort to the
monster WMD lie?

Notice bmoore's attempt to incite physical violence on an indivudal:

"... you deserve to have the shit beaten out of you."

Just for your information, Trump is now saying also that we should
have not removed Gaddafi and Saddam - for the simple reason that
terrorism is a consequence of our violently removing them and killing
hundreds of thousands along the way.

So, just because you scurrying into rec.sport.tennis to consort with
Mr. tough guy jdeluise doesn't make you a better person.

You're still the same snip and snipe kind of messenger killer to keep
the messages unwelcome by the neocon propaganda machine. Today, more
people are asking questions about why we had to kill so many people
just because some delusional people like the Bushes believe that there
are monsters we have chased, disregarding our costs and the cost to
humanity.

So, here is some quotes as food for thought, which I had written
elsewhere:
If anything, Trump is exposing the neocon candidates hypocrisy.
To quote Eric Zeuss:
What's refreshing about Trump is the directness with which he
expresses his psychopathy. For example, candidates such as Hillary
Clinton sugar-coat their psychopathy, or even find ways to get their
interviewers to join eagerly in their expressions of it (camaraderie
with power-holders), but they don't say such blatant things as (to
paraphrase Trump here), ...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/donald-trump-says-the-u-s-should-have-
stolen-iraqis-oil-after-destroying-their-country.html

Zeuss' article further reveals:
The recently released "Gallup 2015 Global Emotions Report"
interviewed a thousand citizens of each of 148 countries and
found: "Iraqis Are the Saddest & One of the Angriest Populations in
the World. Furthermore, Iraqis were found to have the world's
"Highest Negative Experience" Scores, which is a misery-index.
Therefore, Trump is accurate to say that the American government did
such a thing as that, to the people of Iraq.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/donald-trump-says-the-u-s-should-have-stolen-iraqis-oil-after-destroying-their-country.html

lo yeeOn