US Politics: Passing Gas In Public is Abhorrent Behavior

[LongRider]

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 I was protesting Dubya's invasion of Iraq the night it happened, where were you?

Me too, so what.  What good did it do us?

[James Arryn]

35 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Aight, in agreement there!  Why you have a problem with citing chemical weapons use IRT Saddam being "retroactively" guilty (because he was) in response to Kal's post is still beyond me, but whatever.  That was pretty much the only legit argument Dubya had.

Well, two points.

1) It was a logical follow-through on Kal's premise that RR could not be retroactively responsible for committing offences before said offences were stipulated in signed agreement. If true of Reagan, true of Saddam.

2) As an overall argument for the U.S. to declare war on Iraq it fails in several respects. First, in that at the time of Saddam using chemical weapons he was a US ally, it is obviously problematic. Second, as per Riegel report, in that the US supplied/facilitated the supply of materials for Iraqi chemical weapons program, it's unsound. Thirdly, in consideration of the US government position towards Iran's '84 attempted resolution before the UNSC on Iraqi biological attacks and the WH fight to defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act in 1988 (not to mention it's official position that Iran was to blame) with regards to Iraqi biological attacks, it would clearly give pause to even the most cynical realpolitikian for that same ally/supporter/supplier/protector to later invade on the basis of actions it had previously supported/supplied/protected.

Dubya wanted to invade, openly, since 9-11. This is undisputed record. The WH even went so far as to establish an entirely new Intel agency tasked specifically with finding grounds for invasion, and the administration kept floating various arguments for invasion, like throwing spagetti against the wall until it sticks. WMD's finally stuck, in spite of all common sense and global opinion. Chemical attacks under the context previously mentioned was one of those, but even as jingoistic/persuadable audience as went for WMD's saw through that for the reasons I'be given. It might have been a legit argument for someone to do something at some time, but the U.S. was not that someone, and ~20 years later was not that time.

[The Anti-Targ]

47 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Never question his business acumen!  Clearly, it's unquestionably deplorable.  

Thanks for the semantics lesson.  Point was, Saddam did use chemical weapons, which made it a legit point - as opposed to yellowcake uranium, Colin Powell destroying his career at the UN, and whatnot.  I was protesting Dubya's invasion of Iraq the night it happened, where were you?

<-- Look to the left.

And it's not a semantics matter. Saying it's a legit point because it actually happened is not valid when it completely lacks any justification for the proposed action. It was in fact the opposite of a legit point, it was an illegitimate use of an historical fact.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Me too, so what.  What good did it do us?

In retrospect, obviously not much politically.  Used it there to make a point.  At the time, as a senior in high school, it actually did have much personal "good."

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

1) It was a logical follow-through on Kal's premise that RR could not be retroactively responsible for committing offences before said offences were stipulated in signed agreement. If true of Reagan, true of Saddam.

He can certainly speak for himself, but I do not think that was at all what Kal was saying.

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

2) ...

I have no disagreement with anything said here whatsoever.  It also is irrelevant to the original point.  All Kal was trying to point out was Trump's recent hypocrisy on chemical weapons.  You then made it a pissing contest on who is most against chemical weapons, or US' actions against Saddam with that dastardly "unilateralism" sprinkled in, it's not clear to me.  Which has culminated in this post which frankly reminds me of an undergrad trying the bestest to get an A.

[maarsen]

9 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, possible the most asinine, amateurish assumption he's made to date. Which really also make me question his business acumen, as these types are also essential to any successful business.

4 bankruptcies did not  make you question his business acumen? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Dubya wanted to invade, openly, since 9-11. This is undisputed record. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the desire to invade go as far back as 1999 during the early stages of his campaign? It wasn't openly talked about, but it was in their private strategy papers. 

[DMC]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And it's not a semantics matter. Saying it's a legit point because it actually happened is not valid when it completely lacks any justification for the proposed action. It was in fact the opposite of a legit point, it was an illegitimate use of an historical fact.

Let's go slow:

Saddam's use of chemical weapons is a valid argument in support of regime change.

Saddam's use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient justification for regime change, let alone the requisite investment in American and Iraqi blood and treasure it took to do so.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the desire to invade go as far back as 1999 during the early stages of his campaign? It wasn't openly talked about, but it was in their private strategy papers. 

I think in Neo Con circles there was always a desire for regime change in Iraq, even in the 1990s, before Dubya ever ran for President or let anyone know he wanted to be President. I believe after the first Gulf War, many of the Neo Cons were upset with Bush I over not going into Iraq and removing Saddam. At that time, it would seem  that Bush I was more influenced by the realist camp of thinking, people like Scowcroft and Powell, than the Neocons. It would seem to me that under Dubya's administration, the Neo Cons* were able to get the upper hand in foreign policy disputes.

When Paul Wolfowitz et al. pushed for the invasion of Iraq, just as we were sending in troops into Afghanistan, I think he was probably very much fulfilling a Neocon dream that goes back to the early or mid 1990s.

[BloodRider]

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Did the Trump campaign play Russia? Given the connections we already know about, and the more than zero probability that there was direct collusion between Russia and someone / people in the Trump campaign, was it strictly a marriage of convenience until the election from the perspective of the Trump campaign, even while the Russians may have been expecting something in return?

Played?  Maaaaaybe?  I don't think Putin specifically wanted to get Trump in office, just to discredit Clinton, and weaken NATO.  Trumps reaction seems to me to be merely of convenience.  He is treating Putin like a contractor who wants to get paid, but Trump wants to do other stuff with the money.  It's not that the plan was to bone Russia, but right now Russia is in the way.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

At that time, it would seem  that Bush I was more influenced by the realist camp of thinking, people like Scowcroft and Powell, than the Neocons. It would seem to me that under Dubya's administration, the Neo Cons* were able to get the upper hand in foreign policy disputes.

Yep.  Bush I approached the situation as a realist.  Dubya at once both wanted to avenge Saddam's attempts to kill his father and prove he was more enlightened, tougher, or whatever went on in his mind IRT to daddy issues by adopting the neocon's movement that ludicrously thought they could democratize the Middle East by force.  This clip of outgoing SecDef Cheney explaining why going in to Baghdad has always been one of my favorites.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, dmc515 said:

by adopting the neocon's movement that ludicrously thought they could democratize the Middle East by force.  This clip of outgoing SecDef Cheney explaining why going in to Baghdad has always been one of my favorites.

To Republican sorts of people that I know, I've often referred to Dubya as Karl Marx Dubya.

Why? Well, cause for one it annoyed them. And that in itself was a worthy goal. LOL.

But, it was to make the point of the entire irony of the situation: The Party that is always crying about Marxism or looking for a commie in their closet or underneath their bed, elected a guy that thought he could affect a big societal change, in a short period of time, through armed force. Now go figure that one.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Let's go slow:

Saddam's use of chemical weapons is a valid argument in support of regime change.

Saddam's use of chemical weapons is not a sufficient justification for regime change, let alone the requisite investment in American and Iraqi blood and treasure it took to do so.

The correctness of your first statement all depends on whether you mean it's a valid argument within the mind of the individual when they are pondering on whether Saddam deserved to stay in power in an abstract sense, or whether it's a valid argument in the context of international relations, UN resolutions, international law and carrying out an invasion.

Your original statement was that Saddam's chemical weapon use was the only legit argument Dubya had, which I assumed you meant as an argument to the US people, Congress and the UN to get agreement for invading Iraq, not merely his internal monologue. And in that context it was not a legitimate argument.

 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

12 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, possible the most asinine, amateurish assumption he's made to date. Which really also make me question his business acumen, as these types are also essential to any successful business.

It's quite telling, I think, that every venture of his, other than high stakes Flip My House and reality TV, failed.

[Mexal]

BBC's latest article on Trump/Russia. It seems the GCHQ started noticing contacts between Trump campaign and Russia in 2015 and numerous other countries contributed intelligence showing the same.

Quote

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.

The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.

And the kicker at the end.

Quote

One source suggested the official investigation was making progress. “They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” the source said. “This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material.”

 

[DMC]

59 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Your original statement was that Saddam's chemical weapon use was the only legit argument Dubya had, which I assumed you meant as an argument to the US people, Congress and the UN to get agreement for invading Iraq, not merely his internal monologue. And in that context it was not a legitimate argument.

You seem to be talking out of both sides.  My only point was the use of chemical weapons is a valid aspect for an argument towards regime change.  YOU are the one that conflated that with apparent justification for Dubya's actions, which I of course disagree with.

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

The Party that is always crying about Marxism or looking for a commie in their closet or underneath their bed, elected a guy that thought he could affect a big societal change, in a short period of time, through armed force. Now go figure that one.

Indeed.

[Zorral]

 

Quote

 

“Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.” Trump: “…it’s not what you would think.” http://on.wsj.com/2p9HEOP 

 

 

He sounds more like Idi Amin every time he opens his mouth and / or twits.  He also never sounds more intelligent or informed than a 4th grader with limited attention span.  Except, of course, even the three-year old children of our friends are more articulate and well-informed than he is.

And then there's chocolate cake!

https://twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/852135930831843329/video/1

 

[Fez]

Speaking of embarrassing, compare the readouts from the White House and the Chinese President's Office (not sure of its official name) of the call Trump and Xi had this week.

White House: 

Quote

President Donald J. Trump spoke last night President Xi Jinping of China to follow up after President Xi's visit to Mar-a-Lago. It was a very productive call.

China (as translated by CNN):

Quote

 

On the morning of April 12, President Xi Jinping talked to US President Donald Trump on the phone.

Xi emphasized: "I'm very happy to talk to Mr. President on the phone. Our recent meetings at Mar-a-Lago produced important results, which have been recognized by the Chinese people as well as the international community. I thank the president for your warm hospitality and detailed arrangements."

Xi said: "We held in-depth exchanges on China-US relations in a new era as well as major international and regional issues, and reached important consensus. Mr. President and I have deepened our mutual understanding and established a good working relationship. Next, both sides should utilize the four high-level dialogue mechanisms, namely diplomatic and security, comprehensive economic, law enforcement and cyber security, as well as social and people-to-people dialogues. We should use them to promote the implementation of the '100-Day Plan' as well as expanding exchanges and coordination between the militaries and on law enforcement, cyber issues and people-to-people exchanges. We should strengthen our communication and coordination on major international and regional issues. We should strive to produce results sooner to inject new energy in the development of bilateral ties, and work together to promote global peace and development. Teams from both sides should work closely to ensure a successful and fruitful visit by Mr. President to China later this year."

Trump said that he was very happy to host Xi at Mar-a-Lago in Florida and to have held a very successful US-China presidential summit there. He said it is very important for both presidents to keep close contact and agreed that both sides should work together to expand pragmatic cooperation in a wide range of areas. He said he looked forward to paying a state visit to China.

The two leaders exchanged views on issues of mutual concern including the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Xi emphasized: "China adheres to the goal of denuclearization of the peninsula and insists on preserving peace and stability on the peninsula. China advocates to resolve the issue through peaceful means, and is willing to maintain communication and coordination with the US on the Korean Peninsula issue."

On the Syria issue, Xi said: "Any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable." He said: "We should adhere to the direction of resolving the issue through political means. Maintaining unity within the UN Security Council is very important to resolve the Syria issue and I hope the UNSC will speak with one voice."

The two leaders agreed to keep close contact through various means.

 

The Chinese government is now the model of openness and transparency compared to the U.S. Presidency.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Why did neither releases mention the beautiful chocolate cake?

[Mexal]

And there are no readouts of Tillerson's meeting with Putin or in Russia at all. It's a shit show.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think in Neo Con circles there was always a desire for regime change in Iraq, even in the 1990s, before Dubya ever ran for President or let anyone know he wanted to be President. I believe after the first Gulf War, many of the Neo Cons were upset with Bush I over not going into Iraq and removing Saddam. At that time, it would seem  that Bush I was more influenced by the realist camp of thinking, people like Scowcroft and Powell, than the Neocons. It would seem to me that under Dubya's administration, the Neo Cons* were able to get the upper hand in foreign policy disputes.

When Paul Wolfowitz et al. pushed for the invasion of Iraq, just as we were sending in troops into Afghanistan, I think he was probably very much fulfilling a Neocon dream that goes back to the early or mid 1990s.

I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't exactly address my comment. I have no doubt that there was a desire for regime change, but that's not the same as a Presidential candidate having a pre-planned strategy for doing it and just waiting and hoping for a justification to execute it.