President Trump Discussions- merged thread

[Donald H]

Israel does have historical ties to the region. Arabs are the new comers.

I think you must mean that Jewish people have historical ties to the region.
Because Israel belongs to Israelis and they are many different peoples, including Arabs. Although it's certainly true that the Arab population has been reduced to about 20% now.

http://representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html

Population of Palestine 1947 TOTAL 1,845,000


67% non-Jewish
( 1,237,000 )

33% Jewish
( 608,000 )

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Israel does have historical ties to the region. Arabs are the new comers.

Arabs having been living in the region since at least the mid- 9th century BCE, hardly "new comers."

 

[YZT580]

First of all, there is no such national group called Palestinians.  It is a political contrivance.  Secondly, all nations in the region were created at roughly the same time and given their boundaries by either France or England; except for Israel which was a product of the U.N. at Britain's behest.  Not a single people group agreed to the Jewish state in fact they immediately went on the warpath to eradicate it.  One reason for the reduced numbers of 'Palestinians' is that they all left so as to allow the neighbouring states free reign to eliminate the Jewish pestilence.  Didn't work out so well, they are still waiting for the final solution.  All in all, I would say that the Jews are entitled to the soil they control both historically and militarily yet they have been far more willing to negotiate than Hamas has been.  They have an earned reputation for being loyal to their friends and can be depended upon to keep their end of a bargain (although they can be extremely difficult at times and they can certainly tick you right off)

 

[YZT580]

Arabs having been living in the region since at least the mid- 9th century BCE, hardly "new comers."

Aryabs as in children of Abraham, yes but there was never a unified country called Lebanon, Jordan, or Syria.  There were city states and small fiefdoms all controlled by little kings and always at each others throats

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So much to disagree with, so little time. So I'm going to stay remotely on topic and limit my remarks to:

Yup on KSA getting some too, maybe? Nope on the rest.
If Iran is actually attempting to obtain it's own nuclear weapons then in my opinion it would have to be a defensive strategy. That's a long way from actually being established that they're even trying. For a few reasons:

There was no evidence found when the inspections were taking place.
It is claimed that Iran's Islamic regime won't tolerate Nuclear weapons on their soil
Nuclear weapons are a defensive strategy.
All signatories to the 5+1 except the US were content with the deal working.

Where is your evidence to show otherwise?

And maybe on KSA getting nukes too for a couple of reasons:

They don't need them, they have US protection.
Islam forbids them. Maybe?
Nuclear weapons are a defensive force strategy.

I cannot see any possibility of KSA and Iran flinging nukes at each other any more than seeing any possibility of NK flinging a nuke at the US. M.A.D. is my offer of evidence. That which you're suggesting is that all those countries that are demonized by the US are ruled by madmen who would commit suicide for either religious reasons or some insane ideological reason, is pure baloney.

There was also no way for the inspection teams to scour the country. Iran is quite large, much larger than Iraq. It would be easy to hide evidence. I agree that Iran's main purpose to acquire nukes is for defensive purposes. However there are enough 12th Imaners at the top who might see a nuclear war as a way to speed up the return of the 12th iman and since they will ascend to heaven and enjoy the fruits of their labours, they have less fear of death. KSA is in the same boat, with a enough Whabbists who might want to go out in a blaze of glory.
both of us are making assumptions, my main assumption is Iran is working to have a nuclear strike capability, how they use it or don't depends on how many nutbars are in charge. If Iran announces a nuclear capability, KSA will purchase it's own, likley from Pakistan. then it depends who hold power. The current rulers enjoy their wealth to much. I am hoping that the corrupt elements of the IRGC also like their creature comforts and will whack any of the real nutters, before they can get their hands onto power. When you look at the actions of the religious types in the Iran-Iraq war, a death in a holy cause is worthwhile and afterlife is better than current. So yes I do believe there are power elements on both sides who would use a nuke offensively. 

 

[Donald H]

There was also no way for the inspection teams to scour the country. Iran is quite large, much larger than Iraq. It would be easy to hide evidence. I agree that Iran's main purpose to acquire nukes is for defensive purposes. However there are enough 12th Imaners at the top who might see a nuclear war as a way to speed up the return of the 12th iman and since they will ascend to heaven and enjoy the fruits of their labours, they have less fear of death. KSA is in the same boat, with a enough Whabbists who might want to go out in a blaze of glory.
both of us are making assumptions, my main assumption is Iran is working to have a nuclear strike capability, how they use it or don't depends on how many nutbars are in charge. If Iran announces a nuclear capability, KSA will purchase it's own, likley from Pakistan. then it depends who hold power. The current rulers enjoy their wealth to much. I am hoping that the corrupt elements of the IRGC also like their creature comforts and will whack any of the real nutters, before they can get their hands onto power. When you look at the actions of the religious types in the Iran-Iraq war, a death in a holy cause is worthwhile and afterlife is better than current. So yes I do believe there are power elements on both sides who would use a nuke offensively.

So you're responding to what I've said! Does that mean you want me to reply to you after you've started to make a case against me taking part in the poiltics section?

If so you'll note that I stated some truthful facts on Israelis, Arabs, Jewish, Palestine, and Palestinians. Also note that I didn't take sides. I probably won't because it's a fruitless waste of my time.

 

[shawn5o]

Arabs having been living in the region since at least the mid- 9th century BCE, hardly "new comers."

Yeah, you're absolutely correct. However, they (Arabs) conquered territories including land claimed by israel. In effect, they are newcomers. archaeological evidence supports this.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So you're responding to what I've said! Does that mean you want me to reply to you after you've started to make a case against me taking part in the poiltics section?

A pattern manifests when posters come here solely to discuss politics.

 

[Donald H]

Iran is Trump's October surprise?
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/09/16/is-mike-pompeo-preparing-an-october-surprise/

A far out conspiracy theory or something to seriously look forward to? And would that blow Trump's chances for a peace prize?

speaking of peace prizes, not everybody is convinced that Trump's ME moves were in the name of peace!

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/09/15/israel-the-uae-bahrain-military-alliance-counter-iran/

Trump should probably get the benefit of the doubt for now, or at least until Iran does something naughty in late September or October.

 

[YZT580]

I wouldn't believe anything published by a 'thinktank' that is greatly sponsored by George Soros.  He put up a lot of the cash for Quincy which has only been in existence since last year.  Rather convenient for a left wing organisation with respect the election sked.  don't you think?  The press can conveniently quote another expert without attributing it.

 

[Donald H]

I wouldn't believe anything published by a 'thinktank' that is greatly sponsored by George Soros.  He put up a lot of the cash for Quincy which has only been in existence since last year.  Rather convenient for a left wing organisation with respect the election sked.  don't you think?  The press can conveniently quote another expert without attributing it.

I really don't consider a left "wing" even exists in America. There's nothing left of Bernie and he's not even as left as our Liberal party. Do you have anything specific to say otherwise?

In actuality, Americans imagine a commie under their beds and that's something they seem to be spoonfed right from the cradle.

:cheers:

 

[QV]

I'd like to start a thread discussing the conduct by DOJ/FBI/CIA leading up to and after the 2016 election.  I thought this poll would be a good way to kick this off. 

A lot has been declassified since 2016 and with the Durham investigation silently rolling in the background, I thought there could be some interesting discussion generated on this topic.   

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think the information is coming out to close to the election and with the impact of Covid, it will not dramatically change the equation. Without Covid and if the stuff coming out now , came out 3 months ago, I think Trump and the GOP could well use it for effect.

 

[Good2Golf]

Where are the choices for: 5) Undecided; or 6) I don’t have any interest whatever the outcome?

 

[Remius]

Well if we are comparing before and after....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=OsBOWSjOLsE

;D

 

[QV]

I think the information is coming out to close to the election and with the impact of Covid, it will not dramatically change the equation. Without Covid and if the stuff coming out now , came out 3 months ago, I think Trump and the GOP could well use it for effect.

It seems like this guy agrees with you.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/trump-declassifies-information-on-russia-investigations-but-it-may-be-too-late/


Allowing anyone, that would do what is alleged here, near the levers of power is crazy. 

Here is a summary https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/new-files-highlight-brennans-role-promoting-clintons-russia-collusion-narrative/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=most-popular&utm_term=second

Summary

To summarize what happened here, in late July 2016, at precisely the time our spy services learned that Russian intelligence was saying Hillary Clinton was scheming to blame the DNC hacking on a Trump-Russia conspiracy, the FBI formally opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation — on the theory that the Trump campaign may have conspired in Russia’s hacking of the DNC emails.

And in September 2016, around the time Brennan was nudging Reid to pressure Comey to aggressively investigate a possible Trump-Russia conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election, the CIA was formally providing the FBI with a memo outlining that Clinton (who was expected to be the next president) wanted Trump investigated for conspiring with Russian hackers to interfere in the 2016 election — which, conveniently, could distract the voters’ attention from her own email scandal. This was information the FBI already had but, according to Reid, was not acting on.

Within days of getting the CIA memo, the FBI began preparations to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a warrant to monitor Carter Page. After describing the July publication of DNC emails which it accused Russia of hacking, the bureau’s FISA warrant application stated: “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [Donald Trump’s] campaign.”

The CIA did not want the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton. The CIA — with the Obama White House and Reid in the loop — wanted the FBI to act on Hillary Clinton’s unfounded allegation that Donald Trump had conspired with Russia to hack the DNC. And the FBI willingly obliged. Because it had no actual evidence implicating Trump in Russia’s cyberespionage operations, the FBI had to rely on the Clinton campaign-sponsored Steele dossier, which either made up that allegation out of whole cloth or based it on disinformation from a “primary subsource” who, it turns out, the FBI suspected was a Russian asset.

Astonishing.

 

[Infanteer]

I'd like to start a thread discussing the conduct by DOJ/FBI/CIA leading up to and after the 2016 election.

Why?  Are there not enough threads on the U.S. Administration, on a forum dedicated to Canadian Military discussions?  :waiting:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Boot is, as usual, overwrought and constructs a strawman conspiracy by overstating and mixing together a bunch of issues.  Once again The Bulwark, home of frustrated neo-cons, sounds like a fever swamp.

The item du jour is a claim that Clinton personally approved a plan to generate some campaign dirt by tying Trump to Putin and the DNC hack.  The claim comes to us through the CIA but originates with Russian intelligence.  Whether the claim is true depends on believing two things: firstly that the Russian report is a truthful account rather than disinformation, and secondly that the analysis is correct.  In this, it closely resembles the Steele report (claims which might or might not be truthful, and if truthful might or might not be accurate, produced by people working at removes under ultimate direction of the Clinton campaign).  Undoubtedly there are people who will, for reasons known only to themselves, discard this new item as false while continuing to press the claims in Steele's work.  Some of them write for The Bulwark.

However, no-one has denied that key players were briefed in on the Russian report.  Either they believed it, or not.  If the latter, no foul.  If the former, very foul indeed.

Likewise, various important players were briefed in on Flynn, at a meeting during which Comey asserted Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was legitimate.  What was the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn, one is left to wonder.  But it happened nonetheless, and enough information has emerged to show that the investigators tried very hard to squeeze Flynn when they had no excuses to do so.

So, yes, at a couple of junctures, people on Boot's list were aware of underhanded things going on.

Secondarily, the Steele report at this point has no credibility.  It's not merely that the document was ridiculous at the time it first appeared - remember, reputable media agencies didn't want anything to do with it until they could excuse the salacious details they revealed with enthusiasm by referring to it after less reputable sources brought it to public notice.  The Steele report is, basically, "fabricated evidence".  And if Steele's primary sub-source is or was a member of a Russian intelligence agency, then a lot of people in and out of government skated very closely to "knew about it, welcomed it and lied about it" with respect to Russian interference.

Is it a grand conspiracy?  No, there is just a bunch of things that tempted people to behave discreditably.  Stacking it all together and making it sound like a ridiculous conspiracy is a tried and true way of discrediting criticisms that each individually have merit when some charlatan doesn't dress them up in a clown suit.  If people like Boot and Miller want to run that up a flagpole, fools are free to salute it.

IG Horowitz's report is another weak reed to grasp.  The methods of the IG are straightforward: he asks questions; people give answers.  In the absence of evidence which suggests the answers might be incomplete or false, the answers are accepted.  To find Horowitz's report useful requires first believing that people in potential jeopardy would not shrink from candour.  Durham's report has yet to emerge.  I suspect that the only indictment so far may ultimately be the only one.  But at least it will represent the findings of a proper investigation, not a summary of Q&A.

 

[QV]

Why?  Are there not enough threads on the U.S. Administration, on a forum dedicated to Canadian Military discussions?  :waiting:

Some people like to discuss these topics here for the insight from serving or retired CAF personnel. You don't have to participate or even read this thread.

 

[QV]

Should it be illegal for former officials to do these things? When you consider the impact on public trust and the impact this sort of thing has on an administration, should these people go to jail? How does this not change how you think about both the Trump and Obama administrations?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-russia-collusion-hall-of-shame/2019/03/28/306b5168-5173-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html

But the most sinister of all is John Brennan, who used his authority as former CIA director to suggest that Trump was a traitor and a compromised Russian asset. After Trump’s Helsinki summit, Brennan declared “he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.” When challenged by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” Brennan stood by his assessment. “I called [Trump’s] behavior treasonous, which is to betray one’s trust and aid and abet the enemy, and I stand very much by that claim.”

Now, Brennan feigns contrition. “I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” he said, adding, “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”