Big Lies

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-25-2017, 03:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As Bush stated before the US invasion, he favored regime change in Iraq. The better way to go was not to violate international law and attack a sovereign state without reason. The Arab Spring would have happened 8 years later anyway. The people of Iraq would have risen up then and asked for our support. If the USA favored regime change in Iraq, that was the time-- not to invade, but to support the rebels as we did in Libya (without adequate follow-through), and like we should have done more about in Syria (whose people asked for our support) than we did. Without the prior Iraq invasion and its results, Americans might have been more willing to support the Arab Spring Revolution when it came.

As much as I liked the thought of the Arab Spring, and wish it could have taken hold, nonviolence isn't a good tool when the establishment doesn't respect human rights or human lives. Alas, autocratic tyrannies seem to require violence.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-25-2017, 11:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 03:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As Bush stated before the US invasion, he favored regime change in Iraq. The better way to go was not to violate international law and attack a sovereign state without reason. The Arab Spring would have happened 8 years later anyway. The people of Iraq would have risen up then and asked for our support. If the USA favored regime change in Iraq, that was the time-- not to invade, but to support the rebels as we did in Libya (without adequate follow-through), and like we should have done more about in Syria (whose people asked for our support) than we did. Without the prior Iraq invasion and its results, Americans might have been more willing to support the Arab Spring Revolution when it came.

As much as I liked the thought of the Arab Spring, and wish it could have taken hold, nonviolence isn't a good tool when the establishment doesn't respect human rights or human lives.  Alas, autocratic tyrannies seem to require violence.

I've been telling you guys that for years.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-26-2017, 03:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 11:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 03:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As Bush stated before the US invasion, he favored regime change in Iraq. The better way to go was not to violate international law and attack a sovereign state without reason. The Arab Spring would have happened 8 years later anyway. The people of Iraq would have risen up then and asked for our support. If the USA favored regime change in Iraq, that was the time-- not to invade, but to support the rebels as we did in Libya (without adequate follow-through), and like we should have done more about in Syria (whose people asked for our support) than we did. Without the prior Iraq invasion and its results, Americans might have been more willing to support the Arab Spring Revolution when it came.

As much as I liked the thought of the Arab Spring, and wish it could have taken hold, nonviolence isn't a good tool when the establishment doesn't respect human rights or human lives.  Alas, autocratic tyrannies seem to require violence.

I've been telling you guys that for years.

I'll stick by my statement anyways.  

[Eric the Green]

(02-25-2017, 11:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 03:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As Bush stated before the US invasion, he favored regime change in Iraq. The better way to go was not to violate international law and attack a sovereign state without reason. The Arab Spring would have happened 8 years later anyway. The people of Iraq would have risen up then and asked for our support. If the USA favored regime change in Iraq, that was the time-- not to invade, but to support the rebels as we did in Libya (without adequate follow-through), and like we should have done more about in Syria (whose people asked for our support) than we did. Without the prior Iraq invasion and its results, Americans might have been more willing to support the Arab Spring Revolution when it came.

As much as I liked the thought of the Arab Spring, and wish it could have taken hold, nonviolence isn't a good tool when the establishment doesn't respect human rights or human lives. Alas, autocratic tyrannies seem to require violence.

So it seems, to a great extent. So these Arab Spring movements became. My point, is that if we were to "support regime change," the time to do it was when we could support an indigenous movement by the people, not impose one upon them by an unnecessary and illegal invasion. One would have happened in Iraq too in 2011.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-26-2017, 07:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 11:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 03:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As Bush stated before the US invasion, he favored regime change in Iraq. The better way to go was not to violate international law and attack a sovereign state without reason. The Arab Spring would have happened 8 years later anyway. The people of Iraq would have risen up then and asked for our support. If the USA favored regime change in Iraq, that was the time-- not to invade, but to support the rebels as we did in Libya (without adequate follow-through), and like we should have done more about in Syria (whose people asked for our support) than we did. Without the prior Iraq invasion and its results, Americans might have been more willing to support the Arab Spring Revolution when it came.

As much as I liked the thought of the Arab Spring, and wish it could have taken hold, nonviolence isn't a good tool when the establishment doesn't respect human rights or human lives.  Alas, autocratic tyrannies seem to require violence.

So it seems, to a great extent. So these Arab Spring movements became. My point, is that if we were to "support regime change," the time to do it was when we could support an indigenous movement by the people, not impose one upon them by an unnecessary and illegal invasion. One would have happened in Iraq too in 2011.

I'm dubious about any indigenous movement developing while Saddam was in charge.  He was very good at keeping the indigenous in their place.

I am also dubious about the US jumping into indigenous rebellions in general, at least not without taking a very hard long objective look at Powell's Doctrine.  A lot of folks don't like the US.  If we go in, someone else might be tempted to go in as well.  It is the nature of insurgent conflict that it is easier to keep the unrest going than to achieve a victory that leads to peace and stability.  Sending in soldiers and explosives is not the kindest give one can give to the indigenous.  See Syria as an example of the mess that can result when foreign powers take an interest in an internal conflict.

[Eric the Green]

(02-27-2017, 07:35 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-26-2017, 07:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 11:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 03:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As Bush stated before the US invasion, he favored regime change in Iraq. The better way to go was not to violate international law and attack a sovereign state without reason. The Arab Spring would have happened 8 years later anyway. The people of Iraq would have risen up then and asked for our support. If the USA favored regime change in Iraq, that was the time-- not to invade, but to support the rebels as we did in Libya (without adequate follow-through), and like we should have done more about in Syria (whose people asked for our support) than we did. Without the prior Iraq invasion and its results, Americans might have been more willing to support the Arab Spring Revolution when it came.

As much as I liked the thought of the Arab Spring, and wish it could have taken hold, nonviolence isn't a good tool when the establishment doesn't respect human rights or human lives.  Alas, autocratic tyrannies seem to require violence.

So it seems, to a great extent. So these Arab Spring movements became. My point, is that if we were to "support regime change," the time to do it was when we could support an indigenous movement by the people, not impose one upon them by an unnecessary and illegal invasion. One would have happened in Iraq too in 2011.

I'm dubious about any indigenous movement developing while Saddam was in charge.  He was very good at keeping the indigenous in their place.

It was dubious; just as Syrians revolting against Assad was dubious. But at least if we had supported such movements, we would not be invading countries that posed no threat to us instead of what we did.

Quote:I am also dubious about the US jumping into indigenous rebellions in general, at least not without taking a very hard long objective look at Powell's Doctrine.  A lot of folks don't like the US.  If we go in, someone else might be tempted to go in as well.  It is the nature of insurgent conflict that it is easier to keep the unrest going than to achieve a victory that leads to peace and stability.  Sending in soldiers and explosives is not the kindest give one can give to the indigenous.  See Syria as an example of the mess that can result when foreign powers take an interest in an internal conflict.

See Syria as an example of the mess that can result if the USA doesn't take enough interest, and soon enough; arguably. And in this case, they don't like us as much because we didn't answer their call for help.

Again, when did I advocate sending in soldiers?

Changing what another person says is a favorite method of obscuring things.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-27-2017, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: See Syria as an example of the mess that can result if the USA doesn't take enough interest, and soon enough; arguably. And in this case, they don't like us as much because we didn't answer their call for help.

Again, when did I advocate sending in soldiers?

Changing what another person says is a favorite method of obscuring things.

What are you advocating, then. Really really hard wishful thinking?

[Eric the Green]

(03-01-2017, 01:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-27-2017, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: See Syria as an example of the mess that can result if the USA doesn't take enough interest, and soon enough; arguably. And in this case, they don't like us as much because we didn't answer their call for help.

Again, when did I advocate sending in soldiers?

Changing what another person says is a favorite method of obscuring things.

What are you advocating, then.  Really really hard wishful thinking?

You haven't been reading my posts since 2011?

The rebels needed financial support and arms, as they asked for. And training was needed too, and help with diplomatic efforts by the rebel government's representatives. Obama never sent enough; it was too little and way too late.

Sending troops was not what I advocated. But I'm saying if a president with Bush's mindset of doing so, had done it in 2011, it would have been more appropriate than invading a country that was no threat to us.

Of course, I'm not against wishful thinking either. Prayer does work (uh, see below....)

[Bob Butler 54]

From CNN, Without evidence, Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping him.

Not sure this one needs more embellishment at this point...

[Cynic Hero '86]

But remember Trump's suspicion of the establishment has justified roots. The establishment political class has been rigging elections routinely for the past half-century or so.

[David Horn]

(03-04-2017, 02:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: From CNN, Without evidence, Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping him.

Not sure this one needs more embellishment at this point...

This is Trump's parry to the Russian-hacking thrust of his aggregate opponents.  Even though it's nonsense, it's highly popular nonsense among his many minions: it's just Birtherism, 2017. 

Pass the popcorn.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-05-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-04-2017, 02:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: From CNN, Without evidence, Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping him.

Not sure this one needs more embellishment at this point...

This is Trump's parry to the Russian-hacking thrust of his aggregate opponents.  Even though it's nonsense, it's highly popular nonsense among his many minions: it's just Birtherism, 2017. 

Pass the popcorn.

Pretty much as I read it.  Thing is, when he deploys the obvious big lies, it just make me more dubious about everything else he says.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-01-2017, 02:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 01:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-27-2017, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: See Syria as an example of the mess that can result if the USA doesn't take enough interest, and soon enough; arguably. And in this case, they don't like us as much because we didn't answer their call for help.

Again, when did I advocate sending in soldiers?

Changing what another person says is a favorite method of obscuring things.

What are you advocating, then.  Really really hard wishful thinking?

You haven't been reading my posts since 2011?

The rebels needed financial support and arms, as they asked for. And training was needed too, and help with diplomatic efforts by the rebel government's representatives. Obama never sent enough; it was too little and way too late.

Sending troops was not what I advocated. But I'm saying if a president with Bush's mindset of doing so, had done it in 2011, it would have been more appropriate than invading a country that was no threat to us.

Of course, I'm not against wishful thinking either. Prayer does work  (uh, see below....)

1.   Eric,  yes, I've read ALL of your posts....
2. OK, I'm calling you you out here. Who , exactly are said, "Rebels". ?
3. Yes, Eric, I've read ALL your posts, wt "Rebels".
4."Rebels" are not all "good", OK ?
5. Obama was wise, not to do shit , wrt "Rebels".
6. The whole idea of supporting "Rebels", is of course, lame. If rebels = "some weird Islamic crap" , then US should not support, "rebels", because they support some sort of Islamic , Sharia.  OK?
7. You're support of  "prayer" is yur downfall. Prayers .... iin the support of Jihad, are always wrong. Western Civilization is not the problem. Sharia law, is what is wrong here, OK?
8.  And I say to you,  "the defense of the Mideast interest is all is a vice, while doing nothing is the defense of liberty, the sanity of doing nothing is a virtue, while shutting down military bases is a victory, is no sweat off our backs is a virtue.
9. This way [getting out of the Mideast] is the virtue. OK, so there is is Erid, do nothing, because the Mideast is a clusterfuck, just get out now, so we can win, yes, wi nEric d, I love to win, not lose stuff.  The Mideast is a shitty hand in poker, like getting dealth 7/2 offsuit. Yes 7/2/ offsuit, you will lose unless you fold, yes fold, OK!!!!!
So, let'\s consecrate to just fold, that shitty hand and leave the table, yes, leave the table, since the odds just flat out suck. Yes, Eric.  lock at the fucking hand and see if you'd play it out. Yes, play it out.  Do you really want to put extra money on a shitty hand?  I know I don't , cause Rags know that shitty hands do happen when playing Hold'em.  Yesk, Eric, think about the hand dealt, OK?   Look at what you get dealt, and see if you want to play that hand. Lot's of Hold'em hand are just worth a fold, because they totally suck , and you will lose.  Eric!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Think about which hands win given the odds, and not some odd sentimentality wrt assorted trash hands, OK?  Eric, you know you'll get dealt trash hands, and me, Rags thinks you need to fold those, or otherwise, you look silly playing junk.   OK, don't play junk Eric.
Of utmost service, Rags.


......... Rags ..... knows.... lots ..... of ..... hands.... to toss...............



*

[Marypoza]

We need to get off oil plain & simple. Yeah l know that's easier said than done, but l have also heard that stating the problem is 1/2 the battle

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-05-2017, 11:19 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.   Eric,  yes, I've read ALL of your posts....
2. OK, I'm calling you you out here. Who , exactly are said, "Rebels". ?
3. Yes, Eric, I've read ALL your posts, wt "Rebels".
4."Rebels" are not all "good", OK ?
5. Obama was wise, not to do shit , wrt "Rebels".
6. The whole idea of supporting "Rebels", is of course, lame. If rebels = "some weird Islamic crap" , then US should not support, "rebels", because they support some sort of Islamic , Sharia.  OK?
7. You're support of  "prayer" is yur downfall. Prayers .... iin the support of Jihad, are always wrong. Western Civilization is not the problem. Sharia law, is what is wrong here, OK?
8.  And I say to you,  "the defense of the Mideast interest is all is a vice, while doing nothing is the defense of liberty, the sanity of doing nothing is a virtue, while shutting down military bases is a victory, is no sweat off our backs is a virtue.
9. This way [getting out of the Mideast] is the virtue. OK, so there is is Erid, do nothing, because the Mideast is a clusterfuck, just get out now, so we can win, yes, wi nEric d, I love to win, not lose stuff.  The Mideast is a shitty hand in poker, like getting dealth 7/2 offsuit. Yes 7/2/ offsuit, you will lose unless you fold, yes fold, OK!!!!!

I'm sympathetic to all of the above.  I'd emphasize a few points.

The rebel factions that count for much have external patrons who wish to increase their influence in the area.  These would include Iran, Turkey and the embryo Kurdistan.  Russia would count too.  While there likely are pure innocent natives striving only to live free under their own traditions, if such folk aren't accepting 'help' from an external sponsor they aren't apt to be significant players.  The situation is better perceived as power play with several tribes / governments / religious factions attempting to expand influence and prevent the others from expanding influence.  As the sort of insurgent war being fought favors keeping one's faction alive over entirely suppressing all the other factions, the common dynamic is quagmire.

Western Civilization is part of the problem.  We are tempted to see the West's central virtues in democracy, human rights and a free economy.  The Middle East has seen Big Oil.  They have been victims of corporate cronyism, and view the west from that perspective.  To them, the Western virtues are Big Lies, promises spoken but never delivered on.  The problem is that Islamic religion promotes virtues that appeal to the locals more than corporate cronyism.  Given the history of the region, this is an entirely understandable choice.

Alas, the governments that result from embracing Islam tend towards Agricultural Age autocratic tyranny.  From a safe vantage point half a world away immersed in a culture centered on Enlightenment values, I can say the emphasis in Islam is a mistake.  It will prolong the instability typical of cultures transitioning from the Agricultural to the Industrial pattern.  Of course I feel the same way of the red cultures of Appalachia and the Rust Belt.  It is one thing to shake one's head in dismay at those committed powerfully and irrationally to the past.  It is another to convince a people immersed in older values that they someday eventually are going to have to catch up.

So, meanwhile, I'll ask Powell's Questions.  If there isn't a clear path to something clearly better, a path that includes bringing our forces home after the goal is achieved, that's a bad hand.  Fold.

Obama did try to train a local set of proxies.  He wanted a bunch of people willing to fight for American goals using American tactics.  The US had a big problem finding volunteers.  They had another big problem with people deserting as soon as they were trained and equipped.  (Thank you, America!  Good bye!)  The tiny force that remained was torn to pieces in its early engagements.  Obama anticipated failure, but bowed to the pressure from Eric like thinkers to at least try some sort of proxy war.  While in theory using local proxies to advance one's goals is a good idea, you need local proxies whose goals are aligned with one's own.  They are hard to find.  Turkey, Iran, Russia and Kurdistan find such proxies easier to recruit.  After his initial prototype proxy effort failed, Obama gave up on it.  I don't expect Trump will try to repeat the experiment.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-05-2017, 02:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-05-2017, 11:19 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: <snip my stuff>

Quote:I'm sympathetic to all of the above.  I'd emphasize a few points.

Thank you Bob.  That remark is not a smartass, sort of thing.

Quote:The rebel factions that count for much have external patrons who wish to increase their influence in the area.  These would include Iran, Turkey and the embryo Kurdistan.  Russia would count too.

I certainly agree. "Rebels" is not a singular, but an assortment of factions , which as you stated above have sponsors.

Quote: While there likely are pure innocent natives striving only to live free under their own traditions, if such folk aren't accepting 'help' from an external sponsor they aren't apt to be significant players.  The situation is better perceived as power play with several tribes / governments / religious factions attempting to expand influence and prevent the others from expanding influence.

I'd concur with the above.

Quote:  As the sort of insurgent war being fought favors keeping one's faction alive over entirely suppressing all the other factions, the common dynamic is quagmire.

Heh. Bingo, above.

Quote:Western Civilization is part of the problem.  We are tempted to see the West's central virtues in democracy, human rights and a free economy.  The Middle East has seen Big Oil.  They have been victims of corporate crony-ism, and view the west from that perspective.  To them, the Western virtues are Big Lies, promises spoken but never delivered on.

Yes, it is.  I've tried, but it seems to no avail to get Eric to see things, in  what appears to be our [Bob,Rags] POV. That is to state, for clarity for you, Bob,  is the folks in the Mideast don't want any form of US meddling there. For such is at the least hypocrisy. At the most, it's just another mundane attempt at control of oil resources there.

Quote: The problem is that Islamic religion promotes virtues that appeal to the locals more than corporate crony-ism.  Given the history of the region, this is an entirely understandable choice.

Well, given the larger picture where the US uses the trope of "humanitarian interventionism"/outright regime change, goes beyond the Mideast to say Latin America.  I dare say the US has a sordid past to reconcile with there as well.  Pinochet, Honduras, Iran-Contra, and the list continues onward. Chalmers Johnson is correct in stating that blow-back is the result of interventions in the internal affairs of assorted nation states. That is to say karma is real and does assert itself , even at the nation state level.

Quote:Alas, the governments that result from embracing Islam tend towards Agricultural Age autocratic tyranny.  From a safe vantage point half a world away immersed in a culture centered on Enlightenment values, I can say the emphasis in Islam is a mistake.  It will prolong the instability typical of cultures transitioning from the Agricultural to the Industrial pattern.

And , it for that reason I stand against accepting refugees in general from that region. I do know there are of course exceptions like Christian Arabs, and even quite moderate Islamic folks like the Kurds as well. Those exceptions , I can accept as refugees, since they won't upset the apple cart, so to speak.

Quote:  Of course I feel the same way of the red cultures of Appalachia and the Rust Belt.  It is one thing to shake one's head in dismay at those committed powerfully and irrationally to the past.  It is another to convince a people immersed in older values that they someday eventually are going to have to catch up.

I'd add the "old South", which usually includes Oklahoma. The meme of self reliance runs deep here indeed. There is a peculiar hostility to even state level provision of public services which to me is odd. An obvious example that one is just one car wreck away from bankruptcy is something that can't even penetrate that meme within my family even. Like you allude to often, values lock, runs deep.

Quote:So, meanwhile, I'll ask Powell's Questions.  If there isn't a clear path to something clearly better, a path that includes bringing our forces home after the goal is achieved, that's a bad hand.  Fold.

Yes....

Quote:Obama did try to train a local set of proxies.  He wanted a bunch of people willing to fight for American goals using American tactics.  The US had a big problem finding volunteers.  They had another big problem with people deserting as soon as they were trained and equipped.  (Thank you, America!  Good bye!)  The tiny force that remained was torn to pieces in its early engagements.  Obama anticipated failure, but bowed to the pressure from Eric like thinkers to at least try some sort of proxy war.  While in theory using local proxies to advance one's goals is a good idea, you need local proxies whose goals are aligned with one's own.  They are hard to find.  Turkey, Iran, Russia and Kurdistan find such proxies easier to recruit.  After his initial prototype proxy effort failed, Obama gave up on it.  I don't expect Trump will try to repeat the experiment.

Bob, another poker term,   pot equity.   Essentially, you have to have a hand that has some chance of winning the pot, before you proceed to continue on with the hand. The US has a lousy hand , with 0 pot equity , and thus should fold. Eric, why do you insist on playing lousy hands based on numerology or somesuch?

[bobc]

Yes, the big lie is that the "Russians" were responsible for the 2016 election.
Even the most extreme of the allegations are that "the Russians" were responsible for truthful emails of Hillary and associates being leaked to the public.
First of all, the main aggregator of those emails said it was an inside job, not the Russians who leaked it to him. Second of all several intelligence agencies saw the emails, since there was essentially no security. Third of all, the email server itself was illegal.

The main points, is that the public should only have seen the many lies of the Hillary campaign, and by seeing the truth, "the Russians" interfered with the expected and required outcome of the election.

[Eric the Green]

(03-05-2017, 06:30 PM)bobc Wrote: Yes, the big lie is that the "Russians" were responsible for the 2016 election.
Even the most extreme of the allegations are that "the Russians" were responsible for truthful emails of Hillary and associates being leaked to the public.
First of all, the main aggregator of those emails said it was an inside job, not the Russians who leaked it to him. Second of all several intelligence agencies saw the emails, since there was essentially no security. Third of all, the email server itself was illegal.

The main points, is that the public should only have seen the many lies of the Hillary campaign, and by seeing the truth, "the Russians" interfered with the expected and required outcome of the election.

There was no truth to those emails. They were snips taken out of context, distortions, and outright lies. The Russians and Trump supporters were the originators of "fake news," a slogan that the 1984 Drump has appropriated. Those who investigated leave no doubt that the Russians hacked Podesta's emails. To say otherwise at this point is right-wing propaganda and nothing more. There was nothing illegal going on with Hillary, and the only classified emails on her server were congratulations to African officials. What nonsense, compared to the rampant corruption of Trump and all his minions and appointees. Fact checkers proved that Hillary was one of the most honest candidates, and Trump by far the least honest. Trump does nothing but lie and scream. Those who supported him are responsible for putting a juvenile reactionary in charge of what was a viable democracy. Shame on you bobc for believing all these big lies.

[Eric the Green]

(03-05-2017, 11:19 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 02:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 01:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-27-2017, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: See Syria as an example of the mess that can result if the USA doesn't take enough interest, and soon enough; arguably. And in this case, they don't like us as much because we didn't answer their call for help.

Again, when did I advocate sending in soldiers?

Changing what another person says is a favorite method of obscuring things.

What are you advocating, then.  Really really hard wishful thinking?

You haven't been reading my posts since 2011?

The rebels needed financial support and arms, as they asked for. And training was needed too, and help with diplomatic efforts by the rebel government's representatives. Obama never sent enough; it was too little and way too late.

Sending troops was not what I advocated. But I'm saying if a president with Bush's mindset of doing so, had done it in 2011, it would have been more appropriate than invading a country that was no threat to us.

Of course, I'm not against wishful thinking either. Prayer does work  (uh, see below....)

1.   Eric,  yes, I've read ALL of your posts....
2. OK, I'm calling you you out here. Who , exactly are said, "Rebels". ?

If you have read my posts, you know all about the rebels and who they are.

Quote:3. Yes, Eric, I've read ALL your posts, wt "Rebels".
4."Rebels" are not all "good", OK ?
5. Obama was wise, not to do shit , wrt "Rebels".
6. The whole idea of supporting "Rebels", is of course, lame. If rebels = "some weird Islamic crap" , then US should not support, "rebels", because they support some sort of Islamic , Sharia.  OK?

Wrong. You know who the rebels are and I've told you a hundred times, No need to repeat ad infinitum.

Quote:7. You're support of  "prayer" is yur downfall. Prayers .... iin the support of Jihad, are always wrong. Western Civilization is not the problem. Sharia law, is what is wrong here, OK?

I don't know why you mention Sharia Law. Just shows you haven't read my posts. I make no prayers in support of Jihad; that's absurd.

Quote:8.  And I say to you,  "the defense of the Mideast interest is all is a vice, while doing nothing is the defense of liberty, the sanity of doing nothing is a virtue, while shutting down military bases is a victory, is no sweat off our backs is a virtue.
9. This way [getting out of the Mideast] is the virtue. OK, so there is is Eric, do nothing, because the Mideast is a clusterfuck, just get out now, so we can win, yes, win Eric, I love to win, not lose stuff.  The Mideast is a shitty hand in poker, like getting dealth 7/2 offsuit. Yes 7/2/ offsuit, you will lose unless you fold, yes fold, OK!!!!!

Heard it all before. Do you think Trump will do this? You can pray

Quote:So, let'\s consecrate to just fold, that shitty hand and leave the table, yes, leave the table, since the odds just flat out suck. Yes, Eric.  lock at the fucking hand and see if you'd play it out. Yes, play it out.  Do you really want to put extra money on a shitty hand?  I know I don't , cause Rags know that shitty hands do happen when playing Hold'em.  Yes, Eric, think about the hand dealt, OK?   Look at what you get dealt, and see if you want to play that hand. Lot's of Hold'em hand are just worth a fold, because they totally suck , and you will lose.  Eric!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Think about which hands win given the odds, and not some odd sentimentality wrt assorted trash hands, OK?  Eric, you know you'll get dealt trash hands, and me, Rags thinks you need to fold those, or otherwise, you look silly playing junk.   OK, don't play junk Eric.
Of utmost service, Rags.

......... Rags ..... knows.... lots ..... of ..... hands.... to toss...............

With Trump in office, the USA has no hand to play. It's not in our hands anymore. Yes, I've said that too; didn't you read my posts?

I guess you didn't watch this video I posted either?

Some people are just unable to face the fact that Americans are not the only people in the world who can commit war crimes.

[bobc]

(03-05-2017, 10:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There was no truth to those emails. They were snips taken out of context, distortions, and outright lies. The Russians and Trump supporters were the originators of "fake news," a slogan that the 1984 Drump has appropriated. Those who investigated leave no doubt that the Russians hacked Podesta's emails. To say otherwise at this point is right-wing propaganda and nothing more. There was nothing illegal going on with Hillary, and the only classified emails on her server were congratulations to African officials. What nonsense, compared to the rampant corruption of Trump and all his minions and appointees. Fact checkers proved that Hillary was one of the most honest candidates, and Trump by far the least honest. Trump does nothing but lie and scream. Those who supported him are responsible for putting a juvenile reactionary in charge of what was a viable democracy. Shame on you bobc for believing all these big lies.

The emails were true. Several Democratic party insiders resigned after specific information about them was released, including rigging the game against Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

There was only fake news saying Russia hacked the emails. The best information showed several parties got those emails with password as password, but that it was an insider, probably Seth Rich, who leaked it. He was later killed in a robbery where no money was taken.

The level of corruption under the Clintons was reaching incredible levels, and now, we the American people, have the chance to drain the swamp.

I'm assuming that you support "progressive" causes. How is corruption, the Clinton foundation bribery machine, mysterious deaths, support of trade agreements made in secret, dirty tricks against the progressive candidate in 2016, helping these causes.
The best way for you to, in the long run, help your causes, would be to support the sweeping away of corruption, shadow government of the intelligence agencies, secret trade deals, over expansion of Federal power, over regulation, dividing the US into hostile interest groups each opposed to each other.
Then, afterward honest debates between socialism versus free market, nationalism versus one worldism, etc., can occur again.

If you are the same Eric I remember in much earlier iterations of this board you were essentially a hippie that believed in spiritualism and ideals from the 1960's. Your current simplisitic assertions of truth and lies, good and evil, just don't do justice to the types of arguments you made 15 or 20 years ago.