Trump, Bannon and the Coming Crisis

[anandrajan]

(11-28-2016, 02:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 04:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem with "Clinton meant war while Trump did not," is that Trump's foreign policy is far more dangerous. It is just as dangerous to leave the door open for a tyrant to invade; that's called appeasement. What makes it worse in Trump's case is that he is quick to turn on erstwhile allies. Any betrayal, and he attacks. That would happen if Putin perceives that it is allowed by Trump to attack a NATO country like Estonia, which harbors a large Russian population. If Putin did attack, Trump would cry betrayal and declare war. Trump's statements that more countries should have nuclear weapons, his advocacy of war crimes and his appointment of a war criminal as his advisor, and his promise to provide himself with more and bigger war toys, are just more of the dangers of the Trump presidency. Whereas Hillary was an experienced and talented diplomat who knows when to back off from a confrontation, without allowing tyrants' ambitions to run wild.

All I can do is hope the astrological cycle I discovered holds true, and the USA is not going out on another adventure until Jupiter returns to its place in our American horoscope again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoeW5fXJYU

It's not due until 2025-26.

If the cycle holds, then it didn't matter which one was elected. We are not going to war.

We just had the latest return as we went off to help in Syria, almost bombing it, and then to fight the IS in Iraq and Syria.

Cracks me up to see Dew and other latter day "Rightists" preaching appeasement. WTF ever happened to "peace through strength" and the bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression that we used to see from The Right? Heck, we even saw it from the likes of JFK!!!

Got any examples of "bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression" from the Cold War?  JFK pulled our IRBMs from Turkey to get the Soviets to pull theirs from Cuba; we got rolled back as much as them.  In Cuba it was obviously not the Soviets that got rolled back with Castro and the Bay of Pigs.  The Vietnam War obviously did not roll anything back.

But, whether it worked or not was not the essence of Mr. X's point, as I read it. It was that the right wing "preached" peace through strength constantly in those days, and Reagan built up the military at the cost of ballooning the debt. And the "Left" (if you can call it that) of JFK and LBJ went along with the right's program. I'd give credit to JFK for confronting Russia's build up in Cuba, even if it involved a quid pro quo. That's just good diplomacy. Trump's policy would be the equivalent of just letting Putin have missiles wherever he wants, rather than standing up to him. Hillary Clinton would have made tough negotiations like JFK did.

Quote:The closest thing to a rollback was our facilitating the quagmire that the Soviets got themselves into in Afghanistan, and even that did not involve direct confrontation between U.S. and Soviet troops the way Clinton threatened with Russia.  Reagan may have achieved strategic rollbacks, but was always very careful to avoid military confrontation, to the point of withdrawing in the case of Lebanon.

Quote:Yeah, after 242 marines were killed there on a mission with no purpose and no support.

Quote:"Peace through strength" requires both strength and the idea that peace is the goal.  Clinton's policies included neither; the policy of today's left - or at least the Democratic establishment - is closer to "war through weakness".

Hillary Clinton would have had a military 10 times stronger than any nation without Trump's expensive, useless proposed build-up. We would have had a competent diplomat who knows when to stand and when to back off. Now we have a loose cannon about to take charge who has no sense at all. It is truly scary what the people of the American heartland have done to the safety of the world, by voting for this nincompoop as leader of the free world. CEO, more properly called; he's the new CEO of the USA Inc., not a "president" and certainly not a competent CIC. And not even a competent CEO. What is your explanation, Dew, of why you and others made such a ghastly choice on Nov.8?

I'm new to this forum and I have to say that it's amazing to see actual exchanges between people with very different political views. This is a real strength especially when combined with a clear predictive vision (4T Crisis leading to next 1T High). In the brick and mortar world, I'm in an extremely liberal enclave and can't say anything anti-Hillary (or pro-Trump for that matter) which is pretty unhealthy IMHO.
Have y'all had discussions about how very different political views will have to be set aside in service of helping the US negotiate the Crisis (assuming it happens on schedule as is looking more and more likely)?