Is He Right?

[FireFox]

Curious what you think on this...

Donald Trump urges America to block Saudi oil unless it takes on ISIL

Donald Trump has said he would consider a freeze on oil purchases from Saudi Arabia unless it committed to fighting ISIL in Syria.

The Republican frontrunner said the U.S. had suffered “tremendous monetary hits” in its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and that it was time for the Saudi kingdom to make a contribution. 

In the first real insight into his foreign policy views, Trump painted a picture of an America coming apart at the seams that can no longer afford to be the policeman of the world.

He accused everyone from Arab countries to NATO of “ripping off” the United States, by relying on the country for their security.

Trump also said the Brussels terror attacks showed that Europe was no longer a “safe place.” 

“We protect countries, and take tremendous monetary hits on protecting countries,” he told the New York Times. 

Singling out Saudi Arabia, he said the country “wouldn’t be around” had it not benefited from the “cloak of American protection.” To readdress the balance Saudi Arabia should deploy ground troops to fight Isil in Syria and Iraq, or “substantially reimburse” the United States. He went on to suggest America could force the kingdom’s hand by refusing to buys its oil. 

Trump rejected the notion that he holds an isolationist view, preferring to cast himself as “America first.”

 

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/donald-trump-urges-america-to-block-saudi-oil-unless-it-takes-on-isil?__lsa=26f6-6e44

[cp fa]

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/andrea-mitchell-rips-trumps-foreign-policy-scam-hes-uneducated-about-any-part-of-the-world/

[boestar]

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks that the US was not the instigator adn aggressor in all actions related to ISIL and other terrorist threats in the region is delusional.  This same scenario replays over and over again and now we begin the cycle again.

The US goes in and pisses someone off.  That group retaliates and gets out of control.  The US trains other groups in the region and supplies them with weapons.  That group overthrows the firs group and takes the power for itself.  They then grow to be a threat to the region so the US trains others to fight back and ...well you get the idea.

We are now entering the Train the next group stage.  And the cycle will continue.  The entire issue is one of the US design.

 

[cp fa]

If Trump is right about anything to do with foreign policy, it's purely by accident.  This is the Wall Street Journal interview referred to in the link I posted above.  It is a long, rambling read, and it reminded me of the 1979 Peter Sellers movie, Being There, about a simple minded gardener who rises up in Washington society, and actually gives the president economic advice because someone mistook him for a genius.  

Think Sarah Palin with a combover.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/

[Mitch Cronin]

"I like to watch." 

[mrlupin]

6 hours ago, FireFox said:

Curious what you think on this...

Donald Trump has said he would consider a freeze on oil purchases from Saudi Arabia unless it committed to fighting ISIL in Syria.

 

That's not even story material... it's just headline grabbing. Trump panders to emotions and does it well. He needs these sort of headlines to remain at the forefront of the media coverage.

I am thinking I might consider building a ladder all the way to the moon tomorrow...  (see how empty the statement is..) Writing an article on such empty words just fill headlines and appeals to the people who see ISIL as the problem and aren't prone to looking for a deeper explanation.

The Washington Post published an interesting opinion on the process used by Trump. It's written by Scott Adams, author of Dilbert.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/

[Moon The Loon]

Listen to this, then make up your own mind(s):

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-march-28-2016-1.3509244/inside-america-s-intelligence-with-ex-cia-and-nsa-director-michael-hayden-1.3509277

Accused of committing crimes against the Geneva Convention?

The POTUS???

That then leads to this:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/against-intolerance-1.3494557/parker-palmer-warns-trump-s-antics-eerily-similar-to-pre-nazi-germany-1.3494575

I'm trying to determine if hollow point or full metal jacket fills the bill...

 

just kidding....

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Moon The Loon said:

Listen to this, then make up your own mind(s):

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-march-28-2016-1.3509244/inside-america-s-intelligence-with-ex-cia-and-nsa-director-michael-hayden-1.3509277

Accused of committing crimes against the Geneva Convention?

The POTUS???

That then leads to this:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/against-intolerance-1.3494557/parker-palmer-warns-trump-s-antics-eerily-similar-to-pre-nazi-germany-1.3494575

I'm trying to determine if hollow point or full metal jacket fills the bill...

 

just kidding....

regarding the C BC piece, not surprising as they have ever been funded as the voice of those who ignore reality. Re the POTUS there are things in an outright war that must be done...

[dagger]

Do you think the Saudis care? Oil is a global business and it can sell its oil to Europe, Japan, China, etc and displace Russian or Nigerian oil. The Americans will then buy more Russian or Nigerian or Canadian oil and that's that, unless Trump were to decide to boycott Russian oil.

 

But I found this story on oil a lot more interesting.

 

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/induced-earthquakes-raise-chances-of-damaging-shaking-in-2016/

[Seeker]

11 hours ago, dagger said:

Do you think the Saudis care? Oil is a global business and it can sell its oil to Europe, Japan, China, etc and displace Russian or Nigerian oil. The Americans will then buy more Russian or Nigerian or Canadian oil and that's that, unless Trump were to decide to boycott Russian oil.

This is so true.  On a very superficial level it appeals to those who really have no understanding of a global market - "we don't like what you did/do so we're not going to buy your product."  Of course it makes no difference in the end for the reasons you mention. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, seeker said:

This is so true.  On a very superficial level it appeals to those who really have no understanding of a global market - "we don't like what you did/do so we're not going to buy your product."  Of course it makes no difference in the end for the reasons you mention. 

Quite right it makes no difference to the supplier but morally it is the right thing to do while at the same time supporting our own Oil Industry.

[Seeker]

9 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Quite right it makes no difference to the supplier but morally it is the right thing to do while at the same time supporting our own Oil Industry.

Hah!  That's funny - trying to bring morals into the oil industry.

[Guest]

Just now, seeker said:

Hah!  That's funny - trying to bring morals into the oil industry.

A little like trying to bring morals into politics....................................

 

[Moon The Loon]

Back to the question: SA could care less if America boycotted their oil. What the question SHOULD be is What Is The Donald Smoking?

Violate the Genva Convention (listen to http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-march-28-2016-1.3509244/inside-america-s-intelligence-with-ex-cia-and-nsa-director-michael-hayden-1.3509277 ), nuture hate for Islam, nurture hate for Mexicans, nurture hate for dissenters of His opinions, advocate violence to defend His opinions?

[DEFCON]

Donald Trump is crude, rude, a god awful communicator in general and about as unpolished a candidate as we've ever seen, but it should be remembered that he doesn't fit the model of leadership we've come to expect; he is not a fast talking lawyer come to be politician.

Has anyone pursuing the anti-Trump agenda stopped to notice and acknowledge the fact that Trump has been the only candidate of both stripes to have the guts to stand against the PC norm, distinguish the difficult issues that are important to the future of America and advance viable, albeit discomforting plans to remedy those deficiencies?

Every other Presidential wannabe first followed the PC approach to electioneering and scoffed at Trump for boldly raising the various contentious issues that everyone now acknowledges as high priority. How then can the people interpret capitulation, or the flip flop and adoption of these items within the oppositions respective campaigns, not to mention their growing advocacy in favour of one version, or another of Trump's approaches to rectification as anything less than proof the other candidates either lack, or are absent of foresight, character and or ability?

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny, but I watched Democratic front runner Hilary Clinton's latest response to 'Islamic terrorism', a phrase she's unable to utter, the other night. After blasting Trump her best advice to protect America; "we need to reach out to the Muslim community".

HUH??? Would it be unreasonable to follow up with an obvious question that is desperately in search of an answer; 'have we not been reaching out to the Muslim community since 911 Hilary? I'm sorry, but the woman either doesn't have a clue, or she panders to a public she believes to be intellectually incompetent?

I watched the CNN 'GOP Town Hall' event last evening. Following, CNN interviewed a woman that claimed to have been a Trump supporter, but was now wavering as she thought Donald was big on rhetoric and short on substance.

While there may be several reasons for Trump's coming up short on substance, it was important to note I thought that the interviewee came away believing the other two candidates had provided plans of some sort in response to questions posed by Cooper and members of the audience. The reality was somewhat different though as neither Cruz nor Kasich offered anything more substantial in reply than Trump, but they both were a whole lot smoother in responding.

The differences; Cruz consistently evades addressing difficult subject matter through the skilful use of verbal diarrhea, an acquired skillset, which is intended to confuse and obfuscate an answer, but still leave the unwitting audience with a false sense of satisfaction at the same time. Kasich dodges answering by boring the public into a daydream state in true political style as he steers the audience away from the question and turns their attention back to another rehashing of his CV. For Trump's part, I think his weak speaking skills conspire against him and any attempt to be political and tip-toe through the landmines confounds any hope of a smooth message delivery.

[boestar]

There is a distinct difference between dropping the "PC Norm" and outright lying and spreading hate and propaganda.  Trump is the latter.

as for reaching out to the muslim community since 9/11.. The only reaching out has been hatred, assault, and outright bombing of the wrong bloody country.  The "Muslim Community" as a whole was not responsible for 9/11.  A few extremists were responsible not the Muslim community.

You seem to have a particular bent against muslims in many of your posts and it sounds like you may well be a supporter of Trump.

Keep in mind that ISIL is NOT a religious group at all but a political group hiding behind a religion.  Propaganda would have you believe that this is not the case.  I am just getting sick and tired of hearing that muslims are bad when this is simply just not the case at all.  in fact I am willing to bet there are far more Christian Terrorists in the world than there are Muslim ones.  I fear Christians more than muslims because their track record already speaks for itself.

 

[mo32a]

5 minutes ago, boestar said:

Quote

You seem to have a particular bent against muslims in many of your posts and it sounds like you may well be a supporter of Trump.

 

You make that sound like anyone who supports Trump is one very small step from being a Hitler fan.

There are some very intelligent, capable, non-racist, folks who are Trump supporters, just because you don't agree with what he says or does doesn't give you the moral superiority you think it does. You could just be wrong, and in the eyes of many you are.

 

 

[Guest]

boestar: the following site does support what you have said about Terrorists in General vs those who are Muslims but you are as wrong as Defcon when you isolate a certain religion for blame.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619  There are a very few groups, at present, using their religion as an excuse (none Christian), the majority (butchers) are driven more by greed.

[DEFCON]

Boestar

I don't hate anybody; that's a classification reserved for use by people that would kill or maim others in the name of their god.

I would like to believe I have a healthy respect for dangerous circumstances, which I tend to avoid where possible, like planning a summer vacation in Europe.

Fear is the descriptor, or emotion that first arises when I consider the heavy tribulations that are beginning and yet to come to act against the continuity of Europe as the Islamic invasion marches on. At some point in the very near future, the situation over there will deteriorate sufficiently enough to cause a wave of sober second thinking to overtake & overwhelm the sensibilities of the normally politically correct North American populace. When this time does come, call it the moment of truth, we'll be entering a downright dangerous period in our own existence where civility may well give way to panic and result in a very poor outcome for all thereafter.

Fareed Zakaria, a self described non-practicing moderate Muslim got into it with Bill Maher over Islamic issues fairly recently. Zakaria's defence of Islam turned into something uncharacteristic of him and was far more aggressive a reaction than you'd expect from a so-called moderate. Only the intervention of a quick thinking guest averted a complete meltdown.

I wouldn't suggest that 'all' Muslim people are bad Boestar, but I do feel safe in my understanding of history's conclusive lesson; for whatever the reason, Islam is not capable of peaceful coexistence with people that hold to other cultural values and or are of a different religious persuasion. On this point there is no room to wiggle.

Borders have been drawn, maintained and defended with blood since the beginning of time and as countless cultures have learned the hard way, fences make for good neighbours. The multicultural approach Trudeau senior brought to the world may actually have worked but for the inclusion of one group that indoctrinates its followers with the belief that they are the chosen ones and incessantly pushes an agenda that would see us, the infidels, subjected to a sharp edge, a decree that is more literal than figurative in practice.

You may also notice that I do not engage in comparing the religious barbarities attributed to any of the faiths. In my mind, monotheistic dogma takes us from claims that supernatural beings determined the rules necessary to guide anyone & everyone in search of salvation to the crazy zealots of every stripe that perpetuate the tenets of a given cult as if their belief system was irrefutable.

As it stands, it's Islam, not Christianity, or Judaism that is the focus of my concern at present simply because it's in my face every day anymore. Without mercy, Islam continues as it has for almost two thousand years now in its bid to literally and physically force itself upon any or all that come into its sights and dominate. I have no difficulty acknowledging that Christians have been known to commit bad deeds individually and once in a blue moon as some form of collective too however, it's really tough to enter into any debate that begins with an argument comparing the good, the bad, or the ugly of one cult, or another when in my view, they are all unjust and their histories chalk full of atrocities leaders and practitioners of a given faith alike have committed against their fellow man in the name of their god.

I am truly and respectfully at a loss when it comes to appreciating the motivation that drives the opinions of people such as yourself in respect of these matters Boestar?

[Wolfhunter]

The information (in the link) compares religion, race and political affiliation in such a way as to be statistically meaningless (at least to me). It’s a bit like the “you are more likely to die in a collision with a moose” argument. Or, 99% of this, that or the other thing is great… As if 1% is somehow statistically insignificant. What if 1% of pilots deliberately flew into the ground. Or 1% of Doctors… OK, you get the idea. I recall a math student providing a convincing statistical argument that investment in road construction reduces gun violence.

 

Most people equate religion with church on Sunday, a few BBQs over the summer and bingo. Islam is more than that and frankly, to most people (especially western converts), that’s part of its appeal. It is a way of life, a political agenda, a movement and it has its own laws. Moderate Muslims are very likely less moderate and less accepting of such things as free speech than many people think. Perhaps someone would like post a picture of the prophet and sign their name to it.  

 

I think we are close to being where Europe was 10 years (or so) ago.  Open sources suggest that some 200 Canadians are currently fighting with ISIS. At some point, I’m guessing these guys will come home and counter terrorism is a resource vampire. Anyone care to guess how many folks it takes to monitor one person of interest?

 

Anyway, I tend to separate Muslims and Islam… I’m not sure that makes sense, but it works for me. I don’t have too many beefs with Muslims but I’m getting worried about Islam.

[Guest]

wolfhunter, you say

Quote

The information (in the link) compares religion, race and political affiliation in such a way as to be statistically meaningless (at least to me). It’s a bit like the “you are more likely to die in a collision with a moose” argument. Or, 99% of this, that or the other thing is great… As if 1% is somehow statistically insignificant. What if 1% of pilots deliberately flew into the ground. Or 1% of Doctors… OK, you get the idea. I recall a math student providing a convincing statistical argument that investment in road construction reduces gun violence.

The information is presented in what would seem to be an acceptable fashion, at least to me .  The only fact that I guess we can agree upon is that there is only one faction at this time claiming to do what they do in the name of a specific religion. I know for a fact, using but one group, from the pie chart, as an example,  that the Latinos shown in the chart do not call out "God is great" when going about their various misdeeds. 

They also commit atrocities but seem to be mostly motivated by $$$$$$$$ rather than religion.

[DEFCON]

17 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Anyone care to guess how many folks it takes to monitor one person of interest?

If I recall, the French require 21 watchers per possible jihadist and they have hundreds. 

 

 

[Wolfhunter]

21 hours ago, Malcolm said:

 

The information is presented in what would seem to be an acceptable fashion, at least to me, and takes away your position re "Christians" .  

I have no “position” re christians. I would just note that including political persuasion, ethnicity, and religion in the same graph (with such an extended time line) might not tell the whole storey. Try a 2 year time line and religion only… Latino doesn’t count. That graph will look a bit different. All too often I find that statistics are used in the context of an agenda and the parameters adjusted to suit individual needs.

 

Jihadists, be they suicide bombers or what ever,  are force multipliers and I would again urge caution with the notion that 1% or .5% is somehow statistically insignificant. Suicidal pilots, in this context, are also force multipliers and that’s why I used them as an example. All I’m suggesting is that people think about this stuff sans PC attitude and look more than one 4 year mandate into the future.  

 

DEFCON - right you are, it increases if things like electronic surveillance are required. I’m wondering if the resources are, or will be there and at what cost.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

I have no “position” re christians. I would just note that including political persuasion, ethnicity, and religion in the same graph (with such an extended time line) might not tell the whole storey. Try a 2 year time line and religion only… Latino doesn’t count. That graph will look a bit different. All too often I find that statistics are used in the context of an agenda and the parameters adjusted to suit individual needs.

 

Jihadists, be they suicide bombers or what ever,  are force multipliers and I would again urge caution with the notion that 1% or .5% is somehow statistically insignificant. Suicidal pilots, in this context, are also force multipliers and that’s why I used them as an example. All I’m suggesting is that people think about this stuff sans PC attitude and look more than one 4 year mandate into the future.  

 

DEFCON - right you are, it increases if things like electronic surveillance are required. I’m wondering if the resources are, or will be there and at what cost.

Sorry it was boestar who made the remark about Christians.  so I edited my reply to you.

 

[DEFCON]

I can see the pc future now; staggering numbers of secondary school grads will take up careers which will see them expend their productive lives watching potential Islamic jihadists live theirs.

Didn't France recently claim that 1500 Islamists had left the Country to join ISIS and over 300 of the 'hardened murderous jihadists', my term, have returned? Is it fair to ask why a responsible government would allow these creeps to return at all, never mind to run free and spread their filth?