Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Vacamion

President Trump & the USA

By Vacamion, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Lionator

Lionator

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I'd guess Saudi or Mossad.

 

You just need to ask which nations have most to gain by setting the US attack dog on Iran.

That's probably the end game, that Saudi Arabia and Israel are the major forces in the Middle East, then America will basically own the Middle East. Who is the only country currently preventing that? Iran, who are supposedly propped up by Russia.

 

It's amazing how Iran only become an issue during Republican presidencies. Rouhani is their most moderate and wide reaching president since the revolution (it's still an awfully backwards country), building many diplomatic relations. Why would he suddenly throw all of that progress away and put his own people at risk? The answer, he wouldn't. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest SO1

Guest SO1

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, sm1 said:

Don't come across many Zerohedge readers here. Used to read a lot of their financial articles several years ago, but the site has changed in recent years. Still have some good stuff though. 

Have to sift through the Animal spirit garbage and the occasional Libertarian propaganda but good info can be found if your willing to take the time and do the thinking/reading.

 

I'm not a conservative what ever that means. Just give a shit about the planet and my fellow human beings. When I lost my business in 2006 I wanted to know what the hell is happening in this world(economics). I had the good fortune to find this https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/ and it was a good start to picking the puzzle apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest SO1

Guest SO1

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Moving away from Iran for a sec:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48628224

 

Of course, these blokes are obviously the most qualified folks to make this kind of decision...

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/us/flint-water-crisis-charges-dropped.html

 

Is it too much to expect that one day someone will answer from what happened in Flint?

One justice system for the Evil Rich and one for the rest of us. For profit prisons. Foreclosure fraud by the banks.

Tens of Trillions of dollars stolen from the citizenry to pay for the losses of the Evil Rich. This corrupt union will not stand.

Edited by SO1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Lionator said:

It's amazing how Iran only become an issue during Republican presidencies. Rouhani is their most moderate and wide reaching president since the revolution (it's still an awfully backwards country), building many diplomatic relations. Why would he suddenly throw all of that progress away and put his own people at risk? The answer, he wouldn't. 

Clinton enforced a total trade embargo with Iran and Obama had dronegate.

 

I think you are being a bit "Corbyn-ney" here with the outlook - it was the ayatollah who banned any talks with the USA last year, his choice. 

 

Also, Iran still openly wants to wipe Israel off the map, hardly progressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lionator

Lionator

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Clinton enforced a total trade embargo with Iran and Obama had dronegate.

 

I think you are being a bit "Corbyn-ney" here with the outlook - it was the ayatollah who banned any talks with the USA last year, his choice. 

 

Also, Iran still openly wants to wipe Israel off the map, hardly progressive.

It's not Corbyn-ney to think that going to war with an oil rich, developing country with a population of 81 million people is an appalling idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lionator said:

It's not Corbyn-ney to think that going to war with an oil rich, developing country with a population of 81 million people is an appalling idea.  

Slightly deflecting, @MattP's point was that it's not solely the Republicans who love themselves a good war with Iran.

 

This isn't politically motivated, that is not the major element, but predominantly a bloated fake affair created by the secret service and the military, who are in dire need of some action in order to justify their respective existence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Detroit Blues

Detroit Blues

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Slightly deflecting, @MattP's point was that it's not solely the Republicans who love themselves a good war with Iran.

 

This isn't politically motivated, that is not the major element, but predominantly a bloated fake affair created by the secret service and the military, who are in dire need of some action in order to justify their respective existence.

More of a military-industrial complex issue for sure, but don't discount the neo-conservative ideals of nation building (which was a big theme in Iraq). 

 

I am tired of the perpetual warfare. These politicians think they can use war for their own personal gain, and it costs our society trillions of tax dollars, and thousands of lives. 

 

My biggest fear is that Trump will find himself backed in a corner, and decide to use war in Iran as a way to boost his popularity. Labeling the tanker attacks as Iran's responsibility could be the first step towards that. The state department, prior to tanker attack issued a statement telling US citizens to leave Iran, so it seems to be tracking in that direction.

Edited by Detroit Blues
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Prussian

MC Prussian

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

More of a military-industrial complex issue for sure, but don't discount the neo-conservative ideals of nation building (which was a big theme in Iraq). 

 

I am tired of the perpetual warfare. These politicians think they can use war for their own personal gain, and it costs our society trillions of tax dollars, and thousands of lives. 

 

My biggest fear is that Trump will find himself backed in a corner, and decide to use war in Iran as a way to boost his popularity. Labeling the tanker attacks as Iran's responsibility could be the first step towards that. The state department, prior to tanker attack issued a statement telling US citizens to leave Iran, so it seems to be tracking in that direction.

If I remember correctly there were/are indicators of a similar intervention in Venezuela, but that seems to have calmed down a bit. Happy about that.

Too much scaremongering going on with regards to Maduro and his seemingly "oppressive" regime and the alleged shortage of food (which to some extent was a lie created by US military, secret service and the media).

 

I agree insofar as every additional war on this planet is a shameful symbol of how backwards some people still are, I do hope more crisis can be solved by peaceful means, eg. via negotiations and/or peace talks.

 

So far, the US military under Trump has done remarkably well in the sense that the amount of involvements in wars abroad appeared to have gone down quite a bit. May it continue.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

If I remember correctly there were/are indicators of a similar intervention in Venezuela, but that seems to have calmed down a bit. Happy about that.

Too much scaremongering going on with regards to Maduro and his seemingly "oppressive" regime and the alleged shortage of food (which to some extent was a lie created by US military, secret service and the media).

 

I agree insofar as every additional war on this planet is a shameful symbol of how backwards some people still are, I do hope more crisis can be solved by peaceful means, eg. via negotiations and/or peace talks.

 

So far, the US military under Trump has done remarkably well in the sense that the amount of involvements in wars abroad appeared to have gone down quite a bit. May it continue.

 

I'd agree. But I'd wait and see until closer to the next election to be sure that this administration, in the face of possible loss there, doesn't decide to do what DF suggests above. It's a well known technique, after all.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest SO1

Guest SO1

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

If I remember correctly there were/are indicators of a similar intervention in Venezuela, but that seems to have calmed down a bit. Happy about that.

Too much scaremongering going on with regards to Maduro and his seemingly "oppressive" regime and the alleged shortage of food (which to some extent was a lie created by US military, secret service and the media).

 

I agree insofar as every additional war on this planet is a shameful symbol of how backwards some people still are, I do hope more crisis can be solved by peaceful means, eg. via negotiations and/or peace talks.

 

So far, the US military under Trump has done remarkably well in the sense that the amount of involvements in wars abroad appeared to have gone down quite a bit. May it continue.

 

It was his campaign promise but I'm not holding my breath. Couldn't bring myself to vote for him again.

Correcting the wrongs done to my country and its citizens is a long game and very complicated. Tariffs and Immigration control are a good start to try and help the working people of my country. If only Labor Unions could stop selling out their members then maybe we could get moving in the right direction again. Living Wages for everyone.

Edited by SO1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

My biggest fear is that Trump will find himself backed in a corner, and decide to use war in Iran as a way to boost his popularity. Labeling the tanker attacks as Iran's responsibility could be the first step towards that. The state department, prior to tanker attack issued a statement telling US citizens to leave Iran, so it seems to be tracking in that direction.

I'd be surprised if he did that.

 

One of the assets of Trump's campaign was he wanted US troops at home rather than fighting away, I'd imagine many voted for him on that basis instead of Clinton who couldn't seem to wait to get into Syria and conflict with the Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'd be surprised if he did that.

 

One of the assets of Trump's campaign was he wanted US troops at home rather than fighting away, I'd imagine many voted for him on that basis instead of Clinton who couldn't seem to wait to get into Syria and conflict with the Russians.

As above, we'll see if he still whistles the same tune when the chips are down and he might lose next year...if indeed that situation arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest SO1

Guest SO1

Posted
Posted

A reminder of what the US media used to be before it became, for the most part, a CIA/government propaganda lap dog.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grebfromgrebland

Grebfromgrebland

Posted
Posted

Couldn't be America lying again to start a war could it?

 

Tanker owner contradicts US account of gulf attack

"The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object"

  •  
  •  
  •  
japantanker-1.jpg?w=525
Japan’s Kokuka Sangyo President Yutaka Katada (R) holds a press conference in Tokyo on June 13, 2019. – A methanol tanker came under fire in the Gulf of Oman on June 13 but all crew were saved after abandoning ship and its methanol cargo is intact, its Japanese operator Kokuka Sangyo shipping company said. (Photo by JIJI PRESS / JIJI PRESS / AFP) / Japan OUT (Photo credit should read JIJI PRESS/AFP/Getty Images)
PUBLISHED: June 14, 2019 at 10:23 am | UPDATED: June 14, 2019 at 10:23 am

By Simon Denyer | Washington Post

TOKYO – The owner of a Japanese tanker attacked in the Strait of Hormuz offered a different account Friday of the nature of the attack than that provided by the United States.

Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, said the Filipino crew of the Kokuka Courageous thought their vessel had been hit by flying objects rather than a mine.

“The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object. They say something came flying towards them, then there was an explosion, then there was a hole in the vessel,” he told reporters. “Then some crew witnessed a second shot.”

The United States said the vessel was attacked by limpet mines, and released a video that it said showed an Iranian vessel removing an unexploded mine from one of the ships.

But Katada offered an alternative version of how the events unfolded.

“To put a bomb on the side is not something we are thinking,” he said. “If it’s between an explosion and a penetrating bullet, I have a feeling it is a penetrating bullet. If it was an explosion, there would be damage in different places, but this is just an assumption or a guess.”

On Thursday, company officials said the vessel, which had been carrying methanol from Saudi Arabia to Singapore, had first been hit by what appeared to be an artillery shell toward the stern, causing a fire in the engine room which they had been able to extinguish.

Three hours later, the ship was again attacked on the same side in the center of the hull, at which point the captain felt it was no longer safe and ordered the crew to take to the life boats, officials said.

“When the shell hit, it was above the water surface by quite a lot,” Katada said Friday. “Because of that there is no doubt that it wasn’t a torpedo.”

The ship’s crew saw an Iranian military vessel in the vicinity Thursday night Japan time, Katada said, according to Reuters news agency.

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Build that wall

To be fair, it doesn't seem that this administration needs to spend the money on doing so - they're doing a perfectly inhumane job with what they have, if that report is correct.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...