Trump takes a calculated risk

[cassowary]

You don’t like to admit a US victory.

I don't mind as long as their is a victory to acknowledge. There is not one here.

You are a hard core leftist who reflexively root for whoever opposes the US. I Guess this knee jerk reaction began during the Cold War when the hard left was rooting for the USSR.

[neverfail]

You are a hard core leftist who reflexively root for whoever opposes the US. I Guess this knee jerk reaction began during the Cold War when the hard left was rooting for the USSR.

Go on Cass: shoot the messenger when you do not like the message.

[cassowary]

You are a hard core leftist who reflexively root for whoever opposes the US. I Guess this knee jerk reaction began during the Cold War when the hard left was rooting for the USSR.

Go on Cass: shoot the messenger when you do not like the message.

You are right that I should not shoot the messenger and I usually don’t. But in this case I thought that Soleimani’s meeting with his 72 virgins is a clear cut win for the US and Trump. Yet you tried to spin it as a Iranian triumph.

Their obvious intention to avoid US death in the retaliation is seen by you as a sign of Iranian decency and not weakness.

Only a very biased mind believes that.

[cassowary]

I Know many from the left. Some like my friend, Neverfail are intelligent and knowledgeable. So it puzzles me that they end up on the side of the worst dictatorships against the US.

I think I know the answer. The left has their heads in the clouds while those on the right have their feet’s firmly grounded on reality.

For me it’s simple. I ask myself where I would rather be and let my feet decide. In the case of the US and Iran, I ask myself, “if the US and Iran are the only two places in the world for me to live in, where would I go?”

The answer would determine the country I side with in this US-Iran conflict. The answer is obviously the US.

But the left does not let their feet decide. Instead they let their heads. Unfortunately their heads are in cloud cuckoo land.

They find socialism appealing because they want the state to take care of them. During the Cold War, the USSR championed their unrealistic dreams, which I suspect stemmed from childhood memories of parental care that they now miss.

They knew the US opposed their infantile dreams and so was on the side of the USSR despite the millions that died in the gulags.

Today, the Cold War may be over. But the left has not forgiven the US for winning. So they end up siding with the enemies of the US even though these are the world’s worst dictatorships. They side with islamaniacs like Iran, fatty Kim , Putin and Xi etc.

Your heads are up in the clouds.

[dagbay]

I Know many from the left. Some like my friend, Neverfail are intelligent and knowledgeable. So it puzzles me that they end up on the side of the worst dictatorships against the US.

I think I know the answer. The left has their heads in the clouds while those on the right have their feet’s firmly grounded on reality.

For me it’s simple. I ask myself where I would rather be and let my feet decide. In the case of the US and Iran, I ask myself, “if the US and Iran are the only two places in the world for me to live in, where would I go?”

The answer would determine the country I side with in this US-Iran conflict. The answer is obviously the US.

But the left does not let their feet decide. Instead they let their heads. Unfortunately their heads are in cloud cuckoo land.

They find socialism appealing because they want the state to take care of them. During the Cold War, the USSR championed their unrealistic dreams, which I suspect stemmed from childhood memories of parental care that they now miss.

They knew the US opposed their infantile dreams and so was on the side of the USSR despite the millions that died in the gulags.

Today, the Cold War may be over. But the left has not forgiven the US for winning. So they end up siding with the enemies of the US even though these are the world’s worst dictatorships. They side with islamaniacs like Iran, fatty Kim , Putin and Xi etc.

Your heads are up in the clouds.

We agree on that one Neverfail, the US plays the game as well and is willing to see many people suffering as a result as "the end justifies the means".

[neverfail]

We agree on that one Neverfail, the US plays the game as well and is willing to see many people suffering as a result as "the end justifies the means".

Thank you for that understanding Dagbay. That is exactly the message that I have been trying to get across to our romantics of the radical right.

[neverfail]

Is Trump willing to risk war with Iran to cling to office?

The apparent origins of the Iran crisis in the impeachment trial underscore a fundamental maxim of the Trump administration: Trump first. Safeguarding his political power has become a more important agenda item than anything else more important than international alliances, more important than democratic processes, more important than regional stability. We knew Trump was willing to risk election security to stay in office. Now we know he’s willing to risk war, too.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-amer ... 53qrl.html

I for one would not put it past him. If the Trump presidency fiasco should open the eyes of Americans to one thing is is that their current system of government leaves their executive wing of government far too unaccountable for its actions.

[dagbay]

A good summary of the middle east power structure with a recommendation for a long term strategy for the west which is worthy of a debate. (See significant objections raised in the comments)https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/t ... d-to-know/

[Milo]

A good summary of the middle east power structure with a recommendation for a long term strategy for the west which is worthy of a debate. (See significant objections raised in the comments)https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/t ... d-to-know/

I would sum it up as, 'it isn't working so keep doing it'.

The problem is engaging with Islam at all, when engaged, Islam parasitically attaches itself and degrades the other culture. Islam has seldom conquered a territory that anyone else wanted, its empire mostly consisted of backwaters and desert.

IOW, Islam's greatest strength is as a parasite.

The more we engage Islam, even through 'surgical strikes', the more we empower it.

The big factual mistake is where it says, "their oil money buys military equipment that they are not shy about using on others". Depends who the "others" and "their" are but many would think of Muslim states making war on other Muslim states. When it comes to Muslims slaughtering their own population there is no shyness but when it comes to war between states, Muslims are blushing maidens. When wars have come about in the ME, they are initiated by statest regimes, such as Hussain's Iraq. Again, Islam creates a mindset that is venal and cowardly. Think of all the vicious rhetoric from the ME and compare it to any action. The Palestinians lob rockets, constantly spew xenophobic venom and then cower behind human shields when Israel does something about it. IS, folded every time they actually met an actual army. The more Islamic a region becomes, the less danger it is to others but the greater danger it is to itself.

When one looks at the Islamic 'golden age' one sees this too. An almost perfect correlation between the size of the Muslim population and how civilized and advanced the society is. The Muslim golden age began with societies where Muslims were the minority and as more of the population converted, it went downhill.

The article recognizes this I think but can't bring itself to say what many say or imply in the comments: Islam should be quarantined like the disease it is. No contact. Not because Islam is aggressive, in the sense of deeds, but because it is NOT.

The only long term solution to Islam is alternative energy and energy efficiency. Without the hydrocarbon revenues, Islam will collapse; individual Muslims will learn from the collapse or go down with it. That would be my recommendation.

[dagbay]

A good summary of the middle east power structure with a recommendation for a long term strategy for the west which is worthy of a debate. (See significant objections raised in the comments)https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/t ... d-to-know/

I would sum it up as, 'it isn't working so keep doing it'.

The problem is engaging with Islam at all, when engaged, Islam parasitically attaches itself and degrades the other culture. Islam has seldom conquered a territory that anyone else wanted, its empire mostly consisted of backwaters and desert.

IOW, Islam's greatest strength is as a parasite.

The more we engage Islam, even through 'surgical strikes', the more we empower it.

The big factual mistake is where it says, "their oil money buys military equipment that they are not shy about using on others". Depends who the "others" and "their" are but many would think of Muslim states making war on other Muslim states. When it comes to Muslims slaughtering their own population there is no shyness but when it comes to war between states, Muslims are blushing maidens. When wars have come about in the ME, they are initiated by statest regimes, such as Hussain's Iraq. Again, Islam creates a mindset that is venal and cowardly. Think of all the vicious rhetoric from the ME and compare it to any action. The Palestinians lob rockets, constantly spew xenophobic venom and then cower behind human shields when Israel does something about it. IS, folded every time they actually met an actual army. The more Islamic a region becomes, the less danger it is to others but the greater danger it is to itself.

When one looks at the Islamic 'golden age' one sees this too. An almost perfect correlation between the size of the Muslim population and how civilized and advanced the society is. The Muslim golden age began with societies where Muslims were the minority and as more of the population converted, it went downhill.

The article recognizes this I think but can't bring itself to say what many say or imply in the comments: Islam should be quarantined like the disease it is. No contact. Not because Islam is aggressive, in the sense of deeds, but because it is NOT.

The only long term solution to Islam is alternative energy and energy efficiency. Without the hydrocarbon revenues, Islam will collapse; individual Muslims will learn from the collapse or go down with it. That would be my recommendation.

So you suggest isolating Islamic people. How would you deal with migration then. Remember that the EU welcomes it as did Obama's US while under Trump it's curtailed but still going.
Furthermore what should one do when they boarder with Islam? You may get to test your theory when the Muslim enclave in Spain asserts itself further.