Understanding US thread-III

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10538
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby A_Gupta » 10 Jun 2017 22:14

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archiv ... ts/529920/
U.S. special forces have joined the Philippines military in a battle to push out Islamic terrorists who’ve seized a town in the south of the country. Three weeks ago two local extremist groups backed by ISIS, Maute and Abu Sayyaf, took Marawi City. Since then nearly 140 militants and 60 government troops have been killed the fighting, with the battle escalating in the past few days as government troops fight house-to-house. It’s illegal in the Philippines for foreign militaries to aid in actual combat, and on Saturday, military spokesman Colonel Jo-Ar Herrera said U.S. special forces were “just providing technical support.”

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12812
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Lalmohan » 10 Jun 2017 22:19

so the testimony was 'all lies' except for the bits which exonerate the great one...
wah wah!
baccheloge taliyan!

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3514
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby KLNMurthy » 11 Jun 2017 00:00

A_Gupta wrote:This is worth reading:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ht/529614/
Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office

In brief, Abrahamic exclusivism is always a problem.

You can't be an abrahamic without being a bigot and hater if you are going to take your doctrine to the logical conclusion. It seems then that the only way for non-abrahmics and abrahmics to co-exist is for both of them to engage in a kind of shared taqiya, pretending, and pretending to believe, that the doctrine is not what it is.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby UlanBatori » 11 Jun 2017 02:24

That article is far more dangerous than Goebbels' propaganda. At least Goebbels was direct in his blatant hate. This one seeks to equate a public official who discriminates against Americans based on religion (a direct violation of the Constitution) with a Senator asking how such a person can be picked for public office. Interesting times.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10538
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Jun 2017 18:05

Perhaps not noticed by many:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/01/investi ... index.html
America's largest oil refinery is now fully owned by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Aramco, the kingdom's state-owned oil behemoth, took 100% control of the sprawling Port Arthur refinery in Texas on Monday, completing a deal that was first announced last year.

Port Arthur is considered the crown jewel of the US refinery system. The Gulf Coast facility can process 600,000 barrels of oil per day, making it the largest refinery in North America.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby UlanBatori » 11 Jun 2017 18:15

Is the hurricane season over? Nah! Just about to begin I see. So we were right: As oil prices crashed, KSA etc have bought up most of the US value chain in the oil industry. Wonder how much of the wind & biofuels industry are also in Saudi hands. Not solar since that is going belly-up throughout USA due to kind Tarrel Fliends.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3189
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Jun 2017 20:50

KLNMurthy wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:This is worth reading:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ht/529614/
Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office

In brief, Abrahamic exclusivism is always a problem.

You can't be an abrahamic without being a bigot and hater if you are going to take your doctrine to the logical conclusion. It seems then that the only way for non-abrahmics and abrahmics to co-exist is for both of them to engage in a kind of shared taqiya, pretending, and pretending to believe, that the doctrine is not what it is.


Sorry, it's hardly that simplistic. I've known plenty of Abrahamics who belie your generalization, some cases even in pakiland. And in theory at least the possibility of inclusiveness exists.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9227
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Yagnasri » 12 Jun 2017 20:54

In theory, there can be good people in any cult or political party. That is what they are. Good people who are ignoring their religious ideas and commands. We are mistaking good people with goodness in their ideas of the religion or political gang.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3189
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Jun 2017 21:12

Yagnasri wrote:In theory, there can be good people in any cult or political party. That is what they are. Good people who are ignoring their religious ideas and commands. We are mistaking good people with goodness in their ideas of the religion or political gang.

To the contrary, these good people have been ardent followers of their faith and would invariably say that their goodness stems from their faith and not vice versa. This idea that a particular religion is simply not capable of inclusiveness is seriously dangerous, especially in a country like India unless you plan on dumping around 300 million of them into the ocean or somehow convincing them of giving up their faith.

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1336
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby JohnTitor » 12 Jun 2017 22:42

I would recommend that you watch videos on YouTube made by the likes of David Wood, Robert Spencer etc regarding islam. Regarding Hinduism, watch Malhotra. You will gain a proper understanding of why they are incompatible with each other. As Yagnasri pointed out, you need to separate the person from the doctrine. Just because they assign their behaviour to it doesn't necessarily mean it stems from there.

Also, in India, a clash between dharmics and non-dharmics is inevitable. It is just waiting for the critical mass to emerge (assuming the current appeasement policies, reservations etc continue). It might take another 50 years, but it is coming. The question is whether the dharmics will be ready for that eventuality.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17279
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby chetak » 12 Jun 2017 22:58

A_Gupta wrote:Perhaps not noticed by many:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/01/investi ... index.html
America's largest oil refinery is now fully owned by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Aramco, the kingdom's state-owned oil behemoth, took 100% control of the sprawling Port Arthur refinery in Texas on Monday, completing a deal that was first announced last year.

Port Arthur is considered the crown jewel of the US refinery system. The Gulf Coast facility can process 600,000 barrels of oil per day, making it the largest refinery in North America.


thank god that we kept Essar oil out of their grubby hands.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Dipanker » 12 Jun 2017 23:45

Again.

Trump Loses Travel Ban Ruling in Appeals Court
WASHINGTON — A second federal appeals court has ruled against President Trump’s revised travel ban. The decision on Monday, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, was the latest in a string of court rulings rejecting the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.

The administration has already sought a Supreme Court review of a similar decision issued last month by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3189
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Jun 2017 00:35

JohnTitor wrote:I would recommend that you watch videos on YouTube made by the likes of David Wood, Robert Spencer etc regarding islam. Regarding Hinduism, watch Malhotra. You will gain a proper understanding of why they are incompatible with each other. As Yagnasri pointed out, you need to separate the person from the doctrine. Just because they assign their behaviour to it doesn't necessarily mean it stems from there.

I have read Malhotra and feel his breaking India piece was pretty good. However, his understanding of Abrahamics is limited at least in my view (as can be seen in his interview of Tellis). As far as getting a proper understanding, I'd love to learn more - but unfortunately I really don't think apologetics and evangelists with an agenda qualify (note that I don't consider Malhotra as one of these). The requisite depth, not to mention objectivity is clearly missing. If I have to go to Youtube and learn, I prefer Tarek Fatah, even though he is not a real academic. And there is a very good reason why he doesn't indulge in absolutes as has been the case where I responded. An ideal teacher would be one who is a professional academic and has studied extensively the cultures involved including staying in said cultures for extended periods of time. Some examples would be Carl Ernst or Martin Lings for multiple religions and especially Islam. Svoboda and David Frawley would be good for Hinduism. For Christianity - Coomaraswamy and Robert Merton were very good.

So far as where a person's behavior stems from is concerned, I'll take the viewpoint of the person whose behavior is in question over that of external analysts unless they are extremely well qualified in religion and philosophy and have an in-depth understanding of the people and cultures in question. IMVHO, few qualify - Fatah being one of them. Even a basic qualitative analysis requires that there is a proper investigation of more than just one or two subjects!

Also, in India, a clash between dharmics and non-dharmics is inevitable. It is just waiting for the critical mass to emerge (assuming the current appeasement policies, reservations etc continue). It might take another 50 years, but it is coming. The question is whether the dharmics will be ready for that eventuality.

Possibly, there have been plenty of doomsday prophets who have been wrong before although I can understand the sentiment. In either case, it has little to do with any inherent absolute incompatibility between Abrahamics and Dharmics.

Fact remains that there are many Xtians, Jews and Muslims who are finding a traditional way into inclusiveness. Fact also remains that 99% of the muslims in India live in peace with others. Not that they can't do better, but its not as though their philosophy is so inherently incompatible that they simply can't get along or not merge with dharmics.

I'd suggest you read Thomas Merton and Martin Lings to start with if you wish to really explore this further.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3138
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Rudradev » 13 Jun 2017 03:16

X-posting from Trump Policies thread in GDF.


Under Trump, the mantle has been passed from a Hamiltonian/Neo-Wilsonian coalition under the Bushes, to the first truly Jacksonian presidency the US has had since WW2. Trump and the Tea Party may claim to stand for "less government", but upon examination of their policies, reveal themselves to be classic Jacksonians. Let's compare the definition of Jacksonian principles, per Wikipedia, with the Trump policies of today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy

Expanded Suffrage – The Jacksonians believed that voting rights should be extended to all white men. By the end of the 1820s, attitudes and state laws had shifted in favor of universal white male suffrage, and by 1856 all requirements to own property and nearly all requirements to pay taxes had been dropped.


The original Jacksonians expanded their electoral base from wealthy householders/property owners to include all white men. Trump's appeal to working-class whites in the rust belt states is consonant with this sort of populism. The identity being appealed to is based on the notion of racial/cultural supremacy of Judeo-Christian Whites, over and above the hierarchy of economic "merit" or "fitness" dictated by Adam Smith's rubric.

This is where Trump's promise of "jobs", antipathy towards immigrant workers, and opposition to outsourcing come into the picture. The Jacksonian aspect of Trump's promise is "you were forgotten by the Democrats because you are not minorities, and by the (Hamiltonian) Republicans because you are poor, but I will fight for you because you are White and Judeo-Christian".

Manifest Destiny – This was the belief that white Americans had a destiny to settle the American West and to expand control from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific and that the West should be settled by yeoman farmers. However, the Free Soil Jacksonians, notably Martin Van Buren, argued for limitations on slavery in the new areas to enable the poor white man to flourish; they split with the main party briefly in 1848. The Whigs generally opposed Manifest Destiny and expansion, saying the nation should build up its cities.


The Tea Party and Trumpians have claimed to be in favour of "less government" but in fact they as strongly in favour of muscular government intervention as any other faction.

However, unlike the Democratic (Wilsonian/Jeffersonian) consensus, the Trumpians want the force of government intervention to be directed exclusively outwards, against the "frontier", and towards control and subjugation of the "other". Hence the emphasis on "law and order" (Trump's claim about the hellish nature of mostly African-American inner cities), "deporting immigrants" (Trump's stories about crimes allegedly committed by Mexicans), "Sharia/Travel-Ban" (confronting another "frontier" where White Judeo-Christianity and Western Civilization are viewed to be under threat from Islamic immigration).

Libertarian treatment and less regulation is only for Whites and Judeo-Christians. They alone should be able to exercise "free speech" and rally against "political correctness", defy the "nanny state", build/farm/hunt wherever they want, eat/smoke/shoot whatever they want, etc.

When the Trumpians say "less government" they mean less intervention to be directed inwards, or directed equally towards all US citizens. In effect, they would like Whites and Judeo-Christians to retain "liberty" as their sole and exclusive privilege.

The turning of governmental coercion outwards, against the "other", while leaving the White Judeo-Christian majority free of regulation, is a modern-day extension of Manifest Destiny whereby armed force was to be used against the Native Americans and African slaves while whites enjoyed the fruits of expansion.

Patronage – Also known as the spoils system, patronage was the policy of placing political supporters into appointed offices. Many Jacksonians held the view that rotating political appointees in and out of office was not only the right but also the duty of winners in political contests. Patronage was theorized to be good because it would encourage political participation by the common man and because it would make a politician more accountable for poor government service by his appointees. Jacksonians also held that long tenure in the civil service was corrupting, so civil servants should be rotated out of office at regular intervals. However, it often led to the hiring of incompetent and sometimes corrupt officials due to the emphasis on party loyalty above any other qualifications.


Of course, every GOTUS uses patronage but Trump is the perfect Jacksonian in terms of how deep and wide his concept of justifiable patronage extends, and how openly he justifies it. Consider his repeated statements that as President he simply "cannot have a conflict of interest"; his demand of personal "loyalty" from the director of the FBI; his appointment of family members, personal friends, and business cronies with dubious qualifications to extra-constitutional positions of authority.

The Tea Party sees itself as a "grass roots" movement. Its cadres were cultivated district-by-district, and were often recruited from outside the political establishments in their home districts, even though they have been propelled into Congress through the vastly powerful backing of financial elites. The rank-and-file of the Republican majority in Congress satisfies the condition of "political participation by the common (White, Judeo-Christian) man".

The "drain the swamp" sloganeering of the Trumpians is also reminiscent of the Jacksonian self-justification that civil servants should be rotated out of office at regular intervals.

Strict constructionism – Like the Jeffersonians who strongly believed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Jacksonians initially favored a federal government of limited powers. Jackson said that he would guard against "all encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of State sovereignty." However, he was not a states' rights extremist; indeed, the Nullification Crisis would find Jackson fighting against what he perceived as state encroachments on the proper sphere of federal influence. This position was one basis for the Jacksonians' opposition to the Second Bank of the United States. As the Jacksonians consolidated power, they more often advocated expanding federal power, presidential power in particular.


Trump is Jacksonian in terms of his cynical use of constructionism whenever it is convenient, and in discarding it whenever he wants to concentrate power in the hands of the White House on some particular issue.

Whenever any issue becomes too much of a hot-button, such as gay rights or gun control or abortion, he shrugs it off and pushes it back onto the states. Something similar is being attempted with healthcare as well.

However, on issues like immigration, energy, and environment, he wants to dictate terms to the states.

He is also clearly a believer in government through executive orders (something he hypocritically accused Obama of doing). By definition, executive orders are a means of bypassing the legislature and concentrating power in the President's hands... a classical Jacksonian doctrine.

Laissez-faire – Complementing a strict construction of the Constitution, the Jacksonians generally favored a hands-off approach to the economy, as opposed to the Whig program sponsoring modernization, railroads, banking, and economic growth. The chief spokesman amongst laissez-faire advocates was William Leggett of the Locofocos in New York City.


To keep the economic elite on side, Trump pushes for less regulation on the environment, healthcare, banking, campaign finance reform etc. This is an extension of the Jacksonian idea whereby more freedom is allowed for the White, Judeo-Christian and privileged section of society. The government exists to enforce laws against the "frontier" outside of this privileged section of society, and those who inhabit it.

Opposition to banking – In particular, the Jacksonians opposed government-granted monopolies to banks, especially the national bank, a central bank known as the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson said, "The bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" And he did so.[15] The Whigs, who strongly supported the Bank, were led by Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Nicholas Biddle, the bank chairman.[16] Jackson himself was opposed to all banks because he believed they were devices to cheat common people; he and many followers believed that only gold and silver should be used to back currency, rather than the integrity of a bank
.

Banking has come a long way since the days of Andrew Jackson, so exact parallels are hard to draw here. During his campaign, Trump had announced a preference for the gold standard, and had also adopted a posture of being in favour of the "little (White) guy" against the big banks that had precipitated the 2008 crisis. One of the initial rallying points of the Tea Party was a conviction that no bank was "too big to fail"... they accused both Bush and Obama of being complicit with the Hank Paulson/Tim Geithner crony network that used "too big to fail" as an excuse for bailing out the irresponsible plutocrats of Wall Street.

However, Trump diverges from Andrew Jackson in this one aspect. Republicans in Congress went forward with measures to repeal the Dodd-Frank act yesterday, measures that would restore to banks the unchecked powers of financial discretion they enjoyed before 2008.

This reveals that the Trump regime is actually dependent to some extent on the Hamiltonians, even though it is extremely Jacksonian in posture and in a good measure of its overt policymaking. A lot of the "Make America Great Again" Jacksonian posturing is meant to distract the plebians while bones are thrown to the Hamiltonians behind the scenes.


In terms of what is now happening in West Asia:

the American contract with the Saudis was principally a Hamiltonian one (making the USD a standard for determining oil prices so that America gained financial supremacy and overwhelming control over international trade). The Saudis today want to diversify away from an oil economy towards financial services, as they seek to build the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. UAE is already on that track, and so is Qatar.

As such, the need of the Saudis (and of all the GCC nations) for the sort of protective guarantees made by the Ibn Saud-Roosevelt agreement of 1945 is becoming progressively less relevant to their future national strategies. They don't need a contract with the Hamiltonians in America anymore. However, the Saudis would like to leverage Trump's Jacksonian tendencies (use of state might against the "frontier") to cement their supremacy in the region and cut down rivals like Qatar (and of course, Iran).

Washington's impasse on how to deal with the Qatar vs. Saudi/UAE/Egypt/Bahrain crisis can be seen as a deadlock between the Jacksonian impulses of Trump (whose instincts are to throw in America's lot with the Saudis), and the Hamiltonian interests who wish to preserve a trade-friendly status-quo in line with the classical Pax Americana (Tillerson, Mattis and others calling for neutrality).

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3138
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Rudradev » 13 Jun 2017 03:44

For anyone who genuinely has the US' interests at heart, the true hero of the hour (year, decade, century) is James Comey.

In October last year he saved the American people from electing the Worst alternative for President they've ever had.

Now he is busy saving them again, by dismantling the Presidency of the Second-Worst alternative in US history.

This shows the true measure of a nation's strength. Having strong institutions run by selfless public servants who will fall on their swords to protect the people from the worst excesses of their own deeply flawed democratic systems.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby ramana » 13 Jun 2017 04:36

RD, Very good analysis.
In fact on election results night, Newt Gingrich had said on Fox News that Trump would be Jacksonian in deeds.

So 4-1/2 months after the inauguration this is the best analysis of Trump Presidency I have seen.
Care to write it up formally an let me know when ready?

I think it deserves more audience. Lot of people are tearing their hairs trying to figure out 'what hath Elections wrought!'

BTW I was talking to my son about Jackson last evening!!!!

He made similar points. And Jackson brought stability till the Civil War.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Jun 2017 05:02

who will fall on their swords

RDji, let's not go overboard with that.. John Poindexter 'fell on his own sword' to protect the Reagan Presidunce-y.

James Comey has been trying to stick swords up everywhere except his own musharraf. But I suspect that he will "fall on it" backwards. The FBI is supposed to INVESTIGATE and determine if crimes have been committed, and by whom. Not to keep this innuendo stream going like a sewer pipe out of control, spraying everyone. And then saying things like
I do not believe that any reasonable prosecutor would agree to proceed with this case..
:roll:

WTF is that? There is a presumption of innocence per the Constitution. So unless there is strong evidence pointing to guilt and not much by way of other hypothesis, the simple conclusion is:

There is no basis for any allegation.

OR...
We ain't got no clue, so no case.

BUT NEVER...
We don't disagree, at this point in time, and based on the available evidentiary pointers that can be reasonably associated with this investigation, that in the fullness of time, with reasonable ass-kissing prosecuors, and depending on whether the email from the DNC bibi was fake or not ... :roll:


There can be only one explanation for what Comey did: He knew that someone had committed crimes for which they SHOULD go to jail.

He knew, or suspected, or feared, that his "superior" had already made a deal to sink the case, and the POTUS of the time was same party as his superior. So he chose to kiss ass rather than do his job.

About the Russia case, he knows that there is nothing really wrong with Flynn etc dealing with Russia - most of DupleeCity is bought out by China or Saudi Ummah or Qatar or Germans or Japanese. But he knows that the only way he can get good book deals is if he goes down as a herrowic Fighter Against Corruption, A Man Who Sacrificed His Career For The Sake of The Nation.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3189
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Jun 2017 06:10

Rudradev wrote:For anyone who genuinely has the US' interests at heart, the true hero of the hour (year, decade, century) is James Comey.

In October last year he saved the American people from electing the Worst alternative for President they've ever had.

Now he is busy saving them again, by dismantling the Presidency of the Second-Worst alternative in US history.


Can we make some kind of car sticker for these lines - absolutely hilarious and likely, true too! :D

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby ramana » 13 Jun 2017 06:15

Odd thing about Comey is he fears Trump could tarnish FBI, so he said, while Loretta Lynch already did. And Comey did not do much except the charade of making statements and exonerating Hillary Clinton.

Obama should have fired him after the elections and before Trump Inauguration.
But he was laying an IED for Trump.

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3413
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby saip » 13 Jun 2017 06:24

Trump stepped on it, alright. Now I heard Mueller is the next one if CNN is to be believed.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5209
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Jun 2017 06:24

RD: The Jacksonian similarity and contrasts to Trump have been carried in a series of articles in American MSM. A full featured article exists on foreign affairs but is behind a pay wall.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ian-revolt

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Jun 2017 06:50

he fears Trump could tarnish FBI

THAT was his statement that made me go :P about him (where's the genuine nausea icon?) Oh, he can destroy MY credibility, but how dare he diss My Dahling EffBeeEye? :(( And I was holding my breath waiting to hear HOW the Potus dissed the FBI when I heard Comey's explanation:
He said the FBI didn't have credible leadership! :((

{duh! He was saying that YOU were a lousy leader, not dissing the FBI, jeenius! }
You could see Old Glory wrapping about his diaper in the background. Reminded me of Shivaji Ganesan in "Veera Pandya Kattabomman"
Enne petta Tamil manne!
Unne vittu poka tan inakku tApam!

At least there was something there to get emotional about.
If he had said:
I am a career officer in the United States Civil Service. I am trained to work for the Constitution. Political figures come and go, I don't bend my rules to suit them.

he would have won my support. As Benson said, I know PLENTY of such people, and I admire them. They don't make a fuss, they walk into the line of fire with no regard for themselves.

Comey ain't one of them, sorry.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9227
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Yagnasri » 13 Jun 2017 09:43

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc ... story.html

An idiotic time waste thing for media dramas. Dems have to start trying to win more Congress seats for 2018 and Senate. Instead, they are wasting time on this rubbish. Voters who voted for monkey time are not going to listen to this drama. They needed to be won over by some real economic arguments like jobs etc.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/d ... tions.html

If GOP has one big golden monkey, Dems are all really donkeys.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5115
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby devesh » 13 Jun 2017 12:57

Caroline Glick's reading of the Qatar situation: http://carolineglick.com/qatar-trump-an ... uble-deal/

US President Donald Trump has been attacked by his ubiquitous critics for his apparent about-face on the crisis surrounding Qatar.

In a Twitter post on Tuesday, Trump sided firmly with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and the other Sunni states that cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and instituted an air and land blockade of the sheikhdom on Monday.

On Wednesday, Trump said that he hopes to mediate the dispute, more or less parroting the lines adopted by the State Department and the Pentagon which his Twitter posts disputed the day before.

To understand the apparent turnaround and why it is both understandable and probably not an about-face, it is important to understand the forces at play and the stakes involved in the Sunni Arab world’s showdown with Doha.

Arguably, Qatar’s role in undermining the stability of the Islamic world has been second only to Iran’s.

Beginning in the 1995, after the Pars gas field was discovered and quickly rendered Qatar the wealthiest state in the world, the Qatari regime set about undermining the Sunni regimes of the Arab world by among other things, waging a propaganda war against them and against their US ally and by massively funding terrorism.

The Qatari regime established Al Jazeera in 1996.

Despite its frequent denials, the regime has kept tight control on Al Jazeera’s messaging. That messaging has been unchanging since the network’s founding. The pan-Arab satellite station which reaches hundreds of millions of households in the region and worldwide, opposes the US’s allies in the Sunni Arab world. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood and every terrorist group spawned by it. It supports Iran and Hezbollah.

Al Jazeera is viciously anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

It serves as a propaganda arm not only of al-Qaida and Hezbollah but of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and any other group that attacks the US, Israel, Europe and other Western targets.

Al Jazeera’s reporters have accompanied Hamas and Taliban forces in their wars against Israel and the US. After Israel released Hezbollah arch-terrorist Samir Kuntar from prison in exchange for the bodies of two IDF reservists, Al Jazeera’s Beirut bureau hosted an on-air party in his honor.

Al Jazeera was at the forefront of the propaganda campaign inciting against then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2012. Its operations were widely credited with inciting their overthrow and installing in their places regimes controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadist groups.

As for the Qatari regime itself, it has massively financed jihadist groups for more than 20 years. Qatar is a major bankroller not only of al-Qaida and Hamas but of militias associated with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In a State Department cable from 2009 published by WikiLeaks, US diplomats referred to Qatar as the largest funder of terrorism in the world.

According to the Financial Times, the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Saudis and their allies was their discovery that in April, Qatar paid Iran, its Iraqi militias and al-Qaida forces in Syria up to a billion dollars to free members of the royal family held captive in southern Iraq and 50 terrorists held captive in Syria.

Given Qatar’s destabilizing and pernicious role in the region and worldwide in everything related to terrorism funding and incitement, Trump’s statement on Tuesday in support of the Sunnis against Qatar was entirely reasonable. What can the US do other than stand by its allies as they seek to coerce Qatar to end its destabilizing and dangerous practices? The case for supporting the Saudis, Egyptians, the UAE and the others against Qatar becomes all the more overwhelming given their demands.

The Sunnis are demanding that Qatar ditch its strategic alliance with Iran. They demand that Qatar end its financial support for terrorist groups and they demand that Qatar expel terrorists from its territory.

If Qatar is forced to abide by these demands, its abandonment of Iran in particular will constitute the single largest blow the regime in Tehran has absorbed in recent memory. Among other things, Qatar serves as Iran’s banker and diplomatic proxy.

If the story began and ended here, then Trump’s anti-Qatari stance would have been the obvious and only move.

Unfortunately, the situation is not at all simple.

First there is the problem of Doha’s relations with key Americans and American institutions.

Ahead of the 2016 US elections, WikiLeaks published documents which disclosed that the emir of Qatar presented Bill Clinton with a $1 million check for the Clinton Foundation as a gift for his 65th birthday. During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, Qatar reportedly contributed some $6m. to the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton, for her part, was deeply supportive of the regime and of Al Jazeera. For instance, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2011, Clinton praised Al Jazeera for its leading role in fomenting and expanding the protests in Egypt that brought down Mubarak.

Clinton wasn’t the only one that Qatar singled out for generosity. Since the 1990s, Qatar has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in US universities. Six major US universities have campuses in Doha.

Then there is the Brookings Institution. The premier US think tank had a revolving door relationship with the Obama and Clinton administrations.

In 2014, The New York Times reported that Brookings, which opened a branch in Doha in 2002, had received millions of dollars in contributions from Qatar. In 2013 alone, the Qatari regime contributed $14.8 million to Brookings.

Not surprisingly, Brookings’ scholars supported the overthrow of Mubarak, and supported the Muslim Brotherhood regime during its year in power. Brookings scholars urged the Obama administration to cut off military assistance to Egypt after the military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013.

Brookings scholars have similarly written sympathetically of Qatar and its ally Turkey. As the Investigative Project on Terrorism revealed in a four-part series on Brookings’ relations with Qatar in 2014, Brookings’ scholars ignored human rights abuses by Qatar and praised Turkey’s Erdogan regime as behaving like the US in enabling religion to have a role in public life.

It is likely that given then-president Barack Obama’s strategic goal of reorienting US Middle East policy away from its traditional Sunni allies and Israel toward Iran and its allies in Qatar and Turkey, that Brookings, Clinton and other beneficiaries of Qatar’s generosity were simply knocking on an open door. Indeed, in 2014, during Operation Protective Edge, the Obama administration’s alliance with Qatar, Turkey and Iran against Sunnis and Israel came out of the shadows.

During the Hamas war with Israel, Obama sought to dislodge Egypt from its traditional role as mediator between Israel and Hamas and replace it with Qatar and Turkey. For their part, both regimes, which fund and support Hamas, accepted all of Hamas’s cease-fire demands against Israel and Egypt. As their partner, the Obama administration also supported Hamas’s demands.

Had Egypt and Israel bowed to those demands, Hamas would have achieved a strategic victory in its war against Israel and Egypt. To avoid buckling to US pressure, Egypt built a coalition with the same states that are now leading the charge against Qatar – Saudi Arabia and the UAE – and openly supported Israel.

In 2014, the standoff between the two sides caused the war to end in a draw. Hamas was not dismantled, but it failed to secure Israeli or Egyptian acceptance of any of its demands for open borders and access to the international banking system.

Given that Trump is not aligned with Brookings, the Clinton Foundation or US academia, it could be argued that he is not beholden to Qatari money in any way.

But unfortunately, the Clintons, Brookings and US universities are not the only American beneficiaries of Qatari largesse.

There is also the Pentagon.

In the 1990s, Qatar spent more than $1b. constructing the Al Udeid Air Base outside of Doha.

It is the most sophisticated air force base in the region. In 2003, the base replaced Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Air Base as headquarters for the US military’s Central Command. Since 2003, all US operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are controlled from the base.

Following Trump’s Twitter postings, the Pentagon was quick to say that operations at Al Udeid base had not been influenced by the crisis between Qatar and its neighbors. The Pentagon spokesman refused to say whether or not Qatar sponsors terrorism.

Instead, Capt. Chris Davis stated, “I consider them a host to our very important base at Al Udeid.” He commended Qatar for hosting US forces and for its “enduring commitment to regional security.”

Also on Tuesday, according to the Egyptian media, Iran deployed Revolutionary Guard Corps forces to Doha to protect the emir and his palace.

On Wednesday, Turkey’s parliament voted to empower Erdogan to deploy forces to Qatar to protect the regime.

The moves by Qatar’s allies Iran and Turkey significantly raise the stakes in the contest of wills now at play between Qatar and its Sunni neighbors and adversaries.

With Iranian forces guarding the palace and the emir, the possibility of a bloodless coup inside the Al Thani family has been significantly diminished.

Any move against the emir will raise the prospect of an open war with Iran.

So, too, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia invade or otherwise attack Qatar, with or without US support, the US risks seeing its Arab allies at war with its NATO ally Turkey.

Under the circumstances, Trump’s refusal to endorse Article 5 of the NATO treaty during his speech last month in Brussels appears wise and well-considered.

Article 5 states that an attack against one NATO ally represents an attack against all NATO allies.

With the Pentagon dependent on the Qatari base, and with no clear path for unseating the emir through war or coup without risking a much larger and more dangerous conflict, the only clear option is a negotiated resolution.

Under the circumstances, the best option for the US to openly work towards is to diminish Qatar’s regional profile and financial support for Iran and its terrorist allies and proxies. Hence, Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that he will mediate the conflict.

As for the medium and long term, Trump’s statement on Twitter remains the best, indeed, the only game to play.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.



worth reading in full.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8074
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Gus » 13 Jun 2017 19:28

that cunning ombaba, laying IEDs for trump ...like forcing flynn to go meet russians who are under surveillance. I mean, who do these intelligence people think they are..when they knew that it was Flynn who was speaking to the Russians, they should have turned off their devices, because ..because..umm..make america great again?

and why would these IED layers (is that the deep state or ombaba here? I am getting confused) then ask flynn about these visits, forcing the man to lie about it. Clearly Flynn is a good man. The president himself said so and he was elected by the largest electoral vote ever since 1200 BC and his inauguration was attended by millions of people more than ombaba.

The president's tweet is his orders and his order is the constitution!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Singha » 13 Jun 2017 19:49

Image

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3514
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby KLNMurthy » 13 Jun 2017 20:45

Cain Marko wrote:
KLNMurthy wrote:You can't be an abrahamic without being a bigot and hater if you are going to take your doctrine to the logical conclusion. It seems then that the only way for non-abrahmics and abrahmics to co-exist is for both of them to engage in a kind of shared taqiya, pretending, and pretending to believe, that the doctrine is not what it is.


Sorry, it's hardly that simplistic. I've known plenty of Abrahamics who belie your generalization, some cases even in pakiland. And in theory at least the possibility of inclusiveness exists.

The operative phrase is "taking...to its logical conclusion " as is the case with the nominee here. Or should I say mominee as he is a true believer.

Yes, thankfully most people are sensible enough to either stop before taking doctrine to its logical conclusion, or they give priority to things like good manners, human decency etc. That's how we carry on, despite the irreconcilable contradiction between liberal pluralistic values and Abrahamic doctrine.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3514
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby KLNMurthy » 13 Jun 2017 21:04

ramana wrote:Odd thing about Comey is he fears Trump could tarnish FBI, so he said, while Loretta Lynch already did. And Comey did not do much except the charade of making statements and exonerating Hillary Clinton.

Obama should have fired him after the elections and before Trump Inauguration.
But he was laying an IED for Trump.

Nothing so sinister, I think.

It is just not the done thing for a lame duck president to take a major step like firing the director of FBI. It is the norm to leave such things to the new president.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4761
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Yayavar » 13 Jun 2017 21:36

jackson i hear implies 'indian problem' or was it relocation which meant large number of deaths, slavery support and getting texas off mexico, 'spoils' which is read as nepotism and perhaps loot etc. Adult suffrage was already in place when jackson came, same as all policies are still in place and nothing has changed for anyone yet currently.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9227
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Yagnasri » 13 Jun 2017 21:44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDzmMJ-SHW4

Really having a play on the assassination of President is free speech?

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8074
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Gus » 13 Jun 2017 22:22

sessions bailed out from testifying. apparently ombaba / deep state (still confused about that) laid IEDs that forced him to meet with russians and lie about it as well.

Do these hilary shills not know that it is ok to lie in the cause of making america great again?

Trump said it best - "Comey is lying. I did not tell Comey to drop Flynn case. But even if I did say that, that would not be wrong". See, totally innocent.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Jun 2017 22:40


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby ramana » 13 Jun 2017 23:48

KLNM and Cain Marko please take your discussion to GDF.
Thanks,
ramana

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3138
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Rudradev » 13 Jun 2017 23:48

Ramana garu, thanks for your kind words.

Coincidentally, Kevin Baker has come out with an article comparing Trump with Jackson in today's edition of the New Republic!

https://newrepublic.com/article/142985/ ... than-nixon

However, the idea has been mooted even before. Shaurya posted a link to an April 2017 article by Walter Russell Mead in Foreign Affairs, where he draws parallels between Trump and Jackson. In fact, the whole framework of Hamiltonian/Wilsonian/Jeffersonian/Jacksonian factions in US policymaking, which I used in my 2012 analysis here http://indospheric.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... ussel.html is originally from Meade, and I have credited him in my blog. However, while American MSM commentators employ this framework mostly in the service of either conservative or liberal agendas, I found it a useful template for conducting a purva-paksha of the US political system from the POV of Indian interests.

UBji,

I think you may have missed the irony in my post. But nonetheless, why hold Comey to higher moral standards than anyone else on the US political scene these days? The important thing is what he has revealed about the nature of the World's Greatest Democracy.

I'm simply deriving vast enjoyment from seeing him first dispense with Mrs. Klingon (with the added attraction of making the Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer Huma Abedin weep in public), and now going hammer-and-tongs at the legitimacy of Hubby Key Bar Trump Sour Car.

Do you remember back when people like Barbara Cross-eyed-ette, or Pamela Const-ipat-able, invariably used the term "flawed democracy" to describe India (on those rare occasions when they were forced to grudgingly admit we were a little bit less totalitarian than their darling Pakis or Chinese?)

If you do, then perhaps you will agree that Mr. Comey deserves to be sent a lifetime supply of murukku and besan laddoos as a token of gratitude.
Last edited by Rudradev on 14 Jun 2017 00:04, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby ramana » 14 Jun 2017 00:03

X-Posting devesh with my highlights

Caroline Glick's reading of the Qatar situation: http://carolineglick.com/qatar-trump-an ... uble-deal/

US President Donald Trump has been attacked by his ubiquitous critics for his apparent about-face on the crisis surrounding Qatar.


In a Twitter post on Tuesday, Trump sided firmly with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and the other Sunni states that cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and instituted an air and land blockade of the sheikhdom on Monday.

On Wednesday, Trump said that he hopes to mediate the dispute, more or less parroting the lines adopted by the State Department and the Pentagon which his Twitter posts disputed the day before.

To understand the apparent turnaround and why it is both understandable and probably not an about-face, it is important to understand the forces at play and the stakes involved in the Sunni Arab world’s showdown with Doha.

Arguably, Qatar’s role in undermining the stability of the Islamic world has been second only to Iran’s.

Beginning in the 1995, after the Pars gas field was discovered and quickly rendered Qatar the wealthiest state in the world, the Qatari regime set about undermining the Sunni regimes of the Arab world by among other things, waging a propaganda war against them and against their US ally and by massively funding terrorism.

The Qatari regime established Al Jazeera in 1996.

Despite its frequent denials, the regime has kept tight control on Al Jazeera’s messaging. That messaging has been unchanging since the network’s founding. The pan-Arab satellite station which reaches hundreds of millions of households in the region and worldwide, opposes the US’s allies in the Sunni Arab world. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood and every terrorist group spawned by it. It supports Iran and Hezbollah.

Al Jazeera is viciously anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

It serves as a propaganda arm not only of al-Qaida and Hezbollah but of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and any other group that attacks the US, Israel, Europe and other Western targets.

Al Jazeera’s reporters have accompanied Hamas and Taliban forces in their wars against Israel and the US. After Israel released Hezbollah arch-terrorist Samir Kuntar from prison in exchange for the bodies of two IDF reservists, Al Jazeera’s Beirut bureau hosted an on-air party in his honor.

Al Jazeera was at the forefront of the propaganda campaign inciting against then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2012. Its operations were widely credited with inciting their overthrow and installing in their places regimes controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadist groups.

As for the Qatari regime itself, it has massively financed jihadist groups for more than 20 years. Qatar is a major bankroller not only of al-Qaida and Hamas but of militias associated with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In a State Department cable from 2009 published by WikiLeaks, US diplomats referred to Qatar as the largest funder of terrorism in the world.

According to the Financial Times, the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Saudis and their allies was their discovery that in April, Qatar paid Iran, its Iraqi militias and al-Qaida forces in Syria up to a billion dollars to free members of the royal family held captive in southern Iraq and 50 terrorists held captive in Syria.

Given Qatar’s destabilizing and pernicious role in the region and worldwide in everything related to terrorism funding and incitement, Trump’s statement on Tuesday in support of the Sunnis against Qatar was entirely reasonable. What can the US do other than stand by its allies as they seek to coerce Qatar to end its destabilizing and dangerous practices? The case for supporting the Saudis, Egyptians, the UAE and the others against Qatar becomes all the more overwhelming given their demands.

The Sunnis are demanding that Qatar ditch its strategic alliance with Iran. They demand that Qatar end its financial support for terrorist groups and they demand that Qatar expel terrorists from its territory.

If Qatar is forced to abide by these demands, its abandonment of Iran in particular will constitute the single largest blow the regime in Tehran has absorbed in recent memory. Among other things, Qatar serves as Iran’s banker and diplomatic proxy.

If the story began and ended here, then Trump’s anti-Qatari stance would have been the obvious and only move.

Unfortunately, the situation is not at all simple.

First there is the problem of Doha’s relations with key Americans and American institutions.

Ahead of the 2016 US elections, WikiLeaks published documents which disclosed that the emir of Qatar presented Bill Clinton with a $1 million check for the Clinton Foundation as a gift for his 65th birthday. During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, Qatar reportedly contributed some $6m. to the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton, for her part, was deeply supportive of the regime and of Al Jazeera. For instance, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2011, Clinton praised Al Jazeera for its leading role in fomenting and expanding the protests in Egypt that brought down Mubarak.

Clinton wasn’t the only one that Qatar singled out for generosity. Since the 1990s, Qatar has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in US universities. Six major US universities have campuses in Doha.

Then there is the Brookings Institution. The premier US think tank had a revolving door relationship with the Obama and Clinton administrations
.

In 2014, The New York Times reported that Brookings, which opened a branch in Doha in 2002, had received millions of dollars in contributions from Qatar. In 2013 alone, the Qatari regime contributed $14.8 million to Brookings.

Not surprisingly, Brookings’ scholars supported the overthrow of Mubarak, and supported the Muslim Brotherhood regime during its year in power. Brookings scholars urged the Obama administration to cut off military assistance to Egypt after the military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013.

Brookings scholars have similarly written sympathetically of Qatar and its ally Turkey. As the Investigative Project on Terrorism revealed in a four-part series on Brookings’ relations with Qatar in 2014, Brookings’ scholars ignored human rights abuses by Qatar and praised Turkey’s Erdogan regime as behaving like the US in enabling religion to have a role in public life.

It is likely that given then-president Barack Obama’s strategic goal of reorienting US Middle East policy away from its traditional Sunni allies and Israel toward Iran and its allies in Qatar and Turkey, that Brookings, Clinton and other beneficiaries of Qatar’s generosity were simply knocking on an open door. Indeed, in 2014, during Operation Protective Edge, the Obama administration’s alliance with Qatar, Turkey and Iran against Sunnis and Israel came out of the shadows.

During the Hamas war with Israel, Obama sought to dislodge Egypt from its traditional role as mediator between Israel and Hamas and replace it with Qatar and Turkey. For their part, both regimes, which fund and support Hamas, accepted all of Hamas’s cease-fire demands against Israel and Egypt. As their partner, the Obama administration also supported Hamas’s demands.

Had Egypt and Israel bowed to those demands, Hamas would have achieved a strategic victory in its war against Israel and Egypt. To avoid buckling to US pressure, Egypt built a coalition with the same states that are now leading the charge against Qatar – Saudi Arabia and the UAE – and openly supported Israel.

In 2014, the standoff between the two sides caused the war to end in a draw. Hamas was not dismantled, but it failed to secure Israeli or Egyptian acceptance of any of its demands for open borders and access to the international banking system.

Given that Trump is not aligned with Brookings, the Clinton Foundation or US academia, it could be argued that he is not beholden to Qatari money in any way.

But unfortunately, the Clintons, Brookings and US universities are not the only American beneficiaries of Qatari largesse.

There is also the Pentagon.

In the 1990s, Qatar spent more than $1b. constructing the Al Udeid Air Base outside of Doha.

It is the most sophisticated air force base in the region. In 2003, the base replaced Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Air Base as headquarters for the US military’s Central Command. Since 2003, all US operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are controlled from the base.

Following Trump’s Twitter postings, the Pentagon was quick to say that operations at Al Udeid base had not been influenced by the crisis between Qatar and its neighbors. The Pentagon spokesman refused to say whether or not Qatar sponsors terrorism.

Instead, Capt. Chris Davis stated, “I consider them a host to our very important base at Al Udeid.” He commended Qatar for hosting US forces and for its “enduring commitment to regional security.”

Also on Tuesday, according to the Egyptian media, Iran deployed Revolutionary Guard Corps forces to Doha to protect the emir and his palace.

On Wednesday, Turkey’s parliament voted to empower Erdogan to deploy forces to Qatar to protect the regime.

The moves by Qatar’s allies Iran and Turkey significantly raise the stakes in the contest of wills now at play between Qatar and its Sunni neighbors and adversaries.

With Iranian forces guarding the palace and the emir, the possibility of a bloodless coup inside the Al Thani family has been significantly diminished.

Any move against the emir will raise the prospect of an open war with Iran
.

So, too, if Egypt and Saudi Arabia invade or otherwise attack Qatar, with or without US support, the US risks seeing its Arab allies at war with its NATO ally Turkey.

Under the circumstances, Trump’s refusal to endorse Article 5 of the NATO treaty during his speech last month in Brussels appears wise and well-considered.

Article 5 states that an attack against one NATO ally represents an attack against all NATO allies.


With the Pentagon dependent on the Qatari base, and with no clear path for unseating the emir through war or coup without risking a much larger and more dangerous conflict, the only clear option is a negotiated resolution.

Under the circumstances, the best option for the US to openly work towards is to diminish Qatar’s regional profile and financial support for Iran and its terrorist allies and proxies. Hence, Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that he will mediate the conflict.

As for the medium and long term, Trump’s statement on Twitter remains the best, indeed, the only game to play.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.



worth reading in full.

----
So US was keeping a pet snake which delivered a rat or two to Democrats and Pentagon.

And now was getting ready to strike the US itself. Qatar was doing Passive subversion of the Gulf leadership with its money.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jun 2017 01:55

Jerusalem Post is not exactly unbiased and 400% honest....

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10538
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby A_Gupta » 14 Jun 2017 04:16

ramana wrote:RD, Very good analysis.
In fact on election results night, Newt Gingrich had said on Fox News that Trump would be Jacksonian in deeds.

So 4-1/2 months after the inauguration this is the best analysis of Trump Presidency I have seen.
Care to write it up formally an let me know when ready?

I think it deserves more audience. Lot of people are tearing their hairs trying to figure out 'what hath Elections wrought!'

BTW I was talking to my son about Jackson last evening!!!!

He made similar points. And Jackson brought stability till the Civil War.


+108

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10538
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby A_Gupta » 14 Jun 2017 04:18

Rudradev wrote:Do you remember back when people like Barbara Cross-eyed-ette, or Pamela Const-ipat-able, invariably used the term "flawed democracy" to describe India (on those rare occasions when they were forced to grudgingly admit we were a little bit less totalitarian than their darling Pakis or Chinese?)

If you do, then perhaps you will agree that Mr. Comey deserves to be sent a lifetime supply of murukku and besan laddoos as a token of gratitude.


+108

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8074
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby Gus » 14 Jun 2017 04:36

Some senate committee bans video in senate hallways (to cut down impromptu interviews and access) and rescinds it in a few hours. One Nebraska politician hit a news guy. Need a thread to chronicle this and build a standard disclaimer type language to add as footnotes to articles.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding US thread-III

Postby UlanBatori » 14 Jun 2017 06:23

This Hon. Sen. Kamala Bibi may be only 50% desi, but she sure has 100% of the Broom-Wielding-Bhabhi characteristics guaranteed to win in any fish-market argument, hain? :shock: Was she a Prosecutor? :eek:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests