American Politics

[Aonori]

I am amazed how people can still defend russia and instead blame people calling them out.

Not saying Russia´s a angel, but it doesnt help, to have them with such troubling neighbours and if I recall they also take in middle east refugees into their country and avoid the fiascos with those that happen in certain countries of Europe, so I dont see how they are looking so much bad, here plus defending Assad is a good way to prevent more ISIS extremists from coming up, so I dont see the problem here (aside from them supporting a dictator, but there´s not much room for better decisions).

On a side note, I think it was stated that they prolonged Snowden´s time there by 2 more years, so they arent planning on delivering him anytime soon, my guess is that he either gets released after those 2 years while trump is still president or they will just keep him there longer.

 

[shionoro]

Not saying Russia´s a angel, but it doesnt help, to have them with such troubling neighbours and if I recall they also take in middle east refugees into their country and avoid the fiascos with those that happen in certain countries of Europe, so I dont see how they are looking so much bad, here plus defending Assad is a good way to prevent more ISIS extremists from coming up, so I dont see the problem here (aside from them supporting a dictator, but there´s not much room for better decisions).

They take middle east refugees into their country?....um...no? What?

That is completely the opposite of the truth. Russia, vice versa, tries to make situations escalate in the countries that took up refugees (and in none of those was any fiasco happening).

Russia is also not fighting isis. Nor is assad. Russia is keeping assad in power against other kinds of refugees because it suits them and while doing so they bomb down civillians.

There is A LOT OF ROOM for better decisions than supporting assad and bombing down civillians but not isis.

Russia is not 'not an angel'.
Russia is taking concrete steps to destabilize europe and america in hostile attempts, annexed parts of another country while waging war on the rest of it while blatantly acting like it isnt.

You cannot defend that as 'not an angel'.
Russia is, by now, a hostile power towards the west that still is taking hostile steps and won't stop anytime soon, and you still defend it and blame clinton for pointing that out.

HOw can you do that by logic such as 'oh well i think they are taking in refugee' when that is the complete opposite of the truth?
They bomb down cities more so more ppl have to flee.

 

[Philia]

A direct war (not a proxy war) between two powerful nations won't happen. But I can see bigger nation/s attacking/invading smaller nation/s.

I can see Trump canceling Iran deal, but then I also think Iran will try to make nukes. And unless Trump decides to invade them(Iran is much stronger than Iraq, Libya, Syria imo) I can see Iran developing nukes before Trump completes his term.

 

[shionoro]

A direct war (not a proxy war) between two powerful nations won't happen. But I can see bigger nation/s attacking/invading smaller nation/s.

I can see Trump canceling Iran deal, but then I also think Iran will try to make nukes. And unless Trump decides to invade them(Iran is much stronger than Iraq, Libya, Syria imo) I can see Iran developing nukes before Trump completes his term.

Which in turn means a risk of war between iran and israel and it also means saudi arabia seeking nuclear power.
Horray, but i bet evil clinton would have been worse because she called out russia on hostile actions russia actually did.
That bitch. Hail trump.

 

[kkck]

To the best of my knowledge, the Iran deal was the result of Iran getting a nuclear bomb seeming imminent rather than a few years down the road. And even then the deal was supposed to delay iran for 10 years. At least given the little information we actually have, the US pulling back from the deal would be a mistake. Which is not to say Iran is a saint or anything either but it does seem like the deal is the preferable alternative. I wonder how long until the US invades iran....

 

[shionoro]

To the best of my knowledge, the Iran deal was the result of Iran getting a nuclear bomb seeming imminent rather than a few years down the road. And even then the deal was supposed to delay iran for 10 years. At least given the little information we actually have, the US pulling back from the deal would be a mistake. Which is not to say Iran is a saint or anything either but it does seem like the deal is the preferable alternative. I wonder how long until the US invades iran....

It is very questionable that the US invades anyone.
That is not how trump rolls in my opinion. He makes threats, but he is focussed on inner politics.
He does care jackshit about nuclear danger from iran or about safe guarantees for israel, and that is why he is not going to do anything in that direction.
Moreso because russia is usually somewhat protective of Iran.

 

[kkck]

It is very questionable that the US invades anyone.
That is not how trump rolls in my opinion. He makes threats, but he is focussed on inner politics.
He does care jackshit about nuclear danger from iran or about safe guarantees for israel, and that is why he is not going to do anything in that direction.
Moreso because russia is usually somewhat protective of Iran.

Dunno, my impression is that he does at least care about israel and if the situation with iran escalates who knows what will happen. Well, at least going by what he said during the elections anyways. So far there is no specific evidence that he would backtrack from that. That I know of anyways. So what I think is conceivable is that he pulls back from the Iran deal, Iran keeps working on their bombs as they have been doing and they get their bombs within a relatively short time. At that point everyone panics... And then we see trump going "we have no choice. We have no choice. We really have no choice. We need to go to war with iran. We have no choice. We need to have a yuge war with iran. It's going to be the best war. But we have no choice.". Of course, there is a bit of speculation here on my part, a number of shit has to go wrong before things turn this far south.

 

[Philia]

Dunno, my impression is that he does at least care about israel and if the situation with iran escalates who knows what will happen. Well, at least going by what he said during the elections anyways. So far there is no specific evidence that he would backtrack from that. That I know of anyways. So what I think is conceivable is that he pulls back from the Iran deal, Iran keeps working on their bombs as they have been doing and they get their bombs within a relatively short time. At that point everyone panics... And then we see trump going "we have no choice. We have no choice. We really have no choice. We need to go to war with iran. We have no choice. We need to have a yuge war with iran. It's going to be the best war. But we have no choice.". Of course, there is a bit of speculation here on my part, a number of shit has to go wrong before things turn this far south.

USA attacks Iran after it develops their nukes? Not gonna happen. They gotta attack immediately after screwing the agreement. Either USA or Israel has to attack Iran directly before they get their nukes. Because once they get nukes you always have to consider the possibility of them going rogue before attacking them.

 

[kkck]

Oh, so apparently trump is going to keep comey.... Excuse me for a minute while I go to break a brick wall with my forehead.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

So many shits going down...

• Trump revives the NDAP. If they build the Pipeline through the graveyard, then it's only going to force Native Americans to go violent (after the shit they , along with the other protesters, went through last year). Unless Trump requests the companies to make alternative routes, this is just going to be horrible...
• EPA have a blackout by Trump, so we're not getting any news from the EPA for now.

 

[Aonori]

They take middle east refugees into their country?....um...no? What?

That is completely the opposite of the truth. Russia, vice versa, tries to make situations escalate in the countries that took up refugees (and in none of those was any fiasco happening).

Russia is also not fighting isis. Nor is assad. Russia is keeping assad in power against other kinds of refugees because it suits them and while doing so they bomb down civillians.

There is A LOT OF ROOM for better decisions than supporting assad and bombing down civillians but not isis.

Russia is not 'not an angel'.
Russia is taking concrete steps to destabilize europe and america in hostile attempts, annexed parts of another country while waging war on the rest of it while blatantly acting like it isnt.

You cannot defend that as 'not an angel'.
Russia is, by now, a hostile power towards the west that still is taking hostile steps and won't stop anytime soon, and you still defend it and blame clinton for pointing that out.

HOw can you do that by logic such as 'oh well i think they are taking in refugee' when that is the complete opposite of the truth?
They bomb down cities more so more ppl have to flee.

Yes they do, the only difference is the numbers they do and how they handle the refugees and there are countries in Europe that act very similar to Russia in how they handle refugees (especially those closest to the russian border) and they dont have capitals fucked over, like France, this refugee stuff really got out of hand I remember a few years back when I went 7 days there on a School trip and now, my old professor who used to plan those types of trips is afraid of doing them because of the refugee crisis, this is a serious problem.

That makes 0 sense whatsoever, Russia did accept many ceasefire agreements, the majority which had motives of civilian retreat, it was Obama´s generals that started acting against said agreements first a few months back is one of the moments that happened and I´m not sure if there were more down the line so I wont speculate, but fact here is that there were ceasefire agreements in place for the benefit for the civilians in question, in this one case the US generals break from the clauses of the treaty was a factor in the cost of civilian lifes here.

Of course at the end of the day both Russians and Americans end up killing civilians in the war zone and it doesnt help that ISIS likes to play dirty in their home turf (like with guerilla warfare), which makes civilian casualties pretty much unavoidable, until Russia and the US can have some decent common ground for negotiations, the civilian deaths arent gonna drop.

Russia and China are both dangerous, but ecomically and tech wise china is way above Russia, and they are also messing with their neighbours in the south pacific sea, between China and Russia, China is way more dangerous and should be put in place soon, before things get out of hand.

Thats counterproductive, it means Assad loses more people in his country, for nothing, they are bombing down cities because there are dangerous targets there, also a thing trump commented on, dont announce you will attack somewhere with high priority targets so they can get away due to the announcement and you only get worthless civilian deaths with poor gain, in that área, I gotta agree with Trump.

 

[M3J]

So many shits going down...

• Trump revives the NDAP. If they build the Pipeline through the graveyard, then it's only going to force Native Americans to go violent (after the shit they , along with the other protesters, went through last year). Unless Trump requests the companies to make alternative routes, this is just going to be horrible...
• EPA have a blackout by Trump, so we're not getting any news from the EPA for now.

Seriously, fuck Trump and anyone who voted for this piece of shit. He's doing everything that's hurting the Americans despite claiming he wants to make America great again. Like hell he is.

 

[shionoro]

Yes they do, the only difference is the numbers they do and how they handle the refugees and there are countries in Europe that act very similar to Russia in how they handle refugees (especially those closest to the russian border) and they dont have capitals fucked over, like France, this refugee stuff really got out of hand I remember a few years back when I went 7 days there on a School trip and now, my old professor who used to plan those types of trips is afraid of doing them because of the refugee crisis, this is a serious problem.

That makes 0 sense whatsoever, Russia did accept many ceasefire agreements, the majority which had motives of civilian retreat, it was Obama´s generals that started acting against said agreements first a few months back is one of the moments that happened and I´m not sure if there were more down the line so I wont speculate, but fact here is that there were ceasefire agreements in place for the benefit for the civilians in question, in this one case the US generals break from the clauses of the treaty was a factor in the cost of civilian lifes here.

Of course at the end of the day both Russians and Americans end up killing civilians in the war zone and it doesnt help that ISIS likes to play dirty in their home turf (like with guerilla warfare), which makes civilian casualties pretty much unavoidable, until Russia and the US can have some decent common ground for negotiations, the civilian deaths arent gonna drop.

Russia and China are both dangerous, but ecomically and tech wise china is way above Russia, and they are also messing with their neighbours in the south pacific sea, between China and Russia, China is way more dangerous and should be put in place soon, before things get out of hand.

Thats counterproductive, it means Assad loses more people in his country, for nothing, they are bombing down cities because there are dangerous targets there, also a thing trump commented on, dont announce you will attack somewhere with high priority targets so they can get away due to the announcement and you only get worthless civilian deaths with poor gain, in that área, I gotta agree with Trump.

THEY DON'T, or give me any reliable source about that.
Russia does not take refugees from the middle east. At least not nonrussians in any significant number.

European countries don't have 'capitals fucked over' and there are more and more bloody terror attacks in russia than in europe.

Really what are your sources for your statements?

Fact is that the US in this whole conflict at any point always fought ISIS.
It was the russians who focussed their air attacks against the other syrian rebels and kept assad in power and used bombardmends of civillian areas to get to their goals.
That is just a fact. They didn't 'both end up killing civillians'.
You had on the one side the americans who worked in tandem with the kurdish and the iraq government on the ground who, yes, had casualties on the ground, and then the russians who worked together with assad who already committed enough warcrimes for two and then trhew highpowered bombs themselves onto civllian areas in alleppo and co.
You cannot equate that.
The destruction the russians unleashed was worse than anything the US ever did in Iraq, and they still get blame for that 10 years after.
But of course the russians cannot do any wrong.


It is not about 'danger'. China does not do the shit russia does.
There is a way to actually have good relations with china and you need good relations with china.
China does nto screw other nations over. They are not a democracy, but they do not meddle in western affairs.
Russia actively meddled in any western election lately and actively tries to destablize the west. China simply does not do that.

 

[Philia]

He is also expected to sign another order which will block visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, said the aides and experts, who asked not to be identified.

http://www.amny.com/news/politics/t...-restricting-immigration-aides-say-1.13009586

Well he's doing as he said he'd do.

 

[shionoro]

He is also expected to sign another order which will block visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, said the aides and experts, who asked not to be identified.

http://www.amny.com/news/politics/t...-restricting-immigration-aides-say-1.13009586

Well he's doing as he said he'd do.

Let's wait until he built 'a wall'.
It is not like there isn't a fence already.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 25, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 25, 2017 ---

Dunno, my impression is that he does at least care about israel and if the situation with iran escalates who knows what will happen. Well, at least going by what he said during the elections anyways. So far there is no specific evidence that he would backtrack from that. That I know of anyways. So what I think is conceivable is that he pulls back from the Iran deal, Iran keeps working on their bombs as they have been doing and they get their bombs within a relatively short time. At that point everyone panics... And then we see trump going "we have no choice. We have no choice. We really have no choice. We need to go to war with iran. We have no choice. We need to have a yuge war with iran. It's going to be the best war. But we have no choice.". Of course, there is a bit of speculation here on my part, a number of shit has to go wrong before things turn this far south.

I would rather imagine it like that: Situation in middle east escalates until israel is directly affected by it (if that happens, there is an if in that).
Then and only then republicans will go ballistic and trmp might be forced to do s th even if he does not want to.

On the other hand,a big part of trumps base is antisemitic, so let's see.

 

[Philia]

Let's wait until he built 'a wall'.
It is not like there isn't a fence already.

I'm starting to think he might actually do it. Although he won't get Mexico to pay for it.

 

[shionoro]

I'm starting to think he might actually do it. Although he won't get Mexico to pay for it.

What he is going to do is build part of a wall so that stupid ppl think he did something.
Something he can point to and make a picture of but that will not have any real effect (not that a wall had good effects, but still).

 

[kkck]

Let's wait until he built 'a wall'.
It is not like there isn't a fence already.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 25, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 25, 2017 ---

I would rather imagine it like that: Situation in middle east escalates until israel is directly affected by it (if that happens, there is an if in that).
Then and only then republicans will go ballistic and trmp might be forced to do s th even if he does not want to.

On the other hand,a big part of trumps base is antisemitic, so let's see.

Well, I did consider that a big part of trump's base was antisemitic. And trump did run his campaign being pro israel while pandering to anti semitic people. I do think that if the situation goes south he will stick with israel. He would otherwise lose his party's support, the republican party at least is consistently pro israel (AFAIK). Of course, invading iran is something that would come at huge political cost for trump and everything but it is plausible he could take the country into it. They already invaded a country they thought had WMD, they might as well invade the one that actually does have them. Of course, it would be a disaster that would make the middle east into a bigger disaster than it's ever been but hey, "they don't have a choice" right?

 

[shionoro]

Well, I did consider that a big part of trump's base was antisemitic. And trump did run his campaign being pro israel while pandering to anti semitic people. I do think that if the situation goes south he will stick with israel. He would otherwise lose his party's support, the republican party at least is consistently pro israel (AFAIK). Of course, invading iran is something that would come at huge political cost for trump and everything but it is plausible he could take the country into it. They already invaded a country they thought had WMD, they might as well invade the one that actually does have them. Of course, it would be a disaster that would make the middle east into a bigger disaster than it's ever been but hey, "they don't have a choice" right?

Why would he invade Iran tho? It is not like Iran can do anything to israel.
Trump is not Bush, pence is not cheney.
And there was no 9/11 and there probably wont be one in trump's term.

I really do not see it. Trump is first and foremost a businessman who in my opinion has two targets: Personal Ego and Money.
These targets are reached by twittering and by his tax proposals.

All the rest is to keep himself in power. Going after journalists, pandering to the people who are fit to keep him in power, fighting liberals, making goody goody with putin.
A war does not suit there. War means instability and that is not what he needs.

And i do not see anything forcing him to do it, israel is too strong to really be attacked.

 

[Philia]

Trump has pro-Israel policies. He is already considering shifting American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Why would he invade Iran tho? It is not like Iran can do anything to israel.
Trump is not Bush, pence is not cheney.
And there was no 9/11 and there probably wont be one in trump's term.

I really do not see it. Trump is first and foremost a businessman who in my opinion has two targets: Personal Ego and Money.
These targets are reached by twittering and by his tax proposals.

All the rest is to keep himself in power. Going after journalists, pandering to the people who are fit to keep him in power, fighting liberals, making goody goody with putin.
A war does not suit there. War means instability and that is not what he needs.

And i do not see anything forcing him to do it, israel is too strong to really be attacked.

Well, if Iran restarts the nuclear program, then USA and Israel will feel threatened. That's why they would want to stop Iran from attaining nukes. An invasion is not out of question here. Iraq was Attacked because they were developing WMDs. So if they think Iran is trying to develop nukes, then why not invade them?