Donald Trump - Opinions?

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
QUESTION MORE
l



HomeOp-Edge
Russian soldier who called airstrike on himself while surrounded by ISIS is hero

John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. He is also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. He wrote a memoir of the five years he spent in Hollywood, where he worked in the movie industry prior to becoming a full time activist and organizer with the US antiwar movement post-9/11. The book is titled Dreams That Die and is published by Zero Books. John is currently working on a book exploring the role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on Twitter @JohnWight1
Published time: 30 Mar, 2016 15:28
56fbde34c46188307d8b4590.jpg

Aleksandr Prochorenko © Facebook
32
I don’t know Aleksandr Prochorenko. I know nothing of his background or what his dreams and hopes were for the future. But I do know that he’s a hero who will never be forgotten, and that the cause for which he sacrificed his life is a righteous one.
The history of war and conflict is replete with examples of individual heroism and courage that serve to bring clarity to the momentous stakes involved in the outcome, and how they influence history and the fate of millions of human beings, up to and including generations as yet unborn.

The very nature of conflict dictates that the very best and very worst of humanity is revealed, and that the aims and objectives of either side engaged in a conflict determines whether it is the former or the latter which shines most.

For example, does anyone really believe there was no difference between the soldiers of the Waffen SS who died in the brutal occupation of the Soviet Union during the Second World War, and the soldiers of the Red Army who perished in the epic struggle to defeat them?

Or how about the countless thousands of Vietnamese who died while resisting the US invasion and occupation of their country in the 1960s and 70s?

Read more
Danger close: Spotted by ISIS, Russian special forces officer called for fire on himself
When it comes to the conflict in Syria, Aleksandr Prochorenko will forever symbolize the courage of those who stood in defiance of the most barbaric and inhuman ideology the world has seen since the aforementioned Waffen SS were rampaging across the Soviet Union, murdering and slaughtering every living thing in their path in service to fascism.

The 25-year-old Russian was killed while on special operations in occupied Palmyra. In advance of the city’s liberation by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies on the ground, his role was to identify and pass on the coordinates of ISIS targets in the city for airstrikes. Consequently, his mission could not have been more dangerous. This was proved when his location was uncovered by ISIS terrorists and they began closing in on him. Realizing what was happening, and rather than allow himself to be captured, Aleksandr called in an airstrike on himself.

It is impossible to write about this young man and his courage without experiencing a massive sense of inadequacy. His death, the manner of it, is a sharp reminder that this is a brutal conflict being fought and won by young men determined to prevail no matter the odds. Their ability to do so, despite the horror and hardship, is due to the knowledge that they are fighting in the cause of humanity. It is a cause which Aleksandr Prochorenko shared with every other Russian servicemen on duty in Syria – along with the thousands of Syrian, Lebanese, Iranians, and Kurdish soldiers and volunteers. Despite seeing comrades, friends and family members killed and butchered over the past five years, they continue to fight and to risk all.

Compounding the enormity of Prochorenko’s courage are the revelations provided by former US Marine combat veteran, Gordon Duff, in a recent article. Comparing the effectiveness of Russia’s air campaign in Syria to its US counterpart, Duff writes: “What we saw in Syria was Russia set up a forward command in days at a small airstrip, move in 4 dozen aircraft, invite media to watch the whole thing, and begin combat operations with an air force that hadn’t flown against an enemy in over 25 years.”

He goes on: “We watched planes that cost nothing wipe out targets America had missed or overlooked or that, according to American pilots, they weren’t allowed to hit. American pilots can bomb, they have the experience, they have the equipment but for some reason, at least to each other and those they trust, they will tell you, against ISIS it has always been “hands off.”

“Not so for Russia.

“For day after day, Russian pilots hit command posts, training camps, wiped out convoys Americans claimed it didn’t see, ammunition storage and eventually the thousands and thousands of oil trucks American pilots had been begging to attack for months.”

Read more
If US-led coalition really fought terrorism, Palmyra wouldn’t have fallen – Assad’s adviser to RT
Most tellingly, Duff informs us: “What isn’t reported is that the real Americans who fight wars admire their Russian counterparts and what they have done. American pilots wish they had been given the hot targets Russia destroyed instead of being forced to drop payloads of bombs on abandoned villages north of the Jordanian border as a Russian command report outlined in November 2015.

When I think of what makes American pilots angry, I think of Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Graham and his close friend, John McCain are good friends of “moderate Syrian rebels” which, just by accident, seems to include both ISIS and al Nusra.”

In just the few short months of Russia’s intervention in the Syrian conflict, which, it should never be forgotten, was embarked upon at huge risk given the number of countries involved, whether directly or indirectly, and the logistics and planning required, the world has been witness to the hypocrisy and double-dealing of Western governments and their allies in the region.

In this regard, Aleksandr Prochorenko gives lie to the myth that Russia’s part in the conflict has been a negative one. On the contrary, this young Russian serviceman joins the ranks of those whose very names are a testament to the power of the human spirit in defiance of injustice and tyranny.

We salute him.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.



I haven't been following the early stages of electioneering in the US too closely, but can't miss the odd headline I catch - usually bagging Trump.

I've been catching up with some coverage the last few days.... is he really that bad? Obviously, he's very raw but he's also hard to ignore and quite engaging in many respects... The biggest one is that he comes across as genuine in his beliefs - unlike many of the other contenders. I always like conviction politicians even if I disagree with some of their politics.

Would be interested in the views of others, particularly Americans.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113


i can understand your concern..

when politicians intone the words "'nukes"

how else are we supposed to think? of COURSE no one of us really wants that.

BUT THEY ARE THERE -- nukes are part of reality now -- THANKS to the USA for starting it all with its demosntration on japan to show "who;s the big boss"

and its arms race to which countries, INCLUDING russia simply RESPONDED to that THREAT that was IMPLICIT in the USA'S DROPPING NUKES long ago.

N korea, had LEARNED that the only way to ''talk to the usa" is BY FORCE


to borrow the USA'S own HABIT across the world...that threatening to invade N KOREA because the USA doens't like its political system -- which, frankly , is NONE of the USA'S business -- just like with cuba or any country ...

N korea threatens right back . because they SAW that as SOON as LIBYA AND IRAQ dismantled ANY existing old ''nuke weapons" programs

YET went ahead with THEIR attempts to DETACH FROM THE ALMIGHTY AND HOLY PETRO-DOLLAR american racket...

they WERE DESTROYED! for their disobedience.


trump SAYING such things does NOT make HIM ''more dangerous"

THAN CLINTON -- who has MADE no secret of HER ''all options are on the table"

but IS EVEN MORE determined to go to war WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA.

SHE -- mind you -- she -- is the author of OBAMA'S current ''pivot to asia"

NONSENSE that IS destabilizing the asian countries - that has LITTLE to do with their ''claims-counterclaims ON the islets" in south china sea that CHINA claims as HERS.

IT IS none OF THE USA'S biusinesses to poke its nose there. it is NOT an asian nation -- it is NOT signatory to ''LAWS OF THE SEA" -- it is NOT THERE but for ITS

ATTEMPT TO 'CONTAIN" A Rising rival that happens to be the FINANCIER of


the RISE of countries all across EURASIA .INCLUDING the ''counter claimants" to south china sea...

and clinton has NEVER made a secret of "'all options on the table"

and she is abotu as RABID as you will see anyone.

detestable as many of trumps\ own personal views are -- I think that in a choice between BAD choices -- - i will commit myself now to this statement ..

he is a better off choice than this TRULY HIDEOUS , OBSESSED SOCIAL CLIMBER

"it's my turn to rule the world" KILLARY KILLTON ...who is fairly dripping and sweating BLOOD of innocents

such as HER destruction of libya - that she showed her GLEE at it...

i mean what KIND OF PERSON DOES THAT?

even with bitter enemies?

that is a true BLOODTHIRSTY socio-path .

be very, very careful with THAT dchoice IF YOU had to choose between clinton and trump whatever HIS really bad sides and egotism are like.

HE stll has SOME vestige of realism in him -- knowing HE or the USA won't

ever, intimidate putin or xi jinping of china...

while KILLTON continue to believe AMERICA -- HER america has the right to DESTROY russia or china unless they 'SUBMIT'.

KILLTON is PSYCHOPATHIC even more than the NEO-CONS who LOVE HER ...
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113

BY THE WAY -- how's ROGER COMING ALONG IN HIS recovery?

even if i was often one of the 'critics" of roger over th eyears -- he's a player I NEVER want to see go away.

would be great for him if he can add yet another MAJOR, don't you think?

he really has earned his right and privilege to go out on HIS own terms and that's how I would like to see it when he finally calls it a day..

ON HIS TERMS.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113

ALSO , FEDERBERG...

(did i tell you ever -- since i am familiar with you from other websites all these years -- that i always liked your screen name? federer -- and edberg, right? hehe)

if you really think about it -- the NUKE POWERS russia, china, usa, - at the very least


do you REALLY think any of their leaders have shied away from statements about using NUKES?

this is not about any of us condoning sucht hings -- god forbid..

but THAT IS thr eason why china and russia , to cite just TWO of the MAIN ''THREATS" THAT THE USA keeps returnign to , again and agan anda gain


because they are NOT SUBMISSIVE to the american empire (meaning they are ''thjreats TO american empire ambitions -- " NOT because they are threats to HUMANITY -- AS THE USA LEADERS LIKE TO INSERT in people\'s minds...) ./.

these are leaders who have NEVER been shy about USING NUKES if they feel the USA is threatening them in a very , very imminent way...


adn if you LOOK AT THE MAP ..


which country has BASES AROUND THOSE COUNTRIES?

WHAT IS THE USA doing IN THEIR neighbhorhoods?

and why do you THINK they are going to be more shjy than TRUMP or CLINTON

from the only country that has USED NUKES and keeps threatening smaller nations WITH IT or bg nations with it -- always looking for \''FIRST STRIKE ADVANTAGE"?

SO -- WHAT MAKES YOU THINK

THAT KILLARY -- WHOSE HUSBAND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESTRUCTION, SUFFERING, MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DEATHS -- INCLUDING

AT LEAST 500,000 IRAQI children due to ''sanctions" in the 1990's -- by ONE MAN - HUSSEIN who wanted to SELL OIL OUTSIDE THE US petro dollar and RETURN TO GOLD -- to expose the USA'S

PONZI Scheme DOLLAR PRINTING --

AND his wife who is responsible (exposed by her own e mails now_)

for destroying LIBYA behind the pretext of ""gaddafi committing genocide"

which LED to the RISE of ISIL in libya --

killed a US diplomat whiel HER state department REFUSED to protect HIM --

ALL BECAUSE TO GET RID OF GADDAFI WHO was already preparing NON-USE OF THE US DOLLAR -- AND RETURNING TO GOLD

AND THEIR GOLD DISAPPEARED after the USA INVADED?

YOU THINK THAT IS A PUSSY CAT? FEDERBERG?

you have NO IDEA of what this woman is capable of...


certainly AS SHE IS the ''choice" fo


of HER OWN OTHER MENTORS who are WAR CRIMINALS

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, AND MADELEINE "we think it was worth it, 500,ooo starving children -- to get one man out" ALBRIGHT.

who are like DEMONS still stalking the halls of power today giving

their OLD prescriptions abotu how to

''encricle russia and china?"

how to ''carve up RUSSIA into smaller manageable pieces which we can rule" (brzezinski) -- perhaps into 3 countries">

?

you thnk because donald trump who at least shows SOME vestige of realism -- despite his person flaws , which are great --

is MROE dangerous than


good "FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT" CLINTON -- hoooorayyyy america?


SHE -- by way of telling it to OBAMA JUST YESTERDAY


was given a SERIOUS WARNING by the CHINESE RED KING of the MIDDLE KINGDOM

SITTING RIGHT THERE FOR 6,000 YEARS almost unchanged in borders

in eurasia -- (unlike the usa that keeps invading countries everywhere - like HER husband has done) --

by saying to obama :

"china will NOT TOLERATE interference in our regional affairs, our problems in asia are OUR problems and we will not tolerate EXCUSES of any kind SUCH AS 'FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION' by outside powers beyhond eurasia".


THAT IS A SERIOUS SERIOUS WARNING TO THE USA --


AND TO HILLARY IF SHE gets the presidency to continue HER LOVELY AMBITION


OF ''PIVOT TO ASIA" -- which to HER means
"america is the RULER of asia"!

she is being TOLD -- EVEN BEFORE HER CROWNING...


THE costS TO the USA will be so severe -- financially, militarily and globally

that she might as well pack it all in -- it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

FOR HER to try to intimidate

the worlds

BIGGEST PURCHASING POWER country . and fight china IN HER OWN neigHborhood,

TRUMP RECOGNIZES THAT REALITY.


KILLTON does not BECAUSE SHE is truly PSYCHOTIC. AND BLOOD THIRSTY.

no LESS than her husband who smiles and chjarms his way through HIS blood baths n his adminsitration.
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,435
Reactions
6,257
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
I think regarding foreign policy, Trump is less dangerous than Hillary Clinton.

Let's be honest... this talk of building a wall on the Mexican border is just talk... it won't happen. Trump is playing to the gallery. Trump is also a deal maker and whether you like him or not... he will talk and negotiate. Clinton is an establishment figure owned by the corporates and her track record on foreign policy is appalling. We don't need to wonder what she's like... we already know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: teddytennisfan

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
BY THE WAY -- how's ROGER COMING ALONG IN HIS recovery?

even if i was often one of the 'critics" of roger over th eyears -- he's a player I NEVER want to see go away.

would be great for him if he can add yet another MAJOR, don't you think?

he really has earned his right and privilege to go out on HIS own terms and that's how I would like to see it when he finally calls it a day..

ON HIS TERMS.
I think regarding foreign policy, Trump is less dangerous than Hillary Clinton.

Let's be honest... this talk of building a wall on the Mexican border is just talk... it won't happen. Trump is playing to the gallery. Trump is also a deal maker and whether you like him or not... he will talk and negotiate. Clinton is an establishment figure owned by the corporates and her track record on foreign policy is appalling. We don't need to wonder what she's like... we already know.



EXACTLY -- you said it perfectly for me with far better clarity.

setting asde OUR personal ''preferences' and moralities whatever..

jus tPURE realism ...

the guiy -- for all his flaws that anybody can dislike - mine included --


at least -- not yet -- ISN'T so delusional -- i MEAN LITERALLY --

and purely out of MALICE -- as these killtons, the demons that go around like BRZEZINSKI, ALBRIGHT, SAMANTHA POWERS, and their ILK

WHO just are through and through BLOOD THIRSTY ''PERSONAL VENDETTA"

people

who ARE the ones who have driven american police for DECADES that have caused so much terrorism, wars, civil wars, tens and tens of millions of uintold suffering, even billions when you think about the effects of their policies of american empire...

as donmal trump .

at the very least -- HE doesn't HAVE their DEMONSTRATED RECORD

of suich cruelty and destruction and terror and blood all across the planet.!

AND that ALONE SHOULD at least give people some pause


not SO MUCH about whether he is a 'better person" -


but abotu HILLARY should SHE be president.

people just have no idea, it still seems


just what this woman CAN and is WILLING AND LUSTING after TO DO.

AND THAT IS WAR !

she wants to be 'EMPRESS" who will break the record and the ''glass ceiling"

and BE the one to PUSH a nuclear button


just because SHE SAYS SO -- because "russia and china will not KNEEL">


that is written all over her! like graffiti ...

make no mistake -- I DO NOT LIKE ANY OF THEM -- but if trump and her are the choices -- since \\


''votes must be counted " in the FARCE that is american ''democracy" anyway (but that's another issue) --

BETTER TRUMP than this LEERING, SCREETCHING , BLOOD THIRSTY , SOUL-LESS - utterly cold woman.

(who - mnd you -- HAS already committed FEDERAL CRIMES -- ) AND YET THERE SHE IS


imminentaly likely to be ''crowned"

even as she jsut STOLE more votes in the last primary ...

talks about "how concerned we are about election fraud -- but we will fix it after the hnomination|"


when HER camp did THAT!

NOW -- IF THAT doesn't tell you SOMETHING


I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WLL - just how HUNGRY this woman is for BLOOD!
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,597
Reactions
5,693
Points
113
^I'm not so sure. I'm no Hillary fan, but I think you're overstating it by characterising her track record as appalling. How much of it was her policy and how much of it was the administrations? She is more conservative than Obama which is a good start in my book. As for Trump, I want to believe what you say is correct, but the one thing we know for certain is that we just don't know. Frankly if he is actually competent at foreign policy he's already set back many relationships with important nations and will have to do a lot of bridge building if he got the job. The fact that he's willing to retard strategic American foreign policy for his electoral benefit is disturbing to me. This is not something I have seen practiced as egregiously by a candidate before. What I mean by that, is that I don't get the sense that he is necessarily trying to shape the debate on foreign policy so much as to pander to his base. This is not Presidential
 
  • Like
Reactions: teddytennisfan

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
I think regarding foreign policy, Trump is less dangerous than Hillary Clinton.

Let's be honest... this talk of building a wall on the Mexican border is just talk... it won't happen. Trump is playing to the gallery. Trump is also a deal maker and whether you like him or not... he will talk and negotiate. Clinton is an establishment figure owned by the corporates and her track record on foreign policy is appalling. We don't need to wonder what she's like... we already know.

AND ABSOLUTELY AGREE -- he CAN'T be any other than who he is.

he's a businessman. a tycoon in HIS own way -- and his IDEOLOGY is MONEY AND PROFIT...

and he calculates the costs to the USA TO TRY AND ''contain china" or ''encircle russia"

and ''sanction iran"


THREE PILLARS OF THE EURASIAN INTEGRATION AND SILK ROADS , AIIB,

iran will SOON ascend to membership with the SHANGHAI COOPERATION COUNCIL -- SCO - with russia, china, ALL central asian eneergy rich nations, etc. etc. etc...

where gigantic nfrastructures of commerce are already popping up like mushrooms ...


and KNOWS trying to ''conquer and rule eurasia\"

as BRZEZNSKI AND ABL;RIGHT -- all CLINTON ''advisers"

WHO; ARE THE SPIRTUAL AUTHORS OF ALL the mess everyone sees --

it is the USA that IS - IS -- going to LOSE!
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,435
Reactions
6,257
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
^I'm not so sure. I'm no Hillary fan, but I think you're overstating it by characterising her track record as appalling. How much of it was her policy and how much of it was the administrations? She is more conservative than Obama which is a good start in my book. As for Trump, I want to believe what you say is correct, but the one thing we know for certain is that we just don't know. Frankly if he is actually competent at foreign policy he's already set back many relationships with important nations and will have to do a lot of bridge building if he got the job. The fact that he's willing to retard strategic American foreign policy for his electoral benefit is disturbing to me. This is not something I have seen practiced as egregiously by a candidate before. What I mean by that, is that I don't get the sense that he is necessarily trying to shape the debate on foreign policy so much as to pander to his base. This is not Presidential

The bottom line is Trump will not be the next US president... so all this stuff is kind of just chewing the fat. The media, the corporates and everyone else will get firmly behind Clinton should both be the eventual nominees. Trump won't win the centre ground. But what he's given us... is a hope that a non-establishment figure can contend in the future.

Frankly, I think that if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is the best America can put forward then god help America.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
^I'm not so sure. I'm no Hillary fan, but I think you're overstating it by characterising her track record as appalling. How much of it was her policy and how much of it was the administrations? She is more conservative than Obama which is a good start in my book. As for Trump, I want to believe what you say is correct, but the one thing we know for certain is that we just don't know. Frankly if he is actually competent at foreign policy he's already set back many relationships with important nations and will have to do a lot of bridge building if he got the job. The fact that he's willing to retard strategic American foreign policy for his electoral benefit is disturbing to me. This is not something I have seen practiced as egregiously by a candidate before. What I mean by that, is that I don't get the sense that he is necessarily trying to shape the debate on foreign policy so much as to pander to his base. This is not Presidential


just telling you , federberg -- that BEWARE of your own enamored view of clinton.

she is NOT as ''conservative" as you think.


there IS A reason why -- XI JINPING OF CHINA

yesterday -- BROKE PROTOCOL

teh chinese in ''global meetings" NEVER do such things -- just out of their character to be so ''direct"

but he broke protocol

when sensing tha tOBAMA

- IN THE nuclear talks going on right NOW in washington DC -- was trying to ''tempt" xi jinping in ''joining usa in military cooperation against north korea" --

and immediately REJECTED the mere suggestion -- regardless of the HEADache THE N KOREA gives beijing...

why? because BEIJING sees RIGHT through the charade obama is trying to trap china into..

become ''committed" against N korea

OSTENSIBLY -- BUT ONCE N KOREA is ''subjugated|

USE the AMERICAN ''missile defense"

in the NORTH ASIAN region and waters to TURN AGAINST CHINA AND RUSSIA THEMSELVES !

and THAT is what obama wants to ''LEAVE FOR HILLARY" TO PLAY ON!

BECAUSE that is what clinton want LONG AGO .

thnking that EURASIA belongs to america to RULE! BY ''ENCIRCLING AND CONTAINING" RUSSIA AND CHINA

who are NATIVES to the great landmass

that -- somehow AMERICA just can not conquer NO MATTER how much they DEARLY WANT TO!


that is the TRUE nature of c;linton and america uinder her in their policies.


"who rules the heartland (russia ) rules the WORLD ISLAND (EURASIA) -- who rules the WORLD island -- rules the WORLD"


from the late 19th century British geopolicial theorist MACKINDER


whose ''teachings" are


THE bible TO THESE ILK like brzezinski, clinton and their knd!

and to china and russia THAT MEANS WAR!


SO YOU THINK CLINTON IS SOME wonderful matronly ''first woman president standing up for womens' and liberals' rights/" ?


you have got different coming, i tell you.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
The bottom line is Trump will not be the next US president... so all this stuff is kind of just chewing the fat. The media, the corporates and everyone else will get firmly behind Clinton should both be the eventual nominees. Trump won't win the centre ground. But what he's given us... is a hope that a non-establishment figure can contend in the future.

Frankly, I think that if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is the best America can put forward then god help America.

that's why it's so scary --BRITBOX.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113


THE ''WARNING TO OBAMA" is really from XI JINPING to HILLARY if she ever ascends the trhone and tries WAR with china..


=================================

QUESTION MORE
live
  • search
  • Menu mobile



HomeNews
Xi warns Obama against threatening China’s sovereignty & national interests
Published time: 1 Apr, 2016 05:38
56fde1eac461888e3d8b457b.jpg

US President Barack Obama(not shown) and China's President Xi Jinping take part in a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center on March 31, 2016 in Washington, DC. © Mandel Ngan / AFP
China has warned the US that it will protect its sovereignty in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and rejects attempts to use international laws and freedom of navigation as a pretext to undermine its national security interests.
In a meeting with US President Barack Obama at the fourth Nuclear Security Summit in Washington DC, his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping said that while he believes in the peaceful resolution of conflicts through direct talks, China will take steps to protect its national interests and sovereignty.

“China will firmly safeguard the sovereignty and related rights in the South China Sea,” Xi said in a meeting, according to Xinhua news.

While acknowledging that Beijing “respects and safeguards the freedom of navigation and overflight other countries are entitled to under international law,” Xi stressed that China will “not accept any freedom of navigation as an excuse to undermine China's sovereignty and national security interests.”

Read more
US Navy deploys small armada headed by USS Stennis to South China Sea
The US has been taking steps to counter China’s growing influence in the region and has increased its regular naval patrols in the South China Sea as part of “freedom of navigation” drills near the disputed islands chain. Washington has also increased air surveillance in addition to stepping up US-led war games with its Asian allies. In response China deployed its surface-to-air missile systems on Woody Island earlier this year, in addition to military aircraft.

Woody Island is the biggest island in the Paracel chain in the South China Sea. China laid claim to the island in the 1950s, but the rights to the area, which is at the heart of economically important shipping routes in the South China Sea, are being contested by Taiwan, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam.

In addition to perceived US intrusion into the South China Sea affair, China is apprehensive about the installation of an advanced anti-missile Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the Korean peninsula.

According to Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang, during the meeting Xi told Obama that China was “firmly opposed” to the US’ deployment of THAAD.

In February, the United States and South Korea agreed to start talks about deploying the THAAD system to counter the threat from North Korea which recently boasted about its growing nuclear capabilities. North Korea’s nuclear test on January 6 and a satellite launch on February 7 were violations of existing UN sanctions.

While no official decision has been made to place THAAD in South Korea, China has repeatedly over the past few months continued to stress that the US’ deployment of an anti-ballistic missile complex, designed to destroy short to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, could jeopardize its national security.

Ahead of the Nuclear Security Summit, Tony Blinken, Deputy Secretary of Defense, urged China to side with the US on the deployment of THAAD.
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,435
Reactions
6,257
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
I was actually a fan of Ron Paul... too old to contest probably these days which is a shame... but a pragmatist on foreign affairs.

Clinton will be the same old same old... America will spend more money that it's got.... continued reliance on the petro-dollar, a stooge of the corporates and lobby groups, continual meddling in foreign countries... wars by proxy....

The world is changing and America needs to move with the times..
 
  • Like
Reactions: teddytennisfan

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
also


PEOPLE NEED TO remember or learn if they didn't catch the news years ago.


THIS HILLARY HAS KNIVES TO SHARPEN against china..because china just WOULD NOT KNEEL to HER demands as STATE SECRETARY until 4 years ago.

her LAST official trip as that to beijing resulted in a -- LECTURE -- to her face...

that we can never assume she has'nt harbored real malice TO THE POINT of egging for WAR in the south china sea.


and it is this;

HER L;AST visit -- made a public forum and discussion group with other leaders -- inclouding chinese hosts --


about global policies...

she Dared TO LECTURE china in their home turf about 'YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS RECORDS THAT NEED TO BE REFORMED"...

at which point -- a high chinese official BROKE ''polite host" protocol..
\

stood up and alked a few paces to her pointed and wagged his finger at her...

and SCOLDED her...


"who are YOU to lecture US about human rights? when you have invaded and destroyed countries all over the world, you openly defend TORTURE , your neighborhoods are full of poverty , homelessness and your prisons are full of people just because they are black?"


she SHUT UP.

so don't UNDER-ESTIMATE her MALICE ...
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,597
Reactions
5,693
Points
113
The bottom line is Trump will not be the next US president... so all this stuff is kind of just chewing the fat. The media, the corporates and everyone else will get firmly behind Clinton should both be the eventual nominees. Trump won't win the centre ground. But what he's given us... is a hope that a non-establishment figure can contend in the future.

Frankly, I think that if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is the best America can put forward then god help America.
no argument there!
 
  • Like
Reactions: teddytennisfan

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,597
Reactions
5,693
Points
113
I was actually a fan of Ron Paul... too old to contest probably these days which is a shame... but a pragmatist on foreign affairs.

Clinton will be the same old same old... America will spend more money that it's got.... continued reliance on the petro-dollar, a stooge of the corporates and lobby groups, continual meddling in foreign countries... wars by proxy....

The world is changing and America needs to move with the times..
I wouldn't call Ron Paul a pragmatist on foreign affairs. The guy was an isolationist. I don't have a problem with that per se, just understand the implications of an isolationist US and make sure you're happy with that before you endorse the guy. I rather liked his stance on monetary policy
 
  • Like
Reactions: teddytennisfan

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
I wouldn't call Ron Paul a pragmatist on foreign affairs. The guy was an isolationist. I don't have a problem with that per se, just understand the implications of an isolationist US and make sure you're happy with that before you endorse the guy. I rather liked his stance on monetary policy

WE CAN CALL IT WHATEVER WE ANT.


but the point for ron paul was to NOT constantly meddle in tne internatl affairs of nations as if the USA is some DOCTOR ...who only ends up bringing poison ..
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,597
Reactions
5,693
Points
113
WE CAN CALL IT WHATEVER WE ANT.


but the point for ron paul was to NOT constantly meddle in tne internatl affairs of nations as if the USA is some DOCTOR ...who only ends up bringing poison ..

Yes fair enough. But bear in mind that American strategy has been fairly consistent for roughly two centuries in terms of its broader strokes. There is a certain logic to it. I don't think isolationism has much of a place now unfortunately. However much I would find that attractive as an ideal. The reality is that I'm not even sure Russia would find it appealing either. Where the other powers disagree with the United States tends to be where their interests overlap. But you'll find that where they don't, they'll often hope that the United States is there to deal with any issues that arise. As things stand the United States is the only global power that really is everywhere. Trust me no one would like the vacuum that could exist in their absence
 
  • Like
Reactions: teddytennisfan

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
QUESTION MORE
l



HomeUSA
Clinton loses it when Greenpeace activist asks about her fossil fuel donors (VIDEO)
Published time: 1 Apr, 2016 12:13Edited time: 1 Apr, 2016 12:52
56fe6390c3618866368b45be.jpg

© Greenpeace USA / YouTube
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton was captured losing her cool Thursday when confronted by a Greenpeace activist about the millions of dollars in direct and indirect donations she receives from the fossil fuel industry.
“Regarding climate change, can we have your word that you’ll reject fossil fuel money in the future for your campaign?” Greenpeace “democracy organizer” Eva Resnick-Day asked.

via GIPHY

“I don’t have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton claimed, before bizarrely blaming her surging opponent, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who had nothing to do with the question. “I am so sick, I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.”

Responding to the former US Secretary of State’s accusations, Resnick-Day said Greenpeace USA along with 20 organizations had asked all presidential candidates to reject future contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Clinton’s campaign failed to sign the pledge while Sanders did immediately.

“I was genuinely shocked by her response,” the activist said. “But I want to make sure we are focused on the issue at hand: asking our candidates to take a stand to fix our democracy. Rejecting fossil fuel money sends a strong signal.”

The Clinton campaign accepted at least $160,000 in direct donations from the fossil fuel industry, according to the Annenberg Foundation, while Priorities USA Action, a “Pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC” that raised $40 million in 2015, raised $3.25 million in contributions from employees of fossil fuel companies.

The PAC’s notable donors include controversial Israel financer Haim Saban, billionaire George Soros, and beloved Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, who all forked out $1 million each for Clinton’s campaign.

READ MORE: Clooneys mocked for hosting $353k-per-couple Hillary Clinton fundraiser

Despite her vow to “end” climate change if she wins the presidency, millions were also donated to The Clinton Foundation, the charity she set up with her husband Bill, by fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, Duke Energy, and Anadarko Petroleum.

by Taboola
Sponsored Links

From The Web