US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

So Ryan not going to run again. This is seismic. We all heard the rumours now it's confirmed. Does this mean he'll now grow a spine and stand up for the rule of law? One can hope!

There's talk of a run for WH in 2020.

 

[Moxie]

FBI raided Trump's lawyer's office, house and hotel yesterday. Trump called it a "break in," ignoring that they had a bench warrant from a NY judge. I think that lawyer is in trouble. And he will know where all DJT's "bodies are buried."

 

[Federberg]

There's talk of a run for WH in 2020.

that makes no sense to me. 2024 I could understand, but not 2020. I haven't heard that rumour anywhere

 

[mrzz]

I am sure DJT has first obtained permission from Putin to act tough on Russia for a while.

No, he is just retarded. I really don't understand how he can base his actions about Syria on exactly the same sources of "fake news" that he disregards in all other accounts. The good thing about modern times is that you can actually watch what happens on the security council. I had a live stream opened all the time while I work, and I can tell you the reality there is sooo different from what the press reports.

 

[Federberg]

No, he is just retarded. I really don't understand how he can base his actions about Syria on exactly the same sources of "fake news" that he disregards in all other accounts. The good thing about modern times is that you can actually watch what happens on the security council. I had a live stream opened all the time while I work, and I can tell you the reality there is sooo different from what the press reports.

errrr... because he calls it fake news when it's in his interests to do so. Not because it's actually fake o_O

 

[mrzz]

errrr... because he calls it fake news when it's in his interests to do so. Not because it's actually fake o_O

That is the obvious inference, I know (not discussing what is fake or what is not). Point is that this is an obvious lack of coherence that no one is calling attention for.

 

[Federberg]

That is the obvious inference, I know (not discussing what is fake or what is not). Point is that this is an obvious lack of coherence that no one is calling attention for.

I think that's because no one expects consistency from him

 

[Moxie]

that makes no sense to me. 2024 I could understand, but not 2020. I haven't heard that rumour anywhere

Some speculation on this side of the pond. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/11/will-paul-ryan-challenge-trump-2020/

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Paul Ryan claims to have 6 to 8 body fat percentage. But my guess is his BF% is probably in the
range of 10% to 14%. At any rate he is very fit to run unlike Chris Christie the former governor of NJ.

 

[Federberg]

Some speculation on this side of the pond. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/11/will-paul-ryan-challenge-trump-2020/

Ok, but that's other people talking not Ryan it seems. It'll take a bit longer than 1 year for Ryan to get rid of the stench of incompetence so 2020 seems too soon. If he hasn't precipitated the next economic collapse (I think he has) with the tax cut (not tax reform!) then realistically 2024 is the earliest he can make a run imho

 

[Federberg]

Am I the only one who finds the excerpts from Comey's book really petty? Clearly just trying to make a buck (can't hold that against him) but you would think he would at least wait until after the Mueller probe ends. For once I think Trump is right, Comey is a grandstander and showboat. Fantastically self-serving to the detriment of others which isn't a surprise after what he did during the election

 

[britbox]

Ha! You would say that! There is absolutely no contradiction in what I wrote. The fact is there is documentary evidence of Russian bombing of non-participants. This is nothing new where Russian prosecutions of war are concerned. We even saw in the hostage situation in Moscow a decade ago that the Russians aren't particular about saving victims, their priority is the elimination of threats. It's what makes them so lethal quite frankly. I bet even ISIS would hesitate to act on Russian soil for fear of the extremity of the reaction. Now if you're arguing on the basis that the word 'genocide' is hyperbolic then that's a discussion I'm willing to have.

Moving on to the CIA in Ukraine. This has not been proven. Even the Russians don't make the accusation categorically. They merely contend that it was caused by Western influence. It seems that the difference in our positions is that I wait for facts before accusing, even though I state my suspicion that there was CIA activity (same with the Arab Spring). The reality is that our views here are not far apart, you are trying to attribute the difference to bias, when it's simply an objective appraisal of the facts at hand on one side. Remember, in all of this, I have never once said that Western intervention is benign while Russian actions are malign. They are both malign in my view

There's documentary evidence of just about every single combatant party in Syria bombing non-participants... what's new? Ditto, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya.... an endless list dating back years.

Russia are not the good guys here, Assad is not the good guy here, the Americans aren't the good guys here, neither are the French, Brits, Israelis, Iranians, Saudis, Qataris or any other party logged into this war. They are purely in it for geopolitical reasons. There is no humanitarian dimension.

You might laugh at false flags on the eve an offensive... but really pal, how many times does this shit need to happen before you start questioning it? It happens over and over and over.... and people still keep swallowing the same old shit. Countries need a degree of public backing to put troops up and they need a story to win them over. It's simple playbook stuff.

 

[Federberg]

There's documentary evidence of just about every single combatant party in Syria bombing non-participants... what's new? Ditto, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya.... an endless list dating back years.

Russia are not the good guys here, Assad is not the good guy here, the Americans aren't the good guys here, neither are the French, Brits, Israelis, Iranians, Saudis, Qataris or any other party logged into this war. They are purely in it for geopolitical reasons. There is no humanitarian dimension.

You might laugh at false flags on the eve an offensive... but really pal, how many times does this shit need to happen before you start questioning it? It happens over and over and over.... and people still keep swallowing the same old shit. Countries need a degree of public backing to put troops up and they need a story to win them over. It's simple playbook stuff.

Lol! You keep repeating what I say. I don't get it. As I said I don't see Western intervention as benign. I frankly don't blame Russia for looking to hold on to their only Mediterranean port. It makes strategic sense. I can only assume that your continuing to do this is to try to imply that I have bias of some sort? Where we part company is when you start making unsubstantiated claims about false flag events. That's stuff for the darkest part of conspiracy theory. Not my thing

 

[britbox]

All a false flag event is an alternative opinion on who carried it out.

I find it particularly odd that these "chemical attacks" happen when Assad is in the ascendency. On what basis would it make any sense? Again, one of the "sniff tests" is who would benefit the most... Assad would be pretty low on the ladder.

 

[Federberg]

All a false flag event is an alternative opinion on who carried it out.

I find it particularly odd that these "chemical attacks" happen when Assad is in the ascendency. On what basis would it make any sense? Again, one of the "sniff tests" is who would benefit the most... Assad would be pretty low on the ladder.

That only happens if you misunderstand the Assad/Russian/Iranian strategy which can be summarised as "Starve, Siege, Surrender". Look.. Assad has clearly won the war, and he is mopping up. He needs to eliminate resistance as decisively as possible. It is therefore very credible that he could/would use chemical warfare given Trump's public musings about getting out of Syria. Even more so than that, the normalising of chemical warfare, whether with nerve agents in the UK or what just happened in Syria would have advantages for all bad actors who, albeit in militarily weaker positions (vis a vis NATO), can resort to that type of asymmetric warfare. It's not hard to see why this could be attractive to Assad's primary sponsors - Russia and Iran. And quite frankly what's so bad about this for Assad? He is not going to be removed from power, I doubt even John Bolton would dare bring up regime change, that kind of talk is anathema in Washington. Yes sure he might take some heat, but it's actually top level realpolitik being played out by the Assad/Russia/Iran axis. They clearly believe any response will be limited and contained

 

[britbox]

I think you're misunderstanding the situation here brother... I read a similar argument to this in the Sydney Morning Herald and would have laughed if it wasn't so dangerous.

This is not some mopping up exercise from Assad. This is a quagmire. Yes, Assad is in the ascendancy, but the Americans still have positions in Syria. The Israelis hit Syria a few days ago... they have no interest in an outright Assad victory given the axis with Russia and more importantly Iran and Hezbollah... Neither have the Saudis or the Qataris... the Turks are yet another dimension given the "Kurd" issue... That's without even considering the French, Brits and other western powers chomping at the bit.

I think it's far more likely that one of the other "actors" had more to benefit from this than Assad. Particularly considering the changing of the guard in Washington where we are seeing an influx of ex-CIA and Warhawks like John Boulton entering the fold.

I can't see Assad ordering such an attack unilaterally without Russian permission and Putin is a geopolitical chess player - it doesn't really make any sense at all.

 

[Federberg]

I think you're misunderstanding the situation here brother... I read a similar argument to this in the Sydney Morning Herald and would have laughed if it wasn't so dangerous.

This is not some mopping up exercise from Assad. This is a quagmire. Yes, Assad is in the ascendancy, but the Americans still have positions in Syria. The Israelis hit Syria a few days ago... they have no interest in an outright Assad victory given the axis with Russia and more importantly Iran and Hezbollah... Neither have the Saudis or the Qataris... the Turks are yet another dimension given the "Kurd" issue... That's without even considering the French, Brits and other western powers chomping at the bit.

I think it's far more likely that one of the other "actors" had more to benefit from this than Assad. Particularly considering the changing of the guard in Washington where we are seeing an influx of ex-CIA and Warhawks like John Boulton entering the fold.

I can't see Assad ordering such an attack unilaterally without Russian permission and Putin is a geopolitical chess player - it doesn't really make any sense at all.

It's a quagmire alright. But not for the reasons you seem to think. The Americans have very narrow objectives related to ISIS as do the West. This is a quagmire because you have multiple actors with differing objectives.

America/West - ISIS
Russia - aiding an ally and ensuring the Assad regime which permits Russia access to a naval port in the Mediterranean
Iran - I think this is so obvious it's almost not even worth pointing out. Shia ascendancy. Always remember that the Middle East has been controlled for generations by either the Turks or the Iranians. The Saudis are... children
Turkey - preventing the creation of a Kurdish State
Israel - preventing Iranian encirclement (an objective which is similar to Saudi/Sunni concerns)
Sunnis (Saudis/UAE etc) - preventing Iranian/Shia encirclement
Kurds - fighting ISIS, Assad and hoping that their alliance with the West will result in more support for the creation of a Kurdish State

The simple fact is that the West is going to do everything they can to avoid getting stuck in Syria. They will tolerate the continued existence of the Assad regime if it results in stability of some sort that stops the continued outflow of refugees which continues to destabilise Europe. This has become an objective as important as the elimination of ISIS.

If you think the West has designs of removing Assad you're mis-reading the situation. As Trump correctly states the US has spent over $7trn in the Middle East in the last 2 decades. They don't have the appetite mate. They don't fear Russia maintaining a base in Syria as they remain confident of their overwhelming military superiority. Quite frankly that's a return to a status quo that's been in place for decades.

The greater concern would be Israel and the Sunnis. If there is any realistic false flag operation it would have been done by Israel or the Sunnis. The simple fact is that the Israel would simply not bother doing something like that. The risk reward of such an action would be terrible for them. The risk reward makes far more sense for Sunnis to do this, but frankly they don't have enough assets on ground for this to be a possibility. I think you've been reading too many Mitch Rapp books mate, if you think that stuff has actually happened. You need the proper military infrastructure to be able to do this type of stuff and the only beneficiary from this is actually Assad. You keep thinking in terms of global public opinion, but that's utterly meaningless in this environment. Quite frankly I rather suspect that deep down the West is looking at this and saying hurry up and stabilise the situation there so we can get the hell out, and this refugee crisis can end. And as for Assad seeking Putin's permission, give me a break. Assad knows that it is in the vital military interests of Russia to ensure that he specifically survives. That's geopolitical chess

 

[britbox]

It's a quagmire alright. But not for the reasons you seem to think. The Americans have very narrow objectives related to ISIS as do the West. This is a quagmire because you have multiple actors with differing objectives.

America/West - ISIS
Russia - aiding an ally and ensuring the Assad regime which permits Russia access to a naval port in the Mediterranean
Iran - I think this is so obvious it's almost not even worth pointing out. Shia ascendancy. Always remember that the Middle East has been controlled for generations by either the Turks or the Iranians. The Saudis are... children
Turkey - preventing the creation of a Kurdish State
Israel - preventing Iranian encirclement (an objective which is similar to Saudi/Sunni concerns)
Sunnis (Saudis/UAE etc) - preventing Iranian/Shia encirclement
Kurds - fighting ISIS, Assad and hoping that their alliance with the West will result in more support for the creation of a Kurdish State

The simple fact is that the West is going to do everything they can to avoid getting stuck in Syria. They will tolerate the continued existence of the Assad regime if it results in stability of some sort that stops the continued outflow of refugees which continues to destabilise Europe. This has become an objective as important as the elimination of ISIS.

If you think the West has designs of removing Assad you're mis-reading the situation. As Trump correctly states the US has spent over $7trn in the Middle East in the last 2 decades. They don't have the appetite mate. They don't fear Russia maintaining a base in Syria as they remain confident of their overwhelming military superiority. Quite frankly that's a return to a status quo that's been in place for decades.

The greater concern would be Israel and the Sunnis. If there is any realistic false flag operation it would have been done by Israel or the Sunnis. The simple fact is that the Israel would simply not bother doing something like that. The risk reward of such an action would be terrible for them. The risk reward makes far more sense for Sunnis to do this, but frankly they don't have enough assets on ground for this to be a possibility. I think you've been reading too many Mitch Rapp books mate, if you think that stuff has actually happened. You need the proper military infrastructure to be able to do this type of stuff and the only beneficiary from this is actually Assad. You keep thinking in terms of global public opinion, but that's utterly meaningless in this environment. Quite frankly I rather suspect that deep down the West is looking at this and saying hurry up and stabilise the situation there so we can get the hell out, and this refugee crisis can end. And as for Assad seeking Putin's permission, give me a break. Assad knows that it is in the vital military interests of Russia to ensure that he specifically survives. That's geopolitical chess

Most of the above I've already mentioned (vested interests), so not really in disagreement on much of it... I don't think Assad is bothered about global public opinion either - my point was that it made no sense strategically for him to do it... and it was just as likely (if not more) that another party orchestrated it.

Not sure if you recall, but when Assad first started gaining the advantage, and shortly after Obama drew his "chemical" red line in the sand and with the Russians stepping in to broker a deal giving up chemical weapons, there was a Red Cross initiative with a lot of media attention... coincidentally a chemical attack occurred. That one made even less sense than this one, but the British and French immediately blamed Assad. The inspectors couldn't determine it was Assad, but he was blamed anyway and it's still trotted out that he instigated it... even the Germans thought it was highly unlikely he ordered it based on intelligence.

As for the Americans not wanting Assad removed from power - peace talks never got off the ground because they continually insisted he could not be part of the solution even if it was a strictly monitored free poll...

Anyway, strikes have gone in against Syria today from the Americans, Brits and French. Subsequent talk is of de-escalation... they had to do something given the rhetoric of the last few days. Let's see if de-escalation occurs or if this inflames the situation.

 

[Federberg]

Most of the above I've already mentioned (vested interests), so not really in disagreement on much of it... I don't think Assad is bothered about global public opinion either - my point was that it made no sense strategically for him to do it... and it was just as likely (if not more) that another party orchestrated it.

Not sure if you recall, but when Assad first started gaining the advantage, and shortly after Obama drew his "chemical" red line in the sand and with the Russians stepping in to broker a deal giving up chemical weapons, there was a Red Cross initiative with a lot of media attention... coincidentally a chemical attack occurred. That one made even less sense than this one, but the British and French immediately blamed Assad. The inspectors couldn't determine it was Assad, but he was blamed anyway and it's still trotted out that he instigated it... even the Germans thought it was highly unlikely he ordered it based on intelligence.

As for the Americans not wanting Assad removed from power - peace talks never got off the ground because they continually insisted he could not be part of the solution even if it was a strictly monitored free poll...

Anyway, strikes have gone in against Syria today from the Americans, Brits and French. Subsequent talk is of de-escalation... they had to do something given the rhetoric of the last few days. Let's see if de-escalation occurs or if this inflames the situation.

Are you really trying to suggest there's some sort of consistent US policy now with the Obama Administration? Seriously? I'm talking about now. Trump isn't looking to remove Assad, Obama probably was. Regarding your point about German Intelligence not agreeing with French or British intelligence what of it? This is not something the Germans do particularly well, they have not historically invested in Intelligence to a comparable scale as either the British or French so that's a bit of a red herring. I repeat, it makes no strategic sense if your sense of the objectives of the major players is flawed.

As you noted our thinking is not that different. Our main difference is that your disagreement with me is your continued assumption that I have an inherently Western bias in my thinking and for some bizarre reason in your quest for "balance" you seem to want to give Russia a pass. I suggest that if you want to objectively assess what's going on you need to strip all of that away and focus on the objectives of all the players without prejudice. Neither side holds the moral high ground but it doesn't mean that we should take flights of fancy about false flag events that are more appropriate for a Tom Clancy novel.

 

[britbox]

They are hardly false flag events to date... because the western narrative hasn't been proven with any degree of due process but it sure isn't difficult to persuade the people in advance...