Trump foreign policy

[3rdnlng]

"I’m not arguing anything, and I certainly don’t care what your position is. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Believe what you want. "

 

"Yawn. Another day, another insult from you. Whatever. If you’d like grow up and actually have a mature discussion, I’m all ears and would love to chat. If not, please save the insults for someone else."

 

Thurmal, you seem confused. One side of the mouth or the other. When you talk out of both, you getshit  like the above.

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[row_33]

the internet is a lousy way to have a decent conversation.....

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

I’m not arguing anything, and I certainly don’t care what your position is. 

 

Yes you were - and you even asked me what my position was. 

 

 

12 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

Just like shifting Poland’s borders to the west after WW2 was the “path to peace” and “stability” Why? Because it was EASIER. How do you think the Poles liked that?

 

Endorsed by FDR, Churchill, because they didn’t want to upset UJ. 

 

Is Russia a US/NATO ally in your mind?

 

 

You launched into a comment I made arguing it was akin to appeasement - which was so idiotic you had to pretend later that you never argued anything. 

 

Your dishonesty and ignorance are on full display. 

[row_33]

Yes, a time machine turning the clock back to the Utopia of 1939 would solve all our problems today.....

 

that’s an.......interesting and bold point of view.......

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Chalk another one up for the GCC.

[/dev/null]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Chalk another one up for the GCC.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

......oops?

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

 

This is going to end badly for the Mullahs, but great for the world.

[B-Man]

DRILL, BABY, DRILL: Trump’s revenge: U.S. oil floods Europe, hurting OPEC and Russia.

 

 

 

 

.

[GG]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This is going to end badly for the Mullahs, but great for the world.

Just a silly question. 

 

Why are you supportive of US involvement in toppling Russian backed mullahs, but slammed the US for helping out Ukraine to keep Russia out?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GG said:

Why are you supportive of US involvement in toppling Russian backed mullahs, but slammed the US for helping out Ukraine to keep Russia out?

 

Method, motivation, and the alliances involved.

[GG]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Method, motivation, and the alliances involved.

So suddenly the forces in State who are pursuing a neocon agenda in Iran are the good guys.  But they were bad when they tried to do the same in Ukraine?

 

And if you are going to counter with different players, why have you ignored to point out on whose side the Podesta Group was in that conflict?

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, GG said:

So suddenly the forces in State who are pursuing a neocon agenda in Iran are the good guys.  But they were bad when they tried to do the same in Ukraine?

 

And if you are going to counter with different players, why have you ignored to point out on whose side the Podesta Group was in that conflict?

 

The internal pressure in Iran is coming from the people, not State, and certainly not a neocon agenda. Langley's presence in Iran has been cut back, not increased. The forces in State you're referencing were purged in 45's first few months, I chronicled it in a couple threads. 

 

The forces-that-were who were the brains in the Ukrainian strategy partnered with actual Nazis - not to stop the Russians but to fan the flames in the hopes of sparking a larger conflict. The goal in Iran is to let the people - who do not want the Mullahs around - to dictate their own future. Not to impose a vision upon them, and not partnering with Nazis in order to do so. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The internal pressure in Iran is coming from the people, not State, and certainly not a neocon agenda. Langley's presence in Iran has been cut back, not increased. The forces in State you're referencing were purged in 45's first few months, I chronicled it in a couple threads. 

 

The forces-that-were who were the brains in the Ukrainian strategy partnered with actual Nazis - not to stop the Russians but to fan the flames in the hopes of sparking a larger conflict. The goal in Iran is to let the people - who do not want the Mullahs around - to dictate their own future. Not to impose a vision upon them, and not partnering with Nazis in order to do so. 

 

The internal pressure in Ukraine was coming from the people, not State, and certainly not a neocon agenda. Langley's presence in East Europe has been cut back since 44's election, not increased. The forces in State you're referencing were purged in 44's first few months, that you've continued to ignore in every thread. 

 

The forces-that-were who were the brains in the Iranian strategy partnered with actual Jihadists  - not to stop the Russians but to fan the flames in the hopes of sparking a larger conflict or to establish the Sunni order to hold back the Shia infiltration.

 

The goal in Ukraine is to let the people - who do not want the Russians controlling their life - to dictate their own future. Not to impose a vision upon them, and not partnering with the redux of the despotic Soviet regime in order to do so. 

[Deranged Rhino]

12 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The forces in State you're referencing were purged in 44's first few months, that you've continued to ignore in every thread. 

 

No, they weren't. In fact, they were strengthened by a compromised DCI (two actually). But we're talking about two different things again. 

 

You continue to think, despite me explaining dozens of times, that I'm of the opinions the neocons are behind everything. They're most certainly not. Their agenda was hijacked, as always happens, by other Langley (for reductionist purposes) elements I'm referencing - who are not the neocons you think I'm referencing. There is some cross over, to be sure but it's not as black and white as you're trying to make it. 

 

12 minutes ago, GG said:

The forces-that-were who were the brains in the Iranian strategy partnered with actual Jihadists  - not to stop the Russians but to fan the flames in the hopes of sparking a larger conflict or to establish the Sunni order to hold back the Shia infiltration.

 

 

We have never disagreed here. 

 

Where we differ is that you believe there was a changing of the guard between these strategies - and there was on the public level, but not where it counts. The forces that were that I'm referencing have been in power, across administrations and parties, since 1962 (if not '47). 

 

12 minutes ago, GG said:

The goal in Ukraine is to let the people - who do not want the Russians controlling their life - to dictate their own future. Not to impose a vision upon them, and not partnering with the redux of the despotic Soviet regime in order to do so. 

 

The good news in all of this is that by the end of the story you're going to see some Russian moles get outed. So, there's that to look forward to (our mutual celebration when that's revealed I mean).  

Edited April 26, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No, they weren't. In fact, they were strengthened by a compromised DCI (two actually). But we're talking about two different things again. 

 

You continue to think, despite me explaining dozens of times, that I'm of the opinions the neocons are behind everything. They're most certainly not. Their agenda was hijacked, as always happens, by other Langley (for reductionist purposes) elements I'm referencing - who are not the neocons you think I'm referencing. There is some cross over, to be sure but it's not as black and white as you're trying to make it. 

 

 

 

We have never disagreed here. 

 

Where we differ is that you believe there was a changing of the guard between these strategies - and there was on the public level, but not where it counts. The forces that were that I'm referencing have been in power, across administrations and parties, since 1962 (if not '47). 

 

 

The good news in all of this is that by the end of the story you're going to see some Russian moles get outed. So, there's that to look forward to (our mutual celebration when that's revealed I mean).  

 

Does this mean that you will also be celebrating some dead Russians?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GG said:

 

Does this mean that you will also be celebrating some dead Russians?

 

I'm a non violent guy by nature so I hesitate to use the term celebrate, but maybe I'll make an exception when it comes to treason.  

 

And - for the record - you're not wrong that my stance has evolved since '14/'15 on this general issue. It has by virtue of learning new information in addition to the other nuttiness I've been covering. I'm a stubborn SOB, without question, but I do try to let the evidence lead me, even/especially when it says my current view/position is wrong.

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 hours ago, GG said:

 

Does this mean that you will also be celebrating some dead Russians?

 

You can celebrate the dead Russians over white Russians.

 

[row_33]

14 hours ago, GG said:

So suddenly the forces in State who are pursuing a neocon agenda in Iran are the good guys.  But they were bad when they tried to do the same in Ukraine?

 

And if you are going to counter with different players, why have you ignored to point out on whose side the Podesta Group was in that conflict?

 

cause you have to be a mental case without a life to even grasp what is so ingrained in your mind on the topic?

 

[GG]

34 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

cause you have to be a mental case without a life to even grasp what is so ingrained in your mind on the topic?

 

 

What in the world are you blabbering about now?  Or is this another case where you're jumping into a 4-yr old ongoing discussion, without knowing the context?