Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

And now sources in DoD are reporting to CNN that 45 is considering combat troops in Syria to fight ISIS... which, in terms of the thesis of this thread, is very interesting.

 

If (and reports are unclear at this time) the intention is to fight along side Russian and Syrian troops against ISIS, that would be a big sign that despite the turmoil of recent weeks the side backing Trump in the DS is still in control.

 

If the intention is to fight ISIS and Assad with US ground troops, that would be a huge signal change in the DS's status. It would potentially mean that the side backing Trump has lost and we are going back to the old guard.

 

Stay tuned.

Posted

And now sources in DoD are reporting to CNN that 45 is considering combat troops in Syria to fight ISIS... which, in terms of the thesis of this thread, is very interesting.

 

If (and reports are unclear at this time) the intention is to fight along side Russian and Syrian troops against ISIS, that would be a big sign that despite the turmoil of recent weeks the side backing Trump in the DS is still in control.

 

If the intention is to fight ISIS and Assad with US ground troops, that would be a huge signal change in the DS's status. It would potentially mean that the side backing Trump has lost and we are going back to the old guard.

 

Stay tuned.

Signs seem to point to the "old guard" winning with Trump vilifying Iran, suggesting Russia "give back" Crimea to Ukraine, and sucking up to Netanyahu (being very wishy-washy on Israel stealing more Palestinian land...errr... etablishing new settlements...).

Posted

Signs seem to point to the "old guard" winning with Trump vilifying Iran, suggesting Russia "give back" Crimea to Ukraine, and sucking up to Netanyahu (being very wishy-washy on Israel stealing more Palestinian land...errr... etablishing new settlements...).

 

Agreed, it'll be interesting to see how this shakes out over the next week.

Posted

Signs seem to point to the "old guard" winning with Trump vilifying Iran, suggesting Russia "give back" Crimea to Ukraine, and sucking up to Netanyahu (being very wishy-washy on Israel stealing more Palestinian land...errr... etablishing new settlements...).

 

Or the more plausible scenario, that Trump having finally received true intel from the various sources, recognized that there are allies that can be trusted in the region, and people that can't be trusted in the region, and that Russia is an evil empire.

 

You know, just like every POTUS recognized, no matter what he said leading up to the inauguration.

Posted

 

Or the more plausible scenario, that Trump having finally received true intel from the various sources, recognized that there are allies that can be trusted in the region, and people that can't be trusted in the region, and that Russia is an evil empire.

 

You know, just like every POTUS recognized, no matter what he said leading up to the inauguration.

like Kennedy reaching out to khrushev? Nixon and detente? Carter and salt? How many US bases surround Russia vs Russia's threats to the US? Yes, they're an evil empire. Nice people though.
Posted

like Kennedy reaching out to khrushev? Nixon and detente? Carter and salt? How many US bases surround Russia vs Russia's threats to the US? Yes, they're an evil empire. Nice people though.

Which country has a demonstrated history of invading neighboring sovereigns in the last 50 yrs?

Posted

I think Greggy has a point with a lot of this stuff.

 

He was bound to win one after the Hilly coronation blunder.

:beer:

I was wrong on the election. Will never say otherwise and what I'm about to say next isn't an attempt to explain away that error BUT it is certainly connected to this thread:

 

Clinton was expected to win, by the media and most people paying attention, because her chosen faction of the DS has been at the controls for so long, they have a history of getting what they want. She had the media in her pocket, the CIA, NSA, and the entire establishment which has a history of subverting the people's will. What was unexpected by many, including me, was another faction of the DS making such a strong power play behind the scenes in such a short period of time.

 

However they accomplished it, the victory shook a lot of folks in power who are now (clearly) desperate to hold onto their jobs and status.

 

That's what makes this such an interesting time, we're seeing a power struggle between parties that reside in the shadows -- the kind of struggle that hasn't happened in any of our lifetimes. The chaos is evident in just how much of a glimpse we're getting at how these parties operate and function. That's not the norm and it has the possibility of helping restore our democratic republic if enough people start realizing what's happening (and they seem to be).

 

But I have NO idea what it's going to look like when the dust settles. We'll either have a return to the old guard or something new... but I'm not sure if that something new will be a net positive... I just know it'll be the end of regime change wars which, to me is a positive.

Posted (edited)

:beer:

I was wrong on the election. Will never say otherwise and what I'm about to say next isn't an attempt to explain away that error BUT it is certainly connected to this thread:

 

Clinton was expected to win, by the media and most people paying attention, because her chosen faction of the DS has been at the controls for so long, they have a history of getting what they want. She had the media in her pocket, the CIA, NSA, and the entire establishment which has a history of subverting the people's will. What was unexpected by many, including me, was another faction of the DS making such a strong power play behind the scenes in such a short period of time.

 

However they accomplished it, the victory shook a lot of folks in power who are now (clearly) desperate to hold onto their jobs and status.

 

That's what makes this such an interesting time, we're seeing a power struggle between parties that reside in the shadows -- the kind of struggle that hasn't happened in any of our lifetimes. The chaos is evident in just how much of a glimpse we're getting at how these parties operate and function. That's not the norm and it has the possibility of helping restore our democratic republic if enough people start realizing what's happening (and they seem to be).

 

But I have NO idea what it's going to look like when the dust settles. We'll either have a return to the old guard or something new... but I'm not sure if that something new will be a net positive... I just know it'll be the end of regime change wars which, to me is a positive.

Ha, I'm just giving you schit.

 

I agree with you, I think this is gonna go down as the most tumultuous presidency in our history. Anyone who doesn't think there's something serious going on behind the scenes (what that is is subject to speculation) isn't paying attention, IMO.

Edited by FireChan
Posted

Ha, I'm just giving you schit.

 

I agree with you, I think this is gonna go down as the most tumultuous presidency in our history. Anyone who doesn't think there's something serious going on behind the scenes (what that is is subject to speculation) isn't paying attention, IMO.

 

:beer: I'm with you, I just wanted to clarify again that I'm not running from my election prediction because some people, not you, like to assume that I am.

Posted

Which country has a demonstrated history of invading neighboring sovereigns in the last 50 yrs?

Communism is dead. Get over it.

Btw, They have given more countries back their independence than invaded over the past 50.

Posted

Communism is dead. Get over it.

Btw, They have given more countries back their independence than invaded over the past 50.

 

Must be nice to say that from your comfortable office in Buffalo.

×
×
  • Create New...