TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
So, Clinton does favours for rich powerful elites, allegedly. Trump's a grifter who, manipulates, lies to and rips people off, whether they are rich or poor. He doesn't care. It's all about him. And he throws tantrums and lies about things he's on record saying - yesterday - claiming he's being maligned by the media for his own words! So, he tries to shut them down.

I'd rather have Clinton. It's business as usual but the world can survive four years of it.
 
Assad is not a peace-loving dove? What on earth to you think American presidents have been doing for the last sixty years or so? The U.S. murdered over a million in Iraq, probably over three million in Vietnam, 300,000 in Guatemala. And it has far, far out-murdered Assad in Syria.
And do you seriously think Obama interfered in Syria simply because Saddam was a "bad man"? If so, why hasn't he attacked Saudi Arabia and and Israel?
And who gave the U.S. a pass to decide who should be invaded?
Please, Kimmio, you can't possibly believe that the U.S. has been killing millions and refugeeing tens of millions because their leaders are 'bad men". Think hard about that.
And Trump is more likely to start conflicts? So far, all the conflicts of the last sixty years have been started by the Obamas, Bushs, Clintons, Kennedys etc. of this world.
As for limiting freedom of speech, the U.S. has been doing that for decades.
And he would be reckless with the economy? Oh dear. How unlike - how very unlike the peoplel who have run the U.S. economy for the last 50 years or so, creating mass poverty while shovelling money into the pocket of the rich.
Hillary has been up to her ears in all this. - murdering, accepting huge bribes, allowing the defence industry to run up the biggest deficits the world has ever seen.
Kimmio, open both eyes.
 
As for the world surviving four years of Clinton, it might. But while we're watching right now with Obama in power and Clinton in the cabinet, the American poor are being robbed, the ranks of the poor are growing, people are being murdered all over the globe, and rich are getting obscenely rich...
Oh, and Hillary is 'allegedly' accepting bribes? Nonsense. She has become a multi-multi-millionaire by cleaning apartments on weekends. And she gives all her money away to charities.
And she accepts Bill's little indiscretions because, after all, they make adolescent girls so happy.
 
When the base line (bottom-line poor) collapses ... will there be anyone left to carry out chit? With consideration that the rich wouldn't touch that with a 10 fete 'd pole !
 
Bill Sardi is a health writer and broadcaster of great success, though i think he has severe conflicts of interest in that area.
However, I used his column because he uses some good sources, and because much of what he says about politics is stuff I have often seen in quite reliable sources. It is no secret that she has been on the side of the warhawks, and that she accepts large donations from them. There's no good on either side in this election. Either result it going to be bad news for a majority of Americans - with a high probability of violence as an outcome.
And add to that the tremendous strain of racism and the rising poverty.
 
So I'm curious, do you think the United States loses wars on purpose? Is there a method to their madness?
 
No. It doesn't lose them on purpose - but it's true that its military record for the last fifty years or so has been dreadfully incompetent. I can't think offhand of any nation in history which was so big and so rich and which spent so much on its military - and still couldn't defeat a Vietnam or an Afghanistan - and has only an incomplete win over Iraq and Libya.
As for why it fights wars, that's easy. World economic conquest. It's on the the web as "Project for the New American Century." It's also called American exceptionalism which Obama has many times endorsed publicly. So has Clinton. in relative terms, Trump has been a man of peace. (though I'm not at all sure I believe that.)
Anyway, just to calm the doubters, here's related articlel by Paul Craig Roberts who is as high an authority as you are ever likely to find.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45284.htm
 
The problem there is that big business says free trade but usually means deals that destroy our control over our own countries - expecially in taxation and environment. The idea is probably good. but it gets hijacked.
 
@Graeme Decarie I'm sincerely curious as to what you think should've been done about Syria and Assad.

Past presidential regimes may have been responsible for several wars. I just think under Trump things would be much worse in not only that respect, but others domestically. He is erratic, petulant...a grifter, and a loose canon. He has no political past to go on, but his behaviour itself won't change - and with more power makes him more dangerous. He's unlikely to be elected at this point, regardless.
 
Oh, at this point, I'm quite sure he won't get elected. and that is very likely to be the beginning of a breakdown of the U.S. Most people - including those who will vote for her, don't like or trust Hillalry. When she wins, there is every possiblity of widespread anger at government turning into mindless violence.

A trump victory would create a similar problem. This is lose/lose.

What should've been done about Syria? It was none of anybody's business. American intervention in supporting the so-called rebels has killed far, far more people that Assad ever did. For that matter, the U.S. has promoted murderous dictatorships all over the world. That's why the current Egyptian leadership came from. That's why Haiti and Cuba lived under dictatorships for so long - and many other countries in South America.

.Assad kills? No doubt. The Saudis kill even more (with substantial U.S. help). The U.S. has always supported dictators in The Phillipines. It supported murderous dictators in South Vietnam.

Quite simply, Obama is lying when he says he's bringing freedom to Syria. Foreign affairs don't work that way. What he's trying to bring is American ownership of all oil that is in Syria. (And even if he were actually trying to bring freedom, you don't bring freedom my killing people in hundreds of thousaands and creating refugees in the tens of millions.

Similarly, the U.S. did not invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. When you kill a million people to get rid of a bad man, don't expect all the dead to be grateful.

In fact, it was the US that made Saddam Hussein the dictator he was. The U.S. supplied him with money and weapons to fight a war against Iran. It was buddies with Saddam. Saddam's big mistake was to make oil deals with Russia. That's when the U.S. decided he was bad.

By the way, the U.S., earlier, overthrew the elected government of Iran because the government felt that Iran should control its own oil. The U.S. oil industry was annoyed. So that's when the U.S. jailed the elected leader, and imposed a dictator, the Shah, who was hideously brutal. Later, Iran overthrew the shah - and that's why the U.S. hates it today.

(Iraq, incidentally, still does not have a democratic government. It is a collection of US puppets which is widely hated.)

I cannot think of any major power in history that has fought a war to bring democracy and freedom to anybody; It sometimes comes out that way. But that's never the reason for the war.

What to do about dictators?
1. face facts. many nations want dictators. And what kind of government they want is their business, not the business of the U.S.
2. We have a UN to handle problems like dictatorships. But the U.S. made a dead letter out of the UN many years ago. And that's why the reputation of Canada has withered at the UN. It's obvious that Canda is a patsy for the U.S.

Oh, and when it comes to invasions and wars, the U.S. has led the world, by far, since 1945. And Hillary has never once opposed a war.
 
Did Rome depend on dictators to bring them down ... or was it an overwhelming activity of the state of the empire?

Thus the down coming, or what some call fallacy in empiricism that few understand? NOSH-ite ...
 
Was it nobody's business to try to stop Hitler?

In a globalized world do we just let it happen? It may have been different in the days when countries were not interdependent, and peoples' did not share every corner of the world. But what about, say, Syrian Americans who watched what was happening, communicated with their families in real time, and felt helpless? It becomes more than just "Syria's own business". Geography is irrelevant to the person experiencing worry about their sibling or parents in another country in a war zone. Does a country not try help other countries stop a horrible civil war? How, if diplomacy isn't working? I might've been inclined to agree with you at one time but knowing that we live in a multicultural society where people are interconnected with family and friends in every part of the world - it's not easy to just ignore and let it be "their problem" when things are really bad. Assad was killing his own people in droves. What western leader has done that since Hitler?

Graeme you're critical of American intervention, but when it comes to Assad killing his own people - that's their business. Does that make sense? People died, many, in both instances. Humans are humans. What if intervention prevents a prolonged war?

As for Assad, I remember interviews and stories of citizens begging for intervention - and that was early on. No average citizen anywhere wants that to be going on. They want it stopped and they needed help to do that. And things got worse instead of better.

I'm not so sure that, had the U.S. Not trained rebels on the ground, a vacuum would not have been created for extremeist groups and armies to come in and create more mayhem anyway. Possibly funded by other countries anyway. We don't know. It's just as possible. But the situation in Syria was largely ignored for a long time and things festered, badly.
 
Last edited:
I think mistakes were made. I'm not convinced that it wasn't just poor strategy to try to stop the war there, to stop Assad (when Putin wanted to keep him in despite what he was doing to his people - Assad started the conflict there) - not enough or not the right things were done - and it got out of hand. I hate war - diplomacy whenever possible. We live in one world. I'm not in favour of just ignoring other countries suffering through prolonged wars though. And if diplomacy doesn't stop it?
 
Last edited:
What you're saying is hard for me to believe. Why would they have foreseen or wanted to create the refugee crisis and the rise of ISIL? It happened. It doesn't mean the U.S. wanted it to, Graeme.
 
Saudi Arabia kills its own people at a very high rate. Beheadings are quite common. So it cutting off feed and hands to let the victim bleed to death. Do you recomment we invade Saudi Arabia?
The U.S. killed over a million in Iraq. Should we invade the U.S.?
How many people has Assad killed? How many innocent people has the U.S. killed to 'protect' the Syrians? The dictator of The Phillipines has killed hundreds just recently. It scarcely even makes the news.
The U.S. has murdered environmentalists in South America. It rarely even makes our news. We routinely kill people all over Africa. How often have you seen that in the news?
Killing a million people is not really a good way to protect them.
As for us intervening in WW2 to save the people of Europe, forget it. Hitler had massive backing from big business in the western world - and lots of sympathy from us common people. We didn't give a damn about the Jews. We were as anti-semitic as they come. that's why we would not accept Jewish immigrants in the 1930s, during the war and for several years after it. Ford was a major financial friend of Hitler. PM Mackenzie King wrote that Hitler reminded him of Joan of Arc. I experienced anti-semitism in the 1960s when I ran a camp for the YMHA, and wore a YMHA T shirt. When I visited a lake district for the very wealthy, the lake committee held an emergency meeting to find out who had invited the Jew.
The west turned against Hitler when, and because, he posed a business threat to western big business - same as World War 1. And for all the photos of people crying, many French happily accepted the German occupation, and were pro-Nazi. As well, most of the countries we 'freed' happily cooperated in rounding up Jews. Ukraine was notorious for it, and its government today has a large, Nazi component.
The U.S. entered the war only because it was a chance for its big business to steal the European empires in places like China, India and the middle east. (Yes, I know about Pearl Harbour - but that, too, isn't quite what it seemed to be, Ditto with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
The U.S. has blockaded Yemen and supplies the Saudis with aircraft and bombs to kill some of the poorest people in the world. Its also maintains a blockade of Yemen in an attempt to starve those people to death. Where is your rage at that?
Almost all wars are fought to make money for the wealthy and influential. That's what the British Empire was about - an empire as cruel as any.

Yes, we need to deal with dictators and murderers. And the world's biggesst threat in that respect today is the U.S. It has a thousand military bases around the world.- to attack. I know your news media don't say that. That's because almost all of them are owned by a handful of billionaires.

But one thing we do know, we cannot make people free by killing them.

By the way, the so-called Syrian rebels were created, paid and armed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. And large numbers of them were not Syrians. They were mercenaries, professional killers for a price rented out by American-owned companies. And they lost because they never had majority support in Syria. Nothing even close to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top