XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.iraq   
   XPost: soc.culture.syria, soc.culture.pakistan, soc.culture.african   
   XPost: rec.sport.tennis   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article <8737v0mxdf.fsf@wintersun.localdomain>,   
   jdeluise   wrote:   
   >TennisGuy  writes:   
   >> Actually I'd say he's batting over .900, which is pretty darn good   
   >> in my books.   
   >   
   >You haven't been reading closely enough if you think that.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> He should throw in the odd post about tennis though.  :)   
   >>   
   >>>..regardless of how many people Hillary or Obama or Bush   
   >>> may have killed.   
   >>   
   >>  'May have killed'? Or just 'have killed'?  What is your take on that?   
   >   
   >The point was that Trump will be continuing the policy of violence, or   
   >possibly escalate it, going by his own words... lo yeeOn believed   
   >otherwise, and me asked for those quotes.  He quietly abandoned the   
   >thread after they were posted :)   
      
   Au contraire, I have responded in more than one follow up about this.   
      
   On the other hand, you picked and chose something Trump has said at   
   the expense of something else that Trump has consistently spoken about   
   on big occasions.   
      
   I think what Trump said in the Vegas GOP debate about G W Bush's Iraq   
   War being not just a disaster but also a disservice to humanity ought   
   to count strongly in favor of where exactly Trump currently stands   
   vis-a-vis American foreign policy.   
      
   According to vox.com (see the appended article below for more):   
     Donald Trump offered a blunt and brutal denunciation of the last   
     Republican president's main foreign policy initiative - the Iraq   
     War.   
     Indeed, Trump went further even than most Democratic politicians   
     would, calling the war "a tremendous disservice to humanity" ...   
      
   The language vox used to describe Trump's unforced statement of the   
   Iraq war shows Trump was perceived as making a radically different   
   assessment, unlike most other contemporary politicians who have   
   significant ambitions in Washington.   
      
   What is well known, though not necessary to you, jdeluise, is that no   
   contemporary politician in America has succeeded in achieving a   
   significant political office without doing what the neocons want - not   
   even Obama, as we have seen, despite his campaign rhetoric that got   
   him the Nobel Peace Prize.   
      
   It is because the neocons have tremendous influence over who gets to   
   become president as well as over the US foreign policy - they have   
   people who are encamped in the State Department and the Pentagon to   
   ensure the continuity of the neocons' favorite project, such as the   
   PNAC.  (Hint: Think of Robert Ford, the former ambassador to Syria and   
   Victoria Nuland, for example.)   
      
   So, for Trump to say something entirely dissonant to the neocons' ears   
   has to be significant and therefore has to be given great weight to.   
   It's not me who chose to believe X instead of Y.  It's the objective   
   impact of those distinguishing statements that Trump made that define   
   Trump the politician as well as his positions.  I hope you can   
   appreciate that.   
      
   Another thing is that you are so sure about what Trump would do,   
   despite the fact that he may not even win the GOP nomination, much   
   less the presidency to show us what he would actually do, that you   
   would use your hypotheticals to attack me for my generally consistent   
   view about the wrongs recent American political leaders have committed   
   is incredible.  To see how wrong you are, you have to in fact count   
   how many times you have claimed that I was abandoning the issues that   
   I raised when in fact it was only because you run on a different clock   
   that I live by.   
      
   You should realize that our endless war in Afghanistan is to keep   
   Bagram under our control, if our airmen are regularly used by our   
   military to go out and spy on the Afghan people so as to keep Bagram   
   from being targeted by rockets from nearby villages.  Only the neocons   
   would be interested in spending trillions in that dirt poor country in   
   order to keep Bagram.  Trump is clearly not a part of that viewpoint   
   and that's why the neocons don't trust him.  But while you sound   
   certain of his chances of getting elected (and therefore you predict   
   that he will continue the Bush/Obama foreign policy), I'm actually   
   very doubtful that he will be.  A new direction for America is simply   
   too good to be true, isn't it?  How is that for irony?   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   1) Subject: "US has an unseemly role in Syrian tragedy" and Libya too   
   - and we still have an unseemly role in Libya as shown by the reports   
   cited below Re: It will be the 3rd Iraq War in <30 years! Re: With   
   Assad's head on the table ...   
      
   In article <87fuz9eqkb.fsf@wintersun.localdomain>,   
   jdeluise   wrote:   
   >acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:   
   >   
   >> In article <87mvthex33.fsf@wintersun.localdomain>,   
   >> jdeluise   wrote:   
   >>>acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Do you follow current events?  Trump wants boots on the ground in   
   >>>Syria and Iraq, and to go after terrorists' families.   
   >>   
   >> Trump wants a database on Syrian refugees.  If you have specific info   
   >> on Trump about his desire to put boots on the ground in Syria and   
   >> Iraq, please post it to help clear the air.  Trump has been known to   
   >> be "dovish" on foreign policy.  (He wants to make America great again,   
   >> not pour another trillion down a rat hole.)   
   >>   
   >> But what you brought up about Trump is besides the point.  It's very   
   >> easy to see that if Trump had wanted "boots on the ground" in those   
   >> places, the neocons would have loved him, instead of telling him to   
   >> "go to hell" - isn't it clear?   
   >   
   >  "They have great money because they have oil. They have much oil,"   
   >  Mr. Trump said via phone on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Any place where   
   >  they have oil, I would knock the hell out of ‘em, and I would put   
   >  boots on the ground in those areas; I would take the oil. Because what   
   >  you're doing is you're cutting off a big portion of their money   
   >  source."   
   >   
      
   >  "The other part of their money source, by the way, happens to be   
   >  banks. Money is flowing in through banks in Saudi Arabia and other   
   >  places "you have to cut that off," he continued. "But I would knock   
   >  out the source of their wealth, the primary source of their wealth,   
   >  which is oil."   
   >   
   >  "And in order to do that, you would have to put boots. I would knock   
   >  the hell out of ‘em, but I'd put a ring around it, and   
   >  I'd take the oil for our country," he said. "I'd just take the   
   >  oil."   
   >   
   >  ...   
   >   
   >  "With the terrorists, you have to take out their families.  They care   
   >  about their lives, don't kid yourselves. But they say they don't care   
   >  about their lives. You have to take out their families."   
   >   
   >   
   >lo yeeOn, you know very well he has said all of these things and more   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)