XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.latin-america   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.african, soc.culture.syria   
   XPost: rec.sport.tennis   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article <87lh3ogq0y.fsf@wintersun.localdomain>,   
   jdeluise   wrote:   
   >acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:   
   >> Everybody who wants to understand knows that Trump is not into the   
   >> neocon foreign intervention agenda, regardless how he responded to   
   >> Morning Joe in one hazy morning.   
   >   
   >Doesn't matter, he can only be judged on what he says and the way he   
   >carries himself.  Your imagination about what you think he will do   
   >(which is directly opposite of what he has said) and how he carries   
   >himself is irrelevant.  Doesn't matter how many paragraphs you write, or   
   >how many articles you post verbatim.   
   >   
   >Now if you wanted a non-interventionist you could have backed Sanders...   
      
   Of course, I have backed Sanders.  And I have stated that the best   
   outcome from the primaries would be to pit Sanders versus Trump and I   
   have posted numerous "Go Bernie" articles on the internet.  I've said   
   that it would be a stark choice between them.  Both of their messages   
   are "America First" and they are both more concerned the people than   
   the neocon vetted politicians who've been running.  In addition, my   
   family has been making donation to the Sanders campaign - even in late   
   April (after Bernie lost badly in the northeast) as well as just this   
   month.   
      
   Further, I did not imagine what even the NYT said he was not - an   
   interventionist.   
      
   Trump is not an interventionist.  Hillary Clinton is - just hear   
   veteran and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard out: Hillary Clinton is a   
   regime change interventionist.   
      
   I heard what Trump said.  I made my conclusion - which incidentally   
   agree with such an unlikely company as the editorial board of the New   
   York Times.  And that's because we did not just seize on a one-liner.   
      
   Reasonable, mature people draw conclusions based on all available   
   evidence.  Reasonable, mature people don't play juvenile gotcha games.   
   Reasonable, mature people make considered conclusions.  Reasonable,   
   mature people weigh one statement against the more often made   
   statements and give more weight to statements made at important   
   occasions or of greater frequencies.   
      
   In a political setting like what Trump has been in, he was constantly   
   being asked this and that, and he was well aware that he could not be   
   perceived as weak in defense - even though he took pain to try to tear   
   down the "war on terror" facade of the neocons.  So, people have to   
   sift through the totality of his statements to get a sense of what he   
   is really like.  And it is clearly in that light that the NYT board   
   came to its endorsement decision - to favor Clinton based on her   
   interventionist resume.   
      
   In a political setting like that, you can't impeach him by trying to   
   tie him to some silly words he said to Morning Joe one hazy morning.   
      
   In fact, Obama had started talking about his red line having been   
   crossed and about ordering missile strikes against Syria.  And when   
   Putin threw a life line his way, Obama took it right away.  Your idea   
   that we must hold Trump to his Morning Joe musing is silly.  You can't   
   even find the NYT board to agree with you.  And this has turned out to   
   be the best evidence that I'm right and you're wrong!   
      
   So for proof, of course there is no proof.  Not right now!  For now,   
   there can only be assessment - but no proof.   
      
   I have said it to you that there is no way to find out whether Trump   
   will put American boots on Syrian ground until he gets elected.  And   
   I've said that for him to get elected is a big if, especially given   
   the enormous power the neocons have for our national elections and the   
   fact that they perceive Trump as an existential threat to their pet   
   projects.  And that's why the Bushes, the hawkish senators like Linsey   
   Graham and John McCain, and the MSM are all sparing no effort to try   
   to tear Trump down.   
      
   Finally, I can imagine - this time I am using the verb to imagine, and   
   it's a good exercise to do so for peace sake - that Trump would   
   announce his intention to defeat terrorism, just as Putin has done and   
   ask his military advisors the best way to do so with the minimum loss   
   of American lives.  At the same time, I would send out envoys to IS   
   leaders and quietly tell them in no uncertain terms that if they   
   wouldn't change their way, he would have no mercy for them.  "Don't   
   think that I'm George W Bush or Barack Obama..."  And this is nothing   
   new.  Ronald Reagan sent George Herbert Walker Bush to get American   
   hostages home from Iran's Ayatollah in no time.   
      
     Here is a good story to tell: The Voice of America has reported that   
     the Afghan vice president who was denied a visa to come to   
     Washington to talk about the dire situation in his country had a   
     chance to visit the Russian republic Chechnya last year.  He was   
     moved to tears when he saw the peace in Chechnya and lamented: "Why   
     can't Afghanistan be the same?"  You see, terrorism can be defeated   
     if you're not the neocons who are running the show.   
      
   I strongly believe that the above-describe scheme might work for a   
   number of reasons: First, it was the Reagan precedence.  And then the   
   Paris attackers were on the same stag as the American performers and   
   all members of the group made it to safety outside as the attackers   
   shot at the audience, killing scores of them.   
      
   The Paris attackers were instructed by their IS leaders not to hurt   
   the Americans because it was a lesson for the French for its unwanted   
   involvement in Syria.  The IS leaders were not interested in getting   
   killed or in their cause being destroyed by provoking American ire.   
      
   The IS is interested in gaining back control of the land that belongs   
   to the Muslims, which George W Bush callously took away from them.   
      
   And it's precisely what Trump as president can do to defeat IS.  He'll   
   withdraw from Afghanistan and the Middle East - obviously against the   
   neocons' wishes - by "negotiation", the kind he can publicly brag   
   about after the fact and the kind Reagan has done successfully   
   regarding the Iran hostage crisis.   
      
   If that happens, the neocons will be mortified - they will be totally   
   defeated.  But they can't loudly complain because they are the ones   
   who have created ISIS and the American people are willing to finance   
   any military adventure only because their domestic security is at   
   stake.  There is no raison d'etre to keep troops in Syria, or Iraq, or   
   Afghanistan, like Hillary would want, if IS will self-disband because   
   they see that the hegemon is leaving and they can reclaim their own   
   land.   
      
   If Trump will do that, he will be one of the greatest presidents of   
   the US and even the world will be grateful to us who have elected him.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)