Bolton: I wanna war, I wanna war, I wanna war with Iran!

[Slavakino]

Or maybe it was because Saddam was a brutal dictator who

Literally nobody says that we should invade countries just for them being brutal dictators except John Bolton

Are you secretly John Bolton

We should only take down nations that are a global threat aka china

[Ansarre]

Are you secretly John Bolton

This is a compliment.

What I'm setting is that you support genocide or teachings against other religion.

You mean like Hafez al-Assad did with the Hama Massacre?

I doubt they were secular under their previous gov run by Islam law. Any westerner will call an oligarchy or dictatorship that does good "corrupt"

Yes because most dictatorships do end up being corrupt. The extent of corruption is well documented in Raymond Hinnebusch's Syria: Revolution from Above (2001). In fact, even Hafez al-Assad recognized how corrupt the country had become under his rule. The anti-corruption measures he instated failed dramatically.

The chemical weapon bullshit on civvies is bullshit. Same with this recent "barrel bomb" on civvies. Although their presence is real, they were used on rebels. A war crime yes but effective.

"Assad posthumously declares all civilians killed to be combatants."
So Orwellian. Care to explain why its bullshit or are you just going to keep coping like Mimi al-Laham and Al-Masdar?

What are you a high school teacher saying Wikipedia isn't reliable because its community-based?

No. It just shows the difference between you and I. Your go-to is Wikipedia articles meanwhile I look to books written by reputable scholars.

Ironically those democratic groups are islamists

The Free Syrian Army has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood but the Free Officers Movement didn't... do some research mate.

I agree with Putin, Trump, Assad and Kim Jong Un. Come at me

Ah. Not just content with supporting brutal dictators who commit genocide, but also brutal dictators who operate concentration camps and punish multiple generations for the crimes of individuals... And you still want to pretend you have the moral high ground here?

[Zottistan]

Here’s the misconception, the Iraq war wasn’t for oil, it was to continue propelling the arms industry.

There's a pretty common misconception as to what is actually meant by "the Iraq war was fought for oil", both by proponents and detractors of that view. It's not that the US was trying to secure a supply of oil or keep prices low - actually more or less the opposite. The USD is pegged to oil. Oil trades are denominated in USD and many oil-producing countries by agreement only sell in USD. This creates a massive artificial demand for the dollar and essentially allows the US to set the price of it's own currency to the extent that it controls oil prices. It lets the US run fiscal policies that would otherwise be insane and inflationary by artificially controlling the price of USD by proxy.

The Iraq war was "fought over oil" because shortly before the war, Saddam had made known plans to start trading oil in Euro. This undermines the US' capacity to set the price of the dollar and at the risk of sounding conspiratorial is actually a pretty recurring theme across the history of modern US foreign policy. Gaddafi was discussing denominating oil transactions in a gold-backed pan-African currency shortly before the US-backed revolution, and in 2017 Venezuela stopped trading oil in dollars.

Oh, as a side note, Iran is another one of the few countries of the world that trades oil in currencies other than USD.

[Kenobot]

Conflict with Iran isn't desirable. Any thought of a 'quick' strike into Iran itself without escalation or future consequences let alone a full scale invasion is absurd.
An Iran-US Coalition war would be even more protracted than Afghanistan and with a far more significant level of insurgency and would be result in higher casualties and high losses of equipment on the US front.
That being said, Iran is not going to be a friendly actor towards the United States and it's not in the US' interests to allow the Iranians to expand their influence into Iraq, Syria, the Levant and elsewhere. The answer in how to deal with Iran, is to isolate them so that they do come to the table. That's what the Iran Nuclear Deal was the result of and we're back at square one.
Iran will not be solved overnight by singing kumbaya and holding hands with the Ayatollah and folding to the Iranians, nor will it be solved by B-52s over Tehran, Marines landing in Khuzestan and M1A2s rolling in the streets of Tabriz.

As to John Bolton, it's nice to propose the overthrow of authoritarian tyrants, but there has to be thought given to reconstruction and consolidation of the new democratic authorities when the transition ends. Iraq isn't exactly a shining star in the line up of democratic nations almost 20 years following it's invasion. Afghanistan is still embroiled in conflict with the Taliban after a similar period (We can half thank Pakistan for that one). Also due to the rise of information warfare, particularly significant given the global significance of the internet, future interventions will need to have countermeasures ready to go and fight back against Russian and Chinese information warfare capabilities because as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan, force is only part of winning; it's the hearts and minds that truly wins the day.

[Purpelia]

To be honest when you look at Trump critically and without a liberal bias you can see that his only real "sins" have been that he has not done enough to advance the neoliberal capitalist globalist agenda of making the rich richer and that he has not invaded anyone. Both of which are incredibly desirable to the american political establishment who also control all the money and thus media. Otherwise his policies have not been terribly different than those before him.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

To be honest when you look at Trump critically and without a liberal bias you can see that his only real "sins" have been that he has not done enough to advance the neoliberal capitalist globalist agenda of making the rich richer and that he has not invaded anyone. Both of which are incredibly desirable to the american political establishment who also control all the money and thus media. Otherwise his policies have not been terribly different than those before him.

You really think the rich haven't got richer (relative to the poor) under Trump? And there is something he could have done about it, which is veto the tax cuts in his first year.

[Purpelia]

To be honest when you look at Trump critically and without a liberal bias you can see that his only real "sins" have been that he has not done enough to advance the neoliberal capitalist globalist agenda of making the rich richer and that he has not invaded anyone. Both of which are incredibly desirable to the american political establishment who also control all the money and thus media. Otherwise his policies have not been terribly different than those before him.

You really think the rich haven't got richer (relative to the poor) under Trump? And there is something he could have done about it, which is veto the tax cuts in his first year.

Oh they absolutely have. Just not enough for their liking. They didn't get their big war to fuel the military industrial complex to give them even more cash. And his hostility toward China has reduced their ability to exploit the Chinese for even more money. And they are an eternally greedy bunch that are newer satisfied.

[Diopolis]

To be honest when you look at Trump critically and without a liberal bias you can see that his only real "sins" have been that he has not done enough to advance the neoliberal capitalist globalist agenda of making the rich richer and that he has not invaded anyone. Both of which are incredibly desirable to the american political establishment who also control all the money and thus media. Otherwise his policies have not been terribly different than those before him.

You really think the rich haven't got richer (relative to the poor) under Trump? And there is something he could have done about it, which is veto the tax cuts in his first year.

Actually the first three years of trump the working class got richer relative the the rich.
Recent events have changed that.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You really think the rich haven't got richer (relative to the poor) under Trump? And there is something he could have done about it, which is veto the tax cuts in his first year.

Actually the first three years of trump the working class got richer relative the the rich.
Recent events have changed that.

1. I don't believe that.
2. "Non-essential" workers are mostly low paid ... so I can believe that.

[Diopolis]

Actually the first three years of trump the working class got richer relative the the rich.
Recent events have changed that.

1. I don't believe that.
2. "Non-essential" workers are mostly low paid ... so I can believe that.

1) https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/blu ... nequality/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 41497.html

[Nobel Hobos 2]

1. I don't believe that.
2. "Non-essential" workers are mostly low paid ... so I can believe that.

1) https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/blu ... nequality/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 41497.html

The first source is the White House. You can't be serious.
The second source ... "Stephen Moore is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation" *cough*

OK the second source does claim that median income has increased significantly. That's good for the middle class but the middle class aren't the working class.

I'm pretty comfortable walking away from this, content that working class are actually worse off relative to the rich. If you want to convince anybody who doesn't already believe Trump's bullshit, you'll need better sources.

[Mecotla]

me nazi but

trump has a small penis

[Slavakino]

You mean like Hafez al-Assad did with the Hama Massacre?

That was a terrorist attack that was stopped

Yes because most dictatorships do end up being corrupt. The extent of corruption is well documented in Raymond Hinnebusch's Syria: Revolution from Above (2001). In fact, even Hafez al-Assad recognized how corrupt the country had become under his rule. The anti-corruption measures he instated failed dramatically.

His brother was seen as corrupted by the Syrian people unlike Hafez

"Assad posthumously declares all civilians killed to be combatants." So Orwellian. Care to explain why its bullshit or are you just going to keep coping like Mimi al-Laham and Al-Masdar?

Civvies weren't involved in this fake bullshit. It was the rebels who guess what? ARE ARMED FUCKING SOLDIERS NOT CIVVIES

No. It just shows the difference between you and I. Your go-to is Wikipedia articles meanwhile I look to books written by reputable scholars.

I look at Wikipedia for convenience sake as it is easy to look through and read. inb4 "BUT PEOPLE CAN EDIT IT", sure but it will get revered without sources by mods.

The Free Syrian Army has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood but the Free Officers Movement didn't... do some research mate.

Don't care. Both should be destroyed

Ah. Not just content with supporting brutal dictators who commit genocide, but also brutal dictators who operate concentration camps and punish multiple generations for the crimes of individuals... And you still want to pretend you have the moral high ground here?

I prefer Tito as my go-to dictator

[Nobel Hobos 2]

me nazi but

trump has a small penis

Change your flag immediately. There's a rule against the Swastika here.

[Shofercia]

It's the job of US foreign policy planners to defend the dollar's hegemony. Of course the smart solution would've been to not invade Iraq after Saddam switched back to selling oil in dollars, rather than destroying the country.

So no evidence then, got it!

"What's the job of a teacher?"
"Why, it's to teach!"
"So you have no evidence of what a teacher does, got it!"

The duty of almost every country's foreign policy is to defend their national currency. In case of the US it's even more critical, because dollars are the World's currency. Take that away, and you have massive inflation in the US.

So you'd be ok with having the US small arms industry destroyed by foreign trade, and be dependent on China to produce guns for the US military?

I'd be perfectly okay with allowing China to export its shitty firearms to the United States and Europe. The US and European countries should then voluntarily choose not to purchase them. No tariffs needed.

And if the countries refuse to voluntarily not purchase them?

Some oil companies didn't want the war, while others did. And even if it wasn't oil companies, certain corporations massively profited off of the War in Iraq.

Any evidence of oil companies agitating for war in Iraq?

Halliburton was very gung ho about it, and they're an oil company.

[Ansarre]

And if the countries refuse to voluntarily not purchase them?

Vote for different representatives...

Halliburton was very gung ho about it, and they're an oil company.

No they literally weren't. Their CEO was the chair of USA Engage when they lobbying America to lift the sanctions imposed, and they were secretly trying to bypass the sanctions. War with Iraq was not in their interests.

[Shofercia]

Article Five should be defined as pure defense, rather than the "creative" definition of defense, and if it's limited to pure defense, it serves as yet another deterrent, just like MAD. The Balkan Adventures was a horrendous US foreign policy mistake, but even without NATO, Neocons/Neolibs would've seen it through. The Iraq War didn't invoke Article V, and yet quite a few countries joined the Coalition of the Billing. The US does have a lot of bases around the World, and the need for the bases should be reviewed. As for spending 2% on the military, it ain't that much.

Even if article 5 is purely defensive, it still obliges countries to become involved in wars that their citizens don't have a say in. Suppose a NATO member is attacked, in a way that makes it clear that NATO's response is purely defensive in nature - but only 10% of people in those other NATO countries actually want to help, and the rest don't. Why should those countries spend their own blood and treasure on people from another country when the people of their own country don't want to?

You say 2% isn't that much, but most NATO countries don't spend 2% on defense. But even if they all did, its not for you, or for me, or for some army officers in Belgium to say whether 2% is too much or not. It is still taking a decision - how to spend government money - that should be made by the people of those countries and those who represent them, not people in other countries.

Because other countries also get the same benefit, making the odds of such an attack virtually nonexistent. Two percent is the contractual price, that was agreed on by all countries who join NATO. If some rando in Belgium wants to raise it, he's going to have to bring it up with all NATO members, most of whom would be against raising it, because two percent seems to be enough.

Here’s the misconception, the Iraq war wasn’t for oil, it was to continue propelling the arms industry.

Or maybe it was because Saddam was a brutal dictator who

Good thing the US has never worked with brutal dictators. Oh, wait...

"Brutal". Nice labelling, truly shows you fell for neo-con propaganda.

Yeah Assad using chemical weapons on civilians is neocon propaganda. It's so funny when your kind talk about propaganda but when you have reality shoved in your face you just call it fake news because it contradicts the lies you've been sold.

It actually is Neolib/Neocon propaganda: https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/

One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW, where he instructs that an engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the organisation:

“Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive]... And please remove all traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA”.

The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident.

Quick, remove actual evidence we don't like! And after presenting a biased piece of shit for a report, we can totally say it's unbiased! Still waiting for Twitter to fact check that report, but since it's not President Trump, they won't bother.

I support Assad because he is great for the people and a great Syrian nationalist. I'd prefer a dictatorship that's efficient and benevolent than a shitty corrupt democracy that doesn't work like the USA.

It's so easy for you to support Assad when you live a cushy western life. I know people who have fled Syria because of him. He's not a perfect leader, he's not remotely good. He's a brutal dictator who needs to be given the Saddam/Qaddafi treatment.

Could you show me in the US Constitution where it says that America must invade every country ruled by a brutal dictator in a funny hat? I must've missed that part.

Due to your policies, your shitty neocon Israeli supporting boomer ideology is only agreeing with the rebels because the "conservative" man on TV said so.

This doesn't even make sense... lol. As a neoconservative, I don't support the rebels. In the early days of the uprising when it was liberal democrats? yes. Islamist groups? Not at all.

So you arm people you don't support?

Guarantee you think Russia is still an enemy to the USA.

Yes, Russia is an enemy of the West.

Because Russia's leadership promotes populism and realism, as opposed to elite rule and constant warfare?

Your warmongering has no real ideals, only to monger war without reason.

This is just a flat out lie, or you're totally ignorant of what neoconservatism stands for. Given the fact you're peddling Russophilic talking points... I can't say which one.

Aside from invading every country you don't like, what does Neoconservatism stand for?

[Crockerland]

Never mind the fact [...] that China might take an even more aggressive stance due to sanctions

The bad guys will get even meaner if we stand up to them. We should just run away or give them whatever they demand, that's a good foreign policy.

[Shofercia]

And if the countries refuse to voluntarily not purchase them?

Vote for different representatives...

And if those representatives are reelected?

Halliburton was very gung ho about it, and they're an oil company.

No they literally weren't. Their CEO was the chair of USA Engage when they lobbying America to lift the sanctions imposed, and they were secretly trying to bypass the sanctions. War with Iraq was not in their interests.

War in Iraq was not in Halliburton's interests?

[Ansarre]

And if those representatives are reelected?

You're going off of hypotheticals that are incredibly unlikely. Chinese companies won't export small arms en-masse if there's no market for them. It's highly unlikely that a majority of representatives in the USA, UK, Germany etc. would just decide to buy Chinese arms for our military.

War in Iraq was not in Halliburton's interests?

You've presented zero evidence for any of the claims you make...

Good thing the US has never worked with brutal dictators. Oh, wait...

And that isn't a good thing either

It actually is Neolib/Neocon propaganda: https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/

This is just about Douma. One instance.
Khan al-Assal was confirmed by the UN and even the Russian government accepted it. Other instances like Ghouta, Jobar, Ashrafiyat Sahnaya and Khan Shaykhun.

Could you show me in the US Constitution where it says that America must invade every country ruled by a brutal dictator in a funny hat? I must've missed that part.

When did I claim it said that?

So you arm people you don't support?

I'm not an elected official.

Because Russia's leadership promotes populism and realism, as opposed to elite rule and constant warfare?

And invading sovereign countries for imperialist purposes. What's your obsession with realism btw? You know Kissinger and Nixon were realists, right?

Aside from invading every country you don't like, what does Neoconservatism stand for?

Spreading democracy and capitalism across the globe. Democratic peace theory...

[Shofercia]

Never mind the fact [...] that China might take an even more aggressive stance due to sanctions

The bad guys will get even meaner if we stand up to them. We should just run away or give them whatever they demand, that's a good foreign policy.

There's a difference between avoiding additional sanctions and rolling over like a doormat. A lot of difference. There are numerous other options, besides those two. We could place tariffs on cheap imports to the US, promote greater trade with Vietnam at the expense of China, could push the UNGA and UNSC to move towards Taiwan's independence, etc. In a Bipolar World, beating up the other guy works. In a Multipolar World, enhancing your own strength, rather than keeping others down, is what keeps you at the top.

Look at Putin's Foreign Policy, which, with the Libyan and Eastern Ukrainian exceptions, was brilliantly conducted. He should've been more hawkish on both. First he focused on stabilizing Chechnya, and limiting external wars - focusing on growth. In 2008 the Russia Armed Forces destroyed the Georgian Armed Forces in the Ossetian War, but left Tbilisi virtually untouched. Could've easily bombed it, but remember: showing Russian strength in the Caucasus is more important than taking down the other guy. Georgian Military was so fucked, that the prisoner exchange was conducted by the Russian Military and the Georgian cops. Ouch.

Crimea - bloodlessly reclaimed. Again, strengthening Russia. Took parts of Donetsk and Lugansk, (should've taken more of Eastern Ukraine,) but didn't go for Kiev or Lvov. Easier on Russia's economy. Then we had the Syrian Civil War initial focus on establishing a foothold, exploiting that to take most of Syria west of the Euphrates, and now east of the Euphrates is open. Again, strengthening Russia, not going after the other guy. Could've gone for Iraq, didn't.

I'm not saying let China run wild. I am saying - focus more on building America's prestige in Asia, than taking China down with sanctions, i.e. the Vietnam Deal.

[Shofercia]

c

And if those representatives are reelected?

You're going off of hypotheticals that are incredibly unlikely. Chinese companies won't export small arms en-masse if there's no market for them. It's highly unlikely that a majority of representatives in the USA, UK, Germany etc. would just decide to buy Chinese arms for our military.[/quote]

Because of the influence of lobbyists from the military industrial complex. De facto tariffs for industries defended by an army of lobbyists, while everyone else can complete with Chinese labor and suicide nets. Socialism for the rich, Corporatism for the rest. Hmm, I wonder, why do most Americans think Neolibs/Neocons are out of touch?

War in Iraq was not in Halliburton's interests?

You've presented zero evidence for any of the claims you make...

So their stock price going up as a result of the Iraq War wasn't evidence?

Good thing the US has never worked with brutal dictators. Oh, wait...

And that isn't a good thing either

It's bad that we should have a law abiding government?

It actually is Neolib/Neocon propaganda: https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/

This is just about Douma. One instance.
Khan al-Assal was confirmed by the UN and even the Russian government accepted it. Other instances like Ghouta, Jobar, Ashrafiyat Sahnaya and Khan Shaykhun.

I'll look into the others, and also, just because the Russian Government says it, doesn't make it true.

Could you show me in the US Constitution where it says that America must invade every country ruled by a brutal dictator in a funny hat? I must've missed that part.

When did I claim it said that?

If not, why's it the duty of Americans to pay for being World Force Police? It's one thing to protect our allies but randomly invading countries that Bolton doesn't like seems a tad absurd.

So you arm people you don't support?

I'm not an elected official.

You said that Neocons don't support Jihadists in Syria, and yet, Neocons were gung ho about arming them. Hence the inquiry: do Neocons army people they dont' support?

Because Russia's leadership promotes populism and realism, as opposed to elite rule and constant warfare?

And invading sovereign countries for imperialist purposes. What's your obsession with realism btw? You know Kissinger and Nixon were realists, right?

I prefer that foreign policy be based on reality, rather than fiction, hence the obsession. I like reality. I like facts. I like common sense. The only country Russia "invaded" under President Putin was Ukraine. Chechen leaders in the late 1990s decided to do some ethnic cleansing in Russia's Dagestan Region, so not really much of a choice there. Saakashvili attacked a Russian Peacekeeping Base legitimately stationed in South Ossetia, again, not much of a choice. The Pristina Airstrip was necessary to prevent an even greater slaughter of Serbs. And in Syria, Russia was invited by Syria's legitimate government. That leaves Ukraine.

But in Ukraine, there was a foreign sponsored coup against an elected leader. As a result of said coup, there were quite a few repressions against Russophiles, like Russophiles being burned alive in Odessa. So, regardng Ukraine, I've stated it once and I'll say it again: let's hold a Referendum, region by region, with these options:

1. Join Russia
2. Remain part of Ukraine
3. Become independent

Let the people choose. If a country fucks over its people as much as Ukraine had, shouldn't they have a right to join another country?

Aside from invading every country you don't like, what does Neoconservatism stand for?

Spreading democracy and capitalism across the globe. Democratic peace theory...

[Crockerland]

The bad guys will get even meaner if we stand up to them. We should just run away or give them whatever they demand, that's a good foreign policy.

There's a difference between avoiding additional sanctions and rolling over like a doormat. A lot of difference. There are numerous other options, besides those two. We could place tariffs on cheap imports to the US, promote greater trade with Vietnam at the expense of China, could push the UNGA and UNSC to move towards Taiwan's independence, etc. In a Bipolar World, beating up the other guy works. In a Multipolar World, enhancing your own strength, rather than keeping others down, is what keeps you at the top.

[...]

I'm not saying let China run wild. I am saying - focus more on building America's prestige in Asia, than taking China down with sanctions, i.e. the Vietnam Deal.

Okay but if your justification is that they may "take an even more aggressive stance" if we sanction them, then I'm not sure what's going to prevent them from doing that in response to tariffs or us pushing to recognize Taiwan just like they would in response to sanctions.

Regardless, building positive relations in Asia is definitely a good thing. One thing we really need to do in that area is drop the sanctions against Myanmar.

[Panslavicland]

Even if article 5 is purely defensive, it still obliges countries to become involved in wars that their citizens don't have a say in. Suppose a NATO member is attacked, in a way that makes it clear that NATO's response is purely defensive in nature - but only 10% of people in those other NATO countries actually want to help, and the rest don't. Why should those countries spend their own blood and treasure on people from another country when the people of their own country don't want to?

You say 2% isn't that much, but most NATO countries don't spend 2% on defense. But even if they all did, its not for you, or for me, or for some army officers in Belgium to say whether 2% is too much or not. It is still taking a decision - how to spend government money - that should be made by the people of those countries and those who represent them, not people in other countries.

Because other countries also get the same benefit, making the odds of such an attack virtually nonexistent. Two percent is the contractual price, that was agreed on by all countries who join NATO. If some rando in Belgium wants to raise it, he's going to have to bring it up with all NATO members, most of whom would be against raising it, because two percent seems to be enough.

The odds of an attach are virtually nonexistent even without NATO, with the exception of instances where the reckless behavior of those countries has prompted an attack. But regardless of the likelihood of attack, the leaders of a country telling people that they are going to war against their express will simply because its for their own good - the people must of course be too stupid to realize this, right? - sounds like every other pro-globalist affront to democracy that I've heard of. "No, you ordinary people don't need to have a say on what your government is doing, we've decided that this is a benefit to you so you just have to take it."

I don't ever recall being asked if I agreed to this contractual price. Were you? And the fact remains that not only is this an imposition on the sovereignty of those countries were it to be enforced, the fact that it does not seems to be enforced is just as bad, because you have people in America paying to keep military forces in places like Spain for no actual benefit to the American people, just for the benefit of globalists and the military-industrial complex.

[Aureumterra]

Is there anything actually conservative about "neocons?"