Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump fires McMaster, Hires Bolton


Farmer77

Recommended Posts

Just now, aztek said:

seriously? you'll ask russia and china......  go ahead ask them, you really think they care about you?  like i said you are tiny nation that does not matter. but if you insist, they just might start a proxy war with usa on your soil. 

Did you really miss his point or did your fractured ego force you to resort to such a lame retort? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Did you really miss his point or did your fractured ego force you to resort to such a lame retort? 

he had a point? where was it? where he said idiotic things about asking china and russia to change regime in usa? lol

lol, fractured ego? sounds like liberals here, but i do not take either you or him seriously enough to even get upset.

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, aztek said:

do you have a safe place? go there. lol

seriously? you'll ask russia and china......  go ahead ask them, you really think they care about you?  like i said you are tiny nation that does not matter. but if you insist, they just might start a proxy war with usa on your soil. just ask Ukraine, 

 

That was obviously meant in gest (my hotline with Russia & China is in the shop at the moment), in an effort to massage you to actually imagine what it would feel like if others declare your government as 'an evil regime', to subsequently unilaterally decide to invade your nation causing hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent US civilian deaths. You know, empathy, the ability to position yourself in the shoes of others. Look it up, you might learn something.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if, if "Utterly Bonkers" Bolton (that's the nickname he's going for, to emulate "Mad Dog" Mattis, for the alliterative value) does get his way and war is the only thing that these hate-spewing fanatics understand*, they'll risk using F-35s over enemy territory, or wouldn't they want to run the risk of what happened with the F-117 in Serbia, and risk one being downed through the treacherous refusal of the enemy to play fair and be properly overawed by America's Overwhelming Technological Superiority? 

 

:innocent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, and then said:

Looks like a shot across the bow, to me.  Good deal.  It's well past time for the mullahs to realize their free hand in world affairs just got a lot less strong.  Those who squirm and chafe at the exercise of power are like children in an adult world, IMO.  Obama guaranteed a war with Iran and potentially, a global conflagration all because of his hatred for Netanyahu.  I hope that if America IS struck with a nuke someday, he happens to be close enough to burn.  No one is more deserving.

ETA - McMaster has been working against Trump, including leaking, since day one, good riddance to bad rubbish...

I do think that it was McMaster that did the most latest leak- the "DO NOT CONGRATULATE PUTIN" leak. He was one of the few in the room for the phone call and probably helped write the briefing notes.  I can easily an advisor getting upset when ignored and the advisee does the exact opposite of what you suggested.  Telling everyone how stupid your boss is and then quitting is pretty common.  In McMaster's case, the White House was saying since Tillerson that he wasn't quitting or getting fired before this happened.  So some event had to have occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phaeton80 said:

 

That was obviously meant in gest (my hotline with Russia & China is in the shop at the moment), in an effort to massage you to actually imagine what it would feel like if others declare your government as 'an evil regime',

imagine? we are called evil empire almost daily here,  get up to speed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, South Alabam said:

I equate the name "Bolton" with recklessness. Trump just keeps making bad choices,

Bolton is a bulldog with an attitude.  He's ready to smash anything he perceives as America's enemy and IMO that makes for good visuals on the international stage.  What Bolton isn't, is in charge of deciding who to smash.  I don't expect him to leak, sieve-like, private details from meetings that don't go his way, either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, and then said:

Bolton is a bulldog with an attitude.  He's ready to smash anything he perceives as America's enemy and IMO that makes for good visuals on the international stage.  What Bolton isn't, is in charge of deciding who to smash.  I don't expect him to leak, sieve-like, private details from meetings that don't go his way, either.

I don't think he will leak either. And from what I read today, what happened in the past is gone according to him. But I would watch for tough stances against certain regimes. He is viewed as dangerous on both sides of the fence, and personally I didn't like him under Bush.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

I wonder if, if "Utterly Bonkers" Bolton (that's the nickname he's going for, to emulate "Mad Dog" Mattis, for the alliterative value) does get his way and war is the only thing that these hate-spewing fanatics understand*, they'll risk using F-35s over enemy territory, or wouldn't they want to run the risk of what happened with the F-117 in Serbia, and risk one being downed through the treacherous refusal of the enemy to play fair and be properly overawed by America's Overwhelming Technological Superiority? 

 

:innocent:

 

The F-35 will get its testing sooner or later.  The game between stealth and agile AA systems will go on as usual and we'll see who "wins' this round.  I suspect that Lockheed didn't play so fast and loose with its reputation that a single hyped design could actually destroy the future prosperity of the entire company.  But, we'll see.  It's been my experience that anytime one tries to be all things to all people (F-35), you wind up failing most of them.  As to who will be "overawed by America's Overwhelming Technological Superiority? "  Let's wait a bit and see if the tempo of crazy from Tehran stays as business as usual ;) 

Edited by and then
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aztek said:

imagine? we are called evil empire almost daily here,  get up to speed. 


Do try and respond to complete sentences, please.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

I wonder if, if "Utterly Bonkers" Bolton (that's the nickname he's going for, to emulate "Mad Dog" Mattis, for the alliterative value) does get his way and war is the only thing that these hate-spewing fanatics understand*,

Sorry, which side are you referring to here? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this pretty much describes the gist of it (guest starrng John Bolton)..

 

 

Edited by Phaeton80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Criticizing their government and pounding the drums of war are two entirely different things. 

I agree with one of your posts! Will wonders never cease? ;) You and I are on the same page about the neoconservatives. I'll likely avoid this thread because I have such strong feelings about what they've done to our world.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


Isnt it about time your nation stops starting war after war after war? Its like 'what nation should we invade next', while you are still engaged in several (illegal) others. It getting real old real fast dude.

The fact you seem to be cheering on yet another regime change effort, while you are still trying to topple the last selected foreign head of state mind you, after all the mayhem and sheer destruction as well as gigantic lashback earlier instances have resulted in (like, the rise of religious extremism your nation claims to battle), is ratther discouraging.

What war after war have we started? Do you mean the war we started when Afghanistan harbored Al'Quida after the World Trade Center attack? Or maybe Libya, where France and Germany provided more resources each then the US did? Or, maybe Syria, where we were supporting insurgents, and where Trump ended a $1 billion Obama CIA program to train rebels?

Iran isn't exactly US friendly, but AFAIK they haven't done anything (other then nuclear weapon research) that warrants even a mild attack on their nation by the US. I think something on the scope of Afghanistan, or Iraq, would require something big to happen and be blamed on them.

21 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Maybe its time to topple the US crony elite pushing for these wars..

Of the 240 years of US existence, she has been at war for about ~92% of the time (approx. 219 years).

Now imagine just for a moment this was any other non Western nation.. any other.. where it has additionally been proven most of the wars in the 21st century were illegal, and some of them were based on sheer unadulterated deceit.. what would have happened? Surely, an international coalition (of 'the willing'?) would have been organised to rout out this scourge of the earth, 'leader of such a vile axis of evil'.

Said it before, ill say it again; this reality we are making these days exceedingly feels like a bad dark comedy Hollywood production. Its in- sane, literally. This new Russia slander effort, immediately gobbled up by the EU and most of the rest of the Western juggernaut - including large numbers of her (still gullable) constituants - is another example of that. A case with a body of proof - or lack thereof - which wouldnt last a single day in court, and would morph into a libel / defamation case in a heartbeat (and undoubtedly a succesful one at that).

Crazy times.

Illegal. Complete cool aid talk. Iraq 2003 is the only recent war that could even be attempted to be sold as illegal. And even then the vote in Congress was three to one in favor. 

Myself, I am more in favor of Isolationism. I'd pull our guys back and let the world flame itself out. The world sneers at the Policeman? Fine, no policeman then. Protect your own backsides. Unless some nation shows up on our shore and invaded, I'd let them be. Allies? Fine, I'll sell them gear, but let their own boys go die for their homelands.

21 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


Well that makes it all fine and dandy then. Lets topple al Assad, target Iran, Russia, and maybe China if we can (increase the deficit some more). Hell, maybe we could target them all at once in a WWIII setting, wouldnt that be sweet.

Sadly, I think the only way for the US population to stop regarding war - and all the victims that ensue - as business as usual, is for exactly that being fomented on US soil for a change. Certain people seem to need to become acqainted with it, on a personal level, to stop cheering for them over and over again.

So, you propose to stop war worldwide, by allowing a domestic (civil) war here in the US? Interesting. Weren't you just saying all lives should be valued?

20 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Erm, how old are you exactly? If these wars arent what the US population wants, why do they keep greenlighting them.. are we to conclude you have a repressive / fascist, corrupt regime? Say it isnt so..

Excuse me, but the US elects people to office. And then they (the representatives) get bought out. Hardly anyone has ever gotten into office by saying they are going to go start wars. Almost universally it is the opposite, when they are running for election.

What we have is corruption, compounded by industry lobbyists who have lots of money. And that leads to voting in Congress in favor of supporting reacting to marginal threats to ourselves, or our allies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

What war after war have we started?

is this some deep, extremely subtle postmodern irony? (A) Afghanistan had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11;

(2) Iraq likewise.

(3) Libya? You think that was to "save the people from being massacred by a despot"? Well, the cure seems to have been rather worse than the threat, hasn't it.

(4) Syria?c Just what the **** does that have to do with anyone other than the Syrians? Given the disastrous example of Libya, to argue that "we had to do something to protect the people from a Tyrant" is naive at best, and more likely, if anyone was honest, completely hypocritical. 

And the forthcoming wars: (5) Iran? Nothing whatsoever to do with any danger it may present to the US, which is none at all; it's all to do with Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu wanting Iran out of the way because it stands in the way of Israel's strategic domination of the Middle East - sorry, it Wants to Destroy Israel, of course - and when Bibi whistles, Washington always comes trotting up with its little tongue hanging out.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

is this some deep, extremely subtle postmodern irony? (A) Afghanistan had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11;

Is this some kind of a joke? "Nothing whatsoever"? Really???

Quote

(2) Iraq likewise.

(3) Libya? You think that was to "save the people from being massacred by a despot"? Well, the cure seems to have been rather worse than the threat, hasn't it.

(4) Syria?c Just what the **** does that have to do with anyone other than the Syrians? Given the disastrous example of Libya, to argue that "we had to do something to protect the people from a Tyrant" is naive at best, and more likely, if anyone was honest, completely hypocritical. 

And the forthcoming wars: (5) Iran? Nothing whatsoever to do with any danger it may present to the US, which is none at all; it's all to do with Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu wanting Iran out of the way because it stands in the way of Israel's strategic domination of the Middle East - sorry, it Wants to Destroy Israel, of course - and when Bibi whistles, Washington always comes trotting up with its little tongue hanging out.

I think I already agreed with you on 4 and 5, at least as far as my opinion. That doesn't mean that our involvement is "illegal" in those cases, or, even that we "started" them. Which is what Mr Phaeton said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Is this some kind of a joke? "Nothing whatsoever"? Really???

 

"They harbored Al Qaeda", was your justification, wasn't it. Well, so did numerous other countries, notably valued ally Saudi Arabia. So why was Afghanisatan so special that it was worth still being there 16 years later?!  - particularly since the main justification, that the previous Global Demon (before Vlad Putin was promoted to the post), old Bin L himself, had his HQ there, well, that didn't actually turn out to be true did it? Or if he ever was there, he was just passing through, and he never actually had a Global Headquarters of Evil inside a mountain from which he directed his vile plots. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Thought this pretty much describes the gist of it (guest starrng John Bolton)..

 

 

And this is an example of the people that back him up. This is the Republican govt in action. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/republican-george-faught-rape-incest-gods-will-oklahoma-house-representatives-lord-circumstances-a7645061.html

Hank

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Whats really sad about this is I'm sure the dude thinks he's a good guy. I'm positive he actually believes he is a moral person and I'm positive there are members on this forum who believe the same and then they look at us like we're wrong because we can't figure out how a human being could be so callous. 

All because Gawd gives them an excuse to cover up for their wanton lack of empathy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Whats really sad about this is I'm sure the dude thinks he's a good guy. I'm positive he actually believes he is a moral person and I'm positive there are members on this forum who believe the same and then they look at us like we're wrong because we can't figure out how a human being could be so callous. 

All because Gawd gives them an excuse to cover up for their wanton lack of empathy. 

And that's what is so maddening. How do you argue right from wrong with these people? It's like having a reality disconnect switch that automatically kicks in when it's convenient to use religion for bypassing moral and social obligations. Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

"They harbored Al Qaeda", was your justification, wasn't it. Well, so did numerous other countries, notably valued ally Saudi Arabia. So why was Afghanisatan so special that it was worth still being there 16 years later?!  - particularly since the main justification, that the previous Global Demon (before Vlad Putin was promoted to the post), old Bin L himself, had his HQ there, well, that didn't actually turn out to be true did it? Or if he ever was there, he was just passing through, and he never actually had a Global Headquarters of Evil inside a mountain from which he directed his vile plots. 

Intelligence is only as good as those who collect it, and only good on the day it is collected. 

The Afghans had the opportunity to open the door and let the US look at those Al'Quida camps, but they didn't.

The link between the WTC attack and the invasion of Afghanistan is direct, and can't be described as having nothing to do with each other. That is what you said, right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

That God supports all things, even rape, can be argued. Because it is said that God turns all things to His good. Not necessarily your good, but "humanity's" good.

Did God cause that rape? No. Not unless you want to round about to say that God created the Enemy, who employs rape in his box of tools. Or, God created the world, in which random bad things happen.

Generally such comments are taken out of context, or badly said by the individual, and used as part of a Appeal to Emotion by someone writing a article with an agenda. In an attempt to spread fear and anger.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Whats really sad about this is I'm sure the dude thinks he's a good guy. I'm positive he actually believes he is a moral person and I'm positive there are members on this forum who believe the same and then they look at us like we're wrong because we can't figure out how a human being could be so callous. 

All because Gawd gives them an excuse to cover up for their wanton lack of empathy. 

I do agree that people's hardships shouldn't be held up and declared as God's work, regardless of if anyone thinks it is a good idea or not.

If it stirs up anger, or hate, or even fear, it shouldn't be commented on for gain/advantage, but should be acknowledged and assisted in healing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

"They harbored Al Qaeda", was your justification, wasn't it. Well, so did numerous other countries, notably valued ally Saudi Arabia. So why was Afghanisatan so special that it was worth still being there 16 years later?!  - particularly since the main justification, that the previous Global Demon (before Vlad Putin was promoted to the post), old Bin L himself, had his HQ there, well, that didn't actually turn out to be true did it? Or if he ever was there, he was just passing through, and he never actually had a Global Headquarters of Evil inside a mountain from which he directed his vile plots. 

That's a tricky one Vlad. I mean... if the world had allowed the Taliban to continue to control Afghanistan, wouldn't the 'progressives' be demanding intervention ? (after all, the Taliban was a pretty repressive and obnoxious regime ? ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.