Trump fires McMaster, Hires Bolton

[Phaeton80]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

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

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.

 

Well I guess certain people have a different opinion on that.

 

Quote

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary … in order to … defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. …
—H. J. Res 114 (107th): Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Oct. 18, 2002

It’s all so obvious to a detached observer. Nonetheless, it remains unspoken. The United States of America is waging several wars with dubious legal sanction in domestic or international law.

The U.S. military stands astride the Greater Mideast region on behalf of an increasingly rogue-like regime in Washington, D.C. Worse still, this isn’t a Donald Trump problem, per se. No, three successive administrations—Democratic and Republican—have widened the scope of a global “war” on a tactic (terror), on the basis of two at best vague, and at worst extralegal, congressional authorizations for the use of force (AUMF). Indeed, the U.S. is veritably addicted to waging undeclared, unwinnable wars with unconvincing legal sanction.

Despite 17 years of fighting, dying and killing, there have been no specific declarations of war. Instead, one president after another, and hundreds of derelict-in-their-duty congress members, have simply decided on their own that a vague resolution, rubber-stamped while the rubble in New York was still smoking, authorizes each and every conflict in which America’s soldiers—and many more civilians—continue to die. This AUMF authorized the president to kill or capture those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, but, well, few of America’s current adversaries had anything to do with that.

If that doesn’t seem sufficient, Washington points to the only other congressional framework for perpetual war, the long-ago discredited war resolution, which sanctioned George W. Bush’s deceitful conquest of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But Saddam is dead and his regime gone, replaced by a U.S.-imposed chauvinist Shiite government which is now (tenuously) sovereign in Baghdad.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/illegal-wars-the-new-american-way/

 

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

Well I guess certain people have a different opinion on that.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/illegal-wars-the-new-american-way/

 

Ummm.. Yes... Mr Paul's feelings on foreign war is well known. As is his ability to grandstand and bend/spin facts to make his point. I love the guy to death, but he somethings goes off the rails.

Regarding the "Illegal Wars" article. The article admits that the Congress passed said legislation, and that it is within the President's powers to do what has been done, by Bush, Obama, and Trump. Yet, he tries to play it like there was no law in these wars. That there is only, "...dubious legal sanction in domestic or international law.". So, which is it? Legal, or illegal. Obviously the wars were legal, as they were within legal powers. However, the author is trying to SUGGEST, that regardless, that war is illegal. Using the Appeal to Emotion... People are dying....

Given, people are dying, and it is horrible. But, does that make the fighting on the US side illegal. Nope.

[Lilly]

Just because Trump has brought on Bolton doesn't mean Trump will do everything Bolton tells him to do. It should be obvious to everyone by now that Trump does what Trump decides, not what anyone 'tells' him to do by any means. 

[ExpandMyMind]

20 hours ago, 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.  

Only someone who doesn't understand the benefits and need for soft power would think that. Trump has all but eliminated the US' soft power around the world, with Bolton likely to finish the job. It's not hyperbole to suggest that this elimination could potentially be catastrophic.

Edited March 24, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[ExpandMyMind]

4 hours 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. 

Another point that should be noted is that the Taliban actually offered to hand over bin Laden if evidence of his orchestration of 9/11 was provided. None was forthcoming.

Think about the reverse of that situation. Look to US and general international policy and procedure when it comes to extradition. You have, say the UK, attacked by a terrorist - the suspect - living inside the US. What happens? The UK says "We want that guy", the US says "show us evidence" and normal procedure follows. 

In the case of Afghanistan, the US decided to forego all that nonsense and instead completely decimate their country. Kinda scary if we're being honest about it.

[Phaeton80]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Ummm.. Yes... Mr Paul's feelings on foreign war is well known. As is his ability to grandstand and bend/spin facts to make his point. I love the guy to death, but he somethings goes off the rails.

Regarding the "Illegal Wars" article. The article admits that the Congress passed said legislation, and that it is within the President's powers to do what has been done, by Bush, Obama, and Trump. Yet, he tries to play it like there was no law in these wars. That there is only, "...dubious legal sanction in domestic or international law.". So, which is it? Legal, or illegal. Obviously the wars were legal, as they were within legal powers. However, the author is trying to SUGGEST, that regardless, that war is illegal. Using the Appeal to Emotion... People are dying....

Given, people are dying, and it is horrible. But, does that make the fighting on the US side illegal. Nope.

 

So Rand Paul is bending/spinning facts to make his point, 'going off the rails', when stating these things about these seriously disconcerting developments.. Not the sequential government admin's engaging in unconstitutional, undeclared wars, against international law. Im not sure if you got your priorities of concern straight here.
 

Quote

On November 9, 1994, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. "n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."^[6]

..In addition, it seems to me the Libyan and Syrian interventions constitute thesame legal quagmire (understatement). Which should concern you, and every American with you.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Phaeton80

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Lilly said:

Just because Trump has brought on Bolton doesn't mean Trump will do everything Bolton tells him to do. It should be obvious to everyone by now that Trump does what Trump decides, not what anyone 'tells' him to do by any means. 

Indeed. Unless Bolton tells Trump what Trump wants to hear, it is likely he'll also be on the "Your Fired" end of future discussions.

[+DieChecker]

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Another point that should be noted is that the Taliban actually offered to hand over bin Laden if evidence of his orchestration of 9/11 was provided. None was forthcoming.

Yeah... I think that equates to watching an episode of Cops, where the suspected perpetrator is running down the street, gets tackled, and is slapping and scratching at the police, while all the while screaming, "I'M NOT RESISTING! I"M NOT RESISTING!".

[+DieChecker]

10 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

So Rand Paul is bending/spinning facts to make his point, 'going off the rails', when stating these things about these seriously disconcerting developments.. Not the sequential government admin's engaging in unconstitutional, undeclared wars, against international law. Im not sure if you got your priorities of concern straight here.

Humm.... Yes, the anti-war people like to hear anti-war statements from former officials. Some "experts" are going to say some wars are illegal, and some are going to say it was legal. 

Regardless, did the UN, or NATO, put sanctions on the US for invading Iraq? If there was no punishment, then was there a crime?

Quote

..In addition, it seems to me the Libyan and Syrian interventions constitute thesame legal quagmire (understatement). Which should concern you, and every American with you.

Heck, I already said I'd rather we were Isolationist. Way waste materials fighting for/with foreigners, when you could be using them to defend your homeland?

I think if we do have to act in other nations militarily, we should do so swiftly and decisively and then leave and let them check their wounds, and decide if what they did is worth the price. I rather liked Trump's cruise missile attack following the chemical weapons usage by Syria. Much better then sending in marines, and trying to hold worthless ground.

[Phaeton80]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Humm.... Yes, the anti-war people like to hear anti-war statements from former officials. Some "experts" are going to say some wars are illegal, and some are going to say it was legal.

Regardless, did the UN, or NATO, put sanctions on the US for invading Iraq? If there was no punishment, then was there a crime?

Heck, I already said I'd rather we were Isolationist. Way waste materials fighting for/with foreigners, when you could be using them to defend your homeland?

I think if we do have to act in other nations militarily, we should do so swiftly and decisively and then leave and let them check their wounds, and decide if what they did is worth the price. I rather liked Trump's cruise missile attack following the chemical weapons usage by Syria. Much better then sending in marines, and trying to hold worthless ground.

If this is your logic, I think all is cristalclear; Id suppose further discourse would be rather pointless. 

A little sidenote; that cruise missile attack was another unilateral illegal military engagement against another sovereign state based on a lacking body of proof. This, after a rich succession of extremely damaging and counterproductive interventions before that latest event, including but not limited to one of the greatest proven (political / military) deceptions in modern history (Iraqi WMDs). The fact you seem to view these policies / 'interventions' as normal, even desirable (while against the interests of the US population as you yourself stated, as well as against Trump's election promises - but nevermind all that).. even after all that has happened up to this point, seems a wee bit troubling to say the least.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Phaeton80

[Phaeton80]

Heres a piece from ZH.. Bolton seems perfect for the job.

 

Quote

The World According To John Bolton... In His Own Words

John Bolton is set to replace HR McMaster as Donald Trump's national security adviser in a Lazarus-like resurrection for a man regarded as among the most hawkish of American politicians. 

The US president announced the move on Thursday afternoon.

Bolton will become Trump's third national security advisor in less than 15 months. Last year, Michael Flynn was forced to step down because of his failure to disclose that he discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador in Washington before Trump took office.

Bolton is a Bush-era defence under-secretary and former ambassador to the UN, and one of the signatories to the influential, pre-9/11 neo-conservative "Project for a New American Century", which openly called for the unilateral removal of Saddam Hussein.

"It concerns me that Trump would put someone in charge who is unhinged as far as believing in absolute and total intervention."

- Rand Paul, Republican senator.

"My long-standing support for a fix for the Iran deal may have just died an untimely death."

- Mark Dubowitz, Foundation for Defence of Democracies think tank, on Bolton's appointment.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-23/world-according-john-bolton-his-own-words

"Oh well, he's probably not as bad as they make him out to be.. and Trump wont subscribe to his crazy if it comes to it. At least hes 'a strong' individual', we need that with all the threats were facing."
 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Phaeton80

[preacherman76]

I’m definitely with Ph80 on this. The founders laid out a very clear path to war. That process has illegally been subverted. 

This country has been committing crimes against humanity for decades now. It’s gotten much worse since 9/11, obviously.

This was the one thing I was worried about in having a president with no political experience. Though I don’t think he has been as bad as the last two clowns, I don’t think he even realizes how illegal things like that Syrian strike was. 

In fact the media and the Dems technically could have had him impeached over it. No way they are doing that though, for obvious reasons. 

I find it scary that the legality of these wars ar even in question. Congress must declare war, unless we are being directly attacked. That is the law, and anything less is illegal. Congress can not just hand that power to the president to bomb anyone he wants, when ever he wants. Rand Paul is 100% right on this. I don’t believe it’s a matter of opinion at all.

I’m not ready to completely abandon Trump, but I think his base does no one any favors making light of the mistakes he’s made. Including this train wreck of a spending bill. 

I’m gonna wait and see what mid terms, and what results from it bring. I don’t think I have a lot of patience left though. 

[Merc14]

The left is extremely upset that Bolton is now the National Security Advisor will soon be even more upset as he has promised to do a deep cleaning on the entire council starting with holdovers from the corrupt Obama administration and any brought in under McMaster.  his should go a long way towards stopping some of the leaks we have seen over the last year.  Hopefully any of these corrupt officials who leaked classified info will be prosecuted and sent to jail.  http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/23/bolton-expected-to-clean-house/

[simplybill]

I share some of John Bolton's deepest convictions, especially these:

"Bolton’s opposition to nation-building and humanitarian interventionism was all borne out by events. As the so-called Arab Spring showed — and indeed, as Turkey’s democratic transformation into an Islamic theocracy also demonstrates — American values are not universal values at all. Supporting democratic processes with no concern about the values and culture those processes empower is unwise and irresponsible, and as the rise of Islamist regimes in Gaza, Egypt, Turkey, and beyond make clear, it is also antithetical to American national security interests."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/23/caroline-glick-john-boltons-appointment-america-first-move/

 

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

The left is extremely upset that Bolton is now the National Security Advisor will soon be even more upset as he has promised to do a deep cleaning on the entire council starting with holdovers from the corrupt Obama administration and any brought in under McMaster.  his should go a long way towards stopping some of the leaks we have seen over the last year.  Hopefully any of these corrupt officials who leaked classified info will be prosecuted and sent to jail.  http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/23/bolton-expected-to-clean-house/

I gotta say I'm not the least bit happy about him hiring Bolton either, but him getting rid of the 0bama hold overs is a good thing. So at least there is that.

I just cant for the life of me figure out why he keeps hiring people who have openly been against him this whole time.

[Phaeton80]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

I share some of John Bolton's deepest convictions, especially these:

"Bolton’s opposition to nation-building and humanitarian interventionism was all borne out by events. As the so-called Arab Spring showed — and indeed, as Turkey’s democratic transformation into an Islamic theocracy also demonstrates — American values are not universal values at all. Supporting democratic processes with no concern about the values and culture those processes empower is unwise and irresponsible, and as the rise of Islamist regimes in Gaza, Egypt, Turkey, and beyond make clear, it is also antithetical to American national security interests."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/23/caroline-glick-john-boltons-appointment-america-first-move/

 

US foreign policy over the last two decades has (indeed) been antithetical to American national security, or any other interests. I think that would be abundantly clear by now.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Phaeton80

[Paranormal Panther]

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I’m definitely with Ph80 on this. The founders laid out a very clear path to war. That process has illegally been subverted. 

This country has been committing crimes against humanity for decades now. It’s gotten much worse since 9/11, obviously.

This was the one thing I was worried about in having a president with no political experience. Though I don’t think he has been as bad as the last two clowns, I don’t think he even realizes how illegal things like that Syrian strike was. 

In fact the media and the Dems technically could have had him impeached over it. No way they are doing that though, for obvious reasons. 

I find it scary that the legality of these wars ar even in question. Congress must declare war, unless we are being directly attacked. That is the law, and anything less is illegal. Congress can not just hand that power to the president to bomb anyone he wants, when ever he wants. Rand Paul is 100% right on this. I don’t believe it’s a matter of opinion at all.

I’m not ready to completely abandon Trump, but I think his base does no one any favors making light of the mistakes he’s made. Including this train wreck of a spending bill. 

I’m gonna wait and see what mid terms, and what results from it bring. I don’t think I have a lot of patience left though. 

They're showing the orchestrated marches linked to the mass murder in Parkland. Multiply that tragedy by (x) to grasp the death toll caused by unnecessary wars. Thousands of babies and children died in Iraq, but let's excuse that by calling them collateral damage because they aren't *our* kids. 9/11 damaged our psyche, and we still have unhealed scars from it, but how many 9/11s have taken place in other countries?

Clinton came and destroyed a country, and she cackled over it. Gaddafi helped us in our war on terrorists, and he was rewarded with a barbaric premature death by "the good guys in the white hats" (cough, cough). Now, thanks to his removal, Libya has a burgeoning slave trade (where's BLM on this?). Well, uh, they hate us for our freedom.

To make it absolutely bipartisan, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul are two of the only sane voices on this issue, and Trump doesn't sing in their choir. Like you say, the Democratic propaganda news outlets are as down with interventionism as the worst PNAC-praising, war-mongering, neoconservative RINOs. That's especially true when the instigators have the right letter next to their names. Those dead kids are "worth the price", as Albright might say.    

[Phaeton80]

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I gotta say I'm not the least bit happy about him hiring Bolton either, but him getting rid of the 0bama hold overs is a good thing. So at least there is that.

I just cant for the life of me figure out why he keeps hiring people who have openly been against him this whole time.

John Bolton doesn't represent a break from the old regime or a draining of the swamp. He is the old neocon regime. If he's kicking Obama people out, its to be expected its because they aren't sufficiently pro-Israel. Trump ran on non-intervention and now has the uber- interventionalist as one of his top advisers. What a surprise, who would have thought he would be backtracking on election promises like that. It isnt like this happened before..

Enter hardcore Zionist John Bolton, neocon hardliner Mike Pompeo, and CIA torture queen Gina Haspel. Yessir, Adelson's boy 'Honeytrap Trump' is 'Draining the Swamp'©, 'Making America Great Again'™.

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Phaeton80

[Phaeton80]

Quote

Here’s John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018

[..]

..Just eight months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the Iranian exile group, known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People’s Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize their group as a “viable” alternative.

“The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday,” Bolton said. (The 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution will be on February 11, 2019.) “The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran,” Bolton added. “The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself.”

As the Iranian expatriate journalist Bahman Kalbasi noted, Bolton concluded his address to the exiles with a rousing promise: “And that’s why, before 2019, we will celebrate in Tehran!”

#JohnBolton 8 months ago among MEK supporters tells them they will overthrow #Iran’s regime and celebrate in #Tehran with Bolton himself present, “before 2019” pic.twitter.com/H7oaaU3faU

— Bahman Kalbasi (@BahmanKalbasi) March 22, 2018

To understand how extraordinary it is that the man about to become the president’s most senior national security official made this promise to the MEK, it is important to know that, until recently, the Iranian dissidents had spent three decades trying to achieve their aims through violence, including terrorist attacks.

After members of the MEK helped foment the 1979 revolution, in part by killing American civilians working in Tehran, the group then lost a bitter struggle for power to the Islamists led by the revolution’s leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. With its leadership forced to flee Iran in 1981, the MEK’s members set up a government-in-exile in France and established a military base in Iraq, where they were given arms and training by Saddam Hussein, as part of a strategy to destabilize the government in Tehran that he was at war with.

In recent years, as The Intercept has reported, the MEK has poured millions of dollars into reinventing itself as a moderate political group ready to take power in Iran if Western-backed regime change ever takes place. To that end, it lobbied successfully to be removed from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2012. The Iranian exiles achieved this over the apparent opposition of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in part by paying a long list of former U.S. officials hefty speaking fees of between $10,000 to $50,000 for hymns of praise like the one Bolton delivered last July.

[..]

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promising-regime-change-iran-end-2018/

 

[Phaeton80]

Heres an interesting exchange.. ofcourse, it hails from Russian Stooge TV, R(S)T, so be careful not to believe - or put any credence to - anything stated.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Phaeton80

[+DieChecker]

On 3/24/2018 at 0:55 PM, preacherman76 said:

I’m definitely with Ph80 on this. The founders laid out a very clear path to war. That process has illegally been subverted. 

This country has been committing crimes against humanity for decades now. It’s gotten much worse since 9/11, obviously.

You are right, however the US has been engaging in non-declared military actions since the 2nd and 3rd Presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

What is being done now, by Trump... firing cruise missiles at Libya... has been done since the US was first founded.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/057_chron.html

Edited March 31, 2018 by DieChecker

[Space Commander Travis]

On 3/25/2018 at 11:14 AM, Phaeton80 said:

“The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself.”

Well, he was quite right there, as we've seen in this thread.

Oh wait, Barking Mad Bolton is talking about Iran, not America ... 

[preacherman76]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You are right, however the US has been engaging in non-declared military actions since the 2nd and 3rd Presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

What is being done now, by Trump... firing cruise missiles at Libya... has been done since the US was first founded.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/057_chron.html

Yep, that is certainly true. In fact Trump has been the least aggressive president over the last couple decades. Everything he has done since taking the seat has been a result of the empire building war mongering policies of the last two administrations. 

I was so happy to hear him say we are leaving Syria soon. It’s great to see him hear from his supporters and actually go in that direction. I think he gets a lot of pressure from the war mongers on both sides. 

From his POV I can understand why he has thought it was ok, even legal to continue this in the limited capacity he has. Like you said this kinda thing has gone on all through most of our history. 

I think he is starting to understand that we just won’t have it anymore. It’s really good to see him fire McMaster. 

So there are good signs that we are gonna start heading in the right direction of non intervention  

 

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Yep, that is certainly true. In fact Trump has been the least aggressive president over the last couple decades. Everything he has done since taking the seat has been a result of the empire building war mongering policies of the last two administrations. 

I was so happy to hear him say we are leaving Syria soon. It’s great to see him hear from his supporters and actually go in that direction. I think he gets a lot of pressure from the war mongers on both sides. 

From his POV I can understand why he has thought it was ok, even legal to continue this in the limited capacity he has. Like you said this kinda thing has gone on all through most of our history. 

I think he is starting to understand that we just won’t have it anymore. It’s really good to see him fire McMaster. 

So there are good signs that we are gonna start heading in the right direction of non intervention  

 

I'm skeptical on that.  With the MOAB dropping, the cruise missiles on the Russian/Syrian Airbase, the fixation of military parades and the upping of the military budget he strikes me as a kid with army men that he really wants to play with somewhere.  Bolton and the people that he is surrounding himself aren't exactly known for their history of peace either, if you know what I mean.

[Space Commander Travis]

7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

With the MOAB dropping, the cruise missiles on the Russian/Syrian Airbase,

i think both of those were really of the nature of gestures really, to make it look as if he was Doing Something, when they were the most high-profile things he could do without running much risk of getting involved any more deeply. They certainly worked in getting the media to very nearly support him, at least for a brief period.