Trump ousts McMaster, taps super-hawk Bolton as national security adviser

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The only numbers in your source are "hundreds", not "hundreds of thousands".  I know of no credible source that accuses Obama of killing hundreds of thousands with his targeted bombings.

America doesn't fight to win wars anymore. America fights to destabilize regions so no entity within that region can gain hegemony.  That's what we do, we destabilize. That is what the American government sees as the American interest. Civil wars and mass migrations follow in the wake of that kind of policy.  I'm sure you know this.

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

America doesn't fight to win wars anymore. America fights to destabilize regions so no entity within that region can gain hegemony.  That's what we do, we destabilize. That is what the American government sees as the American interest. Civil wars and mass migrations follow in the wake of that kind of policy.  I'm sure you know this.

Are you now blaming the US for conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.?  How did America destabilize these places?

 

Bush thought he was fighting to win wars, but through ignorance and the employment of the worst Secretary of Defense in US history he toppled governments with no plan for the aftermath.  Apparently they hadn't considered the possibility that peace, stability and democracy wouldn't automatically spring up to replace the bad governments we had so generously toppled. 

 

Obama inherited the mess and tried to disengage as much as possible, but did use targeted strikes against terrorists who were primarily terrorizing and killing people in the middle east and Africa.  The goal was not to generate instability in the targeted areas, only to prevent the kind of terrorist nation-states that ISIS briefly established.  Obama attempted to contain these problem regions with the minimum number of US troops.

 

Now with Trump and Bolton we may go back to half-*ssed attempts to "win" wars, with no credible plan for when things go wrong.  And things will go wrong.

[Khun Han]

44 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are you now blaming the US for conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.?  How did America destabilize these places?

 

Bush thought he was fighting to win wars, but through ignorance and the employment of the worst Secretary of Defense in US history he toppled governments with no plan for the aftermath.  Apparently they hadn't considered the possibility that peace, stability and democracy wouldn't automatically spring up to replace the bad governments we had so generously toppled. 

 

Obama inherited the mess and tried to disengage as much as possible, but did use targeted strikes against terrorists who were primarily terrorizing and killing people in the middle east and Africa.  The goal was not to generate instability in the targeted areas, only to prevent the kind of terrorist nation-states that ISIS briefly established.  Obama attempted to contain these problem regions with the minimum number of US troops.

 

Now with Trump and Bolton we may go back to half-*ssed attempts to "win" wars, with no credible plan for when things go wrong.  And things will go wrong.

 

"Now with Trump and Bolton we may go back to half-*ssed attempts to "win" wars, with no credible plan for when things go wrong.  And things will go wrong."

 

Just like Obama with Libya, which he didn't "inherit", by the way.

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

"Now with Trump and Bolton we may go back to half-*ssed attempts to "win" wars, with no credible plan for when things go wrong.  And things will go wrong."

 

Just like Obama with Libya, which he didn't "inherit", by the way.

Western involvement in Libya was led by the UK and France, with the US playing a reluctant supporting role.  The UK and France then went on to repeat the same mistake the US made in Iraq.

 

This may be hard for the "America worst" crowd to accept, but we are not responsible for all the world's problems.

[Khun Han]

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Western involvement in Libya was led by the UK and France, with the US playing a reluctant supporting role.  The UK and France then went on to repeat the same mistake the US made in Iraq.

 

This may be hard for the "America worst" crowd to accept, but we are not responsible for all the world's problems.

 

"a reluctant supporting role."

 

Love it .

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle

Edited March 25, 2018 by Khun Han

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

"a reluctant supporting role."

 

Love it .

" France carried out about a third of all strike sorties, Britain 21 percent and the United States 19 percent, according to data from each nation."    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/world/africa/scores-of-unintended-casualties-in-nato-war-in-libya.html

 

The UK and France did over half the bombing, the US less than a fifth.

 

Obama's greatest foreign policy failures were arguably due to his reluctance to use military force.  However I prefer a president who is overly cautious about military adventures to one who is overly reckless.

Edited March 25, 2018 by heybruce

[Khun Han]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" France carried out about a third of all strike sorties, Britain 21 percent and the United States 19 percent, according to data from each nation."    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/world/africa/scores-of-unintended-casualties-in-nato-war-in-libya.html

 

The UK and France did over half the bombing, the US less than a fifth.

 

Obama's greatest foreign policy failures were arguably due to his reluctance to use military force.  However I prefer a president who is overly cautious about military adventures to one who is overly reckless.

 

Did you even bother to read the link I gave you ( which is from the Council On Foreign Relations, by the way, not some slanted news source or online blog)? It's opening sentence:

 

"On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, authorizing military intervention in Libya."

 

Obama managed to get Britain and France to do the bulk of the dirty work. So what?

[Scott]

I strongly suggest that members get back on topic.  

 

[Khun Han]

So, is Bolton going to lead Trump down the path of military intervention further than previous presidents have already gone? He's a hardliner wrt 'rogue' states, for sure. But what's his history on actual military intervention?

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Did you even bother to read the link I gave you ( which is from the Council On Foreign Relations, by the way, not some slanted news source or online blog)? It's opening sentence:

 

"On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, authorizing military intervention in Libya."

 

Obama managed to get Britain and France to do the bulk of the dirty work. So what?

I could only read the first paragraph without having to register, which I don't want to do.  Authorizing military intervention is not the same as intentionally toppling the government.  Also, France and Britain were far from reluctant allies:

 

" Security Council Resolution 1973, passed less than 48 hours earlier with Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany abstaining, was a triumph for French and British diplomacy. France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had worked energetically to persuade Arab countries to make an appeal through the usually fairly useless Arab League for the UN to come to the aid of Libyan civilians. David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, had done his part by nudging the Americans to overcome their reservations about military intervention."   https://www.economist.com/node/18442119

 

I don't know what A.J. Kuperman based his claim that UN Security Council Resolution 973 was "spearheaded" by the Obama administration.

 

However this is off-topic.  I merely wanted to point out that suggestions that Obama was a war-monger and Trump might prove more rational in choosing the country's battles are absurd.  Bolton was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq war that started much of the current instability and hostilities in North Africa and the Middle East, and he shows no signs of having lost his taste for reckless, unnecessary wars. 

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

So, is Bolton going to lead Trump down the path of military intervention further than previous presidents have already gone? He's a hardliner wrt 'rogue' states, for sure. But what's his history on actual military intervention?

Not difficult to look up:

 

" Bolton has been called a "war hawk" and is an advocate for regime change in Iran and North Korea and has repeatedly called for the termination of the Iran deal.^[20][21] He was a supporter of the Iraq War and continues to support his decision.^[22] He has continuously supported military action and regime change in Syria, Libya, and Iran. "    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.  

 

[simple1]

22 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

<snip>

But has Bolton any history of helping to start wars, other than cheerleading?

You're nitpicking. Bolton was a member of the group who pushed for Bush to go to war against Iraq and still claims the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision. It's very early days, but I believe we have yet to hear from Bolton what he anticipates to be the outcome if the US goes ahead and attacks Iran & N.K.. It appears Bolton is very dismissive of the lessons learnt of consequences. 

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

<snip> It's very early days <snip>

 

Correct assessment.

[simple1]

29 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Correct assessment.

Yes will not be the NSA for a few more days. However, one would think that someone who for years has been articulating preemptive war policy, he would have also talked to the reality of consequences of such action, rather than fantasy scenarios. 

[Scott]

I've removed the LAST post on the nonsensical discussion of Obama and Libya.   The next one will see the POSTER disappear.  

 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

[stevenl]

Biden on Bolton

 

 

[selftaopath]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

That's one very conservative columnist's opinion. 

 

Funny that he didn't mention how the razor-sharp minded Bolton was a leading proponent of the Iraq War based on false intelligence. 

Trump and his entire cabal spout OPINIONS as facts. It would be humorous if it wasn't so dangerous and detrimental to America. 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

You're nitpicking. Bolton was a member of the group who pushed for Bush to go to war against Iraq and still claims the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision. It's very early days, but I believe we have yet to hear from Bolton what he anticipates to be the outcome if the US goes ahead and attacks Iran & N.K.. It appears Bolton is very dismissive of the lessons learnt of consequences. 

 

7 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Correct assessment.

How much evidence do you need of the obvious fact that Bolton is a war-monger (and Vietnam War draft-dodging chicken hawk as well) and his appointment to NSA bodes poorly for any peaceful resolution of Korea's nuclear program, the Iran nuclear deal, and any other issue he gets involved in?

[ELVIS123456]

This is what the New York Times said about Bolton.  And no one can say the NYT is a 'friend' of Trump.

 

John Bolton Is Right About the U.N.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/john-bolton-un-united-nations.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion

 

"The U.N. is a never-ending scandal disguised as an everlasting hope. The hope is that dialogue can overcome distrust and collective security can be made to work in the interests of humanity. Reality says otherwise. "

 

"As for the scandals — where to start? U.N. peacekeepers caused a cholera epidemic in Haiti that so far has taken 10,000 lives. Yet it took U.N. headquarters six years to acknowledge responsibility. "

 

"In Rwanda in 1994, U.N. peacekeepers all-but abandoned the country at the outset of genocide that took at least 500,000 lives. In Bosnia in 1995, U.N. peacekeepers stepped aside in Srebrenica and allowed more than 7,000 men and boys to be killed and countless women raped. It’s a similar story in Sri Lanka in 2009 and South Sudan in 2016."

 

Those are the words of the NYT Journalist - Bret Stephens - not Bolton.

 

Bolton served in the UN, and this is what he said:  "if the United Nations Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference."

 

Bret again :  "In the meantime, we’ll all have a collective freak-out over the next national security adviser. I agree with Bolton about some things and disagree about others. But on the U.N. he’s been right all along. If his presence in the White House helps to scare the organization into real reform, so much the better."

 

Reforming the UN IMO is like reforming a fire - it aint possible. You either contain it or you put it out.  IMO Bolton will be a major force behind USA foreign policy going forward, and as seen by the other recent changes, that means in a direction that benefits the USA People first and without concern for the UN. Trump's team has done a fine job with the 'ISIS problem' without any UN help , and I can see more of the same coming.  Will it result in a war somewhere?  Maybe.  But the truth is the UN aint working (read the article) and appeasement has not worked because reality is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists or dictators.  But here is the rub - Trump Bolton et al, only care if it affects USA.

And with the pending massive increase in the USA Defence resources about to be undertaken, the 'trouble' countries all know that they better leave USA alone or they risk being treated like a fire (contained or extinguished). Why do you think Nth Korea is planning talks?  Because Trump et al doesnt care if they are a dictatorship, they care if they might attack an ally (Sth Korea or Japan) and destabilise the Region and harm USA interests, and they dont care what the UN thinks or does, but Bolton will work the corridors to get done what can be done.  

 

[lovelomsak]

6 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

This is what the New York Times said about Bolton.  And no one can say the NYT is a 'friend' of Trump.

 

John Bolton Is Right About the U.N.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/john-bolton-un-united-nations.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion

 

"The U.N. is a never-ending scandal disguised as an everlasting hope. The hope is that dialogue can overcome distrust and collective security can be made to work in the interests of humanity. Reality says otherwise. "

 

"As for the scandals — where to start? U.N. peacekeepers caused a cholera epidemic in Haiti that so far has taken 10,000 lives. Yet it took U.N. headquarters six years to acknowledge responsibility. "

 

"In Rwanda in 1994, U.N. peacekeepers all-but abandoned the country at the outset of genocide that took at least 500,000 lives. In Bosnia in 1995, U.N. peacekeepers stepped aside in Srebrenica and allowed more than 7,000 men and boys to be killed and countless women raped. It’s a similar story in Sri Lanka in 2009 and South Sudan in 2016."

 

Those are the words of the NYT Journalist - Bret Stephens - not Bolton.

 

Bolton served in the UN, and this is what he said:  "if the United Nations Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference."

 

Bret again :  "In the meantime, we’ll all have a collective freak-out over the next national security adviser. I agree with Bolton about some things and disagree about others. But on the U.N. he’s been right all along. If his presence in the White House helps to scare the organization into real reform, so much the better."

 

Reforming the UN IMO is like reforming a fire - it aint possible. You either contain it or you put it out.  IMO Bolton will be a major force behind USA foreign policy going forward, and as seen by the other recent changes, that means in a direction that benefits the USA People first and without concern for the UN. Trump's team has done a fine job with the 'ISIS problem' without any UN help , and I can see more of the same coming.  Will it result in a war somewhere?  Maybe.  But the truth is the UN aint working (read the article) and appeasement has not worked because reality is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists or dictators.  But here is the rub - Trump Bolton et al, only care if it affects USA.

And with the pending massive increase in the USA Defence resources about to be undertaken, the 'trouble' countries all know that they better leave USA alone or they risk being treated like a fire (contained or extinguished). Why do you think Nth Korea is planning talks?  Because Trump et al doesnt care if they are a dictatorship, they care if they might attack an ally (Sth Korea or Japan) and destabilise the Region and harm USA interests, and they dont care what the UN thinks or does, but Bolton will work the corridors to get done what can be done.  

 

AMEN

[Thakkar]

21 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Ya never know. At this point in his first term Obama had been a Nobel Peace Prize recipient for 6 months already. He went on to command incursions that killed hundreds of thousands of people, many if not most, innocent civilians. Reagan was a big military talker, but not big on war as it turned out.

That’s possible. So far, Trump’s been all all talk and no action on most things. But the fact that he seems erratic, unpredictable and often unnecessarily blustery is creating unnecessary instability and increasing the chances that someone somewhere could make a wrong move. With the equally blustery Bolton at his side, things get scarier.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

This is what the New York Times said about Bolton.  And no one can say the NYT is a 'friend' of Trump.

 

John Bolton Is Right About the U.N.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/john-bolton-un-united-nations.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion

 

"The U.N. is a never-ending scandal disguised as an everlasting hope. The hope is that dialogue can overcome distrust and collective security can be made to work in the interests of humanity. Reality says otherwise. "

 

"As for the scandals — where to start? U.N. peacekeepers caused a cholera epidemic in Haiti that so far has taken 10,000 lives. Yet it took U.N. headquarters six years to acknowledge responsibility. "

 

"In Rwanda in 1994, U.N. peacekeepers all-but abandoned the country at the outset of genocide that took at least 500,000 lives. In Bosnia in 1995, U.N. peacekeepers stepped aside in Srebrenica and allowed more than 7,000 men and boys to be killed and countless women raped. It’s a similar story in Sri Lanka in 2009 and South Sudan in 2016."

 

Those are the words of the NYT Journalist - Bret Stephens - not Bolton.

 

Bolton served in the UN, and this is what he said:  "if the United Nations Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference."

 

Bret again :  "In the meantime, we’ll all have a collective freak-out over the next national security adviser. I agree with Bolton about some things and disagree about others. But on the U.N. he’s been right all along. If his presence in the White House helps to scare the organization into real reform, so much the better."

 

Reforming the UN IMO is like reforming a fire - it aint possible. You either contain it or you put it out.  IMO Bolton will be a major force behind USA foreign policy going forward, and as seen by the other recent changes, that means in a direction that benefits the USA People first and without concern for the UN. Trump's team has done a fine job with the 'ISIS problem' without any UN help , and I can see more of the same coming.  Will it result in a war somewhere?  Maybe.  But the truth is the UN aint working (read the article) and appeasement has not worked because reality is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists or dictators.  But here is the rub - Trump Bolton et al, only care if it affects USA.

And with the pending massive increase in the USA Defence resources about to be undertaken, the 'trouble' countries all know that they better leave USA alone or they risk being treated like a fire (contained or extinguished). Why do you think Nth Korea is planning talks?  Because Trump et al doesnt care if they are a dictatorship, they care if they might attack an ally (Sth Korea or Japan) and destabilise the Region and harm USA interests, and they dont care what the UN thinks or does, but Bolton will work the corridors to get done what can be done.  

 

An opinion piece followed by a subjective assessment of Bolton's attitudes. 

 

Bolton is a chicken hawk.  He helped get the US in one unnecessary war that we still haven't gotten out of, and he seems eager to start more.  With the clueless Trump in the Oval Office he may succeed.

 

As horrible as the idea of a President Pence is, it would be an improvement.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[lannarebirth]

12 hours ago, Thakkar said:

That’s possible. So far, Trump’s been all all talk and no action on most things. But the fact that he seems erratic, unpredictable and often unnecessarily blustery is creating unnecessary instability and increasing the chances that someone somewhere could make a wrong move. With the equally blustery Bolton at his side, things get scarier.

 

Many years ago I attended a public lecture that hosted Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev. Thatcher was effusive in her praise of Reagan, like he was her first crush. Gorbachev said something I thought was very telling. He said it wasn't so much if he agreed with Reagan or even what each country was called upon to do but whether or not you believed the other country would do what they said they would do, positive or negative. He said it took him awhile to come around to his view but that he had no doubts whatsoever Reagan would follow through on what he promised he would do, positive or negative.

 

 

[Thakkar]

28 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Many years ago I attended a public lecture that hosted Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev. Thatcher was effusive in her praise of Reagan, like he was her first crush. Gorbachev said something I thought was very telling. He said it wasn't so much if he agreed with Reagan or even what each country was called upon to do but whether or not you believed the other country would do what they said they would do, positive or negative. He said it took him awhile to come around to his view but that he had no doubts whatsoever Reagan would follow through on what he promised he would do, positive or negative.

 

 

Playing chicken while both your cars are packed with thermonuclear bombs is not just scary, but is, today, stupid scary. It may have worked when the USSR was on the verge of collapse after a decade of weakening in the Afghan war and when the US was relatively free of foreign entanglements, had a popular president who listened to his advisors, a stable and competent cabinet and a country that was less divided. 

 

Also, Putin is not Gorbachev. Even at the time, it was fairly discernible that Gorbachev wasn’t the kind to call a bluff. Can’t so easily say that about Putin.

[Andaman Al]

Probably one of the best impersonations ever.   - Why am I laughing!! This is serious!!  

 

 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Probably one of the best impersonations ever.   - Why am I laughing!! This is serious!!  

Stephen Colbert used to be quite entertaining, but lately the show is rather messy and painful to watch. Seth Meyers has a lot sharper thoughts. 

 

[Andaman Al]

5 hours ago, oilinki said:

Stephen Colbert used to be quite entertaining, but lately the show is rather messy and painful to watch. Seth Meyers has a lot sharper thoughts. 

 

I hear you. Seth Meyers has always presented 'sharper thoughts'. The purpose of the post was not endorsing Colbert but just posting a rather amusing portrayal of Bolton. Not meant to be serious or sharp in the least.