Trump takes sides in Arab rift, suggests support for isolation of Qatar

[Morch]

@Thorgal

 

The usual drivel.

 

Trump was sent by Wall Street? You have non-conspiracy theory source for that? Was there a plan to sell arms to the Vatican Guard?

 

The arms deal, which apparently, wasn't quite all it was talked up to be (more letters of intent), was pretty much in place during Obama's tenure. But don't let facts confuse you.

 

Even if one takes the arms deal at face value - how does it supposedly lead to "economic and military isolation" (whatever that's supposed to mean) of the ME? How does this unclear "economic and military isolation" relate to destabilization? The rift discussed in the OP isn't a new phenomenon. It was there well before Trump. This is just another episode in the same.

 

No, been there done that with regard to posting all sort of nonsense without much by way of source or even rational argument. Needless to say, no owning up when things do not occur is predicted.

 

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

All the more embarrassing for you that he just won.

 

Considering neither of you seems familiar with the game, how would you know?

Nevermind, other than trolling, nothing much on offer.

[dexterm]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Talks about "weasel words", goes on about "corrupt regimes". No sale - that's just one of your broad brush terms. If it comes down to it, not as if the Iranian regime is a paragon of virtue and good governance. And besides, regimes being "corrupt" does not, by itself, detract from a point of view considering Iran a destabilizing element. It is not a zero sum thing.

 

Points exactly how? You make a whole lot of assertions, assumptions and predictions - nothing of substance. Tossing about words isn't much of an argument ("The West is being led by the nose yet again", "Gulf War Vers. 3.0"). Hyperbole at its worst.

 

And I never said anything this was simply about "anti-terrorism". Rather the opposite.

 

As for them sinister forces playing Trump, do tell. Considering a standing complaint against Trump is that he doesn't listen to advice and doesn't pay attention to briefings, this should be amusing.

 

>>If it comes down to it, not as if the Iranian regime is a paragon of virtue and good governance. 
.. I quite agree. So you do tell us why you think Trump is clearly taking sides in this dispute, when Saudi and Iran are both misogynistic regimes with Iran perhaps slightly better having just conducted reasonably democratic elections with a more moderate candidate elected, and where women have had the right to vote and drive cars since the 1960s. I have explained my reasoning why Trump takes sides and condemns a country with a large pro Iranian Shia population, and a news outlet more open than Fox News. Very interested to know why you think Trump so openly sides with Qatar's and Iran's enemies, and Israel's friends.

 

>>As for them sinister forces playing Trump, do tell.
...perhaps you should reread my posts above. I named precisely the countries and forces influencing Trump.

[JemJem]

I think that most probably both the Qatari regime and the Saudi regime have ties to Islamic terrorism.

[Thorgal]

[mention=171721]Thorgal[/mention]   The usual drivel.

 

Trump was sent by Wall Street? You have non-conspiracy theory source for that? Was there a plan to sell arms to the Vatican Guard?

 

The arms deal, which apparently, wasn't quite all it was talked up to be (more letters of intent), was pretty much in place during Obama's tenure. But don't let facts confuse you.

 

Even if one takes the arms deal at face value - how does it supposedly lead to "economic and military isolation" (whatever that's supposed to mean) of the ME? How does this unclear "economic and military isolation" relate to destabilization? The rift discussed in the OP isn't a new phenomenon. It was there well before Trump. This is just another episode in the same.

 

No, been there done that with regard to posting all sort of nonsense without much by way of source or even rational argument. Needless to say, no owning up when things do not occur is predicted.

 

 

 

 

 What looked as a diplomatic visit for religious union, was actually a plan for destabilising Iran.

 

http://www.wsj.com/video/president-trump-heads-to-the-middle-east/CB3986AD-0189-4140-897A-A3FD6E51F1E1.html

 

So far, your conspiracy theory.

 

Linking SA petrodollars to the US Wall Street stock exchange markets destabilises the regional oil and gas producing countries. You must have missed that most of them are linked through the select club of the OPEC with their own economic regulations and market rates.

 

Any transfer to a stock market destabilises this cordon, read a strong, independent and unique concept.

 

To protect this economic breach, an arms deal combined with a military defence pact between the US and KSA is inevitably required.

 

Trumps economical advisor is Gary Cohn, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Seen on the picture in Saudi Arabia in my previous post. I would rather link him to Wall Street and Israel, instead of the Vatican Swiss Guards...

 

Try harder.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

[Naam]

2 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Trumps economical advisor is Gary Cohn, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Seen on the picture in Saudi Arabia in my previous post. I would rather link him to Wall Street and Israel, instead of the Vatican Swiss Guards...

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>If it comes down to it, not as if the Iranian regime is a paragon of virtue and good governance. 
.. I quite agree. So you do tell us why you think Trump is clearly taking sides in this dispute, when Saudi and Iran are both misogynistic regimes with Iran perhaps slightly better having just conducted reasonably democratic elections with a more moderate candidate elected, and where women have had the right to vote and drive cars since the 1960s. I have explained my reasoning why Trump takes sides and condemns a country with a large pro Iranian Shia population, and a news outlet more open than Fox News. Very interested to know why you think Trump so openly sides with Qatar's and Iran's enemies, and Israel's friends.

 

>>As for them sinister forces playing Trump, do tell.
...perhaps you should reread my posts above. I named precisely the countries and forces influencing Trump.

 

For starters there is no "us". You do not speak for anyone but yourself.

Other than that, I have addressed this bogus "question" many times in the past. International relations are not necessarily about ideals but more to do with interests. Whether you actually believe ideals play a part or pretend to believe so, is not very interesting. That you prefer Iran is your own choice, personally I do not care much for either then or the Saudis. You seem to ignore the fact that Iran is both openly hostile to the US and that threat-wise, it does carry a bigger punch than it's neighbors. And once again, I have learned not to read all that much into Trump's tweets, or to seek hidden meanings within. What you see is what you get. The man is an incompetent buffoon. That's the long and the short of it. What you see as "bad cop, good cop" most people see as idiocy.

 

No, seriously, do tell. Does Trump follow directives from these countries? How did they "influence" him? That you say they did doesn't mean a whole lot.

[maewang99]

this deviant illiterate moron should leave the Middle East to his Secretary of State.... 

as George Will said a few weeks ago... the danger isn't that Trump, the man.... Donald Trump.... doesn't know that he doesn't know anything.... it's that he hasn't shown any signs of knowing what it means to know something.       

hedge your pensions if you get a US dollar based fixed payment, even if it is "adjusted for inflation".... it won't be adjusted for a dollah in the shithole.

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by maewang99

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 What looked as a diplomatic visit for religious union, was actually a plan for destabilising Iran.

 

http://www.wsj.com/video/president-trump-heads-to-the-middle-east/CB3986AD-0189-4140-897A-A3FD6E51F1E1.html

 

So far, your conspiracy theory.

 

Linking SA petrodollars to the US Wall Street stock exchange markets destabilises the regional oil and gas producing countries. You must have missed that most of them are linked through the select club of the OPEC with their own economic regulations and market rates.

 

Any transfer to a stock market destabilises this cordon, read a strong, independent and unique concept.

 

To protect this economic breach, an arms deal combined with a military defence pact between the US and KSA is inevitably required.

 

Trumps economical advisor is Gary Cohn, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Seen on the picture in Saudi Arabia in my previous post. I would rather link him to Wall Street and Israel, instead of the Vatican Swiss Guards...

 

Try harder.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

Do provide a proper source, other than your assertion that Trump was sent to the ME by Wall Street. And if it's not too clear, a short clip from the Wall Street Journal covering his trip in broad detail isn't that.

 

I don't think anyone took the religious of the visit all too seriously. That it was about trying to set up some sort of coalition countering Iran was rather obvious, not much news there. How that amounts to destabilizing Iran will remain a mystery until your next nonsense post.

 

The rest of your pseudo-economical review is barely intelligible. It the "logic" is followed through, it would seem that any major deal with an oil producing country would cause "destabilize" the relevant region. Unless I'm greatly misinformed SA money is already invested in many a WS traded stock. And once more, apparently the deal was more a collection of letters of intent rather than actual contracts. Plus.  it was conceived during Obama's term in office.

 

You may link whomever your like to whatever, but it still wouldn't make the connection a fact, or the conclusion you asserted, a fact.

 

[ilostmypassword]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I was talking about trying to set up a coalition aimed at countering Iran, not "going after Iran", as you put it. The former denotes a more defensive stance aimed at containment, the latter implies aggression. As for the current situation, I strongly doubt that it is solely to do with Qatar's perceived stand on relations with Iran. Similarly, didn't see a whole lot of support for your "of course" re Israel pushing this move. Carry on.

I can't ever recall seeing any coalition formed where the reasons stated for it is to take a more aggressive stand.  I don't recall in the last 50 years anyone starting a war on the stated grounds of aggression. So I am sure that any coalition set up will define its goals as defensive.  As I'm sure you know, the US Department of Defense used to be called the Department of War. 

[Andaman Al]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 I don't think Israel is looking to start a war with Iran, even if it would like to see Iranian influence and involvement in the region curtailed.

 

 

Correct, Israel is not looking to start a war with Iran, Israel is looking for everyone else to start a war with Iran. You think Israel is really an ally? It would gladly shed the blood of a hundred thousand US sons and daughters to further its aims.

 

The bad guys in this drama are Saudi, make no mistake. It is not Qatar that are the supporters of terrorism it is Saudi. How many terrorist attacks have been carried out by Shia Muslims? Answers on a postage stamp please. Qatar supported the same rebel groups in Syria that Saudi and UAE did.

[maewang99]

it's one thing when it's Moe, Shemp or Larry throwing monkey wrenches around....  

but if Donald 6 Opened Cans of Diet Coke Trump....or Steve Bannon.... decides to throw a monkey wrench into the ****financial**** markets....

 

these guys are total nutters. they worship disruption, violent action heroes and a Theory of The World as a Big Zero Sum Game.. the total opposite of Silicon Valley in every way.

is your pension "adjusted" for fx losses as well as stagflation?

  

Edited June 10, 2017 by maewang99

[Morch]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I can't ever recall seeing any coalition formed where the reasons stated for it is to take a more aggressive stand.  I don't recall in the last 50 years anyone starting a war on the stated grounds of aggression. So I am sure that any coalition set up will define its goals as defensive.  As I'm sure you know, the US Department of Defense used to be called the Department of War. 

 

I guess you'd like nothing better than to start an off-topic discussion about the nature of coalitions. Other than the obvious deflection attempt, I would venture that your reservations with regard to such coalitions would relate to their declared aims or goals, rather than being of a general nature. There is little future or interest in an all out war with Iran. This applies to all parties involved. In terms of both destruction and expense, it's nothing to look forward to. Hence, any such coalition would more likely focus on containment, deterrence, and perhaps, confrontation on localized (or proxy) instances. That there would be a covert side, and a diplomatic one goes without saying. Still, it all does not amount, IMO, to what was suggested earlier. 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Correct, Israel is not looking to start a war with Iran, Israel is looking for everyone else to start a war with Iran. You think Israel is really an ally? It would gladly shed the blood of a hundred thousand US sons and daughters to further its aims.

 

The bad guys in this drama are Saudi, make no mistake. It is not Qatar that are the supporters of terrorism it is Saudi. How many terrorist attacks have been carried out by Shia Muslims? Answers on a postage stamp please. Qatar supported the same rebel groups in Syria that Saudi and UAE did.

 

You can keep claiming whatever nonsense you like, there's obviously no requirement to back it up with anything concrete. You may also, along with the usual suspects, focus on angles which aren't central to the OP. Just to ease your mind, any confrontation with Iran, regardless if it includes active Israeli participation, will likely result in Israel being attacked by the Hezbollah (Iran's proxy). So again, I doubt that it is in most parties interest to support a full blown war in the ME.

 

When people used terms such as "bad guys" to address international relations, it doesn't exactly highlight much, other than a simplistic take on things. Your focus is on terrorist attacks outside the ME, but as most involved parties are in the ME, their point of view and the resulting perception of threats may be different.

 

I am not suggesting that either Saudi Arabia or Qatar are good/bad, right/wrong. There's a clash of interests on several levels, and there was no suggestion in my posts that the public "supporting terrorism" thing is the only facet of this conflict.

[Naam]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud was made crown prince. As the Yemen incursion shows, he is neither a model of prudence nor competence.

that's a matter of political and of course personal perspective. Mohamed bin Salman is exactly the man Saudi Arabia needs... in my [not so] humble view.

[Usernames]

On 6/7/2017 at 6:59 PM, Andaman Al said:

If the Saudis bomb Qatar then WW3 will break out! 100%. oh and the USA would then have 11000 troops and their hardware in 'enemy' territory - complicated don't you think. Cutting off the worlds main supply of LNG/LPG - well that would suit Saudi and Russia so who knows. The world has proven itself mad enough so far in 2017.

Hysteria.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about Yemen have been removed. 

[Andaman Al]

4 hours ago, Usernames said:

Hysteria.

Frankly I don't give a hoot if you and Morch think it's hysteria or not, yesterday I was signed off for a seven figure sum to get food into Qatar. So Whatever you think is irrelevant. At this moment on time, Trump is awesome, go Trump go, me and my bank manager love you.

[Dumbastheycome]

22 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Frankly I don't give a hoot if you and Morch think it's hysteria or not, yesterday I was signed off for a seven figure sum to get food into Qatar. So Whatever you think is irrelevant. At this moment on time, Trump is awesome, go Trump go, me and my bank manager love you.

Aha!  A    Commissioner ! lol

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Aha!  A    Commissioner ! lol

I think Trump is God now  

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Frankly I don't give a hoot if you and Morch think it's hysteria or not, yesterday I was signed off for a seven figure sum to get food into Qatar. So Whatever you think is irrelevant. At this moment on time, Trump is awesome, go Trump go, me and my bank manager love you.

Can you say anything about where the food is coming from?

[spidermike007]

Cheeto got played by the Saudis, then bragged about it on Twitter. Though the Saudis claim that it was about terror, most of us saw right through that ruse. The Qataris are a dangerous source of critical information about the Saudis and the mischief and mayhem they sponsor and create. Trump took the bait. Instead of expressing dismay at these silly accusations, Cheeto took credit for the Saudi move. Even Tillerson is calling for a lifting of the blockade. This poor boy. He just cannot stop shooting himself in the foot. It is second nature for him. Such a sad and derelectic neophyte.

[Caps]

Trump takes sides in the ME problem, I take it the guys who have just sold billions of dollars worth of F15's to Qatar didn't get the memo or tweet?

[Dumbastheycome]

Just now, Caps said:

Trump takes sides in the ME problem, I take it the guys who have just sold billions of dollars worth of F15's to Qatar didn't get the memo or tweet?

Get  a  grip  Sir ! 

There  is this  vast vacuam that is  filled  with  many  coloured  strokes  by   the  media, political  persuaders, Generals  who  who  want to  have    medal  for  a  war they have  not  yet  presided  over, financiers, psychopaths who  just   get a  kick out  off  killing (  some  using  whatever  religion  they think  is  the  best justification ), and   naive  members of  the  general  public   who  either  takes   sides  with  any of  the  above because  they believe  the  bs !

It  comes  down  to  two things. But  really those  two are  one  in effect.

Money money money   money  ( because  with   enough  you  have  power) ...and  No  money   but the  desire  for  the power so  you  challenge  the  money  money  money  money.

Because  that is  the  wonderful   humanitary ? system  that  keeps  the   world   turning.

Build  it  up  to  break it  down  to  build  it  up.......just  so long  as  the  money  keeps  rolling.

It  is  the  percentages   that   count . 

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, Caps said:

Trump takes sides in the ME problem, I take it the guys who have just sold billions of dollars worth of F15's to Qatar didn't get the memo or tweet?

Maybe this is part of Trump's plan to stimulate the US Economy. Threaten U.S. allies which will scare them into buying expensive and unnecessary hardware from the USA.

[Andaman Al]

I am not sure why anybody would buy top end  US military hardware. One selective flick of a switch at a place underground somewhere in the US and it will all stop working!

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe this is part of Trump's plan to stimulate the US Economy. Threaten U.S. allies which will scare them into buying expensive and unnecessary hardware from the USA.

 

Or maybe you're grasping at straws.

While some may find the evident chaos more addressable through supposed underlying far-reaching plans - other may reflect on who is POTUS, and get a grip.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I am not sure why anybody would buy top end  US military hardware. One selective flick of a switch at a place underground somewhere in the US and it will all stop working!

 

Apart from the pointless conspiracy theory bit - F-15, while a fine aircraft, is not currently top end US military hardware. Now if the object of your post was the F-35, there's be some element of truth to the premise, even if not exactly as you describe.

[ilostmypassword]

39 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Or maybe you're grasping at straws.

While some may find the evident chaos more addressable through supposed underlying far-reaching plans - other may reflect on who is POTUS, and get a grip.

Or maybe your sense of humor and absurdity needs a shot of adrenalin. Of course it was nonsense. 

 

[thaihome]

8 page thread, mostly the same characters with the same disagreements on middle eastern relationships. All off topic. The topic is the current US president's complete lack of understanding of international relations and not caring that he doesn't understand.

 

In his mind, the tweets worked, at least for a day or so, headlines were not all about Comey's testimony,  Mueller's investigation or potential obstruction of justice.

 

That was all Trump was trying to do. He mostly succeeded in the short term (less then 24 hours), which is all Trump can think about.

TH