Gyroscopic Investing

farjean2 wrote:Pat Buchanan is even suggesting it might be a false flag operation.

Pat Buchanan, ugh. He says a lot of things, and most of them should be ignored.

dualstow wrote:

farjean2 wrote:Pat Buchanan is even suggesting it might be a false flag operation.

Pat Buchanan, ugh. He says a lot of things, and most of them should be ignored.

10 years ago I would have agreed with you completely. Nowadays, I find I agree with most of what Buchanan says. What does he say that you don't like?

Maybe I'm out of date. I stopped listening to him well over 10 years ago. He's changed?

I suspect that I've changed. He sounds pretty reasonable to me now. I'm talking about reading the articles of his that get posted on www.unz.com. If you read what the mainstream media has to say about him, I'm pretty sure he sounds like a nazi.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Nazi-lite, tops. :-) But, I'll check out his most recent (direct) quotes if I get a chance this week.

Although he calls himself a paleo-conservative rather than a libertarian, Buchanan's views are nearly identical to those of Ron Paul which is why I've always liked him. Unlike Ron Paul, he actually won the New Hampshire primary when he was running for president. Charges of antisemitism eventually did him in or he might well have won the nomination with a populist "America First" message very similar to Donald Trump's. He didn't help himself in this matter when he came to the defense of an accused Nazi War criminal who was being deported to Israel for trial.

Because of my past posts, I should mention that I don't solely dislike Buchanan because of his comments about Jews.

I just read Buchanan's latest column at UNZ, criticizing Trump for the Syria missile strike. I didn't see any sign of anti-Semitism or hinting that Israel could have been behind it, despite the very great possibility that Israel is behind a lot of everything that happens in the Middle East.

Again, are you talking about actual comments Buchanan made about Jews/Israel, or are you talking about the media's second-hand portrayal of what he said?

Me? I'm not talking about Jews or Israel at all, and again I haven't read B's comments in over a decade. When I did, they were pretty dicky comments.Cringeworthy.

Haven't read it, Tenn.

FOX & friends
✔ ‎@foxandfriends

Pres. Trump vows "we're not going into Syria" and warns Putin he's backing the wrong guy (via @MorningsMaria)

6:35 AM - 12 Apr 2017

112 112 Retweets

307 307 likes

It's impossible to deny that regime change in Syria has been an overtly-declared econo-military objective for decades. That alone is sufficient to dismiss whatever rationale du jour they're peddling this time around.

I'll tell you what worries me. U.S. foreign policy clearly is being dictated by multinational corporations run by elites who no longer live in this country and/or whose assets are concentrated off-shore. They have no meaningful stake in this country, as their future lies in the creation and domination of third-world markets. What best suits their interests, at this point, is to raise the standard of living in third-world countries by decimating the standard of living here at home. So what makes anyone so sure that the powers-that-be, who are so eager to bring on another world war, actually want us to win it?

Benko wrote:FOX & friends
✔ ‎@foxandfriends
Pres. Trump vows "we're not going into Syria" and warns Putin he's backing the wrong guy (via @MorningsMaria)
...

Is it still there, Benko? I'm not great at navigating Twitter- seems like there are always missing tweets, including my own, unless I check & recheck, bouncing back and forth between Top and Latest.

I checked @foxandfriends and @morningsmaria, as well as Trump's own tweets.

I don't do twitter and have no idea. I saw it reported on in two places and posted what I believed to be the source.

TennPaGa wrote:

dualstow wrote:Is it still there, Benko? I'm not great at navigating Twitter- seems like there are always missing tweets, including my own, unless I check & recheck, bouncing back and forth between Top and Latest.

Yes.

Thank you! I didn't go back to 3:35am. I guess Benko is in another time zone.

TennPaGa wrote:So I'm not sure why he should be believed now.

Your biases (understandable and mostly correct as far as I can tell) apply to politicians of which Trump ain't one. The most detailed reply comes from Gorka here:

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/04/ ... e-officer/

...Gorka said it was “not a binary proposition” to call for regime change without also committing the United States to a military intervention.

“Nothing that Secretary Tillerson said has anything to do with an invasion or forced removal of Assad. Nothing,”...
“Remember this is a satrapy, it’s a client state of other nations,” he explained. “The message we sent is, there is a point at which an individual like Assad, when he does things as heinous as using chemical weapons against unarmed women and children, the cost/benefit analysis for his sponsors – Moscow included – has to be reassessed.”

“When that is reassessed, if he loses the sponsorship of places like the Kremlin, it becomes much easier for him to be forced out of office politically, not by force, because he simply loses the confidence of his supporters and also the people around him...

“There is no intent, no desire, no endgame that involves us being a global police officer. Absolutely not,” Gorka replied.

This just in: it was a "true flag" attack.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/ ... index.html

Tenn,

"Ignoring for the moment the cognitive dissonance in saying "we're not going into Syria" while sending in 59 cruise missiles to destroy an air base... "

There is only cognitive dissonance if you cannot imagine a possibility other than:

A. do nothing and
B start a war.

I would again put forward a 3rd possibility

C. Send a message.

A message to Syria, the Russians, The chinese, The north koreans, etc. Clearly after this action which was taken rapidly, decisively and effectively (given what I think the desire was) A. no one will mistake Trump for the last guy, and B. people will think twice before using poison gas. A. contributes to our safety. B. I probably agree with you wondering why we need to be worlds policeman.

"My comment above applies to Trump, because he is the current President. And it is based solely on mismatch between Trump's statements (some prior to the campaign and some during the campaign) and his actions thus far."

There is no real mismatch between Trumps previous statements and his actions unless he goes on to war with Syria, or North Korea, etc. One could certainly argue whether any action needed to be taken and whether Trump could have waited for some other foreign policy issue to "send a message", but the opportunity did have its advantages e.g. he was eating dinner with the Chinese when he announced the bombings. OF course one could ask why it is our responsibility to do anything with north Korea.

Working with Russia is nearly impossible now because of the 24/7 Big Lies by the left.

I have no clue what comes next with Syria or North Korea, etc. We will have to wait and see how it turns out.

Maddy wrote:It's impossible to deny that regime change in Syria has been an overtly-declared econo-military objective for decades. That alone is sufficient to dismiss whatever rationale du jour they're peddling this time around.

I'll tell you what worries me. U.S. foreign policy clearly is being dictated by multinational corporations run by elites who no longer live in this country and/or whose assets are concentrated off-shore. They have no meaningful stake in this country, as their future lies in the creation and domination of third-world markets. What best suits their interests, at this point, is to raise the standard of living in third-world countries by decimating the standard of living here at home. So what makes anyone so sure that the powers-that-be, who are so eager to bring on another world war, actually want us to win it?

Something has clearly changed Trump's mind about the Syrian conflict, NATO, Russia etc, and there must be reasons for this beyond the isolated use of chemical weapons. In fact his views are now very similar to Obama's, if less eloquently articulated. He's now privy to a lot more information than we are, so you have to consider that there may be reasons beyond the nefarious schemes of the neocons that undoubtedly surround him. Unfortunate, because it leaves us in a position of having to trust the Administration without proof.

“I really think there’s going to be a lot of pressure on Russia to make sure that peace happens, because frankly, if Russia didn’t go in and back this animal, we wouldn’t have a problem right now,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network, referring to Mr. Assad. “Putin is backing a person that’s truly an evil person, and I think it’s very bad for Russia. I think it’s very bad for mankind. It’s very bad for this world.”

- from an uncharacteristically straightforward bit of reporting from the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/worl ... ussia.html

It's no great mystery about Trump's mind change. He's learning about the world. For the first time.

Man this little side show is sure interesting...

Can someone link me to a source with an actual rational, coherent, strategic plan that includes this missile strike so I don't have to wade through these clumsy rationalizations of why Trump did really must have been in "our" best interests and strategically sound, or had some moral motivation considering we've allowed or done worse repeatedly?

If there is none since this is all done in secret, well there's my point right there. When has foreign policy ever been done in public interest or with morals at heart?

I now see in visceral real time how Americans have gotten duped into or have stayed willfully ignorant of every foreign policy blunder and barrage of violence by our government. I mean I knew it existed... but was always either not born yet or one of the sheeple at the time (Balkans, Iraq/Afghanistan, Libya, etc)

Just as an aside, what do folks here think about our war in Yemen, and supporting Saudis there to boot? Just another necessary evil based on some sloppy non-logic and 3 minutes of research?

moda0306 wrote:If there is none since this is all done in secret, well there's my point right there. When has foreign policy ever been done in public interest or with morals at heart?

Probably very rarely. Well, maybe in Canada.

dualstow wrote:

moda0306 wrote:If there is none since this is all done in secret, well there's my point right there. When has foreign policy ever been done in public interest or with morals at heart?

Probably very rarely. Well, maybe in Canada.

Then why do we grant them permanent wartime powers?

What can I tell you. South American countries show the results of true populism.

We're the "best worst" system.

dualstow wrote:What can I tell you. South American countries show the results of true populism.

We're the "best worst" system.

First off, let's not forget the degree to which America has repeatedly fucked over countries in South America.

Further, we don't have to adopt Venezuelan style socialism to end the permanent war time state in the United States. These are completely different priorities. Our options are not 1) sloppy socialist populism, and 2) permanent empire defense for the plutocrats.

Falsest dichotomy I've seen in a while.

(Corrected misspellings. Damn Siri.)