Trump - hoće li biti impeachment ili 8 godina drugačijeg predsednikovanja?

[dillinger]

Realno. Ja bih se zapotao da mi se stavovi podudaraju s ovom ekipom. Bas dosta zapitao. Bas. Dosta.

 

Naravno, zaboravio si Paula i Tulsi na primer. Samo se fašisti protive intervencijama abroad, bez dokaza i autorizacije UN ili kongresa.

Nastavi da živiš u svetu gde ti McCain određuje mete i prioritete.

Edited April 10, 2017 by dillinger

[Deco]

Opet masis fudbal. Ne radi se tu o tome da li su Asad i Hitler slicni nego o njihovoj logici.

 

Ta logika valjda jeste (ili bi bar trebalo da bude) u izvesnoj meri vođena i realnim stepenom pretnje. Može neko ne znam koliko da nategne mozak i da napravi poređenje između Asada i Hitlera, pa i da zaključi da su isti...To naravno ne znači da će reakcija biti ista, prosto zbog toga što je stepen haosa koji jedan i drugi potencijalno mogu da izazovu potpuno neuporediv.

 

Da je nekim spletom okolnosti Vajmarska republika preživela, Hitler ostao u Austriji, tamo formirao NSDAP i preuzeo vlast 1933 reakcije ostalih faktora bi bile potpuno drugačije, naravno opravdano, pošto sa Austrijom iza sebe verovatno ne bi imao šanse da dobije ni rat protiv Kraljevine Jugoslavije, a kamoli da zapali celu evropu. To je sasvim logično i normalno ponašanje, na engleskom bi se verovatno zvalo "threat assesment" ili već nešto slično.

[theanswer]

Breitbart, Ann Coutler, Alex Jones... Realno tesko je smisliti goru fasisoidnu ekipu. Nije bi cudo sto se loze na diktatora koji gasom ubija civile. Mozda bi ekipu mogli da upotpune Farage i LePen... Oh wait.

 

Tako je, Bil i Hilari, Madlen Olbrajt, Vesli Klarki i Toni Bler su mnogo jača ekipa.

Edited April 10, 2017 by theanswer

[iDemo]

Ta logika valjda jeste (ili bi bar trebalo da bude) u izvesnoj meri vođena i realnim stepenom pretnje. Može neko ne znam koliko da nategne mozak i da napravi poređenje između Asada i Hitlera, pa i da zaključi da su isti...To naravno ne znači da će reakcija biti ista, prosto zbog toga što je stepen haosa koji jedan i drugi potencijalno mogu da izazovu potpuno neuporediv.

 

Da je nekim spletom okolnosti Vajmarska republika preživela, Hitler ostao u Austriji, tamo formirao NSDAP i preuzeo vlast 1933 reakcije ostalih faktora bi bile potpuno drugačije, naravno opravdano, pošto sa Austrijom iza sebe verovatno ne bi imao šanse da dobije ni rat protiv Kraljevine Jugoslavije, a kamoli da zapali celu evropu. To je sasvim logično i normalno ponašanje, na engleskom bi se verovatno zvalo "threat assesment" ili već nešto slično.

 

Hitler bi i sa Nemackom prosao kao i sa Austrijom da nije stigla pomoc za razvoj demokratije iz inostranstva. Al' je to svakako neka druga tema.

[Eraserhead]

Tako je, Bil i Hilari, Madlen Olbrajt, Vesli Klarki i Toni Bler su mnogo jača ekipa.

Znaci ako nismo u ekipi sa fasovima koji se loze na diktatore onda smo u ovoj ekipi. Zanimljivo svodjenje izbora. Mada i u tom slucaju ne znam ko bi izabrao ekipu sa Ann Coutler, Alex Jonesom i nazi Spencerom. PPP tone sve dublje.

[theanswer]

Znaci ako nismo u ekipi sa fasovima koji se loze na diktatore onda smo u ovoj ekipi. Zanimljivo svodjenje izbora. Mada i u tom slucaju ne znam ko bi izabrao ekipu sa Ann Coutler, Alex Jonesom i nazi Spencerom. PPP tone sve dublje.

 

Ti si prvi učitao dillingera u ovu grupu. Toneš ti sve dublje.

[Eraserhead]

Ti si prvi učitao dillingera u ovu grupu. Toneš ti sve dublje.

 

Ovo sto si malo pre napisao je kao da si 99. nekoga ko je protiv Milosevica optuzio da je za Klintona. A i u to vreme je SRJ imala razne LePene i Zirinovske koji su se lozili na tu politiku. Ako si protiv ubica poput Milosevica ili Asada ne znaci da si automatski za Medlin Olbrajt.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Eraserhead

[Eraserhead]

Asked for comment (on Trump's attack on Syria), Coulter declined in an email.

“I’m too depressed” she said.

 

 

 

^_^

[Eraserhead]

Prilicno iskljuciva retorika

 

 

Rex Tillerson just gave Russia an ultimatum

 

LUCCA, Italy — US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued an ultimatum to Russia on Tuesday: Side with the US and like-minded countries on Syria, or embrace Iran, the militant group Hezbollah, and embattled Syrian leader Bashar Assad...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sputnik (20.2.2017): Trump Represents 'Defeat for Mainstream Media and Politics' – Kusturica 

 

 

^_^

 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Eraserhead

[Lord Protector]

Is Trump Enlisting in the War Party?

Posted By Patrick J. Buchanan On  April 10, 2017 

 

By firing off five dozen Tomahawk missiles at a military airfield, our "America First" president may have plunged us into another Middle East war that his countrymen do not want to fight.

Thus far Bashar Assad seems unintimidated. Brushing off the strikes, he has defiantly gone back to bombing the rebels from the same Shayrat air base that the U.S. missiles hit.

Trump "will not stop here," warned U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley on Sunday. "If he needs to do more, he will."

If Trump fails to back up Haley’s threat, the hawks now cheering him on will begin deriding him as "Donald Obama."

But if he throbs to the war drums of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio and orders Syria’s air force destroyed, we could be at war not only with ISIS and al-Qaida, but with Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

A Syrian war would consume Trump’s presidency.

Are we ready for that? How would we win such a war without raising a large army and sending it back into the Middle East?

Another problem: Trump’s missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.

Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.

What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational:

"When you kill innocent children, innocent babies – babies, little babies – with a chemical gas … that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. … And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me … my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."

Two days later, Trump was still emoting: "Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."

Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war, among them thousands of children and infants.

Have they been killed by Assad’s forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian, Israeli and Turkish planes and drones – and by Kurds, Iranians, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, U.S.-backed rebels and Shiite militia.

Assad is battling insurgents and jihadists who would slaughter his Alawite brethren and the Christians in Syria just as those Copts were massacred in Egypt on Palm Sunday. Why is Assad more responsible for all the deaths in Syria than those fighting to overthrow and kill him?

Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?

For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve gas attack on children, certain to ignite America’s rage, for no military gain?

Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false flag operation to stampede America into Syria’s civil war.

And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him – to keep us out of unnecessary wars – may not be standing by him.

We have no vital national interest in Syria’s civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for.

For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al-Qaida, it is about driving the Crusaders out of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds.

For Assad, this war is about his survival and that of his regime. For Putin, it is about Russia remaining a great power and not losing its last naval base in the Med. For Iran, this is about preserving a land bridge to its Shiite ally Hezbollah. For Hezbollah it is about not being cut off from the Shiite world and isolated in Lebanon.

Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans without a fight.

And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?

A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim heretics? LGBT rights?

In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria.

We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue: Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?

If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war, the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by slow

[Marvin (Paranoid Android)]

 

 

[theanswer]

hah, zbunio se malo spajser, evo i metis kaže da hitler nikad nije koristio chemicals on the battlefield. jbg, da moraš da braniš šta tramp kaže i tvituje svaki jebeni dan, čudi me da da je i ovoliko izdržao. ovo bi trebalo da bude ipak njegov kraj. 

[Marvin (Paranoid Android)]

Ako je verovati redditu, i sam Spajser je pokušao da se izvuče, naglasivši da je hteo reći da Hitler nikad nije koristio hemijsko oružje protiv sopstvenih građana.

 

Oh, Šone...

[Eraserhead]

Svaki dan je nova prilika da se nesto lupi. Zaista svet nije video nekompetentniju grupu ljudi sa vise odgovornosti.

[Sammael]

Idu neke glasine da se sprema napad na Severnu Koreju.