frank lee bent wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:59 am

Who will they go after next?

New Zuland!

That's been done back in ''86. NZ said "We can't have nuclear weapons or nuclear powered ship in our waters coz we're scared of accidents". US responded "Then we won't play with you anymore".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... b27cba960

Unthinkable these days that the French government would support state sponsored terrorism in a peaceful country like New Zealand, and that other governments would look the other way and not say anything, but back in '85, it happened.
From Wikipedia
On 10 July 1985, agents of the French Directorate-General for External Security bombed the Greenpeace protest vessel Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, causing one death. The failure of Western leaders to condemn this violation of a friendly nation's sovereignty caused a great deal of change in New Zealand's foreign and defence policy,[25] and strengthened domestic opposition to the military application of nuclear technology in any form. New Zealand distanced itself from its traditional ally, the United States, and built relationships with small South Pacific nations, while retaining its good relations with Australia, and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom

John Bingham wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:28 am

dron wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:00 am

The Democrats are historically the party of war. Democratic Presidents were primary commander in chief for:

- Mexican American War
- Invasion of Haiti (twice)
- Invasion of Dominican Republic (twice)
- WW1
- WW2
- Korean War
- Vietnam War
- Bay of Pigs
- Laos
- Cambodia
- Bosnia
- Libya

And probably many more I've forgotten.

How was a Democrat president primary commander in chief for Cambodia? There was very little US involvement in Cambodia until the Nixon (Republican) administration. I'm guessing the rest of your list is equally flawed.

JFK, the Democrat darling, was the president that presided over the invasion of Vietnam. His predecessor Johnson (Democrat) also prosecuted the war. Under Johnson, the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group (MACV-SOG) was dispatched to Cambodia. This is the same group that was involved in the false flag "Tonkin Incident". Bombing raids in Cambodia started in 1965. JFK was commander in chief that set the war in Indochina in motion. Johnson continued it. It later ended under Nixon, a Republican.

As for the others:

- Mexican American War. 1846-1848. Commander in Chief: James Polk, Democrat (1845–1849)

- Invasion of Haiti (twice). #1 1915. Commander in Chief: Woodrow Wilson, Democrat (1913-1921). #2 1994. Commander in Chief: Bill Clinton, Democrat (1993-2001).

- Invasion of Dominican Republic (twice). #1 1916. Woodrow Wilson, Democrat (1913-1921). #2 1965. Lyndon B Johnson, Democrat (1993-2001).

- WW1. US entered the war in 1917. Commander in Chief: Woodrow Wilson, Democrat and a self proclaimed non-interventionist who ran on the promise not to enter the war.

- WW2. US entered the war in 1941. Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat (1933-1945).

- Korean War. 1950-1953. Commander in Chief: Harry Truman, Democrat (1945-1953).

- Vietnam War. US entered 1961, left 1975. Commander in Chief: John Kennedy, Democrat (1961-1963).

- Bay of Pigs. Commander in Chief: John Kennedy, Democrat (1961-1963).

- Laos. US involvement began 1964. Commander in Chief: John Kennedy, Democrat (1961-1963).

- Cambodia. US involvement began 1965. Commander in Chief: Lydon Johnson, Democrat (1963-1969).

- Bosnia. 1995. Commander in Chief: Bill Clinton, Democrat (1993-2001).

- Libya. 2011. Commander in Chief: Barrack Obama, Democrat (2008-2016).

Of course I also left off Operation Cyclone: the campaign under Democrat president Jimmy Carter to arm and support the Islamist mujaheddin in Afghanistan which of course included Osama bin Laden and what would later become the Taliban.

To suggest that Republicans ( Nixon/Kissingerschittinger) had nothing to do with the Vietnam War is equivalent to denying the Holocaust.

You conveniently left out 2 wars in Iraq and Somalia and Iran, as well as Syria...why?

Your agenda is showing, bro.

I left out a lot of wars. The US fights one every few years. I'd need to spend hours to write them all down.



I posted a list of the wars started under Democratic presidents off the top of my head. You'll notice all of the major US wars are there. It doesn't absolve the Republican party of anything. These are simply the facts. The Democrats are historically the party of war in the US, even though there is some misconception of them as a party of peace. It is easier for them to win support by posing war as a "humanitarian mission" or national necessity, whereas wars prosecuted under Republicans are usually painted as crude empire expansion or resource grabs.

Same thing goes with the black and immigrant vote. The Democrats always win it even though the Democrats are historically the party of slavery, Jim Crow and racism. It's funny how fast things are forgotten.

In reality Wall Street has two major parties. Middle class hippies, social reformers, and small business owners have a minor party. The rest of us, the bulk of the population, have shit.

I am a US citizen but I have never, nor would I ever, support either of the twin parties of the American empire. They argue over strategy and tactics, but they're both working for the same people. Everyone knows that. That's why half the population doesn't bother to vote, and why most of the half that does holds their nose and claims they're going for the "lesser evil".

My only agenda is to prevent wars all together, as in modern times they are always, without fail, prosecuted in the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of us.

Well, that and getting good hand jobs after a quality body massage. Headed to Sothearos tonight!

Heng Heng Heng wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:54 pm I see nothing wrong with a president that stands up for his country, and speaks his own mind.

I agree, I just hate cocksuckers who blow corporations and the MIC.

Day 1: you guys are scared of the NRA

Day 2: we have reached an understanding

Conclusion: how was the carpet on your knees while you were sucking their dicks?

Why is this seen as a win for Trump? At best he had nothing to do with it and at worst he has lost. I can only see it as a win for Kim, I think he has played a blinder.

Wonder what will happen to the 'multi billion dollar' weapons contract between US & South Korea now. and the salaries of the nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea

John Bingham wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:42 pm There was no war started in Cambodia under Johnson, just some very limited bombing raids against Vietnamese communist sanctuaries. The MACV -SOG couldn't have been in Cambodia for long, all military and aid from the US was renounced in November 1963 and diplomatic relations were ended in 1965. They resumed in July 1969, under the Nixon administration. It's all nonsense anyway, trying to shift the blame from one party to the other, the US is to blame for its rampant militarism. Nobody cares whether they get blown up by a Republican bomb or a Democratic one.

No war huh, just bombs?

To paraphrase a particularly addle brained ignoramus I encountered on the internet: "Nobody cares whether they get blown up by a limited bombing campaign or a full fledged one."

Or to quote people who actually know what they're talking about: "On December 9, 1970, US President Richard Nixon telephoned his national-security adviser, Henry Kissinger, to discuss the ongoing bombing of Cambodia. This sideshow to the war in Vietnam, begun in 1965 under the Johnson administration, had already seen 475,515 tons of ordnance dropped on Cambodia..." Source: https://thewalrus.ca/2006-10-history/

So yea, like I said, the US war in Cambodia started under a Democratic president, as did every other war on my list and nearly every major war in US history.

Because, like I said originally, the Democrats are historically the party of war. You tried to refute that by saying military activity started in Cambodia under Nixon and questioning the rest of the list. Now you say okay it started under the Democrat Johnson, but it was limited, and you forget the rest of the list all together, because now it doesn't matter anyway. If it doesn't matter why did you pipe up from the beginning? Why don't you admit that you're wrong now? It's bizarre to sustain an argument against cold hard facts. Have you been here so long that you now think you have to save face too?

Or actually refute what I said. That you won't do, because you can't, because Democratic presidents were Commanders-in-Chief for every war on the list.

The Democrats and the Republicans represent the same interests, but they don't do it in the same way. They have very real disagreements over policy, strategy and tactics. They fight over how best to make the very rich even richer. And this is all possible because half of the people knows its all a shit show and rejects the whole deal in apathy while the other half sucks up the revisionist nonsense pumped out 24/7. The Democrats are sold as the party of peace, labor and minorities. In reality they are a war mongering party with a history of slavery and racism. The Republicans are sold as the party of freedom and small government when in fact they are anti-democracy authoritarians. They're both soaking with blood.

Now, why don't you go back to talk about how you pickled your brain last night or regaling us with more oh so interesting tails of your drunken exploits from way back in the day when Cambodia was like the wild west or whatever you usually post about? You're out of your element here. Living in Cambodia for a long time doesn't make you an expert on history, as you've clearly shown.

Why is this seen as a win for Trump?

Because the vast majority of people in the world do not have the capability to think or reason, and they have no grasp of even the most recent history. They've been spoon fed so much shit from birth that it flows out of their mouths. They are unwilling to do any of their own research and incapable of coming to their own conclusions.

"Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula!" - North Korea, circa 1958.

Clearly a victory for the US and Trump if the peninsula is denuclearized in 2018.

WorldCupFever wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:47 pm Why is this seen as a win for Trump? At best he had nothing to do with it and at worst he has lost. I can only see it as a win for Kim, I think he has played a blinder.

It's you who has the crybaby blinders on. "He has nothing to do with" North Korea vowing to halt their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs that has been going full on for decades? Then why now? Korean War still not officially ended for over 60 years but talks of signing a peace agreement and ending the war. Why now? The threats of US military action combined with intense pressure China put on Kim Jong-Un are obviously what caused this immediate change of heart...and China finally got serious about it because Trump played the trade card with them. The Chinese need US trade much more than they need a buffer state on that border. Saying Trump had nothing to do with it is typical braindead lefty CNN petulant child bullshit. Just three months ago clueless people like you were swearing that Trump threatening military actions was "a win for Kim".

WorldCupFever wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:47 pm Wonder what will happen to the 'multi billion dollar' weapons contract between US & South Korea now. and the salaries of the nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, yet again. South Korea pays barely 30% of what it costs US taxpayers to keep the current US military presence there, and some of what they pay is for infrastructure in and around the bases and ports, which benefits South Korea with or without US military presence.

I dislike Trump as much as anyone, but such whiny little incoherent bitching is just as annoying than his stupid tweets and comments.

xxxxxxx wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:28 pm

WorldCupFever wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:47 pm Why is this seen as a win for Trump? At best he had nothing to do with it and at worst he has lost. I can only see it as a win for Kim, I think he has played a blinder.

It's you who has the crybaby blinders on. "He has nothing to do with" North Korea vowing to halt their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs that has been going full on for decades? Then why now? Korean War still not officially ended for over 60 years but talks of signing a peace agreement and ending the war. Why now? The threats of US military action combined with intense pressure China put on Kim Jong-Un are obviously what caused this immediate change of heart...and China finally got serious about it because Trump played the trade card with them. The Chinese need US trade much more than they need a buffer state on that border. Saying Trump had nothing to do with it is typical braindead lefty CNN petulant child bullshit. Just three months ago clueless people like you were swearing that Trump threatening military actions was "a win for Kim".

WorldCupFever wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:47 pm Wonder what will happen to the 'multi billion dollar' weapons contract between US & South Korea now. and the salaries of the nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, yet again. South Korea pays barely 30% of what it costs US taxpayers to keep the current US military presence there, and some of what they pay is for infrastructure in and around the bases and ports, which benefits South Korea with or without US military presence.

I dislike Trump as much as anyone, but such whiny little incoherent bitching is just as annoying than his stupid tweets and comments.

Moon. In November, Moon reportedly convinced Trump to visit the U.S. Army’s newly expanded Camp Humphreys to showcase that South Korea paid for 92 percent of the $10.7 billion project.

The most recent agreement, signed in 2014, increased South Korea's contribution to more than $800 million a year. That's equal to about half the annual cost of the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed there, according to Pentagon officials,

I was just asking a question of what would happen to the salaries and whilst I wasn't claiming to know the ins and outs of the deals. It looks like your figures are off by quite a bit.

So I will ask again. What is likely to happen with the multi billion dollar deal between US & Korea & 50% of the salaries of the nearly 30,000 troops & other personnel in South Korea

This is not an "anti-trump" or even anti-america rhetoric. I simply think that Kim Jong Un has played a good hand. For a country that has no right to be at the big boys table, he seems to have scared/negotiated his way there. As other posters have mentioned, NK pursued nuclear armament through necessity rather than choice. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about whether this is seen as a win for Trump or not or about US politics in general, but I can't figure out the spin that is attributed to him every time he tweets a simple Simon statement or bumbles his way through a press conference.

Just three months ago clueless people like you were swearing that Trump threatening military actions was "a win for Kim".

Yes, Kim never wanted to go to war, I believe that although he probably is tyrannical and definitely an absolute arsehole he new that war would never happen as there is too much to lose for every other country involved(much like the cold war) and with his threats and posturing he has managed to get more recognition for his country than is deserved.

typical braindead lefty CNN petulant child bullshit

As I am not american I don't think I have ever watched CNN (BBC all the way). and I think everyone outside America can be seen as a lefty compared to the far right agenda over there, and considering Bernie Sanders is branded a socialist/communist by you guys.