Donald Trump

Grab All Association

Remember the day Trump came to Clare and Michael Noonan got down on his knees on the runaway in Shannon Airport trying to give him a bl**j*b.

LorMal

RobertKK,

Yes the US undoubtedly supports Saudi Arabia with weapons. A stable Saudi Arabia is of existential importance. If KSA that went the way of Syria, it would a catastrophe of potentially WW2 proportions.
There's a fine line being walked here.

Re Gadaffi, he was a lunatic.

Billy86

BoatMad wrote: »

The US policy of unthinking intervention and the so called war on terror is directly responsible for destabilising large areas of the ME and lead to conditions that supported the rise of ISIS.

Hillary Clinton may have supported certain actions , she's certainly not the architect of a disastrous US foreign policy in the ME.

And what's more, she is running against a guy who supported invading Iraq, who supported Libya intervention, and who supported taking out Mubarak saying "it's a good thing they got him out" about the whole thing.

For someone who supported all of these action like Trump did, it's a weak line of attack basically. Well, apart from to people who could not care less about any facts or details and are only interested in personality politics.

K-9

Cathy.C wrote: »

Don't know how anyone could vote for Hillary Clinton as a president. She is a serial liar. Not an honest bone in her body.

I don't really think US presidents have as much individual power as people think they have though. Who surrounds them almost has as much of a say in decision making as the person in the hot seat, if not more. The fact that Trump is not the brightest person in the world would probably make that doubly so were he to get in. I doubt Ronald Regan knew how to switch on a toaster.

Anyway, entertaining times ahead in this campaign, that's for sure.

Obama doesn't because both Houses are Republican controlled.
Trump + 2 Houses controlled by the GOP, different story.

My name is URL

Grab All Association wrote: »

Remember the day Trump came to Clare and Michael Noonan got down on his knees on the runaway in Shannon Airport trying to give him a bl**j*b.

Not far off tbh

One of the cringiest moments of the last decade imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9i1HHTdcXU

'oh, some billionaire is buying a golf course to increase his brand and wealth'

"SEND OUT THE FIDDLERS AND FINANCE MINISTER!"

In what other country would you see this ****?

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

And what's more, she is running against a guy who supported invading Iraq, who supported Libya intervention, and who supported taking out Mubarak saying "it's a good thing they got him out" about the whole thing.

For someone who supported all of these action like Trump did, it's a weak line of attack basically. Well, apart from to people who could not care less about any facts or details and are only interested in personality politics.

Actually she's still running against a guy who didn't.

RobertKK

LorMal wrote: »

RobertKK,

Yes the US undoubtedly supports Saudi Arabia with weapons. A stable Saudi Arabia is of existential importance. If KSA that went the way of Syria, it would a catastrophe of potentially WW2 proportions.
There's a fine line being walked here.

Re Gadaffi, he was a lunatic.

Saudi Arabia is not giving us stability in the Middle East, they are one of the aggravators for unrest.
It is easy for Saudi Arabia to keep stability in their own country when they choose to turn a blind eye to the financing of terrorism, why would these people want to rise up against the Saudi rulers when they are giving them free reign. It is no surprise most tof the 911 attackers were Saudi nationals.
It was also the Saudis along with Qatar who sent people into Syria and helped with the unrest, and it is people from these countries who helped finance ISIS and AQ.
The price for stability in Saudi Arabia seems to be turning a blind eye to the crimes their citizens are committing.
Did you see Hillary looking for democracy in Saudi Arabia?

Gaddafi brought stability to Libya. He was right when he said Al Qaeda were in Benghazi and that is what he wanted to remove.

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively tosuppress al-Qaeda.’

From the NY Times.
US knew in 2012 that Qatar was sending weapons to Libya in 2011 onwards that was going to terrorists.
They also knew Qatar were sending weapons to Syria arming terrorists who were fighting Assad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0

Mahmoud Jibril, then the prime minister of the Libyan transitional government, expressed frustration to administration officials that the United States was allowing Qatar to arm extremist groups opposed to the new leadership, according to several American officials. They, like nearly a dozen current and former White House, diplomatic, intelligence, military and foreign officials, would speak only on the condition of anonymity for this article.The administration has never determined where all of the weapons, paid for by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, went inside Libya, officials said. Qatar is believed to have shipped by air and sea small arms, including machine guns, automatic rifles, and ammunition, for which it has demanded reimbursement from Libya’s new government. Some of the arms since have been moved from Libya to militants with ties to Al Qaeda in Mali, where radical jihadi factions have imposed Shariah law in the northern part of the country, the former Defense Department official said. Others have gone to Syria, according to several American and foreign officials and arms traders.

Clinton as Secretary of State did nothing to stop the arming of AQ in Libya. much to the frustration of Libyan officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0

the White House largely relied on Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two small Persian Gulf states and frequent allies of the United States. Qatar, a tiny nation whose natural gas reserves have made it enormously wealthy, for years has tried to expand its influence in the Arab world. Since 2011, with dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa coming under siege, Qatar has given arms and money to various opposition and militant groups, chiefly Sunni Islamists, in hopes of cementing alliances with the new governments. Officials from Qatar and the emirates would not comment.After discussions among members of the National Security Council, the Obama administration backed the arms shipments from both countries, according to two former administration officials briefed on the talks.
American officials say that the United Arab Emirates first approached the Obama administration during the early months of the Libyan uprising, asking for permission to ship American-built weapons that the United States had supplied for the emirates’ use. The administration rejected that request, but instead urged the emirates to ship weapons to Libya that could not be traced to the United States.
“The U.A.E. was asking for clearance to send U.S. weapons,” said one former official. “We told them it’s O.K. to ship other weapons.”

But Hillary Clinton sleeps on the job.

But the American support for the arms shipments from Qatar and the emirates could not be completely hidden. NATO air and sea forces around Libya had to be alerted not to interdict the cargo planes and freighters transporting the arms into Libya from Qatar and the emirates, American officials said.
Concerns in Washington soon rose about the groups Qatar was supporting, officials said. A debate over what to do about the weapons shipments dominated at least one meeting of the so-called Deputies Committee, the interagency panel consisting of the second-highest ranking officials in major agencies involved in national security. “There was a lot of concern that the Qatar weapons were going to Islamist groups,” one official recalled.

We know nothing was done and the terrorists in Libya have a lot of heavy weaponry, and now home to thousands of ISIS fighters.
Qatar and the UAE are allies of the US, and with strong links to supporting terrorism.

Anyway this is what Wikileaks leaked...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-is-biggest-funder-of-terrorists-2152327.html

Saudi Arabia is the single biggest contributor to the funding of Islamic extremism and is unwilling to cut off the money supply, according to a leaked note from Hillary Clinton.
The US Secretary of State says in a secret memorandum that donors in the kingdom still "constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide" and that "it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".
In a separate diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks last night, the militant group which carried out the Mumbai bombings in 2008, Lashkar-e-Toiba, is reported to have secured money in Saudi Arabia via one of its charity offshoots which raises money for schools.
Saudi Arabia is accused, along with Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, of failing to prevent some of its richest citizens financing the insurgency against Nato troops in Afghanistan. Fund-raisers from the Taliban regularly travel to UAE to take advantage of its weak borders and financial regulation to launder money.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-is-biggest-funder-of-terrorists-2152327.html

Saudi Arabia only provides instability through their financing of uprisings and terrorism.
Clinton privately criticising the Saudis but still providing them near $30 billion worth of F15 fighter jets to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians.
But at least the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia donates money to the Clinton foundation...

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

And what's more, she is running against a guy who supported invading Iraq, who supported Libya intervention, and who supported taking out Mubarak saying "it's a good thing they got him out" about the whole thing.

For someone who supported all of these action like Trump did, it's a weak line of attack basically. Well, apart from to people who could not care less about any facts or details and are only interested in personality politics.

Which is worse?

To have information and be a fool with that information.
To have no information and be a fool for believing what the media was telling you?

Clinton had access to the best information, yet the outcome has shown she has been ignorant with information, and a friend of terrorism.

scream

I hate the idea of him as President and if he does succeed it seems inevitable that he will do an enormous amount of damage. On the other hand, he doesn't do the PC nonsense that a lot of people are really sick and tired of and which is why he's so popular. If other candidates stopped towing the ultra PC line and started to take note of what voters want Trump wouldn't succeed. Realistically Saunders is an elderly hippy whose politics don't work but they do fire up the ''right on'' student/SJW brigade, while Clinton is trying to be all things to all people and is clearly insincere.

Christy42

Right so Clinton should have organised the invasion of every middle eastern country the US didn't invade and not invade every middle eastern country it did?

Assad, Gaddafi and Sadam were horrific individuals. Some of the rebuilding (well a lot) could have been done better but they were stabilising forces in that they killed any opposition. I did love the post going around recently of Libya being some sort of paradise under Gaddafi.

As for Trump. What is his foreign policy? How exactly is he going to avoid wars trying to chase down all the families of terrorists? I am still waiting for someone to make sense of this wall.

LorMal

Robert KK,

With genuine respect, the problem with your analysis is that it lays all the blame for everything on the US (and KSA). That's not the reality.

I would really not recommend it to look at the Syria torture videos on Liveleak - I did and it actually really physically upset me for weeks.

Both sides in that conflict are incredibly evil and cruel - to each other - and they don't give a **** how many civilians they kill. Not an American in 1500 miles.

Yes the US can make a mess of things sometimes - its a house of cards over there - fix one thing and another three things happen.

But my God, these people are know how to **** themselves up and they have been doing so for decades.

BoatMad

LorMal wrote: »

Robert KK,

With genuine respect, the problem with your analysis is that it lays all the blame for everything on the US (and KSA). That's not the reality.

I would really not recommend it to look at the Syria torture videos on Liveleak - I did and it actually really physically upset me for weeks.

Both sides in that conflict are incredibly evil and cruel - to each other - and they don't give a **** how many civilians they kill. Not an American in 1500 miles.

Yes the US can make a mess of things sometimes - its a house of cards over there - fix one thing and another three things happen.

But my God, these people are know how to **** themselves up and they have been doing so for decades.

Gaddaffi , Hussein and al-Assad knew one thing and that was to thread a fine line proclaiming themselves as good Muslims while ruthlessly putting down fundamentalism which they all knew could consume the ME

Into that mix came the US on a half assed " war on terror " largely designed to assuage it's domestic population that "something was being done " both Bush presidencies were quilty of acting for the domestic audience , but GWB acted in an incredibly irresponsible way, essentially destroying existing patterns of rulers without any clear view of what was to be put in place ( and a disastrous belief that somehow " democracy " would solve the day

The resulting destabilisation of the whole region played directly into the hands of Isis and AQ ( in all its forms ) and the power vacuum as a result of the toppling of the rulers facilitated the rise of fundamentalism and the explotation of the Shia Sunni divide.

It's a cheap and lazy analysis that this region was always in conflict as if the US played no role , when clearly the deployment of the largest military might the world has ever seen , wasn't sent there to enjoy the sights of ancient Persia

The destabilisation of Iraq , facilitated directly the conflict in Sryria where fundamentalism rapidly overtook moderate elements.

You now have the bizzare and sickening sights of US warplanes attacking the very forces that they initially supported to rise up against Assad. Just like they ended up attacking the stinger equipped mujdhajeen after first supporting them against the Russians.

The whole US involvement was deeply cynical , causing massive loss of life , the veritable destruction of civilisations and the introduction of chaos into societies that are deeply fractured. All this to look good on CNN that " something was being done on terrorism "

I support trump in one thing , he wants to get America out of foreign conflicts , and so does the rest of the world

LorMal

not one democracy in the Middle East, except Israel. Not one. Ever. Blame the Americans......

BoatMad

LorMal wrote: »

not one democracy in the Middle East, except Israel. Not one. Ever. Blame the Americans......

Yes do, for the one they tried to establish in post invasion Iraq led directly to the rise of Isis

The various dictators knew how to keep a lid on extremism , yes it wasn't pretty , but it was a lot prettier then what has subsequently happened.

As Churchill said
" you can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing , after they have done everything wrong first "

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI

5:40 "I'm not paying for that ******* wall, he should pay for it"

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

not one democracy in the Middle East, except Israel. Not one. Ever. Blame the Americans......

Yeah sure it's not like the Americans ever subverted democracy in the middle east, never even in Iran. And of course they fully back the democratically elected Palestinian leaders too, don't they? And when the army jailed the democratically elected leader in Egypt they went in with the army and restored democratic rule, if I remember correctly?

Democracy suits the Americans when their enemy isn't democratic. If the democracy becomes their enemy then bye bye democracy. Do you think us as fools or have you just never actually thought about it?

speedboatchase

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Yeah sure it's not like the Americans ever subverted democracy in the middle east, never even in Iran. And of course they fully back the democratically elected Palestinian leaders too, don't they? And when the army jailed the democratically elected leader in Egypt they went in with the army and restored democratic rule, if I remember correctly?

Democracy suits the Americans when their enemy isn't democratic. If the democracy becomes their enemy then bye bye democracy. Do you think us as fools or have you just never actually thought about it?

When's the next election?

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

As Churchill said
" you can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing , after they have done everything wrong first "

Except...he probably didn't...

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/

LorMal

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Yeah sure it's not like the Americans ever subverted democracy in the middle east, never even in Iran. And of course they fully back the democratically elected Palestinian leaders too, don't they? And when the army jailed the democratically elected leader in Egypt they went in with the army and restored democratic rule, if I remember correctly?

Democracy suits the Americans when their enemy isn't democratic. If the democracy becomes their enemy then bye bye democracy. Do you think us as fools or have you just never actually thought about it?

Where would you like to live - Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt..or USA?

dresden8

If Trump wins next March should be interesting.

Noonan kissed his arse for nothing.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see how we can assume Trump would be a peacemaker when he has no experience making peace and usually get's his own way or goes on a vendetta against his opponents. I really worry he'll start WW3 with Russia over simple bravado. He's already gone around upsetting Americas neighbours, allies and enemies and he isn't even in power yet.

It also doesn't matter what he's beefs are, The United States government has beefs with plenty of countries and he's going to have to manage those beefs. He'll become the head of dealing with beefs.

Hopefully Trump is simply a master tactician, and he's promoted a character to get into office. Maybe he won't just assume that his words will make others bend as they do in his own companies and that he's not nearly as obnoxious as he appears to be.

Take heart in knowing that presidents have very little power. If there is war, its because the deep state wants it.

BoatMad

LorMal wrote: »

Where would you like to live - Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt..or USA?

How is that relevant , most people have little choice over where they live.

LorMal

It's relevant because of all the US hatred in here. The truth is that, while America has made mistakes in its foreign policy, it s a far more humane and peace loving nation than many many others.

Let's for one second imagine what the world would be like if Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, China...etc was the superpower instead.

Lets have a bit of honesty. They may throw their weight around a bit, but Thank God we have them or we would be all part of the glorious 1000 year Third Reich, or the great USSR now.

Superhorse

LorMal wrote: »

It's relevant because of all the US hatred in here. The truth is that, while America has made mistakes in its foreign policy, it s a far more humane and peace loving nation than many many others.

Let's for one second imagine what the world would be like if Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, China...etc was the superpower instead.

Lets have a bit of honesty. They may throw their weight around a bit, but Thank God we have them or we would be all part of the glorious 1000 year Third Reich, or the great USSR now.

You mean the same Russia that saved Europe in WW2? Yeah those dirty Commies.

take everything

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI

5:40 "I'm not paying for that ******* wall, he should pay for it"

Brilliant.

take everything

My name is URL wrote: »

Not far off tbh

One of the cringiest moments of the last decade imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9i1HHTdcXU

'oh, some billionaire is buying a golf course to increase his brand and wealth'



"SEND OUT THE FIDDLERS AND FINANCE MINISTER!"

In what other country would you see this ****?

Jaysus we are more pathetic and craven than I thought.
That is truly bat**** insane.

Samaris

Superhorse wrote: »

You mean the same Russia that saved Europe in WW2? Yeah those dirty Commies.

Well, they did, but that doesn't mean I want to live in Russia!

Christy42

Samaris wrote: »

Well, they did, but that doesn't mean I want to live in Russia!

I think that was less of a rescue and more of a they got invaded as well. I think the only way they could have avoided helping Europe would be to surrender.

RobertKK

LorMal wrote: »

It's relevant because of all the US hatred in here. The truth is that, while America has made mistakes in its foreign policy, it s a far more humane and peace loving nation than many many others.

Let's for one second imagine what the world would be like if Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, China...etc was the superpower instead.

Lets have a bit of honesty. They may throw their weight around a bit, but Thank God we have them or we would be all part of the glorious 1000 year Third Reich, or the great USSR now.

Who hates the US?

If a friend is doing something wrong and you point it out, is it because you hate them?

WarZ

LorMal wrote: »

Where would you like to live - Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt..or USA?

Lebanon is an absolutely fantastic place to live. Beirut is probably my favourite city in the world.