After weeks of escalatory rhetoric coming out of his administration,
President Trump spoke to reporters about Iran at the White House today,
and greatly downplayed the possibility of a war with Iran.
Trump continued to call for Iran to call him if they are ready for
talks, and dismissed the idea that Iran was posing any threats to US
interests, saying there is “no indication that anything’s happened or will happen.”
So while he made the obligatory threat of “great force” if something did
happen, President Trump, at least Monday’s President Trump, certainly
intended to give the impression that nothing will happen, and that there
is no reason to think otherwise.
That could be embarrassing for other members of the administration,
since they’ve been talking up Iranian threats for weeks now, with
suggestions that the intelligence community agrees with them. Clearly
that’s not the same intelligence that would lead Trump to say there’s
“no indication that anything’s happened or will happen.”
Which raises the likely possibility that those hawks, centered around
John Bolton, have just been flat out lying about what Iran is doing, in
the hopes that it would ultimately lead to a war that they’ve been
seeking for years, or in the case of Bolton, decades.
“Which raises the likely possibility that those hawks, centered around John Bolton, have just been flat out lying about what Iran is doing. ”
Yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing. Again, that’s what you get when you hire rabid warmongers with no conscience.
And NO consequences to them ir thise in elected positions who are continuously warmongering.
Trump just took the page from Bibi’s book. Bibi said that Teheran us posing no threat to them today. Bibi does not want to see Israel becoming an innocent collateral damage in US war vs. Iran.
I thought he would send armues i volunteers to be leading the charge.
Hawks want incidenrs. Some gave conveniently already hapened. Ships as targets. But the victims seems to prefer an investigation to jumping to conclusions. There will be others. Hawks just want chsos in Iran, war state, no peace, roads and rail building – no, no. Bibi wants everyone to stagnate and go backwards. He was paying terrorists in Syria, thiis is his style. So, let us see what this president will say Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. He mist have Weekend special.
Complaining in Fox about thise people preventing him from getting out of Syria will nit hold water any more. Those little Penn state towns will not make up for viters that will stay home as he abandoned his foreign policy promisses.
You don’t know Bibzy Nutty&Yahoo then, Bianca. He’s a coward, as are his IDF forces. That’s why he wants the US to do the fighting for him. Well, he has another think coming .. DJT isn’t going to take those orders and start a war with Iran; his re-election in 2020 would be lost if he did. At this point, he wants to end the wars G. W. Bush started and Barack Obama escalated .. After all, he hasn’t started any war; and he’s not about to start one.
“Which raises the likely possibility that those hawks, centered around John Bolton, have just been flat out lying about what Iran is doing. ”
Yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing. Again, that’s what you get when you hire rabid warmongers with no conscience.
Trump, “We’ll see what happens, but they’ve been very hostile, they’ve truly been the number one provocateur of terror,”
We have no indication that anything is happening or will happen, but if it does, it will be met, obviously, with great force. We’ll have no choice,” Trump said.
Washington has been “very much involved” in the situation with Iran – cranking up sanctions, sending over its military might and threatening war – “because we are trying to help a lot of people out,” Trump said.
A lot of bull from John Bolton playbook.
“Iran will call us if and when they are ever ready. In the meantime, their economy continues to collapse – very sad for the Iranian people!” Trump tweeted.
In other words we will continue to destroy you until you are willing to totally capitulate to our every demand.
wars r us,
Iran has another option – realize that they will never get a break from the Zionists and develop tighter relations with Russia, China and the rest of the “Zionist Outcasts”.
Because, as we all know,
China is very respectful to their Muslim population.
stokr,
What we really should know – is that China is always very respectful to their customers or suppliers. Tell me one country that China is sanctioning or threatening.
Yes they are, hearts and flowers for trade,
concentration camps for Muslims, it’s the ChiCom way.
That was China’s response to the US attempts at using their Muslim population to stir up trouble in China. One of the key reasons Gulen is still around. Turkic speaking peoples are the one common thread in Asia that the US and its vassals try to use to their advantage.
Oh, this is rich.
The US used the Muslims in China to stir trouble?
So both those Muslims and the Chinese, fell for it?
And there is also a big crack down on Christians in China also,
did the US do that also?
Boy who knew the Chinese were that easy to manipulate.
I can’t remember the last time US “spooks” were this effective!
Didn’t know you are such a bleeding heart for Muslims.
I’m not, but ferocious for human rights.
“but ferocious for human rights.”
Such as the right of people to travel freely across international boundaries without interference by your precious, socialist federal government?
Name any country that doe not claim sovereignty and borders, please.
About as respectful as you are to the US’s?
No concentration camps here and
I would never recommend it.
Believers who respect the rule of law are not the problem.
Believers who put “shariah” over the rule of law, whole different story.
There are, in fact, concentration camps here. Not, so far as I know, any specifically for “Muslims.” But I’ve personally seen one formerly operational one (at Fort Chafee, Arkansas), and the US government has made no secret of its use of concentration camps to house abducted immigrants.
There’s a certain amount of oppobrium attached to the term “concentration camp” since World War 2, but all it means is a “camp” where a given population is “concentrated” in one place. It originated in South Africa when the British “concentrated” Boers in such camps.
I agree the label “concentration camps” is imprecise,
so to be more accurate,
the US does not have “camps” like the Chinese do for Muslims.
I don’t know about Ft. Chafee, or
anything about “abducted immigrants” (???) Abducted from where?
The US Border Patrol and ICE abduct immigrants by the thousands. That’s their job.
So, you oppose borders?
Section 4, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states:
“and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion;”.
I believe it is the law.
Immigration is not “invasion.”
The Constitution explicitly denied the federal government a power to regulate immigration for the first 20 years of its existence, after which a constitutional amendment would have been required to vest such a power in it (see the 10th Amendment).
The immigration laws being void by dint of unconstitutionality, those enforcing them are criminal kidnapping gang members, nothing more.
The illegal influx of thousands of people,
meets the definition for an invasion.
It did not stipulate a military invasion.
Like defining “concentration camps” it is an imprecise term.
“The illegal influx”
The Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate immigration, therefore no such power legally exists. Thus, the “influx” of immigrants is no more “illegal” than the “influx” of Californians entering Nevada to gamble at the casinos.
While I do not support every word in the Constitution, if you are going to hold it as the supreme law of the land, you should respect your decision in all cases, and not single out a particular class of people as not deserving its protections just because they speak Arabic, Spanish, or Farsi as their primary tongue.
It isn’t “immigration”, it is an “invasion”
and the constitution addresses how it should be handled.
It’s only an “invasion” if words mean any damn thing you happen to want them to mean at any given moment.
Otherwise, it’s just people traveling without your permission.
Name a nation that does not claim sovereignty and borders.
PS: remember how loosely you chose to define “concentration camps”.
Name a nation other than the United States which has a Constitution specifically and unambiguously forbidding its national government to regulate immigration.
So you couldn’t, and that is your answer.
Be careful jousting with Thomas. He’s, well, informed.
There is no illegal influx of thousands of people, since there are no valid laws empowering the federal government to regulate immigration. Jose traveling from Mexico City to Salt Lake City to get a job and rent an apartment is no different than you traveling from Raleigh to Columbus to do the same thing. Or, for that matter, you commuting daily over any number of municipal, county, and even state “borders” to work and back.
I gave you the constitutional Section and Clause, tens of thousands unauthorized hordes are an invasion.
Yes, you gave me the constitutional section and clause — and then re-defined a word in that section and clause in order to try to make it justify your position.
Problem is, words mean things. And “invasion” doesn’t mean “traveling without stokr’s permission.”
The relevant constitutional provisions on immigration are Article I, Section 9; Article V; and Amendment 10.
noun
The definition of an invasion is the entering or taking over of a place, or being entered by force.
Entering, without permission = invasion.
“or being entered by force.”
The only force (violence) I see being used here is by the government thugs in stokr’s employ trying to prevent peaceful passage across a national boundary. If an immigrant has my permission to enter my property, stokr should have noting to say about it. If stokr, or the federal government he gives power to do his bidding, uses violence to interfere with voluntary activity, I would think those people engaged in the voluntary activity might be justified in resisting the violence.
Illegal crossers create violence against citizen taxpayers,
collapsed middle-class wages,
swamped schools,
medical services,
police and incarceration,
and 3rd world diseases.
Further, we are not doing a adequate job re our own homeless,
yet you want more of them???
Insane.
“violence against citizen taxpayers”
I do not see immigrants initiating violence against the taxpayer, I see the State doing so, yet you wish to further empower the State.
“collapsed middle-class wages,”
I do not see immigrants causing the collapse of the middle class, I see the State doing so through its economic policy, yet you wish to further empower the State.
“swamped schools”
I do not see immigrants causing school overcrowding and resource depletion, I see the ties between education and the State doing do, yet you wish to further empower the State.
“[swamped] medical services, police and incarceration”
Same issue here – I do not see immigrants causing these services to be overburdened, I see the fact that these services are provided by the State in the first place being the cause, yet you wish to further empower the State.
Free up the system, allow people to trade and interact with each other voluntarily, without the violence of the State interfering. Then go ahead and buy your private island and keep every undesirable immigrant away from it. I won’t interfere.
Well, you’re blind, no other explanation.
“Well, you’re blind, no other explanation.”
We all have incomplete, imperfect knowledge, including yourself.
My “explanation” is that I wish to do what is right, and, in my view eliminating State violence against peaceful immigrants is the right thing to do. I feel just as strongly about this issue as I do more direct examples of involuntary servitude and aggressive warfare. Legal restrictions on freedom of travel are every bit as much a form of involuntary servitude (for both the immigrant and the native born citizen) as chattel slavery. And legal restrictions on freedom of travel are every bit as much a form of aggressive warfare (against both the immigrant and the native born citizen) as Hitler invading Poland.
You’ve got to do what you think is right, no matter what other people think.
“Entering, without permission = invasion.”
If I own property on the border, why should I need stokr’s permission to allow an immigrant on to it? You have the right to control who does and does not enter your property. You have no such right to control who does and does not enter mine.
A national border is just a dividing line between political jurisdictions. It is not a property line. A respect for property rights and freedom of association demand open borders as policy.
I would venture to say that many times per year you cross political jurisdictions to work, shop, travel or just enjoy yourself. Nobody attempts to point a gun at you and tell you you can’t. How does it differ, in principle, between someone crossing the political boundary between California and Nevada, and the one separating Mexico from the US?
Manure.
Sovereign nations have borders, and every nation has them,
EVERY NATION.
People have no right to cross, without permission.
Political boundaries WITHIN our nation,
are still WITHIN our nation,
not so people from OUTSIDE our nation.
You’re avoiding answering my question directly, or at least intelligently. I asked what was the principled difference between someone crossing the California/Nevada border, and someone crossing the Mexico/US border. You failed to answer that question. Exactly whose permission should I need to cross such a boundary? Essentially you have implied that I need stokr’s permission. You’ve got one hell of a God complex.
National Boundaries require permission to cross–ALL of them do.
Are you having trouble with the fact that it is universal across the planet?
“Are you having trouble with the fact that it is universal”
Slavery was once nearly universal. Just because an institution exists, does not necessarily make it right or just.
Answer my question, and quit avoiding doing so: whose permission do I need, and why?
The entire planet of nations,
disagrees with you,
no, you have no right to enter another nation without their permission.
If you don’t like it, take your case to the UN and get it changed.
Till then, straighten your tinfoil hat and march on.
No, I am not having trouble with the fact that it is universal across the planet, because it isn’t now (see the Schengen area, for example — or, for that matter, the fifty US states), hasn’t been in most places for most of history (“borders” as we know them date from 1648), and wasn’t even de jure the case in the US until 1947 (prior to which anyone could enter or leave the US without asking for permission or even needing a passport).
Yes, I’m aware of the commandments of the Cult of the Omnipotent State.
I’m just not one of the cultists.
Look Tom, from wikipedia:
History
Fort Chaffee was originally named Camp Chaffee. The camp was named after Major General Adna R. Chaffee Jr., an artillery officer who, in Europe during World War I, determined that the cavalry was outmoded and, unlike other cavalry officers, advocated for the use of tanks.
The groundbreaking of Camp Chaffee was held on September 20, 1941, as part of the Department of War’s preparations to double the size of the U.S. Army in the face of World War II. That month, the U.S. government paid $1.35 million to acquire 15,163 acres from 712 property owners, including families, farms, businesses, churches, schools, and other government agencies. It took only sixteen months to build the entire base.[1] The first soldiers arrived on December 7, 1941, the day of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The installation was activated on March 27, 1942 and from 1942 to 1946, the 6th, 14th and 16th Armored Divisions trained there. The creation of the camp caused the nearby town of Barling to experience a tremendous boom in housing and businesses. Fort Chaffee also served as a prisoner-of-war-camp during World War II, housing 3,000 German prisoners of war.[1]
Prisoner of war camp for 3K Germans,
doesn’t sound illegal or anything like the Chinese treatment of Muslims.
And I’d bet significantly more humane that the German Stalag system or the tender mercies of the Imperial Japanese.
Interesting that you didn’t continue to read — or at least didn’t quote — the parts about it being used as a concentration camp.
I’m not sure where you pulled the idea that I said concentration camps were “illegal.” In fact, I pointed out that the term is neutral. A “concentration” camp is just a centralized location where people are held. In the case of Fort Chaffee, Vietnamese and Cuban refugees, among others at least as late as the 1980s (I was there in the ’80s and ’90s).
Ah,
housing refugees from Cambodia, Vietnam and Cuba, sounds humanitarian, not punitive.
The only reason I cited the German
prison camp was because it was punitive.
“Concentration camp” in our discussion, while imprecise, has a distinct punitive connotation.
So you were there,
were these people persecuted or brutalized?
I was not there when the camp was in active operation.
I did know one of the refugees who was kept there when she arrived from Vietnam. She said she did not feel like she was treated badly, although it took longer than she would have liked to be placed with an American family (she was 12 when her parents put her on a boat alone to get her out of Vietnam).
“Concentration camp” is a neutral term that people put their own spin on. It is a camp where a particular population (in the case of Fort Chaffee, refugees from Vietnam and later from Cuba) is “concentrated” temporarily. That might be like internment of Japanese-Americans in World War Two, or Boers during the Boer War, or large refugee populations while arrangements are made for their release into communities.
Auschwitz was not a bad place because it was a “concentration camp.” It was, but it was also a “forced labor camp” and a “death camp.”
According to the Chinese regime, the Uighur concentration camps are just “education and assimilation” facilities to turn the Uighurs into solid Chinese citizens. I doubt that’s the case, but it’s not like the US has much standing to complain about such things given its own history.
Your open-ended definition of a “concentration camp” could include any National Park, military base, university, homeless camp
or mobile home park.
When people speak of a “concentration camp” the immediate assumption is some kind of punitive facility, rightly or wrong.
So your Ft. Chaffee equivalence
for the forced Chinese “reeducation camps” do not hold up.
Large groups of people (refugees) do need some temporary housing,
military bases have large facilities. That is a humanitarian effort, not a forced reeducation camp.
Maybe, just maybe, a military base if it was stretched in a big way.
A “concentration camp” isn’t anywhere that people are concentrated. It’s a place where people are compelled by government to be concentrated. Its purpose may or may not be “punitive.”
Thomas,
Interesting. Didn’t know about the Fort.
But in the mid 1970s I was a Marine infantry officer stationed in California aboard (Marine term) Camp Pendleton, CA (spelling?) with a newly minted wife. By that time I was a staff officer (as opposed to a line officer) in logistics and was given the inglorious job of supervising the Marine guard troops who were detailed to control the camp.
I don’t really recall how many Vietnamese there were there but certainly 10s of thousands. And, the troops were tempted in every way a man could be tempted. I lost count of the charges I filed.
Also, my new bride was hired to do administrative work in the camp to try to process the asylum claims they made. Good money, for sure, and very welcomed as we were poor…to very poor. Junior Marine officers aren’t that well compensated, especially if one lives in the high rent districts like southern CA.
Anyway, the debate here appears to be about whether a detention camp was intended to be a place of horrors or a place where common living and administration of the camp takes place. On my honor, that camp was welcoming and as safe as I could make it.
It wasn’t any outside criminal agent that made things hard for the Viets. It certainly wasn’t my troops who, again, paid the price for transgressions. It was the Viets themselves. They seemed to prey on one another in ways I’d never imagined possible.
Heck, all they had to do was to eat, sleep and keep quiet and calm while their paperwork was being worked out. But I spent most of my time investigating Viet against Viet crimes.
Anyway, they all got processed out one way or another. It wasn’t a concentration camp in the negative sense of the term. But, still, I was glad to transition out of the Marines and back into civilian life after that experience.
It’s always good to read you polite, informative posts, Thomas.
Best,
David
Ah, we’ve stomped some of the same ground. I was at Pendleton in boot camp for the rifle range, etc., of course (1985), then Infantry Training School (1986), and various times and camps (Margarita is the only one that comes to mind at the moment) over the years. I was also at Quantico, but not for OCS — marksmanship instructor school.
I didn’t know they had had a camp for Vietnamese refugees there, but it does make good sense as a location for one.
I’m not surprised that there was a crime problem. Most refugees are already beat down pretty good, they don’t understand the language/customs where they are yet, so they’re isolated and vulnerable, prime victims for the bad apples mixed in among them.
Thomas = the voice of reason.
It remains my pleasure to follow you, Sir.
Best,
David
Irrelevant to the current discussion.
Your opinion, not mine.
Yes, Sir. You’re right. It’s my opinion.
But I welcome yours.
Best,
David
Didn’t sound like it,
but all the best to you.
Nah. I’m open minded and enjoy polite discussions with others…even those I don’t really know but for an online moniker and even those with whom I disagree…politely.
That’s how we learn from one another.
I’m an old guy. But I’ve not lost the lust for learning. It seems that this is something we might agree upon, right?
Best,
David
In that area, China is way ahead of the US which has killed Muslims by the tens of thousands.
Remember 911?
That’s when the killing started.
Not at all. 9-11 happened after Madeline Albright said 500,000 dead Iraq kids “was worth it”.
Albright, is a monster,
but Saddam deserves the blame.
So sanctions harming the people of NK are the US’s fault?
Or do you think
Kim might be culpable?
Everyone’s responsible for what they do.
When Saddam and Kim oppress the people in their countries, they’re responsible for that.
When the US government starves those same people, it is the US government officials ordering such “sanctions,” not Saddam or Kim, who are responsible for that.
We agree, everyone is responsible for what they do.
If sanctions were not imposed on Iraq or NK aggressors,
more people will die. Ask Kuwait, SK and Japan.
Sanctions are better than open warfare.
Sanctions might better than open warfare (for people in the sanctioning country; not necessarily for people in the sanctioned country).
But minding one’s own business instead of trying to run everyone else’s is even better.
In general yes, but when vital interests are being threatened, expect an intervention. Saddam wanted to control the flow of oil. At the time, that was a critical vital interest to the US.
Likewise Kim was testing nukes and lobbing ICBM’s across Japan and the Pacific, spouting a belligerent posture of annihilating NK,
while we are there because there was no technical end to the war.
Defending our interest is a legitimate response.
Interesting. If I hold a gun to someone, demanding their wallet, if they refuse and I shoot them, it is their fault for not complying ?
It’s more like THEY are threatening to take your wallet
(your vital interest)
and you pull back your coat to reveal a pistol,
indicating that would be a bad idea.
Answer the question by changing the question ?
Answered the question, by demonstrating who is the aggressor.
No, you didn’t answer the original question, which was quite simple. Ok tho, your obfuscation is answer enough for me.
“your obfuscation is answer enough for me.”
I politely asked him three or four times to answer a simple question, and then not so politely asked him, while he avoided giving a direct answer every time. It is obvious he is not willing to deal wih others honestly.
I don’t accept your premise, it was false.
I corrected it,
and obviously you don’t accept that,
there was no “obfuscation”.
Ya mean the dancing Israelis? Sure I do. Thanks for asking. Bye!
Oh, the Israelis did it?
Any proof hon?
Wow, how convenient. The US kills hundreds of thousands in the Middle East, and the first time it gets attacked on ITS soil, “that’s when the killing started.”
“US kills hundreds of thousands …” where?
Sanctions on Iraq?
That’s on Saddam.
“That’s on Saddam.”
Those sanctions killed hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. They harmed Saddam not one whit, in fact, they strengthened his rule.
Saddam was an aggressor, ask Kuwait, Kurds and Shia,
killing people was his business plan,
stopping him, ours.
Completely expected. The tough talk is for the base and the 2020 elections. The sweet talk is for Congress and the world.
Mr. President, as long as you have not fully and honestly returned our nation to the 5+1 agreement and have not rescinded all economic bullying of Iran there is zero chance for any diplomatic breakthrough. Get real because that is what you would demand if you were the President of Iran.
Unfortunately you have dug yourself into a manhole from which its hard to climb out and, regrettably too, you are a very poor climber.
The tough talk is for the Deep State ensconced in both political parties. The peace talk is for those who voted for him.
Trump is not in control of the situation. If Israel or the CIA foments a false flag incident and can get Hezbollah to retaliate or look like it’s retaliating, Trump and Congress will be forced to come to Israel’s aid. This is the goal – to degrade Hezbollah prior to starting a war with Iran. Has been since Israel last tried to destroy Hezbollah in 2006. Trump is out of the loop on that.
Generally speaking, I avoid the use of profanity because, well, it’s profane, OK? And, I’m a gentleman.
But with respect to Bolton and Pompeo I’ll make exceptions. #$%^&*&^^%%%$$$#.
There. I got it off my chest.
Best,
David
Profanity is too much fun to give up entirely!
Too funny, Thomas. Just, tooooo funny.
I got a belly laugh on that one.
Best,
David
The man is bipolar.
Trump is like the CEO that doesn’t bother with what Account Payable is doing until he receives a letter from the utility company of back unpaid bills.
It’s time for the Republican Party to reign in Mister Trump and prove they are worthy of their own existence. A little like how they reigned in Nixon when he became unstable.