Short presentation by Trump at this event on Capitol Hill from yesterday.
Out of paradigm but otherwise much to agree with from Trump here.
"We are led by very, very stupid people.... very, very stupid people... we cannot let it continue." Donald Trump
18 comments:
Do you think the Iran deal is bad?
I,
It seems very one-sided.... (FD: I detest Iran....)
rsp,
I'm trying to take an honest look at this Iran deal. At the moment what I find are all sorts of actual real experts in security and arms deals (people who actually do them)and nuclear scientists from the Republican party, from Israel, from everywhere all agreeing this is some version of a good deal to a landmark deal that will be a blueprint for others to use as an example.
Seriously, I've done a quick Google and can't seem to find anyone against this thing. At least no one other than elected butchers, bakers, and candle stick makers. Everyone from dick Cheney's ex chief of staff, an actual expert on these things, to Israeli intelligence officials support it.
Do you guys have any links to anyone who can speak with some sort of expertise on the subject, who is AGAINST it, that I can read?
Trump's a racist, a liar, a warmonger and yet again is incapable of putting an intelligent sentence together. Everything that comes out of his mouth is stream of consciousness egotistical racist gibberish. For a great example, see:http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20490
He's another Reagan but without the supposed avuncular charm. Unlike Reagan, who was safely in bed by 5 pm, he'll expect to make decisions. We can only hope that Trump says the stupid shit he does just to get elected. If he means a mere fraction of what he says, it's time to load up on canned food and start digging shelters in the back garden. Trump's as dangerous as Hilary, and that's saying something.
Trump: Iran says Israel won't exist in 25 years. The CIA apparently puts it at no more than twenty, and that was in a report from six years ago. Context is also conveniently kept at a distance. Iran's position is that Israel is like South Africa: an apartheid state that will fall apart because of its own contradictions. Or akin to the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia: an artificial state held together by force.
Trump: Iran says the nuclear deal is great. What else are they supposed to say? That it's terrible and one-sided? Other than regime change, the nuclear deal gives the US everything it wants. If a Republican had negotiated it, it would be considered one of the greatest geopolitical deals in history, which is what it is. But given that Obama negotiated the deal, then it goes without saying he's sold the US down the river and left the US dangerously vulnerable. The truth is precisely the opposite.
Trump: Russia sell missiles to Iran. What now, Iran can't have missiles? Are they allowed bullets? How about bows and arrows? Iran has one of the lowest military spending in the world, and has a purely defensive posture according to all the US intelligence agencies. If Iran isn't a total slave to US power, disaster is just around the corner. Anything else than slavish adherence to the master in Washington is a danger to the US, and millions of Americans (and Brits) can be counted on to swallow every bit of anti-Iran propaganda put out by our mendacious politicians. These same Americans and Brits couldn't find Iran on a map, let alone read a book about Iran, and get all their information from the wacky liars who brought us the invasion of Iraq.
Trump: America is inadequately defended! It spends more on defence than the rest of the world put together. Presumably World War II spending is necessary.
Trump: Obama calls the Supreme Leader of Iran, er, the Supreme Leader, just as all politicians the world over do and Republicans have done in the past. But since Obama has done so, it is a sign of his fifth columnist nature. Trump missed a trick. He should have said "Jesus is my Supreme Leader! God bless America, motherfu**er!"
Trump: US leaders are stupid. On the contrary, they've ensured global hegemony quite well for nearly seventy years. It's unravelling precipitously because of neoconservative foreign policy. It would have unravelled in any case for various reasons in the decades to come, but the neoconservatives accelerated the decline. A reactionary buffoon, it is no surprise that Trump admires stupid neoconservatives but is appalled by the competent liberal architects of US hegemony.
As I've said before, it pains me beyond description to see someone like Matt, an astoundingly intelligent and perspicacious critic on economic matters, write such bizarre stuff when it comes to foreign policy. For whatever reason, his sharp intellect implodes when the rest of the world is the issue. As the MMTers say, he is totally out of paradigm.
Matt detests Iran. Why? As evidence for this irrational hatred of a whole country of nearly eighty million people, Matt is unduly perturbed by the silly "Death to America" chants, which as almost everyone understands are directed at internal opposition. Because a few thousand people are corralled into unenthusiastically mouthing some nonsense, Matt's reaction has been to voice an insouciant desire for the deaths of millions of innocent Iranian men, women and children, who are the victims of the mullahs. Note, Matt doesn't say he detests the Iranian regime. No, he detests the country itself and wants it to disappear so long as it doesn't interfere with him watching beefy steroid-filled men in lycra and motorcycle helmets shouting "19, 42, 55, hut, hut, hut". He seems to be oblivious to the irony that he is guilty of the charge he levels at the Iranian regime.
Given US involvement in Iran, a bit of name calling is the least one would expect from those who've been on the receiving end of decades of US state terrorism. But no, Americans, even progressive one like Matt, want their victims to be polite in their criticisms of their Holy State.
On the other side of the ledger: US overthrow of Iran's liberal democratic parliament, US installation of one of the most despotic regimes of the twentieth century, US backing of Saddam's invasion of Iran, US supply of biological and chemical weapons agents to Saddam during the war with Iran, before finally entering the war on Saddam's side, shooting down an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace after a US battleship illegally entered Iranian waters (the commander of the battleship which shot down the airliner was awarded a medal by the then US President), and on it goes.
No matter what the evidence, the attitude is: 'Murica, fuck yeah!
Great. Another megalomaniacal demagogue. Crude, vulgar lout who makes "good deals" and was a big player in the lily-white and benefic casino industry. Yuk!
If anything is very very stupid it is his opinions on the Middle East. He is a total ignoramus. However, he is a likely candidate for President because his mentality accurately mirrors that of the American public. Crude, ignorant, stupid, crass, and riddled with idiotic prejudices.
Also, he is for Israel. What more need be said? He "hates" Iran. Check. He loves and will support Israel at all costs. Check.
Fortunately there are a few lucid minds:for example, read The Saker's blog, the sane remarks about the criminal US gov't and the essentially criminal state of Israel of a Paul Craig Roberts or a James Petras or a Michel Chassudovsky, not to mention the deceased Israel Shahak and a host of other morally sane Jews. However, these are all voices crying in the wilderness. The corporate-zionist controlled media calls the tunes and establishes the taboo subjects. Between the Likudnik zionists and the bought-paid for, revolving door, corruption in the US government, with corporate greed unchained, and with prospects like the current crop of presidential hopefuls without one single exception, the US is slowly swirling down the drain not to mention the dire straits the entire planet is in. Evil and destruction and hatreds are the order of the day almost anywhere you care to look.
As "crude" and "vulgar" as he is, is he any more extreme than the other R candidates, or the Democrats for that matter? For example, Sanders on foreign policy issues -- he is just as buzzed as the rest of them.
Peace deals are easily dispensed with. The US can have a war with Iran anytime it wants to. The American electorate is very gullible and will believe almost any pretext.
"Currently, just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations."
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement-falls/
Agreeing with popular opinion is a good way to get elected...
What should he run on "we need higher deficits!" LOL!
And he cites the $19B in "debt" we have issued as the long term record of a bad policy which is mathematically equivalent to the MMT position of "no bonds"....
Sorry, but Trump is right on this, and I'm far from an amen corner advocate.
Anything Obama has a hand in has got to be bad. It's that simple.
Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, is as tone deaf as Obama, and she also loves his unenforceable deal which nearly 80% of Americans despise.
I'm still searching for someone against the Iran deal but I can't find any.
I'm trying all sorts of different search terms but all I get are average people, polls, and politicians. No one with any expertise. I'm mean I find them but the ones I find are for it.
I know some of you are against it. Where are you finding the info on it?
DAB I (and probably most others) dont want ANY deal with them....
The only deal we should have with them is to start taking their infrastructure down
right after their next 'death to America!" rally....
rsp,
Because that worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Hey, the US is on a roll. Go USA.
There aren't enough refugees headed for the EU. Easy to up the numbers with Iranians.
What could go wrong?
OK Matt, that may be in our best interest. But my point is that finding backup is difficult for me.
Trying search the Jewish perspective isn't much help to me either it seems.
http://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=12886#.VfMf5pcephT
Granted it is from "peace now" but it's a hell of an interesting compilation. Unfortunately the opposite of what I'm looking for.
My hope is that the US has finally come around to its senses and realized that the only stable, sane country in the region is Iran, and that it's in its interests to have normal relations with them. Unfortunately, my spidey senses tell me that the US should not be trusted :(
As for enforcing this deal ... there is nothing to enforce. The US negotiators always knew that Iran seeks only a peaceful nuclear program. That is why there is a deal.
And these "death to America" chants ... so what? After the shit that the US has put Iran thru since the US overthrow of Iran's secular, democratic government -- the Shah, Iran-Iraq war, deadly economic sanctions, threats of nuclear destruction ("all options are on the table") -- can you blame a few excited people in the crowds in Iran for shouting that, sorry to say, well-deserved slogan? I bet with the lifting of the sanctions and the normalization of relations between the two countries, there won't be a reason for the "Death to American" shouts :)
Matt, most of the world (NAM) supports Iran's right to their nuclear program. They are a participant/signatory to the NPT, complied with all the requirements and have no nuclear weapon program.
I'm sure you already know this.
Secondly, the deal isn't exclusively between the US and Iran, it is with the P5+1 nations (the UN) and Iran. Yes, the US would love nothing more than to act unilaterally, (aka, as the globe's unchallenged hegemon)
The US Congress could throw a spanner into the gears, however, unlikely.
Finally, there has never been a time in recent history (post WW2) that the US followed International law when that law ran counter to national interests.
This means, American needs to vote for HRC, and she will take the US to war with Iran. That will fix those silly Persians who had the temerity to act like they have a right to self-determination.
Matt, most of the world (NAM) supports Iran's right to their nuclear program. They are a participant/signatory to the NPT, complied with all the requirements and have no nuclear weapon program.
There are three countries that have nuclear weapons but are not signatories to the NPT. All three are -- surprise, surprise (or maybe not?) -- US allies and hence no big deal ;)
The US Congress could throw a spanner into the gears, however, unlikely.
Agree -- votes are not there to override a veto.
Finally, there has never been a time in recent history (post WW2) that the US followed International law when that law ran counter to national interests.
International law is basically for Africans ;)
"The only deal we should have with them is to start taking their infrastructure down right after their next 'death to America!" rally...."
And the next time the US threatens a country (which is illegal under the UN charter and international law, an act of war and far worse than a few people in the third world calling the greatest military power in history names), overthrows a dictatorship, or gets involved in the kind of black operations that may or many not eventually result in blowback, the rest of the world has the right to take down US infrastructure - that is attack mainland USA.
But no, the US is special, it's the Holy State and every occupant of the Oval Office nothing less than an infallible Pope doing the work of the Lord, immune from universal standards, with law and morality inapplicable to the ubermensch, only applicable to the rest of the world and its untermensch. The attitude of the plantation owner is alive and well, but the plantation is now the world and everyone is an uppity nig*er for the master to subdue, as many countries will mournfully testify. And now the uppity ni**er has the boorish effrontery to call the master names!
The US can overthrow innumerable democracies, install and support any number of blood soaked dictatorships, kill millions of people across Asia, Africa and South America, lay waste to whole countries (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, etc), but you'll barely hear a peep of disapproval other than some self-pitying Rambo-style hokum about not being allowed to win. Call the US a name or two, and the demented chant for genocide shakes the ground. What a fu**ed up moral compass. Next stop neoconservatism.
'Murica, fu*k yeah!
Post a Comment