Trump

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: "Press the launch button and all is forgiven."

A nice theory, and it keeps up the Putin/Russia/Trump narrative that's been so ubiquitous. But the theory will be disproved if Trump continues to escalate the violence in Syria. Which I think he will.

eta: Secondly, D. Medvedev, Putin's predecessor and Prime Minister, noted that Russia has suspended their arrangement with the Americans - called the Memorandum of Understanding on the Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents - regarding making sure US and Russian aircraft don't fire at each other over Syria, called an Emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, sent the Admiral Grigorovich frigate off to the Mediterranean, and made an announcement regarding the upgrading of Syrian air defenses. These, taken together, completely contradict your claim. I suppose the tin foil hat crowd can always find a conspiracy. MSNBC's O'Donnell is a wing nut example of such.

Furthermore, for the neo cons, there's really nothing but open war which will "do". This is the view of Robert Kagan, Kasparov, etc.. For them, all really is forgiven if you just press the launch button. Dr. Strangelove lives.

Incidently, I understand that John Wayne was asked to play a major role in the film. The Duke turned Kubrick down cold. lol.

The other angle is that the simpler explanation is the best. Yours is rather too conspiratorial. Trump campaigned on a more sensible, less aggressive, less Russophobic, less "regime change" and violation of international law and norms. He's been put under pressure, and wilted, and, now that he has, the pressure will be doubled and re-doubled on him. What's to stop Trump becoming a plaything of the Deep State and neo-con chicken hawks as Obama was?

These guys are hood ornaments on a runaway train. Don't look at the shiny chrome. Look where the train is going.

i think Niki Haley sums it up the best Nikki Haley warns Putin on Assad: ‘We’re not going to have you cover for this regime anymore’

Top Trump administration officials are warning that Russia could be held accountable for the Syrian government’s chemical attacks against its own civilians — with the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations accusing the Kremlin of “covering up” for Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“You saw this terrible tragedy on innocent people, a lot of them children,” Nikki Haley said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “And the first reaction from Russia wasn’t, ‘How horrible.’ It wasn’t, ‘How could they do this?’ It wasn’t, ‘How did this happen?’ It was, ‘Assad didn’t do it, Assad didn’t do it.’ Why was that the reaction?”

Haley’s comments come three days after President Trump ordered an airstrike on a Syrian air base in response to last week’s suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nikki-hale...155633911.html

Make no mistake about it Nigel, those of you that support the likes of Putin,Kirsan etc that think they have the God given right to decide who gets to share this earth with them and who does not, your days are up. The Magnitsky act is coming to a theater near you! You can call us neocons or whatever other cliche you want to, but the likes of you have the timeless label of a supporter of perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
If Putin thought he had such an easy mark in Trump he now know's that he is sorely mistaken. It is a breath of fresh air to see that the anguished cries of those in the paths of these horrific gas attacks will no longer go unanswered or covered up.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: "Press the launch button and all is forgiven."

....If Putin thought he had such an easy mark in Trump he now know's that he is sorely mistaken. It is a breath of fresh air to see that the anguished cries of those in the paths of these horrific gas attacks will no longer go unanswered or covered up.

Well.... except now both Russia and Iran are saying "From now on, we will respond...."

All the pontifications of Haley and Tillerson and even Trump aside... Trump will now have to revert to his year-ago assessment that America has nothing to win in this fight. To do otherwise would mean taking America into a war with a superpower -- over Syrian babies, which Trump won't even allow into the U.S.!!!

I still think this could all be theater. Nigel says that involves too much belief in conspiracy, but then he talks about the "Deep State'.

We have to realize, Trump is now not just President, but also a billionaire. Power and money make great bedfellows. At those great heights, we the people and our media are just not allowed to peer inside and see the true inner workings. And those inner workings could involve a brilliant tactic of reducing the pressure of all the Russian investigations by simply making it LOOK LIKE America and Russia are newly at odds.

One need only ask: WHY would Assad launch a chemical weapons attack against civilians at this time? There was absolutely nothing to be gained. He simply may have been taking orders. Now Russia and Iran have drawn their line in the sand, and we will likely see nothing new happening. The previous standoff will likely resume, while in Washington, all the Russian investigations would suddenly disappear, all the momentum lost.

I could be proven wrong.... for example, if there were no conspiracy, Assad could launch more gas attacks within the next few days / weeks, now that Russia and Iran have assured him of protection / retaliation against any further American actions.

And just today we had the White House saying that use of "barrel bombs" against Syrians would also provoke a reaction -- then suddenly, they realized that barrel bombs have been used by Assad thousands of times in the past six years -- ooops! So now they are retracting that.

Trump says he was moved by seeing the effects of the gas attacks on Syrian civilians including babies... well, the effects of barrel bombs are not any prettier. Which means Trump, to remain consistent, must respond if there are more barrel bomb attacks which produce media images of mutilated children. So that is another way I could be proven wrong, given that barrel bomb attacks are much more likely to continue than are gas attacks. If Trump responded despite the Russia / Iran warnings, then my conspiracy suspicions will be proven false.

It will be a very interesting next few weeks, but if nothing further develops and everything in Syria returns to "normal" then I will really believe strongly that this episode was indeed a conspiracy at the top levels between Putin, Assad and Trump all designed to derail the Russian investigations going on in Washington.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: "Press the launch button and all is forgiven."

Trump says he was moved by seeing the effects of the gas attacks on Syrian civilians including babies... well, the effects of barrel bombs are not any prettier. Which means Trump, to remain consistent,......

Paul, I found the flaw in your logic. You are trying to find patterns amidst chaos. Trump is a 5 year old child with an attitude. He was born into wealth, given everything, never held accountable for anything, and never been forced to admit he was wrong. He is not a deep thinker, he has the attention span of a knat. His explanation that he saw babies being gassed and he was horrified, maybe it is as simple as that.

He is surrounded by idealogues and swamp creatures who have their own agendas. Who knows who he listens to on any particular day.
Stop trying to find some clever strategy or conspiracy theory, mostly Trump is just ignorance and chaos.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: "Press the launch button and all is forgiven."

Paul, I found the flaw in your logic. You are trying to find patterns amidst chaos. Trump is a 5 year old child with an attitude. He was born into wealth, given everything, never held accountable for anything, and never been forced to admit he was wrong. He is not a deep thinker, he has the attention span of a knat. His explanation that he saw babies being gassed and he was horrified, maybe it is as simple as that.

He is surrounded by idealogues and swamp creatures who have their own agendas. Who knows who he listens to on any particular day.
Stop trying to find some clever strategy or conspiracy theory, mostly Trump is just ignorance and chaos.

His explanation that he saw babies being gassed and he was horrified, maybe it is as simple as that.

Yes, and even a "five year old" knew what the right thing to do was and actually did it. That is more then I can say for his predecessor.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: "Press the launch button and all is forgiven."

Yes, and even a "five year old" knew what the right thing to do was and actually did it. That is more then I can say for his predecessor.

Yet that same "five year old" was advising his predecessor, in all caps: DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA, VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN, AMERICA HAS NOTHING TO WIN IN THAT FIGHT.

That was right after a similar gas attack that had similar effects on similar babies. Didn't faze Trump a bit back then. It was all about what he thought was best for America, not about being saddened to see gassed babies.

As to your argument that his missile barrage was "the right thing to do", that is your opinion and we will hold you to it. Remember almost everyone thought invading Iraq was the right thing for Dubya to do. Guess what those same "smart" people think now?

To Bob Gillanders: I agree with most of what you say about Trump and his associates. I normally do not search for conspiracy theories, but in this case, there is just much of a stench to what is happening. The combination of

(1) a totally foolish gas attack on civilians by Assad, which wins him nothing,
(2) a very mild but impressive-looking reaction from Trump (all about the optics!),
(3) almost no damage of any consequence to the actual air base, it is back fully operational
(4) no news about the Trump - Russia investigations, that is all going to fade away now

adds up to "something's fishy in Denmark".

But yes, I could be wrong. The next few weeks will reveal a lot. If Assad does any more barrel bomb attacks against civilians, the U.S. MUST attack again for Trump to look reasonable and consistent. If that happens, then I'd say ok, no conspiracy, and then we just wait to see if Russia does indeed retaliate against the U.S.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Trump

Hi Guys, sorry to butt in:

I think that Paul B raises some interesting points, including the very sharp change in Trump's "beliefs" on how to deal with Assad.

But we should remember that the weight of responsibility is on Trump now, and he has knowledge we don't. Things have changed entirely for him, and expecting all the variables to change and the outcome to be the same is probably something Einstein would have believed erroneous, for lack of a better word. Before, it was simply about making Obama look bad - perhaps in preparation for his campaign. Now Trump is responsible, and believe me the media would love you to believe otherwise. It does not help that Trump often makes rude comments that are incredibly off-putting, especially to liberals, who are offended by almost everything.

But "totally foolish gas attack"? Are you implying that people who use gas attacks are rational? The purpose and the whole idea of using gas attacks - I would assume - is the grotesque suffering associated with it. I find these images disturbing, and all death is not equal. Slow and painful torture is arguably much worse. This to me implies a sick and irrational hatred rather than a cold, calculated killer. People who cultivate this type of weaponry should be dealt with appropriately. As far as I can see, that is what has been done here.

Perhaps another flaw in your (and your not alone) gigantic conspiracy theory lies in simple mathematics. If I tell 1 or 2 people a secret, there is a real chance it may not surface. As soon as I tell as many as a 100 people, there is almost no chance the secret will remain so, for even a short period of time. Think about the multiplicative law of probability. That is what things like WikiLeaks prove to be true. So involving three different governments and so many people within each government... there is just no chance this would hold up.

I don't deny the US can seem to have a motive that we could call a "Deep State" which seems to drive politics subversively, but this could simply be sentiment that is deep within the political and financial elite as opposed to a secret brotherhood who only acknowledge card carrying members.

In the end I will agree with you however, that the Trump admin could not have missed the fact that this military action would greatly decrease the scrutiny they are under for Russian conspiracy theories. However, I believe the conspiracy theories are just that - complete b.s. It has been too long and there has been no evidence. People getting kicked out of office have been kicked out due to the appearance of impropriety, and not for any other reason.

Mavros

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

Hi Guys, sorry to butt in:

I think that Paul B raises some interesting points, including the very sharp change in Trump's "beliefs" on how to deal with Assad.

But we should remember that the weight of responsibility is on Trump now, and he has knowledge we don't. Things have changed entirely for him, and expecting all the variables to change and the outcome to be the same is probably something Einstein would have believed erroneous, for lack of a better word. Before, it was simply about making Obama look bad - perhaps in preparation for his campaign. Now Trump is responsible, and believe me the media would love you to believe otherwise. It does not help that Trump often makes rude comments that are incredibly off-putting, especially to liberals, who are offended by almost everything.

But "totally foolish gas attack"? Are you implying that people who use gas attacks are rational? The purpose and the whole idea of using gas attacks - I would assume - is the grotesque suffering associated with it. I find these images disturbing, and all death is not equal. Slow and painful torture is arguably much worse. This to me implies a sick and irrational hatred rather than a cold, calculated killer. People who cultivate this type of weaponry should be dealt with appropriately. As far as I can see, that is what has been done here.

Perhaps another flaw in your (and your not alone) gigantic conspiracy theory lies in simple mathematics. If I tell 1 or 2 people a secret, there is a real chance it may not surface. As soon as I tell as many as a 100 people, there is almost no chance the secret will remain so, for even a short period of time. Think about the multiplicative law of probability. That is what things like WikiLeaks prove to be true. So involving three different governments and so many people within each government... there is just no chance this would hold up.

I don't deny the US can seem to have a motive that we could call a "Deep State" which seems to drive politics subversively, but this could simply be sentiment that is deep within the political and financial elite as opposed to a secret brotherhood who only acknowledge card carrying members.

In the end I will agree with you however, that the Trump admin could not have missed the fact that this military action would greatly decrease the scrutiny they are under for Russian conspiracy theories. However, I believe the conspiracy theories are just that - complete b.s. It has been too long and there has been no evidence. People getting kicked out of office have been kicked out due to the appearance of impropriety, and not for any other reason.

Mavros

Thanks Mavros for a well-reasoned set of arguments -- that is such a rarity on ChessTalk.

So first of all, I'd like to address your point about mathematics. The only secret need be between Trump and Putin. If indeed they are in cahoots and have been that way long before Trump took office, then this new development simply goes down like this: Putin contacts Trump through secure channel and suggests the whole gas attack / missile launch / standoff scenario. He explains to Trump: this will eradicate all investigations into our connections. Trump says ok, let's do it, and I'll even come out and talk about how disturbed I was by seeing gassed babies -- win, win. No one else is involved in this secret. Putin gives the order to Assad, "Launch a gas attack such and such time, such and such place." What's Assad going to do, say no? He is Putin's yes man.

All political decisions are about risk. Putin does this because he sees genuine risk that the connections between him and Trump are going to be found out (assuming this connection exists). I've seen reports that the FBI has discovered records of ties between Trump associates and Russian operatives, but all rumours at this point. Anyway, Putin makes this decision because he sees the risk as being less than the risk of the investigations. Simple as that. Trading one risk for a lesser risk. That's how political decisions get made.

Now about your question: are people who use gas attacks rational? Oh yes, absolutely possible. Logic and rationality are not exclusive to the pure of heart. I'm sure you've heard the term "evil genius". But I think you might be misunderstanding my point about Assad launching a gas attack at this time. For him to do it without orders from Putin seems far-fetched. There was so little to gain versus so much to lose. But still, it could have happened that way. Perhaps Assad felt absolutely sure Trump would not respond with anything substantial, and thought he could kill a lot of rebels in that area. We simply don't know.

I really liked your second paragraph. It ties in to something Nikki Haley said about Trump reversing course on Assad: "He's the President now". The problem is, this can be used for ANYTHING. Trump could change course on ALL his campaign promises, and we the people are supposed to be told, well, he's President now and found out a lot of things.

This is the great weakness of democracy. We vote for something, and then we get "He's the President now". The entire primaries and campaign are dismissed like swatting a fly.

Now, where do we go from here? Sid Belzberg and many others believe Trump did the right thing. But hold on -- Trump played the morality card. He talked about being disturbed by seeing gassed babies. Perhaps genuine, but I have my doubts. Trump was never disturbed by grabbing women's pussies or denying payments to contractors just because he could get away with it to his own benefit. Once immoral, always immoral, with very very rare exceptions.

Well, the problem is that Trump now is trapped by having played the morality card. Now he can't dismiss barrel bomb attacks by Assad. I'm sure you know about barrel bombs, Mavros, or can google about them. It's not much different in terms of "misery index" from gas attacks. Assad has used barrel bomb attacks over 1,000 times in six years. So it stands to reason he's going to continue to use them. Can Trump ignore future barrel bomb attacks and not be seen as WEAK? Once you play the morality card, you have to STICK BY IT. Otherwise, you are seen as a phony.

And in my heart of hearts, that is what I truly believe Trump is. A con artist, a phony, a selfish narcissist -- when someone tells you what they are through their actions, believe them. He has not been changed by the Presidency -- the Presidency only reinforces his traits.

But there is a sucker born every minute, and I think that goes double in America.

My conspiracy theory could be wrong. If it is, then we are in real trouble because then the apparent growing tension in Syria is for real, not just theater. So then we have America about to confront Iran, Russia, and North Korea all at once. And the wild card is.... China.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Trump

Thanks Mavros for a well-reasoned set of arguments -- that is such a rarity on ChessTalk.

So first of all, I'd like to address your point about mathematics. The only secret need be between Trump and Putin. If indeed they are in cahoots and have been that way long before Trump took office, then this new development simply goes down like this: Putin contacts Trump through secure channel and suggests the whole gas attack / missile launch / standoff scenario. He explains to Trump: this will eradicate all investigations into our connections. Trump says ok, let's do it, and I'll even come out and talk about how disturbed I was by seeing gassed babies -- win, win. No one else is involved in this secret. Putin gives the order to Assad, "Launch a gas attack such and such time, such and such place." What's Assad going to do, say no? He is Putin's yes man.

All political decisions are about risk. Putin does this because he sees genuine risk that the connections between him and Trump are going to be found out (assuming this connection exists). I've seen reports that the FBI has discovered records of ties between Trump associates and Russian operatives, but all rumours at this point. Anyway, Putin makes this decision because he sees the risk as being less than the risk of the investigations. Simple as that. Trading one risk for a lesser risk. That's how political decisions get made.

Now about your question: are people who use gas attacks rational? Oh yes, absolutely possible. Logic and rationality are not exclusive to the pure of heart. I'm sure you've heard the term "evil genius". But I think you might be misunderstanding my point about Assad launching a gas attack at this time. For him to do it without orders from Putin seems far-fetched. There was so little to gain versus so much to lose. But still, it could have happened that way. Perhaps Assad felt absolutely sure Trump would not respond with anything substantial, and thought he could kill a lot of rebels in that area. We simply don't know.

I really liked your second paragraph. It ties in to something Nikki Haley said about Trump reversing course on Assad: "He's the President now". The problem is, this can be used for ANYTHING. Trump could change course on ALL his campaign promises, and we the people are supposed to be told, well, he's President now and found out a lot of things.

This is the great weakness of democracy. We vote for something, and then we get "He's the President now". The entire primaries and campaign are dismissed like swatting a fly.

Now, where do we go from here? Sid Belzberg and many others believe Trump did the right thing. But hold on -- Trump played the morality card. He talked about being disturbed by seeing gassed babies. Perhaps genuine, but I have my doubts. Trump was never disturbed by grabbing women's pussies or denying payments to contractors just because he could get away with it to his own benefit. Once immoral, always immoral, with very very rare exceptions.

Well, the problem is that Trump now is trapped by having played the morality card. Now he can't dismiss barrel bomb attacks by Assad. I'm sure you know about barrel bombs, Mavros, or can google about them. It's not much different in terms of "misery index" from gas attacks. Assad has used barrel bomb attacks over 1,000 times in six years. So it stands to reason he's going to continue to use them. Can Trump ignore future barrel bomb attacks and not be seen as WEAK? Once you play the morality card, you have to STICK BY IT. Otherwise, you are seen as a phony.

And in my heart of hearts, that is what I truly believe Trump is. A con artist, a phony, a selfish narcissist -- when someone tells you what they are through their actions, believe them. He has not been changed by the Presidency -- the Presidency only reinforces his traits.

But there is a sucker born every minute, and I think that goes double in America.

My conspiracy theory could be wrong. If it is, then we are in real trouble because then the apparent growing tension in Syria is for real, not just theater. So then we have America about to confront Iran, Russia, and North Korea all at once. And the wild card is.... China.

To quote a well-know reality TV panelist: It has been the greatest privilege to read the astute analysis of Mavros and Paul. Thanks guys for giving us plebs the benefit of the doubt, and that good posting here on Cf is a worthwhile use of time. Of course, like in life generally, you also have to plough through all the bull-crap.

Bob A

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

To quote a well-know reality TV panelist: It has been the greatest privilege to read the astute analysis of Mavros and Paul. Thanks guys for giving us plebs the benefit of the doubt, and that good posting here on Cf is a worthwhile use of time. Of course, like in life generally, you also have to plough through all the bull-crap.

Bob A

You clearly have a very different definition of a worthwhile use of time than most if you include the paranoid Democratic Party far left blathering of PB. Mavros on the other hand is worth reading.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Trump

You clearly have a very different definition of a worthwhile use of time than most if you include the paranoid Democratic Party far left blathering of PB. Mavros on the other hand is worth reading.

I'm not saying Paul isn't a bit wordy. And Paul does get a chuckle out of trolling, every once in a while, the bigger fish in this pond...........legal precision throughout, he is not.

But if you can stay focused (Admittedly a bit of a chore reading his a-bit-long posts), his core concepts are generally quite sound from my reading (And I also admit that sometimes when I think he is being a little less brilliant than normal, I also do not manage to get through the whole thing).

Bob A

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Trump

I'm not saying Paul isn't a bit wordy. And Paul does get a chuckle out of trolling, every once in a while, the bigger fish in this pond...........legal precision throughout, he is not.

But if you can stay focused (Admittedly a bit of a chore reading his a-bit-long posts), his core concepts are generally quite sound from my reading (And I also admit that sometimes when I think he is being a little less brilliant than normal, I also do not manage to get through the whole thing).

Bob A

Paul Bonham's posts are hilarious, especially when he rises to the level of calling people names such as "dufus"! Who uses that word anymore?

Without Paul Bonham this forum would be completely vanilla.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

I'm not saying Paul isn't a bit wordy. And Paul does get a chuckle out of trolling, every once in a while, the bigger fish in this pond...........legal precision throughout, he is not.

But if you can stay focused (Admittedly a bit of a chore reading his a-bit-long posts), his core concepts are generally quite sound from my reading (And I also admit that sometimes when I think he is being a little less brilliant than normal, I also do not manage to get through the whole thing).

Bob A

PB biggest failing is that he is not the original and pure archetype of which Paul is a weak and watered down version. The original is still going strong on facebook some two decades after we originally locked swords. Apparently he holds near and dear some of the same thoughts as Paul but with more logical consistency and a better ability to express himself in a written form.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

US Sec of State Tillerson just got schooled by Lavrov

English-language Russian media is outlining how Rex Tillerson got "schooled" by FM Sergei Lavrov. I have to say, despite the entirely predictable personal attacks, that they're quite right to say so.

1. Lavrov made it clear, publicly, that any more US strike on Syria are unacceptable;

2. Rather than prying the Russians apart from Syria and Iran, the FM's of those countries are coming to Moscow in a few days to meet with Lavrov and his staff;

“… (a) trilateral meeting of foreign ministers of Russia, Syria and Iran will take place in Moscow. [The ministers[ will discuss measures needed to coordinate trilateral steps, so as not to let the situation aggravate and the efforts for a political settlement in Syria be derailed amid the US’ armed aggression against Damascus”.

3. The Russians have rebuffed the fake "impartial" UNSC Resolution, sponsored by the US, UK, and France, and rejected any pre-assigned guilt before an objective investigation;

4. Rex Tillerson met Russian President Putin anyway. (behind closed doors);

5. Lavrov completely dominated the Press Conference with Tillerson. Maybe the US will, one day, actually send, you know, trained diplomats instead of stetson-wearing oil men.

...............................................

Ancient Rome had no need of diplomacy and, therefore, of diplomats. They simply barked orders across the Empire. The current US regime seems to conduct itself in a similar manner. This is not a criticism of Trump's administration only, of course.

Too bad for Rex and The Donald. All hat and no cattle. They just got schooled. Checkmate.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: US Sec of State Tillerson just got schooled by Lavrov

Got to say Nige that your understanding of latest round of American maneuvering is rather shortsighted.

The Donald sized all this up long before he even took office ...the end game is strengthen American companies.

Governments are a thing of your socialist past my friend.

At last count, American business interest own approx. 50% of the world's wealth.

Remind me again ...who needs a government?

You?

[Nigel Hanrahan]

How many corporations are members of the UN?

Got to say Nige that your understanding of latest round of American maneuvering is rather shortsighted.

... Remind me again ...who needs a government?

OK, so tell me how many corporations are members of the UN, or have vetoes with the UN Security Council, etc.

Incidentally, I don't find much problem with Trump trying to represent US business interests abroad. This is much better than bombing a new country every 5 years or so. People sometimes fight back, and it was an American (Chalmers Johnson) who coined the term "blowback" to describe the "unforeseen" consequences of a violent, if covert, foreign policy. He said this BEFORE 9-11. Very prescient.