Gyroscopic Investing

Having established a base on the Syrian coast, Vladimir Putin last week began air strikes on ISIS and other rebel forces seeking to overthrow Bashar Assad.

A longtime ally of Syria, Russia wants to preserve its toehold on the Mediterranean, help Assad repel the threat, and keep the Islamic terrorists out of Damascus.

Russia is also fearful that the fall of Assad would free up the Chechen terrorists in Syria to return to Russia.

In intervening to save Assad, Putin is doing exactly what we are doing to save our imperiled allies in Baghdad and Kabul.
Yet Putin’s intervention has ignited an almost berserk reaction...

Read the rest here...
http://buchanan.org/blog/war-party-targ ... sad-124140

Putin for Prez?

Everyone's a NeoCon now.

I really like this part:

One wishes him well. For it is obvious that the same blockheads who told us that if the Taliban and Saddam and Gadhafi fell, liberal democracy would arise and flourish, are now clamoring for another American war in Syria to bring down Assad.

And who says stay out? Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, both of whom also opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There is something to be said for outsiders.

Will the US voters put their money where their mouth is and nominate the two anti-war outsiders, or will they stick with the conventional picks and then complain when we're involved WW3 in the Middle East?

clacy wrote: Will the US voters put their money where their mouth is and nominate the two anti-war outsiders, or will they stick with the conventional picks and then complain when we're involved WW3 in the Middle East?

Isn't there three, even though Rand Paul has no chance?

MachineGhost wrote:

clacy wrote: Will the US voters put their money where their mouth is and nominate the two anti-war outsiders, or will they stick with the conventional picks and then complain when we're involved WW3 in the Middle East?

Isn't there three, even though Rand Paul has no chance?

I really don't consider Trump anti-war.  He was against the Iraq War, but if you focus in at all on what he wants to do, not to mention the fact that most presidents become more interventionist than their campaign would indicate, it seems to me he'd be one of the more bombastic hawks of the bunch.

moda0306 wrote: I really don't consider Trump anti-war.  He was against the Iraq War, but if you focus in at all on what he wants to do, not to mention the fact that most presidents become more interventionist than their campaign would indicate, it seems to me he'd be one of the more bombastic hawks of the bunch.

Unless he's just blowing smoke, he has a different way of wanting to go about dealing with the NeoConners, such as encircling ISIS with a wall and turning it into a "Jurassic Park" for RIFFF's.  He certainly thinks outside the box.  He seems pretty confident he can "talk with" Putin also.  Let's wait and see what his formal foreign policy is before getting our panties all twisted.

Too bad California is a winner take all Democrat socialist corporatist utopia or I'd be extra motivated to become a Republican delegate, flip the bird to the RNC party leaders and vote for Trump.  If they're stupid enough to nominate another inexperienced careerist Obama in guise of Rubio, then I hope Trump splits and starts the third party.

The Democrats really have nothing new to offer.  Either its more of the same old policies that have failed us for 80 years just much more extreme, or its more corrupt centrists.  I don't envy them.  They offer no change we can believe in.

moda0306 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

clacy wrote: Will the US voters put their money where their mouth is and nominate the two anti-war outsiders, or will they stick with the conventional picks and then complain when we're involved WW3 in the Middle East?

Isn't there three, even though Rand Paul has no chance?

I really don't consider Trump anti-war.  He was against the Iraq War, but if you focus in at all on what he wants to do, not to mention the fact that most presidents become more interventionist than their campaign would indicate, it seems to me he'd be one of the more bombastic hawks of the bunch.

Trump is a deal maker.  He doesn't seem to embrace the neocon ideology.  Outside of Rand and Bernie, Trump would be the next closest to anti-war, IMO.

He seems more than happy to concede the ME to Russia, which I tend to agree with.

Trump is a strong leader and won't allow two bit thugs and dictators to walk all over us like we're being walked on now.

TennPaGa wrote: It is interesting that Reub thinks Trump embraces neocon ideology, while clacy thinks he does not. 

That's the Trump genius right there!

Bingo. Remember the same kind of thing from Obama back in 2008? "Hope and change!" You could hope for whatever kind of change you wanted and still support the guy!

Pointedstick wrote: Bingo. Remember the same kind of thing from Obama back in 2008? "Hope and change!" You could hope for whatever kind of change you wanted and still support the guy!

If Trump was an Obama, this is the kind of thing I would expect to hear from him:

"Fear is the mind-killer.  You must not fear." <repeat ad naseum>

First, I would say that Putin is pretty far from a "two-bit thug".  He may be a thug, but two-bit he is not.

Secondly, Trump has said many times, that he would basically hand Syria over to Russia.  I'd say it's pretty cut and dry. 

clacy wrote: Secondly, Trump has said many times, that he would basically hand Syria over to Russia.  I'd say it's pretty cut and dry.

If Syria is Russia's ally, why in the hell are we over there in the first place?  Was there a vote on a U.N. "police action"?  Or did Obummer stick his fingers where it don't belong again?  You'd think he would learn after Iraq, Egypt and Libya.

Why was there even a civil war in Syria in the first place?