Here’s why Trump’s foreign policy terrifies neocons
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
No, it isn't.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Even many liberals have seen enough of Hillary's 'experience' lol.
That's because the Game Plan is to dismantle Russia.
The technical term for your game-plan is Geo-Political Strategy.
Imagine that one day you could fly to Tripoli (Libya), then rent a car and drive to Vladivostok (Russia) via Cairo (Egypt), Tehran (Iran), Tashkent (Uzbekistan) and see nothing but McDonald's and Starsux.
That is your game-plan. That's been your game-plan since about 1976 or so.
You've invested $TRILLIONS and waste thousands of American lives already in furtherance of your goal, which is starting to come together at a faster rate.
The first thing you need to do is find a pretense to maintain a military presence indefinitely in the Middle East. That was the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the establishment of a No-Fly Zone in Iraq, which led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Regime change made sure Saddam would not ally with Russia.
The second thing you need to do is deny the Russians the use of any airbases or naval facilities in the Mediterranean Sea Region.
Yugoslavia castrated: Check
Libya regime change: Check
Tunisia regime change: Check
Syria regime change: In Progress
Once you've ousted Assad in Syria and taken control, which means Russia will never be able to base aircraft in Syria again or port ships in Syria, you'll move on Iran.
The most likely way you'll move on Iran is by backing the independence of the Balochs in Baluchistan. The ancient kingdom of Baluchistan's former territory has part in Pakistan, part in Iran and part in Afghanistan.
When the US takes control of Baluchistan, it will oust the Chinese who use and operate the Gwadar Port (a major coup for the US).
Once there's an independent Baluchistan carved out of Pakistan, the US will start arming the Iranian Balochs, foment revolution, then recognize their independence and union with Baluchistan, then probably establish a No-Fly Zone to protect the Balochs from Iranian military forces, so that the US can maintain an indefinite presence in the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean Region.
That will allow the US to exert its hegemony over Central Asia, regaining control of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan.
Once the US controls at least three of those 5 Central Asia States, the US can start arming ethnic groups in the eastern Russian republics, foment revolution, and then attempt to block any response by Russia, so that the US gains control of eastern Russia.
Ukraine will either remain as a "buffer-State" between NATO and Russia, or will be absorbed into NATO. In any event, Ukraine will probably be used as a base for No-Fly Zone operations in eastern Russia.
If Hillary is elected, you can rest assured she will step up operations against Syria to oust Assad to prepare the US to move on Iran.
Watch what happens.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
It's not Bush's fuck-up, so she doesn't understand. In fact, I bet you that Daesh believes Libya has been a great success.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Both Russia and Iran are subjected to Western military pressures. Russia and Iran are each reclaiming the buffers which NATO has been engaged in eroding. That can hardly be termed ' hegemonic '.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes I'm sure you'd love to go back to the old Soviet Union. Have you ever been anywhere in Eastern Europe and asked any of their people what they thought of the Russians? Don't bother answering, it was a rhetorical question. You need to shut the fuck up sonny, do some travelling and get out of that bullshit PC bubble you inhabit. I was in Saigon a couple of months back, you won't find many communists there either.
You can make a case for Russia with NATO expansionism ..but be sure to include the Budapest Agreement if you start talking about Ukraine.
Also Putin has defacto invaded Donbass and the east-so there s the hegemony at least.
Even the warplanes buzzing of NATO navy is uncalled for.
For Iran? Are you seriously claiming Iran is an any way constrained by the west?
If that is "reclaiming" then they owned all of Iraq (ok maybe not Anbar and the kurds) beforehand as well as Beirut/Sana'a.
What about regular troops in Syria? are they there for a "buffer?" -they are hegemonic.
If you want to claim Shi'ite crescent -ok fine -but that is still hegemony
moon
Satire for Sanity
Foreign militaries are unpopular EVERYWHERE, dumbass- the Brits and Americans more so than the Russians at this point in time- and you're not scoring any points by waving imaginary air miles as a form of accreditation. Nobody would be impressed by the holiday destinations of Tory wankers anyway.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Are you totally ignoring the wishes of Eastern Ukrainians ? Crimea is and was Russian, of course, and Saakashvili was himself a NATO-backed hegemonic nuisance.
' Buzzing ' hostile militaries on your doorstep is not ' hegemonic ' either.
Again, you attempt to portray self-defense as hegemony. That dog won't hunt.
I didn't mention Crimea. Crimea by itself was a violation of territorial integrity - an invasion by un-insignia troops -but I can even understand the military significance..Not just excuse it, but I can see the importance of Sebastopol.
There is no legitimate reason for Donbass. Putin came in and supported rebels ( again with trucks with out liscense plates/insignias)
and simply glommed up territory, and afterwards ran a questionable vote. The vote is not legitimate.
The NATO maneuvers were joint exercises with Poland. Completely above board and justified.
get outta here. lol. there is nothing defensive about Iranian expansionism
