Wars that the Democrats have started or gotten America involved in.

Harry Truman (Democrat) dawn of the muslim brotherhood

Black Republican http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourself/topic/4225164/1/

If you listen to the Democrats talk, you would think that they were Saints. Well I’m going to name some Wars that the Democrats have started or gotten America involved in.

1. Democrat got America in the Vietnam War.
A. Democrat President John Kennedy sent money and advisors to South Vietnam.
B. Democrat president Lyndon Johnson sent American troops into Vietnam.
C. 2 Million people died in the Vietnam war.
4. 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and another 350,000 were injured.

democrat wars  Democrat got America in the Vietnam War.

Democrats got America involved in the Korean war.
A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that sent Americans to fight in the Korean war.
B. 33,000 Americans were killed in that war.

3. Democrats used nuclear weapons on Japan.
A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan killing innocent women and children, killing over 200,000 innocent civilians.

 

Harry Truman (Democrat)  harry truman that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on innocent women and children in japan

Harry Truman (Democrat)

worldwar1 Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America involved in World War 1.

  1. Democrats got America involved in World War 1. A. It was Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America involved in World War 1. B. 37 million people died in that war.C. 117,000 Americans were killed in that war.

united-states-national-cemetery Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2.

Democrats got America involved in World War 2. A. It was Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2. B. 70 million people died in that war. C. 406,000 Americans died in that war.

bay of pigs time magazine6. Democrats started the Bay of Pigs. A. It was Democrat president John F Kennedy that started the Bay of Pigs, which was a war against Cuba

A Libyan rebel prays next to his gun on the outskirts of Ajdabiya Democrat president Barack Obama that bombed Libya 7. Democrats bombed Libya.
A. It was Democrat president Barack Obama that bombed Libya killing 1000’s of innocent women and children.

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2It appears that Hillary Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.

The most well-documented example of Tawergha an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark -skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.

 Hillary’s Dirty War in Libya: New Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump Foreign relations and America’s role in the world

Trump is, articulating a coherent vision of international relations and America’s role in the world.

donald_trump_flag.jpg 2.jpg

David Sanger and Maggie Haberman capture it well here is a portion of their lengthy New York Times interview with Trump:

“In Mr. Trump’s worldview, the United States has become a diluted power, and the main mechanism by which he would re-establish its central role in the world is economic bargaining. He approached almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation, even when he was imprecise about the strategic goals he sought.” The United States, Trump believes, has been “disrespected, mocked, and ripped off for many, many years by people that were smarter, shrewder, tougher. We were the big bully, but we were not smartly led. And we were … the big stupid bully, and we were systematically ripped off by everybody.”

Trump hasn’t the slightest objection to being perceived as a bully, but he doesn’t want to be ripped off. Thus, he says, he’d be willing to stop buying oil from the Saudis if they don’t get serious about fighting the Islamic State; limit China’s access to U.S. markets if Beijing continues its expansionist policies in the South China Sea; and discard America’s traditional alliance — from NATO to the Pacific — partners if they won’t pull their own weight.

To those who criticize his apparent contradictions, his vagueness about his ultimate strategic objectives, or his willingness to make public threats, he offers a simple

and Machiavellian response: “We need unpredictability.” To Trump, an effective negotiator plays his cards close to his chest: He doesn’t let anyone know his true bottom line, and he always preserves his ability to make a credible bluff. (Here it is, from the transcript of his conversation with the New York Times: “You know, if I win, I don’t want to be in a position where I’ve said I would or I wouldn’t [use force to resolve a particular dispute].… I wouldn’t want to say. I wouldn’t want them to know what my real thinking is.”)

Trump has little time for either neoconservatives or liberal interventionists; he thinks they allow their belief in American virtue to blind them to both America’s core interests and the limits of American power.

He has even less time for multilateralist diplomats: They’re too willing to compromise, trading away American interests in exchange for platitudes about friendship and cooperation.

And he has no time at all for those who consider long-standing U.S. alliances

sacrosanct. To Trump, U.S. alliances, like potential business partners in a real-estate transaction, should always be asked: “What have you done for me lately?”

In his inimitable way, Trump is offering a powerful challenge to many of the core assumptions of Washington’s bipartisan foreign-policy elite. And if mainstream Democrats and Republicans want to counter Trump’s appeal, they need to get serious about explaining why his vision of the world isn’t appropriate — and they need to do so without merely falling back on tired clichés.

The Tired clichés roll easily off the tongue:

U.S. alliances and partnerships are vital. NATO is a critical component of U.S. security.

Forward-deployed troops in Japan and South Korea are vital to assurance and deterrence.

We need to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia. And so on. How do we know these things? Because in Washington, everyone who’s anyone knows these things.

But this is pure intellectual and ideological laziness.

Without more specificity, these truisms of the Washington foreign-policy elite are just pablum.

Why, exactly, does the United States need to keep troops in Japan, or Germany, or Kuwait? Would the sky really fall if the United States had fewer forward-deployed troops? What contingencies are we preparing for? Who and what are we deterring, and how do we know if it’s working?

Who are we trying to reassure? What are the financial and opportunity costs? Do the defense treaties and overseas bases that emerged after World War II still serve U.S. interests? Which interests? How?

Does a U.S. alliance with the Saudis truly offer more benefits than costs?

What bad things would happen if we shifted course, taking a less compromising stance toward “allies” who don’t offer much in return?

Questions like these are legitimate and important, and it’s reasonable for ordinary Americans to be dissatisfied by politicians and pundits who make no real effort to offer answers.

Trump’s vision of the world — and his conception of statecraft — it reflects a fairly coherent theory of international relations. It’s realist, transactional, and Machiavellian — and it demands a serious, thoughtful, and nondefensive response.

If those in the foreign-policy community can’t be bothered to offer one, a “TRUMP” sign on the White House may be better than we deserve.

Share +

Hillary more of the same.jpg 2Tired clichés

 

 

 

 

 

America’s Neo-Nazi Government in Kiev is a reality.

images

While recent news reports confirm US support to the two Neo-Nazi parties, CIA support to Ukraine’s OUN dates back to the Cold War era. Acknowledged by historians yet unknown to the American public was Washington’s insidious support of Ukraine OUN Neo-Nazis after World War II as a means of destabilizing the Soviet Union.

This support was an integral part of what was called the “Truman Doctrine” formulated by State Department official George Kennan. A bitter irony, following the defeat of Nazi Germany, the Truman administration (D) instructed US intelligence at the height of the Cold War to ensure the continuation of Nazi Germany’s support to Ukraine’s OUN “Nachtingall battalion”, reshaped and transformed into a subversive guerrilla group under an Anglo-American acronym.

Today Obama administration foster’s a process of escalation and destabilization? The Neo-Nazi mobs had been trained and indoctrinated. Western special forces and mercenaries on contract to NATO and the Pentagon were involved in the training of the Right Sector paramilitary. In turn, the National Guard civilian militia created in mid-March is financed by Washington. The Right Sector Brown shirts had received prior paramilitary training in Poland in September 2013..

woman fallen  America’s Neo-Nazi Government in Kiev is a reality. The body of evidence suggests that US-NATO is directly involved in the crackdown on so-called “pro-Russian” activists, advising both the Right Sector and the Kiev government’s National Guard. The Neo-Nazi mobs in Odessa bear the hallmarks of US sponsored terrorism (e.g Syria). The Right Sector terrorists are trained to commit atrocities against civilians.

This complex historical background is important in assessing the contemporary relationship of US-NATO to the two Neo-Nazi parties Svoboda and Right sector, both of which glorify the Nazi legacy of Stepan Bandera and the OUN.

There is continuity: What the historical record suggests is that US intelligence from the “Truman doctrine” to the NeoCons  (not to mention Obama) has supported Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi entities. The latter constitute “intelligence assets” which are currently being deployed in the wake of the Cold war, with a view to absorbing Ukraine within the realm of NATO enlargement as well destabilizing the Russian Federation.

“Massive Casualty Producing Events”. The Killing of Civilians and US Military Doctrine.  Historically, local level insurgencies have been supported by US intelligence.

From the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989) to Syria and Libya, jihadist rebels and Mujahedeen involved in countless civil wars are supported by the CIA, financed and trained by the US and its allies. The objective is to destabilize sovereign countries.

In Syria, the opposition are the Al Qaeda affiliated terror organizations are funded by the Western military alliance.

The atrocities committed by Al Nusrah mercenaries (trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar on behalf of US-NATO) are casually blamed on the government of Bashar Al Assad.

More generally, supported by media disinformation, the deaths of civilians resulting from US sponsored terror operations and “false flags” will invariably be blamed on the victims. Ukraine is no exception.

Media propaganda serves to turn realities upside down. The atrocities committed by Right Sector “Patriots” are barely the object of media coverage. The blame is placed on Moscow and its “pro-Russian separatists”.

Are the atrocities committed in Odessa of a similar nature to those committed by US-NATO sponsored terrorists in Syria?

While Al Nusrah militants are portrayed as “freedom fighters” against the “despotic secular government of Bashar Al Assad”, Right sector Neo-Nazis in Ukraine are portrayed by the Western media as “True Patriots”.

The New Normal: Socializing with Terrorists and Neo-Nazis

John McCain, center, stands with Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok Of significance, Republican Senator John McCain will mingle with Al Qaeda leaders in Syria while also establishing a a routine dialogue with the leader of the Neo-Nazi party Svoboda. Neo-Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok right of Senator McCain

Ukraine vs. Syria: While the geopolitical context is different, there are certain obvious similarities. Innocent civilians are the victims of a US-NATO military which consists in supporting terrorist entities.

John McCain with FSA General Salem Idriss (right of McCain) and Al Qaeda leaders 2 (John McCain with FSA General Salem Idriss (right of McCain) and Al Qaeda leaders)

Ask John McCain. In both countries, the US is in the pursuit of “real democracy” by supporting rather than combating terrorism.

Al Qaeda in Syria, Neo-Nazis in Ukraine.  Its all part of “The New Normal”.

Is US-NATO Applying the “Syria Model” in Ukraine?

Both Al Nusrah and Right Sector have links to US intelligence. In both Syria and Ukraine, Washington’s (Obama’s Adm) intent is to destabilize and destroy the institutions of a sovereign country.

Killing civilians is a means to create social divisiveness, thereby curtailing the development of a mass movement against US-NATO.

What is at stake is a process of destabilization and societal destruction.

From the outset of the conflict in Syria in mid-March 2011, US-NATO sponsored mercenaries were involved in the killing of civilians as well as acts of arson.

Amply documented, Al Qaeda affiliated mercenaries were recruited and trained by the Western military alliance. The paramiliarty agenda was to wreak havoc and enforce a process of regime change.

Al Nusrah is to Syria what Right Sector is to Ukraine. They are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance.  While Al Nusrah is trained in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Right Sector is trained in Poland. In both Ukraine and Syria, Western special forces are involved in overseeing terrorist operations. In both Syria and Ukraine, the deaths of civilians are blamed on the victims.

More “International Community” Photo Ops with Neo Nazi Svoboda Leader Oleh Tyahnybo

nuland-in-ukraine.jpg 2  (U.S. Assistant secretary of State Victoria Nuland with Neo-Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok (left))

Security Policy for the European Union Catherine Ashton and Oleh Tyahnybok (left).  Security Policy for the European Union Catherine Ashton and Oleh Tyahnybok Neo-Nazi Svoboda leader (left).

Ukraine vs. Syria: While the geopolitical context is different, there are certain obvious similarities. Innocent civilians are the victims of a US-NATO military which consists in supporting terrorist entities.

Ask John McCain. In both countries, the US is in the pursuit of “real democracy” by supporting rather than combating terrorism.

Al Qaeda in Syria, Neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

Its all part of “The New Normal”.

Amply documented, Al Qaeda affiliated mercenaries were recruited and trained by the Western military alliance. The paramiliarty agenda was to wreak havoc and enforce a process of regime change.  Al Nusrah is to Syria what Right Sector is to Ukraine. They are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance.

While Al Nusrah is trained in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Right Sector is trained in Poland. In both Ukraine and Syria, Western special forces are involved in overseeing terrorist operations.

In both Syria and Ukraine, the deaths of civilians are blamed on the victims.bombed home and baby carrige ****   Odessa, Ukraine

ukrain burning trade union  Odessa, Ukraine, more than 30 anti-Kiev protesters were burned alive, as a US-backed pro-Kiev mob set fire to the trade union building into which they ran to escape the pro-Kiev crowd. It was the largest loss of life in Ukraine since the US-backed coup in February, The pictures from the scene were ghastly  as desperate protesters tried to claw their way out of the building as they were burned alive. Also ghastly were the photos of the young girls happily making the molotov cocktails that were thrown into the building. More ghastly still, was the US media coverage of the savage event. Even when 25 minutes video available clearly demonstrated what happened in Odessa, clearly demonstrated who was responsible for the incineration of unarmed protesters, the US media all hewed to the State Department line that pointedly refused to pin any blame on the pro-Kiev mob supported by Washington. Said the State Department release:

The events in Odessa that led to the deadly fire in the Trade Union Building dramatically underscore the need for an immediate de-escalation of tensions in Ukraine. The violence and efforts to destabilize the country must end.

Contrast this to US government’s very different position when violence broke out in Kiev in February: even as evidence pointed to much violence committed by the protesters, the US nevertheless blamed the then-Yanukovich government exclusively. Double standards. And the US media was not far behind the State Department in its Odessa spin.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-neo-nazi-government-in-kiev-towards-a-scenario-of-military-escalation/5380384

 http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-fueled-rise-of-Neo-Nazi-by-Ralph-Lopez-Ukraine_Ukraine-140314-152.html

nazi ukraine Oleh Tyahnybok, of Svoboda, gave a speech in which he attacked: “the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine” In another speech he denounced: “the Moskali, Germans, Kikes and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.”

Neo-Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok right of Senator McCain 

Neo-Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahybok right of Senator McCain

Under Obama Handlers the U.S. military presence on Russia’s Central Asian flank is proceeding at a ferocious pace