Topic: Trump: safe zones for syria; imminent us-russian war? (Read 3329 times)

I don't know about the Russians, but it is crystal clear that Clinton received massive support from the 'Davos Man' types that I alluded to.  Thankfully it was not enough.  McCain, along with Ryan, are also recently rumored to have been a beneficiary of support originating from Soros-land.  That would explain a lot.  Notably both Clinton and McCain are finally permanently and irreparably damaged here in the U.S., but it sure took a while!

If the disruptive Russian politicians you mention are similarly corrupted, hopefully they'll be identified and run out on a rail as well.  Especially if the growth of citizen-driven information gathering and analytical thesis can persist.  That will be an area of conflict going forward I think, and I think there is a fair chance that 'we' will win this struggle.  Or at least have enough 'surges' to stay in the fight.

As far as I can see, most of the rivalry between Russia and the United States is caused as a result of inflammatory rhetoric from the politicians from both sides. I am not just referring to the American politicians such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton, but also to the Russian extremists, such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Alexander Belov.

I understand, but it is relatively new concept and I think in future price will be lower. I hope so.

If Russia and the U.S. both have the goal of remaining sovereign and independent nations (or re-achieving that mode as the case may be) then they do have interests which coincide.  If there are 'Davos Man' type people and groups who seek to integrate the two nations...or get them to mutually destroy one another for strategic reasons...then the two nations might recognize a common enemy.

Well.... don't use the word "never". Always there will be some sector, in which two persons can have joint interests. For example, both Trump and Putin are interested in the eradication of the ISIS. So for now, they can simply ignore the issues in which they are against each other, and concentrate on these issues.

Never Trump and Putin do not get along with each other. America's interests do not coincide with the interests of Russia. How tiger can get along with the kid? It is not possible. Russia is an enemy of America.

Trump and Putin going to get along fine.

Hillary Clinton is not in God agenda for united states of American(usa). Donald Trump is getting it right with the Russian because God is behind him. Putin keep on saying something that the world keep turning their ears against, he said " IsIs is been funding by 40 countries and some of those countries are G20 members. Trump is seen the elites as the major curses of the problems the world is facing today and those elites are benefiting from chaos around the world including Syria.

To me 'safe zones' means exactly 'Kurdistan' that has been in planning and implementation phase as part of 'A Better Middle East' from the early GW Bush timeframe.  If Trump goes through with it (rather than getting us the fuck out of the Middle East and 'foreign entanglements' generally) it will tell me quite clearly that at least in this way he is in lock step with the Cheney -> Obama -> Clinton  long-term plan.  And I won't be a happy camper about it.

---

An interesting dynamic here is that Russia and Iran are natural adversaries.  They both have fossil fuel supplies for Europe.  Russia's interest is to NOT have pipelines which will compete with their own (meaning they exercise an element of control over those which do cross Syria (or the 'safe zones' which used to be part of Syria.)  Iran would probably not be broken-hearted to see us and Russia slugging it out somewhere.  Russia would not be broken-hearted to see us bombing the shit out of Iran...and, of course, we're nearly under direct orders from Israel to do just that.  All of us would be lucky to come out of any such conflicts without big chunks of the world being vaporized.

As far as I'm concerned, we've got enough fossil fuel right here at home to MAGA thanks to fracking and such.  And plenty to focus on in doing so.  I would like to get the fuck out of the M.E. and forget that the place exists.  If Russia wants to leverage their friendship with Syria and gouge Europe for gas, that's fine with me.  The EU has already fatally fucked Europe up already and in the process taught us all a valuable lesson in the dangers of 'globalism' and what the Technocracy has in store for the planet.

As for Israel/Iran, as far as I'm concerned there is only one country that SHOULD get nukes and that is Iran.  After the decades of very serious threats they've had lobed at them, mostly driven by Israel, they sorely need a way to defend themselves.  The only risk I see to Israel who already have 100's of nukes is that their Zionist 'greater Israel' dreams may be dealt a blow and they won't be able to expand their genocide.  Oh well.  Not my problem.  If a bunch of the Zionists in this country (e.g., Chuck Schumer) go down to Pedogate and Israeli control of our government/media/monetary_system/etc loses it's punch as their compromised puppets in our govt get rolled up, fantastic!  Jeff Sessions as AG just happened and there is a very real chance that this could happen.  Maybe even starting tomorrow!

I personally feel that the safe-zones are for the better of the people in the country of Syria, the people know that there is a crisis ongoing and that it is completely necessary to safeguard the innocent citizens in such a horrible war.


Do you really believe Trump is an idiot though if he was elected President of the United States? This is someone who fought off the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the News Establishments, Celebrities, and so on to get to where he is today. I would go ahead and say Trump is far from idiotic, something big is being planned to save Syria I fully trust Donald Trump in regard to that.

Also I highly doubt with all the scrutiny from the media he'll be as flip flopity as he was on the campaign trail, at least he's not that pancake Mitt Romney right?

Stop with the conspiracy theories. All tech when released comes with prohibitive prices, remember an LCD to cost near 5K?
But other brands are jumping in, still a bit too expensive, but you've Nissan Leaf, BMW i3 and i8, Renault ZOE... actually BMW is trying to end non-electric cars by the next decade.

But, yeah, so far is just for rich people. Not only you need a load of money but also you need a house to support the car. How can you recharge it if you live on a flat?

The Tesla cars also cost so much more than regular cars. Plus if you want to buy one you have to pre-order and wait for it to be built. I think this is by design and the only way the big oil companies will allow Tesla to make electric cars. More expensive and only available to people who already have a car and can throw another 80K at a new car while they wait for a year to get it.. Rich people..

Want to upset you. Tesla is not a perfect car. It is expensive, the cost of a ride this car is not cheaper than driving a traditional internal combustion engine. Until I see real electric vehicles that can compete with traditional cars.

I was always surprised why we still don't drive electro cars, seems like huge oil corporations prevented development of vehicles like these. I want to believe that Tesla cars are our future, they're not harmful for environment and not expensive in charging. I support the philosophy of harmonious world development ( http://planetaryproject.com/planet_project/philosophy/ ) without contaminating the world we live in.

I do not own a battery manufactory or researcher... and they don't want to make it OpenSource. 

I agree. But I do not see anyone led the development of batteries which would not be very costly and rapidly recharged. Where such development? It seems to me that you need not to wait but to help.

But may bold claims are still unproved.
Tesla cars autonomy, despite being outstanding to concurrence, aren't that impressive... and where do you think they take energy to their power chargers? let's give time to time, instead of using fallacies, right?

However, as far as I know their project Tesla is developing very successfully and at the moment their car can do in the city without gasoline and diesel fuel. Moreover, their cars have good characteristics. Maybe there not lying?

Have him show the power production in Watts, his company is filled up with bold claims that remain unproved.
Salesman speech can be motivative, but doesn't prove a thing.

I saw Elon musk showed the shingles which cover the roof and it produces so much energy that the house does not require additional connection to the power source. Is this ceramic tile cheaper.