Hiring Bolton a betrayal to trump base

[irosie91]

like i said , the 'norks' and iranians and maybe other enemies need to be reined in and The Trump and Bolton may be the guys to do that reining in RSHer .

So, the way Bolton and trump have been aiming, they wanted to have a military strike on North Korea. And, the experts (primarily Generals) say that with no doubt we will end up with over 100,000 south koreans and american military losing their lives. So, got it. You do not mind killing thousands.
An Iranian war, contrary to what the Trumpster and bolton say, would be a huge mistake, with tens of thousands or more american soldiers losing their lives. We would win, but our soldiers would loose their lives by the thousands.
Now, that is well known. Look it up, if you can use google. Or find some impartial sources who believe that it would result in very few american deaths.

"tens of thousands" ?? what else is new? hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and
Iranians were dead before we got there. Saddam should have gotten a bullet in his head in 1965 Papa Assad in 1971 <<<<<<< would have saved the
lives of at least a million

 

[pismoe]

I personally think that Trump wants a war in the worst kind of way. He wants to go down in the history books as a war time president that led the US to victory. It will be the best victory in the long history of victories. Nobody does war like Trump does war....


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

-------------------------------- i don't think that he'd start a war for grins . Then again if he fights a needed war against the 'norks' or 'iranians' so as to stop their nuke and nuke delivery and missile reentry development then that that'd probably be ok with me . I mean , who wants the 'norks or 'iranians' to have 'nukes' that can destroy the USA . Why allow them the ability to nuke the USA GGator .

Not for grins, for ego. Ego drives everything Trump does.

If you think that Iran or NK could destroy the US, even with nukes you must shit yourself every time you think about Russia or China.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again, science says conservatives are afraid. And they respond well to nut cases like Bolton, who is always telling them they are in danger, and need to go to war. That is, as long as he is not involved in the killing.

------------------------------------------------- you are silly , got nothing to do with fear , as far as i am concerned its simply making the enemy , iran and the 'norks' for example kiss American azz as they are forced to knuckle under and Bolton and The Trump might be the guys to do that work RSHer .

You are the one that broached the idea of Iran of NK destroying America, not me.

---------------------------------------- well if i did , all i mean is the delivering of nukes to some target , probably a big city in the USA and thats not a good thing and it would mess up the entire USA . And then there is 'emp' which would really mess up , might destroy the USA for years and years in the future GGator .

 

[mudwhistle]

Trump supporters literally will accept ANYTHING he does at this point. ANYTHING. And they'll act like it's the best thing to.

For **** sake, his daughter Ivanka is acting as Sec. of State with the meeting with South Korea. No a ******* peep about that.

Imagine if Chelsea Clinton was acting as Sec. of State. There would be 37 threads about it already.

Obama supporters accepted espionage, murder, and money laundering.

 

[pismoe]

like i said , the 'norks' and iranians and maybe other enemies need to be reined in and The Trump and Bolton may be the guys to do that reining in RSHer .

So, the way Bolton and trump have been aiming, they wanted to have a military strike on North Korea. And, the experts (primarily Generals) say that with no doubt we will end up with over 100,000 south koreans and american military losing their lives. So, got it. You do not mind killing thousands.
An Iranian war, contrary to what the Trumpster and bolton say, would be a huge mistake, with tens of thousands or more american soldiers losing their lives. We would win, but our soldiers would loose their lives by the thousands.
Now, that is well known. Look it up, if you can use google. Or find some impartial sources who believe that it would result in very few american deaths.

--------------------------------------- volunteer USA Military is designed to fight wars despite unavoidable War Time casualties RSHer .

 

[rshermn]

Bolton was a great choice.

The guy that said Saddam had WMD's?

The guy that stopped a European deal with Iran in early 2000's, when Iran only had a couple of antiquated centrifuges spinning, and because of that they ended up with thousands of modern centrifuges spinning?

The guy who wanted to bomb a suspected chemical weapons lab in Cuba, that turned out to be a meningitis medical center?

The guy that wanted to do a first strike on North Korea?

That guy?

------------------------------------------ might happen , see the success of the Israelis strike on the 'iraqi' nuke program / reactor , back in the 90s , or was it the 80s Skews ??

Here is the Iran best guess. But as a con troll, I am sure you will not believe it. Better to simply believe con talking points.

"Regime change is unlikely to succeed, and is more likely to exacerbate the problems it was designed to solve.

First, any attack against Iran will likely trigger a nationalist backlash, making the public more supportive of the regime in the short term. An attack would also enable the regime to install more draconian social and economic controls. These controls might generate backlash over time, but counterrevolution is by no means certain.

Second, the United States lacks broad international support for a campaign of regime change. Even allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel would likely blanch at the long-term costs that the war would create. Neither Russia nor China would support the war at all, and both would likely intervene in ways designed to ease the pressure on Tehran. Europeans would react with heavy public disapproval, eventually forcing even sympathetic leaders in France and the U.K. to distance themselves from Washington.

Third, it is unclear how such a military intervention would end. The U.S. lacks the international support to undertake the sort of militarized containment that is used against Iraq during the 1990s. International sympathy for Iran would only increase over time, a fact that Iran’s leaders surely understand. If the Islamic Republic didn’t not collapse, the U.S. would eventually have to either admit defeat or open the door to dangerous escalation.

On the upside, even if the campaign failed to dislodge the Tehran government, it could cause significant long-term damage to Iran’s military, economic and scientific infrastructure, setting back Tehran’s military ambitions in the region. This outcome is probably most amenable to US allies in the Middle East, who don’t worry overmuch about the prospect of committing the United States to an open-ended military conflict with Iran.

Regime change might work, but there’s little good reason to believe the chances of such are high. A war would incur serious costs on Iran, but would also commit the United States to the destruction of the Islamic Republic, a process that could take decades, if it succeeds at all."
What a War between Iran and America Would Actually Look Like

Human costs are over 1Million.

 

[RDD_1210]

Trump supporters literally will accept ANYTHING he does at this point. ANYTHING. And they'll act like it's the best thing to.

For **** sake, his daughter Ivanka is acting as Sec. of State with the meeting with South Korea. No a ******* peep about that.

Imagine if Chelsea Clinton was acting as Sec. of State. There would be 37 threads about it already.

Obama supporters accepted espionage, murder, and money laundering.

The world you live in is such a bizarre and twisted place.

 

[irosie91]

what "war" ? sanctions ----not war

 

[charwin95]

Bolton, dumb as a rock.

Dingle boy hired Bolton because he is a YES man. That is what this dingle boy is used to when running his business.
Anyone that disagrees with him is a goner.
Any one that wants to go to war just because of this dingle boy is just so pricking unbelievable.

 

[pismoe]

Bolton was a great choice.

The guy that said Saddam had WMD's?

The guy that stopped a European deal with Iran in early 2000's, when Iran only had a couple of antiquated centrifuges spinning, and because of that they ended up with thousands of modern centrifuges spinning?

The guy who wanted to bomb a suspected chemical weapons lab in Cuba, that turned out to be a meningitis medical center?

The guy that wanted to do a first strike on North Korea?

That guy?

------------------------------------------ might happen , see the success of the Israelis strike on the 'iraqi' nuke program / reactor , back in the 90s , or was it the 80s Skews ??

Here is the Iran best guess. But as a con troll, I am sure you will not believe it. Better to simply believe con talking points.

"Regime change is unlikely to succeed, and is more likely to exacerbate the problems it was designed to solve.

First, any attack against Iran will likely trigger a nationalist backlash, making the public more supportive of the regime in the short term. An attack would also enable the regime to install more draconian social and economic controls. These controls might generate backlash over time, but counterrevolution is by no means certain.

Second, the United States lacks broad international support for a campaign of regime change. Even allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel would likely blanch at the long-term costs that the war would create. Neither Russia nor China would support the war at all, and both would likely intervene in ways designed to ease the pressure on Tehran. Europeans would react with heavy public disapproval, eventually forcing even sympathetic leaders in France and the U.K. to distance themselves from Washington.

Third, it is unclear how such a military intervention would end. The U.S. lacks the international support to undertake the sort of militarized containment that is used against Iraq during the 1990s. International sympathy for Iran would only increase over time, a fact that Iran’s leaders surely understand. If the Islamic Republic didn’t not collapse, the U.S. would eventually have to either admit defeat or open the door to dangerous escalation.

On the upside, even if the campaign failed to dislodge the Tehran government, it could cause significant long-term damage to Iran’s military, economic and scientific infrastructure, setting back Tehran’s military ambitions in the region. This outcome is probably most amenable to US allies in the Middle East, who don’t worry overmuch about the prospect of committing the United States to an open-ended military conflict with Iran.

Regime change might work, but there’s little good reason to believe the chances of such are high. A war would incur serious costs on Iran, but would also commit the United States to the destruction of the Islamic Republic, a process that could take decades, if it succeeds at all."
What a War between Iran and America Would Actually Look Like

Human costs are over 1Million.

--------------------------------------------------------- [best GUESS eh] Million dead and Who would they be ?? i quickly looked over your post concerning costs if 'iran' was to be attacked . Looks to me that the backlash would be in 'iran' and thats a good place for it . And the last thing i care about is 'international' support for anything that the USA decides to do RSHer !!

 

[pismoe]

hey Charwin , where ya been Sir ??

 

[pismoe]

and all i see is a few well placed bunker busters and maybe some small theatre nukes on a regular basis plus crippling Sanctions but it will be the Trump and Boltons decision RSHer !!

 

[JimH52]

‘Despite Trump campaign promises US is wohrld policeman again’

The Liar in Chief is at it again....

Relying on Russian propaganda. Lol. At least you have come out of the closet. The rest of the libs need to come out.

Really, maybe you should stop posting and find a new hobby. This is not, me boy, russian propaganda. It is simply how the thinking people of the world see trump. Sorry, you are not a thinking person. You do not get to play.

RT is directed by the Kremlin. Keep pushing their agenda like a good little marxist.

So, I have no idea why you are referencing RT. I know what RT is, me boy. And as such, I never use it as a reference. Period. Perhaps it is something you saw when your head was up your ass.

Lol. You are my *****. I own you.

You could be a trump speech writter! Cool!

 

[pismoe]

seems to me that its you lefties that are in FEAR RSHer !!

 

[JimH52]

Yes, indeed, if you could construct a sentence that is close to readable, I may comment on it. But thanks for trying, me poor con troll.

Right. You're so high above that you can't climb down so low to talk to me. It seems your whole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

Perhaps you should look at your own grammar before you address my grammar again.

Again, thanks for offering your opinion. My observation is that you are a simple con troll. And truth is of no interest to you.
So far, my grammar is fine. But thanks for your concern. I will keep it in mind. Me boy.

And there he was: reigning supreme at number two.

I see. You lefties have the same answer for everything, or you're reading the same cue cards.

Your observation is nothing but your opinion. It's funny that you don't approve me having one.

No problem, me boy. But if you are posting an unsupported opinion, provide a link.
My observation is an observation, having lived through the W regime. And that observation is supported by pretty much all that were familiar with Bolton, So, it really needed no link, and was easy to verify if you knew how to use Google. Here are a couple of independent (look up that word) that discuss his issues:

No, I am not concerned about your grammar, just pointing to your hypocrisy of correcting mine, while giving pass to your own.
Which translates to "I looked but could not find a grammar problem." Because, me boy, I seldom have grammar errors.

And last, I am interested in truth, but you have not provided any. Except that you are leftist shill, but that was obvious from the first post. Shitstain.

What I said, me boy, was absolutely true. I did not think anyone would be stupid enough to challenge what I said. But then, I forgot about you. So, for you here are a couple links. From unbiased sources, as promised:
John Bolton on: bombing Iran, North Korea, Russia and the Iraq War
John Bolton on: bombing Iran, North Korea, Russia and the Iraq War - CNNPolitics


Why John Bolton Couldn't Get Confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Why John Bolton Couldn't Get Confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

So, there you go, me boy. Not my opinion, but facts backed up by actual impartial sources. See the difference, me boy?

Time & CNN are in no way impartial, me boy.

Those pesky facts....they bother you....

 

[JimH52]

John Bolton, Trump’s ultra-hawkish new national security adviser, explained

Bolton took the hardest of possible lines. He forcefully argued that Iraq had WMDs — “we are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction,” as he put in one 2002 speech. After Bush’s 2002 State of the Union speech connecting North Korea, Iraq, and Iran as an “axis of evil,” Bolton insisted that this wasn’t just rhetoric — that there was ‘’a hard connection between these regimes — an ‘axis’ along which flow dangerous weapons and dangerous technology.’’
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The irony is trump appointed a person who was one of the architects of the WMD claim in Iraq. The same WMD claim that trump has slammed over and over. He laughs at the insolence of the W administration as they manufactured the WMD claim. Yet....here he is appointing Bolton....the very person who cherry picked the data to enable us to go to war. He is licking his chops now as he looks at NK and Iran.

Sadly he has a narcissistic sociopath in charge who can be persuaded to do anything just from being told his hair looks nice. This is chemistry for a disaster...hold onto your hats.

Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction------as does Assad.. The proof
is THE MASS MURDER enacted by both. -----interestingly----assault rifles
are also being called "weapons of mass destruction"------because they are.
For those out there who have been ASSAULTED by the islamo-Nazi shit lickers------NO "WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTON" IS NOT A SYNONYM FOR
ATOMIC BOMB. At no point did either Bush or Bolton claim that Iraq had
ATOMIC BOMBS

They were old stuff that wasn't even usable....the war was a sham....ask your so called president....or you new NS advisor. Just stop showing your stupidity....

 

[rshermn]

like i said , the 'norks' and iranians and maybe other enemies need to be reined in and The Trump and Bolton may be the guys to do that reining in RSHer .

So, the way Bolton and trump have been aiming, they wanted to have a military strike on North Korea. And, the experts (primarily Generals) say that with no doubt we will end up with over 100,000 south koreans and american military losing their lives. So, got it. You do not mind killing thousands.
An Iranian war, contrary to what the Trumpster and bolton say, would be a huge mistake, with tens of thousands or more american soldiers losing their lives. We would win, but our soldiers would loose their lives by the thousands.
Now, that is well known. Look it up, if you can use google. Or find some impartial sources who believe that it would result in very few american deaths.

--------------------------------------- volunteer USA Military is designed to fight wars despite unavoidable War Time casualties RSHer .

Of course they are. That is a rally stupid and simplistic post.
However, politicians and the public, unlike stupid con trolls, are not interested in hundreds of thousands of deaths of the military. Who are, me boy, MADE UP OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS. Dipshit.

 

[pismoe]

USA Taxpayers fund a volunteer military to fight , kill , destroy things when WAR is needed RSHer .

 

[rshermn]

like i said , the 'norks' and iranians and maybe other enemies need to be reined in and The Trump and Bolton may be the guys to do that reining in RSHer .

Right. Two Vietnam era chicken hawks, Two, Vietnam Era Draft Dodgers. Yup, cons love the ignorant chicken hawks. Perfect.

 

[rshermn]

USA Taxpayers fund a volunteer military to fight , kill , destroy things when WAR is needed RSHer .

Again, the Taxpayers do not like hundreds of thousands of their kids being killed in a stupid war and those same taxpayers will want that war like a turd in a punchbowl.

 

[rshermn]

like i said , the 'norks' and iranians and maybe other enemies need to be reined in and The Trump and Bolton may be the guys to do that reining in RSHer .

So, the way Bolton and trump have been aiming, they wanted to have a military strike on North Korea. And, the experts (primarily Generals) say that with no doubt we will end up with over 100,000 south koreans and american military losing their lives. So, got it. You do not mind killing thousands.
An Iranian war, contrary to what the Trumpster and bolton say, would be a huge mistake, with tens of thousands or more american soldiers losing their lives. We would win, but our soldiers would loose their lives by the thousands.
Now, that is well known. Look it up, if you can use google. Or find some impartial sources who believe that it would result in very few american deaths.

"tens of thousands" ?? what else is new? hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and
Iranians were dead before we got there. Saddam should have gotten a bullet in his head in 1965 Papa Assad in 1971 <<<<<<< would have saved the
lives of at least a million

Yup, and how popular was the war in iraq, me boy. So, how bad does being stupid hurt, dipshit. Because a war with Iran is expected to be multiple times as bad, both cost in dollars and lives.