Bitcoin Forum

The President of the United States Donald trump missile strike on Syria showed Chinese President XI Jinping that the United States is prepared to act independently in the international arena without regard to China and other countries. Trump has ordered the strike on Syria at the very moment when XI was sitting next to him in the White house. It happened in that moment, when the conversation turned to North Korea. When the head of China said Trump, noting that the US cannot attack the DPRK without the knowledge of China. In turn, trump said the Chinese guest: "We are ready to work without you." XI did not believe the American leader. After that, trump gave the order to attack Syria. "He showed si, while he was sitting near, that he is ready to bomb another country without China and with China, that it makes no difference. He acted based on his beliefs of "America first". He will not wait for other countries, and will act in a way that will be beneficial to the United States.

If he did the bombing because of this, then it makes sense. Because nobody believes that Assad used chemical weapons. He's already winning and there is no reason or whatsoever for him to do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9PoRUVviiQ

Sometimes you just need to show who the boss is.

If killing of innocent people is just to prove to x1 that America can bumb any countries without the help of China then I think is evil and wickedness from those who were voted to protect humanity. Though Assad has been against his own people but attack him and his regime because of prove of superiority then is evil.

Nobody said USA is being ruled by saints. There is no evil/holyness when you rule a country. Only profits and losses. Do you think average American people give a fuck about who died in the Middle East? No. They don't care who's dying as long as it's not "them".

USA knows this and because of that they are the most powerful country. USA was founded by criminals deported from the European countries in the end. And as you know, criminals do not have a sense of "empathy".

What's the criminal? When was this? Americans are always fighting the more accurate weapons and ammunition. Victims among the civilian population. Compare the result of American and Russian bombardments in Syria.

And now that's the part where you say, "wot m8 did we use nuclear on Japan? WoW That's crazy "

USA invaded Iraq for no reason. They didn't have any nuclear. They fucked up Egypt, Libya because they didn't want to use USD for their deals. They are fucking up Turkey for more than 50 years. Syria? No reason.

Because they can.

I largely agree with you, but in the case of North Korea I'm on the side of the Americans. I do not care what excuse the Americans will attack North Korea. This regime has no right to possess nuclear weapons. I would go up and Pakistan.

I am no fan of North Korea neither. I agree. I support Trump on this one. But not on Syria.

Kim Jong is a real threat. He is not like Assad in any way. He is a psycho and he needs to be destroyed.

*** I just realized Kim is a real psycho and a threat, USA is most likely to fail against him. Because he is not like the other fake enemies.***

Actually IRAQ INVADED KUWAIT CITY  ;)..First .

Saddam asked kuwait to stop selling there oil so cheap because they could not compete because they only had a city and Iraq had a country to support  

So Iraq invaded KUWAIT and we the west got cheap oil or should i say someone in the west got the business to sell the cheap oil to us westerners..

So we attacked IRAQ after Kuwait lying about babies getting threw out of incubators ..
But all about the money..BUSH MONEY ..

Middle east about the money ..North korea about a nutter getting a nuke bomb..

It's the middle east who are fighting each other over who will sell the oil to the west..
It will always happen until oil is not needed for an energy source ..

I think the chemical weapons was an obvious false flag.

Trump has been accused of being too close to Russia.  He ordered the strike to cause additonal tensions and distance himself from Putin.

[/quote]

That's not why Iraq invaded Kuwait

Iraq claimed (with some justification found later) that Kuwait was slant drilling into their oil fields.  They never said anything about being unable to compete because of country vs. city.

The consensus belief is that the initial invasion was to take the areas that the slant drilling was (allegedly) occurring in, but that due to such poor equipment and organization, many of the divisions marched straight to Kuwait City.

We all know they all call each other up and party the night away..
Those little people will get used to line our pockets..

The moab i was thinking     a bet a little fire cracker pops out  and explodes ..
Yes cost 100 million that rocket :D :D..
You can trick the public with a lying video..Even a human can fly in a video..

Trump to putin yes we sold 5 of those missiles to the little people
Which ones you know the MOAB ones
Putin you mean the BIG MASSIVE ones with the little fire cracker that pops out :D.

Until i see north korea on it's knees i will say all this is a complete lie..

BY THE  Bilderberg Group..
Getting rather spoilt PETER MANDELSON

Notice the DATES..before brexit

16 Mar 2009 - Lord Mandelson is not allowed to criticise the European Union if he wants to keep hold of his £31,000-a-year pension as a former European Commissioner, The Daily Telegraph has learned. ... Lord Mandelson is entitled to the cash because he was the EU's trade commissioner from November .

after Brexit notice the date..

Pro-EU politicians must show courage to oppose Brexit, says Mandelson
https://www.theguardian.com › World › EU referendum and Brexit
19 Feb 2017 - Pro-EU politicians need to show more courage in opposing Brexit, Peter Mandelson has said, as he urged the public to donate in support of .

Peter Benjamin Mandelson, Baron Mandelson PC (born 21 October 1953) is a British Labour ..... In 1999, 2009 and 2011 Mandelson was an invited guest of the Bilderberg Group and attended the annual conferences. In January 2011, it was

6 Jun 2013 - Today, the Bilderberg Group meets in Britain. ... “The abuse is terrible,” said Peter Mandelson, leading the walking party through the throng of .

30 May 2014 - George Osborne, Lord Mandelson, Ed Balls and Eric Schmidt arrive for day ... is "the Prince of Darkness" – Richard Perle and Peter Mandelson


EVERY YEAR PETER MANDELSON IS ALWAYS THERE..

Now we are out this is what he said to other EU members to do the his own country..

Lord Mandelson turning on Britain in the face of Brexit is a low blow ...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/.../trevor-kavanagh-eu-blow-is-low-even-for-lord-mandelson/
4 days ago - Peter Mandelson has turned his back on the UK during Brexit negotiations by urging EU leaders to throw Britain to the wolves.


See it's all about there money going NOT ANYONE ELSE'S BUT THERE FREE RIDE IN LIFE..

We have got to stop politicians from robbing and lining there own pockets..
IT'S GOT TO STOP..

Switzerland have part time politicians ..The people vote all the time on things that matter to the people..

Maybe we should have part time politicians like Switzerland ..They run a good country ..

And also i think all politicians should have only the money they earned from the job they done for the public ..You know for being the leader  no more money they should posses ..

After they leave they can earn what they like.  A book makes you a few bucks..
If been a good leader ;).

That's not why Iraq invaded Kuwait

Iraq claimed (with some justification found later) that Kuwait was slant drilling into their oil fields.  They never said anything about being unable to compete because of country vs. city.
[/quote]Yes it was  ;)..
Kuwait is the second largest source of petroleum in the Middle East and so Iraqi ... "After the 8 year war with Iran over territorial disputes and religious rivalries .... help boost the stock markets by increasing positive activity in the trading of shares. ... supply of cheap oil and the invasion of Kuwait had risen the price of oil along . ;)

Several reasons why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait


Saddam Hussein

War was inevitable in the Gulf and it was a war in which Iraq was inevitability to lose. There were several reasons why this was and became a reality. How, when, where did this process of self destruction begin? It was quite evident that Saddam Hussein. the president of Iraq, was becoming a military giant in the Middle East and therefore a threat to the stability of the entire region. His war with Iran was proof of this. The U.S. and other industrialized Western nations could not risk the loss of oil from the area. Kuwait is the second largest source of petroleum in the Middle East and so Iraqi invasion of Kuwait sent the world oil market into a frenzy. Iraqi forces then gathered their forces on the border with Saudi Arabia, the second largest supplier of oil in the world. This in turn brought the military might of the United States into the conflict.

There are several reasons why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. "After the 8 year war with Iran over territorial disputes and religious rivalries between the Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Sunni factions, Iraq had a massive debt to many Arab nations including Kuwait."2 The rulers of these nations wanted some of their money back but Iraq thought they were ingrates and were ungrateful for defending the Arab emirs from the Iranian Islamic fundamentalism. The Arab emirs were afraid that the Islamic fundamentalists would rise against the government and eventually take over the government as they had Iran against the Shah. Kuwait was also afraid of this and so they supported the Iraqi Arabs against the Iranian Persians.


2 "Iraq",World Book (New York, World Book, 1990), Vol 10, p. 260

The funds that Gulf countries lent to Iraq were used to buy high tech weapons, high tech weapons that made Iraq one of the largest armies in the world and a force to contend with. "Ironically much of the money and weapons came from the countries that united to fight against him."1 The Gulf countries bankrolled him while the Western nations, who had many defense contractors going out of business because of the end of the Cold War, supplied him with the weapons to fight Iran and later Kuwait and the Coalition. With a large army like his, it would be very easy to defeat the far smaller Kuwaiti army compared to his.

1CNN The Gulf War (Video) (Atlanta, CNN News, 75 min., 1991)

Oil had made Kuwait one of the richest and most progressive countries in the world. This desert land is one of the world's leading producers having over one-tenth of the world's known petroleum reserves. "All of this in 20150 square kilometres, a little smaller than the state of New Jersey."3 Kuwait is one of the world's wealthiest nations in terms of national income per person. It has free primary and secondary education, free health and social services and no income tax. There was much to protect. All of this was attractive and irritating to Saddam who would and did use a fraction of his army to attack and invade Kuwait in which it only took the Iraqi army 6 hours to reach the capital city. They had after their invasion about 19% of the world's known oil reserves.

3 "Kuwait",World Book (New York, World Book, 1990), Vol 11, p.354

Historically Iraq had claimed that it had a right to Kuwait. "They were jealous that Kuwait was in control of the two islands needed for a deep water shipping port:the Bubiyan and Warbah islands."4 These islands along with some parts of Kuwait were a part of Mesopotamia which the Ottoman Turks conquered. "The Ottoman Empire was defeated during World War I and the British made their "own lines in the sand", dividing up the land according to their own strategic needs and in the process recklessly dividing up ancient communities and boundaries that had been recognized for decades."1 Most of Mesopotamia became Iraq and some other parts to Kuwait. In 1961, Kuwait became independent and the Iraqis threatened to invade except that British troops kept the peace. This was to be the first of many border skirmishes which include Iraqi missiles fired at Kuwaiti oil installations and the reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq War in which U.S. ships patrolled the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged with U.S. flags.


1CNN The Gulf War (Video) (Atlanta, CNN News, 75 min., 1991)

4AP Press Toronto Star (January 20, 1991) A18

The Iraqi government had also accused the Kuwaitis of stealing 2.5 billion barrels of oil from its Rumaila oil fields by sliding drills into Iraqi oil pipelines. They had also accused Kuwait of exceeding OPEC oil production which had dropped the price of oil from $20 a barrel to $13 a barrel in the first six months of 1990. This meant 1 billion dollars less for Iraq everytime that price of an oil barrel went down by a dollar. Saddam said he would stop them from continuing aggressive action:"The oil quota violators have stabbed Iraq with poison dagger. Iraqis will not forget the saying that cutting necks is better than cutting means of living. O'God almighty, be witness that we have warned them".1 His foreign minister Tariq Aziz later said in a letter to the Arab league that Kuwait is "systematically, deliberately and continuously" harming Iraq by encroaching on its territory, stealing oil, and destroying its economy.1 "Such behaviour amounts to military aggression".1 These were just signs of the Desert Storm to come.


1CNN The Gulf War (Video) (Atlanta, CNN News, 75 min., 1991)

Personally, Saddam Hussein had reasons to want to go to war against the Western nations. He grew up as young boy hating the British for imprisoning the uncle that had cared for him. Later, he joined the Baath Party which was based on a platform of Arab unity and as a member was sent to try to assassinate General Abdul Karim Qasim who they believed to be very friendly with the Western nations. By going to war, he hoped to foster Arab unity against the Western nations, like an Islamic holy war against the "infidels". He also believed that it was his destiny to fulfil the prophecy of ruling an Arab nation stretching from Euphrates to the Suez.

The Western and Gulf nations united together to form a coalition to fight against Iraq that followed the United Nations resolution that Iraq must pull out of Iraq on January 15, 1991. They had several reasons for wanting Iraq out of Kuwait. "The 2 main reasons are the vast amounts oil in the region which account for 53% of the world's known petroleum reserves and the stability of the nations that have the oil."4 The 2 biggest in the region are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The Saudis were afraid that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia just like Kuwait.

4AP Press Toronto Star (February 20, 1991) A16

"The United States depends on Middle East petroleum for about 25% of its energy needs and other Western nations even more on Middle East."4 Many of these nations have very few oil resources and if they did it would cost too much to develop them like the estimated 300 billion barrels of oil in the Alberta and Saskatchewan tar sands. "Other nations like Japan have very few alternative sources for petroleum so they depend greatly on the oil from the Middle East."1 Other sources of power are generally too expensive to be practical or still under development. So any disruption of oil from this region would seriously negatively affect the economies of the Western nations, just as they were slipping into a recession which would not be very good for the leaders of these countries at the ballot box.


1CNN The Gulf War (Video) (Atlanta, CNN News, 75 min., 1991)

4AP Press Toronto Star (January 16, 1991) A15

However going to war or even the real possibility of it would give a big short term boost to the economies of these nations by increasing the price for a barrel of oil which would allow oil companies to make bigger profits and there would be more exploration in North America to discover new sources of oil. This would help boost the stock markets by increasing positive activity in the trading of shares. Also by going to war, it would create jobs in many sectors of the economy from the defense contractors to the service industries down the line.

The main reason that Coalition was formed was to protect the "vital interests" in the often unstable Middle East. "The Middle East had been the source of many of the world's wars after World War II, sometimes almost to point of going nuclear."4 The Arab partners in the Coalition joined the union to prevent what had happened to Kuwait to occur to them. The United States and the other Western partners wanted to ensure a steady supply of cheap oil and the invasion of Kuwait had risen the price of oil along with creating instability in the Middle East. The best way to restore order to the region and create some stability was to force Iraq out of Kuwait and severely weaken his government and military which the Allies were successful in doing.


4AP Press Toronto Star (February 14, 1991) A13

Another reason that has been suggested is that Iraq was permitted to invade Kuwait just to give the U.S. an excuse to attack the Iraqis so that they would no longer be a threat to other countries in the region. This would also make the Arab nations dependent on the Americans for their defense so that they would not try to attempt hostile actions in terms of increasing the cost of the oil to them or limiting the production of petroleum as had been demonstrated by the OPEC nations in the 1970s.

George Herbert Walker Bush also had personal reasons as to why he wanted Iraq to leave Kuwait. As the youngest fighter pilot in the Navy during World War II, he flew in many missions before being shot down. "These missions helped to shape his beliefs that the U.S. should be like a global policeman and Saddam Hussein must be stopped just as Hitler should have been stopped from breaking the conditions of the treaties the Germans signed ending World War I."1 Another reason he felt he had to take military action was that there were American hostages held by the Iraqis after the invasion of Kuwait for a couple of months.


1CNN The Gulf War (Video) (Atlanta, CNN News, 75 min., 1991)

Iraq would lose in the war with the Coalition because "their forces were not as well trained as the Coalition forces, their weapons were technologically inferior, they had no air support and the Coalition forces were well-prepared for moves against them."4 The Iraqi army is mainly composed of draftees, who are not well- trained or equipped. Only the few Republican Guard units that were the elite of the Iraqi army would be any match for the Coalition because the Coalition forces were composed of mainly professional, well-trained volunteers. Also the Iraqi weapons were inferior compared to the Americans. The Iraqis had weapons mainly from the late 1970s to the early 1980s while the Allies had the most- advanced weaponry available including the AWACS system, the Stealth bomber and the Patriot missile. With this, they quickly achieved air and naval superiority over Iraq and Kuwait. The Iraqis had few planes that were of any threat to the Coalition and most of these never faced combat for unknown reasons. This made the Allies job much easier. The Coalition forces were also well-prepared as to the enemies battle tactics as they were Soviet ones which the Americans had studied for the possibility of an invasion of Europe.

4AP Press Toronto Star (January 18, 1991) A14

A Gulf War involving Iraq was unavoidable and in this war Iraq was defeated. The Iraqis were becoming a major military power in the Middle East and therefore a danger to the stability of the whole region. The United States and other industrialized Western nations could not afford the loss of oil from the region and therefore they were very willing to ensure that they continued to receive the oil. The U.N. and U.S. both wanted Iraq to leave but realized that Iraq did not wish to leave and had no intention of doing so unless they were forced out. Neither side wished to back down diplomatically or militarily and with no other useful options available, war was the only option left to the U.S. and her allies. In this war, Iraq would lose because it has inferior weapons, a poorly trained army and the Americans were well prepared for the Iraqi tactics.

Hmm this is interesting to hear. Because from one side its good to see that some president have balls to do what they think its best for there country, but in other hand that could be a problem in cooperation. Some other countries would see that like America are doing things which they want, and no one can tell them not to. That could be the problem, which could start something bad in the future...

That's not why Iraq invaded Kuwait

Iraq claimed (with some justification found later) that Kuwait was slant drilling into their oil fields.  They never said anything about being unable to compete because of country vs. city.

The consensus belief is that the initial invasion was to take the areas that the slant drilling was (allegedly) occurring in, but that due to such poor equipment and organization, many of the divisions marched straight to Kuwait City.
[/quote]Look at the date it was reported..

Iraq Threatens Emirates And Kuwait on Oil Glut - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com/1990/07/18/.../iraq-threatens-emirates-and-kuwait-on-oil-glut.html
18 Jul 1990 - President Hussein charged that the oil production policies of Kuwait and the United ... seeking to obtain cheap oil and harm Iraq, among other nations. ...

Always about the money in the middle east ;D

I searched the net but I did not find something about the actions of Tramp like the OP was claimed. If there is some source such as a web link so as to read it would be good to inform us. Although I consider that Trump is unpredictable it is difficult to believe that he thought to proceed in this action because he would like to convince the Chinese president that USA will act alone with N.Korea without asking China's permission.

lol so OP is saying that Trump wanted tot show the Chinese premier that he has balls and doesn't even think of people's opinion.And is ready to go solo on international issues if be it

Why not. Who it becomes? You? Obama was weak and many people began to think that America is a bubble. Now they have the opportunity to make sure that it is not.

I fully agree with your words, because the US president should be firm in his decisions and be capable of more, incredible actions. Was Bush and now Trump.

Who didn't know that the Republicans would "wag the dog" once they got into office? They start wars every time they are elected. It is an easy read! There WILL BE WAR; mark my words. Syria was just the beginning.

It seems to me that you are really right about the war. It will be, because the corresponding politician has come to power. Obama would not have done this, which Trump is already doing.

Personally I of anything bad do not see this. If the whole world is afraid and says nothing, then someone needs to show their strength and to destroy a dictator who threatens the world with nuclear war. If this is not done now then it will be even more death and destruction.

I think that Trump wanted to achieve a specified goal with that move, and im sure it is in the interest of the United States goverment.
However I dont think we can justify bombing independent countries just to show or proove something to the leader of other country.
Politics should be made without usage of force or army, but unfortunately, in modern times we can see that the goverments are trying to overcome each other in arming themselves.

Im really concerned about current both political and military situation all over the globe, I think that the latest news just dont give us anything we should be happy about.

I was disappointed not because he attacked Syria, but because he went back on his promises Check these tweets:

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Trump-tweet-Syria.jpg

https://m.elitestatic.com/m/2281d58a2011a5bb/Trump-Syria-tweet.jpg

There are a lot of people who voted for Donald Trump because they though that he was not as war-crazy as Hillary (he also claimed that he is against foreign military interventions). They are going to be very disappointed with his latest actions.

Maybe you were mistaken. I, for example, see several threats to the world, and therefore there must be someone who is able to respond without talking.

Yeah, that doesn't sound stable.

But it's just the OP's imagination. We don't know the real reasons.

So many fat people there.

Are you aware of that NK offered peace terms twice to Obama and once to Trump and also offered halting their nuke program in exchange for suspending the US/SK/Jap military exercises on their borders? Of course they were instantly turned down every time. Just Google it.

If Iran and the DPRK succeeds in building nuclear weapons (It seems to me that the North Koreans have already succeeded in doing it), then the blame must fall on the United States. The arrogance of the Americans is the reason why more and more countries are pursuing nuclear ambition now.

Well, if you have nukes and something what can take it to US soil, then even the US will politely knock on your door instead of kicking it in and bringing you love, freedom, democracy in 500 lbs packages (or sometimes 21600 lbs packages if their Viagra stock running low). So yes, having nukes and rockets is a lucrative option for everyone who have natural resources what the US might need, I guess.

I would not be surprised if you help them with Russian. I think that America needs to act differently. Any country should know that as soon as she appears nuclear ambitions, she immediately becomes a target for America. Evil is easier when it is still small. Then maybe wanting to develop nuclear weapons will be less.

All i see from this tweets is that he was against bombing Syria in that moment, and maybe he was right. That tweets doesn't prove anything, because best thing in one moment does not necessarily mean it is bast option for ever. After some time situation change, and new measures are demanded. Its simple as that. But that, only they knows.

If that was the case, then the Americans must have attacked Pakistan many decades back. Pakistan is a rogue nation, and they have dozens of nuclear weapons now. And also, why did the Americans attacked Iraq and Libya? These nations were not planning to make nuclear weapons.

Not in a hurry. These countries are still ahead. I don't know 100%, but can be American policy will be directed towards reduction of nuclear weapons. Once it is impossible to negotiate so will wreck the economy of these countries. Russia is second in line.

LOL, I nevered considered this, but you have a point. NK is kind of resource batren, I believe we get rare earths from them. But, a deterrent is a deterrent; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But with that being said, nukes where a can of worms we should have never opened, as humans. For the collateral damage this technology causes, nukes should be banned across the board. But this won't happen; I'm a realist ;) no way US or Russia is lowering the gun first.

All the super-powers should negotiate among themselves to bring down the number of nuclear weapons. What is the point in having thousands of nukes, when just a few hundred can make our planet uninhabitable for the next 1 million years? These nuclear warheads must be decommissioned and converted in to nuclear fuel for the reactors.

Republicans start wars so that they can increase their wealth. War is a tool that the Republicans utilize to increase their profits. They are not humanitarians and they do not care about anything else but money. Republican's do not want peace-they want war!

It will not lead to solving the problem with nuclear weapons. What do you care if these countries will reduce the number of weapons capable of 5 times to destroy the earth to such a level that it will last for 2-3 times. Still they are dangerous for the planet, but they don't completely reduce.

Any reduction in the number of nuclear warheads is welcome. There is no chance of a complete eradication of the nukes, at least by the United States, Russia and China. So we will go for something which is practicable.