U.S. Politics

[magnkarl]

There's two countries in the world that are currently the laughing stock of the rest due to their leaders. One is the US the other is us. I had the pleasure of listening to my staunch labour supporter friend laughing at how sad the state of America is in the pub yesterday. When I asked him if he considers how shit our current state of affairs is he sort of went defensive and angry. We can laugh about the US all day every day, but our politicians are at the same level or even worse than Trump. How can we have a two party system where both parties are as useless as we're currently seeing - it's unbelievable.

At least the US only has one buffoon on top, we've got two full front benches of buffoons with the Maybot and Corbster running the !¤!"#show that is UK politics.

Trump got into office partly because politicians have lost trust and belief amongst the populace - I don't even want to consider the damage our two party leaders are doing to the trust in politicians in our country. The fact that people like Farage can get a foothold in our political world again just shows how inept and idiotic our leaders are.

[HanoiVillan]

59 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The fact that people like Farage can get a foothold in our political world again just shows how inept and idiotic our leaders are.

Whether you think our leaders are 'inept and idiotic' or not, no amount of *trying harder at leadership* would magically give politicians with diametrically opposed opinions the same opinions. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Did you read the engineers' report?  They say the only plausible explanation is that the cylinders were placed there by people, not delivered by aircraft.  What's baffling about that?

The baffling thing, again, is that Russia made no mention of there being chlorine gas cylinders at the location of the attack/ staged attack. 

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Whether you think our leaders are 'inept and idiotic' or not, no amount of *trying harder at leadership* would magically give politicians with diametrically opposed opinions the same opinions. 

Some semblance of basic competence and honesty would be nice. This also applies to the US situation

[villakram]

As of today, we now have 22 entrants in the democratic presidential circus with a guy from Montana throwing his hat in the ring. What fun.

Edited May 14, 2019 by villakram

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, villakram said:

As of today, we now have 22 entrants in the democratic presidential circus with a guy from Montana throwing his hat in the ring. What fun.

Such a pointless exercise. That bloke from Montana is the Democrats only shot at winning a Senate seat there (he's won statewide races before), but for some reason he prefers to vie with various other no-names to finish 18th or 19th in the presidential primary. 

They're all going to be obliterated by dismal Joe Biden anyway. The whole race has 'catastrophe' written through it like a stick of rock. 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

The baffling thing, again, is that Russia made no mention of there being chlorine gas cylinders at the location of the attack/ staged attack. 

Actually they did, when inviting OPCW to inspect what seemed to be a weapons production facility containing things including cylinders similar to those found at the scene of the alleged attack.  Though I don't know if they identified them as having contained chlorine.

But what bearing does that have on things?  The issue is that the OPCW appears to have suppressed evidence contradicting claims of a chemical attack, claims which were used as a pretext for escalating US action, and increasing US involvement very shortly after Trump had said he was pulling out of Syria (the timing of course is not a coincidence).

This is a very big, very significant piece of news.  Has it been reported much in our media?  I've been out a lot and haven't seen a great deal beyond twitter.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

what bearing does that have on things? 

I don't know what bearing the failure of the Russians to mention the two cylinders has on things. I mean, either there was a genuine attack, or a faked one - right?

If there was a genuine attack, then there would be motive for pretending there was no evidence of such an attack, so that might explain why they said there was no evidence. On the other hand if Russia and Syria are innocent of any attack, why wouldn't they mention "there's evidence of a faked attack, we found two cylinders placed to look like a bombing had taken place..."  - this is the thing that I said "baffled me".

1 hour ago, peterms said:

This is a very big, very significant piece of news.  Has it been reported much in our media?

It's been reported about as much as the original OPCW report verdict - i.e. not at all (as far as I know). Maybe Trump, Brexit, Royal baby etc has distracted our "truth seeking" media. I was surprised the original report was not covered, and now a website claims a leaked memo - we don't know if it's genuine - there's been no OPCW denial [edit, there has - they say he's never been part of the FFM. Your blogger's argument with that is a circular one - the FFM needed a permit, and as he was a member of it, he must have had permission it clearly doesn't hang if he wasn't a member ]. There's been no "whistle blower" testimony, which I find surprising.

It's all a bit baffling to me. I'd like to know what's gone on, but it's not being covered and it's not possible to reliably ascertain the validity of anything basically. I'd say we're being let down.

And as an addendum, the OPCW report and all the contributors to it, the inspectors (FFM) and subsequent analysts etc - if the whole thing was a load of bunkum, made up, lies - then I'd feel that with a multi-national team we'd be seeing more than a single (alleged) leaked paper covering one aspect of the investigation - the modelling of trajectories - being brought to our attention. And if the OPCW is as some people claim repeatedly deceiving us with false reports and verdicts, then I feel it would be almost certain that this would now have come outdone way or another.

The scientists, investigators etc. working for the OPCW - I mean are they ALL somehow under the corrupt influence of the US/UK/France, prepared to lie and deceive, to break their honesty and dedication and professionalism? All these folks from countries with no player in the game, politically. It would seem doubtful. Surely we'd be getting more "leaks"? The name on the leaked report is an Ian Henderson. A south african with the name I Henderson worked for the OPCW 21 years ago - the OPCW says this leaked report author has never worked for them. Same person and they're lying, or different person? Why only one name on the leaked report? and to me, more dubiously why no job title? - most docs would have a job title with the name, wouldn't they - they all do at our place, drafts and finals - "J.Bloggs, Chief Investigator", or whatever.

Apart from this one alleged leaked paper, covered by Russian propaganda outlet, Sputnik, and your Russian sympathetic bloggers with an agenda. Of course they might have uncovered or been handed evidence of essentially corrupt reporting by the OPCW. Perhaps more will come forward?

Curious.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Such a pointless exercise. That bloke from Montana is the Democrats only shot at winning a Senate seat there (he's won statewide races before), but for some reason he prefers to vie with various other no-names to finish 18th or 19th in the presidential primary. 

They're all going to be obliterated by dismal Joe Biden anyway. The whole race has 'catastrophe' written through it like a stick of rock. 

 

[villakram]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't know what bearing the failure of the Russians to mention the two cylinders has on things. I mean, either there was a genuine attack, or a faked one - right?

If there was a genuine attack, then there would be motive for pretending there was no evidence of such an attack, so that might explain why they said there was no evidence. On the other hand if Russia and Syria are innocent of any attack, why wouldn't they mention "there's evidence of a faked attack, we found two cylinders placed to look like a bombing had taken place..."  - this is the thing that I said "baffled me".

It's been reported about as much as the original OPCW report verdict - i.e. not at all (as far as I know). Maybe Trump, Brexit, Royal baby etc has distracted our "truth seeking" media. I was surprised the original report was not covered, and now a website claims a leaked memo - we don't know if it's genuine - there's been no OPCW denial [edit, there has - they say he's never been part of the FFM. Your blogger's argument with that is a circular one - the FFM needed a permit, and as he was a member of it, he must have had permission it clearly doesn't hang if he wasn't a member ]. There's been no "whistle blower" testimony, which I find surprising.

It's all a bit baffling to me. I'd like to know what's gone on, but it's not being covered and it's not possible to reliably ascertain the validity of anything basically. I'd say we're being let down.

And as an addendum, the OPCW report and all the contributors to it, the inspectors (FFM) and subsequent analysts etc - if the whole thing was a load of bunkum, made up, lies - then I'd feel that with a multi-national team we'd be seeing more than a single (alleged) leaked paper covering one aspect of the investigation - the modelling of trajectories - being brought to our attention. And if the OPCW is as some people claim repeatedly deceiving us with false reports and verdicts, then I feel it would be almost certain that this would now have come outdone way or another.

The scientists, investigators etc. working for the OPCW - I mean are they ALL somehow under the corrupt influence of the US/UK/France, prepared to lie and deceive, to break their honesty and dedication and professionalism? All these folks from countries with no player in the game, politically. It would seem doubtful. Surely we'd be getting more "leaks"? The name on the leaked report is an Ian Henderson. A south african with the name I Henderson worked for the OPCW 21 years ago - the OPCW says this leaked report author has never worked for them. Same person and they're lying, or different person? Why only one name on the leaked report? and to me, more dubiously why no job title? - most docs would have a job title with the name, wouldn't they - they all do at our place, drafts and finals - "J.Bloggs, Chief Investigator", or whatever.

Apart from this one alleged leaked paper, covered by Russian propaganda outlet, Sputnik, and your Russian sympathetic bloggers with an agenda. Of course they might have uncovered or been handed evidence of essentially corrupt reporting by the OPCW. Perhaps more will come forward?

Curious.

How many members of the British establishment came out prior to the Iraq war to prove that it was all based on lies?

How many members of the British security state came out to tell you all that you were being illegally spied on by the British government prior to Snowden?

[El Zen]

5 hours ago, magnkarl said:

There's two countries in the world that are currently the laughing stock of the rest due to their leaders. One is the US the other is us. I had the pleasure of listening to my staunch labour supporter friend laughing at how sad the state of America is in the pub yesterday. When I asked him if he considers how shit our current state of affairs is he sort of went defensive and angry. We can laugh about the US all day every day, but our politicians are at the same level or even worse than Trump. How can we have a two party system where both parties are as useless as we're currently seeing - it's unbelievable.

At least the US only has one buffoon on top, we've got two full front benches of buffoons with the Maybot and Corbster running the !¤!"#show that is UK politics.

Trump got into office partly because politicians have lost trust and belief amongst the populace - I don't even want to consider the damage our two party leaders are doing to the trust in politicians in our country. The fact that people like Farage can get a foothold in our political world again just shows how inept and idiotic our leaders are.

That’s not even remotely true. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

How many members of the British establishment came out prior to the Iraq war to prove that it was all based on lies?

How many members of the British security state came out to tell you all that you were being illegally spied on by the British government prior to Snowden?

That’s a fair comment. The two situations are not quite the same, though. In your (good) point, the British civil service and other agencies mostly kept schtumm, while the British government told lies. What we’re looking at here, it’s claimed, is South Africans, Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, french, German, etc. members of the OPCW allegedly actively conspiring to put out false information for the American national interest. So it is not analogous, but nevertheless your point is valid.

[El Zen]

Gilead is near!

[sne]

Doctors who performs abortions in Alabama are now risking 99 years in prison, even if the woman became pregnant due to rape or incest.

Next week, women who can swim are witches and will be burnt on the stake.

[magnkarl]

13 hours ago, Michelsen said:

That’s not even remotely true. 

The big difference is that the one buffoon on top in the US can make executive orders, while our "democratic" system has no equal system in place bar in war time. Trump can push almost anything through with orders while Teresa May requires support in parliament. The fact that the opposition in our country is as bad as the leading party doesn't really help the situation though, as normally someone would actually oppose what's happened to our country over the past 3 years and provide the balance that our system is designed to have.

Edited May 15, 2019 by magnkarl

[El Zen]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

The big difference is that the one buffoon on top in the US can make executive orders, while our "democratic" system has no equal system in place bar in war time. Trump can push almost anything through with orders while Teresa May requires support in parliament.

I don’t fully agree with that either, but that wasn’t really my point. The Buffoons club in the US’ political leadership certainly has more than the one prominent member, and if we’re talking avout balance, Congress has certainly failed to be an effective check against the buffoonary going on in the White House as much as Labour are failing to be an effective opposition to May’s calamitous «leadership». 

[peterms]

14 hours ago, blandy said:

It's been reported about as much as the original OPCW report verdict - i.e. not at all (as far as I know)

The interim report was covered in the media, often misleadingly, so that where the report said that "chlorinated compounds" were found, headlines referred to chlorine being used, to give the impression that claims of a chemical attack had been substantiated.  Since our media had unquestioningly swallowed the line that a chemical attack had been initiated by the Syrian forces, perhaps they were not keen to explain that the interim report did not demonstrate this, nor press OPCW to be clearer about what it meant by "chlorinated compounds", and the difference between this and chlorine gas.  The aim seems to have been to preserve the official government narrative, not establish the facts.

14 hours ago, blandy said:

a leaked memo - we don't know if it's genuine - there's been no OPCW denial [edit, there has - they say he's never been part of the FFM

and

14 hours ago, blandy said:

The name on the leaked report is an Ian Henderson. A south african with the name I Henderson worked for the OPCW 21 years ago - the OPCW says this leaked report author has never worked for them. Same person and they're lying, or different person?

OPCW say here (pdf), in a document from last year,

Quote

Mr Ian Henderson (OPCW Inspection Team Leader)

so if they now say he has never worked for them, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a lie.  Or perhaps they mean that he's not a directly employed staff member and leads their inspection teams while seconded from somewhere else - but if they just say he's never worked for them but don't admit he's an inspection team leader, we can only reasonably conclude that they are seeking to mislead.

But what they should say is whether they accept the report is genuine, or if they consider it to be a fake.  And then if it's genuine, explain why they have concealed it.  It will be very hard to retain their credibility if they don't.

[villa4europe]

6 hours ago, sne said:

Doctors who performs abortions in Alabama are now risking 99 years in prison, even if the woman became pregnant due to rape or incest.

Next week, women who can swim are witches and will be burnt on the stake.

Saw photos of the 22 people who voted this in, all white all men mainly all old

[Xann]

50 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Saw photos of the 22 people who voted this in, all white all men mainly all old...

... and all would pay for an abortion if they got their secretary pregnant.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tagline from the pic I saw of them today

[snowychap]

Torygraph:

Quote

The United States has publicly rebuked a senior British general who challenged claims that Iranian-backed groups are preparing to mount attacks against Western assets in the Middle East.  

The extraordinary move came after Major General Chris Ghika, the deputy commander of Operation Inherent Resolve, the US-led coalition against Islamic State, said that there was no increased threat from pro-Iranian groups in Iraq and Syria. 

In recent days Donald Trump's administration has said that Iran is preparing its allied and proxy forces to mount attacks on US assets across the Middle East, and has sent an aircraft carrier strike group, a squadron of B-52 bombers, and a battery of patriot missiles to the region to counter the alleged threat. 

Pentagon officials have also reportedly drawn up options to send up to 120,000 additional troops in preparation for a large-scale military campaign. 

But when reporters in the Pentagon asked Maj Gen Ghika about the claims on Tuesday, he said:  "No, there's been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria." 

Speaking by video-link from Baghdad, he said: "We're aware of their presence, clearly, and we monitor them, along with a whole range of others because that's the environment we're in."

He added: "I am not going to go into the detail of it, but there are a substantial number of militia groups in Iraq and Syria and we don't see an increased threat from many of them at this stage." 

Hours later the US military disowned the British general's comments and directly contradicted him. 

US Central Command, which is responsible for US military operations in the Middle East, claimed both US forces and their allies - including the mission Maj Gen Ghika is deputy commander of  - are aware of and have responded to the threat.

"Recent comments from OIR's Deputy Commander run counter to identified credible threats available to intelligence from US and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region," said Captain Bill Urban in a statement.

"US Central Command, in coordination with Operation Inherent Resolve, has increased the force posture level for all service members assigned to OIR in Iraq and Syria. As a result, OIR is now at a high level of alert as we continue to closely monitor credible and possibly imminent threats to US forces in Iraq."

... more on link