What we have are a bunch of groups, some with shifting allegiances, who look firstly at the tactical, then the strategic. They do deals which are broken, and then do more deals. That follows for Assad as much as everyone else.
How would you 'cut a deal' with Assad, who is already beholden to Russia and Iran?
And drop the 'liberal white guilt' rubbish. You are the one who was against action in 2013, yet is now wanting to deal with Assad.
I was against the 2013 interventions because it was patently obvious that backing a weak group like the FSA would open the door for Islamists to take over the whole country once Assad fell. I think that view has been vindicated (see Libya).
You cut a deal by getting the major players around the table, cut out Erdogan and sit down, hammer out amnesty for Assad in return for autonomy for the Kurds.
Again, this is what grown ups do. Doing deals with people you don't like for the good of 7m displaced people is what real leadership is about. If it sullies our moral standing, then sleep easy in the knowledge that millions of people are going to benefit from a stable country to live in and we can help them rebuild their infrastructure.
"cut out Erdogan"
Yeah, that deal would really work. Cut out one of the major powers, a neighbour - who have immense interest in the outcome - and one that we are trying to bring back towards the western sphere of interest, not push further away.
I dislike Erdogan (I have to be careful saying that, and that's part of the problem), but the idea that Turkey should be cut out of discussions of the future of the area is ludicrous.
By leaving Turkey out, you will be just repeating the mistakes of the past.
But let's take one of your floated ideas. 'Autonomy for Kurds'. Right: what does that mean? A state-within-a-state? A separate state? How does it relate to the Iraqi Kurdish areas, with whom they might want to join? What about Iranian Kurds? How will Turkey react? As you want to leave them out, will you impose the outcome on them?
Mr Trump is not cheap; he is rich Mr Trump is not nasty; he is a businessman. Mr Trump is far from stupid; he runs four profit making organisations.
So whats your beef Omnium; other than he is a well known capitalist entrepreneur?
Actually he is both cheap and nasty. But he is very smart, I'll give you that.
I guess I'm just middle class - "rich", in the way Trump is, translates to "cheap" in practice. I can't be bothered to investigate his life but, from what I've heard, "nasty" seems to fit the bill. 'Stupid' - I have no evidence for that - he just seems that way to me.
If you got a letter through the post saying you could meet person X for some tea, who would you accept? Trump, for me, just isn't on the radar.
'Rich' translates to 'Rich'. If you want cheap then you're looking at Tiger Woods. He doesn't tip at restaurants.That's 'cheap'.
Trump by all accounts is a very generous man. Not 'cheap' at all.
Just because you don't like his policies is no reason to demean him.
Hi Tim, I like your support. BTW, you still think that Spieth is in the frame?
If he's in the top 70 in Fedex points he'll go to the BMW next week. The top 30 from there go to East Lake.
What we have are a bunch of groups, some with shifting allegiances, who look firstly at the tactical, then the strategic. They do deals which are broken, and then do more deals. That follows for Assad as much as everyone else.
How would you 'cut a deal' with Assad, who is already beholden to Russia and Iran?
And drop the 'liberal white guilt' rubbish. You are the one who was against action in 2013, yet is now wanting to deal with Assad.
I was against the 2013 interventions because it was patently obvious that backing a weak group like the FSA would open the door for Islamists to take over the whole country once Assad fell. I think that view has been vindicated (see Libya).
You cut a deal by getting the major players around the table, cut out Erdogan and sit down, hammer out amnesty for Assad in return for autonomy for the Kurds.
Again, this is what grown ups do. Doing deals with people you don't like for the good of 7m displaced people is what real leadership is about. If it sullies our moral standing, then sleep easy in the knowledge that millions of people are going to benefit from a stable country to live in and we can help them rebuild their infrastructure.
"cut out Erdogan"
Yeah, that deal would really work. Cut out one of the major powers, a neighbour - who have immense interest in the outcome - and one that we are trying to bring back towards the western sphere of interest, not push further away.
I dislike Erdogan (I have to be careful saying that, and that's part of the problem), but the idea that Turkey should be cut out of discussions of the future of the area is ludicrous.
By leaving Turkey out, you will be just repeating the mistakes of the past.
But let's take one of your floated ideas. 'Autonomy for Kurds'. Right: what does that mean? A state-within-a-state? A separate state? How does it relate to the Iraqi Kurdish areas, with whom they might want to join? What about Iranian Kurds? How will Turkey react? As you want to leave them out, will you impose the outcome on them?
Erdogan is part of the problem. Look at his response to the Turkish election results and his new bombing campaign against them to discredit the HDP (which includes massive Kurdish representation) for the upcoming November election. Erdogan funds ISIS and al-Nusra to destabilise the Kurds and Assad. He is one of the major contributors to the problem, he is not part of the solution.
Bloomberg is a HUGE nanny state guy. He tried to legislate on everything from the size of sodas to the size of portions in NYC restaurants to what could be in school vending machines and so on and so on.
If you really loathe the nanny state I imagine you will already be signed up to Trump anyway, soccer Moms may be a bit more concerned their children eat healthily
That's a ludicrous and insulting comment even by your standards. Actually I'm not a big Trump fan at all - except for entertainment value.
Show me one place - just one place - where I have in any way supported IS, or apologised for them. Go on. I am nowhere near 'ISIS/al-Nusra apologist level'; I hate ISIS with a passion.
Again, you should really withdraw that. Not supporting 'your' dictator does not mean I support his enemies.
Whereas you support Assad. And have, from your comments today, all along. It could be said you are being an apologist for Assad's murder of his own civilians by chemical weapons. Now, I know you think that didn't happen, but I suggest that's your problem: I suggest you look at yesterday's thread and a certain contributor's posts.
What would I say to those 7 million people: "Sorry that our country didn't help you when we had the best chance, back in 2013."
And yet you would have Britain stand by and let them ravage the north of Syria, standing on the sidelines telling everyone how terrible they are and not doing anything about it despite having the capability. I guess it isn't apologist level, I apologise for that. Maybe just stupid and callous.
There was never an opportunity in 2013, the FSA would have been quickly toppled by ISIS if we had backed them to remove Assad. Look at what is happening in Libya, apply that to Syria and add steroids.
I have never supported Assad, only stated that of the parties available to help 7m people, he is the least worst and being responsible means helping those people even if the cost to our own moral standing is extremely high, we must take the necessary steps. I personally view Assad as a reprehensible character and would not hesitate to remove him if there were a credible alternative that didn't want to commit mass murder and genocide of non-Sunni people.
We've already stood by, thanks to the decision made in 2013, which you admit you supported. They've had two years of ravaging already, a situation partly compounded by people with your views.
We had a window of opportunity around the time of the vote. True, the opportunity was best a few months earlier, and it may not have worked, as I have admitted all along. But it was a window. Knowingly doing nothing is as much a concious decision as doing something.
You do not support Assad, but you want to support him? Hmmm. At least it's more solid than your sick accusations that I support IS.
Just for the record, for any PBer liable to believe your comment: I hate IS. I hate their ideology, I hate their actions, I hate their very existence.
I have a great Trump story but I am thinking of how it can be sufficiently anonymised for publication and probably also waiting for some lagershed to pass.
It doesn't make him see particularly Presidential but then, he isn't.
Whatever you have it's less jaw dropping that this:
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are ay quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my v
Bloomberg has no chance, he will instead become either the prime target of everything that's wrong with America by both sides or he will be ignored as Trump vs Sanders is far more media savvy.
And besides Bloomberg has no voters or fans, even people in New York were so bored of him and his style and policies that they voted for the most left wing candidate available as his replacement. At best he can portray himself as a continuity candidate but very few want continuity after decades of the same.
No chance?
It's all right for a candidate to try and win swing voters, but relying only on swing voters with no base is a strategy of sure defeat, at present he won't even win N.Y. because people there had gotten bored with him. I can describe Bloomberg as a paper candidate, he looks good on paper but he's been around for too long and annoyed too many voters, the regulation of food and drinks that he did as Mayor would definitely sink him as americans love food and drinks.
For political parties, Not for independent candidates running for president. If both parties lock up their bases but alienate the middle that middle will start to look for alternatives elsewhere, and Bloomberg will be waiting for them. Bloomberg won 3 consecutive elections in NY, that is as more than any president has won, if people got tired of him that was only because they elected him for so long.
He did not ban food and drinks just controlled them and that is the type of thing that would appeal to soccer moms.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
I have a great Trump story but I am thinking of how it can be sufficiently anonymised for publication and probably also waiting for some lagershed to pass.
It doesn't make him see particularly Presidential but then, he isn't.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my view. Biden is Hillary's only potential rival mainstream candidate for the Democratic nomination, Bloomberg has no chance of being Democratic nominee, however ironically he could be the first third party president if it is Trump v Sanders. In such a contest Bloomberg could be a real contendor in big states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida and California and Colorado and Virginia
If Hillary goes down - which I guess means either her numbers tank completely or the FBI indicts - then all bets are off.
The Democrats will be in full panic mode. The pressure on Biden will increase exponentially. Plus they may well seek out others now underneath the radar in case Biden can't or won't run. Sanders is a nice diversion, but not an option. It's entirely possible the eventual candidate may be someone we are not talking about today. The scenario is completely unpredictable, not to mention unprecedented.
Biden's problem, like Hillary's, is that either will be painted as an Obama third term, which in the absence of Obama himself, is an electoral liability.
If Hillary goes down it is likely to be by Sanders in the first instance, possibly after a New Hampshire win, no other candidate other than perhaps Biden would then be likely to be able to stop him become nominee. Hillary, of course, was Obama's rival in 2008, so would be less of Obama's third term than Biden who has been his VP for 8 years
Erdogan is part of the problem. Look at his response to the Turkish election results and his new bombing campaign against them to discredit the HDP (which includes massive Kurdish representation) for the upcoming November election. Erdogan funds ISIS and al-Nusra to destabilise the Kurds and Assad. He is one of the major contributors to the problem, he is not part of the solution.
You evidently have not noticed, but I've been talking about Turkey on here for rather some time. I am well aware of the situation. Turkey is schizophrenic, as nations tend to be when their best interests are unclear. They've been trying to support all sides at various times, with parts of the government supporting different groups to others on occasion.
The Turkish government know that a stable Syria and Iraq is in their interests. What we have to convince them is that will not exist with ISIS and al-Nusra, but with a stable state, possibly with a Kurdish enclave. They should not take much convincing of that; what we need to sort out is the Kurdish question in such a way they do not feel threatened.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Ilive in and we can help them rebuild their infrastructure.
"cut out Erdogan"
Yeah, that deal would really work. Cut out one of the major powers, a neighbour - who have immense interest in the outcome - and one that we are trying to bring back towards the western sphere of interest, not push further away.
I dislike Erdogan (I have to be careful saying that, and that's part of the problem), but the idea that Turkey should be cut out of discussions of the future of the area is ludicrous.
By leaving Turkey out, you will be just repeating the mistakes of the past.
But let's take one of your floated ideas. 'Autonomy for Kurds'. Right: what does that mean? A state-within-a-state? A separate state? How does it relate to the Iraqi Kurdish areas, with whom they might want to join? What about Iranian Kurds? How will Turkey react? As you want to leave them out, will you impose the outcome on them?
Erdogan is part of the problem. Look at his response to the Turkish election results and his new bombing campaign against them to discredit the HDP (which includes massive Kurdish representation) for the upcoming November election. Erdogan funds ISIS and al-Nusra to destabilise the Kurds and Assad. He is one of the major contributors to the problem, he is not part of the solution.
The problem of Erdogan can be summarized as such:
Erdogan has islamic imperial ambitions and Turkey is now too strong to be controlled by Washington, you may wan't to create a problem for them as a distraction or bargaining chip for Syria, but what? Turkey is surrounded by crumbling weak states, they have no enemies that border them apart from Armenia, only Iran is strong enough but they prefer commercial deals than hostility, same goes for Russia with Georgia as a buffer state.
You have to weaken Erdogan from the inside, the elections are a perfect opportunity, besides that there is nothing else to do except steering the pot with the kurds but he want's to have the kurds as his internal enemy to excuse oppression, Erdogan's team is very lucky and very competent. Best case there are mass protests and a mass crackdown leading to sanctions which will be lifted only if Erdogan exchanges Syria, but it's a very high risk as shown by the arab spring.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
Bloomberg is a HUGE nanny state guy. He tried to legislate on everything from the size of sodas to the size of portions in NYC restaurants to what could be in school vending machines and so on and so on.
If you really loathe the nanny state I imagine you will already be signed up to Trump anyway, soccer Moms may be a bit more concerned their children eat healthily
That's a ludicrous and insulting comment even by your standards. Actually I'm not a big Trump fan at all - except for entertainment value.
It was not directed at you, it was just pointing out Trump already has the 'anti nanny state' vote signed up for him anyway
Ilive in and we can help them rebuild their infrastructure.
"cut out Erdogan"
Yeah, that deal would really work. Cut out one of the major powers, a neighbour - who have immense interest in the outcome - and one that we are trying to bring back towards the western sphere of interest, not push further away.
I dislike Erdogan (I have to be careful saying that, and that's part of the problem), but the idea that Turkey should be cut out of discussions of the future of the area is ludicrous.
By leaving Turkey out, you will be just repeating the mistakes of the past.
But let's take one of your floated ideas. 'Autonomy for Kurds'. Right: what does that mean? A state-within-a-state? A separate state? How does it relate to the Iraqi Kurdish areas, with whom they might want to join? What about Iranian Kurds? How will Turkey react? As you want to leave them out, will you impose the outcome on them?
Erdogan is part of the problem. Look at his response to the Turkish election results and his new bombing campaign against them to discredit the HDP (which includes massive Kurdish representation) for the upcoming November election. Erdogan funds ISIS and al-Nusra to destabilise the Kurds and Assad. He is one of the major contributors to the problem, he is not part of the solution.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
I can't see Bloomberg having any appeal outside of New York and a few other major cities.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
Bloomberg would be an interesting candidate but the grip of the Democrats and Republicans is strong. Winning as a third party candidate would be hard. I know he held office as a Republican but if Hilary falters the Democrats could do worse...
Mr Trump is not cheap; he is rich Mr Trump is not nasty; he is a businessman. Mr Trump is far from stupid; he runs four profit making organisations.
So whats your beef Omnium; other than he is a well known capitalist entrepreneur?
Actually he is both cheap and nasty. But he is very smart, I'll give you that.
I guess I'm just middle class - "rich", in the way Trump is, translates to "cheap" in practice. I can't be bothered to investigate his life but, from what I've heard, "nasty" seems to fit the bill. 'Stupid' - I have no evidence for that - he just seems that way to me.
If you got a letter through the post saying you could meet person X for some tea, who would you accept? Trump, for me, just isn't on the radar.
Probably not. He's a braggart - not an good use of my time to have tea with him.
There are two aspect here, which luckyguy1983 tried to confuse yesterday:
1) The use of sarin via mortar rockets on several occasions in 2013; 2) The continued used of chemical (mainly chlorine) weapons since.
On your first paragraph: international pressure forced Assad to give up his 'complex' chemical weapons such as Sarin. Since then, he has relied on multi-purpose chemicals such as chlorine. So he no longer has access to the complex ones, as you claim in your first paragraph.
As for evidence, what sort of level do you desire? There's plenty of links out there; you have to look at the sources for yourself. Unfortunately proof even you (although not luckyguy) might accept is hard because the UN inspectors were not allowed to apportion blame for the 2013 attacks. That restriction might get lifted for the chlorine attacks, but the situation has sadly moved on since then.
As for the situation in 2013: I stand by what I said, and think events have proven me more right than wrong. I said at the time that the conflict would spread, which it has. I said the use of chemical weapons would become more widespread, which they have.
I would pick neither side, because both approaches are practically and morally reprehensible. We have to find another way. Your Hobson's Choice is ridiculous and sick.
So no apology. Fair enough.
Excuse me? I tried to confuse the two?
We were discussing chlorine attacks and MrTimT got confused and commented on a completely unrelated allegation. It's all there in black and white in the thread. You've really jumped off the deep end.
Show me one place - just one place - where I have in any way supported IS, or apologised for them. Go on. I am nowhere near 'ISIS/al-Nusra apologist level'; I hate ISIS with a passion.
Again, you should really withdraw that. Not supporting 'your' dictator does not mean I support his enemies.
Whereas you support Assad. And have, from your comments today, all along. It could be said you are being an apologist for Assad's murder of his own civilians by chemical weapons. Now, I know you think that didn't happen, but I suggest that's your problem: I suggest you look at yesterday's thread and a certain contributor's posts.
What would I say to those 7 million people: "Sorry that our country didn't help you when we had the best chance, back in 2013."
And yet you would have Britain stand by and let them ravage the north of Syria, standing on the sidelines telling everyone how terrible they are and not doing anything about it despite having the capability. I guess it isn't apologist level, I apologise for that. Maybe just stupid and callous.
There was never an opportunity in 2013, the FSA would have been quickly toppled by ISIS if we had backed them to remove Assad. Look at what is happening in Libya, apply that to Syria and add steroids.
I have never supported Assad, only stated that of the parties available to help 7m people, he is the least worst and being responsible means helping those people even if the cost to our own moral standing is extremely high, we must take the necessary steps. I personally view Assad as a reprehensible character and would not hesitate to remove him if there were a credible alternative that didn't want to commit mass murder and genocide of non-Sunni people.
We've already stood by, thanks to the decision made in 2013, which you admit you supported. They've had two years of ravaging already, a situation partly compounded by people with your views.
We had a window of opportunity around the time of the vote. True, the opportunity was best a few months earlier, and it may not have worked, as I have admitted all along. But it was a window. Knowingly doing nothing is as much a concious decision as doing something.
You do not support Assad, but you want to support him? Hmmm. At least it's more solid than your sick accusations that I support IS.
Just for the record, for any PBer liable to believe your comment: I hate IS. I hate their ideology, I hate their actions, I hate their very existence.
I shouldn't need to say it, but apparently I do.
How about Al Nusra, do you hate them and their existence?
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
I can't see Bloomberg having any appeal outside of New York and a few other major cities.
The circumstance I was looking at would be a Trump v Sanders race, then Bloomberg would have a real chance in the swing states from Florida to Ohio to Colorado to Virginia as well as the North East and the Coasts
Trump, Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders, Clinton, Jeb Bush - the youngest is Bush, who would be just shy of 64 on inauguration day, when all but one of the others will be over 70 (and Clinton will be 69).
Is there no candidate in these elections who is middle-aged rather than elderly? Why are talented politicians from the next generation or indeed of BHO's own generation not coming through?
Ilive in and we can help them rebuild their infrastructure.
"cut out Erdogan"
Yeah, that deal would really work. Cut out one of the major powers, a neighbour - who have immense interest in the outcome - and one that we are trying to bring back towards the western sphere of interest, not push further away.
I dislike Erdogan (I have to be careful saying that, and that's part of the problem), but the idea that Turkey should be cut out of discussions of the future of the area is ludicrous.
By leaving Turkey out, you will be just repeating the mistakes of the past.
But let's take one of your floated ideas. 'Autonomy for Kurds'. Right: what does that mean? A state-within-a-state? A separate state? How does it relate to the Iraqi Kurdish areas, with whom they might want to join? What about Iranian Kurds? How will Turkey react? As you want to leave them out, will you impose the outcome on them?
Erdogan is part of the problem. Look at his response to the Turkish election results and his new bombing campaign against them to discredit the HDP (which includes massive Kurdish representation) for the upcoming November election. Erdogan funds ISIS and al-Nusra to destabilise the Kurds and Assad. He is one of the major contributors to the problem, he is not part of the solution.
The problem of Erdogan can be summarized as such:
Erdogan has islamic imperial ambitions
Citation, please.
I can give plenty of them, he leaves plenty of clues behind for his ambitions:
There are two aspect here, which luckyguy1983 tried to confuse yesterday:
1) The use of sarin via mortar rockets on several occasions in 2013; 2) The continued used of chemical (mainly chlorine) weapons since.
On your first paragraph: international pressure forced Assad to give up his 'complex' chemical weapons such as Sarin. Since then, he has relied on multi-purpose chemicals such as chlorine. So he no longer has access to the complex ones, as you claim in your first paragraph.
As for evidence, what sort of level do you desire? There's plenty of links out there; you have to look at the sources for yourself. Unfortunately proof even you (although not luckyguy) might accept is hard because the UN inspectors were not allowed to apportion blame for the 2013 attacks. That restriction might get lifted for the chlorine attacks, but the situation has sadly moved on since then.
As for the situation in 2013: I stand by what I said, and think events have proven me more right than wrong. I said at the time that the conflict would spread, which it has. I said the use of chemical weapons would become more widespread, which they have.
I would pick neither side, because both approaches are practically and morally reprehensible. We have to find another way. Your Hobson's Choice is ridiculous and sick.
So no apology. Fair enough.
Excuse me? I tried to confuse the two?
We were discussing chlorine attacks and MrTimT got confused and commented on a completely unrelated allegation. It's all there in black and white in the thread. You've really jumped off the deep end.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
Bloomberg would be an interesting candidate but the grip of the Democrats and Republicans is strong. Winning as a third party candidate would be hard. I know he held office as a Republican but if Hilary falters the Democrats could do worse...
With the rise of Sanders the Democrats are in an anti Wall St mood which even Hillary has to pay lip service too so I cannot see Bloomberg as Democratic nominee. However a Trump v Sanders race would offer the most favourable environment for a moderate third party candidate since WW2, it would be like Farage v Corbyn
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
I can now understand how Trump actually believes that he can force Mexico to pay for his border wall. He would be a very formidable president to deal with.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
Bloomberg would be an interesting candidate but the grip of the Democrats and Republicans is strong. Winning as a third party candidate would be hard. I know he held office as a Republican but if Hilary falters the Democrats could do worse...
With the rise of Sanders the Democrats are in an anti Wall St mood which even Hillary has to pay lip service too so I cannot see Bloomberg as Democratic nominee. However a Trump v Sanders race would offer the most favourable environment for a moderate third party candidate since WW2
American politics is so sick that it makes the Labour party look healthy! It would do them good to have a female candidate and Hilary has a lot of attributes but she also has an immense amount of baggage and a very loose cannon of a husband.
I agree with @ydoethur: where is the next generation?
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my v
Bloomberg has no chance, he will instead become either the prime target of everything that's wrong with America by both sides or he will be ignored as Trump vs Sanders is far more media savvy.
And besides Bloomberg has no voters or fans, even people in New York were so bored of him and his style and policies that they voted for the most left wing candidate available as his replacement. At best he can portray himself as a continuity candidate but very few want continuity after decades of the same.
No chance? He is richer than Trump was an extremely competent Mayor of New York City, a City bigger than many US states (whereas Sanders and Trump have zero executive experience) and is popular with independents and minorities. Bloomberg won the New York Mayoral election 3 times, twice as a Republican in a Democratic city. He is more fiscally conservative than Obama and certainly Sanders, more immigrant friendly than Trump. If the GOP and Democrats both decide to ignore swing voters and pick candidates to only appease the base Bloomberg has his chance, he could sweep the swing states, the West coast and the North East, leaving Trump a rump of the deep South and border and plain states and Sanders, a few liberal states in New England, the Upper MidWest and Pacific North West.
I don't see Bloomberg as a winner.
Pro-big business, plus pro-immigration seems a way to get on the wrong side of most people.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
Bloomberg would be an interesting candidate but the grip of the Democrats and Republicans is strong. Winning as a third party candidate would be hard. I know he held office as a Republican but if Hilary falters the Democrats could do worse...
With the rise of Sanders the Democrats are in an anti Wall St mood which even Hillary has to pay lip service too so I cannot see Bloomberg as Democratic nominee. However a Trump v Sanders race would offer the most favourable environment for a moderate third party candidate since WW2, it would be like Farage v Corbyn
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my v
Bloomberg has no chance, he will instead become either the prime target of everything that's wrong with America by both sides or he will be ignored as Trump vs Sanders is far more media savvy.
And besides Bloomberg has no voters or fans, even people in New York were so bored of him and his style and policies that they voted for the most left wing candidate available as his replacement. At best he can portray himself as a continuity candidate but very few want continuity after decades of the same.
No chance? He is richer than Trump was an extremely competent Mayor of New York City, a City bigger than many US states (whereas Sanders and Trump have zero executive experience) and is popular with independents and minorities..
I don't see Bloomberg as a winner.
Pro-big business, plus pro-immigration seems a way to get on the wrong side of most people.
He is a fiscal pragmatist not an out an out libertarian and the minority vote continues to increase in the US, in normal circumstances I agree he would have little chance, but a Trump v Sanders race would not be normal circumstances
I can now understand how Trump actually believes that he can force Mexico to pay for his border wall. He would be a very formidable president to deal with.
I can't imagine a Mexican president being blackmailed simply by threats to expose his private life (however well-founded those threats may be). Look at Anthony Quinn.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
Bloomberg would be an interesting candidate but the grip of the Democrats and Republicans is strong. Winning as a third party candidate would be hard. I know he held office as a Republican but if Hilary falters the Democrats could do worse...
With the rise of Sanders the Democrats are in an anti Wall St mood which even Hillary has to pay lip service too so I cannot see Bloomberg as Democratic nominee.
American politics is so sick that it makes
I agree with @ydoethur: where is the next generation?
The next generation are the likes of Rubio, Julian Castro (perhap's Hillary's VP pick), and George P Bush, Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son, even Bobby Kennedy's grandson, Joseph P Kennedy III, but they are all around a decade or so from the big one
The independent link is about the construction of a palace, which have led some to accuse him of acting like a Sultan. Nothing about 'Imperialistic ambitions'.
I haven't had a chance to read the other links yet - but I will do, thanks.
You must understand that the old 'imperialistic ambitions' accusation has been made against many Turkish presidents and governments. Turkey is surrounded by eight countries, many of whom it once had power over, and none of whom is it particularly friendly with. Several neighbours are afraid of Turkey for historic reasons, and Turkey is concerned about them.
It is also pulled, as it has been for Millennia, between west and east, and now between secularism and religion.
I have no time for Erdogan, and he is taking the country down the wrong route, in my opinion. But from what I've seen, read and heard, 'imperialistic ambitions' is stretching it to breaking point.
Erdogan has islamic imperial ambitions and Turkey is now too strong to be controlled by Washington, you may wan't to create a problem for them as a distraction or bargaining chip for Syria, but what? Turkey is surrounded by crumbling weak states, they have no enemies that border them apart from Armenia, only Iran is strong enough but they prefer commercial deals than hostility, same goes for Russia with Georgia as a buffer state. ...snip...
I think it runs deeper than that for Erdogan, his imperialist Islamic ambition is more like a Sunni imperialist ambition. Erdogan and ISIS are two sides of the same coin, Erdogan is the presentable side along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar which Sunni Islam projects to the world while letting the darker side of ISIS get on with their dirty work of murdering and eliminating non-Sunni people in and around the old Assyrian Empire.
To answer Josiah, Turkey's aims are very clear, stabilise Syria and Iraq, eliminate the Islamists, get the very expensive refugee camps closed and return the displaced people back home. Anyone with more than two brain cells can see that. However, Turkey's aims and Erdogan's aims are not aligned, which is why we cannot invite Erdogan to the table, while he funds ISIS and al-Nusra in Syria and Iraq his place at any negotiating table is an affront to all of those displaced people. He has displaced them in order to wage a centuries old Islamic civil war.
As for the window you claim existed, I'm sure the same analysis said a window existed in Libya, I believed it did in Libya anyway. We have since learned that replacing a dictatorial strong man with a weak and divided opposition leads to a power vacuum in which groups like ISIS thrive. Egypt only came out on the other side because al-Sisi had enough popular support to become the new strong man. There is no one in Syria to take the al-Sisi road, there is no one unsullied who we can treat with, I don't support Assad as much as I loathe ISIS and see that we must do whatever is necessary to halt their advance in the ME and to dismantle their funding structures. If that means getting into bed with Assad then unfortunately, we must do it. Again, it is a tough decision that responsible, grown up leaders take. Not the kind of idiotic solution concocted by Merkel which will only serve to enrich people traffickers and bring thousands of indentured slave labourers to Turkish families in Germany.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
Bloomberg would be an interesting candidate but the grip of the Democrats and Republicans is strong. Winning as a third party candidate would be hard. I know he held office as a Republican but if Hilary falters the Democrats could do worse...
With the rise of Sanders the Democrats are in an anti Wall St mood which even Hillary has to pay lip service too so I cannot see Bloomberg as Democratic nominee.
American politics is so sick that it makes
I agree with @ydoethur: where is the next generation?
The next generation are the likes of Rubio, Julian Castro (perhap's Hillary's VP pick), and George P Bush, Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son, even Bobby Kennedy's grandson, Joseph P Kennedy III, but they are all around a decade or so from the big one
And that answers the question of where the next generation is, they are buried under a pile of sh*ts and third raters whom the only thing they have is their surname.
The next generation are the likes of Rubio, Julian Castro (perhap's Hillary's VP pick), and George P Bush, Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son, even Bobby Kennedy's grandson, Joseph P Kennedy III, but they are all around a decade or so from the big one
All in their 30s and 40s. Is there not one capable politician in America in their 50s? Because that seems to me to be quite extraordinary. Even in this country, where Brown crushed the next generation remorselessly in two parties (one by decision, and one by grinding them down in Opposition) we've got a few up at the top - the likes of Grayling and Bryant, for instance.
BTW, I am nor religious, and could best be described as agnostic. Religion is best kept out of politics where at all possible.
Therein lies the problem. I believe this is a worthy goal and wish it was true, but when talking about the ME, to ignore the Sunni/Shia/Alawite angle is to ignore a very large part of what drives the conflicts. Just because we wish that Sectarian violence didn't exist, it doesn't make it go away. The conflicts in Syria and Iraq are Sectarian wars with Sunni nations funding ISIS and al-Nusra in order to exterminate non-Sunni people. Erdogan is part of this funding axis.
Whoever is organising the Islamisation of the West have just played a blinder.. they have hoodwinked 28 nations into letting their future army into the citadel without a shot being fired .. fantastic
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?" "Yes". "Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “ “Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “ “Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
Indeed, Trump has so much baggage he almost makes Hillary look like a nun. Which emphasises how favourable an environment next year's election could be for an independent like Bloomberg
Bloomberg would be an interesting candidate but the grip of the Democrats and Republicans is strong. Winning as a third party candidate would be hard. I know he held office as a Republican but if Hilary falters the Democrats could do worse...
With the rise of Sanders the Democrats ar
American politics is so sick that it makes
I agree with @ydoethur: where is the next generation?
The next generation are the likes of Rubio, Julian Castro
And that answers the question of where the next generation is, they are buried under a pile of sh*ts and third raters whom the only thing they have is their surname.
Not Castro or Rubio and both George P and Joseph P look more capable than all the potential candidates presently running next year, except perhaps Hillary and Bloomberg.
If I was responding I'd suggest that being a man is a disadvantage. In general, though, hard work and applying for the right job at the right time are important. I'm not sure who you know really matters, but it is easy to think that some people are successful because they know the right person.
Those hard work scores for France and Greece speak volumes.
Mentioning Greece, we will probably have more immigration news, as the locals now on those islands off Turkey are beginning to attack the immigrants, some with firebombs too, as I just heard, on the island of Lesbos (I can imagine the Sun running titles connecting it to lesbians though).
(snip) To answer Josiah, Turkey's aims are very clear, stabilise Syria and Iraq, eliminate the Islamists, get the very expensive refugee camps closed and return the displaced people back home. Anyone with more than two brain cells can see that. However, Turkey's aims and Erdogan's aims are not aligned, which is why we cannot invite Erdogan to the table, while he funds ISIS and al-Nusra in Syria and Iraq his place at any negotiating table is an affront to all of those displaced people. He has displaced them in order to wage a centuries old Islamic civil war. (snip)
I didn't realise you have such a window into Erdogan's mind. Or, for that matter, Gülen's. And it is hard to discuss Turkey at the moment without also mentioning America's guest. Many of Erdogan's actions might be rooted in his new-found opposition to the king across the water.
Aside from that: so you think we support someone who uses chemical weapons on his own populations? That is at the heart of your policy? It worked out really well after Halabja didn't it? Western blindness at that time really stabilised the region ...
The next generation are the likes of Rubio, Julian Castro (perhap's Hillary's VP pick), and George P Bush, Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son, even Bobby Kennedy's grandson, Joseph P Kennedy III, but they are all around a decade or so from the big one
All in their 30s and 40s. Is there not one capable politician in America in their 50s? Because that seems to me to be quite extraordinary. Even in this country, where Brown crushed the next generation remorselessly in two parties (one by decision, and one by grinding them down in Opposition) we've got a few up at the top - the likes of Grayling and Bryant, for instance.
Kasich is second in a poll out tonight for NH by NBC/Marist and Carson in Iowa (both are 63 so not that far off)
LG 1983.. Your posts do suggest that you favour Russia at almost all levels..In my history Russia has always been a major threat to our way of life... I see nothing at present to make me change that thought process.
The next generation are the likes of Rubio, Julian Castro (perhap's Hillary's VP pick), and George P Bush, Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son, even Bobby Kennedy's grandson, Joseph P Kennedy III, but they are all around a decade or so from the big one
All in their 30s and 40s. Is there not one capable politician in America in their 50s? Because that seems to me to be quite extraordinary. Even in this country, where Brown crushed the next generation remorselessly in two parties (one by decision, and one by grinding them down in Opposition) we've got a few up at the top - the likes of Grayling and Bryant, for instance.
Kasich is second in a poll out tonight for NH by NBC/Marist and Carson in Iowa (both are 63 so not that far off)
The SurveyUSA poll is now looking less of a rogue one, If Trump is level with Hillary in N.H and beating her by 5 in Iowa that is about what you would expect if Trump was in the lead nationally.
I can see Valls challenging Hollande if such polling continues, Juppe and Sarkozy scrapping it out for the centre right nomination, Le Pen in first
It won't make a difference, the socialists are trashed in France because of their trashy economic and social record, the FN has replaced them as one of the big 2 in France.
But the second round is all that matters, Hollande should had put Sarkozi in jail when he had the chance, though it's possible for him to do so just before the election based on the bribes and the corruption scandals of the past. French presidents are very conspiratorial when it comes in keeping their jobs.
I can see Valls challenging Hollande if such polling continues, Juppe and Sarkozy scrapping it out for the centre right nomination, Le Pen in first
It's like a rerun of Le Pen Chirac round one.
Round two this time will be more difficult to predict, especially if its Sarkozy
Mind you Chirac at least won round one, this poll has Marine Le Pen leading. The last poll with Valls in August had him on 22%, 1% behind Sarkozy on 23%, Hollande was on 20% 4% behind Sarkozy on 24%. A January poll had Valls on 22.5% to Sarkozy's 21.5% and 21% to Juppe's 19%, Hollande was on 19% and 18% respectively, 3 points behind the centre right candidates
BTW, I am nor religious, and could best be described as agnostic. Religion is best kept out of politics where at all possible.
Therein lies the problem. I believe this is a worthy goal and wish it was true, but when talking about the ME, to ignore the Sunni/Shia/Alawite angle is to ignore a very large part of what drives the conflicts. Just because we wish that Sectarian violence didn't exist, it doesn't make it go away. The conflicts in Syria and Iraq are Sectarian wars with Sunni nations funding ISIS and al-Nusra in order to exterminate non-Sunni people. Erdogan is part of this funding axis.
Not really: just because it is what I would wish, does not mean I am in some way blind to the issues it causes.
I am also very aware of the sectarian issues.
First you call me an apologist for ISIS, and now you try to say I have no knowledge about the ME. Wow.
LG 1983.. Your posts do suggest that you favour Russia at almost all levels..In my history Russia has always been a major threat to our way of life... I see nothing at present to make me change that thought process.
I suppose we just have a different perception of threat. I happen to believe that a threat like Russia is quite obvious and quantifiable. If our way of life is going to be destroyed, I suspect it is because we will give it away willingly, rather than have it taken away by the Russkyes. The danger is a stab in the back, not in the front.
The next generation are the likes of Rubio, Julian Castro (perhap's Hillary's VP pick), and George P Bush, Jeb Bush's half Hispanic son, even Bobby Kennedy's grandson, Joseph P Kennedy III, but they are all around a decade or so from the big one
All in their 30s and 40s. Is there not one capable politician in America in their 50s? Because that seems to me to be quite extraordinary. Even in this country, where Brown crushed the next generation remorselessly in two parties (one by decision, and one by grinding them down in Opposition) we've got a few up at the top - the likes of Grayling and Bryant, for instance.
Kasich is second in a poll out tonight for NH by NBC/Marist and Carson in Iowa (both are 63 so not that far off)
The SurveyUSA poll is now looking less of a rogue one, If Trump is level with Hillary in N.H and beating her by 5 in Iowa that is about what you would expect if Trump was in the lead nationally.
Trump is behind Hillary in NH and ahead of her in Iowa, he trails Biden in both states. SurveyUSA had Trump leading Biden nationally. It is closer to PPP which had Hillary just 2% ahead of Trump nationally while Biden had a clearer lead
Dan Hannan has just said on Channel 4 news there is no control of the people coming this way even in the camps they are mixed in with economic migrants from other nations. He made the point if this is not resolved then the genuine refugees will be crowded out and won't get the help they need. Dan Hannan remember has worked in the camps and agrees taking people from the camps is correct but it has to be refugees.
Meanwhile, Austria is arguing with Hungary about border controls, Hungary are arguing with Germany and the EU and the EU wring there hands as Schengen completely collapses overnight. People continue to die, the Syrian war goes on and the people traffickers make money.
Just another outcome of Merkel's utterly insane decision. These illegal economic migrants just don't understand the concept of document application. They know this is their one single opportunity while the authorities are overwhelmed by numbers to try and disappear in the masses.
How many pro Europeans are now prepared to vote out?
Judging from the conversations I have had over the last ten days, a rapidly growing number. At sixty and never having voted Conservative, I shall now vote ‘out’. It is fascinating and, so far as I can see, completely unreported, that this phenomena is now occurring.
The numbers will inevitably be small, however, they are in a crucial group, British people who are supportive of the European Union. Several tell me that the end of the road has been reached, to vote in is to create endless strife. It is clear English voters wish to leave; let us part ways with good grace.
(snip) To answer Josiah, Turkey's aims are very clear, stabilise Syria and Iraq, eliminate the Islamists, get the very expensive refugee camps closed and return the displaced people back home. Anyone with more than two brain cells can see that. However, Turkey's aims and Erdogan's aims are not aligned, which is why we cannot invite Erdogan to the table, while he funds ISIS and al-Nusra in Syria and Iraq his place at any negotiating table is an affront to all of those displaced people. He has displaced them in order to wage a centuries old Islamic civil war. (snip)
I didn't realise you have such a window into Erdogan's mind. Or, for that matter, Gülen's. And it is hard to discuss Turkey at the moment without also mentioning America's guest. Many of Erdogan's actions might be rooted in his new-found opposition to the king across the water.
Aside from that: so you think we support someone who uses chemical weapons on his own populations? That is at the heart of your policy? It worked out really well after Halabja didn't it? Western blindness at that time really stabilised the region ...
Mr. Hills, we'll see. Ling time yet and I imagine many now angry with the EU will see their anger dissipate and grumpily vote In as the lesser of two evils.
Mr. Moses, there's an off-chance her migration idiocy will be the issue that defines Merkel (though the eurozone sovereign debt crisis could yet outshine it).
LG 1983.. Your posts do suggest that you favour Russia at almost all levels..In my history Russia has always been a major threat to our way of life... I see nothing at present to make me change that thought process.
I suppose we just have a different perception of threat. I happen to believe that a threat like Russia is quite obvious and quantifiable. If our way of life is going to be destroyed, I suspect it is because we will give it away willingly, rather than have it taken away by the Russkyes. The danger is a stab in the back, not in the front.
Your first interesting post of the night.
Let me just say that I am not anti-Russian: I have great admiration for the Russian people, who have not been well served by any person or organisation that has ruled them. I particularly admire Russian engineering; during the Cold War they achieved some miracles within a rather unhelpful political and fiscal situation. It's a shame their computer developments never really matched the west, and that story might be used as an example of the benefits of capitalism over communism.
That said, I disagree vehemently with what you wrote. If you were Georgian or Ukrainian you might have a somewhat different view.
I can see Valls challenging Hollande if such polling continues, Juppe and Sarkozy scrapping it out for the centre right nomination, Le Pen in first
It won't make a difference, the socialists are trashed in France because of their trashy economic and social record, the FN has replaced them as one of the big 2 in France.
But the second round is all that matters, Hollande should had put Sarkozi in jail when he had the chance, though it's possible for him to do so just before the election based on the bribes and the corruption scandals of the past. French presidents are very conspiratorial when it comes in keeping their jobs.
Goodnight.
Valls is competent, Hollande is not, that is the difference and there is no real mood to have Sarkozy back as you suggest other than him being better than the present incumbent
LG 1983.. Your posts do suggest that you favour Russia at almost all levels..In my history Russia has always been a major threat to our way of life... I see nothing at present to make me change that thought process.
Many of the kipper tendency favour Putin because he is an enemy of the EU.
If Donald Trump gets the Republican Nomination and Bernie Sanders the Democratic Nomination, does that leave enough space and/or appetite for a credible centrist 3rd Party Run? I'm thinking Michal Bloomberg in particular?
In the past 3rd party candidates have struggled even when they have come with millions of there own dollars, like Rose Parot.
But the two parties are no so fares apart they and extreme, puled that way by there own respective special interests, that they have become distant from some many moderate/independent voters.
Perhaps this time could be different? love to here other peoples opinions.
Thank you Plato, its really nice to be welcomed in to a community, and thank you everybody else for your comments and opinions.
(snip) To answer Josiah, Turkey's aims are very clear, stabilise Syria and Iraq, eliminate the Islamists, get the very expensive refugee camps closed and return the displaced people back home. Anyone with more than two brain cells can see that. However, Turkey's aims and Erdogan's aims are not aligned, which is why we cannot invite Erdogan to the table, while he funds ISIS and al-Nusra in Syria and Iraq his place at any negotiating table is an affront to all of those displaced people. He has displaced them in order to wage a centuries old Islamic civil war. (snip)
I didn't realise you have such a window into Erdogan's mind. Or, for that matter, Gülen's. And it is hard to discuss Turkey at the moment without also mentioning America's guest. Many of Erdogan's actions might be rooted in his new-found opposition to the king across the water.
Aside from that: so you think we support someone who uses chemical weapons on his own populations? That is at the heart of your policy? It worked out really well after Halabja didn't it? Western blindness at that time really stabilised the region ...
If this isn't window into his mind enough for you I'm not sure what is.
That's flimsy.
It's one way it can be read. There are others: Turkey is a gateway and a link between west and east. His comments can easily be seen in that context. Here's a quote of his relating to Turkey's now virtually abandoned attempts to join the EU:
"... our commercial relations with Arab nations, with whom we share a common historical heritage, will gain more strength as a consequence of our bridging role between Europe and the Middle East," (1)
Remember, Turkey is frightened. It is more concerned about protecting its borders than expanding it. After all, they've had plenty of opportunities in the last few years to expand southwards, but have never bothered. Even their incursions into Syria (for instance to the Suleman Shah tomb) have been measured.
It does feel slightly odd to be defending Erdogan. I think I need a drink ...
Comments
Yeah, that deal would really work. Cut out one of the major powers, a neighbour - who have immense interest in the outcome - and one that we are trying to bring back towards the western sphere of interest, not push further away.
I dislike Erdogan (I have to be careful saying that, and that's part of the problem), but the idea that Turkey should be cut out of discussions of the future of the area is ludicrous.
By leaving Turkey out, you will be just repeating the mistakes of the past.
But let's take one of your floated ideas. 'Autonomy for Kurds'. Right: what does that mean? A state-within-a-state? A separate state? How does it relate to the Iraqi Kurdish areas, with whom they might want to join? What about Iranian Kurds? How will Turkey react? As you want to leave them out, will you impose the outcome on them?
We had a window of opportunity around the time of the vote. True, the opportunity was best a few months earlier, and it may not have worked, as I have admitted all along. But it was a window. Knowingly doing nothing is as much a concious decision as doing something.
You do not support Assad, but you want to support him? Hmmm. At least it's more solid than your sick accusations that I support IS.
Just for the record, for any PBer liable to believe your comment: I hate IS. I hate their ideology, I hate their actions, I hate their very existence.
I shouldn't need to say it, but apparently I do.
Trump is a great entertainer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_gwoGMnwNk
He did not ban food and drinks just controlled them and that is the type of thing that would appeal to soccer moms.
A solicitor friend of mine was acting for someone who had been fired by one of Trump's organisations which had been involved with his golf course in Scotland. He was dealing with the chap that used to be advisor on the American apprentice, George Ross, I think.
He was involved in a long transatlantic telephone call about the case and was then told that there was someone else on the line who wanted to speak to him. It was the Donald.
"Tom (not real name)," he said, "I have been listening to you speaking to George here and you have been representing your client real well. You're a very fine lawyer, Tom very good, but I need to tell you a story."
"You will be aware that we are building a golf course in Scotland, Tom?"
"Yes".
"Well, its a pretty big project and when we were finished we decided to have to have a dinner at [] Castle, you been there Tom? Very nice. Maybe we could meet there sometime when I am over. “
“Anyway I am at the top table with my main guests and this includes my main [] contractor. After a while he seemed to have lost his wife. Do you know where his wife was Tom? She was in the toilets Tom, banging your client. “
“Now, I have met your client’s wife [], Tom, a very fine woman. It would be terrible if she became aware of this but I really don’t see how she couldn’t if this case proceeds. So I am going to pass you back to George now and see if you can work something out.”
In fairness, I could imagine LBJ acting like this. But it's not very Presidential is it?
The Turkish government know that a stable Syria and Iraq is in their interests. What we have to convince them is that will not exist with ISIS and al-Nusra, but with a stable state, possibly with a Kurdish enclave. They should not take much convincing of that; what we need to sort out is the Kurdish question in such a way they do not feel threatened.
The idea of leaving them out is laughable.
Erdogan has islamic imperial ambitions and Turkey is now too strong to be controlled by Washington, you may wan't to create a problem for them as a distraction or bargaining chip for Syria, but what? Turkey is surrounded by crumbling weak states, they have no enemies that border them apart from Armenia, only Iran is strong enough but they prefer commercial deals than hostility, same goes for Russia with Georgia as a buffer state.
You have to weaken Erdogan from the inside, the elections are a perfect opportunity, besides that there is nothing else to do except steering the pot with the kurds but he want's to have the kurds as his internal enemy to excuse oppression, Erdogan's team is very lucky and very competent. Best case there are mass protests and a mass crackdown leading to sanctions which will be lifted only if Erdogan exchanges Syria, but it's a very high risk as shown by the arab spring.
If he had invested his inheritance in the S&P 500 then he would be worth a multiple of how rich he is today
We were discussing chlorine attacks and MrTimT got confused and commented on a completely unrelated allegation. It's all there in black and white in the thread. You've really jumped off the deep end.
Is there no candidate in these elections who is middle-aged rather than elderly? Why are talented politicians from the next generation or indeed of BHO's own generation not coming through?
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/resurrecting-the-ottoman-empire/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/recep-tayyip-erdogan-the-new-sultan-now-has-a-new-palace--and-it-has-cost-turkish-taxpayers-400m-9841319.html
http://carnegieendowment.org/2008/10/07/turkey-s-middle-east-policies-between-neo-ottomanism-and-kemalism/39k
I hate Al-Nusra and wish they did not exist. I want to see them and their ideology beaten.
There. Feel better?
BTW, I am nor religious, and could best be described as agnostic. Religion is best kept out of politics where at all possible.
I agree with @ydoethur: where is the next generation?
Pro-big business, plus pro-immigration seems a way to get on the wrong side of most people.
Confused though, as it's these groups to whom your policy in the region would give succour.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/resurrecting-the-ottoman-empire/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/recep-tayyip-erdogan-the-new-sultan-now-has-a-new-palace--and-it-has-cost-turkish-taxpayers-400m-9841319.html
http://carnegieendowment.org/2008/10/07/turkey-s-middle-east-policies-between-neo-ottomanism-and-kemalism/39k
The independent link is about the construction of a palace, which have led some to accuse him of acting like a Sultan. Nothing about 'Imperialistic ambitions'.
I haven't had a chance to read the other links yet - but I will do, thanks.
You must understand that the old 'imperialistic ambitions' accusation has been made against many Turkish presidents and governments. Turkey is surrounded by eight countries, many of whom it once had power over, and none of whom is it particularly friendly with. Several neighbours are afraid of Turkey for historic reasons, and Turkey is concerned about them.
It is also pulled, as it has been for Millennia, between west and east, and now between secularism and religion.
I have no time for Erdogan, and he is taking the country down the wrong route, in my opinion. But from what I've seen, read and heard, 'imperialistic ambitions' is stretching it to breaking point.
To answer Josiah, Turkey's aims are very clear, stabilise Syria and Iraq, eliminate the Islamists, get the very expensive refugee camps closed and return the displaced people back home. Anyone with more than two brain cells can see that. However, Turkey's aims and Erdogan's aims are not aligned, which is why we cannot invite Erdogan to the table, while he funds ISIS and al-Nusra in Syria and Iraq his place at any negotiating table is an affront to all of those displaced people. He has displaced them in order to wage a centuries old Islamic civil war.
As for the window you claim existed, I'm sure the same analysis said a window existed in Libya, I believed it did in Libya anyway. We have since learned that replacing a dictatorial strong man with a weak and divided opposition leads to a power vacuum in which groups like ISIS thrive. Egypt only came out on the other side because al-Sisi had enough popular support to become the new strong man. There is no one in Syria to take the al-Sisi road, there is no one unsullied who we can treat with, I don't support Assad as much as I loathe ISIS and see that we must do whatever is necessary to halt their advance in the ME and to dismantle their funding structures. If that means getting into bed with Assad then unfortunately, we must do it. Again, it is a tough decision that responsible, grown up leaders take. Not the kind of idiotic solution concocted by Merkel which will only serve to enrich people traffickers and bring thousands of indentured slave labourers to Turkish families in Germany.
It should be noted that all your policies give succour to one party only: Russia.
Marine Le pen in first place for 2017 presidentials. Hollande wouldn't make it past the first round according to RTL.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2015/09/06/01002-20150906ARTFIG00155-sondage-hollande-exclu-du-second-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php
Aside from that: so you think we support someone who uses chemical weapons on his own populations? That is at the heart of your policy? It worked out really well after Halabja didn't it? Western blindness at that time really stabilised the region ...
NH
GOP
Trump – 28
Kasich – 12
Carson – 11
Bush – 8
Fiorina – 6
Christie -5
Cruz – 5
Paul – 5
Walker – 4
Rubio – 3
Huckabee – 2
Graham – 1
Jindal – 1
others – 0
Democratic
Sanders – 41
Clinton – 32
Biden – 16
O’Malley – 1
Webb – 1
General election
Bush – 48
Clinton – 43
Bush – 46
Biden – 45
Clinton – 46
Trump – 45
Biden – 50
Trump – 41
Iowa
GOP
Trump – 29
Carson – 22
Bush – 6
Fiorina – 5
Paul – 5
Walker – 5
Cruz – 4
Jindal – 4
Rubio – 4
Huck – 3
Christie – 2
Kasich – 2
Santorum – 1
others – 0
Democratic
Clinton – 38
Sanders – 27
Biden – 20
O’Malley – 4
Webb – 2
Chafee – 1
General Election
Trump – 48
Clinton – 43
Biden – 49
Trump -45
Bush – 50
Clinton – 39
Bush- 46
Biden – 44
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-9-n-h-gains-iowa-n422111
Round two this time will be more difficult to predict, especially if its Sarkozy
http://www.electograph.com/2015/09/the-netherlands-september-2015-peilnl.html
I have a feeling support for Eurosceptic parties will only increase for the foreseable future.
But the second round is all that matters, Hollande should had put Sarkozi in jail when he had the chance, though it's possible for him to do so just before the election based on the bribes and the corruption scandals of the past.
French presidents are very conspiratorial when it comes in keeping their jobs.
Goodnight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
I am also very aware of the sectarian issues.
First you call me an apologist for ISIS, and now you try to say I have no knowledge about the ME. Wow.
Meanwhile, Austria is arguing with Hungary about border controls, Hungary are arguing with Germany and the EU and the EU wring there hands as Schengen completely collapses overnight. People continue to die, the Syrian war goes on and the people traffickers make money.
Just another outcome of Merkel's utterly insane decision. These illegal economic migrants just don't understand the concept of document application. They know this is their one single opportunity while the authorities are overwhelmed by numbers to try and disappear in the masses.
A lot, but evidently not all.
Judging from the conversations I have had over the last ten days, a rapidly growing number. At sixty and never having voted Conservative, I shall now vote ‘out’. It is fascinating and, so far as I can see, completely unreported, that this phenomena is now occurring.
The numbers will inevitably be small, however, they are in a crucial group, British people who are supportive of the European Union. Several tell me that the end of the road has been reached, to vote in is to create endless strife. It is clear English voters wish to leave; let us part ways with good grace.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/06/palin_wants_trump_to_name_her_energy_secretary_says_immigrants_should_speak.html?wpsrc=fol_tw
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/06/politics/sarah-palin-energy-secretary/index.html
Goodnight.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2259/turkey-erdogan-ottoman-region
If this isn't window into his mind enough for you I'm not sure what is.
New Thread New Thread
Mr. Moses, there's an off-chance her migration idiocy will be the issue that defines Merkel (though the eurozone sovereign debt crisis could yet outshine it).
Let me just say that I am not anti-Russian: I have great admiration for the Russian people, who have not been well served by any person or organisation that has ruled them. I particularly admire Russian engineering; during the Cold War they achieved some miracles within a rather unhelpful political and fiscal situation. It's a shame their computer developments never really matched the west, and that story might be used as an example of the benefits of capitalism over communism.
That said, I disagree vehemently with what you wrote. If you were Georgian or Ukrainian you might have a somewhat different view.
Rich
It's one way it can be read. There are others: Turkey is a gateway and a link between west and east. His comments can easily be seen in that context. Here's a quote of his relating to Turkey's now virtually abandoned attempts to join the EU:
"... our commercial relations with Arab nations, with whom we share a common historical heritage, will gain more strength as a consequence of our bridging role between Europe and the Middle East," (1)
Remember, Turkey is frightened. It is more concerned about protecting its borders than expanding it. After all, they've had plenty of opportunities in the last few years to expand southwards, but have never bothered. Even their incursions into Syria (for instance to the Suleman Shah tomb) have been measured.
It does feel slightly odd to be defending Erdogan. I think I need a drink ...
(1): http://www.dunya.com/mobi/erdogan-as-a-bridge-between-the-east-and-west-turkey-should-have-strong-the-with-both-50438h.htm