Toronto Escorts

McMaster out, Bolton in

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
General McMaster's next assignment hasn't been announced but is the common belief in Washington and Military circles that he is going to be promoted to full General and reassigned to a command appropriate to that rank.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Seems that Trump has dropped all his campaign promises and instead hired every neocon in sight.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Bolton in WSJ:

The Winter Olympics’ closing ceremonies also concluded North Korea’s propaganda effort to divert attention from its nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs. And although President Trump announced more economic sanctions against Pyongyang last week, he also bluntly presaged “Phase Two” of U.S. action against the Kim regime, which “may be a very rough thing.”

CIA Director Mike Pompeo said in January that Pyongyang was within “a handful of months” of being able to deliver nuclear warheads to the U.S. How long must America wait before it acts to eliminate that threat?

Pre-emption opponents argue that action is not justified because Pyongyang does not constitute an “imminent threat.” They are wrong. The threat is imminent, and the case against pre-emption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times. Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute. That would risk striking after the North has deliverable nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous situation.

In assessing the timing of pre-emptive attacks, the classic formulation is Daniel Webster’s test of “necessity.” British forces in 1837 invaded U.S. territory to destroy the steamboat Caroline, which Canadian rebels had used to transport weapons into Ontario.

Webster asserted that Britain failed to show that “the necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” Pre-emption opponents would argue that Britain should have waited until the Caroline reached Canada before attacking.

Would an American strike today against North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program violate Webster’s necessity test? Clearly not. Necessity in the nuclear and ballistic-missile age is simply different than in the age of steam. What was once remote is now, as a practical matter, near; what was previously time-consuming to deliver can now arrive in minutes; and the level of destructiveness of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is infinitely greater than that of the steamship Caroline’s weapons cargo.

Timing and distance have long been recognized as surrogate measures defining the seriousness of military threats, thereby serving as criteria to justify pre-emptive political or military actions. In the days of sail, maritime states were recognized as controlling territorial waters (above and below the surface) for three nautical miles out to sea. In the early 18th century, that was the farthest distance cannonballs could reach, hence defining a state’s outer defense perimeter. While some states asserted broader maritime claims, the three-mile limit was widely accepted in Europe.

Technological developments inevitably challenged maritime-state defenses. Over time, many nations extended their territorial claims, but the U.S. adhered to the three-mile limit until World War II. After proclaiming U.S. neutrality in 1939, in large measure to limit the activities of belligerent-power warships and submarines in our waters, President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly realized the three-mile limit was an invitation for aggression. German submarines were sinking ships off the coast within sight of Boston and New York.

In May 1941, Roosevelt told the Pan-American Union that “if the Axis Powers fail to gain control of the seas, then they are certainly defeated.” He explained that our defenses had “to relate . . . to the lightning speed of modern warfare.” He scoffed at those waiting “until bombs actually drop in the streets” of U.S. cities: “Our Bunker Hill of tomorrow may be several thousand miles from Boston.” Accordingly, over time, Roosevelt vastly extended America’s “waters of self defense” to include Greenland, Iceland and even parts of West Africa.

Similarly in 1988, President Reagan unilaterally extended U.S. territorial waters from three to 12 miles. Reagan’s executive order cited U.S. national security and other significant interests in this expansion, and administration officials underlined that a major rationale was making it harder for Soviet spy ships to gather information.

In short, both Roosevelt and Reagan acted unilaterally to adjust to new realities. They did not reify time and distance, or confuse the concrete for the existential. They adjusted the measures to reality, not the reverse.

Although the Caroline criteria are often cited in pre-emption debates, they are merely customary international law, which is interpreted and modified in light of changing state practice. In contemporary times, Israel has already twice struck nuclear-weapons programs in hostile states: destroying the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007.

This is how we should think today about the threat of nuclear warheads delivered by ballistic missiles. In 1837 Britain unleashed pre-emptive “fire and fury” against a wooden steamboat. It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current “necessity” posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
I clearly heard Hannity say at the end of last week that there is no way that McMaster will be leaving the Whitehouse. Just usual fake news by the MSM. Today he said that it was a "good decision" by Trump.
This network is a comedy show. I just cannot stop laughing when he starts his "ground breaking news". Turns out that it is "Broken News" like all his thousands of other such ground breaking news.
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,090
6,425
113
I couldn't take my eyes off of lovely Hucka and her beautiful inbred eyes, while McMaster delivered his speech. Sean Hannity loves cock.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
I couldn't take my eyes off of lovely Hucka and her beautiful inbred eyes, while McMaster delivered his speech. Sean Hannity loves cock.
You are a very sick man. Seek help.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
From an article by David Stockmn on the T1.3 spending bill:

Still, the heart of the bill---a $695 billion defense appropriation for the current fiscal year---is the real tell. That represents a staggering $80 billion annual increase over the previous DOD spending caps---meaning that the Warfare State has busted loose from any vestige of restraint and rationality.

And it comes at the very moment that Imperial Washington has descended into outright bellicosity on all points of the political spectrum. Trump has taken himself hostage to the neocon interventionist establishment he campaigned against, while the Dems and progressive left has descended so deep into anti-Russian hysteria that they have become nothing less than handmaidens of the Warfare State.

Indeed, whatever impulse the Donald may have had toward curtailment of the America's imperial interventions was obliterated on Thursday when he announced that his war-hawk general at the national security advisor post, H.R. McMaster, would be replaced by a downright horror show.

We refer to former UN Ambassador John Bolton. You really can't say anything bad enough about him except that he is one war-loving sicko, who has rarely meant an unfriendly country he didn't want to bomb or a un-compliant regime he didn't want to change. That includes North Korea, Iran, Syria and Russia for starters.

But its worse. Now that he has put Mike Pompeo at the State Department, Bloody Gina Haspel at the CIA and Bolton next door to the Oval Office, the Donald has surrounded himself with the Neocon war department. It would literally be impossible to find a worse trio of militaristic interventionists, nor is it possible to ignore the immediate implications of their appointments.

As we shall lay out in Part 2, the trio and the Donald will soon be ending the one constructive thing Obama did during his eight years----the nuke agreement with Iran. And that foolish action, in turn, will bust the middle east and the wider world wide open. It may even lead to military confrontation with Russia.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
So the guy who pushed the Fake Iraq War on BushII — the war Donny said was wrong, Bush lost, and he was against it from the start — is now Donny's personally picked advisor on Wars And How to Win Them.

In the wise words of the immortal Asterix, "They're crazy, these Trumps"
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
So the guy who pushed the Fake Iraq War on BushII — the war Donny said was wrong, Bush lost, and he was against it from the start — is now Donny's personally picked advisor on Wars And How to Win Them.

In the wise words of the immortal Asterix, "They're crazy, these Trumps"
We would not have been any worse off with Hillary.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
Bolton in WSJ:

The Winter Olympics’ closing ceremonies also concluded North Korea’s propaganda effort to divert attention from its nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs. And although President Trump announced more economic sanctions against Pyongyang last week, he also bluntly presaged “Phase Two” of U.S. action against the Kim regime, which “may be a very rough thing.”

CIA Director Mike Pompeo said in January that Pyongyang was within “a handful of months” of being able to deliver nuclear warheads to the U.S. How long must America wait before it acts to eliminate that threat?

Pre-emption opponents argue that action is not justified because Pyongyang does not constitute an “imminent threat.” They are wrong. The threat is imminent, and the case against pre-emption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times. Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute. That would risk striking after the North has deliverable nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous situation.

In assessing the timing of pre-emptive attacks, the classic formulation is Daniel Webster’s test of “necessity.” British forces in 1837 invaded U.S. territory to destroy the steamboat Caroline, which Canadian rebels had used to transport weapons into Ontario.

Webster asserted that Britain failed to show that “the necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” Pre-emption opponents would argue that Britain should have waited until the Caroline reached Canada before attacking.

Would an American strike today against North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program violate Webster’s necessity test? Clearly not. Necessity in the nuclear and ballistic-missile age is simply different than in the age of steam. What was once remote is now, as a practical matter, near; what was previously time-consuming to deliver can now arrive in minutes; and the level of destructiveness of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is infinitely greater than that of the steamship Caroline’s weapons cargo.

Timing and distance have long been recognized as surrogate measures defining the seriousness of military threats, thereby serving as criteria to justify pre-emptive political or military actions. In the days of sail, maritime states were recognized as controlling territorial waters (above and below the surface) for three nautical miles out to sea. In the early 18th century, that was the farthest distance cannonballs could reach, hence defining a state’s outer defense perimeter. While some states asserted broader maritime claims, the three-mile limit was widely accepted in Europe.

Technological developments inevitably challenged maritime-state defenses. Over time, many nations extended their territorial claims, but the U.S. adhered to the three-mile limit until World War II. After proclaiming U.S. neutrality in 1939, in large measure to limit the activities of belligerent-power warships and submarines in our waters, President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly realized the three-mile limit was an invitation for aggression. German submarines were sinking ships off the coast within sight of Boston and New York.

In May 1941, Roosevelt told the Pan-American Union that “if the Axis Powers fail to gain control of the seas, then they are certainly defeated.” He explained that our defenses had “to relate . . . to the lightning speed of modern warfare.” He scoffed at those waiting “until bombs actually drop in the streets” of U.S. cities: “Our Bunker Hill of tomorrow may be several thousand miles from Boston.” Accordingly, over time, Roosevelt vastly extended America’s “waters of self defense” to include Greenland, Iceland and even parts of West Africa.

Similarly in 1988, President Reagan unilaterally extended U.S. territorial waters from three to 12 miles. Reagan’s executive order cited U.S. national security and other significant interests in this expansion, and administration officials underlined that a major rationale was making it harder for Soviet spy ships to gather information.

In short, both Roosevelt and Reagan acted unilaterally to adjust to new realities. They did not reify time and distance, or confuse the concrete for the existential. They adjusted the measures to reality, not the reverse.

Although the Caroline criteria are often cited in pre-emption debates, they are merely customary international law, which is interpreted and modified in light of changing state practice. In contemporary times, Israel has already twice struck nuclear-weapons programs in hostile states: destroying the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007.

This is how we should think today about the threat of nuclear warheads delivered by ballistic missiles. In 1837 Britain unleashed pre-emptive “fire and fury” against a wooden steamboat. It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current “necessity” posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.
Its pretty clear this douce bag does all his thinking with his white moustache just like Nikki Haley does all her thinking with her small tits. If you miss a couple of missiles and lose LA and Tokyo, is that worth the "security" you have won, let alone the fact Seoul will be laid to waste and you may have to contend with massive non-nuclear retaliation from China.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Its pretty clear this douce bag does all his thinking with his white moustache just like Nikki Haley does all her thinking with her small tits. If you miss a couple of missiles and lose LA and Tokyo, is that worth the "security" you have won, let alone the fact Seoul will be laid to waste and you may have to contend with massive non-nuclear retaliation from China.
With Nikki Haley, Pompeo and Bolton, we may all die.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Ex-Cambridge Analytica staff say Bolton super PAC used compromised Facebook data

One of the first uses of a trove of Facebook data on tens of millions of Americans that has thrown Facebook and Cambridge Analytica into crisis this week was in 2014 by a super PAC run by John Bolton, President Donald Trump's new national security adviser, two former Cambridge Analytica employees told CNN.

The Bolton super PAC and Cambridge Analytica signed a $454,700 contract in the summer of 2014. The contract, obtained by CNN, outlined how the data firm would provide the super PAC "behavioral microtargeting with psychographic messaging." The contract stated that the data would be collected in accordance with the law.
Psychographic profiles are used to predict people's interest, values, and opinions -- Cambridge Analytica used the predictions to target voters with advertising.

The predictions were based on Facebook data that Cambridge University scientist Aleksandr Kogan sold to Cambridge Analytica, according to Christopher Wylie, who worked for the company in 2014, and another person who worked for the company but does not want to be named.
Kogan told CNN that he provided Cambridge Analytica with data on 30 million Americans. Facebook said in doing so, Kogan lied to them and breached its policies. Kogan said he believed he was acting withinThe super PAC and Cambridge Analytica say they were unaware the data shared with them was in violation of Facebook policy.
The Bolton PAC was one of the first beneficiaries of the data, both sources said, and Cambridge Analytica used the data to help produce ads for the super PAC.

A spokesman for the super PAC denies knowing of any alleged impropriety by Cambridge Analytica.
Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was mulling a 2016 presidential bid when his super PAC hired Cambridge Analytica. In the 2014 midterms, the super PAC backed candidates including Republican Senate contenders Thom Tillis and Tom Cotton -- both of whom also hired Cambridge Analytica and went on to win their races.
Documents provided to CNN show how the SCL Group, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, outlined how to target voters in Arkansas, where Cotton was running for US Senate in 2014.
Entitled "Arkansas Priority Persuasion Clusters," it split Arkansas voters into five groups and outlined what messaging would resonate with them.

One ad by Bolton's super PAC for Cotton focused on patriotism, leadership and on the candidate's military service.
Wylie said that ad was primarily targeted at "cluster two" of Arkansas voters, which consisted of males in their 40s to 60s who cared most about national security and the economy. Among the "image guidelines" outlined by SCL Group to appeal to this group was a picture of Cotton in military uniform -- similar pictures appeared in the ad.
Another Bolton super PAC ad said "our world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place," citing Iraq, Russia and ISIS, before asking "what's next?"

In one example involving New Hampshire voters, a cluster of 35- to 55-year-olds, mostly female, was described as "polite and concerned with remaining in the good graces of others." SCL Group suggested messages showing figures getting along well should be targeted at this group.
Wylie said that messaging was designed to exploit people's "mental vulnerabilities."
Cambridge Analytica was the brainchild of conservative billionaire Robert Mercer and conservative activist Steve Bannon, who later helped run the Trump campaign and served as chief strategist in the White House.

Federal Election Commission records show Bolton's super PAC paid Cambridge Analytica more than $340,000 during the 2014 midterm elections cycle. Mercer donate $1 million to the super PAC in that same period.
The Mercers also donated to the Tillis and Cotton campaigns in 2014.
Tillis said Cambridge Analytica played a "relatively small part" in his campaign when he spoke to reporters Tuesday.
CNN has reached out to Cotton for comment.
Data on Americans was gathered through a Facebook personality test app built by Kogan. The app not only gathered information from those who used it, but also from their Facebook friends.

One point on an agenda that CNN obtained of a meeting between SCL and another contractor that worked for the Bolton PAC read, "SCL able to harvest substantial and useful information on people from Facebook, with permission."
Cambridge Analytica said when it learned a year later in 2015 that Facebook had determined that Kogan had breached Facebook's policies, Cambridge Analytica deleted the data Kogan had provided them.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/john-bolton-super-pac-cambridge-analytica/index.html

Maybe John bolton will Recuse himself from Security Matters!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
I'm not so sure about that. There were many better choices than either one of them.
Bolton stands to be worse then anything Clinton might have done.
Trump, after all, just boosted the miltary and is spending more on military then social services in this latest budget.
The US is in 9 wars right now.
Add in NK and Iran if Bolton has his way.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Bolton stands to be worse then anything Clinton might have done.
Trump, after all, just boosted the miltary and is spending more on military then social services in this latest budget.
The US is in 9 wars right now.
Add in NK and Iran if Bolton has his way.
Can you spell "Russia"?
 

wigglee

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2010
9,819
1,603
113
Bolton wasn't so hawkish when he (like Bush Jr) hid out in the National Guard to avoid Nam..... now as an old coot, he wants to send your son to die to prove his manhood. This clown believed in Iraqi WMD's and supported Bush's war 110%...expect more bloodshed due to bad judgement and poor foresight soon.
 
Toronto Escorts