The Trump presidency.

[Mark]

I did not suggest he was. Again, a false dichotomy to add you your list of usual rhetorical games. The point being, the "crimes against women" that all of the women who marched against Trump for amount to very dubious alleged behavior at a personal level and, as yet, absolutely nothing at a policy level.

Meanwhile their silence has been, by comparison, deafening over the last 8 years with regards to Obama's ACTUAL POLICIES, which have ranged from mass slaughter of the innocent in general terms, through to specific support and arming of the most women-hating , murderous people on the planet.

I'm with Ken - I think ISIS obtained most of their arms from the Iraqi army in one way or another.... The US armed the Iraqi army in the (possibly mistaken) belief that they would be a pro-Western government and fight ISIS and others such as the Shia militias.... That can be questioned, but it's very different to a deliberate Policy by Obama to arm ISIS....

Anyway, it's all academic now anyway. Trump is in now and he's already said that he wants to make defeating 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' his top foreign policy goal. Who knows what that means exactly, but it doesn't sound to me the words of a peace-maker.... A belligerent US can only make the situation in the ME worse.......

Regarding your point on Women's rights...., he's only been in for 2 minutes, but I'm sure he'll soon get round to Abortion Laws etc......

[careful_eugene]

Anyway, it's all academic now anyway. Trump is in now and he's already said that he wants to make defeating 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' his top foreign policy goal. Who knows what that means exactly

I suspect it means he'll sub-contract the job to Russia / Turkey

[raspberry-blower]

In case you missed it because of all the attention given to protest marches:

Moon of Alabama: Distracted Media Fails to Catch Trump Policy Decisions

Today the Trump administration announced the end of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement:

The president’s withdrawal from the Asian-Pacific trade pact amounted to a drastic reversal of decades of economic policy in which presidents of both parties have lowered trade barriers and expanded ties around the world. Although candidates have often criticized trade deals on the campaign trail, those who made it to the White House, including President Barack Obama, ended up extending their reach.

The NYT seems astonished that, unlike Obama, Trump stands by his words. The media had expected different and was distracted. It failed to report the issue until the decision was taken.

The TPP would have imposed "free trade" on more countries and products. The "free" in those trades would have meant that private companies would have been free to overrule national governments and their jurisdiction. They could have sued for "compensation" if a country, for public health or environmental reasons, rejected or hindered one of their businesses. Everyone should be happy that this monster died.

[Little John]

Here’s how and why the US has been helping ISIS take Deir El-Zour

http://theduran.com/us-isis-deir-el-zour/

[johnhemming2]

That article correctly identifies a form of Shi'a Sunni conflict that is going on in the Middle East more generally, but ignores the important differences between different elements on each side.

[careful_eugene]

Here’s how and why the US has been helping ISIS take Deir El-Zour

http://theduran.com/us-isis-deir-el-zour/

Interesting piece, however looking elsewhere (mediabiasfactchecker.com & fakenewschecker.com) theduran.com site is called into question, so is the report correct or is it just some more "alternative facts"? To be fair I'm not qualified to know whether any of those sites are reliable or not.
I don't trust the UK & US governments not to lie and obfuscate, I suspect that all sides engage in this to a greater or lesser degree with the possible exception of Jeremy Corbyn who is too honest for his own good.

[careful_eugene]

That article correctly identifies a form of Shi'a Sunni conflict that is going on in the Middle East more generally, but ignores the important differences between different elements on each side.

Did we just read the same thing? http://theduran.com/us-isis-deir-el-zour/

[johnhemming2]

states of the Middle East (Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and now increasingly Iraq) who resist US-Israeli-Saudi power

v

The war is sponsored and funded by Saudi Arabia, the true factory of Wahhabism, as well as by countries like Qatar and Turkey.
That this is the case is shown by the fact that whenever the Syrian Arab Army shows pictures of dead ISIS terrorists they turn out to be mostly from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia and other places, not from Syria.

When you analyse these by the Sunni Shi'a split what do you find?

[careful_eugene]

I take your point but the main thrust of the article was referring to US support of ISIS.

[Little John]

Of course it was and of course Mr Hemming knows that. But, as ever, one of his little tricks is to pick on some secondary point being made and attempt to redirect the focus of debate on some aspect of that secondary point in order to obfuscate attention away from the main point. Indeed, I would argue this is his main rhetorical tactic. All those years spent bullshitting in parliament will have honed such skills, I would think.

[johnhemming2]

I take your point but the main thrust of the article was referring to US support of ISIS.

The US were acting in support of the Syrian opposition. My own view on this is that they did offer some support for people who over time turned into Daesh. I do think you can distinguish between different parts of the Syrian opposition. However, they are also clearly acting against Daesh. Exactly where the line is drawn between different Syrian opposition groups will always be a bit unclear. However, the article appears to have been written by someone who supported the Syrian government who have an interest in painting the opposition as all being the same.

The US had been trying to get rid of Assad. It appears that that there is a movement towards compromise on that point.

[Mark]

& he's already pushing though pipelines for Canadian oil from the Tar Sands....

Trump backs Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38734450

More environmental destruction in Canada and on the route of the pipeline....
More Climate Change and pollution.....

4 days in and he already makes me weep.....
Only what was expected, but it's going to be a very long 4 years.....
Can't they bring back Obama....??

[woodburner]

Of course it was and of course Mr Hemming knows that. But, as ever, one of his little tricks is to pick on some secondary point being made and attempt to redirect the focus of debate on some aspect of that secondary point in order to obfuscate attention away from the main point. Indeed, I would argue this is his main rhetorical tactic. All those years spent bullshitting in parliament will have honed such skills, I would think.

LJ is not the sole source of the truth in the world.

[Little John]

Of course I'm not. However, the point being made was not whether Mr Hemming agreed. I would hardly expect him to. But whether he was prepared to honestly and without misdirection and obfuscation, address the central point made, not by me, but by the author of the article I linked to. But then, I think you knew that Woodburner. So, how honest a debater does that make you? Or, alternatively, you have not read the linked article, in which case, why are you commenting on the debate about it?

[woodburner]

There's not necessarily anything wrong with picking on another point. The article as written is not necessarily the whole absolute truth.