PDA

View Full Version : Why They Hate Rex Tillerson



Ethereal
12-15-2016, 06:09 AM
Why They Hate Rex Tillerson (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/12/13/hate-rex-tillerson/)

He’s not John Bolton, he’s not Mitt Romney, and he’s for peace with Russia

by Justin Raimondo, December 14, 2016

While the Democrats morph into a neoconservative party of paranoiacs whose main issue is hating on Russia, and the John McCain-Lindsey Graham duo arises to make its last stand in a Trumpified GOP, Rex Tillerson is the perfect target of their ire. Seeking to delegitimize the President-elect as a Russian-controlled Manchurian candidate, the CIA-Clinton-Saudi axis of “resistance” is on the warpath, and Tillerson’s alleged ties to Vladimir Putin are taking center stage in what is bound to turn into a knock-down drag-out fight on the Senate floor.

What’s noteworthy about this gathering storm is that Trump seems to welcome it: despite the rising tide of cold war hysteria, the Trump team is determined to have this fight right out of the starting gate. Instead of waiting for the inevitable assault, they’re going on the offensive against the War Party – and that is a welcome development for those of us who support détente with Russia.

President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of State is the CEO of Exxon, a company that has always opposed the American empire’s favorite ploy short of war: economic sanctions. Exxon is one of the principal supporters of USA Engage, a business lobby that has for years argued against Iranian and Iraqi sanctions, and that believes in “positively engaging other societies through diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, the presence of American organizations,” and that “the best practices of American companies and humanitarian exchanges better advances U.S. objectives than punitive unilateral economic sanctions.”

Contrary to the brainless leftist narrative that characterizes Big Oil as the driving force behind the War Party – remember “No Blood for Oil!”? – the reality is that the oil industry, including Exxon, opposed the Iraq war, just as they opposed the economic sanctions that preceded it. Iran sanctions are equally unpopular with the oil industry, and, as a New Yorker profile of Tillerson put it: “In general, Tillerson and ExxonMobil have argued against economic sanctions as an instrument of American foreign policy.”

...

I was somewhat surprised to learn that "big oil" tends to view sanctions and military conflict in a negative light. The prevailing assumption within much of the antiwar community is that they use government militaries and intelligence agencies to obtain preferential access to otherwise closed markets. However, I can see why they might view engagement and detente as a better way of achieving the same goal. I can't say that I'm fully convinced that big oil generally prefers peace to war, but it's something I'll have to mull over given these facts.

As for Tillerson himself, he does seem to be genuinely opposed to sanctions and to conflict with Russia, and I can only view that in a positive light given the potential risks of a further deterioration in our relationship. The fact that the two most insane people in the Senate - John McCain and Lindsey Graham - are vehemently opposed to him only serves to legitimate him in the eyes of a reasonable person.

stjames1_53
12-15-2016, 06:50 AM
I was somewhat surprised to learn that "big oil" tends to view sanctions and military conflict in a negative light. The prevailing assumption within much of the antiwar community is that they use government militaries and intelligence agencies to obtain preferential access to otherwise closed markets. However, I can see why they might view engagement and detente as a better way of achieving the same goal. I can't say that I'm fully convinced that big oil generally prefers peace to war, but it's something I'll have to mull over given these facts.

As for Tillerson himself, he does seem to be genuinely opposed to sanctions and to conflict with Russia, and I can only view that in a positive light given the potential risks of a further deterioration in our relationship. The fact that the two most insane people in the Senate - John McCain and Lindsey Graham - are vehemently opposed to him only serves to legitimate him in the eyes of a reasonable person.

The democratic side of the aisle wants war with anyone they can get to play.........

Common
12-15-2016, 07:47 AM
They will hate anyone trump picks, somehow they think that will help their election chances

Crepitus
12-15-2016, 07:58 AM
He's not just "for peice with Russia" he's in Putin's pocket right next to Trump.

Dangermouse
12-15-2016, 08:51 AM
He's not just "for peice with Russia" he's in Putin's pocket right next to Trump.

He's even got a medal for his friendliness... Who is inserting hate here?

Green Arrow
12-15-2016, 08:52 AM
If peace with Russia was all he had going for him I would support him 100%, but there are bigger concerns.

Cigar
12-15-2016, 09:06 AM
So we're expected to Like The Russians and Hate Cuba for decades .... :huh:

Please explain this?

Ethereal
12-15-2016, 11:03 AM
He's not just "for peice with Russia" he's in Putin's pocket right next to Trump.
And maybe one day you will be able to produce actual evidence in support of these outlandish assertions.

Ethereal
12-15-2016, 11:07 AM
He's even got a medal for his friendliness... Who is inserting hate here?

Maybe try reading the article before making uninformed statements?


...The big issue, however, will be with Tillerson’s alleged “close ties” to Putin. Much will be made of of his acceptance of Russia’s “Order of Friendship,” which the heavy-breathers in the Hate-Russia lobby will inevitably liken to Charles Lindbergh’s acceptance of the Service Cross of the German Eagle in 1938 – because, as we all know, Putin is Literally Hitler, as Hillary Clinton once opined. Poor Lindsey Graham was recently seen clutching his pearls and declaring that he finds Tillerson’s receipt of this medal “a bit unnerving,” but even the Washington Post – second only to Keith Olbermann in their crusade to convince us that Trump is one of the bad guys in “The Americans” – scoffs at the Senator’s alarm:

“You don’t have to be a close personal friend of President Vladimir Putin to be awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship, much less the globetrotting head of one of the world’s most powerful corporations.

“You can be a basketball coach who couldn’t cut it in Cleveland….”

Yes, you can be former Cleveland Cavaliers coach Dave Blatt, who “was fired midway through his second season in January, even though his Cleveland Cavaliers were in first place and would eventually go on to win the NBA title. What wasn’t good enough for Cleveland was perfectly fine for the Kremlin. Blatt was awarded an Order of Friendship in 2014 for his successes as the head coach of the Russian National Team between 2006 and 2012.”

I thought "liberals" were supposed to be the thoughtful types, yet they seem willing to believe anything without the slightest bit of evidence or logic to support it.

Ethereal
12-15-2016, 11:08 AM
If peace with Russia was all he had going for him I would support him 100%, but there are bigger concerns.

I'm listening.

Ethereal
12-15-2016, 11:09 AM
So we're expected to Like The Russians and Hate Cuba for decades .... :huh:

Please explain this?

Why should I explain something that I never said we should do?

Dangermouse
12-15-2016, 01:12 PM
Maybe try reading the article before making uninformed statements?
I thought "liberals" were supposed to be the thoughtful types, yet they seem willing to believe anything without the slightest bit of evidence or logic to support it.

My statement was informed. Better informed than the hatemongering illiberal partisan OP.

Green Arrow
12-15-2016, 01:51 PM
I'm listening.

The two biggest issues - to me - are that (1) his nomination is another sign we're about to descend into an open plutocracy, and (2) he'll prioritize Exxon's interests over America's.

Tahuyaman
12-15-2016, 02:12 PM
So we're expected to Like The Russians and Hate Cuba for decades .... :huh:

Please explain this?

Shoukd we revive the Cold War and treat Russia as a mortal enemy?

Tahuyaman
12-15-2016, 02:14 PM
The two biggest issues - to me - are that (1) his nomination is another sign we're about to descend into an open plutocracy, and (2) he'll prioritize Exxon's interests over America's.
I can understand your issue with number 2, but number 1 is certainly a head scratcher.

I guess some would prefer that people who have never achieved any type of success represent us and guide policy.

Green Arrow
12-15-2016, 03:45 PM
I can understand your issue with number 2, but number 1 is certainly a head scratcher.

I guess some would prefer that people who have never achieved any type of success represent us and guide policy.
No, some of us just believe you can be successful without being a billionaire CEO. There's more than one type of success. I wouldn't hire a dog catcher to perform my son's brain surgery, no matter how successful he is as a dog catcher.

Cigar
12-15-2016, 03:49 PM
Shoukd we revive the Cold War and treat Russia as a mortal enemy?

Maybe if that hack your bank account you'd have a change of heart :laugh:

Tahuyaman
12-15-2016, 04:49 PM
Maybe if that hack your bank account you'd have a change of heart :laugh:
If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Ethereal
12-15-2016, 07:07 PM
My statement was informed. Better informed than the hatemongering illiberal partisan OP.

Your statement was uninformed drivel. The "Order of Friendship" has been given out to such figures as a Canadian Prime Minister and an American pianist. It does not signify anything other than the individual's contributions to the betterment of relations with Russia. I was under the impression that "liberals" were generally in favor of promoting peace through understanding and sharing, yet you seem far more concerned with gutter-sniping and provocation. Talking about illiberal!

Ethereal
12-15-2016, 07:16 PM
The two biggest issues - to me - are that (1) his nomination is another sign we're about to descend into an open plutocracy, and (2) he'll prioritize Exxon's interests over America's.
On the first count, I don't think it's wise to oppose someone solely because they are a wealthy and/or powerful corporate executive unless you can point to specific evidence that their industry and/or corporation is known for its bad behavior. Before reading this article, I would have agreed with you because I had assumed that big oil was generally in favor of conflict and wars. However, some facts seem to challenge that narrative. Granted, his status as a wealthy and powerful corporate executive is something we should be very mindful of, but not dispositive in terms of his fitness (or lack thereof) for office.

Secondly, it's certainly possible that he will place Exxon's interests over America's, but it's also possible that he won't. I really have no idea. I suppose if a plumber were being nominated there would be a possibility that he would put the interests of plumbers' over America's too. My point is that I would need to see some evidence in support of such a theory.

Dr. Who
12-15-2016, 08:33 PM
On the first count, I don't think it's wise to oppose someone solely because they are a wealthy and/or powerful corporate executive unless you can point to specific evidence that their industry and/or corporation is known for its bad behavior. Before reading this article, I would have agreed with you because I had assumed that big oil was generally in favor of conflict and wars. However, some facts seem to challenge that narrative. Granted, his status as a wealthy and powerful corporate executive is something we should be very mindful of, but not dispositive in terms of his fitness (or lack thereof) for office.

Secondly, it's certainly possible that he will place Exxon's interests over America's, but it's also possible that he won't. I really have no idea. I suppose if a plumber were being nominated there would be a possibility that he would put the interests of plumbers' over America's too. My point is that I would need to see some evidence in support of such a theory.
Given that he has no history of being a 'good' corporate citizen nor of any personal philanthropy added to a predilection for narcissistic self-aggrandizement and attention seeking behavior, his status as a powerful corporate executive is far less relevant than the nature of the man himself. I'm not sure that such an individual can possibly make decisions in anyone's interests other than his own. Where those interests intersect the best interests of the general public it may be kismet, however one should not expect this tiger to ever change his stripes. His decisions will be based on whatever he thinks will benefit the Trump empire.

Amadeus
12-15-2016, 08:43 PM
As for Tillerson himself, he does seem to be genuinely opposed to sanctions and to conflict with Russia, and I can only view that in a positive light given the potential risks of a further deterioration in our relationship. The fact that the two most insane people in the Senate - John McCain and Lindsey Graham - are vehemently opposed to him only serves to legitimate him in the eyes of a reasonable person.
I have my answer (from another thread). You support rewarding Russia's behavior by lifting sanctions, the only non-violent means the US has of punishing Putin. Because Putin is morally equivalent to the US (except that Putin, like Trump, can do whatever they want without accountability).

Mister D
12-15-2016, 08:48 PM
Punishing Putin...lol

Dangermouse
12-15-2016, 08:57 PM
Given that he has no history of being a 'good' corporate citizen nor of any personal philanthropy added to a predilection for narcissistic self-aggrandizement and attention seeking behavior, his status as a powerful corporate executive is far less relevant than the nature of the man himself. I'm not sure that such an individual can possibly make decisions in anyone's interests other than his own. Where those interests intersect the best interests of the general public it may be kismet, however one should not expect this tiger to ever change his stripes. His decisions will be based on whatever he thinks will benefit the Trump empire.

Mr Tillerson's "good" corporation is under investigation by the SEC.

https://www.thenation.com/article/potential-secretary-of-state-nominee-rex-tillerson-has-an-sec-problem/