pixelburp wrote: » For someone claimed not to be a warmonger, Trump was keen enough to rip up the arms treaty with Russia, or more recently, abandon the Kurds to their fate. Nor indeed have the drone strikes - that albatross hung over the neck of Obama as recently as a few posts back - been lessened in any way AFAIK Oh but he hasn't started an actual war. Please. He may not have explicitly started one, but to say Trump isn't a warmonger is to disingenuously argue in semantics.
RobertKK wrote: » Back in October we had Trump being criticised for removing troops from the Middle East - which is what he had always said was his policy.https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-slams-ridiculous-endless-wars-as-he-defends-dramatic-shift-in-syria-policy-turkey-erdogan-kurds-isis/ "U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday defended the White House's controversial decision to allow Turkey to invade northern Syria and potentially wipe out U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters — citing his long-standing call to extricate American forces from “ridiculous Endless Wars” abroad." So now it is time to see where things really are. On the BBC they said the thought behind it may be that with the sanctions, the protests inside Iran that Iran is too weak to go to war over this - but that it is a big gamble, I would say foolish, but wars that no one wanted have happened throughout history so it was wrong to risk it. Trump may have overestimated the US position while underestimating the Iranian position, we just have to wait and see, but it is not good.
Brian? wrote: » Trump never had an anti war stance. That was a deluded reason to vote for him over Clinton.
RobertKK wrote: » I agree that was wrong and Iran will do something and Iraq are saying what happened was a gross violation of their sovereignty.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Trump stabbed the Kurds in the back. They won't forget. Also, Iran must be seen to retaliate in kind.
Brian? wrote: » That didn’t make him anti war, it was the ramblings of a man who only understands things in terms of what benefits him.
Brian? wrote: » That didn’t make him anti war, it was the ramblings of a man who only understands things in terms of money.
RobertKK wrote: » https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/17/trump_on_iraq_how_could_we_have_been_so_stupid_one_of_the_worst_decisions_in_the_history_of_the_country.html 2016: "You know, if Bush is insulted, I don't care if he's insulted," Trump said Wednesday. "It was a horrible mistake. We should have never been there. Somebody says, oh, that's not good to criticize? I say criticize? It's one of the worst decisions in the history of the country. We have totally destabilized the Middle East." "We spent $2 trillion," Trump said about the Iraq war. "Could have rebuilt our country. We could have done so much with that money. And instead, we're worse in the Middle East than we were 15 years ago. Right now, it's a disaster."
Christy42 wrote: » Obama managed a successful peace deal with Iran. Trump has not in spite of starting with one! Remember he stated as well that he couldn't have learned as he entirely denied ever being for the war. Trump learned nothing. He just learned what would get him cheers in front of a crowd on a given day. In a few weeks Iran will be worse than Hitler and they will be cheering on this war like they cheered Iraq. It was a pretty minor campaign point for Trump. It was something for him to shout about next Mexican rapists or whatever. It was not Central to his campaign and I doubt the man remembers campaigning on it. He is a populist. Nothing more and don't expect more. The American public doesn't really care what happens in the ME so that can be apun whatever way he wants Trust Trump on anything and I have a bridge to sell you
everlast75 wrote: » No. Your point was that Trump was anti-war in Iraq and you provided a link to an article saying so by way of support for that point. I advised you that he did in fact support the war and proved as much. You then brought up Hillary. Now - that being the case, as another poster here has stated, Trump is not pro war or anti war. He is simply pro whatever the **** makes him money/gets him re-elected and therefore lessens his chances of going to jail. At this moment in time, he is using point number 2. He has called out Obama in the past saying that he would go to war with Iran to get re-elected (which was boll*x) but now he is doing the exact same. Every accusation is an admission.
Christy42 wrote: » I mean Iran has a powerful military but not one that can actually attack the US. They can attack some outposts and oil installations. Aside from that how can they respond? It requires the US to actually invade Iran for a war
Leroy42 wrote: » There are lots of terrible people out there. Doesn't give the US the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Imagine if Putin did the same? What direct aggression had the Iranian military done to the US to give them any justification of this assignation?
alchemist33 wrote: » I see a few people asking what happens IF the US goes to war with Iran. They've just killed Iran's top military commander. Surely this is a war now, even without a formal declaration.
Itssoeasy wrote: » That Iranian general was an utter ****e hawk and I doubt many people will be crying into their pints over him being dead. The issue is was this a plan by the USA which involves plans for the inevitable retaliation by Iran or was this an opportunist strike with no plan ? Given who the president is I'm leaning towards it being the latter. I'm not saying someithing on this scale will happen but the assassination of archduke franz Ferdinand in 1914 sparked WW1 when it wasn't the intention. My point is these things have a way of snowballing.
RobertKK wrote: » The point is there were alternatives before the last election. Trump who promised less involvement in the Middle East and called the wars stupid and a waste of money. Clinton who promised more war and no change in the failed Obama/Bush policy.
RobertKK wrote: » When it happened, he learned from hindsight. Not like the idiots in the Obama administration who ended their 8 years of presidency with the US involved in more wars than at the start of his presidency.
RobertKK wrote: » I know Trump voters who say they voted for him based on what he said about the waste of money on wars in the Middle East. They would not back him if he was foolish enough to land himself in a new war in the Middle East.
Christy42 wrote: » He also called Iraq a great idea when it happened. Don't trust what Trump says. Trump went against Iraq in 2016 because everyone was against Iraq by that stage. He was in favour at the time. No one really cared for less war in the last election? His main points we're building a wall and locking her up. It was not a large campaign point His base has yet to care about him making every effort to destabilise Iran. No one has cared for the increase in drone strikes nor the hiding of figures from the public to hide the damage done. Republicans don't, and haven't cared about less war in a very long time.
everlast75 wrote: » We are talking about Trump. You said he was anti-war. I pointed out he was for the very war he criticised. Try staying on point.
RobertKK wrote: » He called the wars the US has been involved in the Middle East a waste of money and made the place worse, this before he got elected and on the campaign trail. Yet people here who must be pro-war were supporting Hillary Clinton who was talking about no fly zones over Syria and more war. Trump allowed Russia to win the Syrian war for Assad, the alternative would be the Hillary Clinton solution - Libya which remains a disaster to this day and we can thank her policy for reintroducing slavery to Libya by removing Gaddafi. The last election was an election for more war or less war. Less war won. Hillary Clinton has voted for every war going and it was her that pushed Obama to intervene in Libya, something Obama later called a ‘**** show’. So we were lucky we did not end up with the architect of the sh1t show in charge.
The Nal wrote: » Why? No president ever gets voted out during a war.
RobertKK wrote: » If one doesn’t learn from hindsight they are stupid. People like Hillary Clinton never learned from hindsight, she always just wanted more war.
everlast75 wrote: » Trump was for the war in iraq. The only wisdom he possesses is after a fact... and even then, that's not a guarantee.https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the
RobertKK wrote: » If Trump ends up in a war, he loses the presidency.
