Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

everlast75 wrote: »

*sigh*

There is protocol. There is procedure.

The rationalizing of this guy's behaviour is truly disturbing.

Not when half the people want to stab you in the back. You seriously think he'd bring something like that to Schiff and Nancy first. Not a hope and I don't blame him.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not when half the people want to stab you in the back. You seriously think he'd bring something like that to Schiff and Nancy first. Not a hope and I don't blame him.

It's almost like he's absolutely useless at diplomacy or something.

RobertKK

Fonny122 wrote: »

Wasn't that the thing though, wasn't Trump supposed to be different to all the other politicians, and wasn't he supposed to be very non interventionist while Clinton was a warmonger?

A lot of people said that is why they wanted Trump over Clinton a few years ago. I'm not sure what changed in the interim.

He said this evening he does not want war with Iran, but the drone program is out of control.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not when half the people want to stab you in the back. You seriously think he'd bring something like that to Schiff and Nancy first. Not a hope and I don't blame him.

Why would half the people want to stab him in the back? It's not like he's a dishonest lunatic or anything.

RobertKK wrote: »

He said this evening he does not want war with Iran, but the drone program is out of control.

Where does the buck stop?

Manic Moran

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The question I have, which, still, nobody has answered and does not seem to be in the news, is why are US soldiers in in Iraq? They aren't over for a vacation and a chinwag over tea about the old times. Are they there with the permission of the Iraqi government? If not, then we have the case of a foreign government's military personnel operating in a country without permission. That becomes a legitimate military target.

Actually, both are true.

They are a legitimate military target regardless of whether they are there with or without permission. One military target engaging another military target, fair enough. As for the permission, you will recall a couple years back there was some question as to whether or not the US would be asked to leave Iraq. There is no indication that they would not have done so had they been so requested. The decision was made by the Iraqis that the US would stay.

RobertKK wrote: »

He said this evening he does not want war with Iran, but the drone program is out of control.

He literally just committed an act of war against Iran. Talk is cheap when you are literally bombing national leaders to death.

He is the CIC and much liek Obama, the buck on drones must stop with him. What was your take on Obama and drone strikes or the middle east?

So much for his opponent being a war monger as a reason to support him.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, both are true.

They are a legitimate military target regardless of whether they are there with or without permission. One military target engaging another military target, fair enough. As for the permission, you will recall a couple years back there was some question as to whether or not the US would be asked to leave Iraq. There is no indication that they would not have done so had they been so requested. The decision was made by the Iraqis that the US would stay.

Seriously? The US has been intervening on a pro bono humanitarian mission in Iraq since 2003? Do you really believe that?

Igotadose

RobertKK wrote: »

He said this evening he does not want war with Iran, but the drone program is out of control.

Oh. A Trump speech. That's sorted then.

Cop on won't you. Trump advocates like yourself are thrilled with this recent action. More dead brown people. All good by you

The do nothing brigade would do well to remember 2011. Maybe if Obama had some spine this guy would have been stopped well before now.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The do nothing brigade would do well to remember 2011. Maybe if Obama had some spine this guy would have been stopped well before now.

You're getting your wires mixed up here. The line was that Obama was a war monger drone striking the entire middle East, Trumps opponent would have been even worse on that front, and that Trump was the only way to ensure the US didn't go down that road.

And yet here we are.

Manic Moran

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Seriously? The US has been intervening on a pro bono humanitarian mission in Iraq since 2003? Do you really believe that?

No, the US is engaging it what it believes to be its best interests.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/us-troops-are-leaving-because-iraq-doesnt-want-them-there/247174/

President Obama's speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren't being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They're leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

For at least the last decade, the Iraqis have been the ultimate arbiters of whether the US troops can stay in their country, and if so, how many. The US troops are there because the US believes it to be in their best interest and at the same time, the Iraqis also believe that they are in Iraq's best interest.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The do nothing brigade would do well to remember 2011. Maybe if Obama had some spine this guy would have been stopped well before now.

What happened in 2011? As for spine, didn't The Donald dodge the draft?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What happened in 2011? As for spine, didn't The Donald dodge the draft?

Obama giving him a slap on the wrist for a terror plot in Washington. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/tg1320.aspx

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, the US is engaging it what it believes to be its best interests.

For sure. The US is looking after itself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/us-troops-are-leaving-because-iraq-doesnt-want-them-there/247174/

President Obama's speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren't being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They're leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

And, in 2014, they went back in at the behest of a puppet government. 14,000 there since May 2019. At whose behest?

For at least the last decade, the Iraqis have been the ultimate arbiters of whether the US troops can stay in their country, and if so, how many. The US troops are there because the US believes it to be in their best interest and at the same time, the Iraqis also believe that they are in Iraq's best interest.

So there are 3,000 US troops on their way to Iraq as we speak. Has Iraq invited them?

[Deleted User]

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Obama giving him a slap on the wrist for a terror plot in Washington. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/tg1320.aspx

Trump did absolutely nothing at all about a US resident butchered by the Saudis. Not even a slap on the wrist.

Fonny122 wrote: »

You're getting your wires mixed up here. The line was that Obama was a war monger drone striking the entire middle East, Trumps opponent would have been even worse on that front, and that Trump was the only way to ensure the US didn't go down that road.

And yet here we are.

Iran wants change it's literally been kidnapped by religious fundementilists for the last 40 years. I'd like for see another revolution there that isn't won by crazys this time. Maybe this could be the spark to start it.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Obama giving him a slap on the wrist for a terror plot in Washington. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/tg1320.aspx

So what should have happened instead?

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump did absolutely nothing at all about a US resident butchered by the Saudis. Not even a slap on the wrist.

He done something over what happened at the weekend and the Dems aren't happy, he can't win which ever way he goes. **Cough Cough...Benghazi..

aloyisious

It now seems, according to Secretary Pompeo, that the killing was made on the basis of an intelligence estimate that Gen Suleinani was involved in the future planning of attacks on US citizens in the days, weeks and months ahead. The notion that the killing was based on an estimate brings me to how much public trust Don has in the US intelligence agencies and how it seems that what was given to him persuaded him to give the go ahead for the killing. Estimates used for the planning of US military attacks in the region have a history of being faulty when it comes to attacking significant regional military forces.

Its hardly worth while pointing out that making plans for assaults against US interests were part and parcel of Gen Suleimani's duty within the Iranian Admin where it came to the unfriendly state of affairs between both Administrations, however much one would dislike the methods used.

It also seems that Gen Suleimani had just arrived by air in Baghdad from Damascus so it gives the appearance that the op was based on ongoing Int surveillance from people in the region.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So what should have happened instead?

They could have stopped selling weapons to them first of all. Iran, Obama, Hillary is a wormhole there's no point going down. Wrong decisions were made by them and those who went before them. I'm not old enough to remember how the revolution happend and why nobody stopped it. It should be put an end to though. I'd say the support of the people is there in Iran.
After they arrested the people for making the happy video it was time to act.

duploelabs

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He done something over what happened at the weekend and the Dems aren't happy, he can't win which ever way he goes. **Cough Cough...Benghazi..

Who was convicted over that? Anyone?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They could have stopped selling weapons to them first of all. Iran, Obama, Hillary is a wormhole there's no point going down. Wrong decisions were made by them and those who went before them. I'm not old enough to remember how the revolution happend and why nobody stopped it. It should be put an end to though. I'd say the support of the people is there in Iran.
After they arrested the people for making the happy video it was time to act.

Okay. I don't understand your point. If you are too young to know what is going on, I would suggest googling: GW Bush, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, oil.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. I don't understand your point. If you are too young to know what is going on, I would suggest googling: GW Bush, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, oil.

I mean in the early 70's. Where was the US, Russia & Europe during the Islamic revolution. How have we ended up with the middle East the way it is now, it looks like it used to be pretty Western influenced.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Iran wants change it's literally been kidnapped by religious fundementilists for the last 40 years. I'd like for see another revolution there that isn't won by crazys this time. Maybe this could be the spark to start it.

That revolution came about as a direct result of the US installing puppet dictators and interventionism. The middle east is in chaos as a direct result of us interventionism. ISIS becoming a thing was thanks to us interventionism.

You're coddling yourself if you think this will be any different. It would be about as popular as if Thatcher in the 80s had Irish government officials bombed to death in the hopes in would have made the Irish government and Irish people more friendly and amenable to the UK. That is how well thought out this is we're this Trumps actual goal.

Thing is, we all know this isn't Trumps goal. He already said what his goal is in this, which is being re-elected because he is a poor negotiator. His words not mine.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I mean in the early 70's. Where was the US, Russia & Europe during the Islamic revolution. How have we ended up with the middle East the way it is now, it looks like it used to be pretty Western influenced.

Well Russia was part of the Soviet Union. Which coincidentally meant that the EEC was much smaller and was just a trading bloc anyway. The US was shoring up Israeli influence and did a good job of brokering peace between Israel and Egypt. Iran was governed by a Shah who was authoritarian and deemed to be a US puppet. Plus there was an economic downturn. So there was a popular uprising which was led by Islamic zealots.

Water John

The Shah was a creature of the US and was overthrown in 1979. What is there now is a legacy of that. Shia muslims tend to be quite passive so the US should have developed a good relationship with them. US should have put pressure on the Shah not defended him.

Water John wrote: »

The Shah was a creature of the US and was overthrown in 1979. What is there now is a legacy of that. Shia muslims tend to be quite passive so the US should have developed a good relationship with them. US should have put pressure on the Shah not defended him.

Plus much of what is happening across the region is driven by Shia-Sunni conflict.

I forgot we formed the EU and the Soviet block broke up, must be the meds I'm taking trying to shake the cold.
Sounds like pretty much business as normal then and Trump done Israel and maybe some other allies in the region a favour. Probably not a great move he should have let them do it themselves. Can't see what Iran could do in retaliation though.