nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Quin_Dub

The continuing discussion of the Donald Trump Presidency.

Keep it civil and please note the charter before posting

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

StringerBell

So, the attack was carried out on the basis of intelligence....is this from the same intelligence community who are part of the deep state and not to be trusted ala when they said Russia interfered with the 2016 election?

Pompeo saying this stuff while hanging the IC out to dry and standing by as Trump does the same when it suits them with a straight face is truly what sets these guys apart tbh.

SaintLeibowitz

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

The Americans raped Iraq. Worth reading Naomi kleins 'the shock doctrine'. It's truly staggering what they did over there.

everlast75

This is a very very good point. How can we believe ther justification after the event?

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/1213196560235933702?s=19

StringerBell

Of course, an administration that has shown time and time again it has no problem withholding facts, or outright lying should not automatically be believed. It would be foolish to accept whatever they say at face value.

Won't matter a bit though, everybody will carry on as if the emperor is wearing clothes

StringerBell

Also, as I'm a pretty clear anti trump contributor to the thread I want to point out that it is a welcome removal of a brutal man who has plenty of blood on his hands. There will be, and has been I suppose a lot of celebration throughout the middle East and beyond at his demise.

How it was done, why it was done etc is still important and that is where the issue will come in for me I imagine but removing this man from the equation is a positive thing imo.

There will be blow back, of course there will and obviously as he was only one man it is all relevant but I can't say I don't think this was a good man to be taken out. That Trump will have done it for dodgy reasons not withstanding.

A truly confusing mixture of feelings on this one.

Christy42

StringerBell wrote: »

Also, as I'm a pretty clear anti trump contributor to the thread I want to point out that it is a welcome removal of a brutal man who has plenty of blood on his hands. There will be, and has been I suppose a lot of celebration throughout the middle East and beyond at his demise.

How it was done, why it was done etc is still important and that is where the issue will come in for me I imagine but removing this man from the equation is a positive thing imo.

There will be blow back, of course there will and obviously as he was only one man it is all relevant but I can't say I don't think this was a good man to be taken out. That Trump will have done it for dodgy reasons not withstanding.

A truly confusing mixture of feelings on this one.

So what though. Will his replacement be any better? Was he tried in a court of law? Was anything made better (as has been pointed out above, evidence from a regime that tried to claim a map drawn with a sharpie was real seems invalid).

You have to remember the effect of just randomly murdering people. Certainly you can't arrest a foreign general so the trial is off the table as would be ideal. However there are still procedures. I mean should we bomb the Saudi government by the same token? John Bolton? Is that ok? What level of evil is it ok to assassinate or do we simply moralise it in hindsight.

Yeah the dude was probably not winning any peace awards but there are reasons we don't randomly assassinate random bad guys around the world. It is not a positive thing. A horrendous man will be promoted in his place with a duty to more horrendous things in response to this murder. All this does is escalate a bad situation. All blood that this goes to lies with Trump now as he has removed potential peaceful solutions from the table.

Edit: he is the type of man that I would not care if he had a heart attack, like many others. However killing him will only breed resentment and hatred. You have to look at the end effect this murder has.

StringerBell

This guy was responsible for a lot of blood. A broken clock is right twice a day and I find it hard to say this was a bad call. I'd guess he isn't the most well known in the west but I have an Iranian friend who has filled me in on the horrors carried out on the orders of this guy.

Will his replacement be any better? Morality wise no I'd guess not but he may not be as good and when you have one guy largely responsible for so many spinning plates and has such a vast wealth of knowledge and contacts taking him out if the opportunity presents itself cannot be casually turned down.

Iran have to respond, absolutely. There is no good outcome in the middle East on the current course but letting this guy murder with impunity wasn't doing much for peace either. I guess we will see how it plays out and I have no doubt trump's motivation is nothing noble either.

Edit: there is in fact a possibility that Iran may do very little in response in real terms.

Manic Moran

Some barrenness in DC Circuit Court of Appeals, as the House of Representatives is trying to get the Mueller records from the DoJ.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/03/impeachment-justice-department-democrats-trump-court-093088

Upon being asked what they would do if the Court found that they would not rule against the DOJ, the House lawyer responded

“I guess what we would do is use the main remedy the House has had from the beginning, we’ll send the sergeant-at-arms over to the Justice Department. I cannot imagine anyone is going to interfere with him doing his duty as an officer of the House,” Letter said.

When pressed by Rao about what would happen if the Justice Department refused to comply, the House counsel added: “We can send the sergeant-at-arms and he can have a gun battle.”

Interestingly, Politico says that the last time that Congress tried to use force was the 1930s. It doesn't say who won, or the reason it was done. Letter went on to state that he would prefer to win in court than "have a gun battle with Mr Barr's FBI security detail."

3 minute audio clip here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC79g2Yh18s

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

Some barrenness in DC Circuit Court of Appeals, as the House of Representatives is trying to get the Mueller records from the DoJ.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/03/impeachment-justice-department-democrats-trump-court-093088

Upon being asked what they would do if the Court found that they would not rule against the DOJ, the House lawyer responded

Interestingly, Politico says that the last time that Congress tried to use force was the 1930s. It doesn't say who won, or the reason it was done. Letter went on to state that he would prefer to win in court than "have a gun battle with Mr Barr's FBI security detail."

3 minute audio clip here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC79g2Yh18s

Farcical. Democracy is taking serious damage.

Igotadose

Apparently the rockets are still flying, this time an Iran-backed Iraqi militia. Not a lot of details yet: https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/476740-six-killed-in-air-strike-on-iraqi-militia

Midlife

If anyone truly wanted peace in the middle east. They'd see that bringing Iran onside is a crucial part of regional peace.

Pretending this whole thing is not about US interests is idiotic.

The military is functioning as a branch of the oil industry.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1213217312574185479?s=19

And people generally view Islam as extremist

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1213217312574185479?s=19

And people generally view Islam as extremist

Catholicism is worse than this.

beggars_bush

Behind it all he is probably laughing at every one of them
The man has no morals

Fonny122

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1213217312574185479?s=19

And people generally view Islam as extremist

No wonder Trump supporters got so outraged by the Handmaid's Tale (written 1985)as some mind of liberal elitist hit job against him and his followers.

StringerBell

beggars_bush wrote: »

Behind it all he is probably laughing at every one of them
The man has no morals

No probably about it.

Toeuptony

He's barely containing his laughter in the clip.

Also, the preacher says that he "lifted" 6 million people off of food stamps program to the dignity of work. Cutting off peoples' entitlement to food stamp assistance is not the same thing as raising them out of poverty, especially when many of them are working multiple jobs due to minimum wage being so low.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/19/food-stamps-bank-georgia-african-americans

He states that Trump doesn't claim to be perfect

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-twitter-obama-jesus-christmas-god-tweets-a9262151.html

marno21

Toeuptony wrote: »

He states that Trump doesn't claim to be perfect

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/422775643948851200?lang=en

"There's a tweet for everything" continues to hold.

Harry Palmr

As an aside does anyone find it remarkable that Iraq which lost probably half a million people in the 1980/88 war is now being run by the agents of Iran, is a greater Iran going to be the ultimate aim?

Nody

Harry Palmr wrote: »

As an aside does anyone find it remarkable that Iraq which lost probably half a million people in the 1980/88 war is now being run by the agents of Iran, is a greater Iran going to be the ultimate aim?

Well seeing how they lost even more people and esp. civilians after the US Invasion and the follow up fiasco with US running the show why would an 25 year old war matter?

looksee

We thank you God for bringing women and poor people and black people back under control.

Letwin_Larry

i say fair play to Trump for having the courage and taking that criminal out.
no doubt there will be consequences, but deep down Iran knows there's very little they can do to the US.

StringerBell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i say fair play to Trump for having the courage and taking that criminal out.
no doubt there will be consequences, but deep down Iran knows there's very little they can do to the US.

Courage is absolutely nothing to do with it I can guarantee that.

pixelburp

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i say fair play to Trump for having the courage and taking that criminal out.
no doubt there will be consequences, but deep down Iran knows there's very little they can do to the US.

"Consequences", as if an extra judicial killing of a sovereign Nations general (however reprehensible the man was) is a triviality or his death might be a speed bump. Or as if the entire region wasn't already a fractious location, with the US' reputation there already in tatters. In for a penny then is it? Bravery. More like impulsive bravado.

That the target was himself repugnant doesn't make the killing any less itself short sighted and potentially disastrous for US relations in the area. Or any wester country's relations at that. A hugely destabilising move, and one that'll ironically unify Iran and effectively make the general a martyr.

This won't keep Americans, or American soldiers safe and ex pat's have already been warned.

Letwin_Larry

StringerBell wrote: »

Courage is absolutely nothing to do with it I can guarantee that.

the one thing i've noticed from the "rent a mob" aka spontaneous protests in Teheran is the people do not appear that angry. i may be misreading the situation, but their hearts do not seem to be in it.

my guess is large sections of the Iranian populace are very pleased this despot has been taken out, and perhaps they are fearful of an escalation of this could quite easily see the Yanks obliterate their cities as they did with the Japanese in August 1945.

Trump will not commit large number of troops to this region. he will use medium and long range missiles to get the job done.

duploelabs

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Trump will not commit large number of troops to this region. he will use medium and long range missiles to get the job done.

That tactic has worked well before hasn't it? Can you provide your favourite example other than the slaughter of civilians as nagasaki and hiroshima when a nuclear weapon was used

Christy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the one thing i've noticed from the "rent a mob" aka spontaneous protests in Teheran is the people do not appear that angry. i may be misreading the situation, but their hearts do not seem to be in it.

my guess is large sections of the Iranian populace are very pleased this despot has been taken out, and perhaps they are fearful of an escalation of this could quite easily see the Yanks obliterate their cities as they did with the Japanese in August 1945.

Trump will not commit large number of troops to this region. he will use medium and long range missiles to get the job done.

What you can't imagine Trump would actually nuke Iran? That would be one massive war crime. Long range missiles would have a massive amount of civilian casualties. That would be all types of horrific

The US failed massively in Iraq and Iran is a much bigger military.

Letwin_Larry

Christy42 wrote: »

What you can't imagine Trump would actually nuke Iran? That would be one massive war crime. Long range missiles would have a massive amount of civilian casualties. That would be all types of horrific

The US failed massively in Iraq and Iran is a much bigger military.

and who pray tell is going to hold the USA to account over this hypothetical "war crime"?
NATO?
the UN?
Amnesty International?

Trump will do exactly as he pleases, and if that involves returning Iranian cities to the desert, that's what could well happen.

duploelabs

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

and who pray tell is going to hold the USA to account over this hypothetical "war crime"?
NATO?
the UN?
Amnesty International?

Trump will do exactly as he pleases, and if that involves returning Iranian cities to the desert, that's what could well happen.

The terms of war crimes are defined in the Geneva convention. There is nothing hypothetical about it.
Can you revert to my question earlier

[Deleted User]

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Trump will do exactly as he pleases.

That's the whole problem in a nutshell.