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

Stallingrad

hotmail.com wrote: »

Both sides have so much to lose

You are assuming the protagonist is capable of thinking in terms of losing. He views winning in terms of the most, biggest, best. In his mind he can't lose, he has the most powerful toys.

Regional instability and chaos may be insignificant factors on the way to his 'victory' over the 'bad guys'.

The US has so much form when it comes to misguided foreign interventions, you would think they would learn, but the military machine needs to use its ordinance somewhere.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/status/1213946205367099394?s=20

Who would have thought that electing a proven idiot as the US President resulted in such dire consequences

sid waddell

circadian wrote: »

Which raises the next question, one that has been asked before. Why does every foreign policy move taken by the Trump administration appear to be beneficial for Russian interests? I could swear I need a tinfoil hat for thinking this, but it really does seem that way.

Russia's number one foreign policy goal has been to get the US to completely discredit itself as a rational foreign policy actor.

Plenty of that job had already been accomplished by George W. Bush with no outside help, but the inescapable conclusion is that since Trump came to power, the Russians have had an inside line for US foreign policy self-destruction.

People who deny that Trump is acting in Russian interests point to Iran being an ally of Russia, so the thinking goes, if Trump was acting in Russia's interests, how would he attack Iran?

But Russia doesn't really give a toss about somebody like Soleimani, he's an individual and the Russians had likely already wrung out any value he had for them, and anyway, he's easily replaceable.

This whole episode has completely discredited the US as a foreign policy actor.

You have a president who ripped up the Iran nuclear deal signed by Obama, purely because Obama's name was on it.

You have a US president who apparently lures Soleimani to talks in Iraq and then bombs him to death when he arrives.

You have a president who it is perceived has made a dreadful miscalculation which has resulted in Iraq demanding US troops get out, the fight against ISIS stops, Iran going full steam ahead for nuclear weapons, and now the constant threat of Iranian retaliation against the US, in what way we do not know.

Now that same US president is threatening publicly to destroy priceless Iranian cultural and world heritage sites. This is literally ISIS ideology.

So ina ll this, the US is perceived as an unstable regime run by crackpots. It is playing up to and embracing its regional nickname of "The Great Satan". Russia by comparison appears sane, stable and pragmatic.

Russia will publicly back Iran. China will publicly back Iran. Western public opinion and much opinion within the US itself will effectively side with Iran.

So, in all aspects, this episode has been a total victory for Russian foreign policy goals and a total defeat for the US - as was the case when Trump betrayed the Kurds.

It's almost like Russia has somebody in the White House doing their bidding for them.

check_six

sid waddell wrote: »

It's almost like Russia has somebody in the White House doing their bidding for them.

I remain intrigued to find out how they can keep him on track when he flip-flops around on everything else from moment to moment. I used to think that he had a coherent focus on doing their bidding, but I'm starting to guess that they are working him like a puppet because he is just so unreliable otherwise.

Leroy42

sid waddell wrote: »

Russia's number one foreign policy goal has been to get the US to completely discredit itself as a rational foreign policy actor.

It's almost like Russia has somebody in the White House doing their bidding for them.

I really think people are looking for a conspiracy rather than facing the simple possibility that in Trump we have a POTUS with a complete inability to think ahead, an inability to look beyond his own narrow focus, and sees winning a a single entity each time rather than a longer plan.

The reason, IMO, that much of it looks like it is being orchestrated by Russia is that so much of it goes against the longer term interest of the US.

I have no doubt that Russia has direct access to Trump, we have seen them visit him in the WH, and we know that Trump is very easily manipulated. So my own view is that Russia is simply using the tool available rather than Trump actively working with them.

everlast75

sid waddell wrote: »

Russia's number one foreign policy goal has been to get the US to completely discredit itself as a rational foreign policy actor.

Plenty of that job had already been accomplished by George W. Bush with no outside help, but the inescapable conclusion is that since Trump came to power, the Russians have had an inside line for US foreign policy self-destruction.

People who deny that Trump is acting in Russian interests point to Iran being an ally of Russia, so the thinking goes, if Trump was acting in Russia's interests, how would he attack Iran?

But Russia doesn't really give a toss about somebody like Soleimani, he's an individual and the Russians had likely already wrung out any value he had for them, and anyway, he's easily replaceable.

This whole episode has completely discredited the US as a foreign policy actor.

You have a president who ripped up the Iran nuclear deal signed by Obama, purely because Obama's name was on it.

You have a US president who apparently lures Soleimani to talks in Iraq and then bombs him to death when he arrives.

You have a president who it is perceived has made a dreadful miscalculation which has resulted in Iraq demanding US troops get out, the fight against ISIS stops, Iran going full steam ahead for nuclear weapons, and now the constant threat of Iranian retaliation against the US, in what way we do not know.

Now that same US president is threatening publicly to destroy priceless Iranian cultural and world heritage sites. This is literally ISIS ideology.

So ina ll this, the US is perceived as an unstable regime run by crackpots. It is playing up to and embracing its regional nickname of "The Great Satan". Russia by comparison appears sane, stable and pragmatic.

Russia will publicly back Iran. China will publicly back Iran. Western public opinion and much opinion within the US itself will effectively side with Iran.

So, in all aspects, this episode has been a total victory for Russian foreign policy goals and a total defeat for the US - as was the case when Trump betrayed the Kurds.

It's almost like Russia has somebody in the White House doing their bidding for them.

China, Russia and Iran have started joint Naval exercises.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

I really think people are looking for a conspiracy rather than facing the simple possibility that in Trump we have a POTUS with a complete inability to think ahead, an inability to look beyond his own narrow focus, and sees winning a a single entity each time rather than a longer plan.

The reason, IMO, that much of it looks like it is being orchestrated by Russia is that so much of it goes against the longer term interest of the US.

I have no doubt that Russia has direct access to Trump, we have seen them visit him in the WH, and we know that Trump is very easily manipulated. So my own view is that Russia is simply using the tool available rather than Trump actively working with them.

Until I see those bank records and tax returns (or details of Crossfire Hurricane, the counter intelligence investigation launched into Trump) I won't discount any of those theories.

After all, Trump does everything in his own self interest. In that regard, what is the motivation for Trump to do what Russia tells him to?

sid waddell

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if ME interests provide funding for both Islamic and Christian terrorists in the US.

That sounds to me like an utterly frightening prospect, exactly like something Russia or its interests would sponsor, and something that's probably already happening.

I mean you only have to look at how Russia co-opted the NRA with such ease and how the alt-right (far right) in all of the west is so positive towards Russia to see the possibilities.

sid waddell

Leroy42 wrote: »

I really think people are looking for a conspiracy rather than facing the simple possibility that in Trump we have a POTUS with a complete inability to think ahead, an inability to look beyond his own narrow focus, and sees winning a a single entity each time rather than a longer plan.

The reason, IMO, that much of it looks like it is being orchestrated by Russia is that so much of it goes against the longer term interest of the US.

I have no doubt that Russia has direct access to Trump, we have seen them visit him in the WH, and we know that Trump is very easily manipulated. So my own view is that Russia is simply using the tool available rather than Trump actively working with them.

I think the point is that Putin knew something like this was always very likely under Trump rather than necessarily ordering a particular action himself.

That's why Russian interests have always targetted him, going back decades. They knew he could be exploited to some degree, but they couldn't have dreamed it would be this successsful.

Trump is unstable, he has no understanding of the Middle East or of any sort of geopolitics, he has surrounded himself with yes men and purged any real expertise from his cabinet or advisors, he has no concentration span, he doesn't read, he has no understanding of history, has no understanding of long term planning or anything beyond the immediate future, he was and is up to his neck in criminality, he can be controlled, manipulated, cajoled, wound up and blackmailed, and at the same time he is your stereotypical thick, pigheaded "USA, USA, USA" idiot you would see at one of his own rallies.

The exact means by which Trump came to carry out this assassination, whether he did it off his own bat or was forced into it, is less important than the general direction of travel in his brain, which was always heading in that direction anyway.

He is a complete gift to Putin.

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

Until I see those bank records and tax returns (or details of Crossfire Hurricane, the counter intelligence investigation launched into Trump) I won't discount any of those theories.

After all, Trump does everything in his own self interest. In that regard, what is the motivation for Trump to do what Russia tells him to?

Again, I think you are mixing things up. He is doing it for his own interest. To change the narrative on impeachment, to delay impeachment, to give him the rush of being the hero, to act the tough guy and simply because he thinks he playing the role of a hero in some TV movie and so must take out the bad guys. And let face it, sanctions and diplomacy don't generate headlines, certainly when the headlines currently are about about him being impeached.

That his interest also helps Russia is merely a coincidence. I have no doubt that Trump is compromised by Russia, in terms of loans etc, but they are not silly enough to actively give him orders. He is easily manipulated and will go with whomever can massage his ego the most. I am certain that they are doing everything they can to take maximum advantage of that.

Letwin_Larry

i would like to see Trump take out this guy's newly appointed successor, just as he was getting his new office furniture sorted.
the Americans clearly have the capability and the psychological impact would be immense.
once Iran hits American interests which it will inevitably do through its' terrorist proxies, such a strike will become almost irresistible imo.

Quin_Dub

I read an article over the week-end which I can't seem to find again and the suggestion there about how Trump came to decide on taking out Soleimani was that it might have been presented to him among a list of options but it was there only to make the other options seem more viable.

The article suggested that a typical practice from the Intelligence community would be to present a number of choices with one or two of them being really high risk bordering on crazy . They would do this to make their preferred options seem more palatable and acceptable etc.

However , Trump went for the crazy option because as others have rightly stated he is incapable of critical thinking or seeing potential long term implications.

Leroy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i would like to see Trump take out this guy's newly appointed successor, just as he was getting his new office furniture sorted.
the Americans clearly have the capability and the psychological impact would be immense.
once Iran hits American interests which it will inevitably do through its' terrorist proxies, such a strike will become almost irresistible imo.

So any pretence of this being legitimate of even excusable are out the window.

You think Trump should be allowed target pretty much anyone he doesn't like. And feck the consequences for the millions it will effect or the damage to the US.

check_six

Quin_Dub wrote: »

However , Trump went for the crazy option because as others have rightly stated he is incapable of critical thinking or seeing potential long term implications.

Was it that they ran with one of the more basic options and it had no effect on the news cycle, and then he went for the super-crazy one? I can't recall what the other action was at this point as it may have taken place more that 72 hours ago, and I'm struggling to keep up!

Letwin_Larry

Leroy42 wrote: »

So any pretence of this being legitimate of even excusable are out the window.

You think Trump should be allowed target pretty much anyone he doesn't like. And feck the consequences for the millions it will effect or the damage to the US.

no you've clearly misunderstood what i wrote.
this new guy is issuing threats against America, and once those threats are acted upon America is well within its rights to take this guy out, just like his predecessor.
do you think the american should just sit back and take it, lamenting "heck that's just the way these Iranians are. such is life eh?"
i dont think so.

sid waddell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i would like to see Trump take out this guy's newly appointed successor, just as he was getting his new office furniture sorted.
the Americans clearly have the capability and the psychological impact would be immense.

And by that, you're telling us that every US official at every level right up to and including Trump is a legitimate target for assassination on US soil or anywhere else, by any means necessary.

Letwin_Larry

sid waddell wrote: »

And by that, you're telling us that every US official at every level right up to and including Trump is a legitimate target for assassination on US soil or anywhere else, by any means necessary.

i have no doubt if Iran had this long range capability they would use it, but luckily they do not. they might be able to lob a grenade or attack as US general with a kitchen knife, but i cant see the Yanks losing too much sleep over that.

Stallingrad

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I read an article over the week-end which I can't seem to find again and the suggestion there about how Trump came to decide on taking out Soleimani was that it might have been presented to him among a list of options but it was there only to make the other options seem more viable.

I've heard this a few times but I highly doubt it. Why would they present anything to him that they were worried about him acting on? He is that unstable why would they risk it?

I think Soleimani appeared on T's radar when he called him a 'bartender' and 'casino manager' last year, from then on his cards were marked.

Letwin_Larry

Stallingrad wrote: »

I've heard this a few times but I highly doubt it. Why would they present anything to him that they were worried about him acting on? He is that unstable why would they risk it?

I think Soleimani appeared on T's radar when he called him a 'bartender' and 'casino manager' last year, from then on his cards were marked.

Casino Manager that's a good one.
solemni should have known "the house ALWAYS wins".:D

check_six

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Casino Manager that's a good one.
solemni should have known "the house ALWAYS wins".:D

*except when it is run by trump and it goes bust due to gross mismanagement. (Just how all over the shop do you have to be to lose money running a casino?).

everlast75

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Casino Manager that's a good one.
solemni should have known "the house ALWAYS wins".:D

Not in a Trump Casino....

seamus

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i have no doubt if Iran had this long range capability they would use it, but luckily they do not. they might be able to lob a grenade or attack as US general with a kitchen knife, but i cant see the Yanks losing too much sleep over that.

This kind of hubris about the dominance of the US is exactly why they've won no wars in five decades and why Russia and China are currently running rings around the US intelligence agencies. Your belief is that Iran are little more than savages in the military sphere carrying grenades and the swords from Aladdin.

Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning betrayed their own government out of sheer principle, the belief that is was the right thing to do. They personally gained nothing from it. For Manning in particular, it made her life hell.

Iran has offered an $80m bounty on Donald Trump. If you think there aren't hundreds (perhaps thousands) of individuals in the US military and security services who wouldn't take the chance to avail of that, then you're strongly mistaken. The only tripping point is fleeing to Iran after the act, but there are agencies who can help you with that too.

Letwin_Larry

seamus wrote: »

This kind of hubris about the dominance of the US is exactly why they've won no wars in five decades and why Russia and China are currently running rings around the US intelligence agencies. Your belief is that Iran are little more than savages in the military sphere carrying grenades and the swords from Aladdin.

Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning betrayed their own government out of sheer principle, the belief that is was the right thing to do. They personally gained nothing from it. For Manning in particular, it made her life hell.

Iran has offered an $80m bounty on Donald Trump. If you think there aren't hundreds (perhaps thousands) of individuals in the US military and security services who wouldn't take the chance to avail of that, then you're strongly mistaken. The only tripping point is fleeing to Iran after the act, but there are agencies who can help you with that too.

look no matter how you try to dress it up, there is no denying Iran just does not possess anything close to the capability of the US. i actually feel embarrassed for you having to spell that out.
Trump has made it quite clear, that any further attacks, proxy or otherwise will have direct consequences for Iran. The days when they could murder Americans & their allies with impunity are over.

and as for your James Bond/Mission Impossible/Bourne Identity assasination plot of the POTUS, well that's just risible and only goes to show just how desperate and deluded you must be to land one on the US.

Leroy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

no you've clearly misunderstood what i wrote.
this new guy is issuing threats against America, and once those threats are acted upon America is well within its rights to take this guy out, just like his predecessor.
do you think the american should just sit back and take it, lamenting "heck that's just the way these Iranians are. such is life eh?"
i dont think so.

You wrote that Iran had no capability to hurt the US. Whether the US is within its right to defend itself against retaliation is a separate point.

The US killed a foreign leader without any due process. And you are claiming that Iran doesn't pose an immediate risk to the US, so again, I ask you for the justification of this killing.

You don't think that the US should sit back and take it, but you think that if Iran retaliates against this killing by the US that is wrong and the US should be allowed kill more?

Forget all the nonsense you have been fed about this guy being evil. KJU is evil, but Trump loves him. Putin is evil, but again Trump doesn't seem to be worried even when Russia attacks US elections.

Have you any justification for this killing besides it was great!

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

You wrote that Iran had no capability to hurt the US. Whether the US is within its right to defend itself against retaliation is a separate point.

The US killed a foreign leader without any due process. And you are claiming that Iran doesn't pose an immediate risk to the US, so again, I ask you for the justification of this killing.

You don't think that the US should sit back and take it, but you think that if Iran retaliates against this killing by the US that is wrong and the US should be allowed kill more?

Forget all the nonsense you have been fed about this guy being evil. KJU is evil, but Trump loves him. Putin is evil, but again Trump doesn't seem to be worried even when Russia attacks US elections.

Have you any justification for this killing besides it was great!

Just to take you up on this point. Would we be in agreement that the US and Iran have been in conflict since the invasion of Iraq, more recently Syria? Sulemani was a General, in charge of Iranian SOF forces, directing them against US forces? Would that not make him a legitimate military target? There's no requirement for due process in the conduct of fighting a war.

Letwin_Larry

Leroy42 wrote: »

You wrote that Iran had no capability to hurt the US. Whether the US is within its right to defend itself against retaliation is a separate point.

The US killed a foreign leader without any due process. And you are claiming that Iran doesn't pose an immediate risk to the US, so again, I ask you for the justification of this killing.

You don't think that the US should sit back and take it, but you think that if Iran retaliates against this killing by the US that is wrong and the US should be allowed kill more?

Forget all the nonsense you have been fed about this guy being evil. KJU is evil, but Trump loves him. Putin is evil, but again Trump doesn't seem to be worried even when Russia attacks US elections.

Have you any justification for this killing besides it was great!

with the greatest of respect, i think you are confused.
of course Iran can hurt the US. i'm not disputing that. the 911 terrorists did not use sophisticated military equipment. but they do not have the military might, especially the long range capability of the US. again this is embarrassing having to explain this.
this guy got exactly what was coming to him. and if his successor is foolish enough to continue "his work", then i have little doubt he too will suffer the same fate.

Manic Moran

Stallingrad wrote: »

I've heard this a few times but I highly doubt it. Why would they present anything to him that they were worried about him acting on? He is that unstable why would they risk it?

I think Soleimani appeared on T's radar when he called him a 'bartender' and 'casino manager' last year, from then on his cards were marked.

I don't know about at the exalted higher levels, but down at battalion and division levels, we give what's known as a Course of Action (CoA) Selection Brief. I don't believe the grand levels of the Pentagon do much different.

The process starts some time before the brief. A set of parameters is given for analysis, such as "I want to punish the guys killing Americas", usually with a set of constraints placed such as "We will not attack the nation of Iran". The guys down below then start working up a bunch of options for presentation. This includes wargaming them out. To be listed as a course of action, it must meet these criteria:
Feasible: accomplish the mission within the established time, space, and resource limitations.
Acceptable: balance cost and risk with the advantage gained.
Suitable: accomplish the mission within the CDR's intent and planning guidance.
Distinguishable: differ significantly from others.
Complete: Incorporates: decisive, shaping and sustaining operations; offensive, defensive and stability tasks, and tasks to be performed and conditions to be achieved.

At the CoA selection brief, the staff presents the various options. The brief is normally accompanied by a matrix which lists out all the various positives and negatives against a set of factors with a points rating. The factors can be things like "Low chance of civilian casualties", "Low chance of major Iranian response" or "strength of message sent to Iran". The better the CoA meets the factor, the higher the points awarded.

It'll look something like this.
Weighted+Comparison+%28Weighted+Scale+%2F+Weighted+Criteria%29.jpg

Weighted+Comparison+%28Weighted+Scale+%2F+Weighted+Criteria%29.jpg

If a factor is considered more important by the staff than another it can be weighted, the "WT" multiplier on the left. The CoA with the highest points score resulting becomes the "Recommended" one by the staff. The system allows the commander to easily see just 'how much better' one option is considered than the other. If you have two in the high 20s, and one on about 15, you know very easily that the staff really doesn't think that the third option is up to much.

However, this is where having a competent staff comes into play. If the three options are all good, because the guys in the Pentagon/Foggy Bottom know
what they are doing, and the outlier is only 'relative' (eg 29, 28, 28, 26), then the 26 might well be an 'extreme' option compared to the other three, but it is not a 'bad' option and would not have been presented if it couldn't do the job as requested. Obviously killing Soleimani had cropped up as options in the past, that previous Presidents declined to take the option does not mean that in any previous briefs the CoA wasn't viable: It was presented to them for a reason.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Just to take you up on this point. Would we be in agreement that the US and Iran have been in conflict since the invasion of Iraq, more recently Syria? Sulemani was a General, in charge of Iranian SOF forces, directing them against US forces? Would that not make him a legitimate military target? There's no requirement for due process in the conduct of fighting a war.

Its funny, because if that wa the case then why didn't Pompeo et al come out with that rather that the 'he is evil and there is an imminent treat to US lives"

If in a war why not just say that? Totally understandable that during a war your try to kill the generals on the other side.

But they didn't. Because they are not at war with them. And what they did was to use War rules under civilian rules.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Just to take you up on this point. Would we be in agreement that the US and Iran have been in conflict since the invasion of Iraq, more recently Syria? Sulemani was a General, in charge of Iranian SOF forces, directing them against US forces? Would that not make him a legitimate military target? There's no requirement for due process in the conduct of fighting a war.

Soleimani was clearly an evil man who directed multiple atrocities to be carried out across the region over many years. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

The question is whether it was in the Middle Easts (or the worlds) best interest to "take him out" in the manner that it occurred.

This canard that Obama et al were "weak" or "cowardly" in their approach to the ME is just that , a canard and a falsehood - Just as claiming that Trump is some kind of Hard-man because of his actions is also a falsehood.

Obama and others (including the EU) considered that the best way to deal with Iran and to neuter their influence was via the treaties they signed to limited the Nuclear program and also to allow the Iranian economy to move forward - thereby taking a lot of people out of poverty and making them perhaps a little bit more pragmatic in their approach to the West and a bit less reactionary.

Now we can absolutely discuss the merits of that policy and how successful it was , but it was at the very least a clear policy based on a coherent plan.

Trump on the other hand does not appear to have a coherent policy or plan.

He cancelled the Nuclear agreement just to spite Obama - He had absolutely ZERO plan on what to do next and since then he has lurched from one knee-jerk reaction to another. The assassination of Soleimani just being the latest and most extreme example yet.

There has been utterly no evidence to suggest that anything that Trump does in terms of foreign policy has given any thought to "What might happen next if we do this?" . They just do something and then react to the consequences.

Just like every decision he's made in his entire life he takes the incredibly short term view of "what makes me look good right now" or "what makes me money right now".

He neither thinks nor cares about what happens next.

aloyisious

I'm reckoning that Don is getting away with his actions because the people who have the power to rein him in are doing what he's doing; following a single issue path. His is because it's a personal trait and completely different to that of the people with power, which is now to keep power away from the other party. Anyone who believes Don gives a fig for the GOP is seriously misguided. He's a headline-clever one-trick pony out for himself and not anyone else and that's why he switched party affiliation way back, he saw that the GOP could be duped easier than the Dems when it came to running for office.