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 VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 16/5/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
BonnieSituation

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

The ante has been upped by the IRG saying it will target any state which "enables" US aggression. I assume that means Saudi Arabia, not sure if it also refers to Turkey as both countries have US bases.

Israel might have to be on the look out to the north with Lebanon then.

[Deleted User]

It was asked a few days ago how trump would fare with a proper war on his hands, looks like we will actually find out now.

Itssoeasy

Deleted User wrote: »

It was asked a few days ago how trump would fare with a proper war on his hands, looks like we will actually find out now.

God help the world then. This could be sideshow bob walking into rakes multiplied by a 1,000,000 given the last three years.

Edit: let's see the lay of the land when my alarm goes off in six and a half hours. So much time for things to get better or get worse.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Israel might have to be on the look out to the north with Lebanon then.

I don't think Israel will be dragged into the picture. Lebanon has just finished [I think] in sorting out its own national Govt affairs with H/B in the seat there now.

Russia might be though in a restraining advice way on Don not to escalate into a full blown regional war with Iran as it has bases in the regional counties which could be accidental casualties of independently launched missiles from proxies. Ditto advice from other coalition Force countries.

It seems Sec defence, Sec state and COS/JCS [Mil] are in the W/H now and may be able to keep things cool response-wise. The IRG seems to have targeted two, not 1, Iraqi base with its missiles. I don't know if the US has the capabilities to fight a single-front war at the moment without drawing down on present commitments elsewhere.

I hope the China/Russia/Iranian naval wargames exercises are over and the first two countries warships have left the Iranian Gulf out of harms way from some free-lancer or the IRNG naval forces with their close attack launches.

namloc1980

it's started

Mr.Nice Guy

Dreadful the way Trump and Republicans have utterly undermined the accord with Iran agreed under Obama. We've gone from the prospect of peaceful relations going forward to now outright acts of war. All those that voted for Trump have this on their hands. Endorsing such an ill-suited, narcissistic, reckless sociopath was always going to have disastrous consequences for the environment, society and international relations.

Fonny122

Don't forget, a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for war. Or so I was told in 2016...

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1214739853025394693?s=21

Looks like Trump is backing away from a response.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

The ante has been upped by the IRG saying it will target any state which "enables" US aggression. I assume that means Saudi Arabia, not sure if it also refers to Turkey as both countries have US bases.

Israel was one of the countries I saw mentioned in an Iranian statement. Hezbollah have also said that they will attack Israel if the US responds to the Iranian strike. Which probably won't end well for Hezbollah or the folks in South Lebanon.

Iraq is in a very odd position. They may not particularly have approved of the Soleimani strike, but Iran has just lobbed a bunch of ballistic missiles at Iraqi military facilities.

I mean, I guess that they can, in theory, just abandon their bases to the Americans and say "OK you guys, sort it out, we're staying out of this", but I'm not convinced that most Iraqis are thrilled with Iran lobbing missiles into their country, no matter the Soleimani issue.

No indications thus far of any damage done, so it could end up "Iran has proven incapable of causing damage to a base, so after having embarassed themselves in that manner, we see no need to strike back". I think more likely another Stuxnet-type cyber attack, though, or something else deniable.

everlast75

Its a ****ing disgrace that anyone can have any confidence in trump at this point.

We were specifically told that he would hire "the best people". Turns out he fires (or has someone fire them for him) anyone who disagrees with his mighty brain.

https://twitter.com/vermontgmg/status/1214702040817061888?s=19

Wanderer78

everlast75 wrote:

Its a ****ing disgrace that anyone can have any confidence in trump at this point.

Trump is doing grand, he ll get reelected

GM228

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Trump is doing grand, he ll get reelected

Whilst there's a hint of sarcasm, the sad thing is it is probably true.

Wanderer78

GM228 wrote:

Whilst there's a hint of sarcasm, the sad thing is it is probably true.

Sure millions of Americans love him, and will have no problem voting for him again. There's also plenty of money backing him and the republicans, and then of course there's the Democrats. It's all kinna sorted really, the current situation in Iran is just icing on the cake

duploelabs

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Sure millions of Americans love him, and will have no problem voting for him again. There's also plenty of money backing him and the republicans, and then of course there's the Democrats. It's all kinna sorted really, the current situation in Iran is just icing on the cake

Not to trivialise it, but it's nothing more than a wag the dog scenario. The Trump administration is still yet to publish any evidence of the immediate threat of war to warrant the hit of Sulimani, and any response from him is to 'trust the intelligence departments. The same intelligence divisions that he's constantly derided when they conflicted with his' cultured' World view

pixelburp

Presumably now, if and when the conversation turns into a "support the troops" mentality because of a war scenario, any hope of a climbdown will be sunk. Politicians love hiding behind the sacrifice of soldiers to avoid scrutiny, deflecting criticism or analysis as merely anti American attacks on the serving members. Which, thanks to Trumps mantras about the democrats, will be absorbed all the quicker by his base.

Only scenario I see it backfiring on Trump would be a disastrous military action that cost US lives, but I don't get the sense the top brass are as incompetent (or the top positions unfilled) as the commander in chief.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Israel was one of the countries I saw mentioned in an Iranian statement. Hezbollah have also said that they will attack Israel if the US responds to the Iranian strike. Which probably won't end well for Hezbollah or the folks in South Lebanon.

Iraq is in a very odd position. They may not particularly have approved of the Soleimani strike, but Iran has just lobbed a bunch of ballistic missiles at Iraqi military facilities.

I mean, I guess that they can, in theory, just abandon their bases to the Americans and say "OK you guys, sort it out, we're staying out of this", but I'm not convinced that most Iraqis are thrilled with Iran lobbing missiles into their country, no matter the Soleimani issue.

No indications thus far of any damage done, so it could end up "Iran has proven incapable of causing damage to a base, so after having embarassed themselves in that manner, we see no need to strike back". I think more likely another Stuxnet-type cyber attack, though, or something else deniable.

I mean the original strike on Soleimani was a US missile fired at Iraq territory. Quite frankly I suspect they wish everyone would leave and stop firing missiles at them. They did vote for the US troops to leave after all.

Trump very specifically said they were still checking on casualties and damage so you know your last paragraph is wrong or at least unknown.

All is well that US people are being targeted by missiles. I am sure he means it. He can't well retaliate again if Iran doesn't respond now can he do he is probably happy enough with it.

Christy42

duploelabs wrote: »

Not to trivialise it, but it's nothing more than a wag the dog scenario. The Trump administration is still yet to publish any evidence of the immediate threat of war to warrant the hit of Sulimani, and any response from him is to 'trust the intelligence departments. The same intelligence divisions that he's constantly derided when they conflicted with his' cultured' World view

I agree and it should be assumed that there is no evidence unless they manage to publish it.

They are not singing from the same hymn sheet on all this either. The intelligence services seem less ok with the initial strike and were quick to counter Trump's pro war crime stance.

FrostyJack

pixelburp wrote: »

Only scenario I see it backfiring on Trump would be a disastrous military action that cost US lives, but I don't get the sense the top brass are as incompetent (or the top positions unfilled) as the commander in chief.

If Trump ordered 100000 troops to invade Iran tomorrow and they committed thousands of well documented war crimes and 90000 US troops were killed or injured, 100% of his base would still support him saying it shows Trump has the balls to attack and defend his people. They would lap it up. You see it on here every week. If he was to release santions on Iran tomorrow declare the supreme leader a great guy and go on a World tour celebrating him and Iranian culture, the base would say he was just messing all along and he should get Nobel peace prize. He could literally do both things and they would follow him all the way, this has been shown with the gymnastics they do as he flip flops on everything. Look at what the sycophants are tweeting the last few days. Mind blowing.

RobertKK

The only good thing so far is the US/Trump did not act last night in haste so we all would have have to repent at leisure.

Leroy42

pixelburp wrote: »

Only scenario I see it backfiring on Trump would be a disastrous military action that cost US lives, but I don't get the sense the top brass are as incompetent (or the top positions unfilled) as the commander in chief.

What makes you think that? The US military has lurched from one failure to the next in recent (20+) years. There is on evidence that the US military has the ability to think through a game plan. Probably the last example of such being Desert Storm and that was an international effort, although led by and carried out mainly by the US.

The US simply overwhelms due to it superiority which is hardly a surprise given it spends such a vast amount on it. More than the other top 6 combined I think.

everlast75

Interesting idea by Neal Katyal in dealing with Bolton, the delay in sending articles and McConnell's threat to white wash the Senate trial...

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1214698728864530432?s=19

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

The US simply overwhelms due to it superiority which is hardly a surprise given it spends such a vast amount on it. More than the other top 6 combined I think.

This. There's a famous quote about the US miltary being hard to beat because they practice chaos.

The US dominate because of the sheer volume of resources they throw at their miltary. If you have one guy wearing full body armor and carry a machine gun with 500 rounds, versus 20 guys with sticks and stones, then it doesn't matter if he's ever even fired the gun before. Through sheer resources, he will win.

US propaganda has always claimed that its military are the best of best, but the last 2 decades alone would suggest otherwise, never mind the disasters that came before it.

They're the best resourced, but the US's actual military acumen is a very open question.

Stallingrad

seamus wrote: »

They're the best resourced, but the US's actual military acumen is a very open question.

They are great at starting wars but haven't finished one since successfully since WW2.

Itssoeasy

So seems like we are still waiting for trumps response. Interesting that the mailitias in Iraq are saying that what happened last night was Irans response not theirs.

Christy42

Iraq are saying they were warned of the attacks. Hence the lack of casualties. Presumably self preservation from Iran but good to see they at least believe there is a chance this won't escalate further.

listermint

Christy42 wrote: »

Iraq are saying they were warned of the attacks. Hence the lack of casualties. Presumably self preservation from Iran but good to see they at least believe there is a chance this won't escalate further.

That airspace was 100% monitored by the States, they didnt need warnings if any were given. They would have detected them themselves

StringerBell

They would have had plenty of warning with the ballistic missile detection system for sure. Iran clearly didn't mean to cause vast numbers of casualties if you look at what happened and where was targeted, as had been speculated before. Hopefully the other fella doesn't do anything to escalate the situation whenever he does make his presence felt.

Iran sending the rockets from Iran is then sending the message and not hiding behind proxies, they have played it up domestically as expected and will not look to escalate officially further on the international scene.

It's a good sign that the most you got from trump last night was a tweet saying all is well and other rubbish. The longer they wait for an official response the better, the more time to convince him that further escalation is not the way forward.

Christy42

listermint wrote: »

That airspace was 100% monitored by the States, they didnt need warnings if any were given. They would have detected them themselves

No but it makes a point that Iran didn't want to hit US troops. I doubt it saved any lives but it was a statement that Iran doesn't want further escalation.

Leroy42

StringerBell wrote: »

They would have had plenty of warning with the ballistic missile detection system for sure. Iran clearly didn't mean to cause vast numbers of casualties if you look at what happened and where was targeted, as had been speculated before. Hopefully the other fella doesn't do anything to escalate the situation whenever he does make his presence felt.

Iran sending the rockets from Iran is then sending the message and not hiding behind proxies, they have played it up domestically as expected and will not look to escalate officially further on the international scene.

It's a good sign that the most you got from trump last night was a tweet saying all is well and other rubbish. The longer they wait for an official response the better, the more time to convince him that further escalation is not the way forward.

Trump is in a quandry here. 1st off, Iran come out of this looking reasonable in comparison. Trump has completely failed to provide anything close to justification (which tbh shouldn't really be difficult given who it was) so it speaks volumes that they have struggled.

But remember back to when Trump launched the missiles into Syria. It was claimed it was Presidential, a stark warning to Assad etc. Well isn't this exactly the same from Iran and yet Trump may do nothing (which I hope he doesn't) but how can he sell that as being in charge?

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

Interesting idea by Neal Katyal in dealing with Bolton, the delay in sending articles and McConnell's threat to white wash the Senate trial...

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1214698728864530432?s=19

Seems to be a good way around the McConnell block on witnesses testifying at the trial: said block being implemented purely to prevent anything showing up which puts Mitch & Co's allowing Don to be put forward as a credible nominee for POTUS in 2016 and next year in a bad light. I still can't, despite the time between 2015 and now, figure out why the GOP didn't select one of its own elite few as it's nominee, given how they knew that that nominee would play by the GOP rule book. I know about the electoral college route where the party voters select "committees" at state level to decide on nominees and then whomever gets the most votes from the state committees gets the nomination so how Don managed to get his nomination past the control of the elders beggars belief, given how they are expert at gerrymandering of voting regions. The notion that it was done for the sake of democracy has me laughing.