Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

RobertKK

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

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

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.

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

The Nal wrote: »

Why? No president ever gets voted out during a war.

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

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.

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.

RobertKK

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.

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

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.

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

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.

It was a campaign point.
The campaign point that he made at his rallies back then was that the infrastructure in the US was not good compared to other rich countries and the US had wasted the money that could be spent at home in the US on wars and that the US has nothing to show for all that money he said was wasted on the wars, that this money would be better off spent at home rather than on wars.

seamus

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.

Trump voters will change their stance and claim that Trump had no choice except to attack Iran, he did what any right-thinking president would do.

His position is a cult. His core vote will support anything he does and explain away all criticism.

We're a couple of hours away from the narrative becoming, "Obama had the chance to kill Suleimani and didn't take it, Trump now has to clean up Obama's mess".

Christy42

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.

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

pixelburp

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.

hotmail.com

Will America ever vote for a president that doesn't drop bombs ?

everlast75

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.

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.

Leroy42

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.

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

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.

Christy42

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.

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

serfboard

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.

Yes, the only question is whether there will be boots on the ground.

And by boots, I don't mean American ones - I mean former African child soliders contracted out as mercenaries.

Itssoeasy

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?

Well the US would claim it was retaliation for the carry on at the embassy in Baghdad and they also claim this general has ordered attacks against it and its interests(I'm not saying that's right or wrong just that's what they say)Why this general was in Baghdad I don't know. The issue is while he was a general he was more of less second in command below the ayatollah.

I don't think putin would be a stupid as to kill this guy and it seems to have been excepted that this guy isn't worth the hassle to killing because it would most certainly lead to serious backlash from Iran.

Jelle1880

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

Likely up their funding of groups in the region. Open war is not in their best interest.

Reportedly a Hezbollah leader was also killed so no doubt they will see some extra money and weapons come into Lebanon.

RobertKK

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.

No my point was Trump was anti-war before the election.

One can easily argue the money not used on more war has been used on more military spending though.
We have to see where all this leads because if he wants a war with Iran, it is going to be really bad news for him.
He needs to remember what he said about Iraq and Bush in 2016 and apply the same logic to Iran.
The biggest problem I see with Trump is he too beholden to Netanyahu - who is in personal trouble in Israel and the Saudis seem to have a hold over him - both of whom hate Iran.
They will be hawkish, but at least John Bolton resigned and he was very pro-attack Iran.
There is also the fact that Trump was about to launch an attack over the seized ships and then pulled back.
Things are too close to the edge and I still say if he attacks Iran, he loses the presidency if the Democrats have any sense and are dovish, but I think only Tulsi Gabbard is the only real dove there.

RobertKK

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

Dropping the Iran deal was the worst move by Trump, more so than the Paris climate deal.

People were making all sort of wild claims when Trump was going for election and immediately after about how we would have more war and he was dangerous.
Peace activist and actress Susan Sarandon said she did not vote for Hillary Clinton as she was too dangerous due to her war stances.

Trump so far has delivered on the war front - he ceded Syria to Russia rather than supporting the God knows who that were in opposition to Assad. Anything else was far more war.
The Obama administration who continued the Bush policy on war gave us the migrant crisis in Europe and one could argue it gave us Brexit.

btw I think Trump supports Brexit as he sees it as an opportunity for 'America first' to take advantage of the UK, and Nigel Farage is like his lovesick puppy who he doesn't have to feed or do anything for, but who does his best to try and make Brexit happen which gives the US advantages.
I think Trump only looking inner as in 'whats in it for the US only' is wrong, given the history of Europe and how the EU has been the world's greatest peace process.

Brian?

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."

That didn’t make him anti war, it was the ramblings of a man who only understands things in terms of money.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

That didn’t make him anti war, it was the ramblings of a man who only understands things in terms of money.

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.

Professor Moriarty

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.

Trump stabbed the Kurds in the back. They won't forget. Also, Iran must be seen to retaliate in kind.

duploelabs

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.

Ftfy

RobertKK

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Trump stabbed the Kurds in the back. They won't forget. Also, Iran must be seen to retaliate in kind.

I agree that was wrong and Iran will do something and Iraq are saying what happened was a gross violation of their sovereignty.

everlast75

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.

So he's managed to piss of Iraq AND Iran in one go?

What a genius.

StringerBell

Brian? wrote: »

Trump never had an anti war stance. That was a deluded reason to vote for him over Clinton.

I believe the quote was, "I'm gonna bomb the **** out of them"

Then we had the old fire and fury rants

Christy42

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.

Yes but the point of removing troops from the middle East was meant to be in a sane manner. Not dismantling Kurdish defenses and then leaving them open for an attack!

Also he left plenty in Syria. They were just defending oil fields as opposed to lives.

Troops were moved to Saudi Arabia as opposed to removed from the middle East. They were not removed so it is not with his policy. They were simply moved to defend oil as opposed to people. To say he has removed troops from the middle East is misleading at best. They are still involved in wars in the middle east. Just the value of the wars changed.

RobertKK

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.

If Trump had pulled drone strikes back to Bush levels it would not have been so bad but still should not happen as the effects are so bad, but he is just as bad as Obama in this area and I would argue the terror of hearing drones overhead 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for God knows how long creates a resentment and can turn good people to do bad things due to the damage the terror that these drones bring.
It should be banned as no one could live and be normal knowing a drone strike could happen at any moment, at any time of the day. It should be a crime that has people before the courts in the Hague.

Bush, Obama and Trump have killed so many innocent people with drone strikes, and no one is held to account for these murders, often innocent people are classified as being bad people simply because of who they were in the vicinity of. It would be like passing Larry Murphy on the street and then being associated with his crimes and suspected crimes...
Trump like his predecessors has a lot to answer for in this area but like his predecessors he will not have to account for the drone crimes he is responsible for.

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

If Trump had pulled drone strikes back to Bush levels it would not have been so bad but still should not happen as the effects are so bad, but he is just as bad as Obama in this area and I would argue the terror of hearing drones overhead 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for God knows how long creates a resentment and can turn good people to do bad things due to the damage the terror that these drones bring.
It should be banned as no one could live and be normal knowing a drone strike could happen at any moment, at any time of the day. It should be a crime that has people before the courts in the Hague.

Bush, Obama and Trump have killed so many innocent people with drone strikes, and no one is held to account for these murders, often innocent people are classified as being bad people simply because of who they were in the vicinity of. It would be like passing Larry Murphy on the street and then being associated with his crimes and suspected crimes...
Trump like his predecessors has a lot to answer for in this area but like his predecessors he will not have to account for the drone crimes he is responsible for.

What are Trumps level of drone attacks compared to Obama and how many civilians have been killed?