Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

mcmoustache

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

Jelle1880 wrote: »

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.

I agree and that seems to be the consensus. Another angle will be cyber attacks, kidnappings and terrorism. Basically whatever they can get away with without getting into a hot war. The US took out someone who is basically the second or third most powerful person in the regime. They won't be very happy about it.

This assassination will also have the effect of calming or even ending the protests that had been going on over there. Nothing brings a country together better than the feeling of being attacked.

everlast75

Obama negotiated a peace deal that wasn't perfect, but internationally recognised as a start.

The radicals in Iran were not happy with that deal.

Trump pulls out of the deal and then assassinates the second most powerful figure in Iran.

All that will do is invigorate the radical Iranians, they will tell their people that they were right not to trust the US.

Trump did all of this without congressional approval. The statement from the Pentagon said it was Trump's call.

Pompeo said it was preemptive. Graham says it was retaliatory.

Pompeo said it would make Iran safer, while Americans are being told to evacuate the country.

They haven't a ****ing clue what they are doing.

listermint

everlast75 wrote: »

Obama negotiated a peace deal that wasn't perfect, but internationally recognised as a start.

The radicals in Iran were not happy with that deal.

Trump pulls out of the deal and then assassinates the second most powerful figure in Iran.

All that will do is invigorate the radical Iranians, they will tell their people that they were right not to trust the US.

Trump did all of this without congressional approval. The statement from the Pentagon said it was Trump's call.

Pompeo said it was preemptive. Graham says it was retaliatory.

Pompeo said it would make Iran safer, while Americans are being told to evacuate the country.

They haven't a ****ing clue what they are doing.

Yes but you are forgetting a fundamental part here.

The Obama Iran deal was bad,


'Because'







Obama ?

RobertKK

listermint wrote: »

Yes but you are forgetting a fundamental part here.

The Obama Iran deal was bad,


'Because'







Obama ?

Well probably and Netanyahu probably cried to him over it.

The Iran deal was good as it was something.
Meanwhile we have the North Koreans and no sign of any deal, with things looking bad in that area, and Trump calling Kim a 'friend', which is not working and one should be careful who they call a friend.

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

I believe it is worse than ever and more secretive as deaths of civilians no longer have to be reported.
It seems to get worse with each president and they should all be locked up for this alone.

pixelburp

listermint wrote: »

Yes but you are forgetting a fundamental part here.

The Obama Iran deal was bad,

It's sarcasm, but it's the truth; this is the inevitable next step in an administration now reliant on cultish adherence to "our guy"; no more than the insistence that waterboarding wasn't torture because Cheney insisted America doesn't conduct torture, any unilateral action by Trump will be correct because the President cannot conduct erroneous, illegal actions (remember, this is something argued by some scholars in America, that the President is legally infallible)

sid waddell

What's absolutely hilarious is how Tulsi Gabbard, who was like a talking parrot reciting rhetoric about how "we must stop regime change wars", is now suddenly completely silent now that Trump has mounted an attack which is not far off a declaration of war on Iran.

Like, this is the one incident in her entire time in politics when such rhetoric would be most justified

But that's very easy to understand - it's because it's as clear as day and has been for a long time that she's running interference on behalf of Trump, Putin, Modi and international fascism in general, and is basically a giant fraud.

everlast75

What else is going on at the moment in 45's admin.

Two court cases today - one re McGhan's testimony, the second re the release of the Grand Jury materials.

Yesterday some docs were released which confirmed it was Trump's call to withhold the aid and that the pentagon advised him it was not legal or proper to do so.

And late last night, some of the 302 documents were released.

serfboard

mcmoustache wrote: »

This assassination will also have the effect of calming or even ending the protests that had been going on over there. Nothing brings a country together better than the feeling of being attacked.

Which shows how much of a stupid idea this was. Just as the Iranian regime was under threat from within, Trump now subjects the country to a threat from without, which will only bring them together.

listermint

Second time this story has come out, Although now with additional sources.


https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1213103642988793858

Stallingrad

I'd say after embassy attack Trump asked for a list of targets to send a message. He picked the second highest because he likes the tippy top. Were there any seasoned Generals there to caution him, did anyone run the scenerio, would he listen to any of them anyway?

I think we all know the answer. Up until now he has been a pretty harmless dimwit, but he's started something now and is there anyone left in the White House to reign it in? This could escalate like wildfire. This is the price the world pays when you let an ignorant real estate huckster run the world's most powerful country.

pixelburp

Is there any sense yet on GOP reaction? I don't doubt the most we might see is "thoughtful concern" from outliers such as Romney, but if there's any mainstream kickback things could backfire on Trump, domestically anyway.

Rjd2

sid waddell wrote: »

What's absolutely hilarious is how Tulsi Gabbard, who was like a talking parrot reciting rhetoric about how "we must stop regime change wars", is now suddenly completely silent now that Trump has mounted an attack which is not far off a declaration of war on Iran.

Like, this is the one incident in her entire time in politics when such rhetoric would be most justified

But that's very easy to understand - it's because it's as clear as day and has been for a long time that she's running interference on behalf of Trump, Putin, Modi and international fascism in general, and is basically a giant fraud.

if you have solid proof of this outside echo chamber resistance~! twitter you need to consult the USA army instantly as she still serves for them. They have a sizable online presence so it should be easy to contact them.

The USA army is seriously compromised if a congresswomen serving them for them is working for its nations enemies.

Gabbard will respond later assuming she has not been arrested for working for Putin ~! and probably stronger than some of the Dem takes today which have been so weak bar Bernie its unreal.

https://twitter.com/WideAsleepNima/status/1212986561052188672

Rjd2

pixelburp wrote: »

Is there any sense yet on GOP reaction? I don't doubt the most we might see is "thoughtful concern" from outliers such as Romney, but if there's any mainstream kickback things could backfire on Trump, domestically anyway.

Republicans are a party of neocons so don't expect any serious criticism.

Massie and Rand who are the only consistent anti war voices in the party with amash gone did criticise tbf,,,,be good at least if Rand actually remembered what been a libertarian is meant to be.

sid waddell

Rjd2 wrote: »

if you have solid proof of this outside echo chamber resistance~! twitter you need to consult the USA army instantly as she still serves for them. They have a sizable online presence so it should be easy to contact them.

The USA army is seriously compromised if a congresswomen serving them for them is working for its nations enemies.

Gabbard will respond later assuming she has not been arrested for working for Putin ~! and probably stronger than some of the Dem takes today which have been so weak bar Bernie its unreal.

https://twitter.com/WideAsleepNima/status/1212986561052188672

Why hasn't she responded?

You know, of all the things that would get the goat of somebody who claims to be against regime change wars, this should be it...and yet...complete and utter silence!

Mad that, mad I tells ya.

No I don't have proof that she's running interference for Trump, I just say what I see, what appears bleedin' obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot.

I do have proof that she's funded heavily by Indian fascists. That's well documented, she acts on behalf of the Indian Sangh and its internationally affiliated organisations and refuses to answer questions about it.

https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/american-sangh-affair-tulsi-gabbard

Typing the phrase "echo chamber" is not an argument or a point, by the way, but it a better example of unintentional irony than anything Alanis Morrisette ever came up with.

Itssoeasy

You know even on the messaging( I hate this word btw. It's a fancy way of saying we are getting our story straight) the trump administration can't get that straight. And now the US are telling US citizens in Iraq to leave. Jesus Christ fair enough Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate but at least if this situation were to have arisen if she had become president then her experience as Secretary of State and her husband as former president and the experienced people shed have put in place unlike the keystone cops trump has the situation may never have come about.

Rjd2

sid waddell wrote: »

Why hasn't she responded?

You know, of all the things that would get the goat of somebody who claims to be against regime change wars, this should be it...and yet...complete and utter silence!

Mad that, mad I tells ya.

No I don't have proof that she's running interference for Trump, I just say what I see, what appears bleedin' obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot.

I do have proof that she's funded heavily by Indian fascists. That's well documented, she acts on behalf of the Indian Sangh and its internationally affiliated organisations and refuses to answer questions about it.

https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/american-sangh-affair-tulsi-gabbard

Typing the phrase "echo chamber" is not an argument or a point, by the way, but it a better example of unintentional irony than anything Alanis Morrisette ever came up with.

she has responded on fox a while ago and went into detail.

so not exact silence.

RobertKK

Itssoeasy wrote: »

You know even on the messaging( I hate this word btw. It's a fancy way of saying we are getting our story straight) the trump administration can't get that straight. And now the US are telling US citizens in Iraq to leave. Jesus Christ fair enough Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate but at least if this situation were to have arisen if she had become president then her experience as Secretary of State and her husband as former president and the experienced people shed have put in place unlike the keystone cops trump has the situation may never have come about.

Her experience as Secretary of State is one of getting most calls wrong.
Remember that reset button she gave Lavrov as a symbol of a new start after the Bush regime?
Her laughing at Gaddafi dying from being stabbed through his anus, before that all went downhill and she stopped laughing.
She would have gotten the US into bigger trouble than before now.
She also had a democratically elected leader in Honduras removed through a coup she supported and which has left thousands dead.

Both parties are full of war hawks, and if anyone thinks one party is good and the other is bad, they are deluded as both parties have shown to be trigger happy.

RobertKK

Rjd2 wrote: »

she has responded on fox a while ago and went into detail.

so not exact silence.

I love Tulsi, if Americans and the Democrats had any sense, she would be their candidate.

sid waddell

RobertKK wrote: »

I love Tulsi, if Americans and the Democrats had any sense, she would be their candidate.

The US already has a president in the pocket of Russia, not sure why you'd want another one.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

Her experience as Secretary of State is one of getting most calls wrong.
Remember that reset button she gave Lavrov as a symbol of a new start after the Bush regime?
Her laughing at Gaddafi dying from being stabbed through his anus, before that all went downhill and she stopped laughing.
She would have gotten the US into bigger trouble than before now.
She also had a democratically elected leader in Honduras removed through a coup she supported and which has left thousands dead.

Both parties are full of war hawks, and if anyone thinks one party is good and the other is bad, they are deluded as both parties have shown to be trigger happy.

If all that you list above is true, then that is fairly awful stuff.

Accepting that, she would not have
1)withdrawn from the G8
2) distanced the US from the UN
3) withdrawn from the Paris accord
4) withdrawn from the Iran Nuclear deal
5) enabled Putin in the Ukraine
6) sided with Russia in interfering with the US elections
7) allowed MBS to get away with murdering a journalist
8) sided with Erdogan and allowed the kurds to be slaughtered.

RobertKK

sid waddell wrote: »

The US already has a president in the pocket of Russia, not sure why you'd want another one.

These wars of Bush and Obama have done more to help Russia than any other president.
Both Iran and Syria are Russian allies.
The Iraq invasion and occupation has given Iraq to Iran influence and thus Russian influence.

Rjd2

RobertKK wrote: »

I love Tulsi, if Americans and the Democrats had any sense, she would be their candidate.

TBF to sid,,,he is right to point out the links to indian extremists,,its something I need to investigate more as its not something that should be brushed under the carpet.

https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1213048043345469441

The Republicans own this **** show, but slagging Gabbard for this is unfair,,,she , AOC, Omar,,Ro, Barbara Lee all people were on the right of that bill the other month,,the centrist dems just folded to the GOP.

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

If all that you list above is true, then that is fairly awful stuff.

Accepting that, she would not have
1)withdrawn from the G8
2) distanced the US from the UN
3) withdrawn from the Paris accord
4) withdrawn from the Iran Nuclear deal
5) enabled Putin in the Ukraine
6) sided with Russia in interfering with the US elections
7) allowed MBS to get away with murdering a journalist
8) sided with Erdogan and allowed the kurds to be slaughtered.

Ukraine happened under her watch.

also remember when Romney warned Obama in the presidential debates in 2012 that Russia was the biggest geopolitical issue and he got laughed at by Obama.
These people were sleeping on the job and Hillary was one of them, and one of the most hawkish people in the Obama regime.
Yes she would not have done some of the big mistakes that Trump has done but her record shows she is quite capable of making many massive ones herself that has cost countless lives, there is no evidence that she is actually as competent as some think she is.
John Kerry was a far better secretary of state than she was.

serfboard

everlast75 wrote: »

Accepting that, she would not have ...
7) allowed MBS to get away with murdering a journalist

Don't agree with you there.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

Ukraine happened under her watch.

There were repercussions for Ukraine under her and Obama. If she/Obama had of bombed Russia or gone to war she would have been called a warmonger.

There was **** all from Trump on that issue.

everlast75

serfboard wrote: »

Don't agree with you there.

Why so?

Manic Moran

With regards to Soleimani, a question I can't seem to find a specific answer to is what the Iraqi government's position was with this guy.

As Tulsi said in the interview above, nobody questions that he was an evil man (Well, outside of Iran and its proxies) responsible for the majority of American deaths in the country, and I don't think anyone is advocating that he was in Iraq for the common good. His convoy was from Hashd al-Shaabi, the same guys in the news recently for causing trouble at the embassy. Did he have Iraqi permission to be in the country, or was he snuck in? If he had permission, the airstrike seems questionable. If not, then I don't see why the Iranians have any particular cause to complain. Gabbard calls the strike an act of war, but foreign military personnel in your country without permission to orchestrate violence also strikes me as such.

CNN's national security analyst did a piece a couple days ago on the recent strikes. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/29/opinions/airstrikes-iran-trump-doctrine-bergen/index.html
Taken together, these examples indicate the administration has developed a set of principles when it comes to conflict with Iran or its proxies.
Trump will not carry out military operations against Iran for attacks against unnamed American drones. He will also not respond when a close ally such as Saudi Arabia suffers significant attacks on the key node of its economy.
Trump will, however, respond militarily when Americans are killed or wounded by Iran or its proxy forces.

If Iran takes the same message as a CNN analyst managed to read, I don't see things escalating particularly further on the international level. I do see an increase in activity from the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, however.

Raisins

Christy42 wrote: »

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.

I don’t agree. The core bush type traditional Republicans were not and are not his exclusive base. His base of disaffected Americans of all kinds and creeds definitely cared about less war because of its cost. Clinton’s fingerprints were all over US foreign policy at the time which was one of her many weaknesses as a candidate.Trump linked the trillions wasted on foreign wars to the domestic problems at home as part of a single ‘put America first’ narrative.

Drone strikes on infamous individuals in the Middle East are cheap and very good PR in the lead up to November as long as they don’t end up starting a war which would be a disaster for him pre election.

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

There were repercussions for Ukraine under her and Obama. If she/Obama had of bombed Russia or gone to war she would have been called a warmonger.

There was **** all from Trump on that issue.

The Obama administration were sleeping on the job as I said.

Maybe if they had been aware that Russia was a threat, the Ukraine war might not have happened, the reset button three years earlier also showed Clinton was asleep and only gave a reset button as she thought they were weak.
If Russia had been viewed as being strong she would not have done it.

Obama was too busy riling up a narcissist that he would never be in the white house like he was, another thing he got wrong.
Too busy with the Hollywood celebs and Beyonce, too busy with people waving their small American flags when he came to Ireland.
A blind eye turned by so many to what was just another poor president in a long line of bad presidents.
Clinton asleep as Al Qaeda attacked US interests including embassies and the USS Cole, fired a few missiles at some training camp and that was it.
The migrant crisis happened under Obama as he and the west supported the wrong side which led to ISIS.

The best thing about the Obama administration was the Iran deal, and that is also the biggest mistake of the Trump administration.
Though Hillary Clinton did threaten to go to war with Iran...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal-distrust-and-verify/

"“Iran should understand,” she said, that “the United States—and I as president—will not stand by as our Gulf allies and partners are threatened. We will act."