Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

RobertKK

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

It was said on CNN that the group Soleimani was said to be orchestrating in Iraq was formed originally to fight ISIS in Iraq.
It was also said on CNN that Iraq could well order the US to get out of their country for committing this assassination on their territory without their permission.

Manic Moran

RobertKK wrote: »

It was said on CNN that the group Soleimani was said to be orchestrating in Iraq was formed originally to fight ISIS in Iraq.
It was also said on CNN that Iraq could well order the US to get out of their country for committing this assassination on their territory without their permission.

Both of which are true as far as it goes, but neither of which addresses the question I posed of his presence in the country this week and the Iraqi attitude to it. Disapproval of the strike by Iraq or a past confluence of convenience does not necessarily equate to the legitimacy of the Iranian general parlaying with a militia in Iraq in early 2020.

blackcard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Both of which are true as far as it goes, but neither of which addresses the question I posed of his presence in the country this week and the Iraqi attitude to it. Disapproval of the strike by Iraq or a past confluence of convenience does not necessarily equate to the legitimacy of the Iranian general parlaying with a militia in Iraq in early 2020.

Was there not a senior Iraqi army person killed alongside him which would indicate that he was there with Iraqi approval?

Manic Moran

blackcard wrote: »

Was there not a senior Iraqi army person killed alongside him which would indicate that he was there with Iraqi approval?

No, the Iraqi commander was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the 2IC of one of the the Iranian-backed militias. To my knowledge he had no official position in the Iraqi government hierarchy.

Harry Palmr

Got to hand it to Trump, he's reunited the Iranian leadership with it's people in one moment!

Wonder how long until the President is looking for help from Boris Johnson (in exchange for something trade deal related).

duploelabs

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Got to hand it to Trump, he's reunited the Iranian leadership with it's people in one moment!

Wonder how long until the President is looking for help from Boris Johnson (in exchange for something trade deal related).

Except Dominic Raab said "further conflict is in none of our interests."

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-warns-donald-trump-against-launching-war-iran-qassem-soleimani-2020-1?r=US&IR=T

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

With regards to Soleimani, a question
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.

You reckon the killing was purely a strategic response for the killing of the US contractor and the attack on the US embassy, a message to the Iran cleric not to attack the US directly, to keep such activities limited to regional parties?

I'm waiting for a leak to one [or more] trusted major media [Russian, French or German] sources of the info on which the strategic killing was [pre-emptively] launched.+

I see Don Trump is not Jimmy Carter.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

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."

Sorry. Did you say Obama was too busy winding up a narcissist...

Everybody in the room was winding him up. If you're implying Obama is now to blame for Trump, well on this we won't ever agree as it utter nonsense.

Obama's administration may have gotten certain things wrong, but to suggest that his admin is comparable in any way, shape or form in terms of incompetence to 45's is so far beyond ridiculous.

Obama was respected on the world stage. Trump was literally laughed at by the UN.

Harry Palmr

Channel 4 putting the boot in with its report. Highlighting the volte face regarding endless wars in the middle-east and how he attacked Obama for wanting to go to war with Iran for electoral reasons a few years back.

StringerBell

Unfortunately I don't think they watch much channel 4 over there

isohon

Finding reaction to the deployment of thousands of additional US troops to the ME, in the wake of this assassination, to be quite interesting.

When Donnie removed 3500 troops, it was seen as a problematic but genius move from the Don. His base will lap it up... etc. Now that at least as many are confirmed to be deployed again, and most likely many times more, no comment on whether this all part of genius Don's strategy...

everlast75

Some good news...*


https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1213153769111863303?s=19



*not for Rudy

Igotadose

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Utter fatuous nonsense. Unlike the current crime syndicate in the WH (9 top members of this administration or senior campaign advisers/policy consultants convicted of crimes, most in jail,) the Obama admin tried to work with the nutter GOP congress, for example in Syria, where if you can recall Obama asked for Congressional authorization to attack Syria and was refused (just like the UK.)

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.

Who the *heck* are you talking about, Trump? Do you seriously think citizen Trump was on Obama's radar before the GOP primary campaign started, where for months his candidacy was a joke? Get over yourself, you're slagging Democrats because of your forced-birth agenda, it's the only reason you spout obvious nonsense about Trump and the GOP not being the party of warmongery (Iraq via fake WMDs under GWB. Vietnam. Grenada.)

Too busy with the Hollywood celebs and Beyonce, too busy with people waving their small American flags when he came to Ireland.

Jaysus, Obama derangement syndrome in its finest form. Hollywood. Right.
On his 'hollywood night' of the correspondents dinner, he oversaw Bin Laden being killed. Hollywood. What a stupid joke

A blind eye turned by so many to what was just another poor president in a long line of bad presidents.

Anti-choice venom flowing through yet again.

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.

Farcical. Support Morsi? Qaddafi? Heck, why not Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin while we're at it.

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."

Aha. As always with the anti-choice GOP filchers, 'but, but Hillary' when their 'ideas' are shown to be the rubbish they are.

Fonny122

duploelabs wrote: »

Except Dominic Raab said "further conflict is in none of our interests."

They have no choice, to be frank. This will be just one of the many "benefits of Brexit" they have to look forward to.

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

Sorry. Did you say Obama was too busy winding up a narcissist...

Everybody in the room was winding him up. If you're implying Obama is now to blame for Trump, well on this we won't ever agree as it utter nonsense.

Obama's administration may have gotten certain things wrong, but to suggest that his admin is comparable in any way, shape or form in terms of incompetence to 45's is so far beyond ridiculous.

Obama was respected on the world stage. Trump was literally laughed at by the UN.

Obama respected on the world stage?
Worse relations with Russia.
China had that whole incident that he had to exit at the back of his plane as they didn’t bother with a red carpet when he went to China.
People were falling over themselves as he is a good speaker but turned away and didn’t condemn his expansion of the drone program which is now out of all control.

RobertKK

Igotadose wrote: »

Utter fatuous nonsense. Unlike the current crime syndicate in the WH (9 top members of this administration or senior campaign advisers/policy consultants convicted of crimes, most in jail,) the Obama admin tried to work with the nutter GOP congress, for example in Syria, where if you can recall Obama asked for Congressional authorization to attack Syria and was refused (just like the UK.)

Who the *heck* are you talking about, Trump? Do you seriously think citizen Trump was on Obama's radar before the GOP primary campaign started, where for months his candidacy was a joke? Get over yourself, you're slagging Democrats because of your forced-birth agenda, it's the only reason you spout obvious nonsense about Trump and the GOP not being the party of warmongery (Iraq via fake WMDs under GWB. Vietnam. Grenada.)

Jaysus, Obama derangement syndrome in its finest form. Hollywood. Right.
On his 'hollywood night' of the correspondents dinner, he oversaw Bin Laden being killed. Hollywood. What a stupid joke

Anti-choice venom flowing through yet again.

Farcical. Support Morsi? Qaddafi? Heck, why not Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin while we're at it.


Aha. As always with the anti-choice GOP filchers, 'but, but Hillary' when their 'ideas' are shown to be the rubbish they are.

They are all useless, just some put on rose tinted glasses because one is blue or red.
They are all war mongers and have all caused great harm in the Middle East.

You turn a blind eye to the crimes of the Democrat presidents including Obama when either Republican or Democrat they all have a lot of blood on their hands.
Just some choose to ignore the blood the Democrats have on their hands when Republicans and Democrats are all stained with blood through wars, drones and other actions that has killed millions of people at this stage.

Jamiekelly

sid waddell wrote: »

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

Any chance you could respond with something that is not a conspiracy theory? You were caught out saying Tulsi has kept quiet on this, then got pointed to evidence and this is your reply? Flat earther quality posts.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

Ah come off it trying to legitimise this action. I expected no less though.

It's American foreign policy to have the middle East in a continual state of war. It's solely why they back Israel so much. America can never have a stable strong middle East because they would have endless money and ownership or much of the oil of the world. They can't have that. They need the region to be unstable so that he balance of global power never shifts.


Meanwhile you lads get to pew pew pew to enforce the policy which delights the average soldier and money is printed with endless wars to pump manufacturering at home.

But yes , let's search for legitimate reasons to assassinate one countries senior leadership in another sovereign state....

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

But yes , let's search for legitimate reasons to assassinate one countries senior leadership in another sovereign state....

If they're attacking you and killing your soldiers, that's plenty legitimate enough reason. That doesn't make the method legitimate.

The question I have, which, still, nobody has answered and does not seem to be in the news, is what his status was in Iraq. He wasn't over for a vacation and a chinwag over tea about the old times. Was he there with the permission of the Iraqi government? If not, then we have the case of a foreign government's military personnel operating in an allied country without permission. That becomes a legitimate military target.

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

If they're attacking you and killing your soldiers, that's plenty legitimate enough reason. That doesn't make the method legitimate.

The question I have, which, still, nobody has answered and does not seem to be in the news, is what his status was in Iraq. He wasn't over for a vacation and a chinwag over tea about the old times. Was he there with the permission of the Iraqi government? If not, then we have the case of a foreign government's military personnel operating in an allied country without permission. That becomes a legitimate military target.

The question I have, which, still, nobody has answered and does not seem to be in the news, is why are US soldiers in in Iraq? They aren't over for a vacation and a chinwag over tea about the old times. Are they there with the permission of the Iraqi government? If not, then we have the case of a foreign government's military personnel operating in a country without permission. That becomes a legitimate military target.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

If they're attacking you and killing your soldiers, that's plenty legitimate enough reason. That doesn't make the method legitimate.

The question I have, which, still, nobody has answered and does not seem to be in the news, is what his status was in Iraq. He wasn't over for a vacation and a chinwag over tea about the old times. Was he there with the permission of the Iraqi government? If not, then we have the case of a foreign government's military personnel operating in an allied country without permission. That becomes a legitimate military target.

He frequently visited Baghdad.

The gang of eight was not advised in advance of this action. Lindsey Graham however was advised when he was visiting Mar a lago days ago.

There was no approval by congress.

There was no consultation with any of the US allies.

drunkmonkey

You don't signal a manoeuvre!

listermint

everlast75 wrote: »

He frequently visited Baghdad.

The gang of eight was not advised in advance of this action. Lindsey Graham however was advised when he was visiting Mar a lago days ago.

There was no approval by congress.

There was no consultation with any of the US allies.

And it seems Donald Junior was also told as per a deleted tweet on the 31st Dec.

listermint

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You don't signal a manoeuvre!

You do to allies like the UK with personal there .

But the US has no allies anymore they are intent on burning every bridge.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

If they're attacking you and killing your soldiers, that's plenty legitimate enough reason. That doesn't make the method legitimate.

The question I have, which, still, nobody has answered and does not seem to be in the news, is what his status was in Iraq. He wasn't over for a vacation and a chinwag over tea about the old times. Was he there with the permission of the Iraqi government? If not, then we have the case of a foreign government's military personnel operating in an allied country without permission. That becomes a legitimate military target.

For the Iraqis not for the US..stop acting like the world police . You aren't.


You know it's all about oil we know it's all about oil the entire us military force exists with the express interest of enforcing us interests...oil internationally. They aren't a defensive force.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

If they're attacking you and killing your soldiers, that's plenty legitimate enough reason. That doesn't make the method legitimate.

The question I have, which, still, nobody has answered and does not seem to be in the news, is what his status was in Iraq. He wasn't over for a vacation and a chinwag over tea about the old times. Was he there with the permission of the Iraqi government? If not, then we have the case of a foreign government's military personnel operating in an allied country without permission. That becomes a legitimate military target.

That's answered [possibly] by who provided the US with the info of his presence in Iraq. If he was travelling openly within Iraq, then that presupposes the notion that what serves as the Iraqi Govt was aware of his presence and [fait accompli] activities there, even if it didn't approve of them. If his presence was covert [slim chance in the region] then some-one was surveying him. As for being a legitimate military target for the US, basing the kill on that basis means the Iraqi's gave the go-ahead to make it legitimate. I'm supposing that Don may have approved of the kill as he doesn't want to follow in the footsteps of Bill Carter when it come to a seizure of a US embassy in the region.

The niceties of this aspect of apparent Trump Admin policy seem to distract from the general thread.

everlast75

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You don't signal a manoeuvre!

*sigh*

There is protocol. There is procedure.

The rationalizing of this guy's behaviour is truly disturbing.

rossie1977

RobertKK wrote: »

They are all useless, just some put on rose tinted glasses because one is blue or red.
They are all war mongers and have all caused great harm in the Middle East.

You turn a blind eye to the crimes of the Democrat presidents including Obama when either Republican or Democrat they all have a lot of blood on their hands.
Just some choose to ignore the blood the Democrats have on their hands when Republicans and Democrats are all stained with blood through wars, drones and other actions that has killed millions of people at this stage.

Obama was critised by members of his own party, the supposed 'anti-war' candidates for not killing enough..

https://mobile.twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/649615636088365058?lang=en

Fonny122

everlast75 wrote: »

The rationalizing of this guy's behaviour is truly disturbing.

Well how else do you think they should signal their unquestioning, unwavering loyalty at a time like this?

Fonny122

RobertKK wrote: »

They are all useless, just some put on rose tinted glasses because one is blue or red.
They are all war mongers and have all caused great harm in the Middle East.

You turn a blind eye to the crimes of the Democrat presidents including Obama when either Republican or Democrat they all have a lot of blood on their hands.
Just some choose to ignore the blood the Democrats have on their hands when Republicans and Democrats are all stained with blood through wars, drones and other actions that has killed millions of people at this stage.

Wasn't that the thing though, wasn't Trump supposed to be different to all the other politicians, and wasn't he supposed to be very non interventionist while Clinton was a warmonger?

A lot of people said that is why they wanted Trump over Clinton a few years ago. I'm not sure what changed in the interim.