Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Stallingrad

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

to get the job done.

You sound like the 'Mission Accomplished' type.

What job and define 'done'?

AbusesToilets

Christy42 wrote: »

What you can't imagine Trump would actually nuke Iran? That would be one massive war crime. Long range missiles would have a massive amount of civilian casualties. That would be all types of horrific

The US failed massively in Iraq and Iran is a much bigger military.

The US wiped the floor with the Iraqi military, twice. The subsequent occupation was a spiral into disaster, but don't confuse the two.

rossie1977

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

and who pray tell is going to hold the USA to account over this hypothetical "war crime"?
NATO?
the UN?
Amnesty International?

Trump will do exactly as he pleases, and if that involves returning Iranian cities to the desert, that's what could well happen.

If Trump attempted to use nuclear weapons in Iran it would start a third world war. I doubt even he is that crazy.

And no he can't just do as he pleases unless you are suggesting he is a fascist dictator or something. He can be held to account by congress, Supreme Court, the voters, NATO, UN, the government of major countries like China, Russia, UK, France ie places with large stock-piles of their own ic missiles.

relax carry on

rossie1977 wrote: »

If Trump attempted to use nuclear weapons in Iran it would start a third world war. I doubt even he is that crazy.

And no he can't just do as he pleases unless you are suggesting he is a fascist dictator or something. He can be held to account by congress, Supreme Court, the voters, NATO, the government of major countries like China, Russia, UK, France ie places with large stock-piles of their own ic missiles.

Trump will do anything not to held accountable for his lifetime of grifting and criminality. The only thing that matters to Trump is Trump. He'd burn the world to avoid the consequences of his never ending lies.

Christy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

and who pray tell is going to hold the USA to account over this hypothetical "war crime"?
NATO?
the UN?
Amnesty International?

Trump will do exactly as he pleases, and if that involves returning Iranian cities to the desert, that's what could well happen.

They won't but you would hope that the American populace is not that far gone that they wouldn't protest it and simply vote out every Republican for supporting the man at any point.

It could well happen but my word if they are that far gone there is little hope in the world. I can get scared, confused or worried but supporting that would be nothing short of pure evil.

StringerBell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the one thing i've noticed from the "rent a mob" aka spontaneous protests in Teheran is the people do not appear that angry. i may be misreading the situation, but their hearts do not seem to be in it.

my guess is large sections of the Iranian populace are very pleased this despot has been taken out, and perhaps they are fearful of an escalation of this could quite easily see the Yanks obliterate their cities as they did with the Japanese in August 1945.

Trump will not commit large number of troops to this region. he will use medium and long range missiles to get the job done.

Not sure what one has to do with the other or why you quoted me.

There has been, and will be celebration at the murder. He was objectively a bad actor, despite being a vital asset in pushing back ISIS etc.

What had that got to do with Trump's courage or lack thereof?

StringerBell

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The US wiped the floor with the Iraqi military, twice. The subsequent occupation was a spiral into disaster, but don't confuse the two.

Yep, and in a conventional sense they would do the same to Iran, but Iran and Iraq are very different propositions. Iran is a huge country, military and proxy power. They will not engage conventionally with the US should it come to it

They will play to their strengths and I don't think the US has na appetite for invasion, which is what would be required and even that isn't going to stop the guerilla war tactics that are more far reaching than just Iran. The US has a presence in a lot of places, that's a lot of targets.

The only danger you have is Trump is so far removed from reality that he will not care about the price of victory, he will simply see it as an election tool. Whether he would be, could be talked out of it is anyone's guess.

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the whole problem in a nutshell.

i agree, but it is NOT the WHOLE problem as you are trying to imply. the Iranians are not dealing with Jimmy Carter or Obama here. this could escalate very quickly.

but bear in mind the POTUS will be surrounded by his advisors.
despite what you may think he is not acting in a vacuum.

everlast75

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i agree, but it is NOT the WHOLE problem as you are trying to imply. the Iranians are not dealing with Jimmy Carter or Obama here. this could escalate very quickly.

but bear in mind the POTUS will be surrounded by his advisors.
despite what you may think he is not acting in a vacuum.

The advisors he listens to are on Fox "News".

Seriously, that is who he listens to.

It's an absolute farce and would be comical if it weren't so serious.

Letwin_Larry

duploelabs wrote: »

The terms of war crimes are defined in the Geneva convention. There is nothing hypothetical about it.
Can you revert to my question earlier

in case you dont know, America has been committing war crimes for decades, in the middle east, central america etc, etc. but funnily i don't see any US president past or present being hauled before any international court. the invasion of Iraq was a war crime many would contend. again i dont see George Junior being overtly concerned.

as for your Japan question. sorry but i thought most people realised that Hiroshima & Nagasaki are the only 2 times such weapons were used in the field of conflict.
the Japanese were brought to their senses by 2 smallish Atomic bombs. today's Nuclear bombs are probably thousands of times more powerful. if America ever decided to use them against Iran then it would be wiped out.

isohon

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The US wiped the floor with the Iraqi military, twice. The subsequent occupation was a spiral into disaster, but don't confuse the two.

Well thank God Trump is well known for his long term planning, strategic stability and commitment.

Letwin_Larry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i agree, but it is NOT the WHOLE problem as you are trying to imply. the Iranians are not dealing with Jimmy Carter or Obama here. this could escalate very quickly.

but bear in mind the POTUS will be surrounded by his advisors.
despite what you may think he is not acting in a vacuum.

There was a working peace deal in place, Trump threw it out and is now causing even more problems. I'm sure there are plenty of knowledgeable people in the military and state dept to advise him, the only problem is they aren't on fox and friends where he might actually pay attention to them.

Letwin_Larry

Christy42 wrote: »

They won't but you would hope that the American populace is not that far gone that they wouldn't protest it and simply vote out every Republican for supporting the man at any point.

It could well happen but my word if they are that far gone there is little hope in the world. I can get scared, confused or worried but supporting that would be nothing short of pure evil.

personally i would not welcome it, but if that's what happens so be it. the world will keep on turning (albeit slightly off-axis), and it may even stabilise the region in the long term.

let's not forget just how aggressive & belligerent the Japanese were before 1945. they were a menace, threatening, invading and persecuting their neighbours. since the bombs were dropped, they have become model citizens globally.

listermint

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

personally i would not welcome it, but if that's what happens so be it. the world will keep on turning (albeit slightly off-axis), and it may even stabilise the region in the long term.

let's not forget just how aggressive & belligerent the Japanese were before 1945. they were a menace, threatening, invading and persecuting their neighbours. since the bombs were dropped, they have become model citizens globally.

The moment when you know someone's opinion should be discounted

StringerBell

The Japanese were already beaten before the bombs were dropped. The bombs were dropped to show that they had them and to flex. There is a lot to read up on when it comes to that.

There will be no nukes.

aloyisious

Seeing as how Gen Soleimani was a senior member of the Iranian ruling elite at cabinet level it seems to me that the US killing of him open's the door to the response killing of senior people within the US Admin of civil and military rank. The attack was a regime change level assassination. I think it's safe to assume that US security people will be keeping a closer watch on people they are guarding, including those at cabinet level and the cabinet may not be travelling abroad without top heavy security. The Iranians have allies and the US is not the only country with drone weapons. What Don did was change the rules of the game.

Carry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

...
the Japanese were brought to their senses by 2 smallish Atomic bombs....

This is the most vile imperialist and inhuman statement I've read so far on this thread.

People who think that "two smallish atomic bombs" are a sensible thing to "bring other people to their senses" should be confined to their bunkers - or I don't know...

What is a smallish atomic bomb anyway? Only killing 100 000 and further 130 000 in the aftermath? Not to mention the countless people suffering for generations?
Small fish, eh?

For Trump it's just the red button. He doesn't have a sense of geopolitics or for any life of others. He would kill millions if it only gives him the adoration of the deplorables (yes, them!) he so desperately craves because no-one else would love him.

As much as I have my serious reservations about the Iranian mullah autocracy, but I would understand their efforts of retaliation. As others already said in some words or other, this is all about US-dominance of resources. It always has been. And I wouldn't be too aggrieved if the USA are going the way down as once the Romans.

But there is one thing good about Trump: he makes all the failures of American imperialist efforts obvious and challenges democracy to re-invent itself.
I hope very much that democracy is up for the challenge...

Dohnjoe

This tweet regarding targeting Iran:

"at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD" "The USA wants no more threats!"

It's like a child wrote it. It's literally the writing style and vocabulary of a 10 year old. This is a man occupying the office of US President, with his finger on the nuclear button. How people who support this man rationalise this to themselves is beyond me.

StringerBell

Why I am somewhat open to the idea of Iran not retaliating in too big a manner is that they are already stretched, they are involved in many parts of the region, and world and funding a lot. They are also contending with a somewhat renewed Arab Spring that is more concerning to them in the immediate future and they are also suffering with the sanctions that have been imposed. There is also a lesser possibly important reason, that apparently the generals popularity was not loved by all in the leadership and that there was a sense his celebrity and ego were getting out of control. No idea if that is true or not personally just seen it mentioned.

The country has been united to a great extent I think by the murder. As much as he would not have been loved by all in Iran he was extremely popular by all accounts and seen as a protector of the country, more involved in external matters than internal. Keeping Isis out etc and though I can understand the logic for taking him out when the opportunity was there I would love to see how it was weighed up in terms of the calculations, I don't mean from trump. His calculations are always very simple. However for this hit to have been presented to him as an option there must have been a process by which actual intelligence chiefs decided this was not a bad call to make.

I would hope there was anyway, or there are truly no adults left in the building.

Iran has to respond in some fashion, it has to be seen to respond but it will surely be at a time and place of their choosing and hopefully will not be as bad as some fear.

BonnieSituation

Carry wrote: »

This is the most vile imperialist and inhuman statement I've read so far on this thread.

People who think that "two smallish atomic bombs" are a sensible thing to "bring other people to their senses" should be confined to their bunkers - or I don't know...

What is a smallish atomic bomb anyway? Only killing 100 000 and further 130 000 in the aftermath? Not to mention the countless people suffering for generations?
Small fish, eh?

Having been to Hiroshima you're on the money right there.

It was one of the most sickening and callous decisions ever made. To then do it again 3 days later in Nagasaki shows that the USA really doesn't care about anyone once they seem to get what they want.

The lead up to the dropping of the bomb as seen via the letters and communication from the Japanese administrators is haunting and stomach churning.

So yeah, previous posters were correct, it's an opinion to be discounted, but by God do those posters need to be called out on it.

Letwin_Larry

StringerBell wrote: »

The Japanese were already beaten before the bombs were dropped. The bombs were dropped to show that they had them and to flex. There is a lot to read up on when it comes to that.

There will be no nukes.

i wouldn't share your confidence tbh.
imho we have never been closer to the imminent use of weapons of mass destruction as we are now.

we have a volatile and narcissistic US president and an aggressive and wounded Iranian regime hellbent on revenge.

can you imagine the response if the Iranians somehow manage to bomb a US city with mass casualties, or capture and publicly murder a planeload/busload of US tourists?

time will prove one of us wrong, and i sincerely hope it is me.

everlast75

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This tweet regarding targeting Iran:

"at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD" "The USA wants no more threats!"

It's like a child wrote it. It's literally the writing style and vocabulary of a 10 year old. This is a man occupying the office of US President, with his finger on the nuclear button. How people who support this man rationalise this to themselves is beyond me.

Hitting culture targets is apparently illegal, not that he gives two sh1ts about that..

everlast75

Here's a tweet with more info from a reputable b source...

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1213608133706293251?s=19

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

Hitting culture targets is apparently illegal, not that he gives two sh1ts about that..

It is just what ISIS and the Taliban have done and Trump would be no better if he even thinks this is an option.

To target the cultural sites of a people is vindictive but also shows an irrational hatred.
Wouldn't be surprised if the murderous bone saw man told him this would be a good option, or Benjamin given their hatred for Iran. Sick people.

Bigboldworld

everlast75 wrote: »

Hitting culture targets is apparently illegal, not that he gives two sh1ts about that..

He is a disgrace, there is no other word for Trump, How on earth did they vote him in. before his presidency was kind of funny as it’s been such a car crash but what he’s done here is another level, he’s removed so many people from his inner circle I wonder has that hollowing out of staff left him completely without anyone putting their hand up and saying sir this is actually a very bad idea! I truly despair for the world while he remains in power

Letwin_Larry

everlast75 wrote: »

Hitting culture targets is apparently illegal, not that he gives two sh1ts about that..

i would suggest hitting cultural targets would be militarily very astute, a bit like kicking the local yobbo in the goolies.

this tactic of war has been employed throughout the ages.

StringerBell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i wouldn't share your confidence tbh.
imho we have never been closer to the imminent use of weapons of mass destruction as we are now.

we have a volatile and narcissistic US president and an aggressive and wounded Iranian regime hellbent on revenge.

can you imagine the response if the Iranians somehow manage to bomb a US city with mass casualties, or capture and publicly murder a planeload/busload of US tourists?

time will prove one of us wrong, and i sincerely hope it is me.

It is have no fear.

There will be no nuclear attack by the US on Iran and considering Iran doesn't have a nuke I'd say they won't be launching them either.

They will not be attacking a US city either in all likelihood. Much easier targets for them.

StringerBell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i would suggest hitting cultural targets would be militarily very astute, a bit like kicking the local yobbo in the goolies.

this tactic of war has been employed throughout the ages.

Your post makes no sense. None.

It betrays a little your motives in this thread actually I think. An error for sure.

Letwin_Larry

StringerBell wrote: »

It is have no fear.

There will be no nuclear attack by the US on Iran and considering Iran doesn't have a nuke I'd say they won't be launching them either.

They will not be attacking a US city either in all likelihood. Much easier targets for them.

the Iranians do not have the military capability to inflict any real damage on the US. even today they showed they are incapable of hitting a very large building. contrast that with US capability and it's not even a proper contest. much like the Palestinians vis a vis the IDF.

let's hope it stays that way, as any damage to US interests will be met with a devastating response.

Bigboldworld

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i would suggest hitting cultural targets would be militarily very astute, a bit like kicking the local yobbo in the goolies.

this tactic of war has been employed throughout the ages.

No it wouldn’t be, by doing so he’s declaring war on the people of Iran and on their history, if his goal is to start a conflict that will ignite a war on many fronts including in the us homeland and that will last for years after trump is long gone then yes very astute, really great outcome there.

They’ve been bogged down in so many conflicts in the middle east which they have not won despite their military might, they simply cannot win with brute force on this one, there are no winners here on either side if it escalates to that.