Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Letwin_Larry

Bigboldworld wrote: »

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.

i dont believe there are ANY WINNERS when it comes to war. everyone loses. who won WW1? WW2? you could debate these issues all week.
unless you simply use a very crude body count to determine winners and losers?

do you honestly think the average American citizen feels bogged down in the middle-east? most yanks couldn't point out Iraq/Iran on a map if asked. America likes to flex its considerable mucles now and then, when it feels the need. like being a school bully, there's little point if these is nobody to beat up on.
Iran will soon become the whipping boy if it's not careful.

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/373743492151136256?s=21


One would say funny if the situation was not so serious.

fash

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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.

Once the decision was made to drop a nuclear bomb, it made a lot of sense to drop a second. Japanese scientists had guessed that there was a slight possibility that the US could build 1 bomb- but believed it would be impossible to build 2 or more. A 2nd bomb was "needed" to show them the Japanese that their assumptions were wrong .
Whether nuclear bombing was needed at all is a separate question/debate.

listermint

The absolute state of some posters on here expressing glee about the thoughts of nuclear war and about he US being the big lad in the room . Where other counties messing with the bully in the room will soon find out.


Will you take a look at yourselves.

rossie1977

listermint wrote: »

The absolute state of some posters on here expressing glee about the thoughts of nuclear war and about he US being the big lad in the room . Where other counties messing with the bully in the room will soon find out.


Will you take a look at yourselves.

Probably from same people that would be claiming Hillary Clinton would be bad choice for President because she is a supposed war monger couple years ago.

Clinton would have cut money to defense budget most likely.

woohoo!!!

From a military tactic view point, dropping those bombs on Japan made sense. Morally disgusting. And they had already fire bombed cities, with 100,000 killed in Tokyo on one occasion. They also hated the Japenese, with a passion. The Japanese pattern was fight to the last man, and never surrender.

The US estimated to take Japan would result in half a million US troops killed, and up to 6 million Japanese deaths. So they picked the bombs. And they would do the same today. Morals have never got in the way of any US president to use their military for dubious reasons.

beggars_bush

fash wrote: »

Once the decision was made to drop a nuclear bomb, it made a lot of sense to drop a second. Japanese scientists had guessed that there was a slight possibility that the US could build 1 bomb- but believed it would be impossible to build 2 or more. A 2nd bomb was "needed" to show them the Japanese that their assumptions were wrong .
Whether nuclear bombing was needed at all is a separate question/debate.

most of japan was still an 18th century country
and I don't think a loss of life on that scale can be justified

anyway, Trump has his finger on the button.

drunkmonkey

Banned.

duploelabs

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's comical reading this thread I've never seen so many people so bitter against one man for winning, not one dem can let it go, seriously your Queen Hillary would have cut the defence budget. What planet are you on. The Don is trying to avoid making the same mistake as Hillary I thought that much was blindingly obvious to even the biggest orangeman haters.
The Trump derangement syndrome in this thread is off the charts.

So assassinating a foreign leader with the justification that a strike was imminent, where the evidence underpinning that imminent strike is sketchy to say the lease is now seen as 'avoiding mistakes'? That kool aid must be super refreshing this morning

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761

drunkmonkey

duploelabs wrote: »

So assassinating a foreign leader with the justification that a strike was imminent, where the evidence underpinning that imminent strike is sketchy to say the lease is now seen as 'avoiding mistakes'? That kool aid must be super refreshing this morning

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761

Have you been under a rock, an America killed and the embassy attached. That wasn't the first time they poked the bear. Look he wasn't a nice man, it sends a message to Trump's foe's.
You could be a cynic and say he's just copying Clinton.

https://twitter.com/VivashwanSingh/status/1213040639769604097?s=20

rossie1977

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's comical reading this thread I've never seen so many people so bitter against one man for winning, not one dem can let it go, seriously your Queen Hillary would have cut the defence budget. What planet are you on. The Don is trying to avoid making the same mistake as Hillary I thought that much was blindingly obvious to even the biggest orangeman haters.
The Trump derangement syndrome in this thread is off the charts.

Yes, Clinton's military policies would likely have resulted in budget cuts not increases https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2016/10/02/from-troops-to-nukes-this-is-how-trump-and-clinton-would-manage-the-military/ Trump complained that Obama and the Dems had left the US military vastly under-funded., Clinton and Obama are very similar politically.

Again you ignore my main point that Trump fans claimed Clinton was a war monger hence why she shouldn't be elected. Now those same people are praising Trump for possibly starting a war even advocating dropping nuclear bombs on sovereign nations.

I am pissed the most powerful nation on Earth elected an unstable man-child with no political experience over a highly qualified candidate. I can imagine the world in the depths of nuclear winter and some Trump supporter shouting out 'Its Hillary' s fault'

StringerBell

woohoo!!! wrote: »

From a military tactic view point, dropping those bombs on Japan made sense. Morally disgusting. And they had already fire bombed cities, with 100,000 killed in Tokyo on one occasion. They also hated the Japenese, with a passion. The Japanese pattern was fight to the last man, and never surrender.

The US estimated to take Japan would result in half a million US troops killed, and up to 6 million Japanese deaths. So they picked the bombs. And they would do the same today. Morals have never got in the way of any US president to use their military for dubious reasons.

The Japanese were ready to surrender, they had disagreement in that they wanted to keep their emperor and the US would not agree. The emperor being what he is for the Japanese that was prolonging the war. Rather than give way the Americans were eager to show off their new weapon, to show Stalin what they had as much as anything else. It was reprehensible and repugnant and still is. Stains have been on the American empire for a long time at this stage.

Jimmy Garlic

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The US estimated to take Japan would result in half a million US troops killed, and up to 6 million Japanese deaths. So they picked the bombs. And they would do the same today. Morals have never got in the way of any US president to use their military for dubious reasons.

That the excuse. Japan wasn't far off surrender in any case. Japanese diplomats were in the process of arranging a surrender and the US knew that. The US wanted live targets to test their new weapons on, they wanted to study the effects on real cities full of real people. War crimes.

RobertKK

rossie1977 wrote: »

Probably from same people that would be claiming Hillary Clinton would be bad choice for President because she is a supposed war monger couple years ago.

Clinton would have cut money to defense budget most likely.

This changes nothing, she was proposing stuff for Syria which would have put the US in direct opposition to Russia with her no fly zones, and her record is one of voting for every war going - it was her that had all the neocon backing in 2016 as she is a neocon puppet.
What is happening now doesn't change how dangerous Hillary Clinton was.
Trump has to find a way to avoid war, he may think Iran is the key to re-election but he will lose a lot of votes if he is foolish enough to carry out his threats, as Iran have said they will respond.
Very foolish if Trump thought he could kill Suleimani and not get a severe response. Also one should never under-estimate a supposed enemy, bigger weapons and bigger mouth doesn't mean one is immune from getting some of the medicine back.
This needs to be de-escalated but I fear Trump listens to people like Netanyahu and the Mad bone saw man too much and is influenced by them and their hatred of Iran.

20silkcut

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i dont believe there are ANY WINNERS when it comes to war. everyone loses. who won WW1? WW2? you could debate these issues all week.

Soviet Union won big in WW2 effectively extended their territory to the brandenburg gate and held it for nearly 50 years almost on fear alone.

antiskeptic

rossie1977 wrote: »

Yes, Clinton's military policies would likely have resulted in budget cuts not increases https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2016/10/02/from-troops-to-nukes-this-is-how-trump-and-clinton-would-manage-the-military/ Trump complained that Obama and the Dems had left the US military vastly under-funded., Clinton and Obama are very similar politically.

Again you ignore my main point that Trump fans claimed Clinton was a war monger hence why she shouldn't be elected. Now those same people are praising Trump for possibly starting a war even advocating dropping nuclear bombs on sovereign nations.

I am pissed the most powerful nation on Earth elected an unstable man-child with no political experience over a highly qualified candidate. I can imagine the world in the depths of nuclear winter and some Trump supporter shouting out 'Its Hillary' s fault'

For 'most powerful' you can also insert 'most malign and destructive'. A nation breastfed on murder and enslavement and violence has grown up to become, unsurprisingly, a spoilt, warped adult.

Was it not 'highly qualified adults' piloting US imperialism which contributed to generating the possibility of a nuclear winter scenario in the first place.

The world is an extremely volatile place. And no small portion of that volatility stems from US attempts to ensure that its bully boy way holds sway.


Trump is a clown. But that doesn't make him worse than his death-wielding predecessors.

Letwin_Larry

StringerBell wrote: »

The Japanese were ready to surrender, they had disagreement in that they wanted to keep their emperor and the US would not agree. The emperor being what he is for the Japanese that was prolonging the war. Rather than give way the Americans were eager to show off their new weapon, to show Stalin what they had as much as anything else. It was reprehensible and repugnant and still is. Stains have been on the American empire for a long time at this stage.

for posters who think that the Japanese were some highly-cultured peace-loving reclusive nation, they really need to educate themselves.
they were a highly belligerent menace long before WW2 started, and like the Nazis considered many of their neighbours to be racially inferior, and therefore worthy of extermination.
i have little sympathy for the Japan of the 1930s & 1940s. sadly it took 2 atomic weapons to halt their aggression.
the Americans made a calculated decision, to end the war quickly. it was hardly a flippant or easy decision, as some people like to portray it. but it was the correct decision imo.

Midlife

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

That the excuse. Japan wasn't far off surrender in any case. Japanese diplomats were in the process of arranging a surrender and the US knew that. The US wanted live targets to test their new weapons on, they wanted to study the effects on real cities full of real people. War crimes.

Nah. War crimes were deemed to be stuff the axis powers did that the allies didn't.

So firebombing civilians is fine. Nuclear weapons too.

Nody

Remember those 3k new troops to Iraq? Well they can turn around, thumbs up Trump well done! Which of course will also help ISIS to rebuild further; so great work by Trump. Not only does he get the troops kicked out but he helps ISIS to rebuild further while burning further bridges in ME and ensuring a new generation will continue to hate the USA. Best negotiator eva!

Iraq votes to expel foreign troops

At an emergency parliamentary session, Iraqi politicians have voted in favour of a resolution telling the government to end the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, and ensure they not use its land, air, and waters for any reason.

"The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting Islamic State due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory," the resolution read.

"The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason."

Parliament resolutions, unlike laws, are non-binding to the government, but Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi had earlier called on parliament to end foreign troop presence.

Sheeps

Nody wrote: »

Remember those 3k new troops to Iraq? Well they can turn around, thumbs up Trump well done! Which of course will also help ISIS to rebuild further; so great work by Trump. Not only does he get the troops kicked out but he helps ISIS to rebuild further while burning further bridges in ME and ensuring a new generation will continue to hate the USA. Best negotiator eva!

They were headed for Kuwait I believe.

Letwin_Larry

Nody wrote: »

Remember those 3k new troops to Iraq? Well they can turn around, thumbs up Trump well done! Which of course will also help ISIS to rebuild further; so great work by Trump. Not only does he get the troops kicked out but he helps ISIS to rebuild further while burning further bridges in ME and ensuring a new generation will continue to hate the USA. Best negotiator eva!

i dont think Trump or his voter-base will be unduly perturbed by these troops returning home/not going to Iraq. i would imagine the troops themselves and their families will be delighted.
add to that the elimination of this general/sponsor of terrorism, and i believe they will with some justification, consider it a very good day at the office.

Midlife

Heh. You forget about the master negotiator tag that his supporters were throwing around. Does billion dollar real estate deals - international relations and domestic policy will be simple.

I actually can't think of a single thing he's negotiated well.

He managed to get Graham's tax cut through his own party - not much else.

beggars_bush

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

for posters who think that the Japanese were some highly-cultured peace-loving reclusive nation, they really need to educate themselves.
they were a highly belligerent menace long before WW2 started, and like the Nazis considered many of their neighbours to be racially inferior, and therefore worthy of extermination.
i have little sympathy for the Japan of the 1930s & 1940s. sadly it took 2 atomic weapons to halt their aggression.
the Americans made a calculated decision, to end the war quickly. it was hardly a flippant or easy decision, as some people like to portray it. but it was the correct decision imo.

Yes. But you can add in the isolationist policies of the USA during the 30s for allowing Japan to grow in strength so much

Gbear

antiskeptic wrote: »

Trump is a clown. But that doesn't make him worse than his death-wielding predecessors.

It absolutley does.

His direct predecssor orchestrated a deal precisely to avoid this kind of situation and Trump blew it up because 1) He had to destroy anything with Obama's name on it due to a childish need to outdo him, 2) to fulfill the bloodlust of the kind of hideous, racist and sociopathic American Imperialism Cultists like John Bolton, and 3) Not having the strength or inclination to ignore Israel's demands on the issue.

Obama would've gone down as a middling president all told, with a tenure marred by a rise in cultish partisanship by the Republicans disrupting much of the serious and unambiguous domestic policy wins, but the Iran deal would very much have been one of the most important pieces of foreign policy anywhere in the world in the last 30 years.

ChikiChiki

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.

I would suggest that anyone that suggests such things is an absolute idiot.

hotmail.com

Gbear wrote: »

It absolutley does.

His direct predecssor orchestrated a deal precisely to avoid this kind of situation and Trump blew it up because 1) He had to destroy anything with Obama's name on it due to a childish need to outdo him, 2) to fulfill the bloodlust of the kind of hideous, racist and sociopathic American Imperialism Cultists like John Bolton, and 3) Not having the strength or inclination to ignore Israel's demands on the issue.

Obama would've gone down as a middling president all told, with a tenure marred by a rise in cultish partisanship by the Republicans disrupting much of the serious and unambiguous domestic policy wins, but the Iran deal would very much have been one of the most important pieces of foreign policy anywhere in the world in the last 30 years.

You've ignored the rest of the post. The bit about the general problem of US foreign policy.

Those in the Middle East don't care whether the president is Rep or Dem, all they know is that American foreign policy has had a negative influence on their lives.

Letwin_Larry

make no mistake Trump has played a blinder here.
The Iranians do not possess the capability to strike America. all that will happen is a strongly worded letter to the UN. They cant even emerge from their bunkers it seems. it was laughable on Sky earlier, the Iranian 2nd in command was geeing up the mourners from his bunker, as he is too frightened to appear in person.

if they do somehow through their proxy terrorists manage to strike American interests, the blowback will land directly on Iran.

kowloon

So Iran have announced an end to their limits on Uranium enrichment. Will be interesting to see how this goes down.

RobertKK

hotmail.com wrote: »

You've ignored the rest of the post. The bit about the general problem of US foreign policy.

Those in the Middle East don't care whether the president is Rep or Dem, all they know is that American foreign policy has had a negative influence on their lives.

The only difference in US foreign policy under either party is some put on rose tinted glasses for one over the other, when they have all pursued a disastrous Middle Eastern policy which has been bad for everyone around.
Obama continued the Bush policy and we ended up with a migrant crisis and a worse terrorist problem.
Trump has continued on the same but so far...so far no new wars, but he seriously needs to de-escalate the current situation.
There is no difference in reality, just some think 'their guy' is somehow better because he is Democrat or Republican.
For the most part the US is like a one party country who just argue over conservative or liberal policies in relation to social issues.

droidus

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

make no mistake Trump has played a blinder here.
The Iranians do not possess the capability to strike America. all that will happen is a strongly worded letter to the UN. They cant even emerge from their bunkers it seems. it was laughable on Sky earlier, the Iranian 2nd in command was geeing up the mourners from his bunker, as he is too frightened to appear in person.

if they do somehow through their proxy terrorists manage to strike American interests, the blowback will land directly on Iran.

Offensives against ISIS cancelled.

Iraq votes to expel US troops.

Iran begins enriching uranium.

A real blinder.