Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

20silkcut wrote: »

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.

It was a pyrrhic victory. They lost 20 million people and it is the country with the highest number of fatalities from that conflict. The effects on the demographics are still visible in the Russian Federation today.

Timberrrrrrrr

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.

Going to quote this for future reference

aloyisious

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.

That would depend on what Don decides is a cultural target. I tend to see cultural building as museums, art galleries, music halls, religious places of worship and maybe even the parliament building. If that is what was floating through Don's mind when he spoke those words, then he is no better than the Kristallnacht mob organised by the NSDAP or the targets chosen by ISIS for destruction. I've a feeling that anyone who likes culture would have a problem with the destruction Don seems to favour or see as a legitimate act of the modern civilised state.

amandstu

Colt Flaky Tart wrote: »

It was a pyrrhic victory. They lost 20 million people and it is the country with the highest number of fatalities from that conflict. The effects on the demographics are still visible in the Russian Federation today.

Hardly Phyrric to have avoided annihilation by the Nazis.Their victory was to be wholly welcomed.Without the USSR perhaps we too would have gone under.

This is no defence of the USSR but we were their allies for a good reason.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

then he is no better than the Kristallnacht mob organised by the NSDAP or the targets chosen by ISIS for destruction. .

Long suspected.Put Trump in that sort of context and wonder to yourself how he would have behaved.

In fact most of us would probably behave shamefully as moral courage is not a common resource.

But Trump would have been a cheer leader for depravity in those times I would suspect.

The reason he is less dangerous than some is that the USA already has world dominion and so is not under threat in that way(no need for lebensraum ,more concerned with drawbridges)

BonnieSituation

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.

The war was over. The yanks just wanted to show off their new toy to Joe and Co and for them not to get ideas about putting Japan under their sphere.

To think the death of 140k people was "a correct decision" is sociopathic in the extreme.

Disgusting and grim. I'm actually fuming sitting here reading that.

Leroy42

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.

So what is the justification for the assignation?

If what you say is true, then Iran posed no risk to the US.

droidus

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.

Repulsive. You are advocating war crimes.

To the extent that cultural property is civilian, it may not be made the object of attack (see Rule 7). It may only be attacked in case it qualifies as a military objective (see Rule 10). The Statute of the International Criminal Court therefore stresses that intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes or historic monuments is a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts, “provided they are not military objectives”.

Fonny122

I can't help but think the global reaction to this is different to what the Trump administration expected. It takes a truly incredible level of incompetence to lose a PR battle with Iran in the West, yet they seem to have pulled it off.

And now it looks like Iraq have kicked every US soldier out of the country.

rossie1977

Fonny122 wrote: »

I can't help but think the global reaction to this is different to what the Trump administration expected. It takes a truly incredible level of incompetence to lose a PR battle with Iran in the West, yet they seem to have pulled it off.

And now it looks like Iraq have kicked every US soldier out of the country.

Republicans and right wing media have tried to paint Iran as an evil empire for a decade+ but majority of people aren't buying it. Most folks were fine with Obamas nuclear deal with Iran.

More Americans view the Saudis as the real evil empire in the Middle East.

pixelburp

The simple question posed here should be: is the region now a better, more stable place because of this action? The answer has to tend towards a hard No, in which case the assassination can not be considered brave or ballsy, but short sighted puffery by a man demonstrably ignorant of even the simplest of geopolitics. His mere utterances causing panic in governments.

And "plus ca change" when it comes to American foreign policy isn't an intellectual escape hatch either, not in an instance like this where the sitting President is willfully ignorant, but loudly boastful of more knowledge than his generals. The powder keg isn't lit no, but this is drowning the barrel in kerosene.

StringerBell

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.

Again, no idea what one has to do with the other or why you bothered quoting me.

Not even going to bother with the post due to the above.

mcmoustache

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

make no mistake Trump has played a blinder here.

You may as well say that Carlow are playing a blinder against Dublin for winning possession in the starting throw-in. The consequences of all this are yet to play out. It's not that long ago that he "played a blinder" with Chairman Kim and we know how that played out with the benefit of hind-sight, although to be fair, it wasn't exactly that hard to predict.


What you're going to see here won't be Iran improving their behaviour - instead you'll see more terrorism, more kidnappings and more attacks on the US interests through their proxies. Things will escalate. Iran's a big player in the region and they won't just sit back and take it.

everlast75

Ffs people were rightly up in arms when ISIS destroyed cultural sights in the middle east.

Now Trump threatens to do the same and his supporters perform their usual herculean mental gymnastics and declare them fair game.

Outrageous hypocrisy.

hotmail.com

rossie1977 wrote: »

Republicans and right wing media have tried to paint Iran as an evil empire for a decade+ but majority of people aren't buying it. Most folks were fine with Obamas nuclear deal with Iran.

More Americans view the Saudis as the real evil empire in the Middle East.

As the real evil empire in the Middle East? Where do they get this information from?

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

Ffs people were rightly up in arms when ISIS destroyed cultural sights in the middle east.

Now Trump threatens to do the same and his supporters perform their usual herculean mental gymnastics and declare them fair game.

Outrageous hypocrisy.

Doubtful Trump supporters or any American gave a toss about cultural sights in the Middle East being bombed.

Americans generally either support or are indifferent to bombings - they are, however, more lukewarm on their troops coming home in coffins.

antiskeptic

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Everyone? The Yanks are doing pretty well out of it by keeping the region destablized.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

they are, however, more lukewarm on their troops coming home in coffins.

Well that will happen in spades thanks to Mr Bone Spurs himself should this all kick off.

Hope he gets what he deserves at the polls.

spacecoyote

hotmail.com wrote: »

Doubtful Trump supporters or any American gave a toss about cultural sights in the Middle East being bombed.

Americans generally either support or are indifferent to bombings - they are, however, more lukewarm on their troops coming home in coffins.

It's not really about what Americans think though. Americans bombing cultural sites in the middle east has the potential to change it from an attack on Iran to creating a full on religious war

Letwin_Larry

droidus wrote: »

Offensives against ISIS cancelled. offensive against ISIS ended months ago

Iraq votes to expel US troops. non-binding vote, besides Trump has wanted his troops out of ME for some time.

Iran begins enriching uranium.Israel &/or America will destroy it, and will now feel fully justified in so doing. such 'facilities' will never be allowed to produce anything.

A real blinder.

Shiite influence in the region will be dramatically diminished imo. How this will play long term is difficult to say, but there is little doubt the Iranians have suffered a severe body blow. Sunnis are likely the real beneficiaries.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Going to quote this for future reference

Yeah, thought that was strange. "Aim't this guy heard of 9/11?

Letwin_Larry

spacecoyote wrote: »

It's not really about what Americans think though. Americans bombing cultural sites in the middle east has the potential to change it from an attack on Iran to creating a full on religious war

tbh i think you and other posters are getting a bit carried away with this throwaway remark about "bombing of cultural sites" (which is NOT what he said btw, but heck dont let the facts stand in the way of your bias).

Leroy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Shiite influence in the region will be dramatically diminished imo. How this will play long term is difficult to say, but there is little doubt the Iranians have suffered a severe body blow. Sunnis are likely the real beneficiaries.

So you reckon the US are going to pull out of Israel, because that is what it would take.

If anything, this has drawn Iraq closer to Iran, so in effect giving Iran more influence in the region.

Leroy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

tbh i think you and other posters are getting a bit carried away with this throwaway remark about "bombing of cultural sites" (which is NOT what he said btw, but heck dont let the facts stand in the way of your bias).

Go on then. What did he actually say and why does what he said not relate to bombing non military sites

hotmail.com

spacecoyote wrote: »

It's not really about what Americans think though. Americans bombing cultural sites in the middle east has the potential to change it from an attack on Iran to creating a full on religious war

This is already the perception and reality in the Middle East - they recognise the ease with which US presidents frequently bomb mainly Muslim countries. They see it as an attack on Islam and Islamic peoples.

Bombing cultural sights will be the icing on the cake I suppose.

FrostyJack

hotmail.com wrote: »

Bombing cultural sights will be the icing on the cake I suppose.

To Trump cultural sites are where he has his gold toliets made and where hookers do their business. He wouldn't know art if he fell over it. Tacos is the height of his foreign culture.

The attack was a typical short sited gesture, which ultimately made us all unsafe. To play devils advocate, let's say he was the worst person in the World and he was an immediate threat to US interests, what did killing him personally do? It just means someone worse who will be painted into a corner to respond will be put in his place. It has been mentioned he was actually a balancing force keeping the hawks at bay. So whomever takes his place will have to be worse especially if he is a personal friend or subordinate stepping up. This is the stuff we warned his sycophants about before he was elected. One lapse of judgement can cost us dearly. Imagine you had a relative stationed in Iraq now or even a UN soldier in Israel, would you sleep better knowing he was alive or now Trump took this illegal action.

FrostyJack

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Shiite influence in the region will be dramatically diminished imo. How this will play long term is difficult to say, but there is little doubt the Iranians have suffered a severe body blow. Sunnis are likely the real beneficiaries.

Shiite talk has dramatically increased on this forum. Iraq and Iran are mainly Shiite, how in gods name does that in real terms help the Sunni's? They are minority now since Sadam was overthrown, they were always a minority percentage wise.

As you seem to know there is a difference between these 2 sects of religion do you think a Shiite leader was responsible for training Sunni muslims to attack on 9/11 as being pushed by Pence and co? Have we not been here before?

hotmail.com

FrostyJack wrote: »

To Trump cultural sites are where he has his gold toliets made and where hookers do their business. He wouldn't know art if he fell over it. Tacos is the height of his foreign culture.

The attack was a typical short sited gesture, which ultimately made us all unsafe. To play devils advocate, let's say he was the worst person in the World and he was an immediate threat to US interests, what did killing him personally do? It just means someone worse who will be painted into a corner to respond will be put in his place. It has been mentioned he was actually a balancing force keeping the hawks at bay. So whomever takes his place will have to be worse especially if he is a personal friend or subordinate stepping up. This is the stuff we warned his sycophants about before he was elected. One lapse of judgement can cost us dearly. Imagine you had a relative stationed in Iraq now or even a UN soldier in Israel, would you sleep better knowing he was alive or now Trump took this illegal action.

All the more reason for Ireland to stop the use of Shannon as a stop off.

We want nothing to do with US foreign policy.

StringerBell

hotmail.com wrote: »

All the more reason for Ireland to stop the use of Shannon as a stop off.

We want nothing to do with US foreign policy.

It's very rare that I find myself in agreement with you, but on this we agree completely. Won't happen though because Ireland has never actually been a neutral country in anything but name.

FrostyJack

hotmail.com wrote: »

All the more reason for Ireland to stop the use of Shannon as a stop off.

We want nothing to do with US foreign policy.

Correct. But the one caveat is we are the mercy of America's remaining soft power, in their multinationals. It would be a moral and noble fight to throw them out but it could be economic suicide. It would be better to keep them on board and hope until a Democrat wins in November and we can maintain the status quo.