Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

kowloon

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160

Disproportionate manner? Seems a little reckless.

hotmail.com

FrostyJack wrote: »

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.

There's an assumption that Democrat presidents don't bomb ?

US foreign policy has been fairly similar since WWII. They have an imperial sense of entitlement. The political colour of the presidency is irrelevant to us.

On for the record, I don't believe US corporations are interested in whether US troops use Shannon or not.

Letwin_Larry

FrostyJack wrote: »

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?

you seem to imagine Iran as some homogeneous happy-clappy superstate, where everybody pays homage to the almighty Ayatollah.

sorry but it's not. there are deep fractures within Iranian society. divisions the Govt. has tried to brutally supress and deny for decades. US sanctions have been very effective in feulling the discontent and i have little doubt a few long range missiles will only add to their discontent.

i personally know many Iranians living in Ireland, and to a man they detest their Govt. and celebrated this butcher's assassination. they would be very fearful to do so back in Iran for obvious reasons.

please do not confuse the Iranian people (who i have great sympathy for btw) with their brutal, dictatorial Govt.

looksee

kowloon wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160

Disproportionate manner? Seems a little reckless.

This is the POTUS communicating with Congress through Twitter? Seriously?

EltonJohn69

kowloon wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160

Disproportionate manner? Seems a little reckless.

This is either master level Troll or his brain is close to full rot..... Can never be sure with Trump

FrostyJack

hotmail.com wrote: »

There's an assumption that Democrat presidents don't bomb ?

US foreign policy has been fairly similar since WWII. They have an imperial sense of entitlement. The political colour of the presidency is irrelevant to us.

On for the record, I don't believe US corporations are interested in whether US troops use Shannon or not.

Corporations aren't interested and publicly state they don't care, I am talking about the likes of the "Muslim ban" where Trump unilaterally forces them to go against their interests. "Lying Leo won't let us land, forcing our hero troops to crash into the sea, he hates American freedom". I can already see his tweets and the fox team jerking off to it.

FrostyJack

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you seem to imagine Iran as some homogeneous happy-clappy superstate, where everybody pays homage to the almighty Ayatollah.

sorry but it's not. there are deep fractures within Iranian society. divisions the Govt. has tried to brutally supress and deny for decades. US sanctions have been very effective in feulling the discontent and i have little doubt a few long range missiles will only add to their discontent.

i personally know many Iranians living in Ireland, and to a man they detest their Govt. and celebrated this butcher's assassination. they would be very fearful to do so back in Iran for obvious reasons.

please do not confuse the Iranian people (who i have great sympathy for btw) with their brutal, dictatorial Govt.

You could say the exact same thing for America. I know people who profusely apologise for their disastrous government and say they don't represent them. Actually they are at least 3 million shy of representing the people. I know Iranians too and all of them hate American foreign policy. The regime in power were indirectly created by the recklessness of America in the late 70's. They only have themselves to blame. Stop apologing for state murder. I have no time for the Iranian leadership but people like you make them look like saints. By your logic (going by the Japanese attacks) America should be nuked to teach them a lesson. Madness

everlast75

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).

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1213978687193911296?s=19

So tell me more about your insight as to what he meant to say.

PropJoe10

kowloon wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160

Disproportionate manner? Seems a little reckless.

War via Twitter. What wonderful times we live in.

Christy42

PropJoe10 wrote: »

War via Twitter. What wonderful times we live in.

How far can Trump go on this? We were told for years he would be held back. That he couldn't declare war by himself. If he can assassinate high ranking military targets of another sovereign state and target cultural centers then that is a load of bung and another way that the US system of checks and balances is not up to the task.

Even the first attack should have required more. Whatever about him being a bad human being the man was a representative of another country. If it wasn't for the disparity in military capacity they would be at war by now. The US needs less power in one man's hands.

VinLieger

PropJoe10 wrote: »

War via Twitter. What wonderful times we live in.

Congress needs to take hold of this, legally they are still the only government body who can officially declare war

everlast75

VinLieger wrote: »

Congress needs to take hold of this, legally they are still the only government body who can officially declare war

Pelosi is introducing something on that, but that doesn't really help with a situation where a president ***** up by doing this and Iran retaliates and gives congress little option.

volchitsa

VinLieger wrote: »

Congress needs to take hold of this, legally they are still the only government body who can officially declare war

No, I think the president declares war but congress controls the budget necessary for the war to happen.

duploelabs

Remember impeachment guys? That's still a thing right? If you think that the assassination of Sulimani was anything more than to control the news cycle to protect that capacious targerine rump, you need a better understanding of the motivations and morals (or lack thereof) of Trump

Dohnjoe

duploelabs wrote: »

Remember impeachment guys? That's still a thing right? If you think that the assassination of Sulimani was anything more than to control the news cycle to protect that capacious targerine rump, you need a better understanding of the motivations and morals (or lack thereof) of Trump

He's now threatening Iraq (an ally) with sanctions "like they've never seen before". If this is all a diversion, he's turning it into an absolute mess.

circadian

I don't know if it was mentioned but I saw a few threads on Twitter from Guardian/other journalists stating that Iraq was requested by the US to act as an intermediary between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The US used this as an opportunity to strike Soleimani.

Now obviously, I saw this on Twitter so a massive pinch of salt. On the other hand, nothing surprises me with this administration. If true then surely that would be a war crime?

Either way, Iraq has asked the US to leave the country which they are perfectly entitled to do. Their standing in a volatile region has taken a hit, diplomatically the US actions have tainted Iraq. Now Trump has responded, not with an attempt to make things right between the US and an ally but he threatens them.

Which raises the next question, one that has been asked before. Why does every foreign policy move taken by the Trump administration appear to be beneficial for Russian interests? I could swear I need a tinfoil hat for thinking this, but it really does seem that way.

One other thing, the mental gymnastics by some to justify killing Soleimani. He's funding and supporting militias in the area. Yes, the Iranian Government is probably trying to secure it's interests especially since they gained a foothold and struck up a friendship with Iraq in fighting against ISIS. The American Government has consistently backed militias to further their own agendas, it's how this game is being played. Total pot-kettle-black stuff. I'm not saying that either of them should be doing this, nor am I condoning it, but you can't support killing Soleimani for these reasons because of the sheer hypocrisy of doing so. Let's not forget the PMCs operating in the Middle East, answerable to noone it would seem.

This whole scenario is a ****show. Iran are rolling back on all their Nuclear commitments, are becoming increasingly antagonised and for what? A distraction or is there something more to gain from all this?

Dohnjoe

Not sure how true this is, but allegedly the Trump organisation worked with one of Suleimani's front companies

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/ivanka-and-trump-organization-linked-to-suleimanis-front-company-new-yorker-writer/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Dohnjoe

circadian wrote: »

I don't know if it was mentioned but I saw a few threads on Twitter from Guardian/other journalists stating that Iraq was requested by the US to act as an intermediary between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The US used this as an opportunity to strike Soleimani.

Now obviously, I saw this on Twitter so a massive pinch of salt. On the other hand, nothing surprises me with this administration. If true then surely that would be a war crime?

Either way, Iraq has asked the US to leave the country which they are perfectly entitled to do. Their standing in a volatile region has taken a hit, diplomatically the US actions have tainted Iraq. Now Trump has responded, not with an attempt to make things right between the US and an ally but he threatens them.

Which raises the next question, one that has been asked before. Why does every foreign policy move taken by the Trump administration appear to be beneficial for Russian interests? I could swear I need a tinfoil hat for thinking this, but it really does seem that way.

One other thing, the mental gymnastics by some to justify killing Soleimani. He's funding and supporting militias in the area. Yes, the Iranian Government is probably trying to secure it's interests especially since they gained a foothold and struck up a friendship with Iraq in fighting against ISIS. The American Government has consistently backed militias to further their own agendas, it's how this game is being played. Total pot-kettle-black stuff. I'm not saying that either of them should be doing this, nor am I condoning it, but you can't support killing Soleimani for these reasons because of the sheer hypocrisy of doing so. Let's not forget the PMCs operating in the Middle East, answerable to noone it would seem.

This whole scenario is a ****show. Iran are rolling back on all their Nuclear commitments, are becoming increasingly antagonised and for what? A distraction or is there something more to gain from all this?

It makes no logical sense.

The whole point of every Iran effort in the past decade has to be to secure a non-nuclear Iran. That's always been the key priority. They (US, EU, other countries) managed to achieve that a few years back.

That was (is) a bi-partisan goal, but because Obama achieved it, it seems Trump and by extension the Republicans, in an incredible act of pettiness, want nothing more than to destroy the deal. Not just that but they want to put Iran into an impossible scenario where it has no option but to escalate - which is what the Trump admin seems to want? It's completely ridiculous

No one is under any illusion of Iran's geopolitics in the region, meddling in Iraq, providing key support to Assad - but the nuclear issue, is by far, the highest priority

The whole thing smacks of absolutely no coherent plan whatsoever

looksee

Joe Walsh (R) has condemned Trump absolutely, describing him as 'incompetent and unfit'. He is asking for some way that Democrats and Republicans can come together to deal with him. Surely that's exactly what the impeachment is about!
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/05/joe-walsh-trump-iran-tweets-reaction-sot-nr-vpx.cnn

duploelabs

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's now threatening Iraq (an ally) with sanctions "like they've never seen before". If this is all a diversion, he's turning it into an absolute mess.

'Iraq? Never knew him. I think he may have worked early in my campaign as a covfefe boy'

Stallingrad

Anyone remember how WW1 started? Pretty sure Trump has no clue. This assassination, motivated not by foreign policy but by what is happening at home is already proving potentially catastrophic. Now he is threatening Iraq with sanctions and bluster, the very country where the US army has been trying for years to build up the Iraqi army to protect them from the Iranian threat! You couldn't make it up.

The dogs in the street can see where this is going, the lunatics are running amok in the asylum and we are all now paying the price.

I despair.

Letwin_Larry

So this is what WW3 looks like? A round of golf at Mar-a-Lago and a cocktails in Mustique.
Looks to me like Iran can do very little directly to the US. Of course they have their proxy criminal terrorists to do their worst, but in truth they were intent on striking American interests whether this butcher was taken out or not.
But the bunkered down mullahs must be fully aware that any future action by their terrorist buddies, will likely have a direct and serious impact on their personal well being.
the Yanks will have a fairly long list of targets awaiting selection.
Pick a card Donald, any card ...

woohoo!!!

Clearly the US has considered this guy a legitimate target or option but previous presidents figured the blow back wasn't worth it. Their instincts absolutely would be, get rid of him, but the bigger picture said, best not open this can of worms.

The Twitter wars show that the hawks on both sides are clearly in control so further escalation is coming. Both sides have upped the provocation and policy seems to be tit for tat. Giving the other side an out has disappeared. Ordinary folk will pay the butchers Bill, as usual. Both sides leadership are baying for blood. I can't see how either side can back down now and save face.

hotmail.com

Both sides have so much to lose - I can't see anything happening once things cool down.

A World War would have to involve the world - this matter is between the US and Iran.

VinLieger

hotmail.com wrote: »

Both sides have so much to lose - I can't see anything happening once things cool down.

A World War would have to involve the world - this matter is between the US and Iran.

Indeed all the US allies are backing away quickly and want nonpart and the only way NATO gets dragged in is with a direct military attack on US soil which Iran are not stupid enough to do

seamus

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed all the US allies are backing away quickly and want nonpart and the only way NATO gets dragged in is with a direct military attack on US soil which Iran are not stupid enough to do

There's a lot of planet between Iran and the US, nothing Iran can launch would even get that far before being detected and destroyed.

They have 3 submarines that could traverse the distance and make an attack, but that's clearly a pointless futile exercise.

Iran's aim here will likely be the funding of guerilla warfare in the local region against US troops, and terrorist activity within the US. Ramping up domestic security problems in the US will absolutely hammer morale, especially given how many Americans are prepared to counter-attack on their own soil. Destroy morale in the troops, drive a stronger wedge into the massive civil cracks in the US, and you'll inflict way more damage than just attacking military installations.

I wouldn't be surprised if ME interests provide funding for both Islamic and Christian terrorists in the US.

NATO and the UN needs to absolutely step away from this now and not allow themselves to become collateral damage. I was on the fence about the use of Shannon for Iraq, but now we need to pull it completely. Allow US troops through Ireland, but only if they're unarmed and if the aircraft are not carrying weapons or prisoners.

Leroy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

So this is what WW3 looks like? A round of golf at Mar-a-Lago and a cocktails in Mustique.
Looks to me like Iran can do very little directly to the US. Of course they have their proxy criminal terrorists to do their worst, but in truth they were intent on striking American interests whether this butcher was taken out or not.
But the bunkered down mullahs must be fully aware that any future action by their terrorist buddies, will likely have a direct and serious impact on their personal well being.
the Yanks will have a fairly long list of targets awaiting selection.
Pick a card Donald, any card ...

You made this claim yesterday.
So if Iran are so powerless, then why the need to assassinate one of their Generals?

If you theory is true, that Iran pose no threat, then even you have to admit that this was nothing short of an execution and totally against the rule of law that a normal functioning democracy would look to live by.

What tis does Iran, given the love bombing of NK once they got a nuke, is that Trump is a bully and the only way to deal with him is to get a nuke. How is that outcome making the world a safer place?

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

Both sides have so much to lose - I can't see anything happening once things cool down.

A World War would have to involve the world - this matter is between the US and Iran.

There won't be a WW, Iran simply doesn't have the capability, or allies, to engage in one.

But what they, and others in the ME, have shown in the past is an ability to engage in guerrilla warfare.

What I suspect will happen is that Iran will now turn it full attention towards obtaining nuclear capabilities. It is the only way that the US will take them seriously. NK being the perfect example.

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

Both sides have so much to lose - I can't see anything happening once things cool down.

A World War would have to involve the world - this matter is between the US and Iran.

Unfortunately for US troops and interests, Don seems determined to keep the fire stoked with his repeated threat today to attack Iranian cultural sites should the Iranian regime respond to the killing of Gen Soleimani. His Sec State seems fully aboard with Don's [as his boss] stated policy.

Aside from Don's belligerent behaviour towards anyone who he sees as not approving of his wishes being fulfilled, I'm mindful that all the headlines this is raising is grist for the mill as far as Don is concerned.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

You made this claim yesterday.
So if Iran are so powerless, then why the need to assassinate one of their Generals?

Its just another version of the classic right wing fallacy of the schrodingers immigrant who lazes around all day doing nothing while sponging off the dole yet at the same time manages to also be responsible for taking everyones jobs