Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Stallingrad

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

look no matter how you try to dress it up, there is no denying Iran just does not possess anything close to the capability of the US. i actually feel embarrassed for you having to spell that out.

This fixation on military outcomes is so misguided. What has the US got to show for their military might in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan? The trillions spent in Iraq and nothing to show for it, their hosts want them out. If the Iranians are smart, and I think they are certainly smarter that the US, Iraq is there for the taking, as is large parts of Syria.

This folly by the US may go down historically as potentially ceding a huge portion of the middle east to Iran, and by proxy to Russia by a clueless President.

sid waddell

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Soleimani was clearly an evil man who directed multiple atrocities to be carried out across the region over many years. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

The US has certainly produced its fair share of evil men in key positions, and Trump is right up there with them.

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its funny, because if that wa the case then why didn't Pompeo et al come out with that rather that the 'he is evil and there is an imminent treat to US lives"

If in a war why not just say that? Totally understandable that during a war your try to kill the generals on the other side.

But they didn't. Because they are not at war with them. And what they did was to use War rules under civilian rules.

On the day after the killing of Gen Soleimani, Mike Pompeo gave a media briefing on the reason behind the killing and said "He said" referring directly to Gen Soleimani. It was either a major error by MP showing the US or another state had ears on Gen Soleimani, or MP was spreading a lie by innuendo. MP did not go any further to explain to the media what Gen Soleimani "said" leaving his remark hanging in the air to suggest the US knew of some secret terror plot the General was in the process of initiating against the US. MP has a responsible duty to explain his remark to the US itself & clear the air behind the killing. Failing to do this leaves MP with the same reputation as Don when it comes to lying and deceiving the US itself.

droidus

Anyone who thinks the US has the capability to destroy Iran militarily should familiarise themselves with the most recent simulated attempt to do just that, when they were roundly defeated.

Red (Iran) used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

BonnieSituation

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i would like to see Trump take out this guy's newly appointed successor, just as he was getting his new office furniture sorted.
the Americans clearly have the capability and the psychological impact would be immense.
once Iran hits American interests which it will inevitably do through its' terrorist proxies, such a strike will become almost irresistible imo.

Your contributions to this entire episode have been beyond disgraceful. This is is just the latest in a litany of posts with such bloodlust. It's abhorrent.

briany

I wonder how far the Russians would be willing to let this antagonism between the U.S and Iran escalate? I assume Putin wants his man back in the White House. Would conflict hurt or help Trump's bid? We know that jingoism is a one political force, but there's also the inevitable protest against war. I'm guessing there will be many advisers trying to read the American electorate's mood at the moment.

sid waddell

briany wrote: »

I wonder how far the Russians would be willing to let this antagonism between the U.S and Iran escalate? I assume Putin wants his man back in the White House. Would conflict hurt or help Trump's bid? We know that jingoism is a one political force, but there's also the inevitable protest against war. I'm guessing there will be many advisers trying to read the American electorate's mood at the moment.

You don't need the public to win, you just rig the election

everlast75

briany wrote: »

I wonder how far the Russians would be willing to let this antagonism between the U.S and Iran escalate? I assume Putin wants his man back in the White House. Would conflict hurt or help Trump's bid? We know that jingoism is a one political force, but there's also the inevitable protest against war. I'm guessing there will be many advisers trying to read the American electorate's mood at the moment.

to be frank, I think Putin has Trump ticking off his list of what has to be done before Trump loses. The work done re NATO, G7, Syria - all done and dusted. An A+ rating on your dictator's rating

Fonny122

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This canard that Obama et al were "weak" or "cowardly" in their approach to the ME is just that , a canard and a falsehood - Just as claiming that Trump is some kind of Hard-man because of his actions is also a falsehood.

Actually its an outright lie, all we heard during Obamas second term was that he was a war monger. Now he was too soft.

If a war doesn't break out in the coming weeks, Trumps same supporters now salivating at the thought of war (despite supposedly voting for him to avoid war backing 2016) will change in literally a few hours to claim he is a hero for avoiding war that Clinton or Obama would have got them into. And if he declares war a week after that, they will be all giddy about it again because Obama and Clinton were push overs.

For Trump supporters, the truth means nothing and unquestioning loyalty means everything. Which, funny enough, is typically the central basis of most cults. The default position to take with a Trump supporter is that most of what they say are lies (to you, themselves, or both) and that they will do an immediate 180 as soon as they are told to, because stepping even slightly out of line means being cast out from the group entirely.

The only real question is, how many of them are actively aware of this vs how much have just had ability to think straight turned to mush by propaganda (fox news, fake social media accounts, Cambridge Analytica, etc)?

Midlife

1950s - overthrow Iranian gvt. Install puppet who will keep the oil flowing. 20 years later iran hates you.

1980s - Support Iraq in war against Iran

2000s - Overthrow Iraqi gvt

2020 - Shia majority in Iraq side with Iran

What next?

Itssoeasy

John Bolton has said he’s willing to testify before the senate impeachment trial if subpoenaed.

seamus

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Trump has made it quite clear, that any further attacks, proxy or otherwise will have direct consequences for Iran. The days when they could murder Americans & their allies with impunity are over.

But the days when the US can murder the civilians of other countries with impunity will continue on, and you're OK with that. Presumably because Americans have the correct skin colour and religion, right?

You know what they call someone who attacks you and then threatens retribution if you dare fight back? A bully.

America is the "bad guy" in this incident. All of the generals and national leaders in America and Iran are scumbags, let's make no mistake about that.

But if you're looking to simplify this into a "who is the bad guy" discussion, then it's the US. This attack was reckless, disproportionate and unprovoked. There is no reedeming argument. This attack is not going to make anyone safer, it's not going to protect Americans, or Iranians, or anyone else. Literally nothing good is going to come of this.

That's why America is the bad guy here.

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Soleimani was clearly an evil man who directed multiple atrocities to be carried out across the region over many years. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

The question is whether it was in the Middle Easts (or the worlds) best interest to "take him out" in the manner that it occurred.

This canard that Obama et al were "weak" or "cowardly" in their approach to the ME is just that , a canard and a falsehood - Just as claiming that Trump is some kind of Hard-man because of his actions is also a falsehood.

Obama and others (including the EU) considered that the best way to deal with Iran and to neuter their influence was via the treaties they signed to limited the Nuclear program and also to allow the Iranian economy to move forward - thereby taking a lot of people out of poverty and making them perhaps a little bit more pragmatic in their approach to the West and a bit less reactionary.

Now we can absolutely discuss the merits of that policy and how successful it was , but it was at the very least a clear policy based on a coherent plan.

Trump on the other hand does not appear to have a coherent policy or plan.

He cancelled the Nuclear agreement just to spite Obama - He had absolutely ZERO plan on what to do next and since then he has lurched from one knee-jerk reaction to another. The assassination of Soleimani just being the latest and most extreme example yet.

There has been utterly no evidence to suggest that anything that Trump does in terms of foreign policy has given any thought to "What might happen next if we do this?" . They just do something and then react to the consequences.

Just like every decision he's made in his entire life he takes the incredibly short term view of "what makes me look good right now" or "what makes me money right now".

He neither thinks nor cares about what happens next.

Don't really disagree with anything you've written, but it doesn't actually address the part of my post you bolded.

Brian?

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.

That’s not true at all. The Japanese aren’t close to an unconditional surrender. They were negotiating peace based on keeping territory in China and Korea, as well as keeping their armed forces, government and imperial structure in place. There was zero chance of the allies agreeing to it.

Even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese still tried to negotiate reduced surrender terms. It was only when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that they surrendered unconditionally and gave orders for their troops in China to stop fighting. Because Truman told Japan a H bomb would be dropped every 3 days until they surrendered.

Dropping the H bombs was a horrendous thing to do. But it actually made sense.

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

John Bolton has said he’s willing to testify before the senate impeachment trial if subpoenaed.

No reason he can refuse to testify in the house then so.

It's widely reported the White House didn't know about this, but Bolton did give McConnell a head's up

BonnieSituation

Brian? wrote: »

That’s not true at all. The Japanese aren’t close to an unconditional surrender. They were negotiating peace based on keeping territory in China and Korea, as well as keeping their armed forces, government and imperial structure in place. There was zero chance of the allies agreeing to it.

Even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese still tried to negotiate reduced surrender terms. It was only when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that they surrendered unconditionally and gave orders for their troops in China to stop fighting. Because Truman told Japan a H bomb would be dropped every 3 days until they surrendered.

Dropping the H bombs was a horrendous thing to do. But it actually made sense.

It really didn't.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

No reason he can refuse to testify in the house then so.

It's widely reported the White House didn't know about this, but Bolton did give McConnell a head's up

He'll get an easy ride in the senate, no pesky Adam Schiff to ask uncomfortable questions.

Irish Praetorian

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It really didn't.

Now be fair, Brian? made a few arguments as to why the bomb (which incidentally were not 'H-bombs', just simple fission devices) ended up used and a few plausible reasons why that might be the case.

Just saying 'It really didn't' isn't a counter argument, it's barely above saying 'nuh-uh'. These are serious and complicated issues, which deserve serious and nuanced arguments. If we keep going like this, we'll end up with economic arguments where people call each other socialists or robber-barons, or housing debates where everyone is a slumlord or a problem tenant.

woohoo!!!

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Now be fair, Brian? made a few arguments as to why the bomb (which incidentally were not 'H-bombs', just simple fission devices) ended up used and a few plausible reasons why that might be the case.

Just saying 'It really didn't' isn't a counter argument, it's barely above saying 'nuh-uh'. These are serious and complicated issues, which deserve serious and nuanced arguments. If we keep going like this, we'll end up with economic arguments where people call each other socialists or robber-barons, or housing debates where everyone is a slumlord or a problem tenant.

The US reasons were deeply unpleasant, they wanted a live test of the bombs and they absolutely hated the Japanese. They had zero problem with the possibility of minimal US force losses and didn't care about Japanese losses. They were bluffing about dropping more after Nagasaki, they couldn't produce more for several months. The Japanese didn't know that. The Japanese emperor stepped in to bridge the division between the militarists and those who knew the game is up.

To surrender went against everything the Japanese stood for and only the emperor could have achieved it. It is perhaps the most impressive u turn of the 20th century as to how the Japanese went from never surrender murderous imperialists to embracing a peaceful trading model who abhor nuclear weapons.

looksee

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The US reasons were deeply unpleasant, they wanted a live test of the bombs and they absolutely hated the Japanese. They had zero problem with the possibility of minimal US force losses and didn't care about Japanese losses. They were bluffing about dropping more after Nagasaki, they couldn't produce more for several months. The Japanese didn't know that. The Japanese emperor stepped in to bridge the division between the militarists and those who knew the game is up.

To surrender went against everything the Japanese stood for and only the emperor could have achieved it. It is perhaps the most impressive u turn of the 20th century as to how the Japanese went from never surrender murderous imperialists to embracing a peaceful trading model who abhor nuclear weapons.

Its a bit off topic, but a small anecdote about the time. I grew up in the 50s in the UK and considering the war was only a few year previously, it was never discussed at home, my father fought in it and my mother was moved away from home to make aeroplane engines so they had been directly involved. The only opinion I ever heard my mother express about any of it was once, a comment about 'the Japs'. She absolutely loathed, detested and despised them. No opinion, that she chose to share anyway, on Germans, and otherwise mild mannered and apolitical, but as a child I was very struck by the depth of feeling she had about the Japanese.

AbusesToilets

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It really didn't.

Have you ever read about Operation Downfall? The scale and projected casualties, just for the Allied forces was off the scale. They are still using purple hearts made for it nowadays. Japanese didn't surrender after horrific fire bombings of their major cities, which produce higher casualty figures than the atom bombs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Letwin_Larry

Brian? wrote: »

That’s not true at all. The Japanese aren’t close to an unconditional surrender. They were negotiating peace based on keeping territory in China and Korea, as well as keeping their armed forces, government and imperial structure in place. There was zero chance of the allies agreeing to it.

Even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese still tried to negotiate reduced surrender terms. It was only when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that they surrendered unconditionally and gave orders for their troops in China to stop fighting. Because Truman told Japan a H bomb would be dropped every 3 days until they surrendered.

Dropping the H bombs was a horrendous thing to do. But it actually made sense.

it was absolutely the best option. it ended the war which otherwise would have dragged on with countless loss of life. much better to get it over with quickly imo. the Japanese military/Govt started the war with America, and in so doing brought these terrible events upon themselves and their citizens.
i sincerely hope the Ayatollahs of Iran are not so foolish for the sake of the innocent people of Iran and Iraq.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He'll get an easy ride in the senate, no pesky Adam Schiff to ask uncomfortable questions.

Kamala Harris would not be a walk in the park to be fair

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Kamala Harris would not be a walk in the park to be fair

She took Barr to the cleaners, my 8 year old looked more confident under questioning

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

Kamala Harris would not be a walk in the park to be fair

Trump won't ever testify. Take that to the bank. Maybe a few of his lackeys will be forced to say something but I wouldn't be surprised at a few '5th amendment' defenses, either, especially Mulvaney.

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

She took Barr to the cleaners, my 8 year old looked more confident under questioning

Speaking of Barr, at his confirmation, did he not say he wouldn't fight the release of the Grand Jury materials, because that's exactly what he's doing at the moment

Brian?

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Now be fair, Brian? made a few arguments as to why the bomb (which incidentally were not 'H-bombs', just simple fission devices) ended up used and a few plausible reasons why that might be the case.

Just saying 'It really didn't' isn't a counter argument, it's barely above saying 'nuh-uh'. These are serious and complicated issues, which deserve serious and nuanced arguments. If we keep going like this, we'll end up with economic arguments where people call each other socialists or robber-barons, or housing debates where everyone is a slumlord or a problem tenant.

I meant A bombs, yes.

woohoo!!!

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Have you ever read about Operation Downfall? The scale and projected casualties, just for the Allied forces was off the scale. They are still using purple hearts made for it nowadays. Japanese didn't surrender after horrific fire bombings of their major cities, which produce higher casualty figures than the atom bombs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

The Blitz didn't break British spirits, the bombings of german cities and the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden didn't break german spirits, same for the Japanese.

But the horror of the A bombs was something worse, even if numbers immediately dead didnt exceed or greatly exceed so called more conventional city bombings. The true horror with radiation sickness would only reveal itself in the weeks, months and years ahead.

They all had in common a monstrous mass slaying of mostly civilians. Trump ordering the bombing of Iran targets, which looks like we are headed will also not break Iranian spirits but rather cement the population at large to the Iranian leadership, as deeply unpleasant as the leadership may be.

BonnieSituation

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Now be fair, Brian? made a few arguments as to why the bomb (which incidentally were not 'H-bombs', just simple fission devices) ended up used and a few plausible reasons why that might be the case.

Just saying 'It really didn't' isn't a counter argument, it's barely above saying 'nuh-uh'. These are serious and complicated issues, which deserve serious and nuanced arguments. If we keep going like this, we'll end up with economic arguments where people call each other socialists or robber-barons, or housing debates where everyone is a slumlord or a problem tenant.

The same thing could be said to end a highly detailed and fairly* rational post with "But it actually made sense."

I've made my thoughts known on this over several posts. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are scars on humanity. No amount of rationalisation will make them less so.






* in the sense that though disagreeable, it was made with an actual awareness of the time

BonnieSituation

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Have you ever read about Operation Downfall? The scale and projected casualties, just for the Allied forces was off the scale. They are still using purple hearts made for it nowadays. Japanese didn't surrender after horrific fire bombings of their major cities, which produce higher casualty figures than the atom bombs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

So because Operation Downfall was "tough" they decided to callously murder 140000 civilians with no warning? Civilians who were out in the city partaking in the war effort after the constant firebombing of other cities?

Bombing 2 cities that were curiously not part of the total fire bombing campaign and whose topography lent themselves to magnifying and maximising possible casualties?

I still fail to see how the dropping of the bombs had any justification?

It is not a justification. EVER!

The Americans were more interested in showing off to the Russians and making sure they didn't get any more ideas further south than Sakhalin. That's the real truth.

And then when you accept the true horror of Hiroshima, try to establish some separate dissonance for Nagasaki just 3 days later. It's frankly bananas.