Jump to content

Because Trump 2.0


Mr King
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 26.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jeff

    1533

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2392

  • DKTanker

    1574

  • rmgill

    1705

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As if the rest of the establishment politicians aren't also masters of the con? They're just more polished and slick about it. You don't KNOW you're being conned. But you are. 

Milo, do you think that Facebook and Google consider you the customer? 

When Trudeau cries on command on TV, do you think it's sincere? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 8:19 AM, TonyE said:

 

Spot the zipper.

trump-pants_wide-1b4705c90c232391b981210

My my...the vid was wrong? I wonder if Jimmy or the rest of the smeg heads who ran the story will Ever give a retraction?

Edited by NickM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 9:56 AM, R011 said:

Milley was afraid literal clowns disowned by Trump were his Brownshirts but apparently was not concerned with Antifa et al rioting and assaulting people who disagreed with them.  And he says trump is flawed.  Okey dokey.

I can't believe I agree with this. Milley comes across as self-promoting and sensationalist. He talks about taking precautions in the case President went nuts and started a war; that is all fine and well, but nowhere is presented any kind of proof that this was in the end a realistic concern. It is no news to anyone that Trump administration had Iran hawks (just like, oh, 5 or 6 previous ones) but it was always blatantly obvious Trump himself is not: even Milley notes Trump did not want open war against Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Yama said:

 He talks about taking precautions in the case President went nuts and started a war; that is all fine and well, but nowhere is presented any kind of proof that this was in the end a realistic concern. It is no news to anyone that Trump administration had Iran hawks (just like, oh, 5 or 6 previous ones) but it was always blatantly obvious Trump himself is not: even Milley notes Trump did not want open war against Iran.

No, that is not fine.  In our part of the world the military is supposed to be subservient to civilian leadership.  In 1951 General MacArthur was publicly advocating and acting on, a foreign policy and war strategy contrary to the administration's goals.  President Truman fired MacArthur, and to his credit, MacArthur accepted it.  70 years later it is questionable whether or not Milley, or any of the Junta generals, would have accepted being fired by Trump.  We do know that Milley told Trump advisors that if Trump fired CIA director Gina Haspel that Trump would have to answer to the US Military.  THAT IS NOT ALL FINE AND WELL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say the most surprising bit - though it shouldn't, given Trump's history of practically self-incriminating statements - in the whole storm in a mid-sized tea pot over "I Alone Can Fix It" to me is his frank admission that his personnel choices regularly are about spiting the last guy he hired and fell out with. 

Quote

[... Milley] got his job only because the world’s most overrated general, James Mattis, could not stand him, had no respect for him, and would not recommend him. To me the fact that Mattis didn’t like him, just like Obama didn’t like him and actually fired Milley, was a good thing, not a bad thing. I often act counter to people's advice who I don’t respect.  

[...]

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/statement-by-donald-j-trump-45th-president-of-the-united-states-of-america-07.15.21-04

Explains the carnival ride that was the Trump administration quite well. Of course it's really just the essence of recent US politics, as frequently noted here: Everything is chiefly about pissing off the other side, practical effects be damned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yama said:

I can't believe I agree with this. Milley comes across as self-promoting and sensationalist. He talks about taking precautions in the case President went nuts and started a war; that is all fine and well, but nowhere is presented any kind of proof that this was in the end a realistic concern. It is no news to anyone that Trump administration had Iran hawks (just like, oh, 5 or 6 previous ones) but it was always blatantly obvious Trump himself is not: even Milley notes Trump did not want open war against Iran.

A fair point, but he dropped a bomb on Soleimani, which he thought would be a limited action, and it nearly started a regional war. Its easy to imagine him undertaking an action with what he thought would be zero consequences, and find himself in up to his neck. Which is, when you think about it, pretty much how Vietnam started.

I was less concerned about the things Trump would do, than the things he said he wouldnt do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

I gotta say the most surprising bit - though it shouldn't, given Trump's history of practically self-incriminating statements - in the whole storm in a mid-sized tea pot over "I Alone Can Fix It" to me is his frank admission that his personnel choices regularly are about spiting the last guy he hired and fell out with. 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/statement-by-donald-j-trump-45th-president-of-the-united-states-of-america-07.15.21-04

Explains the carnival ride that was the Trump administration quite well. Of course it's really just the essence of recent US politics, as frequently noted here: Everything is chiefly about pissing off the other side, practical effects be damned. 

Trump forgot Maxim 29:  The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy.  No more no less.

Trump has serious flaws, but not the ones Milley imagines.

Edited by R011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I was less concerned about the things Trump would do, than the things he said he wouldnt do.

Yes, we all remember how you, and most of the US Left, were disappointed that Trump committed the unpardonable sin of not starting any wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

A fair point, but he dropped a bomb on Soleimani, which he thought would be a limited action, and it nearly started a regional war. Its easy to imagine him undertaking an action with what he thought would be zero consequences, and find himself in up to his neck. Which is, when you think about it, pretty much how Vietnam started.

I was less concerned about the things Trump would do, than the things he said he wouldnt do.

He killed the one guy that was making the difference in Iran's wars, then the Iranians had their round of protests, fired a few missiles, ended up shooting down an innocent airliner and rapidly withdrew to their hole just in case the US did something drastic. That's not "nearly starting a regional war" by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well just consider for a moment what would have happened if they had killed some US soldiers with those rockets. How certain are you that Trump would not have asked for retaliation? He nearly bombed Iran over a shot down drone, so it's not inconceivable.

This is nearly what happened in the 1980s, reaction begat reaction, till it nearly turned into a regional war. If their silkworms had hit a floating special forces base, it probably would have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump was likely under big internal pressure to strike somehow against Iran, after he earlier cancelled the strikes (which would have caused high casualties) slightly before they would have taken off. Killing Soleimani was one of the options presented to him, probably many advivors warned that if US doesn't do something, it will risk losing face in ME.

I was personally flabbergasted that Trump did not respond to Irani missile strikes. I don't think any previous US administration would have allowed them to go unresponded. Although Iranians did the job by themselves by shooting down an airliner and then clumsily attempting to hide it, completely undoing any potential goodwill from the Iranian public which the retribution strikes might have garnered.

It's true that in European media there is a portrayal of him as a warmonger, and it is completely unfounded. Trump is a bad crisis leader, I think he realizes it and was afraid to enter any wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well just consider for a moment what would have happened if they had killed some US soldiers with those rockets. How certain are you that Trump would not have asked for retaliation? He nearly bombed Iran over a shot down drone, so it's not inconceivable.

This is nearly what happened in the 1980s, reaction begat reaction, till it nearly turned into a regional war. If their silkworms had hit a floating special forces base, it probably would have done.

If, if, if.  If your aunt had nuts she'd be your uncle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yama said:

Trump was likely under big internal pressure to strike somehow against Iran, after he earlier cancelled the strikes (which would have caused high casualties) slightly before they would have taken off. Killing Soleimani was one of the options presented to him, probably many advivors warned that if US doesn't do something, it will risk losing face in ME.

I was personally flabbergasted that Trump did not respond to Irani missile strikes. I don't think any previous US administration would have allowed them to go unresponded. Although Iranians did the job by themselves by shooting down an airliner and then clumsily attempting to hide it, completely undoing any potential goodwill from the Iranian public which the retribution strikes might have garnered.

It's true that in European media there is a portrayal of him as a warmonger, and it is completely unfounded. Trump is a bad crisis leader, I think he realizes it and was afraid to enter any wars.

I think that's why he hired John Bolton for ten seconds--he wanted an 'alternate opinion' and then after he heard it, he decided, 'nah, you're fired'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well just consider for a moment what would have happened if they had killed some US soldiers with those rockets. How certain are you that Trump would not have asked for retaliation? He nearly bombed Iran over a shot down drone, so it's not inconceivable.

This is nearly what happened in the 1980s, reaction begat reaction, till it nearly turned into a regional war. If their silkworms had hit a floating special forces base, it probably would have done.

So, what is your takeaway? Someone like Soleimani is in the stage and you have a chance to eliminate him, what does PM Stuart do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Yama said:

I was personally flabbergasted that Trump did not respond to Irani missile strikes. I don't think any previous US administration would have allowed them to go unresponded. Although Iranians did the job by themselves by shooting down an airliner and then clumsily attempting to hide it, completely undoing any potential goodwill from the Iranian public which the retribution strikes might have garnered.

I was as well, to the point where I was thinking they made a deal. Art of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

So, what is your takeaway? Someone like Soleimani is in the stage and you have a chance to eliminate him, what does PM Stuart do?

Well quite clearly, every US Government before Trump didnt kill Soleimani. Right? And the reason why they didnt kill him was fear that it would precipitate a regional conflict they couldnt control. 

So Trump knows better, kills Soleimani, and nearly precipitates a regional conflict he cant control.

I know you love him because he cut through the crap and did the things that apparently needed doing, but clearly listening to reasonable advice, sometimes, has something greatly to commend it.

What would I do? Id gently nudge the Israelis to do it. Make it worth their while, share intelligence, whatever. Because Iran alreadly hates Israel anyway, and there is nothing that Israel can do that would make it worse. Secondly Iran, for all its hubris, is scared of Israel, because they know of all the Western Nations they are fully capable of using nuclear weapons. And thirdly, they seem much better skilled at killing political targets than we are, because they do it much more often.

I submit, if Trump did it, its because he wanted to be seen to do it. Which is the worst of all possible reasons for killing somebody. Ive zero problems with Soleimani being dead, he deserves to roast in the 7th Layer of Hell. The way it was done was dumb as fuck, and you all nearly got a regional war because of it.

In fact, just as dumb as trying to reboot JPCOA. Which is the other end of the spectrum of middle eastern dumbness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Yama said:

Trump was likely under big internal pressure to strike somehow against Iran, after he earlier cancelled the strikes (which would have caused high casualties) slightly before they would have taken off. Killing Soleimani was one of the options presented to him, probably many advivors warned that if US doesn't do something, it will risk losing face in ME.

I was personally flabbergasted that Trump did not respond to Irani missile strikes. I don't think any previous US administration would have allowed them to go unresponded. Although Iranians did the job by themselves by shooting down an airliner and then clumsily attempting to hide it, completely undoing any potential goodwill from the Iranian public which the retribution strikes might have garnered.

It's true that in European media there is a portrayal of him as a warmonger, and it is completely unfounded. Trump is a bad crisis leader, I think he realizes it and was afraid to enter any wars.

But from whom? Mayor Giuliani? Fox News? Jared Kushner? Bob Woodward? :) 

He was the President who was supposed to end the endless wars, bring the boys back home, right? And his actions nearly start another one before the WOT was wound up.  I said once before that Trump had a lot of foreign policies, and some of them actually joined up. This is another example. You cant withdraw from the middle east whilst confronting Iran, its completely contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well quite clearly, every US Government before Trump didnt kill Soleimani. Right? And the reason why they didnt kill him was fear that it would precipitate a regional conflict they couldnt control. 

So Trump knows better, kills Soleimani, and nearly precipitates a regional conflict he cant control.

 

This is the second time you have made this unfounded assertion. Soleimani was killed, there was no regional conflict (other than the pre-existing one), why do you keep repeating the same mantra?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

This is the second time you have made this unfounded assertion. Soleimani was killed, there was no regional conflict (other than the pre-existing one), why do you keep repeating the same mantra?

 

But once again, do you think Trump would have turned the cheek if Iranians had killed American Servicemen? We saw in Desert Storm a lucky hit from a Scud killed 28 US Servicemen. Such things happen when you fire a lot of missiles at an area target.

No, I cant know that for certain,  but I can know what Fox news would have demanded he did. And we can know where that would inevitably have led if he had responded.

One thing you can say for certain, the death of Soleimani led indirectly to the shootdown of the Ukrainian airliner. And if Iranians were capable of doing an exceptionally dumb thing like that, they were capable by that point of doing anything.

Milley was right, for the wrong reasons. I dont think Trump wanted a war with Iran, but I believe he came damn close to one regardless. Because once again the US completely ignored the lessons of what happened in 1987 and 1988.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But once again, do you think Trump would have turned the cheek if Iranians had killed American Servicemen? We saw in Desert Storm a lucky hit from a Scud killed 28 US Servicemen. Such things happen when you fire a lot of missiles at an area target.

No, I cant know that for certain,  but I can know what Fox news would have demanded he did. And we can know where that would inevitably have led if he had responded.

One thing you can say for certain, the death of Soleimani led indirectly to the shootdown of the Ukrainian airliner. And if Iranians were capable of doing an exceptionally dumb thing like that, they were capable by that point of doing anything.

Milley was right, for the wrong reasons. I dont think Trump wanted a war with Iran, but I believe he came damn close to one regardless. Because once again the US completely ignored the lessons of what happened in 1987 and 1988.

 

 

I will point out the obvious, there weren't US losses, there wasn't a regional war that Trump couldn't control. The Iranians didn't invade Iraq or close the Hormuz strait.

To be fair to the man, Trump didn't start a new war or overreacted to provocations by other actors, like NK or Iran. You may not like the man, but this is not a what if, but a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But from whom? Mayor Giuliani? Fox News? Jared Kushner? Bob Woodward? :) 

Advisors, Cabinet members, other politicians, and so on.

A democratically elected president is not an autocrat. He operates on political capital, which necessites making compromises and listening to other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

I will point out the obvious, there weren't US losses, there wasn't a regional war that Trump couldn't control. The Iranians didn't invade Iraq or close the Hormuz strait.

To be fair to the man, Trump didn't start a new war or overreacted to provocations by other actors, like NK or Iran. You may not like the man, but this is not a what if, but a reality.

I did not say there WAS US losses. But there were clear casualties, whether they  were those suffering from being under High Explosive bombardment (all it Concussion or bomb happy, its much the same thing) during the Iranian missile attack, or the airliner full of Ukrainians who died.

Lets assume that airliner had lots of Americans on board, or those missile were just a BIT more accurate than they were. Trump simply would have had to respond, in just the same way George Bush had to repond post 911, whether he wanted to or not.

Im just making the basic  point, if you dont want to fight a Persian Lion, why climb in the cage and start poking him with a stick? What about leaving the region the fuck alone, that Trump himself espoused many, many times, why was that so difficult for him to entertain? He nearly embroiled himself in a wider conflict, for no other reason than he could not think further than his own ego.

Should have let the Israelis kill him. If they can go all the way to Tehran to kill someone, im sure Iraq was a stroll in the front yard in comparison.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Advisors, Cabinet members, other politicians, and so on.

A democratically elected president is not an autocrat. He operates on political capital, which necessites making compromises and listening to other people.

Trump fired people he didn't want to listen to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...