Trump

Discussion in 'Taylor's Tittle-Tattle - General Banter' started by Moose, Jan 18, 2016.

  1. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Did anyone have 'Syria' and 75 days in the 'Trumps first war' sweepstake?
     
  2. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    His tweets betray him. In Oct 2012 he posted:

    Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
     
  3. Sting

    Sting Squad Player

    To be fair it is probably his only option if he wants to show condemnation of the chemical attacks on civilians - it targets the air bases they were launched from. Doing nothing did not work in 2013 and the UN is toothless.
     
  4. hornetgags

    hornetgags McMuff's lovechild

    They tried to pin a chemical attack on Assad 2013, but there was no evidence to suggest he had chemical weapons. The US were satisfied that Syria's chemical weapon arsenal had been destroyed.

    Something smells fishy about this whole thing.

    You have the mainstream media pushing and justifying military action and others looking at the evidence and saying it was a false flag.

    To me it doesn't make sense as Assad with Russian backing was winning against the insurgents - why launch a chemical attack and face international condemnation and response?

    Who benefits from the missile strikes? Well it'll be the insurgents (who it's argued were armed and funded by the US)

    You have the alleged kidnapping of 400 Syrians from Deir ez-Zor following a battle with government troops and also photos of White Helmets dousing victims immediately after the attack without Hazmat suits.

    Reports saying government helicopters dropping Chlorine on civilians.

    A anti-Assad doctor who practised in the UK and disbarred for kidnapping, tweeting he witnessed the attack.

    Unconfirmed translated tweet from someone commenting on the media coverage of the attack 24 hours before it happened (disclaimer some have translated it as 'air raids' and not 'chemical' attack)

    So was Trump duped by a false chemical attack instigated by the insurgents?

    The whole saga is a mess of misinformation which some will put down to the fog of war, however wouldn't it have been better to let cooler heads prevail, find out for certain what happened and then decide on a response?

    Seems to me, Trump was either itching or pushed into it.
     
  5. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Who is saying it was a 'false flag' with any evidence or credibility?
     
  6. hornetgags

    hornetgags McMuff's lovechild

    Ron Paul for one.
     
  7. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    This chap?
    [​IMG]
     
  8. hornetgags

    hornetgags McMuff's lovechild

    Close...
     
  9. Sting

    Sting Squad Player

    The whole thing is a mess. I am not sure I believe anyone when they tell us what is supposedly happening there. Surely though Trump is too smart to be duped ?
     
  10. KelsoOrn

    KelsoOrn Squad Player

    Like everyone else on here, I struggle to find anything good to say about Trump.

    However, and this is merely throwing it into the ring for comment, he does appear to have a rather straightforward moral compass which is noble in its simplicity. As opposed to the usual politicians' mendacity.

    Or is it all just a total sham?
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  11. hornetgags

    hornetgags McMuff's lovechild

    Depends who's whispering in Trump's ear. The military industrial complex need military action to make money and last night's strike cost just under $90m and those Tomahawks need to be replaced at $1.59m each.

    Allegedly Trump called Putin first to let him know and I'm sure Putin let Assad know so they moved everything, so it could have just been a very expensive fireworks display.
     
  12. Sting

    Sting Squad Player

    I think people know I am a pacifist so I do not support any military action. I am hugely cynical about the military and can well believe that money is the most important driver behind many a "conscience"
    It has been documented that the US were obliged to inform Russia before the strike and it is unthinkable that Russia would not have informed Syria - therefore the effectiveness of any action had to be questionable.
     
  13. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    It's a good job the US didn't vote Hillary "Warhawk" Clinton in.

    EDIT: interestingly, many of Trump's die hard supporters are turning on him over this. Looks like a complete own goal: his existing detractors won't have changed their minds, and a percentage of his supporters have been completely turned off.

    He may also have given Congress ammunition to get rid of him. US Congress is the only branch of government that can declare war, and I'm fairly certain an airstrike on a sovereign nation falls squarely under the definition of "declaring war".
     
  14. KelsoOrn

    KelsoOrn Squad Player

    So are you saying that he should have/was required to have sought the advice of Congress but didn't bother to do so then?
     
  15. KelsoOrn

    KelsoOrn Squad Player

    Would you support military action in any circumstances then? I'm not just talking about Syria. If you wouldn't, then it seems to be a bit strange to have a sword as your avatar ...
     
  16. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Hilary would have done the same, yes.
     
  17. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    Correct. The President does not have authority to declare war. Rand Paul is already calling Trump on his actions.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C80TQsfVYAAhuI0.jpg
     
  18. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    It’s very easy to always be pro-peace. It is what seems like, in the short term anyway, the nice option, the safe option and the cheap option. But you cannot be so black and white about war by treating all wars identically: sometimes principles are worth standing up for, even at a temporary cost. And things that seem to be cheap and safe, do not always end up so.

    First of all it is easy to group together wars for political gain – often to display/ gain political strength or for economic reasons - with wars that occur to stop tragedy/ where red lines are crossed.

    Iraq was stupid and illegal – I was part of the largest protest in UK history I believe who thought the same. And I never really understood Libya either.

    Afghanistan on the other hand was wholly necessary – the passive approach to state-sponsored terrorism led to 9/11. Syria was similarly far more obvious than Iraq and Libya. Unfortunately, the shadow of Iraq halted MPs doing what was necessary. They are the perfect example of why being passive when opportunities arise, can make situations far worse than they need to be. I can push the problem down the line, whilst it is in the interim snowballing in complexity.

    Re: our discussion before the Syrian war vote: Just let things be - I was told – if we get involved it’ll be devastating for the Syrian people and there will be negative fallout for the West.

    Since we failed to intervene:

    ISIS grew and committed countless evils with little recourse for too long (allowing their propaganda material to improve, increasing the number of global terrorists, giving them better training – including to a number who will return to Europe undetected);
    Russia are now so involved that any attack will be seen politically as an attack on them (making the world far more precarious);
    I’ve lost count of how many different nations are now heavily involved, all with a multitude of varying agendas;
    The Assad government is committing genocide by using various illegal weapons on its own people;
    Many more refugees have been forced to flee across Europe than necessary, which led to a whole range of political implications in the EU and elsewhere;
    Assad has had time (and money), which has allowed him to build up a decent coalition of mercenaries (he was initially far more vulnerable, as his soldiers were too likely to defect).

    Yes, ISIS have been largely defeated in Syria, but I believe they would have been defeated sooner, with less harm and to a more acceptable resolution of the Syrian people, if the West took decisive action early on.

    My point isn’t that we should always go to war – far from it. It’s to take a balanced view of the situation, and to tackle the myth that war is always the wrong choice. Yes, war is always horrible, but leaving things to decline can sometimes be more devastating. It’s very easy to be hugely critical of a decision to go to war when we should not have done. The argument vice-versa however, whilst unpopular, also holds true.
     
  19. hornetgags

    hornetgags McMuff's lovechild

    Problem is the US intervened in Libya and it's now a failed state.

    The intervention in Iraq has left that place a mess. Same with Afghanistan

    The problem lies with the UK and US selling arms to Saudi Arabia who arm ISIS.
     
  20. KelsoOrn

    KelsoOrn Squad Player

    A superb post.
     
  21. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Well the Russians said it was a Syrian attack on an insurgent ammo dump. But there was no explosion/fire, only the detonation of a chemical laden bomb. Pretty unlikely to bomb an ammo dump without any explosion/fire, wouldn't you think?
     
  22. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Yes, a very good post.

    Even those that are agreeing with the US response must be apprehensive about the results.

    I would rather that the UK stayed out of the limelight for a change, I dont want to be dragged into it again, we have tried to help the situation in the past and we never get thanked for it, and just become someone else's enemy and and get continual criticism for trying to do the right thing, even from over here. I'm glad I would never have to make such decisions.

    Regarding Trump, I didn't really ever believe that Trump was not going to intervene overseas as he promised in his campaign. Regardless, this action is a big turnaround. Maybe he has been told a few home truths about the situation in the Middle East, Russia, N Korea, etc and it has changed his mind. But I suspect he sees the opportunity to appear strong and try and regain some of the lost ground since his election.

    It worries me.
     
  23. Sting

    Sting Squad Player

    I like your post - well argued and a lot I can agree with as others too have admired. Would only pick up on one point. It is NOT very easy to always be pro-peace. As a pacifist I come under attack frequently, not least with the variations on how else would you have defeated Hitler arguments. I became a pacifist when I had strong religious principles and the idea of Jesus sanctioning violence to me was crazy. I lost my faith but have not abandoned my belief that war does not solve much. I loathe all religions that follow men of peace but support war - Christianity I now see as probably the most hypocritical of all.
    You say it yourself though "sometimes principles are worth standing up for, even at a temporary cost". I would go further and say "even at an ultimate cost" If there were a war and I was conscripted to fight I would refuse even if it meant I was put to death - there is no circumstance when I was not insane that I would take the life of another.
     
  24. Sting

    Sting Squad Player

    No I would not support action that causes death under any circumstances. My sword Sting is from a fantasy world - that is where I like my violence- I can distinguish between the real world and fiction and am quite happy to see evil villains hacked to death on screen and in books.
     
  25. KelsoOrn

    KelsoOrn Squad Player

    Weird. I do admire your honesty though. And you adopt a commendable position. But all you'll get from it is 'tramelled down the ages' I'm afraid. 1939?
     
  26. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Would you fight back if attacked in the street?

    I'm not trying to be glib, genuinely interested.
     
  27. Sting

    Sting Squad Player

    Blimey - I am being taken back to schooldays. If I were attacked in the street I would try to avoid being hurt - and if that meant running I would run. (Your next point is supposed to be to call me a coward). I would not seek to hurt let alone kill an attacker.

    Honestly though I have tried to explain too many times what it means to be a pacifist and I am no more interested in defending my position than most vegetarians or vegans are in defending theirs. You believe in something - it is not always logical.
     
  28. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    As I said, it was a genuine interest.

    I know that pacifism is primarily about not believing in war or violence to settle disputes, but I was interested in whether that anti violence extends to self preservation.

    Sorry I was interested.
     
  29. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    I absolutely respect your stance.

    As an individual, you can weigh up your own beliefs and act on them. Martin Luther King was one of the most amazing and influential men who ever lived, exactly because he refused to resort to violence. As an individual you can inspire more with peace than violence.

    But a nation has too many competing interests to take such a stance. With Saudi Arabia for instance, there would be countless nations ready to take our place re:weapons, and we would lose a key ally for intelligence gathering in the Middle East. As long as SA have oil, they will have power. The best thing to do is reduce the Wests reliance on oil, through renewable energy.

    Conflicts of interest re: force and violence rarely come up in our lives. An individual, even a pacifist, might be willing to kill a burglar if he was going to seriously hurt their kids for instance, if ever put in the situation. They also might kill somebody, if it was the only effective way of saving 50. But it is a privaledge that we do not have to make these decisions.

    A lack of violence by states can have severe implications down the line, as there are countless other competing groups willing to take advantage.
     
  30. Sting

    Sting Squad Player

    I did not mean to cut you off - it is just that you can probably imagine how many times I have had to defend myself on the subject and often the questions are aggressive. Hope I answered your query though
     
  31. BigRossLittleRoss

    BigRossLittleRoss First Team

    Ever since WWII pretty much every US military action is driven by the fact that the military industrial pressure groups make money out of war . The US government dresses it up as defending democracy ,but as any South American will tell you the US has relentlessly interfered to replace democratically elected socialist leaders in South and Central America with right wing dictators . It has done more to deter democracy's than defend it since WW II .

    Russia is no better of course , in fact far worse .

    The true motives behind any Middle East war zone are so complex and multi faceted that it's practically impossible for a normal citizen to get any decent facts on.

    Even the Chomskys of this world are left with hypothetical propositions .
     
  32. Fitz

    Fitz Squad Player

    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you when I point out that US actions in the Americas both west, south and north of any current US border have been pretty consistent from day one. Great Britain, Holland, Russia, Portugal, Spain and France were of course the focus of USA's jealous possession complex of the Americas. US "manifest destiny" worldview has always led them to act in a way that proclaims hegemony over both continents and the Caribbean. The world, you may recall, didn't idly sit by either and allow US to take the hegemony the proclaimed, yet the US took every advantage they could and eventually got lopsided concessions and windfalls from struggling European powers like the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, the Gadsden purchase and conquested much of the western states from Mexico. It was was further extended out west across the Pacific with conclusion of the Spanish-American war and acquisition of the colony of the Philippines.

    In other words, it's not merely since the end of WWII that USA has been interfering with governments all up and and down the Americas.

    As an aside, at one point in the early 1800's, there was a very serious effort to attempt to export American slavery into Cuba, Puerto Rico, and some areas of Central America as I recall that would become Nicaragua or El Salvador. The idea was to not simply expand slavery, but to make these colonies states so that the senate balance would tip in favor of pro-slavery and settle what would be the Civil War before it started. Note the presumption that Spain was irrelevant to the needs of the USA as far back as 70 years before the Span-Am war.

    I think what's really different since the end of WWII is that while the US continues to do what nearly all the colonial nations of the world were doing before the war, it simultaneously pontificates to the rest of the world about how bad they were when they were the colonizers.

    This horse**** is bad enough when we have relatively sane presidents, but now..?
     
    wfcmoog likes this.
  33. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

  34. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Trump still laying into Sadiq Khan. Imagine if a British politician had attacked Mayor Guilliani like that after 9/11.

    What a c*nt. When he makes it over here he deserves a very warm welcome.
     
  35. As if our police didn't have enough on their plates. I hope they refuse to police the visit and the **** gets egged at the very least.
     

Share This Page