Jump to content
PurpleCanary

President Trump

Recommended Posts

Meanwhile .... wag the dog not working so far ....

 

The first poll after the killing of Soleimani shows 53 percent of Americans disapproving of Trump’s handling of Iran, a number similar to what other polling registered in September and October. What has changed is that 39 percent “strongly disapprove” of Trump’s policy—a number up 10 points since before the Soleimani killing. Americans do not want war with Iran, and they do not trust Trump to lead such a war if it erupts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gulf War[edit]

26 February 1991: Nine British soldiers of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, were killed and further 11 injured after their Warrior armoured vehicles were hit by Maverick missiles fired by two U.S. A-10 ground attack aircraft.[2] An Oxford inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killings.[3]

War in Afghanistan[edit]

  • 5 December 2006: Royal Marine Jonathan Wigley's death was caused by gunfire from a U.S. F-18 aircraft.[4]
  • July 2007: British Guardsman Matthew Lyne-Pirkis, of the Grenadier Guards, was wounded along with three other allied soldiers of the Afghan National Army after being hit by gunfire from a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship.[5]
  • 23 August 2007: A bomb dropped by an F-15 killed three soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment and wounded a further two.[6] During the subsequent inquest, issues such as inadequate communication equipment and incorrect coordinates from a British forward air controller were raised.[7] The coroner finally stated it was down to the "flawed application of procedures" rather than individual errors or "recklessness".[8]
  • 21 December 2009: A British soldier was fatally shot by a US helicopter crew in Afghanistan who thought they were attacking an enemy base. Gunfire from the helicopters left 11 injured on the ground.[9] The coroner criticised the British commanders for the fact Patrol Base Almas was not marked on military maps, for the 'unprofessional' use of grainy images and for insisting there were no friendly forces in the area to the Apache crew.[10]
  • 5 December 2010: Private John Howard was killed by an American F-18 fighter after soldiers called for backup. Private Howard is understood to have died as the low-flying pilot attempted to strafe an enemy target with cannon fire.[11][12][unreliable source?][citation needed]

Iraq War[edit]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, well -- It's a good thing Hillary didn't beat Trumpski to the presidency isn't it:

 

😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Meanwhile ; briefings to Senators about reasons for the assassination of Sulemani, did not go well..

"It was probably the worst briefing I've seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said."I find this insulting and demeaning," Lee added, saying that he now plans to vote in favor of a new war powers resolution from Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. "That briefing changed my mind," 

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-mike-lee-furious-senate-briefing-trump-iran-strike-2020-1

But of course there is always Graham to make the most absurd pro-administration, pro-war point. .....

Graham.jpg

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama bribed Iran and lost...

Trumpski bombed Iran and won.

 

NEXT !!  🙃

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Gulf War[edit]

26 February 1991: Nine British soldiers of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, were killed and further 11 injured after their Warrior armoured vehicles were hit by Maverick missiles fired by two U.S. A-10 ground attack aircraft.[2] An Oxford inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killings.[3]

War in Afghanistan[edit]

  • 5 December 2006: Royal Marine Jonathan Wigley's death was caused by gunfire from a U.S. F-18 aircraft.[4]
  • July 2007: British Guardsman Matthew Lyne-Pirkis, of the Grenadier Guards, was wounded along with three other allied soldiers of the Afghan National Army after being hit by gunfire from a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship.[5]
  • 23 August 2007: A bomb dropped by an F-15 killed three soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment and wounded a further two.[6] During the subsequent inquest, issues such as inadequate communication equipment and incorrect coordinates from a British forward air controller were raised.[7] The coroner finally stated it was down to the "flawed application of procedures" rather than individual errors or "recklessness".[8]
  • 21 December 2009: A British soldier was fatally shot by a US helicopter crew in Afghanistan who thought they were attacking an enemy base. Gunfire from the helicopters left 11 injured on the ground.[9] The coroner criticised the British commanders for the fact Patrol Base Almas was not marked on military maps, for the 'unprofessional' use of grainy images and for insisting there were no friendly forces in the area to the Apache crew.[10]
  • 5 December 2010: Private John Howard was killed by an American F-18 fighter after soldiers called for backup. Private Howard is understood to have died as the low-flying pilot attempted to strafe an enemy target with cannon fire.[11][12][unreliable source?][citation needed]

Iraq War[edit]

 

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I will raise you:

 

The Oryoku Maru left Manila on December 13, 1944, with 1,620 prisoners of war (including 1,556 American, 50 British and Dutch, 7 Czech, 4 Norwegians and several other nationalities) packed in the holds, and 1,900 Japanese civilians and military personnel in the cabins.[2] As she neared the naval base at Olongapo in Subic Bay, US Navy planes from the USS Hornet attacked the unmarked ship, causing it to sink on December 15. About 270 died aboard ship. Some died from suffocation or dehydration. Others were killed in the attack, drowned or were shot while escaping the ship as it sunk in Subic Bay where the 'Hell Ship Memorial' is located. A colonel, in his official report, wrote:

Many men lost their minds and crawled about in the absolute darkness armed with knives, attempting to kill people in order to drink their blood or armed with canteens filled with urine and swinging them in the dark. The hold was so crowded and everyone so interlocked with one another that the only movement possible was over the heads and bodies of others.[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jools said:

Obama bribed Iran and lost...

Trumpski bombed Iran and won.

 

NEXT !!  🙃

You are an idiot.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How easy has it been to propagandise these halfwits?! I'm in the wrong game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I will raise you:

The point I am trying to make is that, sadly, the number of lives lost is irrelevant in a political war. And from the first Gulf War to now, many people have lost their lives on the whim of politicians. And many of the lives lost are from friendly fire.

So whether Iran or the US is trying to influence the Middle East, some poor grunt or even civilian, is likely to pay the cost.

But I find it difficult to believe the US has any more reason to be in in Iraq than Oil, Halliburtons and bolstering Israel. After all, Iranians do live in the area. Why shouldn't they have some influence? No, because the US says they cannot.

Any continuation of aggression in the area is between those involved in the area. The US is not involved in the Saudi led Yemeni conflict as a nation but Blackwater, one of its "private" military companies is. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I will raise you:

The point I am trying to make is that, sadly, the number of lives lost is irrelevant in a political war. And from the first Gulf War to now, many people have lost their lives on the whim of politicians. And many of the lives lost are from friendly fire.

So whether Iran or the US is trying to influence the Middle East, some poor grunt or even civilian, is likely to pay the cost.

But I find it difficult to believe the US has any more reason to be in in Iraq than Oil, Halliburtons and bolstering Israel. After all, Iranians do live in the area. Why shouldn't they have some influence? No, because the US says they cannot.

Any continuation of aggression in the area is between those involved in the area. The US is not involved in the Saudi led Yemeni conflict as a nation but Blackwater, one of its "private" military companies is. Why?

We have skin in the Middle-Eastern game. Much of our oil comes from the region and without it our economy would shutdown very quickly and we would suffer greatly. Therefor it is in our interests to protect our oil supplies and offer support to countries such as Saudi Arabia to protect their oil reserves. They are obviously grateful for the protection otherwise companies such as Blackwater would not be invited to tender for the provision of security services. 

It is a system that mutually benefits both the oil producers and oil users. We are not stealing the oil. We pay market price for the product. The producers are rewarded handsomely

But it would be naive not to recognise that an oil supply is a potential target for countries and organisations that do not wish us well and as a result we have to take measures to protect our way of life. This is the way a responsible government behaves. 

One of the ongoing themes at the moment is that the Iraqi government is playing both the West and Iran which is unacceptable to us as Iran is a country that sponsors terrorism against us. The intelligence pointed to Salameni travelling to Baghdad to plan an imminent attack on the west. The Iraqis were making facilities available for the planning to go ahead. That is completely unacceptable behaviour and deserves a response. 

The previous President tried showering the Iranians with pallet-loads of money in an attempt to appease them and halt uranium enrichment. It did not work. Iran continues to sponsor Hezbollah - friends of Jeremy - to commit acts of terrorism against us. 

We don't have to accept this. We acted decisively and measuredly. Iran responded as one would expect but couldn't even get that right, and we have put the leaders of all those players and wannabe players on notice that we can cut off the head of the snake anytime we want. We don't have to flatten a city to achieve our objective, we can do it with a single missile. It's the right thing to do, and hopefully we'll take out the Iranian nuclear enrichment sites anytime soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RTB - where do you get this “analysis” from? It cannot be your own thoughts? Or can it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RTB

You were adamant that you did not want other countries making our laws, influencing our economy and way of life, and allowing anyone to come into the country. So you got your way and we are leaving the EU.

Yet you think it is OK for the US to invade an area 6000 miles away and impose its beliefs, laws, economy and way of life.

Make your mind up please. And whatever you say about Iran, it is their region.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And recognizing that Soleimani was a "bad actor" and it's entirely possible an Iranian anti-aircraft missile MAY have brought down an airliner - these things can happen as the Iranians know, the US Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 with 290 killed. 

However, that said the insanity of the right continues. Its a repeat of the "you are with us or against us" that Cheney / Bush rolled out before the Iraq war. And the current VP still insist that WMDs were found, albeit no nuclear bombs (the promise) 

As for Sarah Sanders' comments. The US Constitution explicitly puts War Powers in the hands of Congress. The President can only act on the authority of Congress. If you allow the President to be Commander in Chief and also to unilaterally declare war it makes a King or Dictator - whichever is your choice of language, the result is the same....

... all if this is on Fox News of course, Rupert Murdoch's propaganda channel. Our TV equivalent of the Torygraph. What happened to journalism? 

Graham.jpg

VP.jpg

Dems.jpg

Sanders.jpg

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, just when you hoped that at least one Republican had grown a spine he proves that he hasn't...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Meanwhile ... here is ex-Trump cabinet member John Bolton; who has wanted war with Iran for decades, telling us that the clear instructions of Congress should not apply this President (I'm sure if he was a Democrat then he would have a different opinion) 

Bolton.thumb.jpg.5c296bf0e2a6d6226375687bfa4a1f05.jpg

And if his testimony had not been blocked, Bolton should also have been and still could be a key witness in the Impeachment proceeding against the President - so you could argue that this tweak is more evidence of witness tampering / evidence shaping by the President.... 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/john-bolton-replaying-his-iraq-war-playbook-with-iran

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill by President Richard Nixon.

 

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, I'm not sure who is more "sick" at this time.

The President clearly has a health issue... but all people get older and you can't hold that against him.

The role of the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, in this Iran crisis though is coming under increasing scrutiny. 

The claim from the administration was there was an "imminent" threat to US forces overseas that justified the assassination. Except that there has been no evidence presented for that, and Congressmen have hinted they were given none this week either. Then last night on Fox News Pompeo all but admitted there was no evidence at all. Which suggests they decided to assassinate him for political reasons. 

Pompeo: “There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted by Qasem Soleimani. We don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.”

Let that sink in: "we don't know .... when ... or where" ..... but trust us "it was real".     Well O.K then. 

-----

Meanwhile Pompeo says that War Crimes investigators can't come to the US.

U.S. imposes visa bans on International Criminal Court investigators - Pompeo  https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc/u-s-imposes-visa-bans-on-international-criminal-court-investigators-pompeo-idUSKCN1QW1ZH

They also banned the Iranian Foreign Minister from coming to the UN.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-break-international-law-refuse-iran-diplomat-1480922

This guy is one sick puppy... 

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile ... buried deep in this Wall Street Journal piece (another Rupert Murdoch media entity) : If this is true, it would be evidence the President carried out the assassination for political reasons.... and why Congress would be right to limit his war making authority and/or to impeach him. 

Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-new-national-security-team-made-fast-work-of-iran-strike-11578619195

WSJ.jpg

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/01/2020 at 16:05, keelansgrandad said:

RTB

You were adamant that you did not want other countries making our laws, influencing our economy and way of life, and allowing anyone to come into the country. So you got your way and we are leaving the EU.

Yet you think it is OK for the US to invade an area 6000 miles away and impose its beliefs, laws, economy and way of life.

Make your mind up please. And whatever you say about Iran, it is their region.

Where did I say it was ok to invade another country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile - the justification of the "imminent threat" has now grown to four US Embassies according to the President

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-tells-laura-ingraham-four-embassies-were-targeted-in-imminent-threat-from-iran

Fact checker Daniel Dale points out that:  Over two days, Trump has gone from 1) not mentioning embassies to 2) saying it was the embassy in Baghdad to 3) saying it was embassies plural to 4) saying it was four embassies.

Sec Sate Pompeo may have to update his response to the press abased on that: (they are finally pressing these guys)

Yes or no? Pompeo tries to skirt @PeterAlexander’s great question. Asked why he couldn’t shared embassy threat w Senators, he first says “We did” share threat intel. Asked if specific to embassy, then says he won’t discuss specifics of what was said

According to Senators "he didn't" 

..... lawmakers from both parties have blasted the administration for failing to share intelligence to support or explain its decisions. Administration officials who briefed them insist they explained aspects of the threat that -- bizarrely -- several members of Congress say weren't discussed at all.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/politics/trump-iran-mixed-messaging/index.html

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theory no. 5,976(a)

 Soleimani was killed with the collusion of iran.

Or at least factions within the government. He was out of control, his strategy was not working & any benefits were negated by the increasing effects of sanctions on the populace (witness the riots, & their suppression, within Iran).

Iran's 'revenge' could hardly have been more of a sham. Trump's response even enabled them to maintain face, in that he was (amazingly!) enigmatic about losses.

This had twin benefits for Iran; the focus of hatred now goes back to The Great Satan, & they can now start some sort of meaningful dialogue with said Satan about reducing sanctions. Meanwhile Satan gets rid of a major irritant to trade in the region; they know he'll be replaced, but it'll be a bit like replacing Raheem Stirling with Dennis Srbeny.

And the startling efficiency with which Soleimani was removed will concentrate the minds of any successors. As Mike Tyson said, everyone has a plan till they get a smack in the mouth. It's noticeable that (as far as I'm aware) there've been no reported chemical weapons attacks in Syria since America's response to the last one, which was spectacular but caused remarkably little loss of life.

The brutal truth is the USA can simply crush countries like Iran. It doesn't do so because of the longer term ramifications involving Russia & China. But the damage that Iran can do to soft (unprotected civilian) targets in the area under someone like Soleimani is considerable & there comes a point where they will react as they did.

P.S. Something is definitely happening in Iran; their climbdown over the airliner catastrophe is unprecedented.

This is all pure speculation. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Where's Len when you need him??:classic_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say it was ok to invade another country?

So the Second Gulf War was sanctioned by the UN? Was it legal? Did they ever find WMD that could hit the UK in 45 minutes? Is Iraq any better off now than it was then? Did ISIS exist then? Were there lots of soldiers, civilians alive who are now dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Where did I say it was ok to invade another country?

So the Second Gulf War was sanctioned by the UN? Was it legal? Did they ever find WMD that could hit the UK in 45 minutes? Is Iraq any better off now than it was then? Did ISIS exist then? Were there lots of soldiers, civilians alive who are now dead?

The second gulf war was a huge mistake. I thought so at the time, I still think so today. Bush Snr. Was very wise after the first gulf war to stop before entering Baghdad and taking out Saddam Hussein because the objective was about returning Kuwait to freedom and destroying Iraq's military potential. The US were asked to help Kuwait and the actions taken were commensurate with the objectives. 

In the second gulf war the objectives were based on a set of lies and the invasion led by Bush jnr. was illigitimate and illegal in my opinion. And Tony Blair will have to carry the guilt for the rest of his life that he never gave good counsel to Bush, which a British PM should always do. 

But at this time the US is invading nobody, if you take invasions to mean an unwanted and illegal occupation of foreign soil. Western presence in the Middle East is by invitation of the host countries and is of mutual benefit to both them and us. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had me agreeing with you for the first two paragraphs there RTB, and I still do. 
 

But the third paragraph cannot logically flow from the first two. Neither the US or UK was “invited” into Iraq - we invaded them and that country still “hosts” (smaller) armies of those two countries who invaded it within its borders.

And one of those countries is pretty obviously refusing to leave despite a vote for it to do so. 

It’s like arguing I give permission to an armed burglar who invades my home to stay for a cup of tea.... am I just being polite or hoping he won’t shoot my family? I’d really rather he left ....

 

However the point is certainly debatable, (Germany post WW2 comes to mind) so I respect your opinion on that. 

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The second gulf war was a huge mistake. I thought so at the time, I still think so today. Bush Snr. Was very wise after the first gulf war to stop before entering Baghdad and taking out Saddam Hussein because the objective was about returning Kuwait to freedom and destroying Iraq's military potential. The US were asked to help Kuwait and the actions taken were commensurate with the objectives. 

In the second gulf war the objectives were based on a set of lies and the invasion led by Bush jnr. was illigitimate and illegal in my opinion. And Tony Blair will have to carry the guilt for the rest of his life that he never gave good counsel to Bush, which a British PM should always do. 

But at this time the US is invading nobody, if you take invasions to mean an unwanted and illegal occupation of foreign soil. Western presence in the Middle East is by invitation of the host countries and is of mutual benefit to both them and us. 

 

Blair is a war criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, paul moy said:

Blair is a war criminal.

If he is, based on what criteria? And does that make President Trump a war criminal too? Or Obama, Bush, Cameron, May? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...