President Trump 2.0

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That would be the Trump who has regularly vilified and bullied the "allies" he's now asking to help him.

this could end tomorrow if the usa turns around and sends it's military home, just chalk it up as another military failure,i think the uk should keep out of this

[Carth]

Meanwhile, back in Greenland . .

Apparently hes unhappy.

US President Donald Trump says he's "not happy" with the UK after Keir Starmer said it would not be drawn into a "wider war" over Iran

Guess what, we're "not happy" with you starting a bloody war, you muppet.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Apparently hes unhappy.



Guess what, we're "not happy" with you starting a bloody war, you muppet.

I've never been happier with Keir, nato has told him to do one too by the sound of it, seems like the world is done with being pushed around and bullied by a man child

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Paul

Guess what, we're "not happy" with you starting a bloody war, you muppet.

No and the sooner he gets OUT OF OFFICE the better Paul!!

Im glad your country is standing up to this moron!!

[Sephiroth]

One side of me wants Trump to be humiliated for pushing us around. Another side of me wants Starmer humiliated for crapping on our strategic, closest ally - albeit led by a bad egg.

Then both sides of me want the Iran job to be fully completed.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

One side of me wants Trump to be humiliated for pushing us around. Another side of me wants Starmer humiliated for crapping on our strategic, closest ally - albeit led by a bad egg.

Then both sides of me want the Iran job to be fully completed.

How has he crapped on the USA?

In order for the USA to be the UK’s strategic, closest ally, they have to behave like it - at this time, it’s not happening; Trump is not strategic, only transactional - even then, the transaction has to be Zero Sum (he not only has to win, the other side has to lose…).

[Dingbat]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I've never been happier with Keir, nato has told him to do one too by the sound of it, seems like the world is done with being pushed around and bullied by a man child

Trump quite probably thinks that Article 5 means he can dictate that other NATO forces are available to use as he pleases when he starts wars. He doesn’t seem to understand that A5 is defensive, not offensive.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How has he crapped on the USA?

In order for the USA to be the UK’s strategic, closest ally, they have to behave like it - at this time, it’s not happening; Trump is not strategic, only transactional - even then, the transaction has to be Zero Sum (he not only has to win, the other side has to lose…).

It depends on where you're coming from in regard to the USA.

If the USA calls for help, if we don't want to give that help, then a diplomatic way has to be found to protect the alliance we have with them.

As we do not wish to engage in the offensive activity, at least we could have let them use our bases. By the time that we did, the damage to the relationship was done. That was wholly incompetent.


---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Dingbat

Trump quite probably thinks that Article 5 means he can dictate that other NATO forces are available to use as he pleases when he starts wars. He doesn’t seem to understand that A5 is defensive, not offensive.

We mustn't let disdain for Trump go too far in over-analysing him negatively. It becomes group think.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

One side of me wants Trump to be humiliated for pushing us around. Another side of me wants Starmer humiliated for crapping on our strategic, closest ally - albeit led by a bad egg.

Then both sides of me want the Iran job to be fully completed.

"Then both sides of me want the Iran job to be fully completed.”

Seph, what is your understanding of 'the Iran job to be fully completed’; is it the death of every single member of the current regime - and if so, what happens then? Is it that Iran ‘is bombed back to the stone age’, irrespective of deaths - because that worked so well in the 1970s in Indo-China.

It’s all vague, one day we have the idiot-in-chief claiming that Iran’s military has been completely OBLITERATED and the war is all but over, and the next day threatening them with MORE ATTACKS in retaliation for them still fighting. Now hang on, even the most fanatical Trump supporter has, surely, to see the obvious issue here?

Despite all the claims to the Iranian people that ‘help is coming’; no it isn’t. This war ends when Israel (who really are the puppet masters here but Trump can’t see it) decides that Iran is not longer a serious threat for the next couple of years. If the current regime is replaced by an even more fanatical and repressive one, so be it - certainly Tel Aviv and Washington won’t care.

Hypothetically Iran slowly rebuilds its nuclear research and weapons capability; it’ll take years maybe a decade and it won't be Netanyahu’s problem - he’ll be long gone.

This whole sorry story has the stench of something not properly thought out; what is the aim, is it feasible and what steps do you have to take to achieve it?

Anyone else remember Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech re. Iraq? That went on for years afterwards and cost many, many lives!

America has for long, despite all the evidence, believed that overwhelming firepower will also work and achieve the desired result - it doesn’t. And in this case I don’t think anyone in the US administration actually knows what the desired result is.

I do feel sorry for the real professionals in the US military who must face-palm every time Trump makes a statement!

[Sephiroth]

@jem

You pose a fair question.

To my mind, there are two priorities, the first of which is a must to achieve.

1. Capture of all enriched uranium to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel.

2. Regime change - which may not be possible without there being a civil war.

I take into account the significant degradation of Iran's mililtary strike capability. I'm also mindful that Israel has decided that now is the time for it to safeguard its existence.

Of course I agree that Trump is to moronic to have properly thought the end-game through. But then I'm of the chool of thought that the USA was bounced into this by Israel.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It depends on where you're coming from in regard to the USA.

If the USA calls for help, if we don't want to give that help, then a diplomatic way has to be found to protect the alliance we have with them.

As we do not wish to engage in the offensive activity, at least we could have let them use our bases. By the time that we did, the damage to the relationship was done. That was wholly incompetent.


---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------



We mustn't let disdain for Trump go too far in over-analysing him negatively. It becomes group think.

But that’s not how Trump works - if you don’t do what exactly what he wants, you’re against him…

And it’s not "negative group think" to accurately report how he behaves, consistently

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You pose a fair question.

To my mind, there are two priorities, the first of which is a must to achieve.

1. Capture of all enriched uranium to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel.

2. Regime change - which may not be possible without there being a civil war.

I take into account the significant degradation of Iran's mililtary strike capability. I'm also mindful that Israel has decided that now is the time for it to safeguard its existence.

Of course I agree that Trump is to moronic to have properly thought the end-game through. But then I'm of the chool of thought that the USA was bounced into this by Israel.

The mediators in Oman said Iran offered to give up all its enriched uranium and promised to never stockpile more...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The mediators in Oman said Iran offered to give up all its enriched uranium and promised to never stockpile more...

Like I said, USA was bounced into the war by Israel, imo.

---------- Post added at 21:40 ---------- Previous post was at 21:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

But that’s not how Trump works - if you don’t do what exactly what he wants, you’re against him…

And it’s not "negative group think" to accurately report how he behaves, consistently

It's about how Starmer should have worked.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@jem

You pose a fair question.

To my mind, there are two priorities, the first of which is a must to achieve.

1. Capture of all enriched uranium to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel.

2. Regime change - which may not be possible without there being a civil war.

I take into account the significant degradation of Iran's mililtary strike capability. I'm also mindful that Israel has decided that now is the time for it to safeguard its existence.

Of course I agree that Trump is to moronic to have properly thought the end-game through. But then I'm of the chool of thought that the USA was bounced into this by Israel.

Israel has wanted to give Iran a good shoeing for decades. The USA has never been bounced into it before, and somehow it’s involved now at the behest of a president who made a campaign pledge about stopping wars and disentangling the USA from them.

Israel wanting the US to help take on Iran is not new. An idiot-level IQ thinking he can rescue the mid-term elections by making himself into a hero wartime president is what’s new.