Impeaching Donald Trump

[JoeKitchen]

And what exactly is the practical value of that equipment without said “personnel, maintenance, and R&D”?

What is the cost of your car? Just the price you paid? Many websites these days will add a “true cost of ownership” that includes, gas, maintenance, repairs, etc. Don't forget the cost of driving school, taxes, parking, tolls, etc. This all adds up to the true cost of owning a car. So, the $2 trillion spent on military equipment is the true cost of ownership of the $420 hardware alone.

Very good point. 

[Alan Klein]

Is this an example of situational ethics? The President says total bs on Twitter, so now we redefine Twitter to be all about bs and exaggeration, so what he does is normal. It's convenient, I'll give you that.


This Iranian general thing is dominating the news cycle all of a sudden. I'm wondering, what is the strategic objective of killing one general? It can't just be to prove it can be done, I kind of assume that the US forces can do things like that at will. What was the policy objective?

Politicians have used hyperbole long before twitter was invented.  If the press would report what he says more accurately, he wouldn't need it. 

Your question about Soleimani is a good one.   Everyone applauded the killing of Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi.  He's maybe worse because he has a large and strong country behind him. He's been a bad actor killing Americans in Iraq and Syria and causing upheaval in the ME.  Killing generals is a ling established practice in history to weaken armies.  Everyone's talking about how Iran is going to avenge his death.  Well, Trump avenged the death of all those Americans he killed.  Or have we forgotten?  The whole embassy thing under Carter still irks those Americans who lived through it. What goes around comes around.  Maybe we've been in the ME so long, we're acting like them.  Eye for an eye, etc.

I think now that he's dead, we really should get out of the ME.  I see no value any more in being a policeman there.  A plague on all their houses.  They'll be fighting for the next 1000 years.  Let them.  It's not our problem.  Of course, we don't want Iran to have nukes.  Well, we can keep the pressure on economically. 

[Rob C]

Twitter is nothing but hyperbole from nearly everyone that posts on it.  That is how you make it effectivew. 

It's like everyone on the left suddenly forgot how humor or satire or sarcasm works.  My God.

But not how well lies work, the more outlandish the better because thus the more believable. Ask Mr T.

You have to stick with the narrative, however long your nose becomes, because the truth is going to be swamped and ignored.

Watching a brief tv interview from the fires in Oz today, the reporter had a chat with three people in the zone, a woman and two guys, clones of people I have seen in Scottish pubs, the lady stridently proclaiming that no, of course it has nothing to do with climate change. Go figure. There's your proof; doctrine can be stronger than the proof of one's own eyes.

[RSL]

Politicians have used hyperbole long before twitter was invented.  If the press would report what he says more accurately, he wouldn't need it. 

Your question about Soleimani is a good one.   Everyone applauded the killing of Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi.  He's maybe worse because he has a large and strong country behind him. He's been a bad actor killing Americans in Iraq and Syria and causing upheaval in the ME.  Killing generals is a ling established practice in history to weaken armies.  Everyone's talking about how Iran is going to avenge his death.  Well, Trump avenged the death of all those Americans he killed.  Or have we forgotten?  The whole embassy thing under Carter still irks those Americans who lived through it. What goes around comes around.  Maybe we've been in the ME so long, we're acting like them.  Eye for an eye, etc.

I think now that he's dead, we really should get out of the ME.  I see no value any more in being a policeman there.  A plague on all their houses.  They'll be fighting for the next 1000 years.  Let them.  It's not our problem.  Of course, we don't want Iran to have nukes.  Well, we can keep the pressure on economically.

Enough of this bullshit!

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?

The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.

[Frans Waterlander]

Enough of this bullshit!

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?

The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.

+1000!

[kers]

Enough of this bullshit!

Than don't produce it.

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country.

And the strategy is?...

That now every western person in the ME has a problem of a possible assassination.
The same thing goes for nations like Israel and Saoudi Arabia, etc
That now everything has to be protected at huge costs. And it won't help preventing an assault.
That there will be a threat for a long time in the air... even in the US.
That Iran now upstarts their nuclear program at full speed and diplomatic solutions are blocked.
The world has become a saver place? NO

Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Perfectly legitimate ? necessary?   To shoot the major general of another nation and the US thinks it is perfectly legitimate?
And you are referring to WWII right? -Do so you say we are now at war in WWIII ? maybe, after the counter attack of Iran... in that case Trump shoots back at 52 targets in Iran - cultural sites or not who cares... the US has 200 years of history while Iran has 4000 years of history...  we have seen that attitude before in the second Iraq war...
Update : the pentagon says it will not strike cultural sites...  so maybe they don't follow orders from the president anymore...

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?
The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

Stabilization does not happen with actions like these- it is called destabilization- the opposite.
The friendly nations, and NATO countries were not consulted before the attack. That used to be different.
The US was a moral guide for a large part of the world, under Trump not anymore.
Amerika gets smaller and fenced.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.

I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details

[JoeKitchen]

Thanks Neville. 

[rabanito]

Thanks Neville.

I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...

[LesPalenik]

I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...

Sounds very Trumpian.

[faberryman]

I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...

Yes. It is just more of Trump shooting off his mouth.  The Pentagon has walked it back.

[JoeKitchen]

I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...

Many military bases become cultural sites.  Does that mean we should not attack them because of it? 

Many in the Middle East raise flags of war above religious temples (cultural sites) and use them for headquarters or storage sites for war.  Does that mean we should not attack them? 

Of course there are many cultural sites in Iran that will remain completely innocent, but Trump gave no indication of which cultural sites he will be attacking.  I doubt it would be innocent sites. 

For instance, Norfolk and West Point are quite the cultural sites in the USA, but in a war where the enemy attacked the mainland, I would fully expect those sites to be bombed.  Additionally, we in the West do not use our religious institutions as headquarters nor preoccupations for war, but this is not the case in the Middle East.   

[Rob C]

Enough of this bullshit!

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?

The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.

Absolutely. The world is a tiny place today, and what our neighbour cooks two gardens down can ruin our own lunch as our cooking smells spoil his.

Russ is right. It takes a very few nuclear devices to make life for many of us impossible. That has always been the point of nukes: to be a weapon so powerful and terrible that it precludes others from attacking us. That other lands have it, not always friendly lands, is bad enough, but the thought that such devices fall into the hands of religious zealots with 50 virgins in mind should they be lucky enough to die fighting somebody they consider evil - evil has many independent definitions not universally shared - is a thought too far for comfort, one that demands physical intervention for our own survival, international niceties be damned.

[Alan Klein]

Enough of this bullshit!

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?

The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.

Russ, I'm not sure what our strategy is in the ME.  Additionally,  we're broke.   What's the end game? 

[Rob C]

Than don't produce it.

And the strategy is?...

That now every western person in the ME has a problem of a possible assassination.
The same thing goes for nations like Israel and Saoudi Arabia, etc
That now everything has to be protected at huge costs. And it won't help preventing an assault.
That there will be a threat for a long time in the air... even in the US.
That Iran now upstarts their nuclear program at full speed and diplomatic solutions are blocked.
The world has become a saver place? NO

Perfectly legitimate ? necessary?   To shoot the major general of another nation and the US thinks it is perfectly legitimate?
And you are referring to WWII right? -Do so you say we are now at war in WWIII ? maybe, after the counter attack of Iran... in that case Trump shoots back at 52 targets in Iran - cultural sites or not who cares... the US has 200 years of history while Iran has 4000 years of history...  we have seen that attitude before in the second Iraq war...
Update : the pentagon says it will not strike cultural sites...  so maybe they don't follow orders from the president anymore...



Stabilization does not happen with actions like these- it is called destabilization- the opposite.
The friendly nations, and NATO countries were not consulted before the attack. That used to be different.
The US was a moral guide for a large part of the world, under Trump not anymore.
Amerika gets smaller and fenced.
I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details

I wouldn't consult "friendly" nations either prior to any serious action. Since the days of instant communication, politicians in it for the money, crackpot nouveaux communists in drag, the fewer possible leakage points the better! As a former ambassador said today, many of us allies are happier not knowing what's about to happen in such cases if only because it saves us from putting on a public face to denounce an act with which we covertly agree completely.

[RSL]

I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details

It all smells the same, Pieter. Netherlands spends 1.2% of GDP on defense, .8% less than they agreed to spend. Probably on a marching band. But don't worry; thanks to Trump we, and others, like Britain, will be there to bail you guys out again.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I wouldn't consult "friendly" nations either prior to any serious action. Since the days of instant communication, politicians in it for the money, crackpot nouveaux communists in drag, the fewer possible leakage points the better! As a former ambassador said today, many of us allies are happier not knowing what's about to happen in such cases if only because it saves us from putting on a public face to denounce an act with which we covertly agree completely.

I like the way you think, Rob 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Probably on a marching band...

 

[Rob C]

I like the way you think, Rob 

The tragedy of being a mongrel, Slobodan; you can't really believe in any nation's greatness or sanctity. You end up realising that flags just don't cut it.

:-(

[rabanito]

Many military bases become cultural sites.  Does that mean we should not attack them because of it? 

Many in the Middle East raise flags of war above religious temples (cultural sites) and use them for headquarters or storage sites for war.  Does that mean we should not attack them? 

Of course there are many cultural sites in Iran that will remain completely innocent, but Trump gave no indication of which cultural sites he will be attacking.  I doubt it would be innocent sites. 

I understand that. But as far as I understood it  Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.

Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...

[Rob C]

I understand that. But as far as I understood it  Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.

Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...

Everyone's poor English: it means whatever he wants it to mean, just as in the world of Alice.