Donald Trump

Discussion in 'Speakers Corner' started by Richard 1200, Apr 7, 2017.

  1. The USA have launched 59 cruise missiles and wiped out the airbase in Syria that allegedly was involved with the chemical bombing attack the other day.
    While I can understand why it's still a worry that Mr Trump has his finger on the button.
     
    #1 Richard 1200, Apr 7, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Good on him. all these luvvies who said Obama was probably the best president and even ignored when he said when the last chems were used on people that this was a red line, and he did absolutely nothing.

    Trump has said this is a red line and showed all of them it actually was a red line. The united nations may as well be nothing more than 5 blokes down a pub as no one does anything that matters anymore whilst hundreds of thousands die.

    The thing to watch was Putin's response after, no "we will retaliate" but instead Trump you've been naughty. I do feel Putin knows Assad backed him into a corner and Putin was looking for an out. After the Tomahawk attack I suspect there will now be talking by all sides that might actually achieve something.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  3. IMO good on Trump for giving a swift and reasonably proportionate response to the use of chemical weapons. He has not waited for any allies to take a vote and now appears decisive and has acted with clarity. I hope this will deter Assad from using chemical weapons again. Contrast this with Obama`s red lines quote which when crossed resulted in sending a message that his threats were meaningless. If you make a threat be prepared to carry it out . That applies from sending your children to their room for being naughty to telling dictators there will be consequences for certain actions. Trump hasnt started a war, hasnt committed troops, he has sent a message.
    The other point about Trump having his finger on the button. All any of us know so far is that he has not pushed the button . Personally I couldnt care less if our political leaders are less than perfect as long as they lead well. That is far more important than being cool, politically correct or letting yourself be filmed singing to your wife to show your sensitive side.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Trump was against strikes at the time of the 'red line' warning as well, not involving America in Syria was one of his main promises. I do think it's the biggest mistake Obama made but I'm not sure he could have bullied it through public and political opinion at the time.
     
  5. He, Obama, didn't have to, he was the President, he chose not to.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Good point. Trump has for years opposed taking any military action in Syria, and has criticised Obama for even considering doing so. Now Trump has done a spectacular U-turn, and is doing the total opposite of what he has said.

    Obama's position was to seek Congressional approval before taking military action in Syria, which in the event was not forthcoming; in the UK Cameron's position was equivalent, with the same outcome. Trump's policy (it turns out) is to press the red button whenever he feels like it. Does anyone really believe this is an improvement?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Its an improvement in the sense that criminal regimes around the world are no longer able to read the US President like a book and plan their deeds accordingly. And that presumably includes Putin, unless Trump discussed strikes with him beforehand.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Yes.

    What is the point of the nato, the eu, united nations, united nations peace observers and peace keepers if when you have all those countries with all those armed forces and all they do when kids are gassed, is agree to do nothing and wear an unhappy smiley face because nothing was done?

    As to when said don't do it before, so what? He is now in a position to act and actually do something to stop people carrying out illegal acts in regards to chemical attacks
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. There is, of course, a case for taking military action in Syria; there was a case for taking action last year and the year before. There is also a case for not taking action. The matter in issue is how, in a democratic country, the decision is taken about whether to take action or not.

    In 2015 that decision was taken by votes in Congress in the USA and by votes in Parliament in the UK, after much discussion and debate. The governments abided by those decisions.

    Now Mr Trump can toss a coin, or ask his daughter, and take military action capriciously without approval from anyone and in contradiction of all his previous statements.
     
  10. I think it's quite clear that for some, their hatred of Trump, is more important than the sending a clear message that the gassing of children will have consequences and will not be tolerated
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. It is true that the US armed forces are in a position to take military action anywhere in the world to support or oppose whatever the government chooses. Mr Trump has long opposed military intervention generally, and has criticised any proposed or actual interventions in vitriolic terms. He ran for election on this basis. Now in office, he is in a position to do the exact opposite of what he has said before, so apparently he is actually doing so now.
     
  12. Clear message? The message is that the policies of the President of the USA are incoherent. If he can reverse a policy today without notice or discussion, he can reverse it again tomorrow. So nobody has any idea what actions might have consequences, or what actions will or will not be tolerated. It is just about as unclear a message as there could possibly be.
     
  13. You do manage to give the impression that Trump has somehow changed the status quo. He hasn't. The Americans have been involved in various strikes in countries they aren't officially at war with for years. They do what they like in Pakistan and did so in the Yemen until the Saudis got all involved (though you can bet that American special forces are still there). They have sent drones, bumped people off, burnt villages to the ground. The CIA has its own army and makes it up as it goes along. Personally, for once, I actually think that Trump did the right thing. The alternative was to do some more hand-wringing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. So do I. But that's not the point. If you shoot at random in all directions, occasionally you will hit the bullseye - but that does not make random firing a reasonable way of trying to hit a target.
     
  15. Thought experiment for you, Peter. The rest of us see a version of this actually playing out, year in, year out but in your case, please consider it as hypothetical. Don't get hung up in the what-if's, just treat the data supplied as read.

    Say that a process for coming to a decision, such as obtaining the authority of Parliament or Congress, consistently and without fail comes up with sub-optimal or even, the worst possible of all outcomes, through wrong-head action or equally wrong-headed inaction. Every time.

    Further posit that there is a less "legitimate" means of coming to a decision about a course of action - say, a president with legal executive powers exercising those powers without reference to the wider elected government - and the result of such action gives rise to a better outcome. Each time.

    My question - how would a dyed-in-the-wool authoritarian with Parliamentary-coloured blinkers cope with either scenario?

    Please note, evasion of the question will be every bit as illuminating to the wider audience as a genuine response.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Perhaps seeing kids gassed is different than pissing off men in suits who seem to achieve nothing ?

    There is a difference between opposing in general, military action and the other end of seeing kids die by chemical warfare.

    What he is showing is that traditional politics has allowed 6 years of war that given the worlds might, could have been ended in weeks.

    As to his predictability then it shows your lack of understanding. He launched the attack on the very same day he is meeting the president of China, penny dropping now?

    Apathy in politics and human resolution has allowed the syrian war to go on for the same period as ww2 and in this modern age, there is no excuse for that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. I don't disagree with the move but the point is the way he does it. Trump has come to power on the back of a message that he will listen to the people and what they want and made a big effort to show that Obama was part of 'the system' that didn't listen. In reality it is exactly the opposite.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. I watched with amazement as the 2 main parties in America each seemed to pick the only candidate who could possibly lose to their opponent. However I imagine a good % of Americans probably have some pride in their president today and I dont think he was unclear at all with his message which I`m sure was noted by many people. Some atrocities will hopefully be avoided now as actions speak louder than words.
     
  19. Okay, lets see if we can deal with this away from hating Trump clouding some peoples vision

    If you had the ability to send a clear message, where all others have failed, that using illegal chemical weapons to kill people including children will not be tolerated or there would be consequences, would you?
     
    #20 noobie, Apr 7, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017