US Politics XVIII: the illegitimate partisan sham thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
https://twitter.com/paulmcleary/status/1213992858103009284?s=19
Click to expand...



Donald Trump was a huge critic of the way the W Bush administration handled the Iraq war. If he is allowed to continue with his unhinged, coward-playing-tough-guy, rule-by-tweet approach to this conflict, he’s going to alienate all our allies in the region and erase whatever progress we’ve made attempting to bring peace back to the Middle East after that colossal fuck up, including whatever progress we’ve made in fighting ISIS.

And to think we could actually do something about if there were ANY republicans in the senate with even the slightest hint of a spine.
 
Diemen said:
If he is allowed to continue with his unhinged, coward-playing-tough-guy, rule-by-tweet approach to this conflict, he’s going to alienate all our allies in the region and erase whatever progress we’ve made attempting to bring peace back to the Middle East after that colossal fuck up, including whatever progress we’ve made in fighting ISIS.
Click to expand...

this sentence has been brought to you by the year 2017.
 
Diemen said:
Donald Trump was a huge critic of the way the W Bush administration handled the Iraq war. If he is allowed to continue with his unhinged, coward-playing-tough-guy, rule-by-tweet approach to this conflict, he’s going to alienate all our allies in the region and erase whatever progress we’ve made attempting to bring peace back to the Middle East after that colossal fuck up, including whatever progress we’ve made in fighting ISIS.

And to think we could actually do something about if there were ANY republicans in the senate with even the slightest hint of a spine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Obama bowed to world leaders a few times, so clearly that was much more offensive to our country's image around the world than Trump's "wannabe tough guy" ranting.

Whenever this nightmare of an administration FINALLY ends, everyone who voted for Trump, continues to support Trump, and covers for him deserves to be made to answer in some way, shape, or form for all the shit they've put this country and the world at large through all this time.
 
The Iranians were literally in the streets as recently as last week protesting against their own (corrupt) government. This week, there are probably 100-fold more of them in the streets protesting against America, chanting about revenge and death to America and in favour of their (corrupt) government. So heckuva job Trump and the deplorables. Really thoughtful foreign policy right there.
 
Gzusfrk said:
Oh no, because that Iran deal was so solid to begin with, and the leadership has been such fine upstanding citizens in keeping their agreements, not promoting terrorism, Death to America, attacking our embassy, etc.



Seriously???[emoji849]
Click to expand...



Delete your Facebook account. It’s not working for you.

Make America Informed Again
 
anitram said:
The Iranians were literally in the streets as recently as last week protesting against their own (corrupt) government. This week, there are probably 100-fold more of them in the streets protesting against America, chanting about revenge and death to America and in favour of their (corrupt) government. So heckuva job Trump and the deplorables. Really thoughtful foreign policy right there.
Click to expand...

Who knew foreign policy was so complicated?
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
Yeah, I saw people bringing up all his old tweets on the Obama/Iran topic yesterday. So much projection in his tweet history, it's amazing.

Exactly. That and a desperate attempt to distract people from all the investigations he's been under these past couple years as well as his looming impeachment trial.

And it's weird to me that he's so worried about that trial, given the Republicans have made it abundantly clear they're going to do his bidding and he's not likely to be convicted and removed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, i saw that stuff on line yesterday, too. :|

And true this , unless A Miracle of a Quartet Republican Senators grow real spines.....
I guess it sort of takes away him hearing the word 'impeachment' as often. Only reason i can think of. That * is always gonna be there!

dabiggestu2fan said:
News flash, Iran was actually complying with the deal until
Dumbfuck trump tore it all up. We wouldn’t be in this mess right now if it weren’t for trump and his idiotic decisions.
Click to expand...
:sad: :mad:

Please just remind your fellow Canadians that drumpf LOST the Popular Vote. I think by around 3 million.

Moonlit_Angel said:
Yeah, but Obama bowed to world leaders a few times, so clearly that was much more offensive to our country's image around the world than Trump's "wannabe tough guy" ranting.

Whenever this nightmare of an administration FINALLY ends, everyone who voted for Trump, continues to support Trump, and covers for him deserves to be made to answer in some way, shape, or form for all the shit they've put this country and the world at large through all this time.
Click to expand...
Amen! But it's probably impossible to do that. :sad:

anitram said:
The Iranians were literally in the streets as recently as last week protesting against their own (corrupt) government. This week, there are probably 100-fold more of them in the streets protesting against America, chanting about revenge and death to America and in favour of their (corrupt) government. So heckuva job Trump and the deplorables. Really thoughtful foreign policy right there.
Click to expand...
i was hearing over the pad , uh, previous two weeks all the person-on-the-street Iranians protesting their own government. Yup. Public and BBC Radio have noted how almost all Iranians have now banded together.

Headache in a Suitcase said:
Obama wore a tan suit.
Click to expand...
And sang "Amazing Grace". :ohmy:


Excuse me while I kiss scream at the sky.
:scream: :scream:
 
Last edited:
From Fox News


Former National Security Adviser John Bolton said Monday that he would testify in an impeachment trial against President Trump should he be subpoenaed by the Senate.

Bolton has been sought by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other Senate Democrats as a witness in the pending impeachment trial, along with other members of the administration, including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. But the GOP majority has not at this point agreed to witnesses, and the entire process is in a holding pattern as Speaker Nancy Pelosi sits on the impeachment articles.
Click to expand...

It would be pretty wild if Boltan's testimony brought trump down.
 
The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Ehhh that’s so gross saying about John Bolton, but I’m down for honesty if thats his intention.
 
Heh, so if Trump was doing this stuff with Iran in the hopes of keeping Bolton quiet, as some have theorized, that evidently backfired on him, then, didn't it?

I really, REALLY hope the GOP winds up having to comply and let witnesses testify at this trial. If that happens, sing like a canary, guys. Spill it all. And hopefully the media will continue to keep the spotlight on and hound the GOP throughout the trial, too, so everyone can see and be reminded of just how spineless they truly are.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
Heh, so if Trump was doing this stuff with Iran in the hopes of keeping Bolton quiet, as some have theorized, that evidently backfired on him, then, didn't it?

I really, REALLY hope the GOP winds up having to comply and let witnesses testify at this trial. If that happens, sing like a canary, guys. Spill it all. And hopefully the media will continue to keep the spotlight on and hound the GOP throughout the trial, too, so everyone can see and be reminded of just how spineless they truly are.
Click to expand...

Oh, hadn't heard that!

Amen to the rest!
And why not have The House call on Boltan now .
 
Who is the world's no. 1 bad guy?
Shuja Haider
JAN—07—2020 10:00AM EST

Last week, President Donald Trump ordered an extrajudicial assassination of a foreign military official, Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. He did so without any authorization from elected representatives of the American public, flouting the treaty he withdrew from in 2018, and with reckless disregard for the consequences. He marked his accomplishment by posting a pixelated image of an American flag on Twitter. “America just took out the world's no. 1 bad guy,” said CNBC, like a state media outlet under a tinpot dictator.

As many have observed, it is all too reminiscent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, one of the most historically consequential, destructive political incidents in living memory, which extended the lifespan of the war on terror indefinitely, facilitated the deterioration of domestic civil liberties, and precipitated the rise of ISIS.

It is not difficult to figure out how to respond to this. Those who oppose the march to war, and what is fairly described as American imperialism, should be against it. That’s all. When your adversary is someone so belligerent and so openly wrong as Donald Trump, it is unnecessary to cede any ground. But that is just what our political intelligentsia has proceeded to do.

There is an aphorism, often attributed to the poet Robert Frost, that a liberal is someone who won’t take his own side in a fight. True to form, statements from leading members of the supposed opposition party have tended to include a conciliatory shrug of the shoulders. Most Democratic presidential frontrunners have released statements dissenting from the president’s decision, but only after conceding that, well, he did have a point though.

“No American will mourn Qassem Soleimani’s passing,” said Joe Biden. “Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans,” said Elizabeth Warren. “Qassem Soleimani was responsible for directing Iran’s destabilizing actions in Iraq, Syria and throughout the Middle East, including attacks against U.S. forces,” said Amy Klobuchar.

Pete Buttigieg released an even stronger statement, conceding the premise for Trump’s actions (and making a point of spelling the target’s name differently): “The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security.” While his competitors went on to express disagreement, Buttigieg seemed merely to feel that a more level-headed person, perhaps a Harvard graduate or a Rhodes scholar, should have given the order. “We must act wisely and deliberately,” he said, “not capriciously or through Twitter.”

Bernie Sanders departed from the pack, citing his opposition to the Vietnam and Iraq wars in what appears to be a freestyle rap. Only Warren and Sanders have been willing to call the event an assassination, which, if it helps, is literally what happened.

Whether or not Soleimani was “the world’s no. 1 bad guy” is beside the point, but even that case was never made. “I haven't seen intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that was going on or decrease other risk to the United States,” said House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff. For all his documented bad behavior, there is no evidence he presented an imminent threat to the United States.

But this is a situation where an evaluation of Soleimani is not at issue, because it is not the criminal record of the target that makes people in foreign countries subject to American drone strikes. The program has killed hundreds of innocent civilians, including at least one American citizen. Besides, the moral defensibility of foreign leaders is never what determines their treatment by the U.S. government, or their depiction in U.S. media. When Bolivian president Evo Morales was forced out of office at gunpoint after a military coup, the New York Times called him a “strongman,” in a since-revised article that was characteristic of coverage of the incident.

Morales was depicted as an aggressor to suit the narrative; other foreign leaders have been exonerated to suit a different one. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were supported by the United States until they no longer served its interests, while the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and Israel continue to receive support in spite of their monstrous treatment of their residents. There is good reason for people in the rest of the world to pay attention to political climates like these, and to side against those responsible. But showing solidarity with civilians does not mean indulging in apologetics for bombs headed in their direction. There is no context that merits the deflection of scrutiny from the abuse of power, whether by Donald Trump or any holder of the executive office of the U.S. government.

This kind of equivocation often arises in cases that should be unambiguous. It is the standard sometimes applied to torture, carried out by the United States government in a program for which no one was ever prosecuted. Yes, the subjects of the so-called enhanced interrogation program were poorly selected, mostly without meaningful access to relevant information. Yes, the infliction of torture tended to result in false intelligence. Yes, it was bad for America’s reputation. None of these true statements is why torture is wrong. Torture is wrong because torture is wrong, and no government should hold the right to carry it out against a human being.

Similarly, the question of which foreign leaders the world would be better off without is a different one from the question of whether the leader of the United States should be permitted to conduct unilateral military actions in other countries. And it is safe to say, based on the record — in an almost interminable litany including Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, and Libya — that American military intervention has not served the purposes of promoting democracy or human rights in those regions. It has served to do the opposite, promoting violence and tyranny, while lining the pockets of those with monied interests in the military-industrial complex and foreign trade.

Everyone of a certain age has memories of the last time, and I have my own. In 2003, I was 15 years old, too young to vote or buy cigarettes. But it was clear to me, and to most people on the planet, that the pretext for the invasion of Iraq was false. On February 15th of that year, we held an antiwar walkout at my high school. One of my friends brought in a note from his dad that read "Please excuse Rob from school today to participate in an act of civil disobedience." We were joining millions of people in an outpouring of events around the world, likely the largest mobilization of protest in human history.

The war took place anyway. The Iraq Resolution of 2002 had already passed, with the support of many Democratic members of congress still in public office or public life, including Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Adam Schiff, and Joe Biden. The Washington Post described the case for the war as “irrefutable,” quoting Biden’s description of a speech that Colin Powell gave to the UN, which Powell later admitted was eminently refutable. There have been no consequences. There never are. Engineers of mass destruction like Henry Kissinger and George W. Bush are seen as lovable old statesmen, and warhawk rhetoricians like David Frum and Jonathan Chait continue to hold prominent positions in media.

We face the same situation again. It will not be sufficient to wring our hands while the president sows destruction. You do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to him.
Click to expand...

https://theoutline.com/post/8503/trump-iran-response-qassem-soleimani
 
DaveC said:
as despicable as it was, the american attack was on iran's military, and iran's retaliation will also undoubtedly be against american military assets, not civilian targets. they aren't insane, despite the media's best efforts to convince us all of that.
Click to expand...

At least that is what Iran is claiming at the moment. But lets not forget that Iran has a 40 year history of supporting terrorism around the world to include the targeted murder of civilians as well as taking civilians hostage. Some reports have indicated that they murdered thousands of Iranian civilians in 2019 for simply protesting against the government and its policies.

One of the worst crackdowns in decades is happening in Iran. Here's what we know
By Sheena McKenzie, CNN

Updated 1:29 PM ET, Tue December 3, 2019


(CNN)Iranians are no strangers to protests. Rarely, however, has the government's response seemed quite as brutal as this.
A little over two weeks ago, protests were sparked by eyewatering gas price hikes, and morphed into nationwide anti-government demonstrations.
The government acted quickly, pulling the plug on the internet and unleashing what Amnesty International described as a "bloody clampdown." The human rights organization estimated Monday that at least 208 protesters had been killed in 21 cities, citing "credible reports."
The Iranian Ministry of Foreign affairs did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the Amnesty report.
A precise death toll is impossible for those outside Iran's government to confirm. Citing opposition groups, international rights organizations and local journalists, The New York Times has reported that at least 180, and possibly 450 or more, people could have been killed during the four-day period beginning November 15.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/midd...violent-crackdown-information-intl/index.html
 
DaveC said:
as despicable as it was, the american attack was on iran's military, and iran's retaliation will also undoubtedly be against american military assets, not civilian targets. they aren't insane, despite the media's best efforts to convince us all of that.
Click to expand...

I think by just mentioning Trump properties (hey there Trump Istanbul!), they've already hit him where it hurts the most.

Would you want to stay at one of his hotels now (not that you ever have, but you know what I mean)? Nevermind Iran's official response, there are many rogue groups all too happy to take matters into their own hands.
 
yeah that's a really good point. i should clarify that post was only stating that the *official* iranian response is going to certainly be against military targets - if the iranian military starts firing missiles they're going to be aimed at military bases and US navy ships in the gulf.

of course the proxy groups likely wouldn't feel too constrained in that kind of way so it's possible that one of them would hit a civilian target although if that were to happen i feel like it would be the group acting on their own, rather than direct orders coming from iran to attack civilians. it would be just too big a risk for iran's government to be caught issuing orders like that right now and they clearly don't want to be seen as the aggressor in this.
 
Based on the way Iran's missile program is built, I would think they will target Saudi Arabia in an effort to force the US to either increase troop presence there or cut ties. Israel could potentially be in a similar boat as a US ally if things continue to escalate.
 
I feel like Iran is smart but equally drawn into petty symbolic moves, and I would not be surprised to see if they’re trying to find a way to attack US troops directly. They’re trying to be calculated - it would backfire if they failed.
 
DaveC said:
of course the proxy groups likely wouldn't feel too constrained in that kind of way so it's possible that one of them would hit a civilian target although if that were to happen i feel like it would be the group acting on their own
Click to expand...


fwiw, NYC seems pretty normal this week, whereas i remember in the Bush years palpably feeling the difference in DC during those bullshit "orange" alerts.

i honestly wonder how this plays with the Trump base. it's blatantly obvious that the assassination was about impeachment, and while Trump's base loves dead people, there is also no appetite at all for more wars in the middle east. they admire thuggery "toughness," but this is not what they have in mind when they cheer on beating a protestor at one of his "rallies." it's telling that they are focusing on whether or not the assassination was deserved, rather than necessary. but my sense is that the Trump states are burnt out on war and struggling enough with an ODing population to give much of a shit about external enemies.

seems like a big miscalculation.

it does, however, put foreign policy back on the table for the Dem primary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
338
Views
10K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
The Final Countdown - U2 at Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part 3
18 19 20
Replies
574
Views
25K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
728
lazarus
lazarus
LuckyNumber7
  • Locked
US Politics XXII: Idk About You, But This Is Thread 22
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
25K
Hewson
Hewson

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom