The Official Former President Trump thread

[Dee Man]

Trump will be thinking, "Is that all I had to do to fire those tomahawks? That was cool as f**k. I can't wait to do that again".

[Savage Henry]

4 hours ago, Dee Man said:

Trump will be thinking, "Is that all I had to do to fire those tomahawks? That was cool as f**k. I can't wait to do that again".

I can see him making "pchew pchew" noises as he pressed the fire button.*

 

*Or as he watched some army bloke press the fire button.

[Wee Willie]

But not everything in the garden is roses.
I did the bits in bold - the format that is and no the words.

Populist supporters, like Brexit leader Farage, abandon Trump after Syria strike
http://us.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/donald-trump-syria-populist-support/index.html
Nigel Farage, the pro-Brexit leader, aligned himself with Trump during last year's campaign, spoke at his rallies and was
among the first to meet with him after his election. On Friday morning, however, he said he was "very surprised" by the Syria action.
"I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying, 'Where will it all end?'" he said.
"As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I'm surprised," Farage continued, arguing that in a region riven
by Islamic extremism, "whatever Assad's sins, he is secular."

Farage's comments captured the wave of right-wing anger and frustration that followed the US strike -- and they pointed up an odd reversal.
Populists who applauded Trump for his disdain for US interventions overseas and his campaign declaration that the US "cannot be the
policeman of the world" were aghast by the strike. In contrast, an international community that has often held Trump at arm's length stepped
up to declare their rock-solid support for the new US president. 

United Kingdom Defense Secretary Michael Fallon told the BBC that "we fully support what the Americans have done," adding that the strike
was "limited and wholly appropriate."
This made for a stark contrast to Farage, who urged Britain not to get involved in any further strikes. "Previous interventions in the Middle East
have made things worse rather than better," Farage said.

The current leader of Farage's Independence Party, Paul Nuttall, said the strike was "rash, trigger-happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing. I hoped for better."
"The whole world rightly condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but the US attack on the Assad regime does nothing to lower tensions,
nor will it hasten peace in that country," Nuttall said. "Too often, rash responses to horrific situations are about the conscience of the attacker
rather than a clear-headed response to an awful situation."

 

In France, National Front leader Marine Le Pen also appeared to distance herself from Trump, saying on Twitter that she "strongly condemned"
the "horrible" strike on the Syrian airbase.
"Is it too much to ask that we wait for the results of an independent international investigation before carrying out a strike like this in Syria?"
she told France 2 television on Friday.

Populist leaders within the US registered their disapproval as well. "I'm deeply concerned that these strikes could lead to the United States once
again being dragged back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement in the Middle East," said Vermont's Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"If the last 15 years have shown anything, it's that such engagements are disastrous for American security, for the American economy and for the American people."

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a staunch advocate for keeping the US out of foreign entanglements, called on Trump to consult on Congress. 
"While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked," Paul said. "The President needs congressional authorization for
military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate."

Conservative foreign policy experts who often support the President's positions also expressed dismay. John Glaser, the Cato Institute's associate
director of foreign policy studies, said that "Trump's decision to attack the Syrian regime has no legal authority and little chance of actually mitigating
the suffering of Syrians caught in the civil war."

________________________

I must be an ultra right-wing c**t cos I agree with most of whats been said here.

 

[welshbairn]

Trumpet tears.

 

[Granny Danger]

30 minutes ago, Wee Willie said:

But not everything in the garden is roses.
I did the bits in bold - the format that is and no the words.

Populist supporters, like Brexit leader Farage, abandon Trump after Syria strike
http://us.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/donald-trump-syria-populist-support/index.html
Nigel Farage, the pro-Brexit leader, aligned himself with Trump during last year's campaign, spoke at his rallies and was
among the first to meet with him after his election. On Friday morning, however, he said he was "very surprised" by the Syria action.
"I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying, 'Where will it all end?'" he said.
"As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I'm surprised," Farage continued, arguing that in a region riven
by Islamic extremism, "whatever Assad's sins, he is secular."

 

Farage's comments captured the wave of right-wing anger and frustration that followed the US strike -- and they pointed up an odd reversal.
Populists who applauded Trump for his disdain for US interventions overseas and his campaign declaration that the US "cannot be the
policeman of the world" were aghast by the strike. In contrast, an international community that has often held Trump at arm's length stepped
up to declare their rock-solid support for the new US president. 

United Kingdom Defense Secretary Michael Fallon told the BBC that "we fully support what the Americans have done," adding that the strike
was "limited and wholly appropriate."
This made for a stark contrast to Farage, who urged Britain not to get involved in any further strikes. "Previous interventions in the Middle East
have made things worse rather than better," Farage said.

 

The current leader of Farage's Independence Party, Paul Nuttall, said the strike was "rash, trigger-happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing. I hoped for better."
"The whole world rightly condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but the US attack on the Assad regime does nothing to lower tensions,
nor will it hasten peace in that country," Nuttall said. "Too often, rash responses to horrific situations are about the conscience of the attacker
rather than a clear-headed response to an awful situation."

 

 

 

In France, National Front leader Marine Le Pen also appeared to distance herself from Trump, saying on Twitter that she "strongly condemned"
the "horrible" strike on the Syrian airbase.
"Is it too much to ask that we wait for the results of an independent international investigation before carrying out a strike like this in Syria?"
she told France 2 television on Friday.

 

Populist leaders within the US registered their disapproval as well. "I'm deeply concerned that these strikes could lead to the United States once
again being dragged back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement in the Middle East," said Vermont's Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"If the last 15 years have shown anything, it's that such engagements are disastrous for American security, for the American economy and for the American people."

 

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a staunch advocate for keeping the US out of foreign entanglements, called on Trump to consult on Congress. 
"While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked," Paul said. "The President needs congressional authorization for
military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate."

 

Conservative foreign policy experts who often support the President's positions also expressed dismay. John Glaser, the Cato Institute's associate
director of foreign policy studies, said that "Trump's decision to attack the Syrian regime has no legal authority and little chance of actually mitigating
the suffering of Syrians caught in the civil war."

 

________________________

I must be an ultra right-wing c**t cos I agree with most of whats been said here.

 

 

You're not ultra right; you're just not very bright.

Trump did what he did for the wrong reasons; attempted populism and trying to portray himself as tough and decisive.

Most of the critics quoted are isolationist Islamophobes and are simply restating their own agendas.  Farage's comments are despicable - it's OK for a secular president to use chemical weapons on his own people.

Actions can be wrong but so can the reasons behind condemning said actions.

 

 

[DA Baracus]

Is he dead yet?

[NotThePars]

Yup. He. Doesn't. Know how. To. Enunciate. His right. Wing rants. Properly.

Well imagine my shock

[Wee Willie]

4 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

You're not ultra right; you're just not very bright.

Trump did what he did for the wrong reasons; attempted populism and trying to portray himself as tough and decisive.

Most of the critics quoted are isolationist Islamophobes and are simply restating their own agendas.  Farage's comments are despicable - it's OK for a secular president to use chemical weapons on his own people.

Actions can be wrong but so can the reasons behind condemning said actions.

 

 

You're not ultra right; you're just not very bright.
Brilliant! you throw accolades like confetti.
I’ll mibbe get that tattooed on my forehead.

 

Are you saying that you would still have taken issue with these comments I highlighted even if I had only posted them without a source?

Comments 1 – 4 do you disagree with their sentiments

Comment 5 asks an obvious question regarding blame.

Comments 6 – 8 are from Americans who think Trump has been a wee bit high handed in ignoring Congress.
1. Where will it all end?
2. Previous interventions in the Middle East have made things worse rather than better
3. rash, trigger-happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing.
4. but the US attack on the Assad regime does nothing to lower tensions, nor will it hasten peace in that country,
5. Is it too much to ask that we wait for the results of an independent international investigation before carrying out a strike like this in Syria?
6. I'm deeply concerned that these strikes could lead to the United States once again being dragged
back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement in the Middle East
7. the United States was not attacked, Paul said. "The President needs congressional authorization for military action
as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate."
8. Trump's decision to attack the Syrian regime has no legal authority and little chance of actually mitigating the suffering of Syrians caught in the civil war.

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Wee Willie
bloody formatting

[welshbairn]

18 minutes ago, Wee Willie said:

You're not ultra right; you're just not very bright.
Brilliant! you throw accolades like confetti.
I’ll mibbe get that tattooed on my forehead.

 

Are you saying that you would still have taken issue with these comments I highlighted even if I had only posted them without a source?

Comments 1 – 4 do you disagree with their sentiments

Comment 5 asks an obvious question regarding blame.

Comments 6 – 8 are from Americans who think Trump has been a wee bit high handed in ignoring Congress.
1. Where will it all end?

 

2. Previous interventions in the Middle East have made things worse rather than better

 

3. rash, trigger-happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing.

 

4. but the US attack on the Assad regime does nothing to lower tensions, nor will it hasten peace in that country,

 

5. Is it too much to ask that we wait for the results of an independent international investigation before carrying out a strike like this in Syria?

 

6. I'm deeply concerned that these strikes could lead to the United States once again being dragged
back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement in the Middle East
7. the United States was not attacked, Paul said. "The President needs congressional authorization for military action
as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate."

 

 

8. Trump's decision to attack the Syrian regime has no legal authority and little chance of actually mitigating the suffering of Syrians caught in the civil war.

 

 

 

Good response Willie. I don't agree with you though, if the US had firm evidence that sarin gas bombs were loaded on planes at the airbase and dropped on civilians (or anyone) they were perfectly entitled to bomb the airbase, as a disincentive to further war crimes. Setting up an independent neutral investigation would mean nothing happening for months if not years.

[Zetterlund]

It's frightening that people can still be so easily convinced after all that's happened in the recent past. There is pretty much zero chance the Syrian government sanctioned any chemical attack, for multiple reasons.

Most obviously, it makes no sense. They were in their strongest position yet in the war, and the US had just stated officially that removing Assad was off the table. Strategically, the single worst thing Assad could have done was attack his own people with chemical weapons - just as the Syria talks were about to commence in Brussels no less.

This was also the single best thing that could have happened for the opposition and the regime change warmongers like John McCain, who was publically raging at the change in policy towards Assad. His removal has been in planning for over a decade and they are clearly very determined. McCain has made trips to Syria in the past to meet with 'rebel' leaders.

Despite it still being rolled out repeatedly, the 'red line' chemical weapons incident from 2013 has long since been proven to be a false flag event. Independent investigations, and the UN, found zero evidence of it being a government attack or completely ruled out the possibility that it could have been. The gas used didn't match the Syrian stockpiles, and the rockets it was delivered in didn't have the range to get there. It was also known at the time that some opposition groups had obtained sarin gas, or were producing their own. This information is what made Obama back down from his 'red line' threat.

Other incidents since then have used the same gas as the 2013 attacks, proving that the opposition side has used chemical weapons repeatedly. Astonishingly, the BBC rolled out an 'expert' the other day saying that to his knowledge the rebels had never used, nor had access to chemical weapons. To anyone with even a passing interest in the conflict, this is obviously false.

Trump's actions achieved 2 objectives - it made him look strong after Obama's perceived weakness in 2013, and it ran against the 'Russian stooge' narrative. And he got to fire some big guns. Everyone should be very alarmed that he performed a complete u-turn overnight on a potentially catastrophic foreign policy issue without any kind of investigation. Instead we have 'liberal' nations praising the attacks while the likes of Paul Nuttall and Marine le Pen sound like the only sane voices in the room. The world's gone mad.

[Wee Willie]

48 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Good response Willie. I don't agree with you though, if the US had firm evidence that sarin gas bombs were loaded on planes at the airbase and dropped on civilians (or anyone) they were perfectly entitled to bomb the airbase, as a disincentive to further war crimes. Setting up an independent neutral investigation would mean nothing happening for months if not years.

Thanks I'm only the messenger of the 8 comments I posted.

I think they are fair and reasonable.
You must surely agree that: Previous interventions in the Middle East have made things worse rather than better
and that: the US attack on the Assad regime does nothing to lower tensions, nor will it hasten peace in that country
 not tae mention this comment from an American: I'm deeply concerned that these strikes could lead to the United States once again being dragged
back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement in the Middle East.
and this one from another American: the United States was not attacked, Paul said. "The President needs congressional authorization for military action
as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate."

_____________________

they were perfectly entitled to bomb the airbase, as a disincentive to further war crimes.

Why? Surely that's a decision for the UN.
It's all very well saying UN decisions take months or years but what is the alternative?
Allow the USA or the UK or even Russia tae decide who tae bomb?
As a citizen of my wee country of Scotland I am fed up with the gung-ho attitude of the USA and the UK and some posters on here.
I never want my country associated with these people who think the only answer is to invade/bomb countries half way round the world because of different ideologies.

[Wee Willie]

It looks like Jeremy agrees wi' me

Jeremy Corbyn says US air strikes in Syria 'wrong'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39525952

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has criticised US air strikes against Syria - putting him at odds with the party's deputy leader Tom Watson.
Mr Corbyn said the US should not have acted without United Nations backing.
But Mr Watson told The Birmingham Mail the US strikes "appear to be a direct and proportionate response" and chemical attacks on civilians "must have consequences".
The UK's Conservative government has said it "fully supports" the US action.
US President Donald Trump has said there could be "no dispute" that Assad was to blame for the assault.
But Mr Corbyn said the US had acted before a UN investigation had determined who was responsible
Asked if he believed the Assad regime was behind it, he said: "Fingers are pointing, yes, but let's get the proof from the United Nations first."
 

[Mudder]

The whole things a bag a shite , what good is an investigation? Depending on what side you're on , you'll agree or disagree with it.

Half a million dead , millions of refugees ,been going on longer than WW2 , and Trump bombs an empty airport cause babies weren't being slaughtered correctly.

If the rebels have chemical weapons then surely they will now use them to blame Assad and drag US and possibly others into it.

[Wee Willie]

15 hours ago, Zetterlund said:

It's frightening that people can still be so easily convinced after all that's happened in the recent past. There is pretty much zero chance the Syrian government sanctioned any chemical attack, for multiple reasons.

Most obviously, it makes no sense. They were in their strongest position yet in the war, and the US had just stated officially that removing Assad was off the table. Strategically, the single worst thing Assad could have done was attack his own people with chemical weapons - just as the Syria talks were about to commence in Brussels no less.

This was also the single best thing that could have happened for the opposition and the regime change warmongers like John McCain, who was publically raging at the change in policy towards Assad. His removal has been in planning for over a decade and they are clearly very determined. McCain has made trips to Syria in the past to meet with 'rebel' leaders.

Despite it still being rolled out repeatedly, the 'red line' chemical weapons incident from 2013 has long since been proven to be a false flag event. Independent investigations, and the UN, found zero evidence of it being a government attack or completely ruled out the possibility that it could have been. The gas used didn't match the Syrian stockpiles, and the rockets it was delivered in didn't have the range to get there. It was also known at the time that some opposition groups had obtained sarin gas, or were producing their own. This information is what made Obama back down from his 'red line' threat.

Other incidents since then have used the same gas as the 2013 attacks, proving that the opposition side has used chemical weapons repeatedly. Astonishingly, the BBC rolled out an 'expert' the other day saying that to his knowledge the rebels had never used, nor had access to chemical weapons. To anyone with even a passing interest in the conflict, this is obviously false.

Trump's actions achieved 2 objectives - it made him look strong after Obama's perceived weakness in 2013, and it ran against the 'Russian stooge' narrative. And he got to fire some big guns. Everyone should be very alarmed that he performed a complete u-turn overnight on a potentially catastrophic foreign policy issue without any kind of investigation. Instead we have 'liberal' nations praising the attacks while the likes of Paul Nuttall and Marine le Pen sound like the only sane voices in the room. The world's gone mad.

Good post.

the likes of Paul Nuttall and Marine le Pen sound like the only sane voices in the room

Paul Nuttall, said the strike was "rash, trigger-happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing. I hoped for better."
"The whole world rightly condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but the US attack on the Assad regime does nothing to lower tensions,
nor will it hasten peace in that country,"

In France, National Front leader Marine Le Pen said,
"Is it too much to ask that we wait for the results of an independent international investigation before carrying out a strike like this in Syria?"
____________________

Who (apart from GD) can argue with these comments?

[Wee Willie]

11 hours ago, Mudder said:

The whole things a bag a shite , what good is an investigation? Depending on what side you're on , you'll agree or disagree with it.

Half a million dead , millions of refugees ,been going on longer than WW2 , and Trump bombs an empty airport cause babies weren't being slaughtered correctly.

If the rebels have chemical weapons then surely they will now use them to blame Assad and drag US and possibly others into it.

good points

[Wee Willie]

Russia to blame for Syria deaths - Sir Michael Fallon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39543202

Russia is to blame for "every civilian death" in last week's chemical weapons attack in Syria,
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has claimed.
Sir Michael, writing in the Sunday Times, said the Kremlin was responsible "by proxy"
as the "principal backer" of President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

__________________

 

Does this mean that the UK is going tae bomb Russia tae teach them a lesson?
Remember, we've got Trident, so they darenae touch us.

 __________________

Trump's Syria strike celebrated by 'terrorists', Iran says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39540019

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani has said "terrorists are celebrating" US strikes on a Syrian airbase.
His comments echo the response from Russia, which like Iran is allied to Syria, and from Syria itself.
… On Saturday in the Syrian capital Damascus and around the world, people protested against the air strikes,
insisting there should be no US war against Syria.

…On Saturday, Russia called on the US to provide evidence for its claim that there were chemical weapons at the site.
Defence ministry spokesman Maj Gen Igor Konashenkov said:
"None of those at the airfield wear gas masks and they all feel perfectly normal”.

[madwullie]

This is utterly ridiculous. We've basically got experts commenting on something they know didn't happen, but because everyone talks as if it did happen, it becomes accepted narrative that it happened. Totally bizqrre

 

[welshbairn]

Time for some balance here.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/what-did-putin-know-and-when-did-he-know-it-215004

Spoiler

Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) advises governments and political parties on foreign policy and strategic communications. She is a registered agent for Georgian President Saakachvili’s government, which she advised from 2009-2013, and for former Moldovan Prime Minister Filat, who has been in prison since 2015.

 

[mjw]

Boris Johnson has cancelled his trip to Russia.
Thank f**k says anyone who doesn't want Russia bombing us.

[Wee Willie]

4 hours ago, mjw said:

Boris Johnson has cancelled his trip to Russia.
Thank f**k says anyone who doesn't want Russia bombing us.

did ye no read my post

9 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

Russia to blame for Syria deaths - Sir Michael Fallon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39543202

Russia is to blame for "every civilian death" in last week's chemical weapons attack in Syria,
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has claimed.
Sir Michael, writing in the Sunday Times, said the Kremlin was responsible "by proxy"
as the "principal backer" of President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

__________________

Does this mean that the UK is going tae bomb Russia tae teach them a lesson?
Remember, we've got Trident, so they darenae touch us.