The Official Former President Trump thread

[madwullie]

I'm not sure that's the case. Plenty of people were pretty outspoken at the drone situation in previous years. 

I think it's the tasteless "gleeful wee boy that's just found some new exciting toys" that literally results in the deaths of numerous innocents approach from Trump that is getting people's backs up. 

Plus the sabre rattling and unpredictability is making the world a much less stable place, and I can't see why anyone at all would like that. 

[EdgarusQPFC]

2 minutes ago, madwullie said:

I'm not sure that's the case. Plenty of people were pretty outspoken at the drone situation in previous years. 

I think it's the tasteless "gleeful wee boy that's just found some new exciting toys" that literally results in the deaths of numerous innocents approach from Trump that is getting people's backs up. 

Plus the sabre rattling and unpredictability is making the world a much less stable place, and I can't see why anyone at all would like that. 

I would agree with that. He's done vastly more than i ever expected he would, i dont think anyone expected him to win much less do so with the republicans having such a strong majority. But from what i overheard hes meant to have ignored law in doing his strikes, isnt it meant to be the case that a president has to have congress approval before such things can happen?

[Zetterlund]

37 minutes ago, EdgarusQPFC said:

I would agree with that. He's done vastly more than i ever expected he would, i dont think anyone expected him to win much less do so with the republicans having such a strong majority. But from what i overheard hes meant to have ignored law in doing his strikes, isnt it meant to be the case that a president has to have congress approval before such things can happen?

I believe the argument is that he can act without congressional approval if there's a direct and immediate threat to America, which there clearly wasn't.

[madwullie]

2 minutes ago, Zetterlund said:

I believe the argument is that he can act without congressional approval if there's a direct and immediate threat to America, which there clearly wasn't.

On the upside acting like this could quite easily create a direct and immediate threat towards America which would make the whole process a lot smoother for everyone involved. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by madwullie
I'm an idiot

[EdgarusQPFC]

18 minutes ago, Zetterlund said:

I believe the argument is that he can act without congressional approval if there's a direct and immediate threat to America, which there clearly wasn't.

Again i would completely agree with that

[NotThePars]

Aye there was plenty of criticism for Obama's drone strikes. Maybe not from democrats but plenty elsewhere.

[welshbairn]

I think the difference is that Obama used to micromanage nearly every military decision, insisting on near zero chances of civilian casualties. Of course there were loads because if you fire a missile you can rarely be sure about who's in the immediate vicinity. Trump's just said, I trust you, do what you think's best. Generals are in charge of the NSC and the Defence Department now, they have the authoriteh, and the State Department has been decimated and sidelined, with a newbie in charge with no deputies, that he has chosen anyway. You've got the most powerful military force in the world, by far, freed from political and diplomatic constraint and counsel. Scary times.

[Granny Danger]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I think the difference is that Obama used to micromanage nearly every military decision, insisting on near zero chances of civilian casualties. Of course there were loads because if you fire a missile you can rarely be sure about who's in the immediate vicinity. Trump's just said, I trust you, do what you think's best. Generals are in charge of the NSC and the Defence Department now, they have the authoriteh, and the State Department has been decimated and sidelined, with a newbie in charge with no deputies, that he has chosen anyway. You've got the most powerful military force in the world, by far, freed from political and diplomatic constraint and counsel. Scary times.

America has "the greatest military in the world", Donald Trump said so today.  He sounded like Alec Baldwin.

 

[madwullie]

Proper diplomats must be fucking aghast. The years of careful work with various nations to get them to be cooperative or at least compliant and trump could just go off on one at any second. The veiled threats against North Korea ffs. Is there really an imaginable scenario (outside his head) where he provokes them into a reaction, it all kicks off, china stand on the sidelines, Russia do f**k all and only Jong Un finds himself dead?

I'm not being a conspiracy theorist or anything  but it's like stuff that wasn't previously a possibility is now on the table and I can't see any way where it doesn't end badly. Is this too melodramatic? Surely to God he'll  be dealt with before he does anything really damaging. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by madwullie

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, madwullie said:

Proper diplomats must be fucking aghast. The years of careful work with various nations to get them to be cooperative or at least compliant and trump could just go off on one at any second. The veiled threats against North Korea ffs. Is there really an imaginable scenario (outside his head) where he provokes them into a reaction, it all kicks off, china stand on the sidelines, Russia do f**k all and only Jong Un finds himself dead?

I'm not being a conspiracy theorist or anything  but it's like stuff that wasn't previously a possibility is now on the table and I can't see any way where it doesn't end badly. Is this too melodramatic? Surely to God he'll  be dealt with before he does anything really damaging. 

If it gets North Korea to the negotiating table it will be one of the greatest bluffs in history. If not, Seoul and a fair bit of North Korea will be toast. Millions dead possibly.

Edited April 14, 2017 by welshbairn

[Cerberus]

35 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

America has "the greatest military in the world", Donald Trump said so today.  He sounded like Alec Baldwin.

 

That was Alec Baldwin.

[Zetterlund]

1 hour ago, madwullie said:

Proper diplomats must be fucking aghast. The years of careful work with various nations to get them to be cooperative or at least compliant and trump could just go off on one at any second. The veiled threats against North Korea ffs. Is there really an imaginable scenario (outside his head) where he provokes them into a reaction, it all kicks off, china stand on the sidelines, Russia do f**k all and only Jong Un finds himself dead?

I'm not being a conspiracy theorist or anything  but it's like stuff that wasn't previously a possibility is now on the table and I can't see any way where it doesn't end badly. Is this too melodramatic? Surely to God he'll  be dealt with before he does anything really damaging. 

It does have the potential to go horribly wrong in the climate Trump has created with his Syria brainwave. Can you imagine if the US parks its 'armada' off the North Korean coast and Kim lobs a few pre-emptive missiles at it? You could say they'd have a legitimate argument for self-defence but it would end in absolute carnage.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

On 4/13/2017 at 08:07, Mudder said:

The most important part was that he had an onion on his belt, which was the style at the time.

[Cerberus]

North Korea's "show of strength" might have been better if it wasn't entirely made up of 1960's USSR technology.

Hopefully N Korea back down cause Trump won't.

[Newbornbairn]

9 hours ago, Zetterlund said:

It does have the potential to go horribly wrong in the climate Trump has created with his Syria brainwave. Can you imagine if the US parks its 'armada' off the North Korean coast and Kim lobs a few pre-emptive missiles at it? You could say they'd have a legitimate argument for self-defence but it would end in absolute carnage.

No, no you couldn't. North Korea has said they would launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack and you're saying they have a legitimate argument? GTF.

[Granny Danger]

Why is it that some in the international community, in particular the USA, are so keen to try to enforce agreements on nuclear proliferation in some cases yet totally ignore others?

 

[madwullie]

Because some countries and leaders aren't stable and are prone to do fucking stupid stuff in the spur of the moment. 

 

[D.A.F.C]

^^^Are we talking America or Korea here?

 

[Mudder]

12 hours ago, welshbairn said:

If it gets North Korea to the negotiating table it will be one of the greatest bluffs in history. If not, Seoul and a fair bit of North Korea will be toast. Millions dead possibly.

Was listening to an (expert) on Korean affairs on r5 yesterday , who said the US could wipe out NKs military capabilities fairy easily and that most people there and the Army would welcome it, however it would leave a hardline group of about 20-30 thousand of loyal Special Guards , who would reek havoc in Souel which is only 80 miles away and a population of 25 million.

 

and for the last 30 years US/SK analysis of attacking NK is, how many in Souel would be killed?

[Bully Wee Villa]

Seoul is pretty close to North Korea, so in the worst case scenario of the North nuking it, quite a bit of the fallout would be heading their way. I'm not saying they're not mad enough to do it anyway, but I think Busan is a more likely target.