President Trump Discussions- merged thread

If it were true the allegation Obama/Biden/HRC and senior FBI,CIA,DOJ officials manufactured the Rus

  • I have always favoured Trump and continue to do so

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • I favoured the other side in the past, but now favour Trump

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I favoured Trump in the past, but now favour the other side

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • I have never favoured Trump and this doesn't change it for me

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Nobel Committee could be considering Trump's cooperation with Russia/Putin. I would be hesitant on accepting that he's worthy for that reason because Trump's motives haven't been established yet.

Theories have varied widely amongst our little group but largely just ignored more than anything else......

:cheers:
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Donald H said:
The Nobel Committee could be considering Trump's cooperation with Russia/Putin. I would be hesitant on accepting that he's worthy for that reason because Trump's motives haven't been established yet.

Theories have varied widely amongst our little group but largely just ignored more than anything else......

:cheers:

Hey Don

He's been president for almost four years. And you still haven't figured out his motives?  ;D
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
shawn5o said:
Hey Don

He's been president for almost four years. And you still haven't figured out his motives?  ;D

Well Shawn, Trump's motives for his buddying up to putin are all over the map, including claims that he's not.
Financial considerations.
Election tampering by Russia
Possible peaceful considerations. (Nobel prize)
Nothing, it's a hoax.

Have I missed anything? What's your choice? Assuming you have one?

:cheers:
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3
Points
430
Pulling the thread back to the topic at hand, here is an interview with Mike Pompeo which describes the outlines of how the President and Administration was able to make the deal happen. Some sources claim as many as five other nations will sign on, although I suspect that is a bit overblown - I can see the Gulf States have an interest in this process as a counter to Iran.

Here is the interview:

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2020/09/15/exclusive-pompeo-on-trumps-peace-push-deals-are-all-connected-to-trumps-strategy-recognizing-iran-as-primary-operator-for-inst/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20200915

Exclusive %u2013 Pompeo on Trump%u2019s Peace Push: Deals %u2018Are All Connected%u2019 to Trump%u2019s %u2018Strategy%u2019 Recognizing Iran as %u2018Primary Operator for Instability%u2019
MATTHEW BOYLE 15 Sep 2020 Nicosia, Cyprus

Pompeo%u2019s interview came late Saturday night aboard the U.S. Air Force jet transporting him and the U.S. delegation after he met with the president of the Republic of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, whom he visited here after earlier in the day attending the opening of intra-Afghan peace talks in Doha, Qatar. As the jet touched down in Doha late Friday night the previous evening, the deal being rolled out this week between Bahrain and Israel to normalize relations was announced. Previously, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel announced they were normalizing relations. On Tuesday at the White House, representatives of both Bahrain and UAE are meeting with Trump in addition to Israeli officials including Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

%u201CIt%u2019s a great question. They are all connected,%u201D Pompeo told Breitbart News when asked to connect the dots between the Afghan peace talks and these other peace deals being rolled out now. %u201CThe president laid down a strategy for how to secure America from instability and threats from the Middle East.%u201D

Pompeo, who is at the White House with Trump and other American officials as part of the historic meetings for the peace deals on Tuesday, said that Trump%u2019s Middle East policy strategy vision began by treating Iran as the main threat in the region.

%u201CIt began by recognizing the primary operator for instability, the Islamic Republic of Iran,%u201D Pompeo said. %u201CThat central decision has begun to drive all of the elements of our foreign policy in the Middle East. Reduce our footprint in Afghanistan, get our young men and women home. Reduce our footprints in Iraq and Syria, be strong in terms of sanctions and place pressure on the regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and then lay out a strategy for Middle East peace which had multiple pieces right?%u201D

Several of the steps that laid the groundwork for these major steps toward Middle East peace, Pompeo told Breitbart News, include recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and several other steps taken in Israel. That, he said, has lit a path forward for Arab countries in the region for a vision for peace.

%u201CSome of this is reality: Recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, acknowledge that the Golan Heights indeed is Israeli territory. We%u2019ve also made clear that the settlements in the West Bank weren%u2019t necessarily unlawful,%u201D Pompeo said. %u201CAll of those things come together to place the conditions where frankly countries in the Middle East can see a path forward for how you can take down risk and grow their economies. We think about these deals between Bahrain and the Emirates as security arrangements. That%u2019s true, but the benefits to the economies of those three countries of opening up trade will be enormous.%u201D

Pompeo, who on Saturday in Doha met with leaders of the Afghan government and Taliban delegations at the beginning of intra-Afghan peace talks as the U.S. is as he told Breitbart News on pace for a full withdrawal of all armed forces by next spring, said the U.S. sees Afghanistan and other countries eventually reaching a place where through %u201Ceconomic benefits%u201D to the region they join other Arab nations in push for peace inside their countries and with the West. He said the hope is even Iran will one day come to the table for a real deal, rather than the flawed Iran deal from former President Barack Obama%u2019s and former Vice President Joe Biden%u2019s administration from which Trump withdrew the United States.

%u201CThose economic benefits are the kind of thing that we hope one day is something we can do in Afghanistan,%u201D Pompeo said. %u201CWe%u2019ve made progress in Iraq as well by defeating the caliphate. All of those things come together to reduce risk from the Middle East. We hope that the Iranians will come to see that there is a pathway for them as well, but until they do, the pressure campaign will continue.%u201D

Pompeo also said that while Afghan peace is still a ways away, and that Afghanistan becoming a country like UAE or Bahrain is still even further off, there definitely are other countries in the Middle East that are likely to soon join UAE and Bahrain soon.

%u201CYes there are,%u201D Pompeo said.

Asked if it is a %u201Cpeace through strength%u201D doctrine, like what former President Ronald Reagan championed, Pompeo said it is%u2014but the focus from Trump is on %u201Ceconomic strength.%u201D He added that the president is unafraid, as he has demonstrated, to use military force however to demonstrate America%u2019s might if needed.

%u201CIt%u2019s absolutely the model, with an emphasis on economic strength,%u201D Pompeo said. %u201CThe thing that America does best%u2014our creativity, our innovation, our capacity to create opportunities for good all across the world%u2014it%u2019s absolutely peace through strength. We%u2019re very much focused on making sure if there%u2019s a bad actor, if Qassem Soleimani is threatening America, President Trump will never shy away from using military force. But we%u2019re not going to be engaged in countries doing extended policing when they don%u2019t generate safety and security for the American people.%u201D

This is the second piece from Pompeo%u2019s exclusive interview with Breitbart News. More is forthcoming.

One thing not mentioned which may also have provided leverage is American fracking has essentially made American energy independent and takes away the leverage the oil producing states had. It also changes military calculus in the region, before the US needed to ensure the Straights of Hormuz remained open, now they may only need to ensure that the straights can be closed at the time and place of America's choosing.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1600206100252.jpg
    FB_IMG_1600206100252.jpg
    117.3 KB · Views: 13

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
123
Points
680
Thucydides said:
Pulling the thread back to the topic at hand, here is an interview with Mike Pompeo which describes the outlines of how the President and Administration was able to make the deal happen. Some sources claim as many as five other nations will sign on, although I suspect that is a bit overblown - I can see the Gulf States have an interest in this process as a counter to Iran.

Here is the interview:

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2020/09/15/exclusive-pompeo-on-trumps-peace-push-deals-are-all-connected-to-trumps-strategy-recognizing-iran-as-primary-operator-for-inst/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20200915

Call me biased, but I am not going to blindly believe a Breitbart article without a LOT of fact-checking. 
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
44
Points
530
I can only imagine the tone and volume of the press coverage if the Obama administration had helped put together three peace/normalization deals - with the promise of more - during his re-election campaign.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
61
Points
630
Dimsum said:
Call me biased, but I am not going to blindly believe a Breitbart article without a LOT of fact-checking.

Good idea.  :)

Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3
Points
430
I'm not clear what sort of "fact checking" you are looking for? We have a known event - the signing of peace accords and economic agreements, and we have an interview where a senior Administration figure tells us what steps led up to this process and outcome.

Perhaps the real issue should be why is Breitbart getting and publishing the interview, given the immense importance of the action and the potential downrange consequences? Where is the rest of the American and world media?
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
78
Points
530
Thucydides said:
I'm not clear what sort of "fact checking" you are looking for? We have a known event - the signing of peace accords and economic agreements, and we have an interview where a senior Administration figure tells us what steps led up to this process and outcome.

Perhaps the real issue should be why is Breitbart getting and publishing the interview, given the immense importance of the action and the potential downrange consequences? Where is the rest of the American and world media?

Perhaps the "senior Administration figure" wanted a friendly medium for the interview.  While it was not unheard of for previous administrations to seek sympathetic networks to pass their messaging, I can't recall the relationship between an administration and the press being as acrimonious as the current situation.  And though some of that acrimony can be laid at the feet of the media, the current President and his coterie of sycophants also have to accept a major share of the blame.  Yes, it was a "known event", but by using a media outlet such as Breitbart, the Secretary was almost assured that the administration's rosy view would not have to face scrutiny by hard-ball questions.
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If Trump wins the election he'll have to learn how to pretend to shun China in the face of big odds that the GOP will maintain it's traditional practice of doing more very profitable business with China.
This is consistent with the reason why our Conservative party has favoured the GOP and most likely even Trump. The Democratic party has never been good for free trade.
The nature of the political left is that which is supportive of working people (working Americans) who must somehow learn to compete with Chinese productivity at very low wages.

https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/centers/articles/is-the-gop-still-the-party-of-free-trade/
Then Trump came along!  Trump voters want no part of having to compete with China's inexpensive merchandise and China's low wages. Trump's base wants him to eliminate all of that kind of competition.

But that clashes with the priorities of big business and tradional Republican priorities. There is little doubt that Trump will have to bend to the wishes of big business while somehow making it appear that he's on the side of the common worker.

Therein lies the reason why the honeymoon of Trump and the middle class can't last and why trade relations between China/US will flourish under another 4 years of Trump.

America hasn't changed in the way Bob Woodward suggests. It's still the same in which big business pulls all the strings.

 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And a quote from the Breitbart interview with Pompeo:

%u201CSome of this is reality: Recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, acknowledge that the Golan Heights indeed is Israeli territory. We%u2019ve also made clear that the settlements in the West Bank weren%u2019t necessarily unlawful,%u201D Pompeo said.

Well, if that's all agreed upon and settled then where's the problem? So what if it flies in the face of UN resolution 181.
And the fact that Iran stubbornly stands supportive with that resolution in general principle, regardless of what their motives could be?

Nothing left for Trump to do but get through Iran. Shouldn't be much of a problem, right?

-------------------------------------------------------

Now it becomes obvious why Breitbart is alone on this story.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
44
Points
530
Iran can wait; besides, the Democrats seem to be more capable of negotiating peace with Iran.  It'd be enough for now to get most of the Arab world to normalize relations with Israel.  Partially solving a problem that no-one has been able to solve for decades isn't a mark of failure.
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I’ve read recently “an embargoed and bankrupt Iran is teetering on the brink. Its international terrorist appendages, including Hezbollah, are broke.”

I’m guessing, if the pressure is maintained, the people of Iran will force the country to join the rest of the world or at least the rest of the ME. 
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Brad Sallows said:
Iran can wait; besides, the Democrats seem to be more capable of negotiating peace with Iran.  It'd be enough for now to get most of the Arab world to normalize relations with Israel.  Partially solving a problem that no-one has been able to solve for decades isn't a mark of failure.

The promotion of the pretense of a partial solution does nothing for solving the problem. Especially when the terms are being dictated by Israel and it's need for more living space.

Having said that, because it's necessary, I can see the possibility of peace in the ME through Trump's efforts if he can buy the cooperation of the Arab states. I think they're all for sale at a price except for Iran.

And just think! Iran could pop up with those nukes any day  now if US suspicions are correct. So how long can America wait before it gets it's war with Iran and does something that's actually 'real' about bringing peace to the ME?

We can probably agree that peace in the ME has to come fairly soon because the situation isn't getting better, it's getting worse as the US loses it's status as the world's only superpower.

Iran with nukes? I can see an equally valid possibility. Iran as a client state of China and Russia in the same way that Israel is a US client. No real need for any of the world's small countries to have nukes! Peace at the end of a gun barrel so to speak.

:cheers:
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Donald H said:
The promotion of the pretense of a partial solution does nothing for solving the problem. Especially when the terms are being dictated by Israel and it's need for more living space.

Having said that, because it's necessary, I can see the possibility of peace in the ME through Trump's efforts if he can buy the cooperation of the Arab states. I think they're all for sale at a price except for Iran.

And just think! Iran could pop up with those nukes any day  now if US suspicions are correct. So how long can America wait before it gets it's war with Iran and does something that's actually 'real' about bringing peace to the ME?

We can probably agree that peace in the ME has to come fairly soon because the situation isn't getting better, it's getting worse as the US loses it's status as the world's only superpower.

Iran with nukes? I can see an equally valid possibility. Iran as a client state of China and Russia in the same way that Israel is a US client. No real need for any of the world's small countries to have nukes! Peace at the end of a gun barrel so to speak.

:cheers:

Hi Don

dictated need for living space?

Is that from mein kampf? And I can see iran buddying up with Russia but China? China has its own decimation against its muslims.

The third highlight - not good.



 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
shawn5o said:
Hi Don

dictated need for living space?

Hi Shawn. Are being dictated by Israel and it's need for living space. Small distinction.

Is that from mein kampf? And I can see iran buddying up with Russia but China? China has its own decimation against its muslims.

Well it could be but it's not. Do you think there's a shred of doubt that Israel needs more living space and is intent on getting it? Is there any other explanations for the settlements on Palestinian lands as outlined by 181?

The third highlight - not good.

Agreed not good but in any case has ensured no WW3 for 75 years and is likely our only hope for another 75. (nuclear gun as in M.A.D.

:cheers:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
210
Points
680
Donald H said:
The promotion of the pretense of a partial solution does nothing for solving the problem. Especially when the terms are being dictated by Israel and it's need for more living space.

Having said that, because it's necessary, I can see the possibility of peace in the ME through Trump's efforts if he can buy the cooperation of the Arab states. I think they're all for sale at a price except for Iran.

And just think! Iran could pop up with those nukes any day  now if US suspicions are correct. So how long can America wait before it gets it's war with Iran and does something that's actually 'real' about bringing peace to the ME?

We can probably agree that peace in the ME has to come fairly soon because the situation isn't getting better, it's getting worse as the US loses it's status as the world's only superpower.

Iran with nukes? I can see an equally valid possibility. Iran as a client state of China and Russia in the same way that Israel is a US client. No real need for any of the world's small countries to have nukes! Peace at the end of a gun barrel so to speak.

:cheers:

When Iran gets Nukes, fully expect KSA to become nuclear and I could easily see those two flinging tactical nukes at each other. Iran and Iraq fought a brutal war with 1.2 million dead including frontal attacks on machine guns, gas attacks etc. Each have enough religous nutbars willing to meet their god on what they think is  good terms.
The Arabs don't care about the Palestinians and for good reason, they bite the hands to feed them. Syria was one of the better States for Palestinians giving them almost as much rights as citizens, yet they turned on the regime and now Assad is bulldozing the "refugee camp" (Actually a city) and scattering them. Egypt could easily spare some land for them, but not only do they not give it to them, but they are even more merciless in blockading them, for the same reason as they are trying to stir up trouble in Sinai and backed the wrong horse in MB.
There is a way forward for the Palestinians, but Hamas and the PLA to a lesser extent won't take it. They want their people to be miserable and no hope, it's the only way to keep the martyrdom industry going.
Also why shouldn't Israel work to terms favourably for it? Despite all the propaganda, the Arab States have come to realize that Israeli is one of the most reliable States to deal with in the region. Israeli has had nukes since 1973 at least and yet does not go around threatening to destroy other nations existence on a almost daily basis and when there is a natural disaster in the region, Israel is always one of the first to offer help and rescue teams, even to Iran during the Bam earthquake. Israel is not perfect, but I will take their imperfections over any other country in the region in a heartbeat.   
 

YZT580

Sr. Member
Reaction score
39
Points
280
more territory: not likely.  When you look at the 1948  (pre-war) boundaries, Israel is only occupying the land ceded to them by the U.N.  And  they have given the Palestinians far more than any other ME nation has.  Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon are products of the de-solution of the Ottoman Empire and were never nations on their own.  Israel is the only country in the region that has some historical right to their land albeit you have to go back a few centuries to find.
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Colin P said:
When Iran gets Nukes, fully expect KSA to become nuclear and I could easily see those two flinging tactical nukes at each other. Iran and Iraq fought a brutal war with 1.2 million dead including frontal attacks on machine guns, gas attacks etc. Each have enough religous nutbars willing to meet their god on what they think is  good terms.
The Arabs don't care about the Palestinians and for good reason, they bite the hands to feed them. Syria was one of the better States for Palestinians giving them almost as much rights as citizens, yet they turned on the regime and now Assad is bulldozing the "refugee camp" (Actually a city) and scattering them. Egypt could easily spare some land for them, but not only do they not give it to them, but they are even more merciless in blockading them, for the same reason as they are trying to stir up trouble in Sinai and backed the wrong horse in MB.
There is a way forward for the Palestinians, but Hamas and the PLA to a lesser extent won't take it. They want their people to be miserable and no hope, it's the only way to keep the martyrdom industry going.
Also why shouldn't Israel work to terms favourably for it? Despite all the propaganda, the Arab States have come to realize that Israeli is one of the most reliable States to deal with in the region. Israeli has had nukes since 1973 at least and yet does not go around threatening to destroy other nations existence on a almost daily basis and when there is a natural disaster in the region, Israel is always one of the first to offer help and rescue teams, even to Iran during the Bam earthquake. Israel is not perfect, but I will take their imperfections over any other country in the region in a heartbeat. 

So much to disagree with, so little time. So I'm going to stay remotely on topic and limit my remarks to:

When Iran gets Nukes, fully expect KSA to become nuclear and I could easily see those two flinging tactical nukes at each other.

Yup on KSA getting some too, maybe? Nope on the rest.
If Iran is actually attempting to obtain it's own nuclear weapons then in my opinion it would have to be a defensive strategy. That's a long way from actually being established that they're even trying. For a few reasons:

There was no evidence found when the inspections were taking place.
It is claimed that Iran's Islamic regime won't tolerate Nuclear weapons on their soil
Nuclear weapons are a defensive strategy.
All signatories to the 5+1 except the US were content with the deal working.

Where is your evidence to show otherwise?

And maybe on KSA getting nukes too for a couple of reasons:

They don't need them, they have US protection.
Islam forbids them. Maybe?
Nuclear weapons are a defensive force strategy.

I cannot see any possibility of KSA and Iran flinging nukes at each other any more than seeing any possibility of NK flinging a nuke at the US. M.A.D. is my offer of evidence. That which you're suggesting is that all those countries that are demonized by the US are ruled by madmen who would commit suicide for either religious reasons or some insane ideological reason, is pure baloney.
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Donald H said:
Hi Shawn. Are being dictated by Israel and it's need for living space. Small distinction.

Well it could be but it's not. Do you think there's a shred of doubt that Israel needs more living space and is intent on getting it? Is there any other explanations for the settlements on Palestinian lands as outlined by 181?

Agreed not good but in any case has ensured no WW3 for 75 years and is likely our only hope for another 75. (nuclear gun as in M.A.D.

:cheers:

Israel does have historical ties to the region. Arabs are the new comers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top