My beliefs are totally irrelevant, as are your beliefs. What I’m trying to convey to you is that you may as well howl at the moon; we’ve no idea what the strategic thinking was behind eliminating this Iranian General and we never will. It almost certainly was not Trump’s idea, and we cannot tell what the consequences might be. Carping on Rail UK or Twitter changes not a thing.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency
- Thread starter backontrack
- Start date
My beliefs are totally irrelevant, as are your beliefs. What I’m trying to convey to you is that you may as well howl at the moon; we’ve no idea what the strategic thinking was behind eliminating this Iranian General and we never will. It almost certainly was not Trump’s idea, and we cannot tell what the consequences might be. Carping on Rail UK or Twitter changes not a thing.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Oh, the strategic thinking (such as it was) was to provoke a shooting war with Iran. There are neocons who have been pushing for this since the overthrow of the Shah.
And this opinion is based upon....?
TrafficEng
Member
You've very kindly supported the point I was making.
"...what most people will understand 'assassinate' to mean..." illustrates that the term is subjective and open to interpretation since some people (not sure where you get 'most' from) understand it to mean one thing, whereas other people have different understandings. After all, within this small discussion thread there is not even agreement on whether all assassinations are unlawful.
Therefore the BBC have chosen to report the story on a subjective (rather than factual) basis. And in doing so have used a word which in common usage defines the act as unlawful.
The source wasn't my choice. I was only pointing out that the same source used by someone else to challenge my 'unlawful by definition' claim does indeed confirm that it is an unlawful act. There is no 'indirectness' involved in this. The source defines "assassination" as a form of murder, and defines "murder" as a crime of unlawfully killing a person. Ergo "assassination" is unlawful.
Obviously if someone can demonstrate that "most people" believe assassination is lawful I would have to reconsider my own understanding of the word.
So you agree that the lawfulness of the action has not yet been determined - the very point I was making. In which case, the BBC should not be using a word which legally is understood to refer to a crime, even if it is accepted that "most people" think it means something else.
So on the one hand you think a word ("assassination") is ok because most people think it means something other than the formal/legal definition, but then you object to a commonly used word (which most people would say means "cause the death of") because when used on its own it doesn't precisely define the premeditation of that death.
If people are supposed to understand that "assassination" isn't meant as a comment on the lawfulness or otherwise of a killing, then surely the same people would understand that using "kill" isn't a comment on the premeditation?
Anyway, in the context of this situation, a much better description would be "targeted killing". The internet abounds with scholarly articles on the differences between "targeted killing" and "assassination". The former is a much better fit. Obama was certainly happy to use it.
Err... 40 plus years of US policy.
It does not.
It appears that there was no strategic thinking behind it at all. It's been reported that multiple sources have confirmed that killing Soleiman was only included on the list of possible actions as a distractor - to make the option that they (the Pentagon and the National Security team) really wanted to go with seem more palatable. But then he chose it and they had to go with it since he is the Commander in Chief.
DaleCooper
Established Member
The only prize Trump deserves is a gold medal for narcissism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149
Bantamzen
Established Member
Well unsurprisingly Donald J Trump has not been removed from office, with just one Republican senator voting against him on one article of impeachment. However I am the only person to be concerned by the fact that one of the main lines made in his defence in the Senate trial was that yes he did it, but that's OK because he thought it was in the interest of his country? Because it occurs to me that a dangerous precedent has been set there, with the emphasis on if a President "thinks" it is in the national interest.
Are you a President in trouble? Are you planning a trade war, or some illegal military action? Thinking about nuking your political enemies into oblivion, or maybe anyone else that says nasty things about you? Don't worry, just say "I think its in the national interest", and you'll get a 'Get out of jail' pass and $200.....
Are you a President in trouble? Are you planning a trade war, or some illegal military action? Thinking about nuking your political enemies into oblivion, or maybe anyone else that says nasty things about you? Don't worry, just say "I think its in the national interest", and you'll get a 'Get out of jail' pass and $200.....
DaleCooper
Established Member
It seems the rule of law no longer applies in America, it's become a third world autocracy. Their politicians are a disgrace to the civilised world.
It is an absolutely crazy line of defence.
DaleCooper
Established Member
It's not crazy, it's corrupt.
What a farce, the impeachment trial should have been carried out by an independent panel.
If a judge did something wrong and ended up in court you would have some one else presiding, not the judge that is the defendant!
Of course trump will see this as him being vindicated and proof that he did nothing wrong, although nothing can be farther from the truth.
The problem I can see for the Republicans going forward is trump will end up doing something that it indefensible esp. now as he believes he can do what he likes and get away with it, the smart people would have gotten rid of him now before they get taken down with him.
If a judge did something wrong and ended up in court you would have some one else presiding, not the judge that is the defendant!
Of course trump will see this as him being vindicated and proof that he did nothing wrong, although nothing can be farther from the truth.
The problem I can see for the Republicans going forward is trump will end up doing something that it indefensible esp. now as he believes he can do what he likes and get away with it, the smart people would have gotten rid of him now before they get taken down with him.
DaleCooper
Established Member
Fast forward to 2025
"All hail the great leader and president for life, Donald Trump."
"All hail the great leader and president for life, Donald Trump."
SteveP29
Member
Bantamzen
Established Member
What is worse is that the path the Republican party has taken on this impeachment road. First he wasn't guilty, he didn't do anything wrong, there was "no quid pro quo". Then they shifted a bit to say that that he was leaning on the Ukraine president a bit, but it was to stop corruption there. Then the White House shifted again to say well yes there was "quid pro quo", but it happens all the time and its all fine. And then they moved from maybe he was a bit wrong to do it, but its not so bad really is it, up to yesterday's position from some Republican senators of yeah it was wrong, but he won't do it again....
So yeah, its crazy, its corrupt, its the stuff of banana republics, not the so-called "leader of the free world". And now Trump will feel more empowered than ever, he'll be more inclined to do what he wants, and as @DaleCooper suggests above, he might even try to end the two term rule. No wonder he likes Kim Jong-Un so much, he's been taking notes on how to be the perfect dictator...
Somebody please tell me this has all been a big reality television stunt....
So yeah, its crazy, its corrupt, its the stuff of banana republics, not the so-called "leader of the free world". And now Trump will feel more empowered than ever, he'll be more inclined to do what he wants, and as @DaleCooper suggests above, he might even try to end the two term rule. No wonder he likes Kim Jong-Un so much, he's been taking notes on how to be the perfect dictator...
Somebody please tell me this has all been a big reality television stunt....
433N
Guest
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2017
- Messages
- 752
Remembering how the Republicans pretty much held their noses to put Trump forward as their Presidential candidate 4 years ago, I would have thought that this were the perfect opportunity to get rid of him ... but they didn't. Which makes me wonder what has changed in 4 years. Is he tolerated because whilst he is playing the class clown, those behind him can push their agenda through with less resistance ? Or is it that Trump has become flameproof and even other Republicans are scared of the electoral consequences if they get rid of the public's Beloved Donald ?
I'm really hoping (but not hopeful) that Americans come to their senses by November, though I don't think that Bernie Sanders would get enough support from the public to do it.
I'm really hoping (but not hopeful) that Americans come to their senses by November, though I don't think that Bernie Sanders would get enough support from the public to do it.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
This whole thing was a complete waste of time. The Democrats are still trying to treat Trump as a normal politician. He isnt. He doesn't care. While a normal politician might have been forced out by the scandal Trump wont be. He can only be beaten using the same sort of tactics he employs.
The Democrats lack a credible candidate.
The Democrats lack a credible candidate.
433N
Guest
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2017
- Messages
- 752
... so do the Republicans.
I thought received wisdom was that anyone but Hilary Clinton would have beaten Trump last time. Where has 'anyone' gone ?
Bantamzen
Established Member
By a jury that didn't review the evidence, didn't call for additional witnesses as more potentially important information came to light, who preceded the trial by saying that they would not be impartial, and worst of all who appear to have been threatened by the defendant.
Its like having a Mafia boss go to trial, have him bribe & threaten the jury, hold onto all the evidence, to then have the jury announce before the trial that he's going to get off scott free. No wait it isn't like it, it is exactly this. Don 'El Presidente' Trump has been found not guilty of letting the trial have an impartial hearing. My only hope for the US is that enough of it's people wake up from the personality cult & see just where things are going, and get out to remove him in November.
DaleCooper
Established Member
Independence isn't necessary. Honesty, ethics and respect for the law are necessary but totally absent.
I agree. The issue is that, for the GOP at least, power is more important than anything else.
Kite159
Veteran Member
Depends who eventually wins the democrat nomination if they are a creditable person to go up against Trump
Bantamzen
Established Member
At this point I'd say they don't even need a credible nominee, just someone not as corrupt as Trump. However, American politics is deeply polarised at the moment & I'd say Trump is still in with a good shout, even though at any other time he'd have been out on his ear.
Kite159
Veteran Member
Some will vote for the republicans regardless who is the nominate for president, likewise there are some who will vote for the democrats regardless, hard-wired as "I've always voted this way"
Bantamzen
Established Member
True enough. The problem for the Democrats is that they are having a terrible time trying to whittle down from the couple of dozen initial candidates to a couple of viable ones. And when they do Bernie Sanders is likely to be one, and he will further polarise the two parties, frankly giving Trump's campaign an easy "socialist" target, something a lot of swing voters might be persuaded to vote against. What they need is someone way closer to the centre ground, someone who can sweep up the inbetweeners from under Trump's nose. Ironically the one person that springs to mind is a Republican who is about to feel the full wrath of Trump's Twitter rage. Is it too late for Mitt Romney to defect....?
If they do end up with Sanders, surely they'll be making themselves every bit as unelectable as Labour here made itself with Corbyn? Have they not looked on and learnt over the last few years? The way in which the two countries, one either side of the Atlantic, that have for a long time tried to parade themselves as examples to the world of democratic politics (however much that was actually challengeable in both cases) now present a pitiful picture of failing democracy characterised by lies at the top.True enough. The problem for the Democrats is that they are having a terrible time trying to whittle down from the couple of dozen initial candidates to a couple of viable ones. And when they do Bernie Sanders is likely to be one, and he will further polarise the two parties, frankly giving Trump's campaign an easy "socialist" target, something a lot of swing voters might be persuaded to vote against. What they need is someone way closer to the centre ground, someone who can sweep up the inbetweeners from under Trump's nose. Ironically the one person that springs to mind is a Republican who is about to feel the full wrath of Trump's Twitter rage. Is it too late for Mitt Romney to defect....?