patrick.net

rdm says

Foreign policy by the whim of the moment. First you (Trump) pull out of a deal the Iranians were complying with, put crippling sanctions on a country of 60 million people. Why? To what end? I guess you expected love letters like with Kim? Then Iranians react, plant a few mines, shoot down a drone, and you dont know what to do because you never had a coherent policy in the first place. While Bolten and Graham and their ilk did and it was war and they are pushing you toward war because of the very predictable incidents that your actions have created. Maybe at the last minute you realized you were being played. I doubt it. More likely you could see your 2020 reelection going up in smoke. The American people don't want a war with Iran and neither do you, try to remember that dumb ass.

A semi sober Hey You?

CovfefeButDeadly says

semi sober Hey You?

is that even possible?

Rin says

That's your MOAB type of bomb. Nukes can easily take out a million.

If set of in the ME by Iran, will also affect them as well.

rdm says

a deal the Iranians were complying with,

Never signed a deal.

Rin says

Ok, after two years in office, Trump is still not a war monger unlike all his predecessors, Republican or Democrat.

Bullshit.

* Bloated defense spending approved
* Troops still in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and military bases around the world.

The fact that he even considered an attack when OUR drone got shot down for being in close proximity to their country is as imperialist as you get. We have actively engaged in destabilizing Iran multiple times going back to the Shah, caused chaos in countries bordering Iran, and recently attempted a false flag against them in the Gulf.

The MIC is alive and well under the Trump regime.

I guarantee this "restraint" will be used as leverage to justify an attack on Iran in the near future. They're trying to prevent us from protesting a'la 1960's, don't fall for it.

NuttBoxer says

OUR drone got shot down for being in close proximity to their country

Since when the fuck being in close proximity to someones border is a valid reason to shoot down a military aircraft?

Full-out strike for just a drone is not a right answer, but something of similar value needs to be destroyed. A corvette, an oil platform, 5-6 torpedo boats, this kind of thing.

Hugolas_Madurez says

Since when the fuck being in close proximity to someones border is a valid reason to shoot down a military aircraft?

So you'd have no problem with Russia or Iran constantly flying drones around our borders? Or how 'bout setting up 20 some military bases along the Mexican and Canadian borders? Then they impose sanctions on us. Then they attack Mexico, throwing a border country into chaos, and really upping the illegal migration? And say they are doing all this less than 100 years after deposing one of our presidents through covert ops. Still feeling like it was unprovoked?

I guess Pearl Harbor was just totally random too huh?

The problem with the guy is not that he's rude, but he is neither acting out of principles, nor out of pragmatism. He's acting based on impulses. The guy is flying by the seat of his pants.
You may feel it went the right way this time, but remember, he did bomb Syria, for somewhat vacuous reasons, maybe just to do the opposite of Obama did in a similar situation.

NuttBoxer says

So you'd have no problem with Russia or Iran constantly flying drones around our borders?

They (Russian fucks that is) fly fucking strategic bombers around our borders but it's still legal by international law.

Heraclitusstudent says

maybe just to do the opposite of Obama did in a similar situation.

It’s not like you can go wrong with that strategy.

A drone shot down is annoying; killing 150+ as a response is an act of war.

We aren’t at war with Iran, so it’s good that Trump showed restraint.

Trump just doesn't want to admit that the drones are still programmed with IHLlary's fingerprint.

OccasionalCortex says

So the context of bringing up Pearl Harbor is not a good one to use as an analogy here.

I guess you aren't aware of the US led economic sanctions on Japan that directly preceded Pearl Harbor...

Hugolas_Madurez says

They (Russian fucks that is) fly fucking strategic bombers around our borders but it's still legal by international law.

Fuck international law. If a country is making overt overtones of wanting to attack American soil, I say we fuck up anything that gets too close.

Has anyone confirmed that the drone was not in Iran airspace, or making actions like it was about to fire into Iran?

clambo says

A drone shot down is annoying; killing 150+ as a response is an act of war.

We aren’t at war with Iran, so it’s good that Trump showed restraint.

So why did he get within 10 min of starting a war?
All impulses. First: "I'll show them", then at the last moment "Ok, maybe not, call it off.".

"Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif announced late Thursday that parts of the drone had been recovered in Iranian territorial waters, as Tehran moved to bring the incident before the United Nations.

"We don't seek war, but will zealously defend our skies, land & waters," Zarif said."

Whom to believe...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-says-will-take-drone-incident-to-un-to-show-us-lying/ar-AADaTvX

What fun would it be to fly drones over international waters?

Several of you guys are in the right even though you are disagreeing. Trump did the right thing and we need to get out of middle east and leave these people to run things the way they want. We have all the oil we need so why are we still over there, what country or group is trying to keep us involved in this shit hole part of the world?

NuttBoxer says

I guess you aren't aware of the US led economic sanctions on Japan that directly preceded Pearl Harbor...

Do you think the US sanctioned Japan just for shits and giggles?

Are you aware that Japan invaded Manchuria, China and Indochina and formally made alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy before the US issued sanctions?

Are you aware of the total brutality the Japanese inflicted upon the people they conquered?

Seriously, are you suggesting that Japan is some sort of victim here and the US was the aggressor?

NuttBoxer says

Rin says

Ok, after two years in office, Trump is still not a war monger unlike all his predecessors, Republican or Democrat.

Bullshit.

* Bloated defense spending approved
* Troops still in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and military bases around the world.

The fact that he even considered an attack when OUR drone got shot down for being in close proximity to their country is as imperialist as you get. We have actively engaged in destabilizing Iran multiple times going back to the Shah, caused chaos in countries bordering Iran, and recently attempted a false flag against them in the Gulf.

The MIC is alive and well under the Trump regime.

I'm calling BS on this because for the most part, since the height of the Cold War (see Korea), the Pentagon has been running things.

And thus, the best that anyone in Congress or the Presidency can do, is to contain it, before it erupts into WWIII.

So yes, NO PRESIDENT will go cold turkey on the military-industrial complex but instead, will find a way of containing it. At the moment, Trump has done a far better job here than any of his predecessors.

CovfefeButDeadly says

Patrick says

I'm happy the US did not start another war yet, but still suspicious that Trump will ultimately do whatever the Saudis tell him to do.

You think it’s ok for the Iranians to have nukes? An Iranian nuke strike kills tens of thousands of US or our allies, most likely many more.

No, I didn't say that, only that Saudi Arabia is by far the greater threat to American lives.

They killed thousands of us on 9/11, and got away with it because all of our politicians are in their pockets.

They can easily get nukes from Pakistan, and they would have absolutely no moral restraint in using them to kill far more of us than they did on 9/11.

Rin says

NO PRESIDENT will go cold turkey on the military-industrial complex but instead, will find a way of containing it. At the moment, Trump has done a far better job here than any of his predecessors.

It seems we aren't talking about cold turkey, nor even luke warm turkey. The MIC, under Trump, is having a full blown Thanksgiving dinner at the Ritz. BTW how's that swamp draining going?

"Since coming into office a little more than a year ago, the Trump administration—with help from the Republican-controlled Congress—has added more than $200 billion to the projected levels of defense spending for fiscal years 2017 through 2019. Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump added $15 billion to former President Barack Obama’s FY 2017 budget, and he proposed a FY 2018 budget of $639 billion. This represented an increase of $56 billion, or 10 percent, over the proposed FY 2017 budget.

As part of the recent deal to keep the government open, Congress agreed to increase the FY 2018 defense budget to $700 billion—an increase of $108 billion, or 18 percent, above the proposed 2017 budget—and the FY 2019 budget to $716 billion. This means that since Trump took office, the defense budget will have grown by $133 billion, or 23 percent.

It will also bring the FY 2019 defense budget, in real terms, to a level not seen since FY 2010, when the United States still had more than 200,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and was spending $163 billion on the wars. These massive increases are for the most part unnecessary and counterproductive. Moreover, the Trump administration’s policy of significantly increasing defense spending while enacting massive tax cuts and reductions to other federal programs that contribute to national security will actually undermine this country’s security in the end."

Missed news for a few days, didn't know there was all this drama with Iran. I guess it passed.

Heraclitusstudent says

The problem with the guy is not that he's rude, but he is neither acting out of principles, nor out of pragmatism. He's acting based on impulses. The guy is flying by the seat of his pants.

You still believe he survives 365-24-7 x4 all out attacks by the World Media, the Deep State, etc. and simply is a Happy Amateur? No chance.

But I'm glad the Press & Status Quo Admin still think so. Shows you how incompetent their analysis is, too.

NuttBoxer says

I guess you aren't aware of the US led economic sanctions on Japan that directly preceded Pearl Harbor...

After they invaded China on bullshit pretexts, endangering our interests and dramatically altering the balance of power in the Pacific.

OccasionalCortex says

1) Show me the written 'deal' with their signature on it. Good luck with that as there was never any such thing.

2) They weren't even complying with the imaginary deal you keep insisting that was real, anyway.

And the 10,000 pages of docs, including their memos about how they were going to begin enrichment the moment the few months of inspections stopped. And after they pocketed their Obamacash.

rdm says

These massive increases are for the most part unnecessary and counterproductive. Moreover, the Trump administration’s policy of significantly increasing defense spending

Actually, that's exactly how one operates the Pentagon, give 'em cash but don't let 'em create wars on their own. Otherwise, chances are, one will end up like JFK.

When Vietnam was in the quagmire, see Johnson-McNamara-Westmoreland era, Nixon inherited the whole thing but then, ordered attacks on the Ho Chi Minh trail in Cambodia/Laos (which was done clandestinely earlier & no one mentions that), strategic bombings in the North, thus making the Paris Peace Accord happen by '72.

And no, there was no "Vietnamization" during Westmoreland's time, as the US didn't equip the South Vietnamese to fight on their own earlier so yes, it took those extra 3 years to finish the war.

The primary reason why Saigon fell in spring of '75 was that Congress stopped resupplying the South Vietnamese army once the entire US army was already out of there by '74. Without an industry of their own, the opponent, the North side, was able to re-arm thanks to Chinese support and we know the rest of the story.

socal2 says

Are you aware that Japan invaded Manchuria, China and Indochina and formally made alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy before the US issued sanctions?

Are you aware of the total brutality the Japanese inflicted upon the people they conquered?

Seriously, are you suggesting that Japan is some sort of victim here and the US was the aggressor?

What the fuck does any of that have to do with us? Ohh, we're imperialists, I forgot. The US needed an excuse to enter the war and Hitler didn't take the bait when we sunk his subs. This was plan B. Pearl Harbor was premeditated murder, by the US.

HonkpilledMaster says

After they invaded China on bullshit pretexts, endangering our interests and dramatically altering the balance of power in the Pacific.

Good to know you fully support us intervening in everyone else's business. Iraq, justified, Afganistan, justified, Syria, totally justified, Iran...

Rin says

The primary reason why Saigon fell in spring of '75 was that Congress stopped resupplying the South Vietnamese army once the entire US army was already out of there by '74.

Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.

"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.

Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.

Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.

The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.

Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.

As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150

Rin says

The primary reason why Saigon fell in spring of '75 was that Congress stopped resupplying the South Vietnamese army once the entire US army was already out of there by '74.

Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.

"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.

Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.

Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.

The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.

Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.

As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150

Rin says

The primary reason why Saigon fell in spring of '75 was that Congress stopped resupplying the South Vietnamese army once the entire US army was already out of there by '74.

Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.

"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.

Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.

Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.

The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.

Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.

As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150

I'm not sure, I knew a South Vietnamese officer who was among the lucky ones to get out before the '75 collapse and later settled down in the Boston area.

His experience was that by mid '74, the average soldier had up to 3 magazines per week vs the usual of 7-8 when the US army was still there prior to the closure of "Vietnamization".

In effect, he echoed let's call it the Republican spiel, that the South was reduced to a poor man's war whereas the North was armed to the teeth. And the North did take their time, throughout '74, testing the South incrementally, making sure that they didn't have enough counter firepower before the grand offensive in the spring.

So I'm sure when 'rationing' kicked in, the ones who already had the pre-existing armory, didn't share it and thus, the fact that funds were getting cut from above, did abet the collapse of the South's defenses.

NuttBoxer says

I guess you aren't aware of the US led economic sanctions on Japan that directly preceded Pearl Harbor...

Weren't those sanctions in response to Japan's militairy expansion in Asia?

HonkpilledMaster says

You still believe he survives 365-24-7 x4 all out attacks by the World Media, the Deep State, etc. and simply is a Happy Amateur? No chance.

Granted he can wrestle the media into the mud, but that's the only thing he's good at.
I wish the foreign policy of this country was not led solely for US media appearances.

NuttBoxer says

Good to know you fully support us intervening in everyone else's business. Iraq, justified, Afganistan, justified, Syria, totally justified, Iran...

Fallacy of the excluded Middle. We exported a ton of shit to China and had lots of Christian Missionary Work going on there. Pearl S Buck was the daughter of a famous missionary. The Japanese invaded that country on the bullshit pretext of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, which nobody considers to be anything less than a False Flag by the IJA, and all we did was impose sanctions for their unjustified war of Aggression. Then the Japs strafed our gunboat that was escorting our legal, neutral shipping.

I'm not a hyper-interventionist, but I'm not a "let's sit on our ass when really bad shit happens."

US Sanctions on Japan for invading China with no causus belli was NOT a justification for the Japanese to invade US Territories of the Phillipenes, Guam, and bomb Hawaii (as well as invade British Malaysia, New Guinea, New Holland, Dutch Indonesia, etc.), as well as launch fire balloons into the West Coast of the USA.

We should have declared war on Imperial Germany years before the Lusitania, they were paying Mexican bandits to raid the US, poisoning our horses, blowing up our ports and ships, etc. when we were neutral. We busted dozens of saboteur and spy rings, intercepted plenty of communications, had plenty of insider turncoats with the documents, the evidence was incontrovertible. Wilson was a pussy.

Trump is doing fine dicking with Iran's computers in return for the drone downing. That's an equivalent response. Though yesterday Verizon had issues around 9AM EST for a minute or so.

The Middle East is rapidly improving. The big obstacle is the Muslim Brotherhood-Russo-Iranian-Palestinian-Hezbollah Axis which doesn't want a more fundamentally stable Middle East because it removes their leverage.

Some positions here seem like world peace is an actual possibility if we just tuck it between our legs. Human civilization has been in CONSTANT conflict the entire time. The USA will always be in conflict somewhere, as will many other countries.

We're not perfect, but if you don't like being top dog, move to Iran and give 'em a hand. We can sanction whoever we want and the world knows it. They can fucking sanction us too. This isn't a one way street. The fact remains that world population has increased massively and we're in one of the most peaceful times in recorded history. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

We've fought and done stupid stuff with regards to conflict for sure. But some of the naysayers need to wake up and realize things could look a lot different, not just for us, but everyone in the world if we hadn't done what we've done in the past. If you think we're a bully and don't like bullying, leave. Or if you think you're a geopolitical expert and can help lead to more peaceful times than now, get off Patnet and drain the Pentagon swamp if things are sooooo bad. Otherwise enjoy what is some of the most peaceful times this planet has seen.