President Elect Trump watch

On call with Australian prime minister, Trump badgers and brags

It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief — a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies.

Instead, President Trump boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.

At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladimir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”
Click to expand...
And this bit is just tremendous:
U.S. officials said that he used his calls with Turnbull and Peña Nieto to mention his election win or the size of the crowd at his inauguration.
Click to expand...

Eric Cartman, President of the United States of America.
image.jpg
 
Robert said:
Trump did say "You have to take out their families".
Nice to see him putting his promise of collective punishment into practice by murdering an 8 year old girl.

You guys must be so proud (or turned on, if that's your thang).
Click to expand...
More on this Trump-approved slaughter of kids:
US says raid was 'very thought-out process'
White House spokesman Sean Spicer told journalists: "It's hard to ever call something a complete success when you have a loss of life or people injured."
"But I think when you look at the totality of what was gained to prevent the future loss of life... I think it's a successful operation in all standards."

He made no mention of civilian victims.
Click to expand...
Of course he didn't, the murder-enabling bastard.
"It's a successful operation in all standards."
Earlier on Thursday, Reprieve said a newborn baby was among 10 children killed in the attack.

US military Central Command on Wednesday acknowledged that a number of civilians had been "likely killed in the midst of a firefight".
Click to expand...
 
Robert said:
More on this Trump-approved slaughter of kids:
US says raid was 'very thought-out process'
Click to expand...

This raid was planned by the Obama Administration, Ash Carter had approved of the raid, the SEALs wanted to wait for a moonless night and this was the first one that occurred after approval, which happened to be after the Obama term was over.

Raid planners had hoped the element of surprise (a moonless night, with helicopter insertion ) would enable the military personel to make their way to the target building undetected. As the raid actually developed the element of surprise was lost early on and a fierce and long-running firefight resulted, including substantial intermixing of Al Qaeda fighters (including female fighters) mixing with civilians and using them as human shields. It is now suspected that Al Qaeda had been tipped off, ( possibly by one of the UAE troops ) and were prepared for the raid, including the positioning of civilian shields

How can the president be held responsible for a raid planned and coordinated by a combat unit?

The basic rule of military command is that a unit commander is responsible for everything the unit does or fails to do. The fault, if there is any, for this mission lies squarely on the planning staff that produced the operation order and the unit commander. Intelligence in combat operations is never absolute and it is never perfect. At some point a decision is made by the planners that the mission outcome is either worth the risk or not worth the risk. That risk assessment is not made by the President. The blame for, if any, for poor planning is at CENTCOM
 
metalman said:
How can the president be held responsible for a raid planned and coordinated by a combat unit?
Click to expand...

Very simply: He authorised it.

Anyway, he's only doing what he said he'd do by killing the families of terrorists.

Aren't you happy he is keeping another one of his promises?
My guess is you - and every other Trump fan on this site - is perfectly OK with the policy of collective punishment, since none of you criticised it when it was discussed before. (As long as it's *Trump's* collective punishment policy - Obama's version is despicable, of course.)
And if that means illegally entering sovereign nations to murder babies and eight year old girls? Hey, don't turn all snowflake now! ;)
 
US sanctions Iran

Don't know if Putin will be too happy with that.
Guess Trump has realised who he really needs to keep happy and it ain't Vlad:
Saudi Arabia's senior military advisor, Brigadier General Ahmed al Assiri, told the BBC it was time to change Iran's behaviour in the region.
Click to expand...

His cabinet of anti-Iranian bampots meant this was always a possibility but I'd hoped Putin might be able to reign him in a bit.

Ah well, looks like I might have to get used to you lot telling me how Iran has it coming, etc.

Meet the new boss....
 
Robert said:
Very simply: He authorised it.
Click to expand...
And in doing so he is just keeping the policy continuity from the Obama administration who carried it on from Bush.The only real difference is the press will (presumably) take Trump to task for it where they would have let Obama off the hook - because the press plays favourites. On the other hand, if Trump bombs enough people the press may decide he isn't so bad after all and they will love him again.
 
Robert said:
Guess Trump has realised who he really needs to keep happy and it ain't Vlad:
Click to expand...
His very quick action on Keystone XL said that he had put his lot in with the oil men, and for some reason the oilmen are really interested in rearranging the middle east.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
His very quick action on Keystone XL said that he had put his lot in with the oil men, and for some reason the oilmen are really interested in rearranging the middle east.
Click to expand...

Which is kind of ironic, given the fears that it was Clinton who would piss off Russia.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
And in doing so he is just keeping the policy continuity from the Obama administration who carried it on from Bush.The only real difference is the press will (presumably) take Trump to task for it where they would have let Obama off the hook - because the press plays favourites.
Click to expand...

There is another, far more important (IMO) difference.
None of them, not even Bush, publicly called for collective punishment before dishing it out.
Trump is legitimising it.
 
Robert said:
Which is kind of ironic, given the fears that it was Clinton who would piss off Russia.
Click to expand...
Ironic-ish but it wasn't "fears that [...Clinton...] would piss off Russia" but that Clinton had made direct statements that she was ready and willing to act against Russia by all means including military and for a multitude of "reasons".
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
IMO he is just "clarifying" what we already knew to be the case. That's almost refreshing.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's refreshing at all. Quite the opposite. I think it's a disturbing indication of where we're heading.
The man is legitimising the murder of children as an objective, rather than a side effect.
I also have to confess to being somewhat surprised that you seem perfectly happy to support someone like that, regardless of whether we already knew.
 
Robert said:
My guess is you - and every other Trump fan on this site - is perfectly OK with the policy of collective punishment, since none of you criticised it when it was discussed before. (As long as it's *Trump's* collective punishment policy - Obama's version is despicable, of course.)
Click to expand...

Since when did you become the hero of children? Last time I checked you were a fan of killing kids up to at least 3 years old. Besides a 10+ year history of discussing the topic over various boards, you were active in a thread here discussing a certain ethics journal suggesting abortion should be extended to 3 full years after a live birth. That means killing fully healthy 3 year old children, on the whim of the parents as "after birth abortion". Glaucus made the following comment, which you certainly had no problem with. As a matter of fact I can count the vocal pro-life members on one hand and have fingers left over, whom have ever posted to Whyzzat.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but prior cultures have dealt with this sort of thing since the dawn of time. The Spartans were famous for killing babies with abnormalities that other neighboring Greek states would have accepted. The Inuit in Northern Canada were also known to leave babies out in the deadly cold for any reason including as a form of population control. Of course, many other North American cultures would also expect the son to kill the father at a certain age (resulting in some interesting Canadian court cases). Many of these "customs" were born out of necessity, so for these people it was all morally justified (in fact not doing so was considered the greater sin).

The point is that there is no absolute moral code. Attempting to discuss such issues with morality as your anchor only tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

That post got thumbs up and you kept quiet. Why is it you suddenly care about this one kid being killed, who was being used as a human shield by known terrorists? Even if we ignore the countless millions of babies slaughtered in abortion, why does this one kid has so much more importance than all the other casualties of war over time? Is it because your telly told you to care about this one kid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top