Trump's accomplishments

Did we ever figure out what wars Obama started? I only ask because it's a question of whether not starting wars was a Trump accomplishment or yet another Obama trend that he built on.
 
Upchurch said:
Did we ever figure out what wars Obama started? I only ask because it's a question of whether not starting wars was a Trump accomplishment or yet another Obama trend that he built on.
Click to expand...

Primarily Libya, he also supported the Saudi adventure in Yemen.
 
ahhell said:
Did we ever figure out what wars Obama started? I only ask because it's a question of whether not starting wars was a Trump accomplishment or yet another Obama trend that he built on.
Click to expand...
Primarily Libya, he also supported the Saudi adventure in Yemen.
Click to expand...
You could also claim the war against ISIS.

Of course, I think its a bit unfair to assign blame to Obama for any of those. The U.S. response in Libya was due to a civil war that the U.S. did not initiate (so Obama did not 'start' the war, just engaged in an existing conflict, largely for humanitarian reasons), and ISIS came up in part because of instabilities initiated under Bush.
 
Segnosaur said:
You could also claim the war against ISIS.

Of course, I think its a bit unfair to assign blame to Obama for any of those. The U.S. response in Libya was due to a civil war that the U.S. did not initiate (so Obama did not 'start' the war, just engaged in an existing conflict, largely for humanitarian reasons), and ISIS came up in part because of instabilities initiated under Bush.
Click to expand...

More specifically, Libya was a NATO effort that was largely meant to avoid another refugee crisis, along with the usual regional hatreds Once Qadafi threatened to level Benghazi entirely

(Yes, I know, but he did)

The entire thing was pretty much an emergency move.

And yeah on ISIS. TThe whole "Obama started so many warz!!!" thing was generally "Okay, we've been asked to strike ISIS in these countries, to intervene in this emergency, and so forth." It was mostly people who insisted, despite what Obama himself said, that he was "against wars", and then were clearly unconcerned with what a war actually is. Which is why they stopped screaming about drones as soon as Obama left, despite Dolt 45 ramping up drone strikes and decreasing transparency.

(This is not to say that I have no problems with how drones are used by both the military and the CIA - it's something that should ideally be addressed and restricted by congress, rather than left to the president to decide higgly-piggly, but since the GOP congressfolk have been worthless for anything apart from scamming and bigotry since Obama was inaugurated, here we are.)
 
There's a narrative knocking around that Trump's popularity does highlight something in US politics/society that is not getting addressed and needs to be. It takes a generous reading of some of his support because it's hard to get away from the post-Obama race backlash, which in one way or another accounts for much of his popularity.

However there may be something in the anti-elite, tearing-down-the-institutions populism that may be addressing something important (even if he just replaced many of these things with lobbyists with their own big business agendas). The obvious answer would seem to me to be the growing economic inequalities (and in the case of Trump's support, largely putting the blame in the wrong places). But maybe that's missing something or only a part of the issue.

Does anyone have any insights on why Trump was perceived to be some kind of solution and a solution to what? And did he take us any closer to those things?
 
Mumbles said:
More specifically, Libya was a NATO effort that was largely meant to avoid another refugee crisis
Click to expand...

It failed in that respect. And frankly in pretty much every respect.

But worst of all, it was a strategic blunder of monumental proportions, whose consequences will be felt for decades, though rarely acknowledged. Quadafi had done what we most wanted him to do: give up his WMD program. And what did we do? We toppled him. The message that sent to every other dictator on the planet is to never, ever, EVER give up a WMD program, because that will be your downfall. The American public might not be paying attention to that message, but I guarantee that North Korea and Iran heard it loud and clear.
 
Ziggurat said:
It failed in that respect. And frankly in pretty much every respect.
Click to expand...
Veering way off topic, but it was a no-good-options situation with European NATO allies planning to go in with or without the the US. Hard to say if not getting involved would have been any better.

Ziggurat said:
But worst of all, it was a strategic blunder of monumental proportions, whose consequences will be felt for decades, though rarely acknowledged. Quadafi had done what we most wanted him to do: give up his WMD program. And what did we do? We toppled him. The message that sent to every other dictator on the planet is to never, ever, EVER give up a WMD program, because that will be your downfall. The American public might not be paying attention to that message, but I guarantee that North Korea and Iran heard it loud and clear.
Click to expand...

I do, however, agree with this assessment.
 
Ziggurat said:
It failed in that respect. And frankly in pretty much every respect.

But worst of all, it was a strategic blunder of monumental proportions, whose consequences will be felt for decades, though rarely acknowledged. Quadafi had done what we most wanted him to do: give up his WMD program. And what did we do? We toppled him. The message that sent to every other dictator on the planet is to never, ever, EVER give up a WMD program, because that will be your downfall. The American public might not be paying attention to that message, but I guarantee that North Korea and Iran heard it loud and clear.
Click to expand...

Which is why Iran never signed the JCPOA.

Wait...
 
Ziggurat said:
It's funny that you think the JCPOA actually disbanded Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Click to expand...

It in effect suspended it.

Which goes against your assessment pretty completely. They did agree to give up a WMD program for 15 years at least. Oh well, some idiot trashed the good agreement. Accomplishment?
 
tyr_13 said:
It in effect suspended it.
Click to expand...

Only partly.

Which goes against your assessment pretty completely.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

They did agree to give up a WMD program for 15 years at least.
Click to expand...

By your own admission, they didn't even agree to that. They gave up nothing.

Oh well, some idiot trashed the good agreement. Accomplishment?
Click to expand...

Good agreement? Wow, that's naive.
 
Ziggurat said:
Only partly.



No, it doesn't.



By your own admission, they didn't even agree to that. They gave up nothing.



Good agreement? Wow, that's naive.
Click to expand...


They gave up the needed components of their nuclear weapon program, so they gave up the program. For fifteen years. Libya gave theirs up in 2003. Iran agreed to give up their capacity for nuclear weapons for longer than Gaddafi (to be fair to him, it was only so short because he was killed).

Yeah, it was a good agreement. Maybe it would have been better without Libya and especially Ukraine, but it was good. But yes, brown man bad, so deal bad. Which means you think it was an accomplishment to drop it.

Oh no, you think I'm naive. How will I live.
 
tyr_13 said:
They gave up the needed components of their nuclear weapon program
Click to expand...

No, they did not.

Yeah, it was a good agreement.
Click to expand...

Which is why the Obama administration had to lie about it in order to sell it.

Maybe it would have been better without Libya and especially Ukraine, but it was good. But yes, brown man bad, so deal bad.
Click to expand...

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ziggurat said:
No, they did not.



Which is why the Obama administration had to lie about it in order to sell it.



Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...

Yes they did, :rolleyes:, and no accusation of racism. It was just mockery of the tired GOP handwave that people only object to things Trump did because 'Orange man bad'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is some talk about Trump running as a Representative for his District in Florida in 2022. I didn't give it much thought but I noticed the United Spot guys did a youtube video about this exact same scenario.

As a member of the House, if Republicans take it in 2022, he could be elected Speaker, impeach Biden and Harris then as Speaker, return to being President until 2024. And legally run for President again in 2024.

Hmmm....

:yahoo
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
There is some talk about Trump running as a Representative for his District in Florida in 2022. I didn't give it much thought but I noticed the United Spot guys did a youtube video about this exact same scenario.

As a member of the House, if Republicans take it in 2022, he could be elected Speaker, impeach Biden and Harris then as Speaker, return to being President until 2024. And legally run for President again in 2024.

Hmmm....

:yahoo
Click to expand...

Fun fact 1: the Speaker of the House doesn't have to be an elected member of the House.
Fun fact 2: impeachment isn't enough, you also need a 2/3 rd conviction in the Senate.

Other than that, good and credible plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom