Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

[Bob78164]

Donny has blocked Iran's foreign minister from entering the country to address the U.N. General Assembly. This is a violation of U.S. law (passed in 1947), which requires the United States to allow entry to foreign diplomats in order to conduct business with the United Nations. --Bob

https://www.lawfareblog.com/aboutalebi- ... precedents

Thanks. So if we have a valid security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister (diplomatic embarrassment doesn't count), the denial may be defensible, and it would ultimately be subject to arbitration.

What's the security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister? --Bob

[Beebs52]

Donny has blocked Iran's foreign minister from entering the country to address the U.N. General Assembly. This is a violation of U.S. law (passed in 1947), which requires the United States to allow entry to foreign diplomats in order to conduct business with the United Nations. --Bob

https://www.lawfareblog.com/aboutalebi- ... precedents

Thanks. So if we have a valid security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister (diplomatic embarrassment doesn't count), the denial may be defensible, and it would ultimately be subject to arbitration.

What's the security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister? --Bob

You're kidding, right?

[Bob78164]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/aboutalebi- ... precedents

Thanks. So if we have a valid security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister (diplomatic embarrassment doesn't count), the denial may be defensible, and it would ultimately be subject to arbitration.

What's the security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister? --Bob

You're kidding, right?

Not even a little bit. Other than saying things to the U.N. that we don't like (which doesn't count), how do you think his presence could hurt our security? --Bob

[Beebs52]

Thanks. So if we have a valid security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister (diplomatic embarrassment doesn't count), the denial may be defensible, and it would ultimately be subject to arbitration.

What's the security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister? --Bob

You're kidding, right?

Not even a little bit. Other than saying things to the U.N. that we don't like (which doesn't count), how do you think his presence could hurt our security? --Bob

Doesn't even rate a bless yer heart.

[silverscreenselect]

What's the security reason for denying entry to Iran's foreign minister? --Bob

From Foreign Policy:

But even before the current crisis, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in recent months had sought to restrict the ability of [Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad] Zarif—a skilled debater who has studied in the United States and has extensive contacts with American journalists—to make his case to the American public during previous visits to the United States.

In July, the United States restricted his movement to a few blocks in Manhattan and Queens, preventing Zarif from making his regular visits to TV studios, universities, and think tanks. Pompeo defended the decision, noting that American diplomats lack freedom to travel in Iran. The United States broke off diplomatic relations with Iran after the revolution. Iran is permitted to maintain a diplomatic outpost in midtown Manhattan to conduct U.N. business.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/06/tr ... y-council/

[Estonut]

Donny has blocked Iran's foreign minister from entering the country to address the U.N. General Assembly. This is a violation of U.S. law (passed in 1947), which requires the United States to allow entry to foreign diplomats in order to conduct business with the United Nations. --Bob

https://www.lawfareblog.com/aboutalebi- ... precedents

I am SHOCKED that Bob didn't run across while doing his own, exhaustive research prior to posting his opinion...

[flockofseagulls104]

James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence.

Aside from his ridiculous statement that Soliemani should be held blameless because HE didn't ACTUALLY plant IED's himself, he doesn't even know the difference between eminent and imminent. Using his logic, Trump is not to blame for offing Soleimani, it was the damn drone pilot.
He was Director of National INTELLIGENCE! And you leftists call trump stupid?

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=267275

[silverscreenselect]

James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence.

Aside from his ridiculous statement that Soliemani should be held blameless because HE didn't ACTUALLY plant IED's himself, he doesn't even know the difference between eminent and imminent. Using his logic, Trump is not to blame for offing Soleimani, it was the damn drone pilot.
He was Director of National INTELLIGENCE! And you leftists call trump stupid?

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=267275

Clapper didn't say that Soleimani should be held blameless. He only questioned whether killing Soleimani thwarted an imminent attack. And that's hard to demonstrate. If there was an attack planned, the way to stop it is to kill the attackers or otherwise cripple their means of carrying out the attack. If we somehow learned about 9/11 the day before, the way to stop it wouldn't have been to kill Osama bin Laden but to kill or arrest the hijackers. Similarly, in a more traditional military context, if the Germans managed to kill Dwight Eisenhower the day before D-Day, that wouldn't have stopped the invasion.

And based on your bringing it up, I'd say you don't know the difference between eminent and imminent.

[jarnon]

If a threat is imminent, killing the guy at the very top of the chain of command won't stop it.

If killing the guy at the top of the chain of command will stop it, the threat is not imminent.

Killing bin Laden on 9/10 would not have prevented 9/11.

Frum makes this point more clearly than either Clapper or Bob. And Frum's political worldview is a lot like Flock's.

[Bob78164]

If a threat is imminent, killing the guy at the very top of the chain of command won't stop it.

If killing the guy at the top of the chain of command will stop it, the threat is not imminent.

Killing bin Laden on 9/10 would not have prevented 9/11.

Frum makes this point more clearly than either Clapper or Bob. And Frum's political worldview is a lot like Flock's.

To put it another way, killing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the day before the drone strike wouldn't have stopped the drone strike. --Bob

[jarnon]

If a threat is imminent, killing the guy at the very top of the chain of command won't stop it.

If killing the guy at the top of the chain of command will stop it, the threat is not imminent.

Killing bin Laden on 9/10 would not have prevented 9/11.

Frum makes this point more clearly than either Clapper or Bob. And Frum's political worldview is a lot like Flock's.

To put it another way, killing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the day before the drone strike wouldn't have stopped the drone strike. --Bob

Sorry I should have said Frum makes this point more clearly than either Clapper or SSS. As for Bob, no need to mention murdering a Princeton man.

[Bob Juch]

James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence.

Aside from his ridiculous statement that Soliemani should be held blameless because HE didn't ACTUALLY plant IED's himself, he doesn't even know the difference between eminent and imminent. Using his logic, Trump is not to blame for offing Soleimani, it was the damn drone pilot.
He was Director of National INTELLIGENCE! And you leftists call trump stupid?

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=267275

Drones don't kill terrorists, missiles kill terrorists.

[flockofseagulls104]

I just really can't believe you people. The man has been killing people, many of them American, for years. He directs many proxy terrorist organizations all over the world. He just directed an organized attack on our embassy in Iraq, which is an attack on our sovereign territory. And yet you hate trump more.

[Bob Juch]

I just really can't believe you people. The man has been killing people, many of them American, for years. He directs many proxy terrorist organizations all over the world. He just directed an organized attack on our embassy in Iraq, which is an attack on our sovereign territory. And yet you hate trump more.

Payback is going to be a bitch, that's why.

[silverscreenselect]

I just really can't believe you people. The man has been killing people, many of them American, for years. He directs many proxy terrorist organizations all over the world. He just directed an organized attack on our embassy in Iraq, which is an attack on our sovereign territory. And yet you hate trump more.

Payback is going to be a bitch, that's why.

Actually, the Iranians chose a very measured response to the killing (assuming they don't do anything else). This attack appears to have been designed to minimize the risk of casualties. The Iranians blew up some stuff on an airbase and are leaving it to Trump to see what he'll do.

[flockofseagulls104]

I just really can't believe you people. The man has been killing people, many of them American, for years. He directs many proxy terrorist organizations all over the world. He just directed an organized attack on our embassy in Iraq, which is an attack on our sovereign territory. And yet you hate trump more.

Payback is going to be a bitch, that's why.

Actually, the Iranians chose a very measured response to the killing (assuming they don't do anything else). This attack appears to have been designed to minimize the risk of casualties. The Iranians blew up some stuff on an airbase and are leaving it to Trump to see what he'll do.

For once I can agree with something you post. I am cautiously optimistic. Apparently their weaponry is supposed to be much better than that and they purposely missed human targets. Reagan believed in peace through strength and accomplished a lot without sending us to war. I know you hate trump, but no, he does not want a war. It all depends on if Iran decides it does.
I would hope tomorrow he reminds Iran that we are much more powerful than they are and not to escalate. And then invites them to talk.

[Bob Juch]

Payback is going to be a bitch, that's why.

Actually, the Iranians chose a very measured response to the killing (assuming they don't do anything else). This attack appears to have been designed to minimize the risk of casualties. The Iranians blew up some stuff on an airbase and are leaving it to Trump to see what he'll do.

For once I can agree with something you post. I am cautiously optimistic. Apparently their weaponry is supposed to be much better than that and they purposely missed human targets. Reagan believed in peace through strength and accomplished a lot without sending us to war. I know you hate trump, but no, he does not want a war. It all depends on if Iran decides it does.
I would hope tomorrow he reminds Iran that we are much more powerful than they are and not to escalate. And then invites them to talk.

It remains to be seen if the rockets or missiles had any sort of guidance system. They may have been as dumb as V-2s.

That attack may be the last official Iranian response, but remember there are Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria that may have their own responses.

[jarnon]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed

[flockofseagulls104]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed

Neither Trump, nor ANY conservative, will ever get the Nobel peace prize. It is only for liberals.

[Beebs52]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed

Neither Trump, nor ANY conservative, will ever get the Nobel peace prize. It is only for liberals.

Actually that's pretty funny, let alone mostly true.

[flockofseagulls104]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed

Neither Trump, nor ANY conservative, will ever get the Nobel peace prize. It is only for liberals.

Actually that's pretty funny, let alone mostly true.

Just like Trix are for kids.

[jarnon]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed

Neither Trump, nor ANY conservative, will ever get the Nobel peace prize. It is only for liberals.

I checked the list, and the last U.S. conservative was Kissinger nearly 50 years ago. Since then three conservatives from other countries got the prize. All four shared the prize with somebody more liberal.

[a1mamacat]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed

such a little Bitch Boy!

[Beebs52]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed

such a little Bitch Boy!

I agree he should stop tweeting stupid shit.
But Canada, such a little bitch country?
Love ya, but who do you rely on for whatever?
I don't think you're a little bitch country, but grow the fuck up.

[Beebs52]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed

such a little Bitch Boy!

I agree he should stop tweeting stupid shit.
But Canada, such a little bitch country?
Love ya, but who do you rely on for whatever?
I don't think you're a little bitch country, but grow the fuck up.

Trudeau on the other hand...