Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[US Foreign Policy] Arrest an American? Well America can detain Americans too!

15657586062

Posts

  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    no way. no way do i go for that deal if i'm assad. not in a million years. you know that the current administration puts as much stock on agreements and deals as they would a wet fart, so what's in it for you if you go along? absolutely fucking nothing.

    like... we don't even hold to agreements with people we're meant to be allies with. and everyone knows it.

    lonelyahavaV1mmonikerElldrenkimeautono-wally, erotibot300Duke 2.0Gnome-InterruptusMatev
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    edited January 11
    Since the Senate Foreign Relations Committee didn’t get around to career State Department diplomat and former Ambassador to South Sudan, Molly Phees nomination to be ambassador to Qatar.

    Trump has decided that he’ll nominate one time Virginia Rep Scott Taylor instead.

    https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics/scott-taylor-qatar-ambassador/index.html?r=https://t.co/IHPbGoYMaq
    The White House is expected to pull the nomination of an experienced career diplomat for US ambassador to Qatar and instead tap former one-term Virginia congressman Scott Taylor, multiple sources familiar with the situation tell CNN.

    His campaign is currently under investigation for election fraud but hey he also worked for an oil company.

    Viskod on
    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    monikerYoutubeshrykeGnome-Interruptus
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-world-bank-candidate-president-report-2019-1

    Well... hmm.
    President Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, who works as a White House adviser, is one of the names being considered as a replacement for The World Bank's outgoing president, Jim Yong Kim, the Financial Times reported Friday.
    Other possible American nominees to lead the bank include undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs David Malpass, United States Agency for International Development director Mark Green, and former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the Financial Times said.

    Unlike some of the other proposed candidates, Ivanka does not have a background in international trade economics, but she has been a businesswoman.

    I fail to see any way in which this could turn into an unmitigated disaster so vast and complete that entire countries would sink into the slime.

    Emerlmaster999FencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenCantidoYoutubeLabelHonkNeveronshrykeSkeithMorganVCommander ZoomBlackDragon480SealMoridin889tynicErlecSolarCogDuke 2.0RchanenMvrckElldrenkimeJohnny ChopsockyHavelock2.0HefflingJaysonFourhonovereApogeeboogedybooOghulkMatevKamar
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Ivanka Trump has been a businesswoman the same way her father has been a businessman.

    Emerlmaster999Gennenalyse RuebenshrykemonikerViskodSmrtniktynicRedTideSolarPLAEchoNeveronFencingsaxCogDuke 2.0Gnome-InterruptusRhesus PositiveKayne Red RobebrynhrtmnElldrenLabelHefflingJaysonFourLovelyhonovereApogeeabotkinOghulkMatevKamar
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    I don’t know about that. How many casinos has she bankrupted?

    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
    GaddezSharpyVII
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing to Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    If Ivanka gets that gig, then the world really does deserve what's coming.

    RingoSleepOrcaSkeithGennenalyse RuebenBigJoeMCogDuke 2.0brynhrtmnMr RayJaysonFourOghulk
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    Orca wrote: »
    I don’t know about that. How many casinos has she bankrupted?

    Two, pretty much. She was one of the reasons why Trump's casinos went bankrupt. She was managing one, but still had to compete with the other which kept beating her, but since Trump couldn't let her lose he kept giving them more loans, money and favours that it made the other one uncompetitive.

    Tastyfish on
    Commander ZoomOrcaMvrck
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    Why in the name of any measure of reasonable sanity would the World Bank want any Trump to head up the organization.

    EDIT:

    [reads more about the founding and the traditional leadership structure of the organization and how the head has been typically nominated by the President]

    Oh god.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    TraceXaquinmonikerBlackDragon480shrykeKetBraFencingsaxOrcaDuke 2.0Moridin889Stabbity StyleSkeithElldrenJaysonFourApogeeMatevKamar
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    The World Bank, along with the IMF, is an institution we use to build influence internationally. It's in effect a wholly US institution which is why the AIIB founding, and our resistance to getting in on the ground floor of it, was such a big deal.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    monikerFencingsaxRchanenElldrenCptKemzikOghulk
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    A Trump as the head of the World Bank is basically ceding that area of influence.

    autono-wally, erotibot300YoutubeFencingsax
  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Orca wrote: »
    I don’t know about that. How many casinos has she bankrupted?

    Two, pretty much. She was one of the reasons why Trump's casinos went bankrupt. She was managing one, but still had to compete with the other which kept beating her, but since Trump couldn't let her lose he kept giving them more loans, money and favours that it made the other one uncompetitive.

    Are you confusing Ivanka for Ivana?

    MorganVknitdantynic
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Orca wrote: »
    I don’t know about that. How many casinos has she bankrupted?

    Two, pretty much. She was one of the reasons why Trump's casinos went bankrupt. She was managing one, but still had to compete with the other which kept beating her, but since Trump couldn't let her lose he kept giving them more loans, money and favours that it made the other one uncompetitive.

    Are you confusing Ivanka for Ivana?

    Yes, though more confusingly it seems that Ivanka was also on the board at one point, was sacked and then came back when it went private again.

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 12
    If this bullshit really does come to pass and she’s nominated, the thing that would let her be confirmed is “precedent.” The Europeans and others grumbled when Paul Wolfowitz was nominated by Bush, but no one wanted to break precedent and he was approved. So at least it's not the case of “we never thought of having a contingency for this, and it’s all norms and traditions.” A nomination can be stopped, it’s just that no one does it.

    There is the tradition of always approving the US President’s nominee, but I’d argue there was also the tradition of the presidents not nominating their offspring for the post, so one good turn deserves another.

    I wonder how serious this is, though. I can’t read the original FT article, and that’s annoying.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
    monikershrykeTynnanFencingsaxTicaldfjam
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    no way. no way do i go for that deal if i'm assad. not in a million years. you know that the current administration puts as much stock on agreements and deals as they would a wet fart, so what's in it for you if you go along? absolutely fucking nothing.

    like... we don't even hold to agreements with people we're meant to be allies with. and everyone knows it.

    Between the administration's hostility to the US' historical allies and its open admiration of would-be and actually-are tyrants the world over, I wonder if Trump wouldn't be more likely to hold to agreements with one of those Tough Leaders Who Gets Things Done And Upsets The Left.

    If he made some kind of 'deal' with Syria and another one with Canada on the same day, I'm pretty sure the latter would be the first one torn up. One of those two countries is in the general neighborhood of his ideological home team and the other is not, after all.

    YoutubeV1mCelestialBadgerkime
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    This is all just so obvious now that I can't even think of something funny to say about it other than just "Well, duh."
    President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

    Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson.

    The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.

    As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    DarkPrimusmonikerQanamilOneAngryPossumRchanenYoutubedurandal4532kimeLabelGnome-InterruptusApogeeOghulkMatev
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    I was reading that, and reviewing the NYT article about the FBI’s counter-intel investigation, and my cat was vomiting on the floor, and I am now free of doubt. The final conclusion of this investigation will find that Trump has been an owned man from day one. Because this thing has to end as stupidly and obviously as possible, while also making everybody nauseous.

    Edit: Not a Trump investigation thread, sorry.

    OneAngryPossum on
    destroyah87Ticaldfjam
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Josh Marshall had the whole fucking thing nailed 30 months ago.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    OneAngryPossumRedTideSleepPreachershrykemonikerNeveronRingojmcdonaldiTunesIsEvilelectricitylikesmeYoutubeMvrckRchanenSkeithIncenjucarForarTicaldfjamSolarElldrenBlackDragon480kimeDesktop HippieCptKemziklonelyahavaMoridin889Havelock2.0LabelJaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenThawmusAegisjdarksunboogedybooOghulkMatevKamar
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Josh Marshall had the whole fucking thing nailed 30 months ago.

    If you were following his twitter during the election basically nothing out of the Russia or Mueller or SDNY investigations has been a surprise.

    RchanenTicaldfjamYoutubeVeagleElldrentynicBlackDragon480SleepkimeTynnanDesktop HippieCptKemziklonelyahavaEmerlmaster999RingoMoridin889Havelock2.0LabelJaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenThawmusCaptain InertiaboogedybooOghulkMatevKamar
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited January 13
    no way. no way do i go for that deal if i'm assad. not in a million years. you know that the current administration puts as much stock on agreements and deals as they would a wet fart, so what's in it for you if you go along? absolutely fucking nothing.

    like... we don't even hold to agreements with people we're meant to be allies with. and everyone knows it.

    “Hey, we will totally give you an aid deal if you throw out Iran, who we have sanctions on.”
    “Didn’t you make a deal with Iran to get rid of sanctions like 2 years ago? And they met their conditions but you reimposed sanctions anyway?
    “Yes, but we will totally honor our agreement with you, promise, despite the fact that it requires concrete and immediate action on your part in exchange for a nebulous future commitment on our part that could easilly be overturned based on future conditions.”

    Jealous Deva on
    MorganVRchanenPLAPreacherI ZimbraFencingsaxRingoMoridin889V1mGennenalyse Rueben
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Trump and his people really wants to bomb Iran.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-sought-options-to-strike-iran-11547375404
    President Trump’s National Security Council asked the Pentagon to provide the White House with military options to strike Iran last year, generating concern at the Pentagon and State Department, current and former U.S. officials said.

    The request, which hasn’t been previously reported, came after militants fired three mortars into Baghdad’s sprawling diplomatic quarter, home to the U.S. Embassy, on a warm night in early September. The shells—launched by a group aligned with Iran—landed in an open lot and harmed no one.

    But they triggered unusual alarm in Washington, where Mr. Trump’s national security team led by John Bolton conducted a series of meetings to discuss a forceful American response, including what many saw as the unusual request for options to strike Iran.

    “It definitely rattled people,” a former senior U.S. administration official said of the request. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”

    Youtube
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    I am surprised that John Bolton of all people would do such a thing!

    OrcaMild ConfusionmonikerFencingsaxshryke[Tycho?]KetBraKayne Red RobeRingoMoridin889Havelock2.0SolarTicaldfjamautono-wally, erotibot300ArdolJaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenbrynhrtmnGnome-InterruptusJragghenShortyAegisOghulkMatevKamarSkeith
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    If Michael Flynn hadn’t been fired we probably would have by now.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    If Michael Flynn hadn’t been fired we probably would have by now.

    I doubt it.

    The NSC, I'm sure, came back and reported the feasibility of attacking Iran. The report would have been so pessimistic as to dissuade even the hawkiest of hawks.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
    CelestialBadgershryke
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    TicaldfjamSmrtnikYoutubeGennenalyse RuebenGnome-InterruptusSkeith
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    If Michael Flynn hadn’t been fired we probably would have by now.

    I doubt it.

    The NSC, I'm sure, came back and reported the feasibility of attacking Iran. The report would have been so pessimistic as to dissuade even the hawkiest of hawks.

    Also this implies someone wants to bomb Iran more then John Bolton and I just can't believe that could be true.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    Along with non-military resistance.

    YoutubeGennenalyse Rueben
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited January 13
    moniker wrote: »
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    Along with non-military resistance.

    There is unlikely to be any. The Basij is part of the deep state military structure even if not officially and are basically government paid thugs beating up protestors in exchange for free education.

    NSDFRand on
    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited January 13
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    Iran has the size and population of both Iraq and Afghanistan combined, difficult terrain similar to Afghanistan, a strong national identity and previous experience with a US-installed government. It would be a colossal disaster

    Phyphor on
    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    CptKemzikshrykeKetBraFencingsaxCelestialBadgerRingoMoridin889SolarLabelTicaldfjamRchanenCommander ZoomPLAStabbity StylemonikerthatassemblyguyMr RayAistanYoutubeJaysonFourMvrckGennenalyse RuebenbrynhrtmnGnome-InterruptusBullheadJragghenNo-QuarterCaptain InertiaShortyabotkinAegisjdarksunboogedybooOghulkMatevElldrenSkeith
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    Also: where the hell would you stage the attack from? nobody in the region is secure and friendly enough to US interests in this regard while simultaneously bordering Iran.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    FencingsaxMr RayYoutubeGennenalyse Rueben
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    The uniformed military wouldn’t be an issue. The US military is pretty good at destroying that.

    But Iran has some pretty damn good weapons. Those weapons in the hands of civilian fighters executing asymmetrical warfare is where the real problem begins wrt the military on the ground.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    RchanenmonikerRedTideGennenalyse RuebenCogNo-Quarter
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    Also: where the hell would you stage the attack from? nobody in the region is secure and friendly enough to US interests in this regard while simultaneously bordering Iran.

    As if that even matters. Get your war on!

    Youtube
  • SealSeal Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    Also: where the hell would you stage the attack from? nobody in the region is secure and friendly enough to US interests in this regard while simultaneously bordering Iran.

    I'd imagine Saudi Arabia would allow the use of its airfields for a sustained bombing campaign against its rival.

    RchanenSmrtnik
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Seal wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.

    Also: where the hell would you stage the attack from? nobody in the region is secure and friendly enough to US interests in this regard while simultaneously bordering Iran.

    I'd imagine Saudi Arabia would allow the use of its airfields for a sustained bombing campaign against its rival.

    I'm sure they would. I'm also sure that those same airfields would become a lightning rod for groups like AQ and ISIS.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Attacking Iran will make the Mission Accomplished banner look like it made sense.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    PreacherTicaldfjammonikerRedTideGennenalyse RuebenElldren
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    To be fair, Starting a war does make a certain amount of sense for trump; It's a way to distract the populace from the nations domestic issues and it's not like republicans haven't been slow stroking a war boner with iran for close to 4 decades.

    It's still asinine, but going to war with iran is absolutely something I can see him doing in the next year or two.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    CelestialBadgerYoutubeLovelyGnome-Interruptus
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    They are just waiting for a casus belli from Iran, and Iran may just be belligerent and stupid enough to give it to them.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    They are just waiting for a casus belli from Iran, and Iran may just be belligerent and stupid enough to give it to them.

    Not likely; outside of some light dicking with israel and propping up assad they aren't really doing much of anything that would provide a valid excuse for war.

    Not for lack of trying on trumps part of course; his decision to inexplicably withdraw from the treaty with iran and slap sanctions back on them would have justified them renewing nuclear development but instead they just shrugged their shoulders and asked if they were still cool with the rest of the signatories.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    FencingsaxRchanenPLAmonikerjmcdonaldYoutubeGennenalyse RuebenGnome-InterruptusMoridin889Elldren
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    Strikes against Iran don’t necessarily mean trying to go for an Iraq 2.0. You can blow some stuff up without graduating to full conventional war. I’d guess the NSC’s idea was more along the lines of some retaliatory strikes to project strength and persuade Iran to keep its militants at bay.

    Not to say that isn’t a bad idea! Just a different one.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Strikes against Iran don’t necessarily mean trying to go for an Iraq 2.0. You can blow some stuff up without graduating to full conventional war. I’d guess the NSC’s idea was more along the lines of some retaliatory strikes to project strength and persuade Iran to keep its militants at bay.

    Not to say that isn’t a bad idea! Just a different one.

    I'm not sure you can since unlike a lot of other countries the US has been bombing recently I'm not sure you could bomb Iran without taking losses.

    Kayne Red RobeFencingsaxKetBramonikerRingoYoutubeGennenalyse RuebenCaptain InertiaMoridin889Elldren
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Strikes against Iran would be extremely bad. Iran is not powerless to strike at US interests, allies and personnel in the region.

    The main reason for the raging hate boner is because the US' Foreign Policy Establishment is still seething over the hostages in Carter's time. It's fucking stupid.

    FencingsaxshrykeTicaldfjamdurandal4532KetBramrondeauArdolmonikerAistanYoutubeGennenalyse RuebenLovelybrynhrtmnGnome-InterruptusOghulkMatevKamarElldrenSkeith
Sign In or Register to comment.