Cory1848

1 hour ago, ChouDoufu said:

that's just silly.

 

ambassadors are political appointees, with those slots often given to big campaign donors, with the prime postings reserved for the big money bagmen. ambassadors serve "at the pleasure of" the president, who can hire and fire them at will and at whim.

 

not sure what the fuss is about, reports of rudy running a "campaign" to get rid of her.  no campaign needed, just call up his boss and say the lady needs fired.  end of story.

 

i wonder if the lady was actively undermining trump's (alleged) foreign policy as so many other officials have been found doing?

A minority of ambassadors are political appointees; most are career diplomats. All serve “at the pleasure of the president,” but, in the US system, political appointees are usually donors to and often vocal supporters of the president, as you mention, whereas career diplomats such as Yovanovitch are not and are appointed based on their abilities and seniority in the diplomatic service. The false narrative perpetuated by Trump fans and by baseless “wondering” such as yours is that, because Yovanovitch was appointed to the ambassadorship of Ukraine during the Obama administration, she is somehow a diehard Obama supporter seeking to undermine a Republican president. While I’m sure she has her own personal political opinion, as every US citizen is entitled to, she is nonpartisan in her position as a career foreign service officer, and her allegiance is to the US constitution.

32 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

She was, supposedly, refusing to hang the POTUS photo up and being unco-operative due to political bias. Likely to get fired by any POTUS. Or these may be false accusations, she did hang the photo up and was just trying to do her job.

 

But wonder how you'd react if Hilary had been elected and an Ambassador was refusing to hang her photo up and showing political bias in her job?

More lies, and easily debunked by reading any of a million newspapers. Portraits of the president, vice president, and secretary of state are hung in every US embassy and consulate around the world, near the entrance somewhere; it’s a routine matter that ambassadors generally don’t have the time or interest in troubling themselves with (although the current president clearly spends inordinate amounts of time thinking about his own portrait). The Trump and Pence portraits arrived in Kiev (and other locations) late but were hung immediately on arrival, and I’m sure that Yovanovitch didn’t get personally involved in this or any other interior decorating matter at the embassy building.

A deflection and a lie spread by Trump to get his fans all riled up against a perceived “enemy,” and clearly he succeeded at that. Why do you mention Hillary? She lost the election more than three years ago.

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

This is just incredible. I can't believe there are still Clinton and Obama appointees in diplomatic posts openly ridiculing their boss, and actively refusing to follow orders. This must be a wake up call to Trump, he has been way too soft on these people. He must fire each and every civil servant appointed by the toxic democrat party. Working against American interests to show they are pouting over their preferred political parties failure in elections is totally unforgivable in a position like Ms Yovanovitch held. Take them out. Immediately.

So many Trump supporters simply have no idea what they’re talking about; it’s no wonder the Internet is flooded with disinformation. Over 99 percent of foreign service officers (and most ambassadors) are career officers, not “Clinton and Obama appointees”; and when a president leaves office, those ambassadors he HAS appointed likewise step down. And while a president has the authority to remove an ambassador from a posting, to do so for political purposes as Trump did to Yovanovitch is an abuse of power.

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

The FBI and Justice Department Obama holdovers are massively corrupt. 

No they're not.

10 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

As I understand it, many felt the JCPOA was not watertight enough, particularly around site inspections. There were legitimate concerns about Iran cheating under the deal, given Iran’s past nuclear activities and attempts to build covert facilities. Concerns that they might attempt a 'sneakout' from the agreement using covert facilities and supply chains. 

 

Critics say Obama conceded on too many areas of the JCPOA in order to seal the deal, and secure his legacy as a peacemaker.

 

I don't know who is telling the truth, but I know for sure I don't trust a brutal theocratic regime that is willing to kill thousands of it's own citizens for protesting, and imprison hundreds of women for campaigning for freedom to remove the head scarf.

Some criticisms of the Iran deal may have been valid, but it was a workable structure and at least to date had been effective. More importantly, it was signed not only by the US and Iran but by the EU, so by unilaterally reneging on the deal, the US basically abandoned its allies. Meanwhile, the Iranians can launch headlong back into a nuclear weapons program, with no structure in place to restrain them. As for new negotiations, why should the Iranians trust anything the US might have to offer? They have no incentive to even enter into negotiations. The Americans have proven to be unreliable negotiating partners.

You’re right, the regime in Iran is not trustworthy. But, with Trump in charge, Washington has proven to be even less so. Pulling out of that deal was a disastrous move.

1 minute ago, elliss said:

 

    Stopped clock , you mean President Trump . 

     He needs to be woken up , and do what a man needs to do .

     Do not delay the inevitable … 

 

 

And that would be (?) If you mean, he should do what he needs to do and resign gracefully from the presidency, I'm with you on that.

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

I agree with your last statement. But what I don't understand is how some people are aiming their vitriol at Trump, rather than considering the atrocities that the Iranian regime have been getting away with against it's own citizens, and citizens across the ME, in Iraq, Syria etc. 

 

The US were right to take out Soleimani. They should save the Trump hatred for when it's warranted. Even a stopped clock is right 2 times a day! 

My post that you’re responding to said nothing at all about Trump. But now that you mention it, he made the Iran situation much worse from the very beginning of his administration by unilaterally pulling out of an agreement that was working, without a clue what to do next. Just a few days ago, given the opportunity to stand down from the brink, he did just that, and for that I give him full credit; it’s one of the few good decisions he’s made in three years. But bear in mind: “Trump hatred” is not some sort of derangement or disease; it’s a direct and logical response to his reprehensible policies, behavior, and calculated divisiveness.

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Like the US that shot down a commercial flight?

Exactly. People grousing about the exceptional brutality of Iran (“and countries like that”) have some pretty big planks in their eyes. Gandhi, one of the greatest individuals our species has ever produced, famously said, when asked what he thought about English civilization, “I think that it would be a very good idea.” It all depends on the angle of your view.

11 minutes ago, claynlr said:

The Iranians have killed many of their own citizens, and I can promise you they don’t give one hoot about the lost Canadians. You can’t take a western “There’s no earthly reason why the Iranians would do that” attitude.

You haven’t said why they would knowingly shoot down a passenger airliner; if they’re as brutal as you imply, why aren’t they shooting down airliners all the time? And in considering the motives of the launchpad operator and his superiors in firing off the rocket, please excuse me for taking neither a “Western” nor an “Oriental” attitude, whatever that means, but a human one.

31 minutes ago, claynlr said:

How do you possibly know that? Where you in with the person that  pushed the button?? 

Because there is no earthly reason why the Iranians would knowingly shoot down a passenger airliner filled with Iranians and Canadians (can you tell me why they might want to do that?), whereas there’s every reason in the world why a jittery launchpad operator, fully expecting an incoming US air attack, might misinterpret a blip on the radar screen and fire prematurely. How do you know the moon isn’t made of green cheese? Have you been there?

16 minutes ago, Xavnel said:

The shoot down WAS intentional. 

Do you seriously think they fired the missile as a "warning shot" ?

They saw a plane flying,  they shot a missile with the INTENTION of shooting down that plane. 

Therefore,  the act was intentional and resulted in what their intention was.... a shot down plane.

As to lying about it to start... their belief is that it is okay to lie to an Infidel about anything, because Infidels are of no consequence.

In regards to the people mentioning Iran getting Nuclear Weapons.... Iran has already said that it would not hesitate to shoot a Nuclear Missile into Saudi Arabia. 

As many people here have already pointed out, the shootdown was intentional, but with the assumption that it was a hostile aircraft. The ground crew acted hastily and stupidly, but they did not deliberately murder civilians. As for “lying to infidels,” people in power regardless of their faith lie for tons of reasons, 15,000 lies and counting for instance coming out of the White House alone these past three years. Faced with irrefutable evidence, the Iranians stopped lying.

When Americans shot down an Iranian passenger airliner in 1988, the Pentagon initially denied any knowledge about it, and no one was ever called to account for that “intentional” shootdown.

30 minutes ago, meand said:

The truly sickening part though is the lack of accountability. Hundreds of thousands of lives are lost after lying us into wars, and no person is ever held accountable. 

Cheney, Kissinger, and dozens of other war criminals go free; bit players like Scooter Libby get pardoned. It is indeed sickening. One can only hope the perpetrators of the present fiasco are not only hounded into disgrace but put behind bars.

21 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

An 80 years ago we had a simular situation, where all nations gave way after way to another agressive state. They all thought to have peace in our times. It ended up with a huge 5 years long war, the US had to fight, finance and supply with weapons, and whatever further needed. The US ONLY got awake, when they were attaqued themselves

While you have a point, I think two critical differences bear reflection. (1) Germany believed that it could actually win a war of conquest throughout Europe and even into Asia and Africa, and it planned accordingly; Iran has no such illusions but seeks to expand its regional influence, mostly through proxy wars in places like Yemen and Syria. Iran has no desire to commit national suicide. And Iran’s adversaries should take that into account when considering responses.

And, (2), you mention the “aggressive state.” I don’t know if you’re American, and if you’re not, then pretend for a moment that you are. Look in the mirror: who, really, is the more aggressive state here? Objectively speaking, I don’t think there’s much doubt about that.

9 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

Why now?

 

Because the previous administration was weak. They could have done the same but weren't strong enough. Either that or were too aligned with the Iran point of view.

How about, “they could have done the same” but thought it was wiser to enter into an agreement with Iran along with all of the UN Security Council members plus the EU rather than starting another stupid and useless war costing hundreds of thousands of lives.

3 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Answer: If not now...when?

 

There is no perfect senerio or time to payback the Iranians for their non-stop terrorist behavior...

 

Most countries in that region fear the Iranians and welcome any support to bring them down a notch or two.

 

Ok...all you US haters...take your best shot!

 

That’s all so totally beside the point -- you write about “payback” and bringing people “down a notch” as though you’re talking about competition in the Premier League. (If you follow American football, looks like Tom Brady sure has been brought down a notch!)

Right now, the Iranians are taking their time deciding on a response that will make a statement but not lead to all-out war. Likewise, Trump, for all his stupid bluster, would love an off-ramp, because he really has no stomach for a shooting war (thankfully) -- all he wants is a temporary distraction that makes him look like a big guy and gives him a boost in the polls. (Think Ukraine -- he wasn’t interested at all in an actual “investigation” of the Bidens, all he wanted was the announcement -- something he could turn into a TV ad.) He’s all show, and at this moment I count that as an asset. In a real war, there are no winners.

Meantime, a million people like you are clamoring for blood, like a mob run amok. How about working backward toward a resolution whereby both sides gradually stand down? Kennedy did it; Carter did it. Only a very few people died during those crises.