Jump to content

Trump says Hamas attack on Israel, war in Ukraine would not have occurred if he were president


Social Media

Recommended Posts

On 10/10/2023 at 5:34 PM, illisdean said:

“Trump pulled out of the JCPOA in May 2017 and there was no war. Trump sanctioned the Tehran regime into penury and instead of war, Iranian demonstrators took to the streets to protest against those who’d squandered the country’s wealth by funding international terror.”

Then Trump popped Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and was warned there would be repercussions but there was none, no wars and what followed was the Abraham Accords and peace was breaking out all over the ME.

Trump has everything under control while in office. Biden came in, reinstated the JCPOE, refused to enforce sanctions and Iran went from 400,000 B/pd oil sales under Trump to >3M b/pd, accrued much greater wealth, all the while inching very close to a nuke, ALL on Biden’s failed watch. Then he releases $6B of fungible funds to Iran last week and now the ME is about to go into melt-down mode.

 

Say what you will, bash ole Trump but he runs circles around the demented and corrupt fool in the WH who's too busy sleeping to even mention the dead US citizens in the hamas terror attacks. Worst and most useless, incapable imbecile to ever hold office in America.

 

 

Yeah, about that…

 

 

 

Perhaps we should talk about the billions handed to Jared…

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Yes, those historic Abraham accords look like they're history now.

Whether or not Kushner did anything illegal, that 2 billion dollar investment from the Saudis, given against the advice of the Saudi investment advisers, sure is sleazy. And unlike Hunter Biden, Kushner was a high level govt official in the Trump administration. Looks like he was extremely well compensated.

"Yes, those historic Abraham accords look like they're history now."

 

Are they? Was there anything said to this effect?

Both Israel's relations with both Egypt and Jordan, both more directly related to the conflict, endured many setbacks like this. The peace agreements stand to this day. The Saudi Arabia thing might be put on hold, or slow burner, yes. But it was not done deal yet, so easier to 'cancel'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Morch said:

"Yes, those historic Abraham accords look like they're history now."

 

Are they? Was there anything said to this effect?

Both Israel's relations with both Egypt and Jordan, both more directly related to the conflict, endured many setbacks like this. The peace agreements stand to this day. The Saudi Arabia thing might be put on hold, or slow burner, yes. But it was not done deal yet, so easier to 'cancel'.

 

Given what is likely about to happen, I don't think that many setbacks like this have been endured. It will also be interesting to see how Jordan and particularly Egypt will react once the projected onslaught is underway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Given what is likely about to happen, I don't think that many setbacks like this have been endured. It will also be interesting to see how Jordan and particularly Egypt will react once the projected onslaught is underway.

Two wars fought by Israel in Lebanon, including a siege of Beirut in one, and a destruction of large neighborhood in the other. Just a couple of examples.

 

As for 'what is likely' to happen, that would depend on one's imagination and what one implies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Two wars fought by Israel in Lebanon, including a siege of Beirut in one, and a destruction of large neighborhood in the other. Just a couple of examples.

 

As for 'what is likely' to happen, that would depend on one's imagination and what one implies.

There was no Hezbollah during the siege of Beirut. And as for the destruction of a large neighborhood, rather a small neighborhood compared to Gaza. And maybe 1300 Lebanese civilians were killed.

 

What is likely to happen is an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza. It seems unlikely that the Israelis will come to their senses.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

There was no Hezbollah during the siege of Beirut. And as for the destruction of a large neighborhood, rather a small neighborhood compared to Gaza. And maybe 1300 Lebanese civilians were killed.

 

What is likely to happen is an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza. It seems unlikely that the Israelis will come to their senses.

Did I say anything about Hezbollah? The point made was that at both instances there were serious criticism and pressure (domestic and foreign) vs. Egypt and Jordan with regard to the peace agreements. The agreements still hold. 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

Did I say anything about Hezbollah? The point made was that at both instances there were serious criticism and pressure (domestic and foreign) vs. Egypt and Jordan with regard to the peace agreements. The agreements still hold. 

Given what it looks like Israel is about to do, this time looks different. A lot worse. Had there been a Hezbollah the first time, the outcome might have been different.

Edited by placeholder
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Given what it looks like Israel is about to do, this time looks different. A lot worse. Had there been a Hezbollah the first time, the outcome might have been different.

What is it you think Israel is about to do? How is it different?

A lot worse in terms of destruction and loss of life, yes - but that's not different, but more.

 

Your Hezbollah reference has nothing to do with my comment. I referred Israel-in-Lebanon with regards to the pressure and criticism applied to Egypt and Jordan. The outcome is nothing to do with it. Hezbollah was present the second time around, and similar criticism vs. these two countries was expressed.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, candide said:

Trump peace plan delights Israelis, enraged Palestinians

How can something be called a "peace plan" if it delights one side and enrages the other side?

 

A peace plan should bring peace to all sides and NO enragement to any!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by scottiejohn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, candide said:

That's Trump m.o., he did the same in Afghanistan when he negotiated the withdrawal plan with the Taliban only. Hey why bother negotiating with the opposed sides when It's so simple to negotiate only with one! It's been quite successful in Afghanistan, too! 😃

He (and/or Kushner) also brokered a deal between Israel and Morocco, but by doing that they threw the Sahrawi people under the bus, because the US acknowledged that the Western Sahara belonged to Morocco, thus denying the Sahrawi the right to an independent state. I imagine the Sahrawi are no big fans of either Trump or Kushner, to put it mildly. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...