The King of Crazytown Can't Control The Chaos - Trump Thread #159

[Spandauer]

“Whether you’re a military analyst or a political analyst, whether you’re in the Democratic or Republican party, there’s a reality here. Donald Trump has met the moment of truth. The kind of fictional life that he’s led and evoked over the last four or five decades has now been unmasked as a deadly drama. It’s going to cost the lives of so many people. It’s going to devastate the US economy and the regional economy. It’s going to set back America and its standing in the world. It’s a horrific moment.”
Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota.

Heaven Obi-Wan Kenobi help us. You're our only hope.

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5506514-bored-of-peace-lets-mambo-trump-thread-158?page=9

Ahh.

"What have US officials said?
US officials have said American forces had to destroy two of their own aircraft during the rescue mission, according to the Wall Street Journal."

.Well, it feels a helluva lot closer than it ever did in the 80s

I'm just ensuring I don't get to heaven angry. I wouldn't like it then.

He just can't stop his motor mouth can he. Connected to my post above about his admin boasting about the CIA operating in Iran, we now get this total lunacy, per CNN.

"Trump tells Fox News US sent arms meant for Iranian protesters to Kurds
By Dalia Abdelwahab
President Donald Trump told Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst during an interview this morning that the US sent weapons to Kurdish forces with the intent of arming Iranian protesters, seeming to confirm a CNN report from last month.
“President Trump told me the United States sent guns to the Iranian protesters. He tells me ‘we sent them a lot of guns. We sent them through the Kurds,’” Yingst said, recounting the phone interview. Yingst added that the president said he thinks the Kurds kept the weapons.
CNN reported last month the US was arming Kurdish groups with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising in Iran. The goal was to have the armed Kurdish forces take on Iranian forces, making it easier for Iranian civilians to take to the streets in protest.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters at the time that “none of our objectives are premised on the support of the arming of any particular force. So what other entities may be doing, we’re aware of, but our objectives aren’t centered on that.”"

So now it's the Kurds he has just thrown under his dumb bus . Now the Kurds in Iran will be getting arrested. What a dumb fuck. He care nothing about anyone but himself.

The phrase "gradually, then all at once" seems appropriate.

Comprehension is not condoning.

And in the case of Maga, condoning probably has little or nothing to do with comprehension, as well: if they truly understood what Trump and his merry men were up to, I can't see how even they could really condone it.

I would draw a distinction between a soldier and a warrior. It's one of the reasons Roman soldiers tended to win against Celtic warriors, for instance.

Trump and Hegseth are ignoramuses.

Whoever behind the scenes came up with the "lucky" ear shooting might want to source some live ammunition and convince Donald to have another go to garner public opinion or some twaddle. I can't imagine anything other than de-escalation if an accident were to happen, but maybe that depends if Vance has been nicking the coke from Venezuela.

Quote : " It's one of the reasons Roman soldiers tended to win against Celtic warriors, for instance."

Oi. They never defeated Scotland ye ken.

RedTagAlan
They never defeated Scotland ye ken.

Except for the bits they did. The Antonine Wall ran across from the Firth of Forth to the Firth of Clyde, and last time I looked those were both in Scotland. In order to be able to build it they need to have walloped the locals, right?

(I have more Scots blood than any of the other fifteen or so nationalities in my bloodstream, but I try not to be partisan about these things.)

I know this is beating a dead horse, but the disparity in how mainstream media treated Biden vs how they're treating Trump is truly astonishing. The NYT on their live news feed initially sanitised the truth by omitting part of it, although I see they've now quoted the whole thing. The sanewashing is next level.

OK, off to finish making Easter dinner and pretend we're living in a normal world. If the talk turns to current events I might have to switch from fizz to whisky.

Happy Easter everyone, even the haters and losers (and non-believers like me).

I went to School right next to the Antonine.

Anyway, new research indicates that Hadrian's wall was to keep the English in. I like that research :-)

Oddly enough, same re the Great wall of China. But the Party don't agree.

:-)

Quite, if you can't comprehend something you can't effectively counter it.

I know it's not the Pedants thread but...😉

• In Roman times, there was no such country as Scotland. What we now know as Scotland was called*‘Caledonia’*, and the people were known as the ‘Caledonians’.

We are all Britons ...

Had Severus lived, it's possible Scotland could have been incorporated into the Empire. However that's when "the crisis" starts and maintaining was a challenge, let alone expanding.

I've always wondered if Britain became an early haven for Christians during the Diocletian persecution. A recurring theme of early "history" seems to be repeated attempts to cover up pre-Augustinian Christianity in Britain. (Hence the "He's already got one" line in Monty Python).

Also being fair to the Romans, whom on the whole I dislike, I don't think they actually wanted Scotland except as a buffer against the Norse mob.

As I said, they tended to defeat the Caledonians who tried repeatedly to over-run Hadrian's wall, just as they tended to defeat the Celtic warriors who had uprisings at intervals all over their empire. See the Brigantes; Celtic to a man and woman. And the Iceni.

The Romans never took Hibernia either, and the Hibernians were Celts too.

CNN and Sky are certainly sanitizing it.

The Romans faced exactly the same problem any force today would.

One thing to "invade" somewhere. Almost any idiot could do that.

However it is quite another to rule a territory taken by occupation. Something anyone from Ireland will be more than happy to explain. In song. Over and over again.

The BBC play segments of Trump's utterances as if they were gospel, too, or at least as if they bore more than an extremely passing acquaintance to fact or truth. They are carefully edited to cut out the batshit crazy and make him sound like a statesman instead of Grandpa Simpson. It irritates me quite a lot.

Yes; but put a hundred Roman soldiers up against a hundred Celtic warriors (and leave chariots out of it) and the Romans would tend to win. And that was all I claimed.

Warriors are terrific in films (yay Braveheart, and so on) but in Real Life they tend to be too individualistic to defeat disciplined soldiers.

Will Trump sue the BBC for cutting bits off his post?

Ach. Roman soldiers were too knacked from building walls and roads.

I mean come on. what did the Romans ever do for us ?

Bring back the groat, that's what I say.

... on an open battlefield. As soon as you refuse to engage and just pick at bits and pieces, or force the army into a 10 mile crocodile that can be slowly eaten from the rear you have the advantage.

"Quintus Varrus where are my legions ?!"

However, inflexible tactics aside, generally Romans lost battles but won wars.

I've always been fascinated by Roman history as it's Britains (and even the name we gave ourselves was Roman) entrance onto the stage of world history. Julius Caesar in Borehamwood really happened.

You know, I'm beginning to wonder about the true source of his insanity. Is this dementia? Is it simply ego?

Or could this be what happens when a malignant narcissist actually encounters a brick wall behind the word 'No' that isn't going away. And where he's hearing more criticism than praise. I'm speaking of the other countries who are telling him to basically fuck off. And although I know he's surrounded himself with 'yes-people' his approval rating is in the toilet, MAGA is falling apart, many in positions of power in the US are criticizing him, a lot of things he wants are not being carried out or are being voted down, and there are massive No Kings rallies.

And there is no 'escape hatch' for the debacle that is this war with Iran without basically admitting he made a huge mistake. He's never been in this position before, of having no way out. In his business dealings he's always either attained his goal (legally or illegally) and been praised to the skies or he's declared bankruptcy and walked away basically unscathed.

So, when irresistible force meets immovable object, are we thinking that irresistible force goes insane?

Did the Romans invade Britain or were they actually invited to help solve a problem within local areas? (And then realised it was a shit place apart from London, Londinium, and Chichester, Noviomagus Reginorum.)