Iranian General killed by US Drone.

[better dead than red]

The sooner people understand that the Middle East cannot be easily equated to Western democracy the better.

Our political feuds in this country go back maybe a generation or two. In the Middle East it is centuries, and they know how to hold a grudge.

This is true. Reprisals for being done wrong in the Muslim world don't have to be done expeditiously. If your side gets it's revenge 100 years later then it's a job well done.

 

[Fame Monster]

No problem with him being involved. Just like the Saudis, Russians, the US, and Israel , Iran has it's interests to protect. He may well have been a ruthless shit, Indeed he probably had to be to last as long as he did. But there are plenty on our side too. The Saudi's, our allies, backed Isis as well as anti Assad jihadists in Syria.

So you've got no problem with him killing US and British forces but you have a problem when the US fires back?

 

[better dead than red]

Its hilarious as a incumbent President .... he shouldn't have any business interests.

That's Twitter stuff. There is no law in America prohibiting Presidents from operating businesses whilst in office.

https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/can-president-trump-continue-to-run-his-businesses

 

[better dead than red]

Our political feuds go back centuries and not generations. It was the catholics who were burning the Middle East before us.

The Middle East has always been in turmoil but that is because of religion and even Islam is at war with itself. That is why the Saudi's hate Iran and vice versa. The west has far better conditions because religion does not dominate political interests.

You cannot equate those countries to Western democracy but whilst we have interests in the region we will always have to defend ourselves and those interests.

The climate in the Middle East is purely reduced to a question of whose side are you on and there isn't a good side.

War with Israel is where it would start if we left them to it and we just can't allow that to happen.

When they "Catholics were burning the Middle East" they were English. They were also Spanish, French, etc.

 

[Ban-jani]

So you've got no problem with him killing US and British forces but you have a problem when the US fires back?

“any victory against the British Army is a victory for us all”

One of the leaders of the party he supports in Britain.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

No problem with him being involved. Just like the Saudis, Russians, the US, and Israel , Iran has it's interests to protect. He may well have been a ruthless shit, Indeed he probably had to be to last as long as he did. But there are plenty on our side too. The Saudi's, our allies, backed Isis as well as anti Assad jihadists in Syria.

War, money, power.

That's Twitter stuff. There is no law in America prohibiting Presidents from operating businesses whilst in office.

https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/can-president-trump-continue-to-run-his-businesses

It is certainly unethical. Jimmy Carter gave up his peanut farm when he ran for office.

What is an issue is the Emoluments Clause - Essentially, no public official should benefit personally from being in office. Just how much do you think Trump's businesses profit from his tax funded golfing trips at his own resorts?

 

[robbieh]

So you've got no problem with him killing US and British forces but you have a problem when the US fires back?

Defending UK citizens in the Falklands no problem. But generally speaking not a fan of anyone involved in military action thousands of miles from home. Our interests are their oil, and thus we have ongoing conflict.

I feel sorry for anyone caught up in this including our armed forces. But unlike the editor of the Express many years ago I don't think 1 Englishmen equals 10 Frenchman, equals 100 Arabs or a 1000 Chinese.

 

[better dead than red]

War, money, power.

It is certainly unethical. Jimmy Carter gave up his peanut farm when he ran for office.

What is an issue is the Emoluments Clause - Essentially, no public official should benefit personally from being in office. Just how much do you think Trump's businesses profit from his tax funded golfing trips at his own resorts?

I didn't comment on what I think about it, did I? I merely stated the statement is what you would find on Twitter. The fact is indisputable. There is no law prohibiting Presidents from owning businesses. The U.S. Congress can pass a law prohibiting it if they so choose.

As for precedence, George Washington chose to serve two terms. Every president after him until Franklin Roosevelt followed Washington's lead. FDR did not. There was no law against him seeking four terms. Presedence can be followed or not.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Why and when?

When they've got loads of oil?

 

[SebastianBlue]

That's Twitter stuff. There is no law in America prohibiting Presidents from operating businesses whilst in office.

https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/can-president-trump-continue-to-run-his-businesses

Fairly sure everyone discussing the topic of Trump’s business and business interests are doing so from an ethical stance — no one has falsely indicated there are statutes requiring divestiture.

And pointing out that Trump, his family, and his cronies maintaining and expanding their business interests whilst in office as not only unethical but also a risk to the national security of the US is not “Twitter stuff”.