Berzerker
Deity
Why would I genuinely oppose invading Iran 'at the moment and in principle' if my motive was enriching the military industrial complex?
What is the US up to with regard to Iran?
- Thread starter AmazonQueen
- Start date
I don't remember you supporting any recent wars, so I wonder why he would think you would change your mind and rationalize it.
If he had quoted an example of your support, it might have been more credible, but without it just seems like unsubstantiated speculation.
If he had quoted an example of your support, it might have been more credible, but without it just seems like unsubstantiated speculation.
Lexicus
Deity
He supports the wars Donald Trump is waging in the middle-east, and offers the Orwellian rationalization that Trump is "trying to get us out" of those wars, which is simply not true. There is no reason to suppose that this willingness to ignore reality and engage in Orwellian rationalization will stop if Trump invades Iran.
He should stop hanging around with other addicts like Pompeo and Bolton then.
Even claiming Trump is trying to get us out is not the same as supporting those wars. Even supporting Trump on certain issues is not the same as supporting war.
I won't comment on your last statement since it hasn't happened yet, so still speculation.
I won't comment on your last statement since it hasn't happened yet, so still speculation.
Lexicus
Deity
I think praising trump's foreign policy is just misguided and not a support for war since he hasn't gotten us into any full blown wars (yet)
And he has even stated that if that happens he won't support his foreign policy anymore.
He posts more than enough other stuff that deserves your wrath. No need to add on other items that are just speculation.
And he has even stated that if that happens he won't support his foreign policy anymore.
He posts more than enough other stuff that deserves your wrath. No need to add on other items that are just speculation.
Lexicus
Deity
Misguided as in the belief that NK is negotiating in good faith, and stuff like that.
As much as I think that Trump is a deluded and awful at diplomacy and think his bullying will not end well, still no hot wars started (yet) so I have to at least give him credit for that.
As much as I think that Trump is a deluded and awful at diplomacy and think his bullying will not end well, still no hot wars started (yet) so I have to at least give him credit for that.
Berzerker
Deity
I dont blame Presidents for wars they inherit. What happened when Trump announced he was pulling the troops from Syria? Mattis resigned and the Democrats shouted 'Putin's Puppet'. When did the Democrats become warmongers? When Obama and Clinton get us into wars. I applauded leaving Syria, what did you do? Accuse Trump of Orwelian rationalizations to keep us in Syria?
Furthermore, Trump didn't invade the Middle East so that is not analogous to invading Iran, that would be his war alone, all by himself. And thats when (some) Democrats get upset by war, when they're started by Republicans. I was glad Obama left Iraq in 2011, but he started feeding a civil war in Syria and had to go back in when all hell broke loose...again. Trump got stuck with that mess and he's trying to get us out, it would be nice if Democrats got on board the peace train. But nope, cant agree with anything Trump does. Reminds me of the Republicans doing the same thing to Obama.
Good cop, bad cop... Trump didn't have someone to play the bad cop earlier so he had to play both with NK. I think thats when he hired them to play the bad cop. NK will be the tough one to settle, nothing short of us leaving and NK keeping nukes will end with a peace treaty. Thats fine by me.
If he hasn't started any wars why would praise be misguided? Thats an improvement over his predecessors.
Oh, then we agree. I give him credit too. But Trump isn't misguided about NK, he knows what they want and he knows he wont get it (edit: what he wants). But he's at least trying to change the status quo toward a resolution.
Last edited:
Seems to be more a case of bad cop, even worse cop.
Then when it turns out nobody believes in his "evidence" he backs down saying he'll let Iran off with a warning this time.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
It never ends. We've flipped from one party to the next and back again over the span of well over a decade...and somehow what actually goes on doesn't seem to change that much. Just who is complaining changes.
Lexicus
Deity
Which is kinda dumb because they all can choose whether to keep them going or not (I suppose unless it was a Congressionally declared war, but we haven't had any of those in a while). You keep repeating that Trump is "trying to get us out" which has no basis in fact whatever. And that is why I think you'd likely support it if Trump invaded Iran. Your current opinions on Trump's foreign policy have no factual basis, and there's no reason to suppose that would suddenly change if Trump invaded Iran.
As you know perfectly well, I remarked on the irony that the only good thing Trump had proposed doing was the thing unanimously denounced by the entire US political establishment.
Of course, since it quickly became perfectly clear that Trump never had any intention of pulling of out Syria I'm not sure why you're bringing it up like it means anything.
So, you'd apply this same logic to the Iraq War then presumably? Bush's war, all by himself? (answer: no, that one was Hillary's fault)
Berzerker
Deity
Its bad cop when Trump is trying to get someone to the table, once they show up the good cop sits down.
Thats partisan politics
What they do with the wars they inherit is another matter, but you're conflating wars Trump inherited with one he might start with Iran. Congress authorized Bush's invasion of Iraq but the war on terror initiated with Afghanistan was broadly written to include just about anywhere we find the terrorists, hence Obama's killing of bin Laden in Pakistan.
Did Trump announce his intention to leave Syria? Yes. He didn't get much support. Is Trump making headway in the NKorea? I'd say he is. And peace is being negotiated in Afghanistan. Instead of Trump wagging the dog in Iran he'll be signing deals to get us out of Syria and Afghanistan and maybe progress in NK.
I dont remember the remark but you do occasionally break from the pack so it wouldn't surprise me. But if you acknowledge the opposition Trump got was real why do you accuse him of not trying? He's still going to do it, we no longer have any reason to be in Syria with the defeat of ISIS. And we'll have to leave Iraq too, they dont want us hanging around. Only the Kurds want us to stay and we probably will leave troops and weapons systems on their lands for defense.
Bush got congressional approval, the people who voted for that war are to blame too. That includes Saint Hillary and Joe Biden. Bush didn't run in 2016 so his role in that war wasn't relevant to choosing the President, but her role was relevant. Why do you find that illogical? Thats probably why she lost to Obama in '08. Dont ya think a bunch of Democrats blamed her for voting to invade Iraq? Its still not comparable, Trump wont be getting congressional approval to invade Iran. If he invades Iran it will be on him and the people pushing for it.
We will see which set of proposed policies Trump actually follows. He's the same guy who said "to the victors go the spoils" when it came to using violence to steal from a people
FTFY
Doesn't seem to be working with NK, Iran or China.
For people to sit down at the table with you they have to consider you a trustworthy person.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
And that, alone, is inadequate. With NK and Iran you are talking armament. Do you think a deal with the North Korean regime that achieves nuclear disarmament is possible with any negotiator? I think things would at least seem to have to change in NK. I'm guessing Iran is strong enough that things are going/have gone that way as well. Do you think there is anything the rest of the world could offer the PRC that would tempt the government to stop planning on developing its military first to parity and then almost certainly supremacy over any other available opposing force?
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Beyond an "offer" of sufficient military force, no. And doing that would make any disarmament words ring just a little hollow.
Similar threads
