163
I mean, he's not WRONG (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I trust Trump about as far as I can throw him, and at the end of the day it's really the Pentagon calling the shots here not the POTUS.

But dudes clearly speaking to a public sentiment here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 99 points 2 years ago (25 children)

Biden and the Dems are so bloodthirsty that Trump is the nominal antiwar position. I hate this fucking place

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 77 points 2 years ago (23 children)

    Trump is the nominal antiwar position

    Trump isn't anti-war, or at least I don't trust him to be actually anti-war. He's anti-this-war, but his administration did plenty of hawkish shit towards Iran and Venezuela. I'm not even confident he'll actually do anything to deescalate in Ukraine, I think it's all bluster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    not to mention he ramped up drone strikes 400% more than obama

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    one of the few things I'm willing to give Biden credit for - he stopped the drone strikes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Did he really, or did he just change who's using them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Your counterpoint was valid when the Saudis were bombing Yemen, but ever since that wound down, there are legit less bombings.

    Still not voting Biden, but I just believe in giving credit where it's due.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Even if there's fewer bombs, it just means that those military strategies are no longer viable for US interests. It's not a moral stance, but a geopolitical one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago*

    Trump's actions are often just attempts to satisfy his ego through positive media and supporter reaction. The issue with Iran if you recall is that his main supporter at the time, Fox news had a mixed reaction, with Tucker Carlson being extremely critical, something obviously like hell freezing over.

    You can go and check back on the entire Carlson arc back then but here for example Fox's Tucker Carlson slammed conservatives for pushing Trump to go to war: 'About 20 minutes ago we were denouncing these very people as the deep state'

    His base didn't particularly like that idea, he was MAGA and isolationist and yet he was about to put the US into a war with a nobody-country that wasn't a threat at the time. It wasn't Bush post 9/11 even though he thought that was an easy win.

    As soon as the base consolidated into the neutral/negative camp which he didn't expect, he backed off. Right now his base is very much positive towards ending "Biden's war" so he is very likely to do it.

    But his base also doesn't like China so that will be the next target.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 14 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    At the very least, you can still argue that Trump was duped by his advisors into thinking that assassinating a “rogue general” can solve the Iran problem.

    Thing is, if that's the case he can probably be duped again.

    After Soleimani was killed and a war was nearly started with Iran in January 2020, there was still an “oh shit” moment from the Trump government and they quickly walked back and prevented a war from being escalated.

    Is that because he's genuinely anti-war or cuz some Brass at the Pentagon thought it wasn't an opportune time to start shit with Iran and told him to cool it?

    Really at the end of the day I don't think it matters, the PSL could win this Presidential race and it wouldn't change a thing foreign policy wise (and probably not much domestically either), those aren't decisions any elected leader has any meaningful sway over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    the PSL could win this Presidential race and it wouldn’t change a thing foreign policy wise

    I do think a dedicated, sophisticated anti-imperialist could change things from the office of the president. The problem is the best we'll ever get from Democrats is "I oppose this war and this war only, and we totally could have won and had the best intentions but my opponent, our local puppet, or both tragically mismanaged it."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I do think a dedicated, sophisticated anti-imperialist could change things from the office of the president.

    If they even tried they'd get JFKed in like a week

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Avoiding that would be a huge part of the challenge. The possibility also highlights the need to have deeper political support. At least the VP needs to be on the same page; one unicorn candidate probably wouldn't get it done.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 14 points 2 years ago

    There'd really be not point unless the PSL was strong enough to form its own institutions and armed groups to combat any coup attempts.

    If the PSL candidate won by some miraculous fluke, like a bunch of people protest voting or something, they probably wouldn't even need to wait to get JFKed, the Supreme Court could probably just pull some bullshit out their ass to nullify their victory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    In doing so, they've signed the death warrant for their own credibility as an ally.

    You aligned with the US/NATO explicitly because they were a big, strong military and economic partner, who could provide deterrence, and if that failed, prevent you from losing the war.

    This alliance will deliver Ukraine less-than-zero benefit: they'll still lose the war, but being propped up and egged on means it will take longer, be bloodier and more destructive, and leave them with more debt.

    Perhaps the "deterrence" factor was limited because they weren't Core NATO and there was no Article 5 trigger risk. It still suggests there's no value in cozying up to the institution if you can't qualify for full membership, and even then, would they really pull out all the stops for a new member of low value?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Is that because he's genuinely anti-war or cuz some Brass at the Pentagon thought it wasn't an opportune time to start shit with Iran and told him to cool it?

    16 or so ballisic missiles pounded the Al Assad Airforcebase and did "Only Braindamage + some later death" to some 100 soldiers.. while the USA had Nothing to respond ,even just verbally to respond with some stupid" Though talk" at this moment would have forced Iran to preempty flatten all the Other bases they have there (they nervously shoot down a hole airliner, so they where extremly on edge) ... So Imagine there was a collective experiance of "Oh Fuck oh Fuck+ we are Powerless" in the Command center or whatever.. Thats some experiance that produces wisedom ...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    After Soleimani was killed and a war was nearly started with Iran in January 2020, there was still an “oh shit” moment from the Trump government and they quickly walked back and prevented a war from being escalated.

    You got the order wrong, they first backed off from war around september 2019, and then assassinated Soleimani as a last word and consolation prize for hawks. The actual reason they backed off was that Iran demonstrated both will and ability to defend itself by series of force shows and shooting down the best US drone with old Soviet missile - which also shown pentagon bonzos that the war might be way harder than they though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent