Trump

[fiksal]

And Pentagon already rebuked Trump on bombing cultural sites.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pentagon-r ... -1.4756025

I feel a little warm inside when Trump's insanity is slapped in its face by the other offices. Another one for the history books.

[Observe]

Not just Republicans and not just the United States. Governments of all political stripes have engaged in senseless wars. Pointing fingers at Trump over Iran, is missing the mark. Most nations hold a prevailing narrative that describes the identity of their deemed enemies. It is a mistake to blame a single individual or political party, for the existence and persistence of these stories that we tell ourselves about the evil that lives beyond our ideology.

[fiksal]

Not just Republicans and not just the United States. Governments of all political stripes have engaged in senseless wars. Pointing fingers at Trump over Iran, is missing the mark. Most nations hold a prevailing narrative that describes the identity of their deemed enemies. It is a mistake to blame a single individual or political party, for the existence and persistence of these stories that we tell ourselves about the evil that lives beyond our ideology.

Many governments crave wars, that I agree. However, I dont see why we cant point at Trump and Republicans specifically?

It's not hard to take a step back and look for some sensible solution, instead this is the route they've chosen. An assassination, followed by destruction of "cultural sites", followed by what - a full blown land campaign like in Iraq or nuclear strikes?

Lets never forget - that is also the same people that were afraid of Obama or god forbid, Clinton, going to war with Iran. And the same people that wanted to get out from middle east altogether.

[Observe]

It's not hard to take a step back and look for some sensible solution...

And yet, the sensible solution seems to evade history. Greed and fear are often blamed as reasons for war. The sensible solution would be to cast out greed and fear. Most people don't want war, and yet at the same time, most people are greedy and fearful in various ways.

[Vertigo 7]

Not just Republicans and not just the United States. Governments of all political stripes have engaged in senseless wars. Pointing fingers at Trump over Iran, is missing the mark. Most nations hold a prevailing narrative that describes the identity of their deemed enemies. It is a mistake to blame a single individual or political party, for the existence and persistence of these stories that we tell ourselves about the evil that lives beyond our ideology.

Fingers (and more) can be and rightfully should be pointed at Trump because he's the Oompa Loompa reject occupying the oval office that made the call to assassinate the general, and he's the one threatening to attack civilians. He's rationalized that they attack our civilians, so we can do the same (in more but less concise words). So effectively, he wants to turn the US military into terrorists and trying to make a right by way of 2 wrongs.

[Santi]

Many governments crave wars, that I agree. However, I dont see why we cant point at Trump and Republicans specifically?

It's not hard to take a step back and look for some sensible solution, instead this is the route they've chosen. An assassination, followed by destruction of "cultural sites", followed by what - a full blown land campaign like in Iraq or nuclear strikes?

Lets never forget - that is also the same people that were afraid of Obama or god forbid, Clinton, going to war with Iran. And the same people that wanted to get out from middle east altogether.

It is really hard to take a step back when countries are vying for influence and the guns are already talking, right now the ball is in the Iranian court, both countries has been raising the stakes in terms of retaliation for many years now. Saying that Trump is the origin of this clashes is inaccurate and does not stick to the facts.

As I write this right now, Iran has launched a ballistic missile attack against two American bases in Iraq, seems it was more than a dozen of them. No casualties report so far. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the attack was in retaliation for the death of Soleimani on Friday. Iranian foreign minister said "We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

And now the ball is in America court.

[fiksal]

It's not hard to take a step back and look for some sensible solution...

And yet, the sensible solution seems to evade history. Greed and fear are often blamed as reasons for war. The sensible solution would be to cast out greed and fear. Most people don't want war, and yet at the same time, most people are greedy and fearful in various ways.

Indeed. It's often easier just to kill people.

Not to get too off topic - that is what commonly people say - "most people don't want war". But then we have so many wars, where those same people have no problem supporting them.
So I think this is not an accurate phrase. I'd say this is more accurate - "most people don't want war as long as the other side surrenders"

It is really hard to take a step back when countries are vying for influence and the guns are already talking, right now the ball is in the Iranian court, both countries has been raising the stakes in terms of retaliation for many years now. Saying that Trump is the origin of this clashes is inaccurate and does not stick to the facts.

As I write this right now, Iran has launched a ballistic missile attack against two American bases in Iraq, seems it was more than a dozen of them. No casualties report so far. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the attack was in retaliation for the death of Soleimani on Friday. Iranian foreign minister said "We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

And now the ball is in America court.

If the guns are talking that is definitely hard to take a step back. I cant see Iran being a reasonable one, much, neither I can see Trump to be one as well. So no, Trump is not the origin, but he's got the presidency seat - it's entirely his problem to solve now. But we know that he won't solve it. At best he won't start the war, - somehow?

Will see indeed what happens next.

[pjknibbs]

Will see indeed what happens next.

The next thing has already happened, by the looks:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51028954

[Mightysword]

t's not hard to take a step back and look for some sensible solution ...

- It's not hard to fix bugs and release no buggy games, why the developers don't do it.
- It's so easy to implement this x, y, z features I want, the reason it's not implemented is because the dev is just lazy.
- It's so easy to save the environment, why most don't do it.

It is easy / not hard to "insert whatever action you want here", racism, sexism, famine, world peace ...etc... Ever wonder why the things that you tend to think "easy" but somehow not got done for months/years/decade/centuries. Maybe because it's not easy? Frankly, it used to be the people who have no skate/direct involvement that always think it's easy on the side line.

Lets never forget - that is also the same people that were afraid of Obama or god forbid, Clinton, going to war with Iran. And the same people that wanted to get out from middle east altogether.

What else is news? Republican and Democrat always take turn criticizing each other for actions that themselves had taken, are taking, and will take. If you haven't realize that then there is something to be said about political awareness in the last 2-3 decades. It's simply a circle zerg. You're making it sound like it's a rare thing, I mean ... it's hard to forget something that get played repeatedly, or are you yourself forgetting it's something that played repeatly

Frankly, do I think this is a good move for Trump? No. But that has nothing to do with sovereignty/warmongering whatever. Obama didn't ask Pakistan when he ordered Bin Laden killed either. Oh this guy is a 'general of a sovereign state"? Honestly do you think a lot of people care about that? There is little doubt there are lots of blood on Soleimani's hand, American's blood. Iran for all intend and purpose is already designate a rogue/terrorist state to the US. From a neutral and pragmatic point of view, I bet most average person ain't gonna be up for much of a debate about the action itself. Face it, if this is something done by anyone else but Trump, there won't be even half the noise on media right now.


So why I personally think it's not a good action to take? Strategically it's just bad timing. The sanction is taking effect, and Iran was facing a lot of domestic unrest. Trump essentially just throw the Iran regime a lifeboat, no different how 9/11 was pretty much saved the Bush presidency. Nothing rally domestic moral like enraged patriotism.

[Bishop149]

He's rationalized that they attack our civilians, so we can do the same (in more but less concise words). So effectively, he wants to turn the US military into terrorists and trying to make a right by way of 2 wrongs.

Its actually worse than that, he basically said if Iran can blow up our SOLDIERS why can't we blow up their heritage and civilians.
He's conflating "war" with "war crimes". Two wrongs certainly but of somewhat different scales.

Is America sabre rattling against Iran new?
- No
Is having an obvious white supremacist and Islamophobe* leading the Executive likely to intensify this?
- Of course

A war with Iran will achieve a grand total of 2 things:
- A lot of dead people on both sides, but far more on the Iran/Iraq side the majority of whom will be civilians.
- Donald Trump (and those like him) will make a lot of money from war profiteering and it might even get him re-elected.
Guess which one Donald cares about more?

*To add some context to this, here's his son and namesake posing with his crusades themed rifle.

[Olterin]

[...]
Frankly, do I think this is a good move for Trump? No. But that has nothing to do with sovereignty/warmongering whatever. Obama didn't ask Pakistan when he ordered Bin Laden killed either. Oh this guy is a 'general of a sovereign state"? Honestly do you think a lot of people care about that? There is little doubt there are lots of blood on Soleimani's hand, American's blood. Iran for all intend and purpose is already designate a rogue/terrorist state to the US. From a neutral and pragmatic point of view, I bet most average person ain't gonna be up for much of a debate about the action itself. Face it, if this is something done by anyone else but Trump, there won't be even half the noise on media right now.
[...]

I largely agree with what you're saying overall, pot calling the kettle black and all, but this part here I don't agree with. I originally tuned out of Trump-related news, and read about this on German news instead. Portrayal was that "the US" killed "Iran's second-in-command". And here's where the different perspective comes in, Iran isn't seen as a terrorist state in Europe - problematic for sure, but not a "terrorist state". So ordering a hit on such a high-ranking official really does look terrible to the average person. There's a big difference between what happened to Bin Laden and this - "the world" (i.e. leaders of various countries) does not largely agree that this was a wanted person, wanted dead, mostly (not to my knowledge). So, diplomatically this isn't great for the US in the long-term, much like abandoning the Kurds was not great. If there was tangible proof of an immediate threat of war due to this man being alive, then there might be some way to justify this. But uh, that's rather lacking right now. It very much looks like the US decided "Iran's really messing with us here, let's kill their top military leader to mess back with them". Is it an effective approach? That remains to be seen. Is it lawful and/or remotely morally justifiable? Hardly, on both counts. Just imagine if it wasn't the US but let's say China or Russia taking such action - or GB, or France. There would be at least as much of an uproar.

... And that is what Trump is responsible for here, among other things mentioned - further damage to the image and credibility of the US abroad. As much as some within the States might think it does not matter, well, the world isn't all isolated islands (yet ). Who's to say how this will affect future negotiations and diplomatic relations.

[Vertigo 7]

... And that is what Trump is responsible for here, among other things mentioned - further damage to the image and credibility of the US abroad. As much as some within the States might think it does not matter, well, the world isn't all isolated islands (yet ). Who's to say how this will affect future negotiations and diplomatic relations.

Trump doesn't care. He made that clear since day 1. The only people overseas he's been concerned with pleasing are Putin and Kim. Oh, and then there was the Saudi Prince... he slaughtered a journalist so naturally Trump wanted to kiss his ass.

The way Trump has been carrying on overseas, it's almost as if he's trying to realign the US and form a new "Axis Powers" alliance with the worst of the worst. He even wanted to suck up to the Taliban and invite them to a summit at Camp David. Maybe if the EU started behaving as extremists, Trump would start being friendly to them?

But as to the future, naw... in the Oompa Loompa's fantasy world, his children will be ruling the US. So add nepotism to the list of isms to describe Trump.

[fiksal]

t's not hard to take a step back and look for some sensible solution ...

- It's not hard to fix bugs and release no buggy games, why the developers don't do it.
- It's so easy to implement this x, y, z features I want, the reason it's not implemented is because the dev is just lazy.
- It's so easy to save the environment, why most don't do it.

It is easy / not hard to "insert whatever action you want here", racism, sexism, famine, world peace ...etc... Ever wonder why the things that you tend to think "easy" but somehow not got done for months/years/decade/centuries. Maybe because it's not easy? Frankly, it used to be the people who have no skate/direct involvement that always think it's easy on the side line.

Prove to me that it's hard. Bush and Obama seemed to have managed it.

As to your game example it's more like this:
option A) tank the project by destroying all deadlines and processes
or
option B) finish the project by taking everyone's input into account


it's not hard to pick option B

What else is news? Republican and Democrat always take turn criticizing each other for actions that themselves had taken, are taking, and will take. If you haven't realize that then there is something to be said about political awareness in the last 2-3 decades. It's simply a circle zerg. You're making it sound like it's a rare thing, I mean ... it's hard to forget something that get played repeatedly, or are you yourself forgetting it's something that played repeatly

It's not new but it is worth repeating. Honestly I repeat it to only to mock it. I knew full well that Republicans arent adamant about any peace with Iran back then, it's just talk / propaganda.

Frankly, do I think this is a good move for Trump? No. But that has nothing to do with sovereignty/warmongering whatever. Obama didn't ask Pakistan when he ordered Bin Laden killed either. Oh this guy is a 'general of a sovereign state"? Honestly do you think a lot of people care about that? There is little doubt there are lots of blood on Soleimani's hand, American's blood. Iran for all intend and purpose is already designate a rogue/terrorist state to the US. From a neutral and pragmatic point of view, I bet most average person ain't gonna be up for much of a debate about the action itself. Face it, if this is something done by anyone else but Trump, there won't be even half the noise on media right now.

We can try to compare to Bin Laden, but he wasnt a member of any government body. I dont recall at least.
This is similar to killing a top Putin's general, who lets be honest, are terrorists as well.

re: "Honestly do you think a lot of people care about that?"
Of course not. Obviously in America we dont care who is whose general / citizen, we can kill anyone we want at any time for anything we want, without asking Congress to declare war.

re: "Face it, if this is something done by anyone else but Trump, there won't be even half the noise on media right now."
And if that were to happen I'd call it a failure on media's part. Assassinations shouldnt be swept under a rug. Since when is Putin becoming an example to follow for everyone.

I kept writing more about this, but then I deleted everything and realized - I am mostly interested to see how the rest of it plays out.

I am not the one who will go, fight and die in Iran.

So why I personally think it's not a good action to take? Strategically it's just bad timing. The sanction is taking effect, and Iran was facing a lot of domestic unrest. Trump essentially just throw the Iran regime a lifeboat, no different how 9/11 was pretty much saved the Bush presidency. Nothing rally domestic moral like enraged patriotism.

I think what bothers me: I dont even know the extent of crimes that US was apparently charging the general for. I get it, he was a bad guy.

Congress wasnt even in a loop.

EDIT: keep editing/removing for clarity

[Vertigo 7]

I kept writing more about this, but then I deleted everything and realized - I am mostly interested to see how the rest of it plays out. I am not the one who will go and fight and die in Iran.

Thing is we don't need to be embroiled in a war to serve the political agenda of this dip shit or whoever is president. If he wants to march his fat bone-spurred orange ass into Iran and take them on by himself, I'll buy him a plane ticket. But American lives don't need to be put in jeopardy, or any body's life for that matter, just to distract from his impeachment and/or to boost his reelection chances. As I said, this whole thing stinks and I'm not seeing any legitimate reason to start a war with Iran.

[fiksal]

I kept writing more about this, but then I deleted everything and realized - I am mostly interested to see how the rest of it plays out. I am not the one who will go and fight and die in Iran.

Thing is we don't need to be embroiled in a war to serve the political agenda of this dip shit or whoever is president. If he wants to march his fat bone-spurred orange ass into Iran and take them on by himself, I'll buy him a plane ticket. But American lives don't need to be put in jeopardy, or any body's life for that matter, just to distract from his impeachment and/or to boost his reelection chances. As I said, this whole thing stinks and I'm not seeing any legitimate reason to start a war with Iran.

No we dont need that.

[Mightysword]

Just imagine if it wasn't the US but let's say China or Russia taking such action - or GB, or France. There would be at least as much of an uproar.

Would it? Do you know how often China clash and outright violate its neighbors even militarily? And I'm not just talking about that artificial island they built. They had settle Chinese citizen on dispute territory, they had sunk boat of other nation civilian. Did you see it made the news? And even more importantly - even when they make the news, was there any real consequence like the people on this thread are trying to make it out to be?

... And that is what Trump is responsible for here, among other things mentioned - further damage to the image and credibility of the US abroad. As much as some within the States might think it does not matter, well, the world isn't all isolated islands (yet ). Who's to say how this will affect future negotiations and diplomatic relations.

And if that were to happen I'd call it a failure on media's part. Assassinations shouldnt be swept under a rug. Since when is Putin becoming an example to follow for everyone.

The following comment is not an endorsement of what current happens, rather just stating the rather ugly reality: yes, on the surface this is not something that will do the image of the US good, but pragmatically do you think it it will means a damn.

First: China has been bullying its neighbors and suppress domestically, something for Russia. Yes, there are a lot of "noise" criticizing both countries on the surface, but realistically do all of those noise really amount to anything?
Before you start telling me "but a country like US should not follow those low standards, we supposed to be the beacon of greatness yada yada". That's not what I'm talking about here, like I said this comment is not an endorsment of the action itself. I simply point to the "superfluous" value of the consequence that you guys are talking about. Damage the image and credibility of the US abroad? Maybe, but does it really matter?

Second: frankly I don't think the US has been a great example for a long time, and I doubt other had been seeing us as one. For the last decade or so, long before Trump took office people have been talking about American's decline on the world stage, ironically at the same time butt kissing countries like China which is far worse. I don't think other really respect the US as the beacon or example normally, the only time they do so is when they want to criticize it. Aka, it's just a beating stick at this point. This is why I think within the US population we had developed a rather cynical mindset about how world see us: damn if you do and damn if you don't. So don't find it surprising if people may not see this the way you think they should. People had stop caring about things like that for a long time, the only thing can be said about Trump is that he also stop "pretending to care".

Third: relate to the second. If you go online and talk publicly, it will seem the majority respect politically correctness. Even in real life if you have a chat with people outside of your family, like with colleague/friends, again you will see most people obey politically correctness. This gives the illusion that most of us follow and respect it, right? Yet Trump is someone who basically trample on pretty much every known political correctness there is ... and he got ~63mil votes.

Again, I'm not talking the semantic meaning of the action, like I said I don't endorse it and you can even press me to say it's stupid, for reason I already explain. I'm just arguing about what I think as the actual undercurrent effect rather then just the ripple on the surface.

[Observe]

I'm just arguing about what I think as the actual undercurrent effect rather then just the ripple on the surface.

Would you mind summarizing your appraisal of this actual undercurrent? I am interested. Thanks.

[RegisterMe]

Would it? Do you know how often China clash and outright violate its neighbors even militarily? And I'm not just talking about that artificial island they built. They had settle Chinese citizen on dispute territory, they had sunk boat of other nation civilian. Did you see it made the news? And even more importantly - even when they make the news, was there any real consequence like the people on this thread are trying to make it out to be?

Err, yeah, it did make the news, repeatedly (because China has done it more than once, especially if you include their exploration rig incursions into Vietnamese waters). And they didn't just build one "artificial island", they built multiples.

Were there any real consequences? Yes. There were. Lots of governments around the world said "wtf, you said you weren't going to do that, and you did - let's add it to the list of things you said you weren't going to do and did, or alternatively were going to do and didn't". And then went.... "ummm, now what, we want their business, we can't push them around, and the US is doing something strange with its head up its arse, ok, well, we might send a destroyer past in "freedom of the seas" operations, but I guess we just have to silently resent it for now. As for your Belt and Road initiative. Well, we're trying to figure out a way of giving it the finger without giving it the finger, because we want the teat".

And don't get me started on Duterte

[Santi]

So what is everybody's take on Trump reaction to the Iranian retaliation attack?

[Vertigo 7]

So what is everybody's take on Trump reaction to the Iranian retaliation attack?

Premature, at best. This isn't over.