What Trump is teaching the world is that every single country, including Iran, should be actively developing nuclear weapons as quickly as they possibly can, as that is the only deterrent to war that he respects.
Trump needs to
- Thread starter baltimorened
- Start date
because trump has no filter and is a bloviator. He likes to hear himself talk an is the king of hyperbole. Making that statement about "obliterating" Iran's capabilty was obviously an error.
100% accurate.
What year did you get your GED?
Was it only Trump that made that statement?
Like those kids in that school.
I've heard people say your like a normal person in real life. I question those people's sanity. Because no real human being thinks that 93 million people: "Made their bed, they can sleep in it". I mean maybe a normally overtly propagandized idiot would. Maybe thats what they meant, I'll check and let you know.
By not being an imminent threat to the America according to the US Intelligence Agencies?
No, it can't. There's great op-ed in the NYT today on just this point:
“We live in a world,” [Stephen] Miller told [Jake] Tapper, “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” The painful fallout of the Iran war provides an eloquent rebuttal. But the Trump administration has done more than misjudge American force and the wherewithal of its adversary. It has fundamentally misunderstood what power is, conflating it with the capacity to inflict violence when the two are, in truth, opposed.
Miller’s chest-thumping recalls one of the most ancient and influential texts about war, Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War.” Across eight detailed books, it tells the story of an epic fight between two rival hegemons in the Mediterranean, Athens and Sparta. “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” the powerful Athenians tell the citizens of Melos, a neutral Greek island, ordering them to submit or be slaughtered.
This declaration is often cited as an ur-realist iron law of might equaling right. But there’s an irony that often escapes those who cite the line, perhaps because they didn’t read the whole text. If they had, they’d discover that the Melians were not powerless victims but cleareyed prophets. “And what is this but to make greater the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have never thought of it?” the Melians asked their attackers.
Unmoved, the Athenians laid siege to the city, slaughtering all its men and enslaving its women and children. But the triumph at Melos was a false victory. Drunk on the violence they mistook for power, the Athenians blundered on to a far riskier gambit, an invasion of Sicily. The Athenians, initially divided on the war, were eventually persuaded by leaders who believed that the Sicilians were weak and corrupt. They were sitting ducks, unable to defend themselves against so fearsome a foe. It would be an easy victory bringing Athens greater glory.
But strength was not enough. The timbers of Athenian ships, enforcing a long blockade, rotted; supply lines dried up. The Athenians, increasingly short of money, had to impose new taxes to fund the war. Finally, in a fierce battle at Syracuse, they were routed. It wasn’t the end of Athens’ hegemony, but it was the beginning of the end. Eventually, Sparta took its place as the Mediterranean’s pre-eminent power.
It is not hard to see the parallels to America’s situation. Like the Athenians, the Trumpians saw their romp in Venezuela as a sign of their irrefutable power. And like the Athenians, they overreached — attacking an enemy they underestimated with muddled motives, uncertain support at home and no clear plan for victory. Entranced by their own capacity for violence, they thought their power to effect their will was limitless.
Their strategic mistake rested on a misreading of power. In 1970, the philosopher Hannah Arendt published a slim book, “On Violence.” In it, Arendt argues that violence is not a form of power but its opposite. Written amid America’s failing war in Vietnam, the book was partly critiquing the calls for violence among left radicals who opposed the war.
Yet reading the book in recent weeks, I was struck by how resonant it is for the American predicament in the Persian Gulf. Power, Arendt argued, is collective, consensual and relational. Violence, by contrast, is instrumental and coercive, its strength evaporating the moment the threat is evaded or withdrawn. “Violence can always destroy power,” Arendt wrote. “Out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What never can grow out of it is power.”
The Trump regime is drunk on violence just like the Athenians. They think it means power and every day, their power bleeds away.
Ha. That’s your go to isn’t it? You think you are smarter than everyone else because you live in NYC.
No need for a GED because I graduated high school.
Guy unilaterally went to war with another country ... pissed off, basically, the entire world with his words and antics ... screwed over the entire world, economically, in the process ... threatened genocide ... is threatening to invade another country ...
And your claim is that he didn't want to "stir up much drama" while travelling abroad? Holy phoock. All the phoock.
I can't believe people as stupid/brainwashed as you exist, but there are literally millions of you out there. It's insane.
I don't think I'm smarter than everybody. Just you.
Imagine any politician campaigning on a promise to get gas under $10.
Why do you say that?
My concern is that we have no evidence that Trump would lay off if Iran had a proven nuke. I can imagine that we would just make darn sure we destroyed any nukes they might have.
Risky, for sure, if there's a chance we don't get all of them. But do you really think that concern would stop Trump? And if it did, I'm sure Netanyahu would straighten him out.
Most Americans oppose this war. The polls are clear. But suppose Iran did get a nuke, and then we attacked and destroyed that capability. I bet that would change a whole lot of opinions.
In fact, Trump might think attacking some fledgling nuclear power is the best way to teach our foes that they can't hide behind nukes.
Can't start with Iran, because they didn't make nukes. How about N.Korea?
Poster states outside parties were telling them Iran was playing by the rules.
Allornothing reads that, and thinks it means Iran was telling folks they were playing by the rules.
Then he claims the OTHER person is too stupid to breathe.
This is the internet. Where an absolute moron, like Allornothing, has the same platform as normal, functioning adults. And other morons give him high fives for exhibiting absolute lunacy.
If I want someone to thank me for visiting Walmart, you can open your mouth. Otherwise, STFU.
You disappoint me. What makes you think he was capable of obtaining his GED? Or does "GED" here stand for something like "Gay Erectile Dysfunction"? That would actually explain his overwhelming anger issues, I guess.
Did you read my entire post and the others I made in this thread? In practical reality I agree with you. I’m 100% against further action and we would undoubtedly screw the whole thing up worse than it already is.
My post was just saying it is theoretically possible (which is admittedly a pedantic point relative to practical reality). So no need to convince me…I’m already aligned with you.
Yep.
No one will ever use nukes because they realize the repercussions of a response.
The only reason to have nukes is as a deterrent.
Why Trump can't understand this is mystifying.
In this war with Iran, it was 100% to deflect from a potential Trump Epstein files inquisition.
Tactical nukes changes the deterrence calculation at least some (depending on context of course).
I do think it’s a net positive if Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons, but it’s very tricky to handle for multiple reasons.
Said differently, to use North Korea as an example, I don’t think they’d ever realistically use their nuclear power, however, I don’t think the world got any safer from them acquiring nuclear weapons
Different board, same moronic takes I see.
Send him? That's where he's always been
Unlike you I have no fear that Trump is going to start bombing Germany, Switzerland, etc.
Sure, because we all know that Trump is a pedophile and the Biden DOJ was just cutting him some slack.
If im Trump i destroy their infrastructure and cripple them to the level where it will take them 20+ years to even faintly recover. I then declare mission accomplished and pull out. Israel can then orchestrate a revolution from within Iran. The citizens would tske this solution in a skinny minute.
.
They won’t be making any bombs for 15 years and then we can do it all over again.
Or they can have a nice productive society without nuclear weapons.
Exactly. Destroy the bridges. Give them a week to surrender. If they don’t, hit the electric stations.
They won’t be making any bombs for 15 years and then we can do it all over again.
Or they can have a nice productive society without nuclear weapons.
If this was a real solution, which it isn't, it's a colossally stupid idea, then why doesn't the pedophile do this?
I like to think there’s at least one or two generals still in charge who realize those are war crimes and don’t want to go in front of The Hague
if the infrastructure in question is used for military means, it's a legitimate target.
I'm aware, but that becomes a bit of a slippery slope. Personally, I'm against destroying critical infrastructure that could hurt untold numbers of innocent civilians even if a military base is getting use out of it, but I suppose I was just raised differently.
Trump can say whatever he wants ... and he has. That doesn't mean anyone will buy it. We know the MAGAts will. They'll buy anything he says. But functioning society, outside the MAGAt cult? They won't. He never had support. He never tried to get support. He just did what he always does - acted like a dictator and then hoped everyone would bow to his whims and his crew would figure it out, or tell people they figured it out and enough people would believe him (or lose interest in disputing him), even if it wasn't true.
Unfortunately, for him, his lies finally caught up to him (we obliterated it! it'll take years upon years to try to rebuild this! now, a few months later it's unobliterated, so we must re-obliterate it!), he failed to take basic concerns into consideration, and these things caught up to him quickly, and he wasn't able to bully others to help dig him out of his incompetency.
This is why criminal failed reality TV talk show hosts shouldn't be POTUS.