President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
liberals when Biden does genocide: I sleep
when oil prices go up: apoplectic rage
hows the dow tho
It's not my wisdom. That was the result of a 250 million dollar exercise/simulation carried out by the U.S. armed forces. The theme was that Iran could deploy cheaper weapons which stymied our conventional large watercraft which were exposed by actual modern battle scenarios to be more relics of cold war intimidation than a modernized, adapted fighting force.This was pretty muc
I either might be misremembering you or maybe you changed but it feels like almost everything I've been reading from you has been a propagated sales pitch over arguing what you believe. I don't believe you when you say that #7 was detonated.
But if I give you the good faith that you are being honest with these takes it just becomes such a contradictory mess when you argue in one thread that the US has space lasers to turn the largest US buildings to dust to now believing when the literal US military of all people telling you that a simulated unrealistic event that took place a quarter century ago to test weaknesses is now definitive proof in your search of the truth.
It seems like whenever you make an honest post you either backtrack on it or go into hibernation to then coming back posting the same scripted horseshit. I feel like if I ask OG Karl Marx or Vic something no matter how crazy it might be, I'm going to get the straight scoop. With you, I have no idea. I've got no interest in that.
Well, since you put it THAT way…
Why didn't he thank us for our attention to this matter.
Might not be real.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/20...
The president on Sunday said he wouldn’t sign any bills until Republicans pass the sweeping elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act.
Well I guess nothing is getting passed in the next 8 months then
Will Iran survive the week? Cuba next, I guess.
Trump stated that the war is very complete.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/20...
The president on Sunday said he wouldn’t sign any bills until Republicans pass the sweeping elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act.
From what I've read, if he doesn't sign them, they become law anyway after 10 days. Unless he vetoes.
I either might be misremembering you or maybe you changed but it feels like almost everything I've been reading from you has been a propagated sales pitch over arguing what you believe. I don't believe you when you say that #7 was detonated. But if I give you the good faith that you are being honest with these takes it just becomes such a contradictory mess when you argue in o
THIS!!!
The imbecile is doing a surprised Pikachu at oil prices spiking.
I don't hold the Trump administration in particularly high regard, but this still made me laugh. Not realizing that a war has more than one side is incredible.
Now, I do not have tea leaves that tell me if the words coming out of Trump's mouth or the Iranian regime's response have any connection to reality. These are not trustworthy people. However, in the hypothetical where US scales down or stops its campaign, it is hard to imagine that the IRGC would not seek to to rebuild as quickly as possible, and they will rather lead Iran to collapse than give up their chokehold on the nation.
This is not me saying that this campaign was a good idea, it is me saying that this administration (like several US administrations have done historically) waded into war in a manner that presents very few good outcomes. Unlike the soft meandering political reality of developed nations where politicians are pretty much free to portray things as bleak or positive as they wish, war exists in a very harsh reality where lies and incompetence matters.
If we disregard the strategic mess and words of fools: On the operational and tactical level, the bombing campaigns are indeed specifically targeting institutions that allow the regime and IRGC to control Iran, which is a pretty clear signal that there is chain of thought that destabilizing the regime could potentially lead to its downfall. However, pretty much any armchair historian of war could tell you that regime change through bombing is... well... dubious. Even in the hypothetical where it does act as a catalyst for the collapse of the current regime, this hardly means the replacement will be any better.
On the political level, I suspect the best outcome Trump can hope for is that the coming coming mess is fuzzy and opaque enough that he can claim victory and rely on pro-Trump media to support for that message and that 5-second attention span of other media and audience makes them forget about it.
If trump was really stupid he might say 'the war is won but not won enough"
The reason it's more likely the USA imo is that every other country has to consider how the usa will respond
Some tactical use (maybe to take out a difficult target) is more likely than desperation
Someone asked me at work yesterday what I thought the chances were that Trump would green light a nuclear strike against Iran.
I said that I thought the chances were very slim but would go up considerably in the unlikely event that a group tied to Iran was able to execute an attack on American soil that killed thousands.
The question did make me wonder how people on 2+2 would react if Trump ordered a nuclear strike. My best guess is:
Within five minutes of detonation, Victor would be saying that liberals were mad that Trump ordered a nuclear strike before they had an opportunity to do so.
Ten minutes later, lozen would say that it was unfortunate Trump had ordered a nuclear strike but that Democrats should have nominated a better candidate than Kamala if they didn't want a nuclear weapon to be detonated.
Thirty minutes later, movin.target and the ghost of mongidig would be saying that the U.S. should be proud to have a president who was willing to do the necessary to achieve durable regime change.
And three days later, craig would pop in to say that the detonation of a nuclear weapon was irrelevant in the grand scheme because something something Son of Man.
A+
Putting aside the weird speculation about how anonymous people on the internet would post in response to a hypothetical scenario, the nuclear question deserves more consideration.
While I think the likelihood of Trump ordering a nuclear strike is extremely low, it's probably not as remote as most people think.
People forget the mood in the country after 9/11. If there was a terrorist attack resulting in thousands dead, and it was known Iran was behind it, and Iran was able to pull this off despite all of the conventional military pressure - people might not just be ok with a nuclear strike but could demand it.
In the run up to the Gulf War James Baker told Saddam Hussein that if they used chemical weapons resulting in mass casualties, that we would respond with nukes. After the war he claimed it was a bluff, but I don't think it was. If 30K troops died in a chemical attack Bush Sr wasn't going to just shrug his shoulders.
If a nation state was able to pull off a super 9/11 there would be a huge incentive not just to eliminate the possibility of them doing it again, but signaling to nations in the future that if they try that and its successful it means game over - so there is zero benefit to doing it. The alternative would be living in a world where a 9/11 is possible at any time, and I don't think US citizens would accept that when there is an another option, as horrifying as that option might be.
The big danger in this war is not Iran sinking an aircraft carrier or blowing up a desalination plant or increasing the price of gas. It's terrorism that could show up 10, 20, 50 years from now.
I don't think the present-day mood would be anywhere remotely close to post 9/11 USA#1 fanaticism/unity. We've already lived through the fallout of the war(s), multiple recessions, tea party/MAGA, pandemic, etc. You're simply not going to see the reclamation of "manifest destiny" that we had in the early aughts. Those lies will work for a certain portion of the population, but everyone else is numb. Going nuclear would only make things worse.
Someone asked me at work yesterday what I thought the chances were that Trump would green light a nuclear strike against Iran.I said that I thought the chances were very slim but would go up considerably in the unlikely event that a group tied to Iran was able to execute an attack on American soil that killed thousands.The question did make me wonder how people on 2+2 would rea
I suspect that soon after, that chezlaw **** will be criticizing the left/liberals for their response of **** all apart from mocking.
Putting aside the weird speculation about how anonymous people on the internet would post in response to a hypothetical scenario, the nuclear question deserves more consideration.
I'm pretty sure you missed the point of the speculation.
While I think the likelihood of Trump ordering a nuclear strike is extremely low, it's probably not as remote as most people think.
People forget the mood in the country after 9/11. If there was a terrorist attack resulting in thousands dead, and it was known Iran was behind it, and Iran was able to pull this off despite all of the conventional military pressure - people might not just be ok with a nuclear strike but could demand it.
I didn't forget the mood. I was living in downtown NYC when 9/11 happened. I don't recall any significant support for responding with a nuclear strike, even among people who were directly affected.
In the run up to the Gulf War James Baker told Saddam Hussein that if they used chemical weapons resulting in mass casualties, that we would respond with nukes. After the war he claimed it was a bluff, but I don't think it was. If 30K troops died in a chemical attack Bush Sr wasn't going to just shrug his shoulders.
I think it was 100% a bluff, if only because the neocons of that era were not about to contaminate Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil resources by detonating a nuclear weapon.
If a nation state was able to pull off a super 9/11 there would be a huge incentive not just to eliminate the possibility of them doing it again, but signaling to nations in the future that if they try that and its successful it means game over - so there is zero benefit to doing it. The alternative would be living in a world where a 9/11 is possible at any time, and I don't think US citizens would accept that when there is an another option, as horrifying as that option might be.
I agree that the U.S. response in that case would be massive and horrifying, but with a normal administration, I remain skeptical that the response would involve nuclear weapons. The hypothetical response of a Trump administration is harder to predict.
The big danger in this war is not Iran sinking an aircraft carrier or blowing up a desalination plant or increasing the price of gas. It's terrorism that could show up 10, 20, 50 years from now.
You are mostly correct, but the risk you describe isn't unique to this specific conflict with Iran.
Someone asked me at work yesterday what I thought the chances were that Trump would green light a nuclear strike against Iran.I said that I thought the chances were very slim but would go up considerably in the unlikely event that a group tied to Iran was able to execute an attack on American soil that killed thousands.The question did make me wonder how people on 2+2 would rea
not bad. I would also blame the Dems for not stopping this crap in 2023.
but I dont get the bolded. why is that even a possibility? when has Iran even threatened a terrorist attack?
