No one wants a war, but given these facts:

-The general was behind hundreds of american deaths in iraq.
-He was behind the recent embassy attack. — BitconnectCarlos

No one wants a war that could potentially kill hundreds of thousands but given that hundreds have been killed, we should have one. No, your position is incoherent.

That's what Trump ran against (and until very recently has been his official line). See.

Yeah, cause he neeeeeever lies :rofl:

I don't want a war. We don't have a war, at least not officially. You're acting like this strike just started a war out of nothing and that's just not the situation.

Because he's a serial liar doesn't mean he's not capable of having a policy he actually believes in. He said he wants a wall and he actually does want a wall. If I say he wants a wall, you're going to laugh and claim he doesn't because he's a liar? You need more than that.

A good way not to start a war would be not to assassinate the heads of foreign armies. You can punish your enemies in more subtle ways than that. It's like if I go up and punch someone in the face and then claim I don't want a fight, it's not going to fly is it?

Assassinating politicians and civilians is not how you conduct peace talks. So clearly he lied about not wanting to continue the wars.

And, no, I don't think Trump really cares about the wall. He just uses it as a talking point that works with his base.

having a policy he actually believes in — Baden

The only policy I believe he believes in is "Trump first." And currently that means doing whatever he can to stay out of jail.

If you're going to reduce yourself to the absurd claim that Trump is not capable of believing in any policy of his because he's a liar, you'll find yourself on the same level of political confusion as those who believe he's an absolutely honest dealer. Again, you need more.

I think they would do what they've been doing: killing Amerucans here and there.

IOW, they're already at war with the US. On the US side, war would mean regime change by military means, which would be kind of psychotic for a country that's already in imperial overstretch.

But then the trade war with China also seems psychotic and were doing it. But Trump has no Wolfowitz, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. So no.

If you're going to reduce yourself to the absurd claim that Trump is not capable of believing in any policy of his because he's a liar, you'll find yourself on the same level of political confusion as those who believe he's an absolutely honest dealer. Again, you need more. — Baden

That makes no sense. He's lied about everything, and he's taken opposite positions on all important issues. His actions directly contradict many of his talking points.

Cmon. At this point it would be absurd to think he's anything but a sham.

If your concern is people not dying then my claim is you can't consistently support this move.

It would only take the minutest step back from hyperbole to concede the point. Even if Trump is 99.9% a sham, he would still be capable of believing in a given policy of his. If you can't accept that, let's just agree to differ.

Not perfectly though. I can't plot a positive economic or strategic outcome to this for the US ruling classes that beats sticking with the Iran deal and encouraging progressive forces in the country. Maybe I lack a sufficiently Machiavellian imagination or something. Anyone here see a war being good for the US? — Baden

You don't count the heads of the military-industrial complex being part of the US ruling class?

Do you think getting the evangelical vote is something that the Republican elite would not want?

There's no US foreign policy designed for the common American. What there is are agendas and objectives of various groups in the power elite. Think of it like a version of trickle down economics.

(Besides, the Trump supporters will ardently favour war if Trump is for it and it's opposed by the Democrats.)

If he's 99.9% scum, how would it make sense to ever give him the benefit of the doubt? Seems like a pretty steep gamble, especially when you have the fate of all the potential (and at this point probable) victims of war to consider.

The scorpion and frog fable still holds true after all these years.

@BitconnectCarlos

Here's another analogy.

A: Check out this guy sticking pins in us.
B: What shall we do about it?
A: Well, we can't just let him get away with it forever. He'll just keep doing it.
B: I guess.
A: How about we cut his fingers off?
B: I don't know if that's such a good idea. His buddies are just likely to come and stick even more pins in us. They might even decide to cut our fingers off. What should we do then?
A: Um, I don't know. Cut their heads off?
B: Er...

The route to less violence is de-escalation. The US is doing the opposite right now.

An alternative:

A: Check out this guy sticking pins in us.
B: Why is he doing that and how can we get him to stop without getting hurt ourselves?
A: Good question...

You make the argument on a case-by-case basis looking at other factors besides the propensity for lies. And you have to do that with every politician. You may as well just presume they are all willing to lie when it suits them.

Yeah, I know that. I hadn't thought about the Evangelical angle though. Interesting one.

You make the argument on a case-by-case basis looking at other factors besides the propensity for lies. And you have to do that with every politician. You may as well just presume they are all willing to lie when it suits them. — Baden

Your solution is we be blind to people's history and personality and everything they've ever said and everything they've shown us about themselves?

That logic would lead to the conclusion that we should let all criminals out of all prisons.

Yes, that's what I want. I want us to release all the prisoners. Cool we got to the bottom of our disagreement anyhow.

Not my fault your logic leads to absurd conclusions *shrug*

@ssu Funnily enough, I read recently that Trump was losing support among Evangelicals and the religious in general and was concerned to shore that up. Maybe he cussed too much or something. Anyway, I like the angle. Something adroitly fucked up about it.

The guy is sticking pins in us because he genuinely hates us and has been hating us for decades. This is the regime, not the people. We can play nice with them, but that doesn't change the fact that we have diametrically opposed interests in the middle east. What Iran is doing now in targeting the US via proxy makes sense for it. It makes sense to ramp up the aggression if the US isn't responding too. That's just good strategy.

It makes sense to ramp up the aggression if the US isn't responding too — BitconnectCarlos

Exactly

he genuinely hates us — BitconnectCarlos

Why?

and has been hating us for decades — BitconnectCarlos

Which is why he helped you fight the Taliban?

It makes sense to ramp up the aggression — BitconnectCarlos

No, it doesn't. You're not thinking. Try the analogy again. Try to think about not fucking yourself up just to get to fuck the other guy up. Or bite the bullet and admit you don't really care about how many people get killed, you care about being made to look bad by a country you consider inferior.

that doesn't change the fact that we have diametrically opposed interests in the middle east. — BitconnectCarlos

What are these, specifically, and why do they require you to get into an armed conflict with each other as opposed to finding some kind of mutually less destructive accommodation? I really don't think you know what you're talking about. But please prove me wrong.

What's next? They hate our freedom? Fucking hell...

I explained it to you this morning (my morning). It just doesnt compute for you.

Weird.

The guy is sticking pins in us because he genuinely hates us and has been hating us for decades. This is the regime, not the people. We can play nice with them, but that doesn't change the fact that we have diametrically opposed interests in the middle east. What Iran is doing now in targeting the US via proxy makes sense for it. It makes sense to ramp up the aggression if the US isn't responding too. That's just good strategy.

It was a good strategy, until you get blown up. But I suppose if you’re a theocrat that’s the sort of martyrdom you want.

An embassy is American territory. Dictators aren’t swayed by moral force, as Orwell once said: what despots fear is physical force. It was an appropriate response that will make them think twice about doing it again.

Your contribution has been a few rhetorical questions, a maths brain fart, and a poor attempt at sarcasm. Analysis, no.