NYT: Trump Considers Attack On Iran
- Thread starter glamphotographer
- Start date
You keep on praising Trump especially when he started that skirmish with Iran that almost resulted in a war. But it is shocking for you not to denounce him for it especially as it led to the deaths of over 50 Canadians and other civilians in that jet that was taken down in Iraq. Go on praising him as he is on the last legs in office. Sanity will finally return to the Whitehouse!!
You keep on praising Obama when he turned Libya into the failed state it is today.
Nope. I don't care about Bengazi.
I care about innocent civilians. But you don't, because you think it begins and ends with Bengazi
Lol! John Bolton and Kelly are Peace Mongers Now!
That's just plain Orwellian.
You gone right off the deepend. They Resigned or were fired along with other Advisors because HE WOULDN'T GO TO WAR.
Wow. You're a bit out of date. Neither of them are in the administration.
Fact is Trump wanted to bomb Iran and the military/intelligence bosses talked him out of it. Sort of destroys your conspiracy theory.
Um. When you quote me put the entire quote up. I said they were gone BECAUSE they were warmongers and Trump wouldn't bite.
When he actually stands before Congress and or the American People and asks them to approve a war you can say he started one.
In fact they are screaming because he ordered more troop removals from Iraq and Afghanistan just within the last couple of days.
With so many things you can attack ho6m for, why pick one you can't?
They don't have nuclear grade uranium and that would have caused around 70,000 deaths.
Why are you advocating for killing so many people?
The reports have repeatedly come out that Trump has tried to start a war with Iran at least twice and only been stopped by the 'warmongers' around the WH.
Its the opposite of what you claim.
It's probably double secret probation.
I think the logic goes that since Trump is so bloodthirsty and incompetent, the war mongers don't want to let him near a real war. Trump would just make it a PR exercise or try to get rich off of it and is constantly rooting for war crimes. You can't advance grand strategy that way.
Therefore the world is safer with Trump in charge because the people who want war would never let him be in charge of one, so therefore no wars.
That would be the semi logical argument but butler argues the opposite, that Trump really is a peacenik and is working hard to stop that CIA deep state from attacking every country on the planet.It's probably double secret probation.
I think the logic goes that since Trump is so bloodthirsty and incompetent, the war mongers don't want to let him near a real war. Trump would just make it a PR exercise or try to get rich off of it and is constantly rooting for war crimes. You can't advance grand strategy that way.
Therefore the world is safer with Trump in charge because the people who want war would never let him be in charge of one, so therefore no wars.
There are three basic arguments as to why Trump is the President of less war.
1) Trump is actually anti-war.
2) Trump provokes unified leftist response, so it is harder to start a war. People don't protest Democratic wars as hard and so they can get away with it. (This is the "Bernie Sanders votes for Democratic wars, but not Republican wars" argument.)
3) Trump is so erratic that even the people who want war don't want him in charge of one.
I don't find any of them particularly convincing, although the third is somewhat plausible.
I think its #3 all the way.
He's been quoted repeatedly talking about why he can't nuke countries, trying to get smaller nukes built he can use, trying to start a war with Iran and a coup with Venezuela.
He wanted to draw down troops yet still try to guard and keep the oil in Syria and Iraq while getting out of Afghanistan just because he doesn't see money in it.
He's old school imperialist, he still thinks global control is through taking over countries with oil.
Its only the people around him who have stopped him.
If there's one place where WW3 could actually start, it would be the South China sea.
Nobody will fight WW3 over a medieval police state. WW3 did not break out when an American drone was shot down,
nor did it break out when that blood thirsty Iranian terrorist was taken out.
Nobody will fight WW3 over a medieval police state. WW3 did not break out when an American drone was shot down,
nor did it break out when that blood thirsty Iranian terrorist was taken out.
Yet Trump is the one who was pushing for an attack on Iran and the military/CIA people are the ones who stopped him (and side note, trump hired those guys knowing their views on conflict)
Why are you incapable of condemning Trump for what he's done but have no problem inventing things to criticize Biden for based on what you imagine he might do.
They are back to doing everything that the UN condemned them for in the first place. Trump's plan to bomb isn't the solution but doing nothing hasn't worked either.
Never happened. I'm betting that it is another CIA anonymous source to the NYT right?
Sorry but didn't happen doesn't count as did.
They have also repeatedly said they want to re-enter the JCPOA and end sanctions.
And they think re-doing all the things that got them in trouble with the UN is the best way? Do you think Iran violating essentially every part of that deal is an appropriate way to respond to Trump pulling out of the deal.
