Does Trump provoke Iran as an election stunt?

[IncredulousP]

You know - what do you find wrong about the Libertarians? Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I think in practice it could be a good system.

Libertarianism is an idealism that works under the assumption that every product and service has equal ease of access and great amount of competition, which doesn't exist in our capitalist society nor is a free market applicable to many problems. It really is just "diet conservatism" to catch those aware enough of how corrupt the Republican party is from going left.

It is unfortunate because there are mountains upon mountains of evidence that point out how destructive Republican and Libertarian actions are on the stability, longevity, and prosperity of a Nation.

Now, I'm going to be honest, I'm not a fan of Democrats. I don't call myself a Democrat. But lesser of two evils, right?

I understand appreciating and accepting opposing ideas. Hell, I downright agree with some conservative points, especially around sexuality and gender (not the anti-gay parts), but the majority of talking points
in conservative circles promote fascism, intolerance, short-term growth over long-term stability, racism, elitism, social hierarchies, nepotism, appeal to emotion than facts, and the list goes on. Fueled by ignorance, misinformation or lack of information, mental/emotional neglect, hatred, greed.

Look where we are. Pointless wars in the middle East, found to have been (surprise surprise) a waste of trillions of dollars and the lives of many, many people. Wealth inequality is insane, mental health treatment is low and many are ignorant to how it even affects the population, school shootings are frequent, alt-right domestic terrorism is rising, history is repeating itself on a trend toward fascism. This needs to end, but it's not going to. People don't like facts, they like having their feelings expressed. They want those easy emotional reinforcements from the tension in their minds repeated to them. You know the irony? This is mental illness, and if more of the population learned this, accepted it, and got affordable treatment, not only would they listen to reason, but corruption wouldn't be so easy to spread.

So yes, I find it unfortunate that amid the chaos lies a laid track toward further pain and suffering, for all of us equally.

https://trofire.com/2019/12/23/neuroscientist-reveals-why-trump-supporters-fall-for-his-lies/

 

[Viri]

Iran never stood a chance against America in the first place even with Souleimani.

If this had escalated (and hopefully it doesn't in future) Iran would like have targeted critical infrastructure to the US and the world in general instead of hitting a couple of buildings they would target oil refineries, docks, and airfields.

This would probably slow down the influx of US forces but the big damage would likely be economic as a lot of the world rely on oil from the Middle East so Iran may not be able to strike American citizens directly but they can still hit them if they want to.

As for invading Syria I doubt their goal would be invasion and more to kick out the US forces that already invaded Syria illegally.

Iran is a double edged sword. Iran is very hard to invade, because of the mountains, but they can be blockaded easily, and their oil fields are on the wrong side of the mountains.

Spoiler

 

[Taleweaver]

What's funny is you probably think the impeachment farce isn't an election stunt.

The only reason that happens in this period is because Trump only committed this crime after Biden decided to run for president. Sure, if Trump pressured Ukraine into opening an investigation on (Hunter) Biden before his father entered the race, it probably wouldn't have come to this. But either way: Trump can't just be excused of committed crimes just because everyone's considered subjective.

I also don't see how the democrats hope to win votes they don't already have with these trials. There's competition among the candidates, but not where it comes to Trump's antics. As such, the candidates diversify rather than just be the better alternative, which...erm...how to phrase this? I know you consider him a decent president...but that sentiment isn't shared in the democrat user space. Touting you'll be better than Trump isn't exactly much of an achievement and can be mocked easily (I can already hear saturday night jokes about it: "oh...so you'll only be involved in 1544 scandals? Now THAT's a relief! ").

On the republican side, things are pretty different. Nobody wants to be seen voting for a crook, so the last thing you want the collective audience remember is that he committed fraude (which he is still actively trying not to face trial for). And if that's the last thing, then "standing firm against an Iranian threat" certainly sounds more appealing, even if it means sweeping under the rug who caused the threat in the first place..

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

.
See it this way:
What can Iran do? Bomb american bases right? They did. They were basically pee shooters. They can't invade Syria to tackle the americans head on, and can't surely bomb america from far away.

Iran is far from america, but america is just out of the border, with a whole lot of ground to bomb away.

Even without nuclear weapons, Iran could fire thousands of rockets at Israel. Bibi made clear that he had nothing to do with the killing of Soleimani. Seemed a bit scared.
The US can't invade Iran without ruining themselves, kind of like USSR in Afghanistan.
And they can't throw nukes at Iran. It would make the US an actual "supervillian state" and Russia trigger nervous.

 

[eyeliner]

Even without nuclear weapons, Iran could fire thousands of rockets at Israel. Bibi made clear that he had nothing to do with the killing of Soleimani. Seemed a bit scared.
The US can't invade Iran without ruining themselves, kind of like USSR in Afghanistan.
And they can't throw nukes at Iran. It would make the US an actual "supervillian state" and Russia trigger nervous.

True, but aren't they all "No nukes!"? Nuclear weapons aren't really an issue.

There are worse ways to engage in war without total destruction. Economic sanctions, political lockout to neighboring countries, counter espionage here and there, political change, while being possibly cheaper but slower can also be effective with a minimal body count. Do not underestimate the power of hunger. Of a furious mob against the government (like Hong Kong).

All in all, there's a lot of options, and "bombs away" is only one of them.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

True, but aren't they all "No nukes!"? Nuclear weapons aren't really an issue.

There are worse ways to engage in war without total destruction. Economic sanctions, political lockout to neighboring countries, counter espionage here and there, political change, while being possibly cheaper but slower can also be effective with a minimal body count. Do not underestimate the power of hunger. Of a furious mob against the government (like Hong Kong).

All in all, there's a lot of options, and "bombs away" is only one of them.

The reckless killing of Soleimani and an Iraqi offical has made Iraq and Iran more united than ever. The USA have brought democracy to Iraq but don't give a damn of what its parliament and leader think, i.e. exposing their true intentions. Sanctions usually do not work and will only accelerate the need to find alternatives to the petrodollar (America's biggest weakness). Hong Kong is a different topic as it has more to do with an identity crisis. The youth in Iran used to somewhat like America, but recent years have changed that as well.

 

[eyeliner]

The reckless killing of Soleimani and an Iraqi offical has made Iraq and Iran more united than ever. The USA have brought democracy to Iraq but don't give a damn of what its parliament and leader think, i.e. exposing their true intentions. Sanctions usually do not work and will only accelerate the need to find alternatives to the petrodollar (America's biggest weakness). Hong Kong is a different topic as it has more to do with an identity crisis. The youth in Iran used to somewhat like America, but recent years have changed that as well.

Recent events don't bode well for Iranian government.
- Bombing a civilian aircraft
- Tear gas and real bullets to end a protest

Give it time and the government will implode.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

And you expect the new government to be friendly towards their former enemies? Assad is secular and still doesn't get along with the USA. Iraq is democratic...
You can only achieve a major shift in a population if you break them mentally and "re-educate" them, like it was done after World War 2 or if you have a severe split in society and make the other side gain political power. The former will not happen (I have explained why in my last post) and the latter does not apply to Iran. I'd say America is more split than Iran - maybe not yet on foreign policy but let's not forget that Trumps isolationism with regards to the Middle East was a major appeal to his base and in the far-left the support for Israel is much smaller than in the current establishment.

 

[notimp]

to catch those aware enough of how corrupt the Republican party is from going left.

Heavens.

They better go right then. And then right, left, right, straight ahead and then they are at the train station.

They certainly dont teach that bull, so where do you pick it up? Youtube algo again?

People on the right are more prone to absolutist believes. Absolutist regimes are more prone to corruption. Look it up. Not that the left would spread idiotic oversimplifications like 'you get more corrupt by going right' all day...

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

In terms foreign policy and interventionism there seems to be no difference between left and right. This is true for the US as well as many European countries.

 

[Pipistrele]

Whatever he's doing, I hope it's not going to kill us all in the process.

 

[IncredulousP]

"President Donald Trump and the U.S. military had said there were no casualties after the strike on the Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq and a facility in its northern Kurdish region.

“While no U.S. service members were killed in the Jan. 8 Iranian attack on Al Asad air base, several were treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed,” Captain Bill Urban, spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said in a statement." - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-usa-casualties-idUSKBN1ZG0AX