US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1565

On June 21 2019 09:04 Danglars wrote:
Consider that I already made clear that I wasn't talking about going to war in the hopes of being re-elected.


The confusion between jokes and reality has always stymied denizens of the thread. The last occurence was literally the last rally, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon. After six years, I'm sure an egoist would hope he polls so well that people wished for more.

On June 21 2019 10:21 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't really see why Trump should accept an election if he loses it (from his perspective). That said, if it's Biden he's up against, I don't think it matters much in the long run.

On June 21 2019 10:21 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't really see why Trump should accept an election if he loses it (from his perspective). That said, if it's Biden he's up against, I don't think it matters much in the long run.

On June 21 2019 11:04 KwarK wrote:

If you're referring to the impending environmental collapse you'll be pleased to learn that no candidate will be able to avert that. So you shouldn't worry about that and you should focus on getting someone who will close the internment camps that we're apparently doing again.

On June 21 2019 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm not sure even that's on the table, best case is returning to what they were like under Obama

+ Show Spoiler +

On June 21 2019 13:49 KwarK wrote:

I dunno then, focus on not raping the kids in the internment centers so much then? Modest goals, but I'm sure we can find a candidate who can give us something.

President Donald Trump is not shy when it comes to threats. Ally and adversary alike have been the targets of explicit presidential ultimatums, and the president tends to get what he wants. But when it comes to Iran, Trump appears to have met his match. Over the last two months, Iran has engaged in an escalating series of violent provocations. All of them seem calibrated to gauge America’s resolve to defend its interests and guarantee the freedom of maritime commercial navigation. If these are tests, they have found Trump wanting.

What has now become a full-fledged crisis in the Middle East began in early May, when American officials indicated that credible intelligence suggested Iran or its proxies in the region were preparing strikes on U.S.-affiliated targets. Reluctantly, the White House dispatched aircraft carriers, B-52 bombers, amphibious landing vessels, and Patriot anti-missile batteries to the region. Those assets were followed by the deployment of a few thousand soldiers—a deterrent force sufficient to respond to and potentially prevent aggression, but not to preemptively neutralize a military threat.

Not to worry, American officials told the New York Times. The administration was aware that “Iran is trying to provoke the United States for its own political purposes,” which “is an important insight that could help the Trump administration avoid a needless escalation with Tehran.” After all, any engagement with Iran “would run counter to President Trump’s desire to reduce the overseas deployment of troops.”

Those ominous American intelligence assessments proved prescient. On May 12, four vessels were attacked. These included two Saudi oil tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates near the critical Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia, Norway, and the U.A.E. informed the United Nations Security Council that the “sophisticated and coordinated” operation involved expert navigation, fast boats, and precision divers who planted mines below the waterline of the targeted ships—a mission that must have involved a “state actor.” According to American intelligence assessments, that state actor was Iran. But when asked how he planned to respond to this attack on international commerce, Trump replied simply, “It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens.”

Of course, something had happened. And it happened again a little more than one month later when another similarly sophisticated attack disabled two more tankers in the Gulf of Oman. And how did Trump respond? He dismissed these brazen assaults on commercial shipping interests as “very minor.”

This consistent pattern of Iranian escalation has been met with apathy from the president, culminating in Iran’s announcement Thursday morning that it had just shot down an American reconnaissance drone. To this attack on a $120 million, 100-foot wingspan aerial surveillance vehicle Trump again responded with dispassion and detachment. “I find it hard to believe if it was intentional,” he said of the attack for which Tehran claimed responsibility. He blamed the act of aggression, instead, on a rogue operator who was acting “loose and stupid.”

Maybe the president is providing Iran with an off-ramp to deescalate tensions, but Tehran has shown no interest in paring back its provocations. The administration has so far preferred to adhere closely to its strategy of using economic and diplomatic pressure to foment instability inside Iran with the hopes of forcing the Mullahs back to the negotiating table in a more conciliatory posture. Tehran’s provocations are no doubt an effort to derail the administration’s maximum pressure campaign. The White House is well-served by preserving the peace, but not at any price. There is a point at which restraint becomes negligence.

Iran is testing American resolve, and it will continue those tests until it encounters a limit to its freedom of action. This is not a cost-free proposition for the United States. As the U.S. sacrifices its role as guarantor of the right of navigation on the high seas, its allies who rely on that naval power will become ever more insecure. Some will look to America’s peer competitors for protection. American hegemony will wane, more aggressive challenges to its military dominance will follow, and the peace and prosperity that have been the byproducts of a global, U.S.-guaranteed marketplace will become a thing of the past. The stakes could, indeed, be quite high.

Donald Trump has said the only thing that would move him toward a preemptive strike in Iran is “nuclear weapons,” but that’s the wrong answer. The last time the U.S. engaged in an exchange of fire with Iran was 1988, a devastating military response to Iranian efforts to obstruct naval navigation through the Persian Gulf. Iran has tested the United States like this in the past. Ronald Reagan passed. So far, Trump has not fared as well.

On June 21 2019 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:


I mean you make a fair argument why I should be looking for this in potentially the most literal sense. Pretty sure I can get a spot in some luxury bunker/biodome if I go full Limbaugh and am okay being a janitor in retirement/the hellscape that's left.

In which case, I could probably be on Trump's campaign staff by next week as a headliner "Black socialist who saw the light" or whatever.

On June 21 2019 14:28 KwarK wrote:

Token black is a pretty lucrative career within the GOP. You just need to rehearse "I don't know why he said that but I know in his soul he's not a racist. As a black man I'm very offended that the Democrats are making this about race instead of discussing the real issues". Hell, you can probably get it all knocked out in a morning. Just record yourself saying that a hundred times wearing slightly different clothes against different backdrops and give them to the press office to have on file. They'll be able to issue a statement as and when needed.

On June 21 2019 14:26 Danglars wrote:
Iran's pretty explicitly testing the limits of Trump's unwillingness to make a move in kind. The state-level actor evidence, and shooting down of an American drone are a clear message. If Iran wanted deniability with the mine attack, the drone attack put the question to America of what a hundred million dollars of military hardware is actually worth. Obviously not military invasion and regime change. As expected, I've read a lot of binary thinking on this.


Commentary Mag

My best guess is somebody close to Trump made him reconsider, and he cancelled the order and told Bolton(/Pompeo/co) to draft something that does less.

On June 21 2019 14:32 KwarK wrote:
There's plenty of airspace in America that the navy can safely fly drones in if they like. Do you recall the kids game of pulling punches and saying "I'm not touching you" over and over? It always ends in the asshole doing it getting slapped and then crying that the other guy was the aggressor because he didn't even touch him. The US got slapped for playing "I'm not touching you". Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There's plenty of airspace that is nowhere near Iran.

On June 21 2019 09:52 Introvert wrote:


Yes, and it amuses me that the people saying "why would Iran do that, what's their motivation" are so bad at applying that thought process to Trump. the reaction seems primarily reflexive. besides AFAIK at this point many of our allies think it was Iran. Both GB and Germany have made noise in that direction. Who knows, they may even be downplaying it domestically for their own reasons.

late edit: and I think Adam Schiff has also said it was unquestionably Iran. Time to take off the tinfoil.

On June 21 2019 08:51 Introvert wrote:
Considering how Trump campaigned I'd say going to war with Iran sounds like an excellent way to lose an election. In fact, that might be part of the reason for the poking and prodding Iran is doing.

On June 21 2019 15:01 On_Slaught wrote:


This. I actually believe the Iranians on this one. The thing is a surveillance drone, so chances are it was trying to do its job and got too close, either on purpose or accident. It isnt a stretch to think it was on purpose given the number of hawks running things. Could be wrong, but as Kwark said there is a lot of air space it could have used instead.

On June 21 2019 16:49 Jockmcplop wrote:


Pretending that this is some bizarre conspiracy theory is ridiculous.
After Iraq, no-one is going to believe the weak justifications for war that America (and the UK) throw out there. Its not because of conspiracy thinking, but because the same liars are telling the same lies.
Do you think its a coincidence that Trump's military guys have been trying to get a war with Iran for years (decades?) openly?
I don't belive a single fucking word of it.