• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Trump Trying to Get Us into War to Get Reelected?

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
No not really. It just changed the source of it's authoritarianism
As opposed to what?
Khomeini was an Iranian leader, embraced by the Iranians. He wasn't elected, but neither was Trump. They have their ways and we have ours.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Islamic government is not a continuation of that government.
I agree.
Ameristan made their democracy completely fubar
by installing a leader doomed to replacement with
a theocracy.
Nationalization of foreign companies' assets has consequences.
But it's important to consider which responses are best.
And that means analyzing the consequences, both short & long term.
Regarding the latter, the 1953 coup has been a complete disaster
for both Ameristan & Iran.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I agree.
Ameristan made their democracy completely fubar
by installing a leader doomed to replacement with
a theocracy.

It could have reverted to it's socialist government from before.

But it's important to consider which responses are best.

Have you done this or is this just more 20/20 hindsight talking?


And that means analyzing the consequences, both short & long term.

I await your report.

Regarding the latter, the 1953 coup has been a complete disaster
for both Ameristan & Iran.

An Iran's current government has done nothing to improve that.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It could have reverted to it's socialist government from before.
That's an interesting irony.....we had to take over Iran's government
to prevent their socialism....& yet, we have Democrats advocating
socialism here. It suggests the futility of "fixing" countries which
aren't like us.
Have you done this or is this just more 20/20 hindsight talking?
I'm taking a general approach to current foreign policy.
It is certainly guided by experience, including our successful
coup, which resulted in unsuccessful foreign policy effects.

But understand that the important thing to recognize is that
Iran has good reason to want WMDs, given our various attacks
upon them. The 1953 coup must be recognized for its role.
I await your report.
My dog ate it.
An Iran's current government has done nothing to improve that.
We set the stage for their current government.
But whether they're doing what they should or not,
Ameristan has the ability to control its own actions.
I advocate doing that which achieves peace without
going to war.
It's disturbing that so many prefer violent conflict
when that hasn't yet worked. Yet war lust remains.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
That's an interesting irony.....we had to take over Iran's government to prevent
their socialism....& yet, we have Democrats advocating socialism here.

The latter is due to lack of education in economics and history. The former was ideological.

I'm taking a general approach to current foreign policy.
It is certainly guided by experience, including our successful
coup, which resulted in unsuccessful foreign policy effects.

You are just repeating known history here. No actual methodology.

But understand that the important thing to recognize is that
Iran has good reason to want WMDs, given our various attacks
upon them. The 1953 coup must be recognized for its role.

As does Iran's support of terrorism now which far outweighs 53. After all the coup was not done by the military. Seems like your evaluation is flawed if you think nukes will stop a coup by the CIA.

We set the stage for their current government.

As does Iran yet people ignore that factor instead they whine about the 50s.

But whether they're doing what they should or not,
Ameristan has the ability to control its own actions.

So does Iran. Too bad for Iran it made the wrong choice.


I advocate doing that which achieves peace without
going to war.

Except you seem to advocate do nothing. Iran seizes vessels, do nothing. Iran mines the Gulf, do nothing. Iran military leaders in Iraq helping terrorists, do nothing. You advocate appeasement while only fooling yourself by calling it something more.

It's disturbing that so many prefer violent conflict
when that hasn't yet worked. Yet war lust remains.

Iran messed up. Too bad for Iran.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The latter is due to lack of education in economics and history. The former was ideological.
I don't see that distinction as being significant to staging a coup or not.
You are just repeating known history here. No actual methodology.
That would be beyond the scope of this venue.
Nonetheless, the combined wisdom of our leaders over the last 70
odd years has resulted in continual conflict with Iran. It looks clear
that whatever analysis they're doing isn't benefitting anyone.
Iran has become an enemy, & has remained one. Attacking
them hasn't borne fruit yet...what makes you think that it'll
work this time?

If war is the answer to countries which are socialist & belligerent,
should we have attacked USSR, Cuba, N Korea, PRC, etc?
As does Iran's support of terrorism now which far outweighs 53. After all the coup was not done by the military. Seems like your evaluation is flawed if you think nukes will stop a coup by the CIA.
I never proposed that nukes would prevent a coup.
As does Iran yet people ignore that factor instead they whine about the 50s.
Uh oh....the old "whine" dissing.
A lesser poster would accuse you of whining
about Iran being mean to Israel & Ameristan.
Fortunately, I'd never use such a retort.
So does Iran. Too bad for Iran it made the wrong choice.
This gives me the impression that if they do something
we don't like, it's license for us to do anything we want,
no matter how many die, or how much it costs.
Except you seem to advocate do nothing. Iran seizes vessels, do nothing. Iran mines the Gulf, do nothing. Iran military leaders in Iraq helping terrorists, do nothing. You advocate appeasement while only fooling yourself by calling it something more.
There are more paths than appeasement or all out war.
Perhaps you've missed my advocacy for negotiation.
That last word is characterized by trading commitments
to behave in specified ways.
Iran messed up. Too bad for Iran.
It seems that you don't mind waging war, & killing
vast numbers of people....all because they deserve it
(in your opinion).
I don't see things in such a fire & brimstone hand of a
vengeful God sort of way. I see potential in a change
of tack, ie, try peaceful behavior & negotiation.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I don't see that distinction as being significant to staging a coup or not.

My point was about a change in the people regarding socialism.

That would be beyond the scope of this venue.
Nonetheless, the combined wisdom of our leaders over the last 70
odd years has resulted in continual conflict with Iran.

It is not like Iran did nothing and is completely innocent. Add that to your so-called evaluation.

It looks clearthat whatever analysis they're doing isn't benefitting anyone.

Assertion

Iran has become an enemy, & has remained one.

Not like Iran is trying to change that.

Attacking them hasn't borne fruit yet...what makes you think that it'll
work this time?

You are assuming a goal then projecting it.

If war is the answer to countries which are socialist & belligerent,
should we have attacked USSR, Cuba, N Korea, PRC, etc?

There has been no war against Iran.

I never proposed that nukes would prevent a coup.

You used the coup as part of the rational for nukes. I pointed out nukes would prevent a coup.

Uh oh....the old "whine" dissing.
A lesser poster would accuse you of whining
about Iran being mean to Israel & Ameristan.
Fortunately, I'd never use such a retort.

You are the only that seems to ignore Iran's own acts only focusing on the US. That is why I called it whining.

This gives me the impression that if they do something
we don't like, it's license for us to do anything we want,
no matter how many die, or how much it costs.

Assertion and fiction.

There are more paths than appeasement or all out war.

Ergo limited strikes like the one recently.

Perhaps you've missed my advocacy for negotiation.

Perhaps you missed the fact that Iran agreed to terms then violated those terms.

That last word is characterized by trading commitments
to behave in specified ways.

Tried and failed.

It seems that you don't mind waging war, & killing
vast numbers of people....all because they deserve it
(in your opinion).

Assertion. I never suggested a war.

I don't see things in such a fire & brimstone hand of a
vengeful God sort of way. I see potential in a change
of tack, ie, try peaceful behavior & negotiation.

You are arguing against your own strawman. Impressive.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It is not like Iran did nothing and is completely innocent. Add that to your so-called evaluation.
I don't say they're innocent either.
But one cannot simply blame them, & let that drive our actions.
We have much blame too. What matters is implementing
the best course....not seeking vengeance cuz we feel wronged.
Assertion
It's an assertion backed up by reality, ie, that our acts towards
Iran have resulted in continued conflict, with hundreds of
thousands of deaths. Are you OK with this history?
Not like Iran is trying to change that.
I'm not looking for excuses for the state of things. Instead, I
advocate Ameristanian efforts to change things for the better.
You are assuming a goal then projecting it.
Correct. The USA goal has been change thru
political & military conflict. And the result has
been political & military conflict.
There has been no war against Iran.
We waged a proxy war using Iraq to attack
them in 1980. Note that we supplied the very
same kind of WMDs which decry when used
by others, eg, chemical & biological.
You used the coup as part of the rational for nukes.
I pointed out nukes would prevent a coup.
I'll clarify.
The 1953 coup was the beginning of our continual
attacks upon Iran, which sends the message that
USA is an existential threat to Iran. The natural
consequence of this is that Iran would want a defense
would inhibit our violent hegemony. Their desire for
nuclear weapons would be an expected response.
You are the only that seems to ignore Iran's own acts only focusing on the US. That is why I called it whining.
I notice that when a poster has no rational argument,
they resort to calling the superior argument "whining".
To wield the word thus is the same as admitting defeat.
Ergo limited strikes like the one recently.
We've been doing that for a long time.
Yet the problem persists.
And you advocate continuing what doesn't work?
Perhaps you missed the fact that Iran agreed to terms then violated those terms.
I didn't miss it.
Are you saying that if there are compliance violations,
the only solution is military attack?
Tried and failed.
During the agreement, they didn't acquire nukes.
And we didn't go to war.
That is limited success.
Assertion. I never suggested a war.
You're advocating military strikes.
Get enuf of those, & you have war.
You are arguing against your own strawman. Impressive.
You should take a break, & then return to read your
own posts with fresh eyes. They look very pro-war,
favoring military action, & opposing negotiation.
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
American support for the Shah of Iran ended nearly four decades ago, perhaps it's now time for the Iranian people to finally get over this hatred towards America. ....:rolleyes:
Well that certainly ain’t gonna happen now. You guys just assassinated a beloved public figure.

I’m not sayin he was a good guy, but from the point of view of the Iranians he was a hero.

Maybe they will forgive you for this, after another forty years or so.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Is Trump trying to provoke Iran into attacking us so he can get us into a war that will rally enough voters to his side in time for him to get reelected?

That is a given. There may be other reasons as well, such as convincing himself of his personal merits now that he has been Insufficiently Impeached. At his core, Trump is simply not equipped to deal with a self-image that he does not know how to twist into an adolescent fantasy of a "winner".

If so, (1) why do you think so, and (2) why do you think his method of getting us into a war will help him get reelected, as opposed to help him get thrown out of office? Basically, why do you think enough American's to reelect Trump are dumb enough to fall for the oldest trick in the book of politics?

Because it worked well enough for GWB 16 years ago, and by this point it seems to be all but impossible to get Trump's supporters motivated to curb his most destructive impulses. I used to think low of Republican voters, but I keep being disappointed again, repeatedly, month after month.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
According to our Commander in Chief Donald Trump, he ordered the killing of Qassim Soleimani in order to 'stop a war' with Iran
Honest questions:

1) Do you believe him?

2) Do you think he believes that?

3) Do you think he expects anyone to believe in that?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
If the U.S. military would've been able to kill Adolf Hitler in 1932, then this might have prevented war. Right? Iran's military leader plotted lethal attacks against Americans, so likewise, this Iranian top General's demise by U.S. military drones might've helped prevent further conflict between the U.S. and Iran. Right?
You are much too enamored of the Great Man Theory, and much too clueless about how things are outside of the Fox News fictions.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
How does this attack fit into the Trump is Putins puppet narrative?
Be creative
We do not have to be creative.

Attacking Iran further weakens the credibility and influence of the USA abroad, gives Iran reason to further its ties with Putin, and increases the odds of motivating Iran to risk its own people and resources to weaken the USA in any ways that it can find.

Also, it happened in just about the optimal way to sabotage any efforts at attaining good will or cooperation at Iraq as well.

It is almost more sophisticated an effort at sabotaging the USA than I would expect Trump to be capable of.. but it may well have come from Putin or someone else at his command.
 
Top