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

[Guitar's Cry]

It would be like modern Germany freaking out that America is going to invade because it did in the 40s.

If America was involved in constant conflicts in the area since the 40s, and took out a major military leader after breaking the deal made with a previous President, yeah, that would make sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

If not, (1) why do you put it past Trump to intentionally provoke Iran into attacking us, and (2) why do you think he has picked this particular minute in history to provoke Iran?

I don't put anything past Trump, but the idea that he did this in order to win the election implies that he believed that he would have been in danger of losing the election if he didn't do it. I'm not sure if I can accept that this is what Trump believed.

 

[Shad]

If America was involved in constant conflicts in the area since the 40s, and took out a major military leader after breaking the deal made with a previous President, yeah, that would make sense.

You have changed the contents of history thus concede the point as you can not address what I actually said. You have failed to consider that one government is not the continuation of another government thus the rational for opposing one government is not the same as opposing the current. Try again.

Trump has no obligation to maintain a deal that is not a treaty passed by Congress. Your point is absurd.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You have changed the contents of history thus concede the point as you can not address what I actually said. You have failed to consider that one government is not the continuation of another government thus the rational for opposing one government is not the same as opposing the current. Try again.

Trump has no obligation to maintain a deal that is not a treaty passed by Congress. Your point is absurd.

You are assuming Iranians are seeing things from an American point of view.

 

[Shad]

You are assuming Iranians are seeing things from an American point of view.

Iranians are fully capable of looking up and understanding the American system of politics. If they want to play ignorant that is their problem and one which is theirs to resolve. Lets not pretend there has never been a single record of change in policy over the course of an American election until 5 minutes ago.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Iranians are fully capable of looking up and understanding the American system of politics. If they want to play ignorant that is their problem and one which is theirs to resolve. Lets not pretend there has never been a single record of change in policy over the course of an American election until 5 minutes ago.

From an Iranian perspective, does understanding policy matter given American military history in the Middle East, the slew of military bases, and the assassination of a military general change how they may percieve us? History matters, especially when some very important factors remain the same.

 

[metis]

To me, the #1 question is whether we had and have more to lose or more to gain based on killing the general, and I can't see that the latter is likely the case for several reasons. It's sortofa "feel-good moment" for many, but the long-term effects could be quite gnarly.

 

[esmith]

Well I thought that many of you wanted to see the U.S. military pull out of Iraq.....At least when the Obama was President......and now that it is possible that we will leave will you'll have a problem with it???????

 

[columbus]

Well I thought that many of you wanted to see the U.S. military pull out of Iraq.....At least when the Obama was President......and now that it is possible that we will leave you'll have a problem with it???????

Nope.
I'm good with it.

It'll probably mean global economic dislocations and furthering our descent into environmental disaster.
Oh well.
Nothing I can do about it that I haven't done already.
Tom

 

[Shad]

From an Iranian perspective, does understanding policy matter given American military history in the Middle East, the slew of military bases, and the assassination of a military general change how they may percieve us? History matters, especially when some very important factors remain the same.

Nope as my point is solid. Stop treating Iran like mental midgets.

 

[Shad]

Well I thought that many of you wanted to see the U.S. military pull out of Iraq.....At least when the Obama was President......and now that it is possible that we will leave will you'll have a problem with it???????

Keep in mind US troops are there under different agreements. A security pact and an anti-ISIS pact.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Nope as my point is solid. Stop treating Iran like mental midgets.

Nuh-uh, my point is solid! Stop treating treating Iranians as if they are not human.

 

[esmith]

Keep in mind US troops are there under different agreements. A security pact and an anti-ISIS pact.

Don't think that answer address my question of: "Well I thought that many of you wanted to see the U.S. military pull out of Iraq.....At least when the Obama was President......and now that it is possible that we will leave will you'll have a problem with it???????"

 

[Shad]

Don't think that answer address my question of: "Well I thought that many of you wanted to see the U.S. military pull out of Iraq.....At least when the Obama was President......and now that it is possible that we will leave will you'll have a problem with it???????"

It was not an answer to any question. My point was informational. Leaving the anti-ISIS coalition does not revoke other agreements. Obama's Iraq withdrawal was a different agreement too which was about US occupation forces. Beside Obama was POTUS when the security and ISIS pact were created after the occupation withdrawal

 

[Shad]

Nuh-uh, my point is solid! Stop treating treating Iranians as if they are not human.

I never did any such thing. Try again. Maybe better deflection so you can ignore how you make Iranians sound stupid.

 

[Twilight Hue]

According to our Commander in Chief Donald Trump, he ordered the killing of Qassim Soleimani in order to 'stop a war' with Iran

I don't know why they gave you a funny. Abuse of an icon no doubt, which is standard fare here.

Anyways, I don't see a war erupting from Iran so Trump's strategy clearly works. They know that we have a serious president rather than the limp socialist named obama from the last presidency.

Bottom line is , Trump gets real results and of course, smart people would want to elect someone like that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wars are big money-makers for the rich. The only reason Trump is still in office is because he is being protected by the rich and powerful, through their political toadies in the republican party. Trump is making them a lot richer, and he's getting all the blame from those who are being hurt. That's been very good for the rich, and for the political toadies that do their bidding (republican and democrat). When the greed machine blows up the economy, again, as it's bound to do, they'll all blame it on Trump, and on the "other guys" in office, and use their excessive wealth to buy up even more of the country and the world at crash prices. And then they'll move on into the next cycle of economic rape. They have the system fully rigged, and they will continue doing this so long as the rest of us continue letting them. War is just part of the big 'greed game' we're all living in, now. So are the Donald Trumps.

War is a pecking order on a world scale.

Trump is making sure the United States stays there at the apex.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Always remember that we attacked Iran first.
And we did so on a much larger scale.
So we do not have the moral high ground, having made them the enemy.

Iran attacked Americans first. That's why we took the general out post haste.

 

[Shad]

If America was involved in constant conflicts in the area since the 40s, and took out a major military leader after breaking the deal made with a previous President, yeah, that would make sense.

Trump is not obligated to follow an Obama EO's. You are creating a strawman to knockdown, nothing more. Obama was the one that didn't get his deal ratified thus becoming a treaty and law. That is Obama and the Dems problems not Trump's. Likewise Iran can not use pretend an EO is a treaty as it has the resources to hire people educated in US law to explain this to them. Just as I am explaining it to you now for free.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I never did any such thing. Try again. Maybe better deflection so you can ignore how you make Iranians sound stupid.

Trump is not obligated to follow an Obama EO's. You are creating a strawman to knockdown, nothing more. Obama was the one that didn't get his deal ratified thus becoming a treaty and law. That is Obama and the Dems problems not Trump's. Likewise Iran can not use pretend an EO is a treaty as it has the resources to hire people educated in US law to explain this to them. Just as I am explaining it to you now for free.

I think you are knocking down a phantom strawman. My point has nothing to do with Trump's obligations or deflecting from the issue, but how Iran may perceive actions from the U.S.

Consider how we would react if there were a country we have been hostile with for decades, they had military bases set up in and around the U.S., made continuous strikes that killed civilians as well as military targets, their old leader had been willing to negotiate but their new one ripped up that negotiation, and they suddenly take out a top U.S. general.

They are human. They are going to react unfavorably towards us.