this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
143 points (93.3% liked)

chapotraphouse

13473 readers
1 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I trust Trump about as far as I can throw him, and at the end of the day it's really the Pentagon calling the shots here not the POTUS.

But dudes clearly speaking to a public sentiment here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 65 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Trump is the nominal antiwar position

Trump isn't anti-war, or at least I don't trust him to be actually anti-war. He's anti-this-war, but his administration did plenty of hawkish shit towards Iran and Venezuela. I'm not even confident he'll actually do anything to deescalate in Ukraine, I think it's all bluster.

[–] mar_k@hexbear.net 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

not to mention he ramped up drone strikes 400% more than obama

[–] P1d40n3@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

one of the few things I'm willing to give Biden credit for - he stopped the drone strikes

[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

same here. and I have never heard a liberal mention it

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did he really, or did he just change who's using them?

[–] P1d40n3@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your counterpoint was valid when the Saudis were bombing Yemen, but ever since that wound down, there are legit less bombings.

Still not voting Biden, but I just believe in giving credit where it's due.

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if there's fewer bombs, it just means that those military strategies are no longer viable for US interests. It's not a moral stance, but a geopolitical one.

[–] P1d40n3@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

I agree. No interest in defending Genocide Joe.

[–] Wertheimer@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

Wow. Credit where credit's due. I didn't know this.

Source

[–] Droplet@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

After Soleimani was killed and a war was nearly started with Iran in January 2020, there was still an “oh shit” moment from the Trump government and they quickly walked back and prevented a war from being escalated.

At the very least, you can still argue that Trump was duped by his advisors into thinking that assassinating a “rogue general” can solve the Iran problem.

You cannot look at Ukraine and say that the Biden administration has ever come close to a moment of wanting to “walk back”. For 2.5 years, knowing that 500k people have been killed, they still want to fight it to the last Ukrainian. At every turn there is only escalation - sending more and more weapons to Ukraine, long-range missiles to kill civilians within Russian borders, taking out their anti-ballistic missile warning system, threatening about a nuclear war with Russia. These people are insane.

Not that Trump can change anything at this point. It is far too late. Even if he is president, he cannot stop the war that is already in motion, because too much financial interests from the bourgeoisie are now tied to the Ukraine war at this point.

[–] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Trump's actions are often just attempts to satisfy his ego through positive media and supporter reaction. The issue with Iran if you recall is that his main supporter at the time, Fox news had a mixed reaction, with Tucker Carlson being extremely critical, something obviously like hell freezing over.

You can go and check back on the entire Carlson arc back then but here for example Fox's Tucker Carlson slammed conservatives for pushing Trump to go to war: 'About 20 minutes ago we were denouncing these very people as the deep state'

His base didn't particularly like that idea, he was MAGA and isolationist and yet he was about to put the US into a war with a nobody-country that wasn't a threat at the time. It wasn't Bush post 9/11 even though he thought that was an easy win.

As soon as the base consolidated into the neutral/negative camp which he didn't expect, he backed off. Right now his base is very much positive towards ending "Biden's war" so he is very likely to do it.

But his base also doesn't like China so that will be the next target.

[–] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

At the very least, you can still argue that Trump was duped by his advisors into thinking that assassinating a “rogue general” can solve the Iran problem.

Thing is, if that's the case he can probably be duped again.

After Soleimani was killed and a war was nearly started with Iran in January 2020, there was still an “oh shit” moment from the Trump government and they quickly walked back and prevented a war from being escalated.

Is that because he's genuinely anti-war or cuz some Brass at the Pentagon thought it wasn't an opportune time to start shit with Iran and told him to cool it?

Really at the end of the day I don't think it matters, the PSL could win this Presidential race and it wouldn't change a thing foreign policy wise (and probably not much domestically either), those aren't decisions any elected leader has any meaningful sway over.

[–] Droplet@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not saying Trump is anti-war, I am saying that Biden continues to escalate a war for 2.5 years knowing that hundreds of thousands if not millions will be thrown into a meat grinder.

You cannot even attribute that to “we made a mistake, we shouldn’t have started this war” (low bar, but a bar nonetheless), because if so they would have made every attempt to stop it from continuing. Instead, they personally flew to Ukraine and tore up the peace negotiations Ukraine was undergoing with Russia. They really want to fight this to the last Ukrainian. And that’s scary if you think about it.

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

In doing so, they've signed the death warrant for their own credibility as an ally.

You aligned with the US/NATO explicitly because they were a big, strong military and economic partner, who could provide deterrence, and if that failed, prevent you from losing the war.

This alliance will deliver Ukraine less-than-zero benefit: they'll still lose the war, but being propped up and egged on means it will take longer, be bloodier and more destructive, and leave them with more debt.

Perhaps the "deterrence" factor was limited because they weren't Core NATO and there was no Article 5 trigger risk. It still suggests there's no value in cozying up to the institution if you can't qualify for full membership, and even then, would they really pull out all the stops for a new member of low value?

[–] ThomasMuentzner@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is that because he's genuinely anti-war or cuz some Brass at the Pentagon thought it wasn't an opportune time to start shit with Iran and told him to cool it?

16 or so ballisic missiles pounded the Al Assad Airforcebase and did "Only Braindamage + some later death" to some 100 soldiers.. while the USA had Nothing to respond ,even just verbally to respond with some stupid" Though talk" at this moment would have forced Iran to preempty flatten all the Other bases they have there (they nervously shoot down a hole airliner, so they where extremly on edge) ... So Imagine there was a collective experiance of "Oh Fuck oh Fuck+ we are Powerless" in the Command center or whatever.. Thats some experiance that produces wisedom ...

[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: