Straight Dope Message Board

[KidCharlemagne]

Everybody now knows that his threat displays are toothless and that they are the only tool in his box. The Chinese tariff retaliation coming on the heels of North Korea's nuke tests and Iranian sanctions topped off with the article about his hostile takeover pump-and-dump schemes seems like all the plot points coming together for an epic tale of utter humiliaton on the world stage. Too bad about all us ancillary characters. Am I reading this wrong? 1

[bobot]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

... Am I reading this wrong?

Remember how Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare? And make it cheaper? Look how successful he was with that! I expect similar results with his foreign policy. The health care thing is just one example, by the way. Gaze upon his marvelous wall for another. 2

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

... North Korea's nuke tests ...

What nuke tests? 3

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

Everybody now knows that his threat displays are toothless and that they are the only tool in his box. ...

I don't think this is a viewpoint shared by Iran. If it is, they're extremely foolish for doing so. 4

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

What nuke tests?

Whoops, meant missile. 5

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I don't think this is a viewpoint shared by Iran. If it is, they're extremely foolish for doing so.

It's not that he won't sanction - he already has. It's that they won't cave and will probably counter. I think everyone smells blood in the water and there's gonna be a feeding frenzy. Iran will antagonize and Trump won't be able to respond for fear of being called out for foreign adventurism by his base. 6

[HurricaneDitka]

There are worse things than sanctions that can happen to Iran. 7

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

Everybody now knows that his threat displays are toothless and that they are the only tool in his box. The Chinese tariff retaliation coming on the heels of North Korea's nuke tests and Iranian sanctions topped off with the article about his hostile takeover pump-and-dump schemes seems like all the plot points coming together for an epic tale of utter humiliaton on the world stage. Too bad about all us ancillary characters. Am I reading this wrong?

You forgot to include Venezuela, where after his administration issued strong threats against the Mauro regime only to have Trump back down once Putin told him to.

As I have said before, we have no foreign policy. Just random whims of a president who believes that last person he heard and changes policy via twitter before bothering to inform his secretary of state. 8

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

It's not that he won't sanction - he already has. It's that they won't cave and will probably counter. I think everyone smells blood in the water and there's gonna be a feeding frenzy. Iran will antagonize and Trump won't be able to respond for fear of being called out for foreign adventurism by his base.

Never underestimate the ability of the Orange Menace to change the subject: "Has anyone noticed that there have been more sunny days since I became president? Twice as many compared with the last administration. Mine has been the sunniest presidency in history! The Dems won't admit it. You're welcome!" 9

[iiandyiiii]

Who the hell knows? It's impossible to predict what an inherently irrational and entirely incompetent actor like Trump will do. He might start a dumb war and get Americans killed for nothing; he may do absolutely nothing at all except poop-tweet. 10

[Sunny Daze]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

There are worse things than sanctions that can happen to Iran.

Of course there are. One hopes that Trump isn't that stupid. 11

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze

Of course there are. One hopes that Trump isn't that stupid.

The Iranians also get to have some input on whether we have a war or not. 12

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

You forgot to include Venezuela, where after his administration issued strong threats against the Mauro regime only to have Trump back down once Putin told him to.

As I have said before, we have no foreign policy. Just random whims of a president who believes that last person he heard and changes policy via twitter before bothering to inform his secretary of state.

Whoops, I had it in but deleted to put in NK first and then forgot to add it back. Yup, it's another grenade for sure. 13

[bobot]

As long as this administration does nothing provocative with regard to our delicate relationship with Iran, the ball is totally in Iran's court! Relax, we're in... good... hands. 14

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by bobot

As long as this administration does nothing provocative with regard to our delicate relationship with Iran, the ball is totally in Iran's court! Relax, we're in... good... hands.

In any semblance of a sane foreign policy, that was capable of learning lessons from the last 20 years, the only chance of a war with Iran would be if Iran attacked us or invaded a neighbor.

But Trump is incapable both of learning and of rational decision making. So it will be a roll of the dice to see if he gets young American men and women who have volunteered killed for no reason. Of course, the vast majority of Trump supporters haven't and don't intend to volunteer for the military, so many of them won't have any qualms about this. 15

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

The Iranians also get to have some input on whether we have a war or not.

Well, Iran refused to unconditionally cease to exist, so our strike against them during Mueller's testimony in front of Congress was entirely their fault. 16

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by bobot

As long as this administration does nothing provocative with regard to our delicate relationship with Iran, the ball is totally in Iran's court! Relax, we're in... good... hands.

Both sides are currently doing things that could be perceived as provocative by the other. 17

[CAH66]

The impression I have of the Trump base is that he can fail all day long on the foreign stage and it will not matter one bit. Surely they'll hand-wave it away like any other bad (sorry "fake") news. But how high does foreign policy rank on the radar of the nationalist, protectionist, 'Merica-first Trump voter? They like him because he won't play with all those foreign types! This is the guy who tanked the Paris Accords, backs out of trade deals, regularly denigrates the UN and NATO. If he does well with anything they'll say "Look what a deal-maker he is!" But if we end up in, say, a trade war with China it's because, "He's a tough negotiator and won't take any crap!" The myth of Trump as the mighty negotiator persists and explains all the successes and all the failures... 18

[bobot]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

... So it will be a roll of the dice to see if he gets young American men and women who have volunteered killed for no reason. ...

And speaking as a human on the planet: Iranian men, women and children, too. 19

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by bobot

And speaking as a human on the planet: Iranian men, women and children, too.

Of course. Historically, many more of them would die than American volunteers, should the Trump administration choose such a colossally stupid path. 20

[septimus]

Trump understands that foreign crises or even war are the way to divert from domestic problems, so will keep war-monger Bolton around so he can egg Trump on. Other than Bolton, who are Trump's top foreign policy advisors? Kushner, Hannity and Putin? Any others? Stephen Miller?? Does Trump still look to Steve Bannon for guidance?

Kushner is way past his Peter Principle ceiling and, at best, can be trusted to relay the wishes of two MidEast tyrants: Netanyahu and MBS al-Saud. Hannity will say whatever will leave him in Trump's good graces.

This leaves Putin as the key foreign policy adviser. I expect Trump to pretty much do Putin's bidding. Putin will deploy his asset carefully: he doesn't want the asset to become ineffective from excessive ridicule. 21

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by septimus

Trump understands that foreign crises or even war are the way to divert from domestic problems, so will keep war-monger Bolton around so he can egg Trump on. Other than Bolton, who are Trump's top foreign policy advisors?

FOX & Fiends Friends. 22

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Last I checked, the DOW was down almost 700 points today as a result of the trade war with China. What is Trump willing to do to distract the nation if the markets/economy keep going backwards? War with Iran seems pretty high up the list- the GOP ignorami will be easily led, as usual, into accepting the necessity of a million + casualties, all to protect the fragile ego of the Orange Ignoramus. 23

[wguy123]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Last I checked, the DOW was down almost 700 points today as a result of the trade war with China.

It had a little rebound an only finished 600 down and finished at 25,343. We just hit that number on January 12 so we've only regressed a bit.

Oh wait, January 12, 2018. 24

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

The Iranians also get to have some input on whether we have a war or not.

About as much input as Saddam had on whether there would be Gulf War II. 25

[penultima thule]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

As I have said before, we have no foreign policy.

Yes, but that has been the case, since WWII if not WWI.
US foreign policy is simply the extension of US domestic interests. 26

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Well, Iran refused to unconditionally cease to exist, so our strike against them during Mueller's testimony in front of Congress was entirely their fault.

I have enough faith in my leaders to believe that they won't take drastic measures unless absolutely necessary.

"FREEZE! Hands in the air! Get down on the ground, NOW! Don't move a muscle! Stop resisting! They're going for my gun!"

- Officer J.R. Bolton, D.C.'s finest 27

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze

Of course there are. One hopes that Trump isn't that stupid.

I like an optimist. 28

[Doctor Jackson]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Of course, the vast majority of Trump supporters haven't and don't intend to volunteer for the military, so many of them won't have any qualms about this.

I infer from the fact that 61% of active military personnel voted for Trump that the "vast majority" of voters in the military are (or were in 2016) Trump supporters, ergo Trump supporters do volunteer for military service. Not sure where you are getting your stats... 29

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jackson

I infer from the fact that 61% of active military personnel voted for Trump that the "vast majority" of voters in the military are (or were in 2016) Trump supporters, ergo Trump supporters do volunteer for military service. Not sure where you are getting your stats...

Whether true or not, this doesn't conflict with anything I wrote. You might have to read more carefully. 30

[HurricaneDitka]

I suppose he's making the point that only a relatively small % of our population serve in the military. but the same sort of accusation could be made against, for example, Democrats:

"Of course, the vast majority of [Obama] supporters haven't and don't intend to volunteer for the military, so many of them won't have any qualms about " fighting in Libya, or Somalia, or Syria, Yemen, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Looked at in that light, it (iiandyiii's lame chickenhawk-ish argument) loses most of its relevance. 31

[iiandyiiii]

I understand that many Americans really don't have qualms about sending others to die in wars, even wars with little or no purpose, but a pet peeve of mine is young-ish, hale-bodied Americans advocating, celebrating, and/or justifying wars in which they have no intention to involve themselves and put themselves at risk. It's quite reasonable to criticize such cowardice, common as it is. 32

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

It's not that he won't sanction - he already has. It's that they won't cave and will probably counter.

Wait. Counter? What? Are they allowed to do that? 33

[Bone]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I understand that many Americans really don't have qualms about sending others to die in wars, even wars with little or no purpose, but a pet peeve of mine is young-ish, hale-bodied Americans advocating, celebrating, and/or justifying wars in which they have no intention to involve themselves and put themselves at risk. It's quite reasonable to criticize such cowardice, common as it is.

Provoking or even entertaining war with Iran absent some very significant casus bellie would be incredibly foolish and terrible.

That being said, nevermore has your employ of the word "reasonable" been more on display as wholly without meaning. Whether or not a country and its populace is willing to go to war should be based on the underlying risks, rewards, rationales, and causes. Almost no where in the calculus is whether any individual person has enlisted or is planning to enlist. Expressing an opinion on whether any particular military action is justifiable doesn't suddenly transform from bravery to cowardice hinging on the speaker's military service. 34

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze

One hopes that Trump isn't that stupid.

Oh, he’s definitely that stupid. Hope instead that a squirrel distracts him. 35

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Bone

Provoking or even entertaining war with Iran absent some very significant casus bellie would be incredibly foolish and terrible.

That being said, nevermore has your employ of the word "reasonable" been more on display as wholly without meaning. Whether or not a country and its populace is willing to go to war should be based on the underlying risks, rewards, rationales, and causes. Almost no where in the calculus is whether any individual person has enlisted or is planning to enlist. Expressing an opinion on whether any particular military action is justifiable doesn't suddenly transform from bravery to cowardice hinging on the speaker's military service.

Sure it's reasonable. If you (the general "you") think young people should be put at risk of death for some purpose, but not yourself, when you're perfectly able to do so, then you're being cowardly. It's as simple of that. Sure, it's quite common, but it's still cowardly. You are free to have a different definition of cowardice, if you like.

And it doesn't conflict with the notion (which I agree with) that "Whether or not a country and its populace is willing to go to war should be based on the underlying risks, rewards, rationales, and causes." Yes, that is the basis on which we should decide to go to war. And if you're able but not willing to join the war that you are supporting on that basis, then you are a gutless coward, barring a few unusual circumstances (i.e. you're the sole caregiver for your children, you're irreplaceable in some sort of critical public service work [and the bar for this would be very high], etc.).

Until I turn 50 or so, or have some medical condition that would render me incapable of serving, or find myself as the sole caregiver for children, I will not support or advocate for any military action that puts young Americans at risk unless I plan to return to service and join them. If we were severely attacked, unprovoked, by one of our adversaries, I would attempt to rejoin the Navy, because I would probably feel that war was appropriate in those circumstances. To do otherwise would be cowardice, in my view.

My view of cowardice and duty may not be terribly common, and of course you are free to disagree with them, but that you disagree doesn't make them unreasonable. 36

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

The Iranians also get to have some input on whether we have a war or not.

Well, ya know, that's the funny thing about a war; you really only need one side to start it. 37

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

... Until I turn 50 or so, or have some medical condition that would render me incapable of serving, or find myself as the sole caregiver for children, I will not support or advocate for any military action that puts young Americans at risk unless I plan to return to service and join them. If we were severely attacked, unprovoked, by one of our adversaries, I would attempt to rejoin the Navy, because I would probably feel that war was appropriate in those circumstances. To do otherwise would be cowardice, in my view. ...

So did you oppose the airborne assault on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan? 38

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

So did you oppose the airborne assault on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan?

I was neither consulted nor informed beforehand. Had I been, I would have gladly volunteered, not that the Navy could have used any of my skills in that instance.

What about you? Do you plan to volunteer to serve if Trump gets us into war with Venezuela or Iran? 39

[nearwildheaven]

Originally Posted by bobot

Remember how Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare? And make it cheaper? Look how successful he was with that! I expect similar results with his foreign policy. The health care thing is just one example, by the way. Gaze upon his marvelous wall for another.

And his military parade! It's going to be Da Best Military Parade evah!

Yeah, right.

As for Venezuela, THAT seems to be what he wants to do to the U.S., more so than turning us into North Korea v. 2.0. 40

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

There are worse things than sanctions that can happen to Iran.

Is Trump planning on becoming President there? 41

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Sure it's reasonable. If you (the general "you") think young people should be put at risk of death for some purpose, but not yourself, when you're perfectly able to do so, then you're being cowardly.

I have to agree with iiandyiiii on this one. 42

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by manson1972

I have to agree with iiandyiiii on this one.

So old people would be exempt from this "cowardice" criticism, right? Because they don't meet the "when you're perfectly able to do so" criteria? 43

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

So old people would be exempt from this "cowardice" criticism, right? Because they don't meet the "when you're perfectly able to do so" criteria?

Yes, I think he was pretty clear about this:

Until I turn 50 or so, or have some medical condition that would render me incapable of serving, or find myself as the sole caregiver for children, I will not support or advocate for any military action that puts young Americans at risk unless I plan to return to service and join them.

44

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

So old people would be exempt from this "cowardice" criticism, right? Because they don't meet the "when you're perfectly able to do so" criteria?

Sure. 45

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

Yes, I think he was pretty clear about this:

Originally Posted by manson1972

Sure.

And sick or disabled people too, right? What about people who can't pass the military's physical fitness requirements in general? Maybe they're overweight, or out of shape?

Is what I'm getting at is that if this is just a criticism of physically- and mentally-fit young adults, and everyone else is exempt from it, that seems ... strange. Also, not very effective strategy for a general audience, since it's apparently not a criticism valid for most people. For example, I've seen data that "71 percent of young Americans between 17 and 24 are ineligible to serve in the United States military". None of that 71% would be cowards for advocating we go to war with Iran, right? But any one of the 29% that ARE fit for service who advocate for it (and aren't enlisted) ARE cowards? That's what you're suggesting? 46

[iiandyiiii]

LOL. That's a lot of effort to go to to avoid answering a question about whether one would volunteer to serve in a potential upcoming war they support.

Though I suspect a refusal to answer is kind of an answer in itself. 47

[bobot]

According to Rubio, Republican, Iran doesn't just have some input- it's all on them!

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/marc...l-on-them.html 48

[Walken After Midnight]

Originally Posted by Bone

Provoking or even entertaining war with Iran absent some very significant casus bellie would be incredibly foolish and terrible.

Which is exactly why it might happen. Here's a 2011 tweet from Donald Trump:

Originally Posted by Donald Trump

In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

49

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

None of that 71% would be cowards for advocating we go to war with Iran, right? But any one of the 29% that ARE fit for service who advocate for it (and aren't enlisted) ARE cowards? That's what you're suggesting?

I'M suggesting that if you want the US to go to war, then you should fight in it if you are able.

You can provide any statistics you want, if that makes you feel better. 50