Support NeoGAF

[Tams]

Those whip and cracks are possibly one of the most terrifying sounds. It means you are on the wrong end of a firearm.

 

[calico]

America strikes: WHY ARE THEY INVADING

America does not strike: WHY WON'T THEY DO SOMETHING

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes. A week ago it was illegal for President Trump to even use the military without a declaration of war from Congress, now it's 'why didn't President Trump carpet bomb Tehran??' He has to continue to ignore these fundamentally unserious people who will criticise whichever course of action he takes, and judge the situation on its merits.

 

[Senua]

Cmon America, show us that Venuzuala wasn't just about Oil

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Yes. A week ago it was illegal for President Trump to even use the military without a declaration of war from Congress, now it's 'why didn't President Trump carpet bomb Tehran??' He has to continue to ignore these fundamentally unserious people who will criticise whichever course of action he takes, and judge the situation on its merits.

I think it's more he said 'help was on the way' which some of these protesters obviously took seriously and went out and were killed. If he hadn't threatened Iran with repercussions if they killed protesters or said help was on the way then there wouldn't be criticism for not helping them.

 

[calico]

I think it's more he said 'help was on the way' which some of these protesters obviously took seriously and went out and were killed. If he hadn't threatened Iran with repercussions if they killed protesters or said help was on the way then there wouldn't be criticism for not helping them.

The criticism would instead be 'why didn't he at least threaten the regime? It might have been enough to stop them killing all those protesters they just killed!'

If he had conducted military strikes, the criticism would be 'why did he have to strike?? If he hadn't, it might not have provoked the regime into killing all those protesters they just killed!'

There is no course of action he could take -or can take going forward- which won't result in his opponents trying to spin it as President Trump being at fault, as that is the priority for his opponents in any scenario.

He has to ignore these voices and keep judging the situation on his merits. And given the world has made it very clear it no longer wants the US to act as world police, he also needs to be asking 'how does military action here benefit the US?' If the answer is that it does not benefit the US, then he should probably restrict himself to whatever can be achieved with threats, bluffs, diplomacy and economic action. He should not end up having to give condolences to the families of US servicemen without a clear answer as to how what they died doing was beneficial for the US.

 

[Embearded]

Assuming it is real, the last line is powerful.
That night, the regime created hundreds if not thousand of enemies full of hatred for them. It's not just about survival anymore and they will not be satisfied even if the regime just quit tomorrow. They want blood and that is one way for terrorist organizations to start, through traumatic experiences.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

The criticism would instead be 'why didn't he at least threaten the regime? It might have been enough to stop them killing all those protesters they just killed!'

If he had conducted military strikes, the criticism would be 'why did he have to strike?? If he hadn't, it might not have provoked the regime into killing all those protesters they just killed!'

There is no course of action he could take -or can take going forward- which won't result in his opponents trying to spin it as President Trump being at fault, as that is the priority for his opponents in any scenario.

He has to ignore these voices and keep judging the situation on his merits. And given the world has made it very clear it no longer wants the US to act as world police, he also needs to be asking 'how does military action here benefit the US?' If the answer is that it does not benefit the US, then he should probably restrict himself to whatever can be achieved with threats, bluffs, diplomacy and economic action. He should not end up having to give condolences to the families of US servicemen without a clear answer as to how what they died doing was beneficial for the US.

Saying he would have been criticised by people regardless of what he did / said doesn't absolve him of what he says and does or the consequences of that.

In this scenario he said help was on the way and warned the Iranian regime that there would be consequences for any killing of protesters. We now know that many protesters were killed and judging by Trumps recent social media posts he doesn't think anyone was executed (despite Iranian officials speaking the contrary).

If it was just a threat, then it didn't work. If he was talked out of it for whatever reason, then there's a good argument to be made that people took him at his word and went out and were killed.

 

[Warspite]

Cmon America, show us that Venezuela wasn't just about Oil

This isn't Venezuela though, it may take sustained strikes and multiply days/weeks to obtain.

If you see the sort of planning/intel that went into Venezuela, that just wasn't available when all the protests kicked off. I have no idea how much more will be needed for Iran.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

America strikes: WHY ARE THEY INVADING

America does not strike: WHY WON'T THEY DO SOMETHING

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The perspective in the middle east is that the U.S. has a very poor history of dealing with the region, based on a simplistic understanding of its power dynamics.

This has resulted in forceful intervention at the wrong times or places, and for the wrong reasons, and also failure to intervene at the wrong times or places, and for the wrong reasons. Both by Republican and Democratic administrations.

Ultimately there may not be a "correct" strategy, but from our perspective it does sometimes raise a few eyebrows. Not saying this is one of those times because it's still ongoing.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Cmon America, show us that Venuzuala wasn't just about Oil

You have no idea what sort of shitfuck the fall of Iran will do to the region.

 

[calico]

Saying he would have been criticised by people regardless of what he did / said doesn't absolve him of what he says and does or the consequences of that.

In this scenario he said help was on the way and warned the Iranian regime that there would be consequences for any killing of protesters. We now know that many protesters were killed and judging by Trumps recent social media posts he doesn't think anyone was executed (despite Iranian officials speaking the contrary).

If it was just a threat, then it didn't work. If he was talked out of it for whatever reason, then there's a good argument to be made that people took him at his word and went out and were killed.

It is unclear how any of the courses of action he could have taken would have avoided the Iranian regime murdering protesters, but it is clear that similar post hoc ergo propter hoc logic would be deployed to try and blame President Trump for the actions of the Iranian regime no matter what course of action he took or didn't take preceding it.

People are free to make that case, but President Trump should assign the appropriate amount of weight to those opinions: zero weight, because the same people would be making a slight variation of the same argument no matter what he did. I'm sure he's well aware how it works after a decade of his opponents taking the same dishonest approach to each scenario, maintaining zero consistency from one to the next. If he followed the logic of his opponents from a week or two ago, at this point he would be having to ask Congress to declare war on Iran before he could take any military action.

For all we know the course of action he has taken so far has been the optimal one, and staying out of it entirely or military strikes against the regime may well both have led to a larger massacre of opposition.

 

[winjer]

You have no idea what sort of shitfuck the fall of Iran will do to the region.

But we know the shitfuck the current Iranian regime has caused in the region.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

But we know the shitfuck the current Iranian regime has caused in the region.

What exactly? Piss in Saudi's food? Weekly annoyance of the Israelis? Genuinely curious.

 

[Brazen]

"Evil prevails when good men do nothing" is no longer applicable for the modern world, where most seem to prefer a slow islamic-communism rot.

Now it's more like "Evil prevails when good men do nothing, but whether you do something or not, you're also evil."

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Brazen]

What exactly? Piss in Saudi's food? Weekly annoyance of the Israelis? Genuinely curious.

Annoyance, that's a nice way of putting it for Iran.
Funding terrorism instead of the welfare of their own people is what I would've went with.

 

[John Bilbo]

Now it's more like "Evil prevails when good men do nothing, but whether you do something or not, you're also evil."

But isn't that only perception?

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Funding terrorism instead of the welfare of their own people is what I would've went with.

You misspelled Saudi Arabia? And let's not even go "instead of welfare of their own people" route, that can be applied to a lot of countries, still doesn't justify intervention. Are we invading US tomorrow to enact public healthcare?

 

[Brazen]

You misspelled Saudi Arabia? And let's not even go "instead of welfare of their own people" route, that can be applied to a lot of countries, still doesn't justify intervention. Are we invading US tomorrow to enact public healthcare?

Are the SA citizens in the street rioting because their economy is collapsed?
Is the subject of public healthcare consider terrorism? Is that what your equating?

But isn't that only perception?

Seems so...

 

[John Bilbo]

That's the downside of being the US. Everyone looks to America to lead the charge when it comes to fights, money, bailouts, stock market etc... Shit goes down and who does everyone hope helps them out? The US.

All the other countries in NATO or UN or whatever sit back and watch. Crazy stuff happens in the mid east, and as usual it takes the US whose across the Atlantic ocean to take action while the shitload of European countries as well Japan who could all help out sit on their asses half the time.

It seems most of Europe has become softer than a loaf of white bread. My country has been on the road to softness as well for it's own reasons.

After Russia attacked to Ukraine there was an awakening in my country though and we have been reversing course at a rapid pace.

 

[winjer]

What exactly? Piss in Saudi's food? Weekly annoyance of the Israelis? Genuinely curious.

War with Iraq. War with Israel. Sponsoring several terrorist groups, all around the region.
Supplying weapons to Russia, during their invasion of Ukraine.
Repression of the Iranian people.
Sponsoring proxy wars with Somali, Kurds, Syrian, Houthi, etc.
Attacking ships and blocking of the straight of Hormuz.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

War with Iraq. War with Israel. Sponsoring several terrorist groups, all around the region.
Supplying weapons to Russia, during their invasion of Ukraine.
Repression of the Iranian people.

How many 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

Who else is supplying weapons to Russia? Are we invading China as well? Idem. for repression of the X people - not our bussines, at least this can be sorted out through sanctions, not armed intervention.

Guys, you need to decide - are the the world's police or not? It seems like you change your mind every week.

 

[winjer]

How many 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

Who else is supplying weapons to Russia? Are we invading China as well? Idem. for repression of the X people - not our bussines, at least this can be sorted out through sanctions, not armed intervention.

Guys, you need to decide - are the the world's police or not? It seems like you change your mind every week.

No one is talking about 9/11.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

No one is talking about 9/11.

Then don't bring terrorism into the topic. Even if we agree not to touch 9/11 it still makes Saudi Arabia an exporter of a barbaric regime (Wahhabism).

 

[winjer]

Then don't bring terrorism into the topic. Even if we agree not to touch 9/11 it still makes Saudi Arabia an exporter of a barbaric regime (Wahhabism).

Why, because it doesn't fit your narrative?
The fact remains that Iran has been a major sponsor is terrorist activity in the Middle East and Africa. Affecting all it's neighbors.

 

[calico]

When it comes to regime change, the answer to 'well it can't be any worse, right?' has quite often turned out to be 'yes'.

Which isn't to say it should never happen, but just breaking it and hoping for the best afterwards typically has not worked out well in the past. Especially with Islamic nations which are culturally inclined towards murdering each other until someone sufficiently ruthless to suppress those tendencies once again holds power.

 

[BlackTron]

You misspelled Saudi Arabia? And let's not even go "instead of welfare of their own people" route, that can be applied to a lot of countries, still doesn't justify intervention. Are we invading US tomorrow to enact public healthcare?

"The people are dying in the streets, sir"

"If they could invade us to provide better healthcare, they wouldn't. Why should I do anything?"

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

How many 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

Who else is supplying weapons to Russia? Are we invading China as well? Idem. for repression of the X people - not our bussines, at least this can be sorted out through sanctions, not armed intervention.

Guys, you need to decide - are the the world's police or not? It seems like you change your mind every week.

Do you think Saudi Arabia is a greater threat to the U.S. or the region today than Iran?
And as a follow-up, do you think a U.S. military operation against SA (on the ground or not, your choice) would do more to benefit the U.S. or the region than one against Iran?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

It is unclear how any of the courses of action he could have taken would have avoided the Iranian regime murdering protesters, but it is clear that similar post hoc ergo propter hoc logic would be deployed to try and blame President Trump for the actions of the Iranian regime no matter what course of action he took or didn't take preceding it.

People are free to make that case, but President Trump should assign the appropriate amount of weight to those opinions: zero weight, because the same people would be making a slight variation of the same argument no matter what he did. I'm sure he's well aware how it works after a decade of his opponents taking the same dishonest approach to each scenario, maintaining zero consistency from one to the next. If he followed the logic of his opponents from a week or two ago, at this point he would be having to ask Congress to declare war on Iran before he could take any military action.

For all we know the course of action he has taken so far has been the optimal one, and staying out of it entirely or military strikes against the regime may well both have led to a larger massacre of opposition.

I can't disagree with any of this, but it also demonstrates the paradox that is Trump, along with the complexity of global politics.

Because taken at face value, Trump's statement followed by his inaction (assuming that to be what happens, for the moment), is unprofessional at best, and callous at worst.
If we assume Trump is doing more than just firing out impulsive tweets and dealing with the consequences later, then your line of reasoning is perfectly valid, because testing your enemy through confusion and intimidation are certainly legitimate tactics, and often less costly in human lives compared to decisive action, when all is said and done.

With Trump though, you never know how much thought is going on behind the statements. Some would argue that only results matter, not intentions. Trump takes this line of reasoning to the extreme, to the point where you could question the real meaning of the office of POTUS.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Cmon America, show us that Venuzuala wasn't just about Oil, you can strike massive damage to Island here, the people want it, we all need it, be the knight you claim to be and come damage this anti-christian curse.

And then the same people will complain about "not doing enough", "not striking enough" etc. etc. Or striking too much, or too late, or not enough, or not long enough etc. etc. Revolutions don't happen from the outside. You need the cooperation with the elite.

Well, certainly if there was like a bridge or something with some type of critical convoy going across it that could be hit by a JDAM and the whole thing would be over, sure, strike away. But this isn't a movie and chances are the US rolling in hitting airfields, barracks, headquarters, and what not would just solidify a big chunk of the "lets see how this plays out" citizenry/military to back their gov. The US, to my knowledge, has not made any commitments to the Iranian people such that we really have any dog in this fight other than one we want to stick our hands into.

Pahlavi should directly travel to Iran, like Lenin did. But unlike Lenin he has no organizational support within.

Also don't forget that if USA pulls out then the same people will complain that USA is not stuck with them for 20 years. Like with kurds who in the end even was not able to form a functional government after all these years instead preferring infighting before finally being destroyed by syrian and turkish army.

This isn't Venezuela though, it may take sustained strikes and multiply days/weeks to obtain.

If you see the sort of planning/intel that went into Venezuela, that just wasn't available when all the protests kicked off. I have no idea how much more will be needed for Iran.

In case of Venezuela, you at least had some cooperation within Venezuela from some government official. And we still have people complaining about "not giving power to Machado". She has nothing aside american soldiers to prop up her there - she will be overthrown by the military otherwise.

In case of Iran, the local elites do nothing. The protesters themselves are not the threat to Iran, only to IRGC. USA kills ayatollah, some other takes place and then the same people complain regarding IRGC still being in place. The protesters have to organize, build functional institutions etc.

If he followed the logic of his opponents from a week or two ago, at this point he would be having to ask Congress to declare war on Iran before he could take any military action.

I do find it hilarious that nobody in the Congress asks questions about possible attack on Iran. Nobody has issues. Makes you wonder

Annoyance, that's a nice way of putting it for Iran.
Funding terrorism instead of the welfare of their own people is what I would've went with.

To be fair, for the half of America, Iran is not a terrorist, Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis are not the terrorists either.

All the other countries in NATO or UN or whatever sit back and watch. Crazy stuff happens in the mid east, and as usual it takes the US whose across the Atlantic ocean to take action while the shitload of European countries as well Japan who could all help out sit on their asses half the time.

Remember how europeans invented a way to avoid american sanctions, trying to create a separate payment system to work with Iran when Trump was harsh on Iran?

 

[LordCBH]

"Help is on the way!"
"Khaleesi don't you dare kill those protestors!"
Khaleesi: *kills tens of thousands of them.*
US: *proceeds to do fucking nothing.*

Is my timeline here correct?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

The fact remains that Iran has been a major sponsor is terrorist activity in the Middle East and Africa. Affecting all it's neighbors.

To be fair, for the half of america - and europe - USA is a bigger terrorist and Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Iran are just victims of Israeli and american aggression For some reason europeans kinda forgot from what country did ayatollah come from post exile and who gave him the platform (France). Somehow both ayatollah and shah love Air France.

And even in the current situation you have USA vs Iran really, as nobody else is willing to back Iran or USA. Sending condemnation is a joke. The countries in the region do not want the fall of Iran (historical flashbacks). SA does not care, Asia - does not care. Europe? Does not care. Yet the american action or inaction is again to blame. Trump is truly the embodiment of America. I remember the old scene from some TV series where Trump said that "everybody always blamed Trump". Replace Trump with USA, and it is exactly the same.

Trump called for action and they should not stop. Revolutions do not happen easy and they do not happen due to foreign intervention.

 

[Warspite]

And still they come.

 

[Wildebeest]

Often in conflicts, for ordinary people, the difference between good guy and bad guy isn't that important. They want to see someone strong enough to act decisively to get rid of the boots on their necks and end the bloodshed. This is what the protestors in Syria would have wanted.

 

[BlueAlpaca]

"Help is on the way!"
"Khaleesi don't you dare kill those protestors!"
Khaleesi: *kills tens of thousands of them.*
US: *proceeds to do fucking nothing.*

Is my timeline here correct?

The US just can't do much to change the government, Trump just likes running his mouth. There are likely tens of millions of regime supporters and millions more who'd rally around the flag and crush any opposition harder than what they just did. They've got compete control over the country, loyal army of zealots with financial incentives on top who'll kill as many as they could, they got nowhere else to go and a revolution means defeat and humilaiton - killing some leaders and bombing some bases just won't take them out it'll only galvanize them. This regime could last decades.

Onlly if the aim isn't regime change and only weakening Iran that it makes sense but they'd have to bomb the oil/gas fields and shut down their main source of revenue once and for all but that's risky as oil prices will go higher and rocket if Iran bombs the gulf oil installations. Maybe there are people inside the regime Trump is cutting a deal with, who knows.

 

[LimanimaPT]

To be fair, for the half of america - and europe - USA is a bigger terrorist and Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Iran are just victims of Israeli and american aggression For some reason europeans kinda forgot from what country did ayatollah come from post exile and who gave him the platform (France). Somehow both ayatollah and shah love Air France.

And even in the current situation you have USA vs Iran really, as nobody else is willing to back Iran or USA. Sending condemnation is a joke. The countries in the region do not want the fall of Iran (historical flashbacks). SA does not care, Asia - does not care. Europe? Does not care. Yet the american action or inaction is again to blame. Trump is truly the embodiment of America. I remember the old scene from some TV series where Trump said that "everybody always blamed Trump". Replace Trump with USA, and it is exactly the same.

Trump called for action and they should not stop. Revolutions do not happen easy and they do not happen due to foreign intervention.

What's to blame is that Trump said "go we will help" and in the end nothing happened.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

What's to blame is that Trump said "go we will help" and in the end nothing happened.

So did the protesters took over the military bases, institutions and others? Because if you stop - you lose. But the protesters gave up instead of pushing further. The protesters should have continued to fight, use guerilla tactics etc. People think that when you enter the capital, all the units switch sides. It is not CIV.

 

[BlackTron]

So did the protesters took over the military bases, institutions and others? Because if you stop - you lose. But the protesters gave up instead of pushing further. The protesters should have continued to fight, use guerilla tactics etc. People think that when you enter the capital, all the units switch sides. It is not CIV.

Are you 12? People kept pushing until met with machine gun fire.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

They have to prepare for what would happen, extensively, should the regime ever fall.
Terror cells all over could activate on their own, because the revenue stream was cut off abruptly.

So did the protesters took over the military bases, institutions and others? Because if you stop - you lose. But the protesters gave up instead of pushing further. The protesters should have continued to fight, use guerilla tactics etc. People think that when you enter the capital, all the units switch sides. It is not CIV.

It's not that simple. The citizens have no cache of weapons and are not organized. It was as organic as an uprising as you can get. They were met with military force as much as 15-20 thousand killed, in unconfirmed reports. I have no words.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

They have to prepare for what would happen, extensively, should the regime ever fall.
Terror cells all over could activate on their own, because the revenue stream was cut off abruptly.


It's not that simple. The citizens have no cache of weapons and are not organized. It was as organic as an uprising as you can get. They were met with military force as much as 15-20 thousand killed, in unconfirmed reports. I have no words.

At one point, the protesters were able to get the guns. But they will always lose to the state without the support from the army. The foreign army won't solve the problem. No matter how much you bomb - organized, structured rebellion will win. But the protesters still do not have the organizational structure.

 

[IDKFA]

What's to blame is that Trump said "go we will help" and in the end nothing happened.

And nothing will happen.

Trump is now laser focused on Greenland. Judging by the text he sent to the PM of Norway, maybe he'd be more chill if he was given the Nobel prize .

*smh* I still can't believe the POTUS is crying about being overlooked for the Nobel peace prize and is lashing out. Pathetically childish.

 

[Tams]

The question is what will make the army and/police take a side?

I think the US being able to send munitions down in your family home if you don't go against the regime is a pretty good incentive.

Regimes like this have to segregate their more powerful supporters from the general population to maintain control over them. They also need to have a large, significant presence in public.

Both of those are big, fat targets.

 

[Forsete]

And nothing will happen.

Trump is now laser focused on Greenland. Judging by the text he sent to the PM of Norway, maybe he'd be more chill if he was given the Nobel prize .

*smh* I still can't believe the POTUS is crying about being overlooked for the Nobel peace prize and is lashing out. Pathetically childish.

There is something seriously wrong with him.

 

[Madonis]

It is unclear how any of the courses of action he could have taken would have avoided the Iranian regime murdering protesters, but it is clear that similar post hoc ergo propter hoc logic would be deployed to try and blame President Trump for the actions of the Iranian regime no matter what course of action he took or didn't take preceding it.

People are free to make that case, but President Trump should assign the appropriate amount of weight to those opinions: zero weight, because the same people would be making a slight variation of the same argument no matter what he did. I'm sure he's well aware how it works after a decade of his opponents taking the same dishonest approach to each scenario, maintaining zero consistency from one to the next. If he followed the logic of his opponents from a week or two ago, at this point he would be having to ask Congress to declare war on Iran before he could take any military action.

For all we know the course of action he has taken so far has been the optimal one, and staying out of it entirely or military strikes against the regime may well both have led to a larger massacre of opposition.

That's not an entirely convincing line of reasoning, because you're implying every possible scenario would lead to the same consequences based purely on preexisting views of Trump and that's objectively not the case.

With the huge caveat that we haven't necessarily seen the bottom of the rabbit hole yet when it comes to U.S. intervention in Iran...success speaks louder than any argument. If things turned out badly, then criticism of his choices, not just in theory but in practice, would be completely and utterly justified.

Conversely, if the final outcome is actually pretty good or at least relatively mixed, then the resulting opinions will vary. Not necessarily among the extremes, because those who are hardcore haters will always hate him and his hardcore supporters will always love him, but there's a much wider range of opinions available, both worldwide and nationwide, depending on the specific context under discussion (I can at least see the potential for good in Iran, whereas how he is handling Greenland is a total trainwreck).

Many things are still up in the air and it is certainly too early to make any final judgments about the entire situation. Hindsight is 20/20, but we don't really know what the future is going to look like yet.

Right now, however, the fact is that a promise of help was publicly made by the U.S. president to the people of Iran. If the most prudent approach is "not helping" then a more generic, less explicit statement would have sufficed.

You're saying he'd be criticized for either choice, but...I am pretty sure the protesters wouldn't see it that way. Even in failure, many would at least appreciate that an attempt was made to help them. And vice versa.

 

[DirtInUrEye]

And nothing will happen.

Trump is now laser focused on Greenland. Judging by the text he sent to the PM of Norway, maybe he'd be more chill if he was given the Nobel prize .

*smh* I still can't believe the POTUS is crying about being overlooked for the Nobel peace prize and is lashing out. Pathetically childish.

But where's the thread about this seismic crisis here? Don't answer - it was a trick question. BLERGH

 

[Brazen]

Right now, however, the fact is that a promise of help was publicly made by the U.S. president to the people of Iran. If the most prudent approach is "not helping" then a more generic, less explicit statement would have sufficed.

You're saying he'd be criticized for either choice, but...I am pretty sure the protesters wouldn't see it that way. Even in failure, many would at least appreciate that an attempt was made to help them. And vice versa.

This isn't a convincing line of reasoning for a presidential/military action either though.
While yes it would have been better for the Iranian protestors had Trump followed through with his earlier intentions, we have no knowledge of what all is going behind the scenes. Anything from intelligence to foreign relations could have come up with more importance than appeasing a promise. He could have kept his mouth shut but perhaps his intentions of helping a crisis got the best of him? I know we all wanted that help to happen... but for now it wasn't meant to be unfortunately.

I'll give an example to dumb that all down a bit to get my point better across:
Parents promise their kids that if they continue to get good grades in school for the week, then they can go to the park this weekend. Yet on Thursday/Friday a dangerous individual broke out of a penitentiary in the area. Should the parents still make the choice to go out and possibly put the family/kids at risk based on a promise earlier rather than current assessment? The answer is no, you weigh the risk in the moments.

 

[calico]

That's not an entirely convincing line of reasoning, because you're implying every possible scenario would lead to the same consequences based purely on preexisting views and that's objectively not the case.

The notion that a different course would have led to a better outcome in this case is purely speculative, and seems based on no more than a desire to say whatever course President Trump chose was wrong and whatever course he didn't choose would have been better.

I see no logical reason to assume that either removing any suggestion of consequences, or the conducting of military strikes, would have delivered a better outcome here. Either course could just as easily have resulted in a worse outcome.

It may well be that there is no course of action which results in a good outcome here. I consider this the most likely state of affairs. Successfully toppling the regime with air and missile strikes (assuming for sake of argument it's even possible) is not going to be celebrated for long if it plunges the country into a civil war which kills hundreds of thousands of people.

My expectation right now is that we will see a variant of the approach used in Venezuela. Not an attempt to remove the regime wholesale, but carrier/s sat there like the Sword of Damocles to encourage the regime to behave, with a kinetic change of leadership on the table if it does not behave. The complicating factor in this case is we are talking about Islamists, not rational people.

 

[Kittehkraken]

And nothing will happen.

Trump is now laser focused on Greenland. Judging by the text he sent to the PM of Norway, maybe he'd be more chill if he was given the Nobel prize .

*smh* I still can't believe the POTUS is crying about being overlooked for the Nobel peace prize and is lashing out. Pathetically childish.

Hes actually unhinged from reality.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

I think the US being able to send munitions down in your family home if you don't go against the regime is a pretty good incentive.

Not really. We have seen it time and time again with IRGC and various terrorist groups like Houthis. You bomb, bomb and bomb them - and then they pop up again with new leaders.

 

[Romulus]

Lol the US just went in and bombed them without any real response, wiped out their nuke program but suddenly now they're acting like they can respond. All talk.

Look up Operation Praying Mantis for reference. Middle East commanders are notoriously overconfident and delusional about their capabilities. Iraq Republican Guard was feared by the entire middle east and got annihilated in hours. They will scatter like coachroaches into bunkers within the first wave unable to communicate with allies.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Hes actually unhinged from reality.

He very well may be, and what better argument is there for more involvement in NATO by its other member countries?

This is the paradox of Trump. He's just as likely to scare the west into defending itself properly as he is to start a global war.