So let's talk about how Trump was supposed to start less wars

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I understand the 4th of July is some kind of holiday in the United States, so our American friends may have been busy with explosions and hot dogs and exploding hot dogs to have heard this when it was reported a few days ago. But it alarmed me when I heard it, and I'm surprised no-one has mentioned it, so I've made this thread in which I mention it.

Last August, Donald Trump was seriously considering invading Venezuela.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/07/04/world/americas/ap-lt-venezuela-us-military-intervention.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/04/donald-trump-suggested-us-could-invade-venezuela-official-claims/
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/6/17536908/trump-venezuela-invade-military
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/04/us-official-trump-pressed-aides-about-venezuela-invasion.html

Associated Press:
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) - As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can't the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?

The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.

In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.

The idea, despite his aides' best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president's head.

The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a "military option" to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.

But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.

Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.

The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn't play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, "My staff told me not to say this." Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn't want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.

Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.

I don't expect everyone to know the current situation in Venezuela. Its economy - based almost entirely on oil exports - was essentially crippled in 2012 when OPEC flooded the world oil market and caused the price of oil to drop precipitously. Years of corruption, embezzlement and mismanagement had left the state treasury with no winter fat to weather the shock, and Venezuela's economy rapidly collapsed.

Hugo Chavez died at the onset of the crisis, and his successor Nicolas Maduro - who won the 2013 election by just 1.5% - consolidated his position by deploying increasingly authoritarian measures to retain power. Since late 2013, the country has essentially been ruled by decree, over the subsequent years, crime, inflation and poverty skyrocketed until we come to today, when Venezuela has hit a ball-shocking 90% poverty rate. The average Venezuelan has lost eleven kilograms of body weight due to food shortages.

All of this, you may realise, are problems. They are not problems you can fix with explosions. Invading Venezuela in order to fix its economy is not exactly - what's the word - smart. But Trump was so fixated on it that not only did he ask if he could invade Venezuela, he repeatedly interrogated his advisers on why he shouldn't. And when they told him "because that is batshit crazy," he just started talking about it - on a camera talking to reporters, and in a meeting with the President of Columbia, and at the United Nations.

Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster, the two advisers that dissuaded Trump from deciding to invade Venezuela, are now gone. They have been replaced by Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, a professional spook and sentient parasitic moustache from outer space respectively. Chief of Staff John Kelly - who has had his own scandals, and who many observers had hoped would rein the president in - has mostly given up trying to do so and is rumoured to be on his way out. The lone pillar of stability in White House currently is Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis - who has somehow avoided the chopping block, probably by mostly avoiding the President. But he might not serve forever.

But to finally get to the point - what I wanted to talk about was the myth that Donald Trump is a dove. During the election, I heard many Trump supporters - some on this forum, but I will not name anyone here - argue that voting for Trump was a vote for peace. He (supposedly) opposed the Iraq War, he opposed intervening in Syria or Libya, he said he wanted to negotiate with Russia and stop getting the US involved in expensive foreign wars. In comparison, Clinton - long considered far too hawkish by left-wing standards - was seen by these supporters as a warmonger; she supported the Iraq War, was the driving force behind the bombing of Libya, and had proposed instituting a no-fly zone over Syria that Trump supporters said would trigger WW3 with Russia.

Those supporters were probably elated by the recent summit with North Korea, especially considering the President's escalated rhetoric in the months leading up to it. It seemed a vindication - proof that Trump could do what other president's couldn't and negotiate peace with old enemies. But this report should throw cold water on that small flare of hope.

Trump is not a peaceful man. He's not a dove. He's not even a real hawk; he's a chickenhawk, a species of politician who is enthralled by military panoply and displays of power and who regularly advocates military force, but who has circumspectly avoided any actual military service or danger of any kind. He shares this status with John Bolton, one of the most bloodthirsty desk jockeys in the history of Washington who also happens to be a career lawyer and bureaucrat with no military experience whatsoever.

Consider this: Trump's administration has seen a dramatic escalation in civilian deaths caused by US airstrikes in Syria, and he has twice ordered retaliatory bombings on Assad apparently on impulse. He dropped a MOAB on Afghanistan largely because he could. By withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, he has escalated regional tensions and raised the possibility of new economic sanctions on Iranian oil exports - a move that, bizarrely, has helped Maduro's regime by causing the global price of oil to spike. He has aided Saudi Arabia in their escalation of the civil war in Yemen, helping fan the flames of a humanitarian catastrophe equal to that in Syria. He has ordered the National Guard deployed to secure the Mexican border, a hollow show of force with no strength behind it, intended only to make him seem tough. His summit with North Korea, far from "removing the nuclear threat," has produced no concrete commitment from the DPRK - the US is still technically at war with them - and recent satellite imagery indicates that the DPRK is still producing weapons-grade plutonium.

As all this goes on, Trump has alienated allies by imposing tariffs on "national security" grounds - indicating that he considers Canadian steel imports to be a threat to America's security. He has endangered NATO and insulted the leaders of stable, long-time US allies. Even in diplomatic negotiations where caution is warranted, such as with Mexico, Trump has made none of the usual overtures that you'd expect from someone who is planning to invade a regional power. His foreign policy, to the degree that it exists, seems to consist of shitting all over Twitter and occasionally suggesting that they bomb someone.

Most importantly, Trump does not seem to realise that invading Venezuela would create another refugee crisis, as Venezuelans flee to American soil to escape American airstrikes. Like many Republicans, he fails to understand that the driving force behind mass migration into the United States is the fact that people want to leave their home states - because of civil war, economic collapse, or political persecution. By preventing civil wars, economic collapses and political persecution overseas, Trump could neuter the problem at its source. By creating new wars, Trump would only worsen the crisis that he is pretending to solve.

So it's a good thing Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster were in the room at that exact time last August to tell the President that he shouldn't invade Venezuela, and it's a good thing that they were around at all the subsequent times when he started entertaining the idea over the subsequent months. But those two men have been fired and replaced by obsequious toadies. Trump will be in the White House for the next two to (God forbid) six years. This will happen again. And we'd all better hope that Mattis is in the room when it does, because he's the only guy left with the balls to say no to the God-Emperor.

If Venezuela was invaded would there really be a difference?

People are already fleeing Venezuela to neighboring states. Food is already almost none existent;Death squads roam the streets and shoot people who speak out. Venezuela now is a narco state as Manduro's VP is part of a very large cartel. Which has lead to a economy being so trashed to a point that it has hyper inflation at WWI Germany levels. The government ban of vital medications form being brought in by NGOs. Hospitals that don't have supplies that a person with a heart attacks, diabetes and other serious issues have no choice but to die. Or the opposition government arrested and many disappearing with no one knowing what happened to them.

Yep , i am just glad letting people burn in a pit of hell is better than the current choice of the world of ignoring it.

Trump's war idea may not have been the perfect solution but it's a heck of a lot better than the world ignoring it completely. Although i don't agree war solves everything, i find inaction by the UN, South American Coalition pungent. That their inaction allowed for the US president to even bring Venezuela up like this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2018/03/22/venezuelas-economic-crisis-worsens-in-2018/#56b663b81f17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela)
http://www.independentsentinel.com/inevitable-democrat-socialists-venezuela-rule-lawless-death-squads-militarized-police/
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582469305/venezuelas-health-care-system-ready-to-collapse-amid-economic-crisis

bastardofmelbourne:
Most importantly, Trump does not seem to realise that invading Venezuela would create another refugee crisis, as Venezuelans flee to American soil to escape American airstrikes. Like many Republicans, he fails to understand that the driving force behind mass migration into the United States is the fact that people want to leave their home states - because of civil war, economic collapse, or political persecution. By preventing civil wars, economic collapses and political persecution overseas, Trump could neuter the problem at its source. By creating new wars, Trump would only worsen the crisis that he is pretending to solve.

Or doesn't care. Not quite teh same thing. You'll always find people willing to cheer Trump on when he starts a war for no good reason. Or the "I don't support Trump, but..." crowd which are more or less the same.

I mean, apologies for pointing out the really obvious, I know you know this, but it seemed an important omission.

RobertEHouse:
If Venezuela was invaded would there really be a difference?

People are already fleeing Venezuela to neighboring states. Food is already almost none existent;Death squads roam the streets and shoot people who speak out. Venezuela now is a narco state as Manduro's VP is part of a very large cartel. Which has lead to a economy being so trashed to a point that it has hyper inflation at WWI Germany levels. The government ban of vital medications form being brought in by NGOs. Hospitals that don't have supplies that a person with a heart attacks, diabetes and other serious issues have no choice but to die. Or the opposition government arrested and many disappearing with no one knowing what happened to them.

Yep , i am just glad letting people burn in a pit of hell is better than the current choice of the world of ignoring it.

Trump's war idea may not have been the perfect solution but it's a heck of a lot better than the world ignoring it completely. Although i don't agree war solves everything, i find inaction by the UN, South American Coalition pungent. That their inaction allowed for the US president to even bring Venezuela up like this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2018/03/22/venezuelas-economic-crisis-worsens-in-2018/#56b663b81f17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela)
http://www.independentsentinel.com/inevitable-democrat-socialists-venezuela-rule-lawless-death-squads-militarized-police/
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582469305/venezuelas-health-care-system-ready-to-collapse-amid-economic-crisis

For the record, the idea of "If a place was invaded, would it make any difference" is... outstanding to me.

But the point is, once again Trump breaks a promise and backtracks on what he says. The media barely calls him out on it, so those not in the know are unaware, his base doesn't care because everything he says is the truth from God Above, and all the rest of us are left with is "Imagine if Clinton or Obama did the same thing!"

We're living in a cult that excuses all the idiocy of a dangerous man. Ideas about if it's ok to invade a country (it isn't, we could do more... like actually getting people in the UN to sit down and address the issues instead of "Fuck it, I'll take it") aside, Trump needs to for once be held accountable for anything that would be actually damaging to any other person.

RobertEHouse:
snip

1. USA has lots of internal issues that need fixing before wasting millions in more military actions on foreign lands (and maintaining the peace on occupied territory afterwards)

2. USA is awful at cleaning their mess after the dust has settled.

3. The anti-American attitude from the Venezuelan regime will make the conflict much bloodier, and increase the chances of USA losing the war (again).

4. USA's military isn't what it used to be...

It reminds me how the USSR made huge shitty projects that were cost inefficient and sometimes even subpar in security and efficiency, but were broadcasted by their government as the best things ever achieved by mankind.

Wait, why the fuck is invading Venezuela even being considered? How the hell is that now on the table? Have we still not learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?

BreakfastMan:
Wait, why the fuck is invading Venezuela even being considered? How the hell is that now on the table? Have we still not learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?

Sure has. We learned that it gets you re-elected.

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Clinton-Emails-Reveal-Direct-US-Sabotage-of-Venezuela-20160726-0041.html

Thaluikhain:

bastardofmelbourne:
Most importantly, Trump does not seem to realise that invading Venezuela would create another refugee crisis, as Venezuelans flee to American soil to escape American airstrikes. Like many Republicans, he fails to understand that the driving force behind mass migration into the United States is the fact that people want to leave their home states - because of civil war, economic collapse, or political persecution. By preventing civil wars, economic collapses and political persecution overseas, Trump could neuter the problem at its source. By creating new wars, Trump would only worsen the crisis that he is pretending to solve.

Or doesn't care. Not quite teh same thing. You'll always find people willing to cheer Trump on when he starts a war for no good reason. Or the "I don't support Trump, but..." crowd which are more or less the same.

I mean, apologies for pointing out the really obvious, I know you know this, but it seemed an important omission.

More flesh to put in private prisons is a plus for the establishment crowd.

BreakfastMan:
Wait, why the fuck is invading Venezuela even being considered? How the hell is that now on the table? Have we still not learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?

The neoliberal Washington establishment doesn't like the leadership of Venezuela, so they have done various things to sabotage their government including at least one coup attempt, sanctions, and funding a violent opposition. They've also been pumping the airwaves with pro-war propaganda. It's being considered because US corporate donors don't like it when countries exert control over their own natural resources.

I wanted to make a sarcastic about this...But I just can't. This is just terrifying. :s

RobertEHouse:
If Venezuela was invaded would there really be a difference?

Right, because killing more Venezuelans with bombs and drones when they're already starving and with crazy poverty and crime rates will totally not make things worse.

It's not like the many interventions that the US has done over the past decade or two shows that war makes things worse, right?

...Oh hey, I did manage the sarcasm!

He didn't though, did he?

And that's the beauty of a President everyone acknowledges is a prick to some degree. Inspirational leaders can take a nation into wars. Pricks find it a lot harder.

Catnip1024:
He didn't though, did he?

And that's the beauty of a President everyone acknowledges is a prick to some degree. Inspirational leaders can take a nation into wars. Pricks find it a lot harder.

You don?t get credit for floating the idea of a stupid pointless war that would exasperate the problem and then not going through with it. And doing that makes you more than "a prick to some degree."

erttheking:

Catnip1024:
He didn't though, did he?

And that's the beauty of a President everyone acknowledges is a prick to some degree. Inspirational leaders can take a nation into wars. Pricks find it a lot harder.

You don?t get credit for floating the idea of a stupid pointless war that would exasperate the problem and then not going through with it. And doing that makes you more than ?a prick to some degree.?

Who cares about credit? Results are the important thing, when you are talking about lives. I'd rather have a leader incapable of mustering support for an overseas intervention than an inspirational figure who can.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:

Catnip1024:
He didn't though, did he?

And that's the beauty of a President everyone acknowledges is a prick to some degree. Inspirational leaders can take a nation into wars. Pricks find it a lot harder.

You don?t get credit for floating the idea of a stupid pointless war that would exasperate the problem and then not going through with it. And doing that makes you more than ?a prick to some degree.?

Who cares about credit? Results are the important thing, when you are talking about lives. I'd rather have a leader incapable of mustering support for an overseas intervention than an inspirational figure who can.

And I'd rather have neither, so get that false dilemma logical fallacy out of my face. What you're doing is effectively lowering standards by saying "well at least his attempt to start a pointless, bloody invasion didn't work." It shouldn't have been on the table to begin with, and we shouldn't be talking around it or downplaying it because Trump is too stupid to get the ball rolling on it. But that's what everyone who supports Trump (even if they claim they don't) does around here, downplay it every time he does something stupid because he could have fucked it up even more royally than he actually did.

If someone breaks into your home and tries to shoot you in the face, we don't cut him some slack if he forgot to load the gun.

This is yet another supposed benefit to Trump that turned out to be full of shit, and yet again I'm being told it's not a big deal.

Catnip1024:
He didn't though, did he?

And that's the beauty of a President everyone acknowledges is a prick to some degree. Inspirational leaders can take a nation into wars. Pricks find it a lot harder.

Uhh...Doesn't Trump have one of the lowest approval ratings of any president, and wasn't he THE most disliked candidate in US history on the day of his election? (or at least something real close to that?)

Doesn't a huge chunk of the US dislike the guy currently (reminder he lost the popular vote)?

Now, he's not universally hated because there his supporters who practically worship the guy, but overall, people DO appear to think he's a prick.

It's less that he's inspirational and more that he just doesn't care (or know any better) and just DOES stuff like this because he wants to look tough, and the people around him are either yes-men or people who really really love war because it makes their military contractor donors happy. And then when he's called out on what a bad idea it is, his massive ego does not care, the people around him don't care, and his diehard supporters fawn over it and scream "FAKE NEWS!" to everyone else who disagrees.

Yeah but you're assuming Trump meant a single thing he said during the campaign, and he didn't. Trump doesn't understand how to tie his shoes or fill a glass of water, let alone national and international policy.

If Trump has a saving grace, its that he cares so little about other people and understands so few things he might do the right thing by accident.

Silentpony:

If Trump has a saving grace, its that he cares so little about other people and understands so few things he might do the right thing by accident.

He has a full cabinet of advisors around him to make sure that doesn't happen.

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:

If Trump has a saving grace, its that he cares so little about other people and understands so few things he might do the right thing by accident.

He has a full cabinet of advisors around him to make sure that doesn't happen.

That's true, but he also hates them and hates being told what to do. He might leave Row v. Wade on the books just to show Pence and Sessions who is boss.

You know, by assuming they actually meant it when they claimed to support Trump because he's somehow less likely to start wars you're doing them a favor they don't really deserve. Noone in their right mind thought that Trump was more peaceful than Clinton.

It's one of many excuses they made so that they don't have acknowledge that they voted for him because they want bad things to happen to non white people.

There are no wholesome reasons to support Trump. People support him because they want to screw others over.

I half expected to hear that trump had decided to nuke Germany since it would help Russia.

PsychedelicDiamond:
You know, by assuming they actually meant it when they claimed to support Trump because he's somehow less likely to start wars you're doing them a favor they don't really deserve. Noone in their right mind thought that Trump was more peaceful than Clinton.

It's one of many excuses they made so that they don't have acknowledge that they voted for him because they want bad things to happen to non white people.

There are no wholesome reasons to support Trump. People support him because they want to screw others over.

True but more then a few people during the campaign were saying they voted for trump since they though Clinton would immediately go to war with Russia. To the point where there was a decent amount of backlash from some groups of his supporters when he dropped that moab on an empty air strip. They thought he wasn't going to do war stuff.

aegix drakan:
Uhh...Doesn't Trump have one of the lowest approval ratings of any president, and wasn't he THE most disliked candidate in US history on the day of his election? (or at least something real close to that?)

Doesn't a huge chunk of the US dislike the guy currently (reminder he lost the popular vote)?

Now, he's not universally hated because there his supporters who practically worship the guy, but overall, people DO appear to think he's a prick.

It's less that he's inspirational and more that he just doesn't care (or know any better) and just DOES stuff like this because he wants to look tough, and the people around him are either yes-men or people who really really love war because it makes their military contractor donors happy. And then when he's called out on what a bad idea it is, his massive ego does not care, the people around him don't care, and his diehard supporters fawn over it and scream "FAKE NEWS!" to everyone else who disagrees.

I'm not sure what part of my post you are thinking you are disagreeing with here...

erttheking:
And I'd rather have neither, so get that false dilemma logical fallacy out of my face. What you're doing is effectively lowering standards by saying "well at least his attempt to start a pointless, bloody invasion didn't work."

Oh, get out of here on your high horse. When you say "Clinton is not ideal but better Clinton than Trump" that's fine, but any time somebody else says better one shit thing than another it's not?

Get some consistency before you start argument policing.

Catnip1024:
Snip

Hmmmmm...no. I said that this shit would happen and I'm gonna ride this high horse while screaming "I fucking told you so" into a megaphone so long as the cheeto haired asshole is still in office, and if you don't like it, too fucking bad.

And the two arguments are not the same. Namely because the "either Clinton or Trump" debacle was a time when we actually did have to pick between two evils. There is no inspirational leader who could actually organize an invasion of Venezuela, you made him up to make Trump look good by comparison. That's the difference between you and I. I prefer one person to another in a situation where I had to pick between two of them. You prefer one person to another in a situation where one of them is real and the other is a work of fantasy.

Also I don't go into every thread about Clinton and defend every last thing she does by saying it's not that bad or downplaying all the bad she does. You DO do that with Trump. So spare me the "bothsame" horseshit.

And I'm not "policing" your argument. I'm saying your argument is full of shit.

By now, I think any sane person will admit that what Trump said during the campaign trail was utter none sense. Let's not forget he was totally for bombing civilians, so let's not act like he was the anti-war candidate.

At the end of the day he's just another establishment republican, the only difference is that he uses mean words on twitter!

BreakfastMan:
Wait, why the fuck is invading Venezuela even being considered? How the hell is that now on the table? Have we still not learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?

Someone's been out of the loop for the past few years it would seem. Everyone I know has assumed for the past 4 years or so now that whoever was president at this current time would invade Venezuela. The country is a failed state on the verge of either civil war or total collapse depending on who you ask, such a state so close to the US isn't particularly acceptable. Already refugees are flooding into Columbia and the region is having trouble coping. While military intervention isn't ideal, an ultimatum against its current government is sorely needed. They're going to lose power in the next few years anyway, may as well give them an out and make it not collapse the entire country. If the reds refuse to step down an invasion would not be ideal but it would be necessary. Maduro is a tyrant and a despot, another name in the long line of failed socialist leaders. The sooner he leaves or is remove the sooner Venezuela can return to being a halfway decent country.

Regime change is going to happen, an invasion just has the US dictate how long it takes. It should be considered a last resort after an ultimatum but it also should remain on the table. If the US does nothing that it will become another Syria.

This would also give opportunity for the CLACS to legitimise itself and lead any humanitarian action (which at this point military intervention constitutes), but I doubt that'll happen.

RobertEHouse:
If Venezuela was invaded would there really be a difference?

People are already fleeing Venezuela to neighboring states. Food is already almost none existent;Death squads roam the streets and shoot people who speak out. Venezuela now is a narco state as Manduro's VP is part of a very large cartel. Which has lead to a economy being so trashed to a point that it has hyper inflation at WWI Germany levels. The government ban of vital medications form being brought in by NGOs. Hospitals that don't have supplies that a person with a heart attacks, diabetes and other serious issues have no choice but to die. Or the opposition government arrested and many disappearing with no one knowing what happened to them.

Yep , i am just glad letting people burn in a pit of hell is better than the current choice of the world of ignoring it.

Trump's war idea may not have been the perfect solution but it's a heck of a lot better than the world ignoring it completely. Although i don't agree war solves everything, i find inaction by the UN, South American Coalition pungent. That their inaction allowed for the US president to even bring Venezuela up like this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2018/03/22/venezuelas-economic-crisis-worsens-in-2018/#56b663b81f17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela)
http://www.independentsentinel.com/inevitable-democrat-socialists-venezuela-rule-lawless-death-squads-militarized-police/
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582469305/venezuelas-health-care-system-ready-to-collapse-amid-economic-crisis

Aside from the fact that we'll be putting many innocent lives at risk, wasting more tax payer dollars trying to rebuild a warn torn country all over again, I really don't think an invasion of Venezuela is a good idea.

WolvDragon:

Aside from the fact that we'll be putting many innocent lives at risk, wasting more tax payer dollars trying to rebuild a warn torn country all over again, I really don't think an invasion of Venezuela is a good idea.

A serious threat of invasion is a good idea though, war is coming to the country one way or another if Maduro and his party don't step down.

Zontar:

WolvDragon:

Aside from the fact that we'll be putting many innocent lives at risk, wasting more tax payer dollars trying to rebuild a warn torn country all over again, I really don't think an invasion of Venezuela is a good idea.

A serious threat of invasion is a good idea though, war is coming to the country one way or another if Maduro and his party don't step down.

Not worth the potential losses though, war is a bad idea.

WolvDragon:

Zontar:

WolvDragon:

Aside from the fact that we'll be putting many innocent lives at risk, wasting more tax payer dollars trying to rebuild a warn torn country all over again, I really don't think an invasion of Venezuela is a good idea.

A serious threat of invasion is a good idea though, war is coming to the country one way or another if Maduro and his party don't step down.

Not worth the potential losses though, war is a bad idea.

War is inevitable if he doesn't step down, it's not a question of if it's going to happen, it's a matter of when, how brutal, and who will be part of the intervention (outside of Columbia, obviously, since they are 100% going to occupy part of the border regions for their own safety)

Zontar:

BreakfastMan:
Wait, why the fuck is invading Venezuela even being considered? How the hell is that now on the table? Have we still not learned from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?

Someone's been out of the loop for the past few years it would seem. Everyone I know has assumed for the past 4 years or so now that whoever was president at this current time would invade Venezuela. The country is a failed state on the verge of either civil war or total collapse depending on who you ask, such a state so close to the US isn't particularly acceptable. Already refugees are flooding into Columbia and the region is having trouble coping.

And? Venezuela is in an undeniably shitty situation, I am not saying it is not. However, military action will do literally nothing to improve that. It will destroy the country and most likely destabilize the entire region. The disasters of Libya and Iraq should have proven that plenty by now.

Silentpony:
Yeah but you're assuming Trump meant a single thing he said during the campaign, and he didn't. Trump doesn't understand how to tie his shoes or fill a glass of water, let alone national and international policy.

If Trump has a saving grace, its that he cares so little about other people and understands so few things he might do the right thing by accident.

He has been pretty committed to his promises of abusing Mexicans.

Saelune:

Silentpony:
Yeah but you're assuming Trump meant a single thing he said during the campaign, and he didn't. Trump doesn't understand how to tie his shoes or fill a glass of water, let alone national and international policy.

If Trump has a saving grace, its that he cares so little about other people and understands so few things he might do the right thing by accident.

He has been pretty committed to his promises of abusing Mexicans.

That he has, but he's completely forgotten about his Wall, and opening the Libel Laws and jailing journalists and he hasn't nuked the Middle East like he promised, nor was the national debt eliminated in 6 months.

Zontar:

WolvDragon:

Zontar:

A serious threat of invasion is a good idea though, war is coming to the country one way or another if Maduro and his party don't step down.

Not worth the potential losses though, war is a bad idea.

War is inevitable if he doesn't step down, it's not a question of if it's going to happen, it's a matter of when, how brutal, and who will be part of the intervention (outside of Columbia, obviously, since they are 100% going to occupy part of the border regions for their own safety)

The United States is funding an insurgency that the majority of the people of Venezuela do not support. War is only 'inevitable' if foreign support of the Venezuelan fascists embolden them enough.

Silentpony:

Saelune:

Silentpony:
Yeah but you're assuming Trump meant a single thing he said during the campaign, and he didn't. Trump doesn't understand how to tie his shoes or fill a glass of water, let alone national and international policy.

If Trump has a saving grace, its that he cares so little about other people and understands so few things he might do the right thing by accident.

He has been pretty committed to his promises of abusing Mexicans.

That he has, but he's completely forgotten about his Wall, and opening the Libel Laws and jailing journalists and he hasn't nuked the Middle East like he promised, nor was the national debt eliminated in 6 months.

And he has taken more time playing golf then Obama when he said he wouldn't, and he forgot to repeal Obamacare day one like he promised.

WolvDragon:

Silentpony:

Saelune:
He has been pretty committed to his promises of abusing Mexicans.

That he has, but he's completely forgotten about his Wall, and opening the Libel Laws and jailing journalists and he hasn't nuked the Middle East like he promised, nor was the national debt eliminated in 6 months.

And he has taken more time playing golf then Obama when he said he wouldn't, and he forgot to repeal Obamacare day one like he promised.

Totally forgot about the golf, good point! Trump is a nightmare, but what campaign Trump promised to do is way way worse than what President Trump can actually do. He watched too much Fox News and actually believed it when Sean Hannity and Bill Oriely called Obama a King or Emperor or Dictator and Trump, knowing so little, thought there were no checks on Presidential power.
That's why he keeps saying he's being treated so unfairly, because in his mind Obama was King of Wakanda, able to do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, and Trump is Bucky, a mentally unstable old man from a bigone era easily manipulated by Eastern European mobsters.

Catnip1024:

aegix drakan:
Uhh...Doesn't Trump have one of the lowest approval ratings of any president, and wasn't he THE most disliked candidate in US history on the day of his election? (or at least something real close to that?)

Doesn't a huge chunk of the US dislike the guy currently (reminder he lost the popular vote)?

Now, he's not universally hated because there his supporters who practically worship the guy, but overall, people DO appear to think he's a prick.

It's less that he's inspirational and more that he just doesn't care (or know any better) and just DOES stuff like this because he wants to look tough, and the people around him are either yes-men or people who really really love war because it makes their military contractor donors happy. And then when he's called out on what a bad idea it is, his massive ego does not care, the people around him don't care, and his diehard supporters fawn over it and scream "FAKE NEWS!" to everyone else who disagrees.

I'm not sure what part of my post you are thinking you are disagreeing with here...

Oh woops, I was under the impression you were saying that stuff like this happens and trump largely gets away with it because he's somehow inspiring and not considered a prick.

My bad, misread.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here