Kudos to Trump!

[Parsad]

I'll praise him when warranted...did the right thing by not striking Iran.  His reasoning of "150 lost lives in a strike not making sense relative to the destruction of the drone"...probably the first President to make that type of decision in American history! 

 

I'm happy throwing shit at him when he screws up and acts like a bigoted, bully, jackass, but Dems, Republicans and global leaders should praise him for keeping a calm head on this one.  His entire team was telling him to strike.  Cheers!

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-attack.html

[Gregmal]

I'll admit, I was very surprised by this as well.

[Spekulatius]

I agree with above, but I am not that surprised. I think Trump is way more reluctant to get drawn into a war than many other presidents before him. Sometimes, doing nothing can be the hardest thing to do, but it might just be the right thing.

[LC]

The thing about Trump is he's a bully. He'll take advantage of those with little or no power. When you hit back, now he reels.

[Parsad]

The thing about Trump is he's a bully. He'll take advantage of those with little or no power. When you hit back, now he reels.

 

I don't think that is what he was doing here.  Yes, he's a bully, and even tries to intimidate foreign nations, but it would have been very easy to side with Pompeo and Bolton.  To say innocent lives weren't reciprocal to a drone being shot down...now that takes courage...especially for a guy who never likes to look weak! 

 

The last five predecessors to Trump (Reagen to Obama) found it easy to retaliate or start wars.  Very easy to push a button or send others to their death.  I'm glad Trump didn't find the decision so easy.  Cheers! 

[Spekulatius]

The thing about Trump is he's a bully. He'll take advantage of those with little or no power. When you hit back, now he reels.

 

I don't think that is what he was doing here.  Yes, he's a bully, and even tries to intimidate foreign nations, but it would have been very easy to side with Pompeo and Bolton.  To say innocent lives weren't reciprocal to a drone being shot down...now that takes courage...especially for a guy who never likes to look weak! 

 

The last five predecessors to Trump (Reagen to Obama) found it easy to retaliate or start wars.  Very easy to push a button or send others to their death.  I'm glad Trump didn't find the decision so easy.  Cheers!

 

I agree with above. Trump is a bit like a dog who barks a lot but doesn’t immediately bite. Then there are dogs who don’t bark and just bite you. I prefer the former.

 

Trump can always push the button later. Look at history - WW1, Vietnam, Syria (?), Gulf war II where buttons were pushed too easily and sometimes on incorrect information.

[rkbabang]

I'm appalled that he ordered the strike to begin with, but very happy that he did the right thing in the end. Had any other president done this there is no way in hell we would ever know that they changed their mind like that.

[Castanza]

The thing about Trump is he's a bully. He'll take advantage of those with little or no power. When you hit back, now he reels.

 

LC your bias is deeply rooted and I don't understand why. I'm all for being critical of presidents, but you have to give them credit where credit is due. And I'm not saying Trump won't make a mistake moving forward (Iran related or not). But I'm curious to hear who you think has been a good president in recent years? Or just in general?

 

Obama came into office with a freaking Nobel Peace prize and out bombed GWB, He also deported more people with ICE than Trump has.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-deporting-immigrants-at-slower-pace-than-obama-report

 

BUT Trump came into office saying he was going to slash spending blah blah blah. In reality the deficit is growing more and more and we are still spending more. 

[LC]

I'd love to know why you think my response was biased. And just for clarity, I agree with the ultimate decision not to attack Iran. I think it was the correct decision. This was my analysis of why Trump goes from ordering a military strike to cancelling it.

 

It's possible there is another explanation: perhaps he had an 11th-hour change of heart and found Jesus, or maybe he simply had a senile moment. Maybe it wasn't Trump at all but somebody else called it off and it's being attributed to Trump.

 

Tons of possibilities, but IMHO the most likely explanation is the bully-behavior I described, which is consistent with his historical pattern of behavior. If that's a biased analysis of the situation, I'd love to learn why.

[Parsad]

I'm just glad they chose the cyber-attack route rather than bombing or a war.  Cripple their military computer systems/network and embargo supplies/trade.  Cheers!

[Castanza]

I'd love to know why you think my response was biased. And just for clarity, I agree with the ultimate decision not to attack Iran. I think it was the correct decision. This was my analysis of why Trump goes from ordering a military strike to cancelling it.

 

It's possible there is another explanation: perhaps he had an 11th-hour change of heart and found Jesus, or maybe he simply had a senile moment. Maybe it wasn't Trump at all but somebody else called it off and it's being attributed to Trump.

 

Tons of possibilities, but IMHO the most likely explanation is the bully-behavior I described, which is consistent with his historical pattern of behavior. If that's a biased analysis of the situation, I'd love to learn why.

 

When your opening line is "The thing about Trump is" you are immediately trying to find the bad. You couldn't even say something good about his choice. 

[LC]

Now I think you're showing your own bias. In other words, I do not have to coddle the president to signal an unbiased analysis of the situation.

 

The analysis should stand on its own. Now, if you disagree with my assessment or think it's biased, I'd be genuinely interested to know why. But to say I'm biased only because I didn't fawn over Trump is simply showing your own biased, low-expectations of DT.

 

To paraphrase Chris Rock: "Some people always want credit for some stuff they're supposed to do. They'll say some stuff like, "I ain't never been to jail!". Well, do you want a cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail you low-expectation-having motherf*@($%!"

 

Funny stuff:

[rkbabang]

I'd love to know why you think my response was biased. And just for clarity, I agree with the ultimate decision not to attack Iran. I think it was the correct decision. This was my analysis of why Trump goes from ordering a military strike to cancelling it.

 

It's possible there is another explanation: perhaps he had an 11th-hour change of heart and found Jesus, or maybe he simply had a senile moment. Maybe it wasn't Trump at all but somebody else called it off and it's being attributed to Trump.

 

Tons of possibilities, but IMHO the most likely explanation is the bully-behavior I described, which is consistent with his historical pattern of behavior. If that's a biased analysis of the situation, I'd love to learn why.

 

When your opening line is "The thing about Trump is" you are immediately trying to find the bad. You couldn't even say something good about his choice. 

 

Of course LC is biased, but so are you and so am I. Everyone is biased.  If Hitler did something good,  it would be hard to look at that one thing in isolation without being biased by who he was and what he's done. And yes, to LC Trump is some kind of super-Hitler (who just hasn't happened to have committed genocide yet).

[Castanza]

I'd love to know why you think my response was biased. And just for clarity, I agree with the ultimate decision not to attack Iran. I think it was the correct decision. This was my analysis of why Trump goes from ordering a military strike to cancelling it.

 

It's possible there is another explanation: perhaps he had an 11th-hour change of heart and found Jesus, or maybe he simply had a senile moment. Maybe it wasn't Trump at all but somebody else called it off and it's being attributed to Trump.

 

Tons of possibilities, but IMHO the most likely explanation is the bully-behavior I described, which is consistent with his historical pattern of behavior. If that's a biased analysis of the situation, I'd love to learn why.

 

When your opening line is "The thing about Trump is" you are immediately trying to find the bad. You couldn't even say something good about his choice. 

 

Of course LC is biased, but so are you and so am I. Everyone is biased.  If Hitler did something good,  it would be hard to look at that one thing in isolation without being biased by who he was and what he's done. And yes, to LC Trump is some kind of super-Hitler (who just hasn't happened to have committed genocide yet).

Sure, I can agree everyone is biased. But that's still a bit different than giving credit where it is due. Also I try to be biased through the lens of the Constitution (when it applies). And LC I'm not saying you should fawn over him. I'm simply saying it seems like you try very hard to find the bad. At the very least try to have some positive skepticism. America not attacking another country is a win for America and the world.

[LC]

America not attacking another country is a win for America and the world.

 

Like Chris Rock said, "Give this man a cookie"

 

 

None of this talk of biases analyzes the ramification of Trump authorizing a military strike vs Iran and cancelling it at the last minute.

 

Of course, Iran sits back and thinks to itself, "We kicked this fellow in the shin, and in response he talked a big game but ultimately did nothing. Looks like we called this Trump fellow's bluff".

 

Trump gets to boast how tough he is. And then at the last minute, how "caring" he is.

 

But what actually matters, Trump has done damage. If Iran called his bluff once, you don't think they'll try do it again?

 

Standing up to the bully.

[no_free_lunch]

I don't think there was ever an authorized strike that was pulled off at the last minute.  This is just a form of communication.  He is just trying to explain to them that they are right on the very edge.

 

The fact of the matter is, this just shows how squeezed Iran is by the sanctions.  It implies they are working as intended.

[LC]

How do you figure that?

[no_free_lunch]

What statement are you referring to LC?

[Parsad]

I'd love to know why you think my response was biased. And just for clarity, I agree with the ultimate decision not to attack Iran. I think it was the correct decision. This was my analysis of why Trump goes from ordering a military strike to cancelling it.

 

It's possible there is another explanation: perhaps he had an 11th-hour change of heart and found Jesus, or maybe he simply had a senile moment. Maybe it wasn't Trump at all but somebody else called it off and it's being attributed to Trump.

 

Tons of possibilities, but IMHO the most likely explanation is the bully-behavior I described, which is consistent with his historical pattern of behavior. If that's a biased analysis of the situation, I'd love to learn why.

 

When your opening line is "The thing about Trump is" you are immediately trying to find the bad. You couldn't even say something good about his choice. 

 

Of course LC is biased, but so are you and so am I. Everyone is biased.  If Hitler did something good,  it would be hard to look at that one thing in isolation without being biased by who he was and what he's done. And yes, to LC Trump is some kind of super-Hitler (who just hasn't happened to have committed genocide yet).

Sure, I can agree everyone is biased. But that's still a bit different than giving credit where it is due. Also I try to be biased through the lens of the Constitution (when it applies). And LC I'm not saying you should fawn over him. I'm simply saying it seems like you try very hard to find the bad. At the very least try to have some positive skepticism. America not attacking another country is a win for America and the world.

 

Yeah, but that is true about alot of people, not just LC.  For two years, we've had just about anything Trump did irrationally defended...didn't matter what it was.  Many things were very child-like, and certainly not presidential let alone behaving like an adult.  I mean why the complete attack on Obama and everything Obama did, trying to wipe out any and all things Obama did as president?  Very bizarre...vengeful...distasteful and a waste of energy.  Especially when he didn't accomplish anything like repealing Obamacare. 

 

The rotating door of personnel...the lack of response to Charlottesville...alienation of global allies...f**kin tariffs where they weren't needed...nepotism up the ying yang...lack of disclosure on tax returns...increasing deficits and national debt...deregulation where it isn't needed (banks)...the list goes on and on, and was constantly defended by the usual suspects on here.  So, before you go lording over LC's biases, take a moment for inner reflection.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

Cardboard, every time your post has an insult, it will be deleted going forward.  I've deleted two today.  Eventually, when I get tired of it, I'm going to ban you...so be forewarned for one of the last times about insults.  As a long-time member, you are getting the benefit of the doubt, and that's why I haven't done it yet. 

 

I don't mind blunt posts that state fact or opinion, but calling people "dumb", etc is not allowed.  Cheers!

[LC]

What statement are you referring to LC?

I was referring to your statement about this being evidence of Iran being squeezed by sanctions. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

[no_free_lunch]

It is widely cited by both the left and right.  It also just makes a lot of sense.  The sanctions are biting, they don't want to be seen as weak so they hit back.

 

I won't claim to understand all the nuance to the situation and honestly Iran doesn't appear to be the worst actor in the region.  I don't want to come across as anti Iran at all. However looking at it coldly it seems this is where Trump would want them and last thing he wants is to fire the first shot.

[Castanza]

I'd love to know why you think my response was biased. And just for clarity, I agree with the ultimate decision not to attack Iran. I think it was the correct decision. This was my analysis of why Trump goes from ordering a military strike to cancelling it.

 

It's possible there is another explanation: perhaps he had an 11th-hour change of heart and found Jesus, or maybe he simply had a senile moment. Maybe it wasn't Trump at all but somebody else called it off and it's being attributed to Trump.

 

Tons of possibilities, but IMHO the most likely explanation is the bully-behavior I described, which is consistent with his historical pattern of behavior. If that's a biased analysis of the situation, I'd love to learn why.

 

When your opening line is "The thing about Trump is" you are immediately trying to find the bad. You couldn't even say something good about his choice. 

 

Of course LC is biased, but so are you and so am I. Everyone is biased.  If Hitler did something good,  it would be hard to look at that one thing in isolation without being biased by who he was and what he's done. And yes, to LC Trump is some kind of super-Hitler (who just hasn't happened to have committed genocide yet).

Sure, I can agree everyone is biased. But that's still a bit different than giving credit where it is due. Also I try to be biased through the lens of the Constitution (when it applies). And LC I'm not saying you should fawn over him. I'm simply saying it seems like you try very hard to find the bad. At the very least try to have some positive skepticism. America not attacking another country is a win for America and the world.

 

Yeah, but that is true about alot of people, not just LC.  For two years, we've had just about anything Trump did irrationally defended...didn't matter what it was.  Many things were very child-like, and certainly not presidential let alone behaving like an adult.  I mean why the complete attack on Obama and everything Obama did, trying to wipe out any and all things Obama did as president?  Very bizarre...vengeful...distasteful and a waste of energy.  Especially when he didn't accomplish anything like repealing Obamacare. 

 

The rotating door of personnel...the lack of response to Charlottesville...alienation of global allies...f**kin tariffs where they weren't needed...nepotism up the ying yang...lack of disclosure on tax returns...increasing deficits and national debt...deregulation where it isn't needed (banks)...the list goes on and on, and was constantly defended by the usual suspects on here.  So, before you go lording over LC's biases, take a moment for inner reflection.  Cheers!

 

I'm not "Lording" over anyone. Simply making an observation. You're response is completely emotional and unfounded. You apply failures of others to condemn things to me. I've been equally critical of Obama and Trump. If you read what I posted you would see I said I am not perfect. And first of all I was praising you for supporting Trump on this decision. How often have you or LC criticized Obama? So I'll pass on that inner reflection.  People tend to get emotional when an inner cord is struck (just saying).

[LC]

The sanctions are biting, they don't want to be seen as weak so they hit back.

 

I won't claim to understand all the nuance to the situation and honestly Iran doesn't appear to be the worst actor in the region. 

 

This is a possibility as well, I admit. In my estimation it seems Iran would have made the same move regardless of the sanctions. Trumps response seems weak and almost amateur.

 

What comes to mind is something about walking softly and carrying a big stick.

[no_free_lunch]

I think you underestimate what sanctions can do.  He is hitting back by keeping the sanctions on.  He has been hitting back every day for a year and now Iran is getting desperate.