# The anti-war president



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

Warning--a lot of verbal diarrhea and rambling. Read at your own boredom.

TLDR version: I think Trump is the most anti-war president this country has seen in a long time.

Long version: I've been contemplating and thinking about Iran a lot lately, and our response to them. Namely, what is my personal opinion on all of this, and where do I stand? It's taken me awhile to get there as I review and digest all the information while filtering out all the noise (opinion and commentary).

How I feel about Trump is no secret. But in thinking through all of this, I think he just may be the most anti-war president we've had in a long time, and I will give that credit where it is due. I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

I wasn't sure where I sat on the Solemeini bombing. It seemed provocative and dangerous, but they insisted the they have compelling intelligence. Maybe I'm naive, but I have to believe that they had intelligence. The media will say 'Trump said there was compelling intelligence without offering any evidence."

Well no shit Sherlock. Who in their right mind is going to divulge classified military intelligence to the media?

Iran has had one provocation after another, and Trump defaulted to his typical embarassing words, but it's become apparent to me his actions spoke louder. Have any of you seen the video (it's quite dated now) of this little elementary school kid that has this much larger kid backed up against a wall, and this little kid is like a gnat on him, badgering him, even sucker punches him while the kid twice his size just quietly stands there? Then finally the bigger kid, who we all knew could kick the smaller kid's ass, just picks up the little kid and body slams him and then walks away?

The body slam was Solemeini, and my personal conclusion is this was a brilliant strike against Iran.

Iran's subsequent strikes at our bases where clearly an attempt to appease their people (because the Government has to have some kind of response), yet deliberate in their efforts to not piss us off even more, while then immediately throwing their hands up and saying 'ok we're done!' I was worried this was going to start a tit for tat, and was impressed and please with Trump's measured response. He did the right thing then and he did the right thing now.

Everybody is crying about WWIII and how Trump is going to get us there. I really don't think so. Nothing in his pattern of behavior going clear back to 2012 suggests he wants to go to war. I think he's doing everything not to while still taking actions when needed. For this the Democrats should be thankful, but they're being disingenuous. They were upset when he decided to remove forces from Syria. Then they're upset when he decided to take out Solemeini. It doesn't matter what they think, anything he does will piss them off, that's why it's disingenuous.

I truly believe he does not want a war, and is doing everything he can to avoid that. My previous assessment on him in this regard was wrong. I think he might be the most anti-war president this country has had in a long time. End ramble, and if you actually made it this far you deserve a participation ribbon.


----------



## IHCman (Aug 27, 2011)

I feel the strike against Solemeini was justified. He was in Iraq for a reason and it certainly wasn't for a vacation. There were many times in the 90s that strikes could have been ordered to take out Bin Laden but didn't happen for various reasons. Makes one wonder if 9/11 could have been prevented or how many lives would have been saved if Bin Laden had been taken out sooner. That makes me think that taking out Solemeini could prevent other attacks he had planned. Not saying that someone else won't fill his shoes and carry on his work.

I didn't want to see a war with Iran but with all the provocation that Iran has done I think they need to be taught a lesson. The Saudis should have been the ones to take care of them after the attack on their oil fields and seizing of tankers. The US shouldn't have to be the policemen of that area but after the missle attacks on our bases in Iraq I think Trump should have had all the sites that those missles came from obliterated. Putting more sanctions on them is kind of a joke IMO. I do think someone had to be the bigger man and step back from those tensions before full on war broke out. All in all its a tricky situation and I'm glad I don't have to decide how to handle it.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I don't believe that a President wakes up one morning and says "Hey, things look boring today, let's pop the second highest ranking guy of an Arab country just for fun." I just don't think it works that way.

I have not been so impressed with everything Trump has done, but I agree this, while controversial, seems to be the right thing to do.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Taking him out undoubtably saved thousands more innocents from slaughter.
Yes, someone will fill try to his shoes, but they will always know it could end very badly for them anytime or any place.

In regards to Trump being anti-war, I do believe he wants peace....peace through strength. In order to accomplish convincing people of this, every once in a while, you have to show you're serious. When someone like Solemani starts killing innocent people, you have to remind the other ones who want to be like him what will happen....You'll be blown up by a hellfire missle.

A booming economy and peace through strength.
Most Americans want that


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

IHCman said:


> I feel the strike against Solemeini was justified. He was in Iraq for a reason and it certainly wasn't for a vacation. There were many times in the 90s that strikes could have been ordered to take out Bin Laden but didn't happen for various reasons. Makes one wonder if 9/11 could have been prevented or how many lives would have been saved if Bin Laden had been taken out sooner. That makes me think that taking out Solemeini could prevent other attacks he had planned. Not saying that someone else won't fill his shoes and carry on his work.
> 
> I didn't want to see a war with Iran but with all the provocation that Iran has done I think they need to be taught a lesson. The Saudis should have been the ones to take care of them after the attack on their oil fields and seizing of tankers. The US shouldn't have to be the policemen of that area but after the missle attacks on our bases in Iraq I think Trump should have had all the sites that those missles came from obliterated. Putting more sanctions on them is kind of a joke IMO. I do think someone had to be the bigger man and step back from those tensions before full on war broke out. All in all its a tricky situation and I'm glad I don't have to decide how to handle it.


I think he made the absolutely right call by holding off after Iran's attack. I think it was pretty recognizable by all that Iran were merely doing it for show and nothing else, and were intentionally trying not to inflict casualties. When I read the news of the strikes, I got a knot in my stomach and was worried that we were going to hear about 300 US troops blown up. That would have called for severe retaliation, no doubt. I'm thankful that nobody was hurt. I'm thankful that Trump seems sincere about keeping our troops out of harm's way, because I did not believe that until only recently.

The day after Solemeini's death, one of his deputies was appointed to resume his position. I doubt Solemeini was the only one who knew his plans. I really doubt we're actually any safer with him gone, because they can still continue their campaigns, and now they're more fired up than ever seeking revenge. But if we keep blowing up the successor, by the time it gets to the third or fourth replacement, the line of applicants is probably going to be a little shorter


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hayjosh said:


> I think he made the absolutely right call by holding off after Iran's attack. I think it was pretty recognizable by all that Iran were merely doing it for show and nothing else, and were intentionally trying not to inflict casualties. When I read the news of the strikes, I got a knot in my stomach and was worried that we were going to hear about 300 US troops blown up. That would have called for severe retaliation, no doubt. I'm thankful that nobody was hurt. I'm thankful that Trump seems sincere about keeping our troops out of harm's way, because I did not believe that until only recently.
> 
> The day after Solemeini's death, one of his deputies was appointed to resume his position. I doubt Solemeini was the only one who knew his plans. I really doubt we're actually any safer with him gone, because they can still continue their campaigns, and now they're more fired up than ever seeking revenge. But if we keep blowing up the successor, by the time it gets to the third or fourth replacement, the line of applicants is probably going to be a little shorter


there ya go....peace through strength. You're seeing the light

Reagan did it very well. He collapsed the Soviet Union, breaking its hold on all those captured Eastern European countries and bringing down the Berlin Wall to reunify Germany. WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT. 
Now Eastern Europe is enjoying more freedom. 
Maybe president Trump will convince the Iranian people to uprise and overthrow the cruel regime that commands their lives?

Now if we could just get AOCs gang of America-haters and the old sea hag Nancy off his back and let him succeed.


----------



## Draft Horse Hay (May 15, 2014)

Regime Change. Never works ...... for very long. I guess we learned nothing from Vietnam.


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

New sanctions are going up, and what I don't understand is how is there always space for new sanctions? Why not sanction all of it from the beginning? If we're still finding things to sanction, obviously there's still room for them to breathe. Tighten the noose so they can't breathe.


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

And now it looks like they shot down a plane carrying dozens of their own people.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm no fan of Trump and I suspect the decision to kill Solemeini was a gut/shoot from the hip decision without thinking out all the consequences but I've got to say I think its going to be a net positive.

Credit to Charlie Murphy's wording, Iran is a habitual line-stepper. They want to keep pushing and pushing the limits and they found out what happens when you do that to someone that is unpredictable. They know there is little to no chance anyone will invade Iran any further than that flat bit in the south but they needed a reminder that all their proxy forces extended throughout the Middle East are vulnerable and their key leverage is still really only messing with the straights tanker traffic.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hayjosh said:


> New sanctions are going up, and what I don't understand is how is there always space for new sanctions? Why not sanction all of it from the beginning? If we're still finding things to sanction, obviously there's still room for them to breathe. Tighten the noose so they can't breathe.


You start off with some sanctions to show a modicum of negotiability. 
Do what you're supposed to do, we take sanctions away. Keep terrorizing the world, we add more sanctions.


----------



## Ox76 (Oct 22, 2018)

Yep. Just like punishing a child. Kind of pathetic when you think about it, eh? Having to slap the wrists and take away some privileges of "grown men" and "leaders of countries". Well, whatever works.

As to Trump making this happen as a gut instinct or shoot from the hip move - I don't think so. He's got many advisers and analysts around him for moments like these, just like any other president in history. Maybe he thought of it, maybe not, but he gave the go ahead and all is well. Much better than bowing way over at the waist like Obama did when meeting these heathens.


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

You know for sure that intelligence has been tracking Solemeini for a long time. You also know damn well for sure that there was a room full of military advisors and brass that said 'we have this guy in our sites, if you blow him up, here are scenarios you can expect to happen and our contingency for each scenario and how it could play out.'

All the risks and rewards are defined, then the President must make the call based on the advice and intel they were given. Which is why I don't completely fault Bush for Iraq. I think he was acting on bad advice and intel. That administration was clearly split on the decision to invade, or not, and all indications are Cheney was the bad actor there.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hayjosh said:


> You know for sure that intelligence has been tracking Solemeini for a long time. You also know damn well for sure that there was a room full of military advisors and brass that said 'we have this guy in our sites, if you blow him up, here are scenarios you can expect to happen and our contingency for each scenario and how it could play out.'
> 
> All the risks and rewards are defined, then the President must make the call based on the advice and intel they were given. Which is why I don't completely fault Bush for Iraq. I think he was acting on bad advice and intel. That administration was clearly split on the decision to invade, or not, and all indications are Cheney was the bad actor there.


Think oil, oil, oil. 
One of many great things I love about Trump is he is greatly reducing the need to worry about the Middle East for the oil by opening up and deregulating oil drilling here at home. And don't forget the added benefit of 100's of thousands of great jobs for Americans! It's even good for the environment: less costly supertankers, oil spills and need for coastal infrastructure. Domestic pipelines are the safest way to move oil.

The maximum pressure will finally force Iran to modernize its culture out of cruel darkness and join the light of the rest of the world. You can only keep people under the influence of an iron fisted leadership and a lousy economy for so long.
They will eventually run out of the money Obama gave them for building IED's, missles and bombs to kill innocents. Once the Obama money runs out, they won't be able to pay their military. Then the military and the citizens will overthrow.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Draft Horse Hay said:


> Regime Change. Never works ...... for very long. I guess we learned nothing from Vietnam.


yeah it never works..... 

I'm sure you don't think regime change worked when we changed Hitlers regime in Germany. Yeah looking back on it 80 years later, you probably think Germany was better off with good old' uncle Adolf, right? just let him keep conquering the world and slaughtering people??? DHH, come to think of it, only you could come up with something that insensitive and stupid or say.

Me? I'd say the Hitler regime change worked.....It worked very well.....for very, very long.


----------



## Draft Horse Hay (May 15, 2014)

Sanctions = punishing the citizens of a nation through starvation and deprivation to force regime change. Nothing to be proud of.


----------



## Ox76 (Oct 22, 2018)

Draft Horse Hay said:


> Sanctions = punishing the citizens of a nation through starvation and deprivation to force the regime to change.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Hayjosh (Mar 24, 2016)

Yet, sanctions have never actually worked.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hayjosh said:


> Yet, sanctions have never actually worked.


You mean in the case of Iran?
If you mean Iran, they will take years to work. 
Iran's regime is cruel, they will pass down the sanctions onto their people, maintaining the leaderships needs over their people's needs as long as they can- at their citizens expense.

Much like North Korea maintains a huge military while their citizens starve to death.
It will take time, but sanctions and buying less oil from them and making oil at home is the only option right now. Allowing them to grow and impose their violence over their neighbors, the way Obama funded them to do, is not the answer. It made the problem worse


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Draft Horse Hay said:


> Sanctions = punishing the citizens of a nation through starvation and deprivation to force regime change. Nothing to be proud of.


So what's your answer, genius? Let them keep their terrorist and war proxies murdering innocent people in the name of Allah all over the Middle East?
Send them another pallet of 1.8billion in Obama cash so they can build missles to shoot at other countries?
Sign a nuclear treaty with them that is not enforceable and allows Iran nukes by 2030? 
Allow them to impose puppet government in Iraq or other neighboring countries?
None of that works, it only makes them stronger.

Going to war with Iran isn't worth one American life, either.

That leaves no shots fired sanctions and isolation of Iran until they become a peaceful partner in the world.


----------



## Ox76 (Oct 22, 2018)

Yep. Like standing your kid in the corner until they can behave and play nice like the other kids.


----------

