WWIII posts all over Facebook because Iran but i think it's within the realm of possibility that Trump will launch Nukes if he loses the 2020 election

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Racan

Golden Member
Sep 22, 2012
1,101
1,969
136
I really don't get the demonisation part with this guy, sure he was no saint but I guess to americans anyone involved in targeting US military personnel in any armed conflict is automatically pure evil and a terrorist, but lets remember he played a very important part in ISIS's downfall thus saving many innocent lives, ISIS are truly monsters. Unless you believe only American airstrikes accomplished this with no boots on the ground.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
I disagree. The middle east has never been stable.

Why is leaving them to Their Own Business to figure it out ignorant? It isn't any of our business to tell them how to handle their own. Either they will figure it out or they will continue to stab each other in the back as they always have.
Cause you and proxy friends have given them all the biggest guns and bombs in history. You handed out loaded and cocked guns to all the kindergarden kids, now you want to take away all the adults and leave them to their own devices... From a Nazi socialogical experimental perspective I can see the appeal but other than that... Its like leaving your pregnant girlfriend to handle the “problem” on her own. (cant say im surprised though)
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
I really don't get the demonisation part with this guy, sure he was no saint but I guess to americans anyone involved in targeting US military personnel in any armed conflict is automatically pure evil and a terrorist, but lets remember he played a very important part in ISIS's downfall thus saving many innocent lives, ISIS are truly monsters. Unless you believe only American airstrikes accomplished this with no boots on the ground.
What would be his equal in US administration you think? Kushner? Wonder what woulda happened....
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
You brought up stability. " That said, there has been some additional stability in the region. "

How long should we keep our troops in Iraq and the Middle East? They don't want us in their business.

How much abuse should our citizens in Iraq take from Iran and their paid terrorist groups?

Should we just sit back and take it?

Right. Additional stability, not a stable place. How do you see those as the same?

How long? Unfortunately indefinitely. Obviously there needs to be a set of metrics/objectives that should be met for withdrawal (this is called a strategy).

We've been stirring the pot for decades (destabilizing), we don't get to cut and run.

Yeah, we have to "take it." You guys always distill everything down to emotion and feeling like you're getting taken advantage of.. Perpetually the victims.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,578
1,741
126
I just had a dream that the orange one launched 1000 nukes at EVERYONE. And, my dreams usually come true. :mad::mad::mad:
 
  • Wow
Reactions: whm1974

Racan

Golden Member
Sep 22, 2012
1,101
1,969
136
What would be his equal in US administration you think? Kushner? Wonder what woulda happened....
Probably the equivalent of the Iranians assassinating the US secretary of defence. As for what would have happened, at the very least the most intensive bombing campaign since Iraq 2003, if not regime change.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
He's already stated his lies, I mean reasons and there's no one to dispute it that his supporters will listen to.
His supporters don’t factor into this discussion. While they may be part of the impeachment narrative, Trump has now taken an aggressive stance onto the global stage into the most volatile region on earth. Yet, if Bill Clinton or W Bush had decisively and preemptively taken out Bin Laden before 9/11, would that not have still been a high risk call?

Even our raid against Bin Laden was high risk. What if our assault forces ended up engaging Pakistani forces?
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
Having the authority to authorize is a huge step from actually launching...or are you that dense???
I'm not being sense, just piintjng out that the orders to launch need only come from one person. We're not training people to second guess those orders. The two-man launch rules are mainly concerned with making sure orders are genuine. If a crazy president issues an order, that's it. Maybe someone will step in, maybe someone won't. Evidence to date suggests that people won't really stand up to the president, even when he does illegal things...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Trump isn't going to launch a nuke in revenge and if he were his life is over. As for the rest? It's too soon to tell but the pressure domestically in Iran will be for proportional revenge at the least which means a hell of an interesting year. I mentioned hypersonic weapons in my first post and I expect Iran to pursue trickle down technology and that's a real issue.

Otherwise? I don't know.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
Nukes would be in the realm of possibility, but maybe Barr and miller can talk him out of it, lol
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Meghan54

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,168
3,645
136
I dunno... Stephen Colbert from Monsters vs Aliens is President, so anything is possible...

I was thinking more the president from Escape From LA.

Snake Plissken: Got a smoke?

Malloy: The United States is a no-smoking nation. No smoking, no drinking, no drugs. No women - unless of course you're married. No guns, no foul language... no red meat.

Snake Plissken: [sarcastic] Land of the free.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,785
6,032
136
His supporters don’t factor into this discussion. While they may be part of the impeachment narrative, Trump has now taken an aggressive stance onto the global stage into the most volatile region on earth. Yet, if Bill Clinton or W Bush had decisively and preemptively taken out Bin Laden before 9/11, would that not have still been a high risk call?

Even our raid against Bin Laden was high risk. What if our assault forces ended up engaging Pakistani forces?
Are you forgetting "his supporters" also include the Republicans in Congress?
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,447
7,616
136
The US military could easily crush any of those. That's not in question. So it doesn't take a big man to stand up for what everyone already knows, especially when it's our brave military, and not the President, that'll be doing the real standing up.
Or are you under the delusion that Trump would be doing any of the fighting? No doubt that seems real within your cult of personality.

Yeah..it's obvious our military can crush anyone on earth. But, Are we now pretending that this whole crisis didn't start with the goal of stopping Iran from being an international sponsor of state terrorism? That's just going to keep right on rolling while we pat ourselves on the back for sinking their navy? Congratulations, we just got played again Vietnam-style.

Trump is not seen outside the USA as "tough". He seen as weak and predictable, and incapable of standing up to real strength. His bluster doesn't make him look strong at all.

Honestly I am never going to get why people are so intent on proving the power of the US military while getting curb-stomped in terms of geopolitical objectives. It's such a tragic and murderous sucker's game.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Are you forgetting "his supporters" also include the Republicans in Congress?
I have not. Democrats need to press him on the justification for the attack. The problem is that the target was arguably legitimate, and his supporters most certainly want Democrats to conflate this with impeachment. I personally think that Trump gave the order with that reason in mind.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
I have not. Democrats need to press him on the justification for the attack. The problem is that the target was arguably legitimate, and his supporters most certainly want Democrats to conflate this with impeachment. I personally think that Trump gave the order with that reason in mind.
Yes, because the Trump administration has always been so forthcoming when Democrats look for answers...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: soundforbjt

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
Holy smokes. TDS is reaching new heights. Progressheviks are losing their minds because Trump dare stand up to Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea.

Lol lololol lolol... Stand up to them? Yeah, really got them quaking in their boots.

"Oh no Trump, don't angry tweet at us in public then turn around and give away every policy objective we've had in the last 40 years!

Please stop! We're winning so much we are tired of winning!"
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Yes, because the Trump administration has always been so forthcoming when Democrats look for answers...
Don’t ask him. Press the Pentagon and the intelligence community. I am sure they are happy to contradict the President because they understand the stakes.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
Don’t ask him. Press the Pentagon and the intelligence community. I am sure they are happy to contradict the President because they understand the stakes.
Yes, press the people that the administration has routinely blocked from testifying, that will surely work well. A few people have stood up, but a lot of people follow the orders handed down by the branch that employs them.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
Too complicated and puts his properties at risk which he’d never do.
He will simply order the FBI and CIA and all federal prosecutors and IRS to go after the winning candidate hard
**not that I think President Trump will lose**
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Given that pcgeek went with the same talking point at almost the same time, I'm going with it was just on Fox & Friends.
Don’t watch Fox, or any cable news for that matter. My morning routine is usually NY Times and WAPO, and I tend to like the topical editorials on Atlantic and the New Yorker. This is going to blow your mind, but some of these sources occasionally post articles and opinions that a Trump supporter might find agreeable.