So we're giving credit to Trump for committing war crimes but -- at the last possible minute -- not starting a war that would make Iraq look like a backyard wrestling match.
But Biden would totally be worse because checks notes he wants to rejoin Obama's U.S.-Iran deal? Quit while you're miles behind here.
And "Push back against Iranian influence in the region."
I know the stereotype about libs not reading, but damn. I sent you his proposal a few comments ago
You sent me an article stating that Biden wants to rejoin the U.S.-Iran deal. Thats a hell of a lot more material than vague "push back on their influence" rhetoric, especially when the comparison point is a guy who's already committed an act of war against Iran.
But I see we've shut our brains off and concluded that Biden bad = Biden is worse than Trump on all dimensions, ackshually.
So we’re giving credit to Trump for committing war crimes but – at the last possible minute – not starting a war that would make Iraq look like a backyard wrestling match.
You're framing it as "credit" again, which makes no sense. People here aren't patting Trump on the back. They're arguing why he's less apocalyptically awful than Biden by a small degree.
You know this, and you keep trying to frame it as people like Trump, which is from the Lib 101 playbook ("oh you aren't all-in on Ridin' with Biden, huh? What time is it in Moscow, Boris")
I still believe the whole Iran general assassination was a compromise with Bolton so that Bolton would not testify during impeachment. Bolton has been wanting to invade Iran since the day he was born. Although trying to assign logic to anything Trump does is another futile exercise
And yet Bolton, or someone like him, will 100% be in the Biden cabinet, making the same decisions.
Except with Biden, he will be sealed up in the basement of the White House like an entombed mummy while those guys have free rein to murder and enslave people. As opposed to having to navigate Trump's witless interference and incompetence, saying counterproductive things about peace talks with North Korea and pulling out of Afghanistan, in between diss tweets at Bette Midler.
And yet Bolton, or someone like him, will 100% be in the Biden cabinet, making the same decisions.
Biden was part of an administration that negotiated a diplomatic agreement with Iran, and he's stated he wants to rejoin that agreement. How is that remotely similar to John "literally been trying to invade Iran since the revolution" Bolton? I have no doubt Biden will be a shitty imperialist in many other areas, but on this particular point equating him with Trump is just laughable. Trump was hours away from starting a war with Iran this January.
The baseline here is what Trump has already done: attacking Iran and getting us within hours of a full-scale war against a country with 80+ million people. To find an example of a Democratic president doing anything close to that you'd have to go back to, what, LBJ?
Biden will no doubt continue the standard-issue imperialism of Obama and Trump -- expanding our drone terror campaign, trying (sometimes successfully) to initiate coups in places like Venezuela and Bolivia, etc. -- but attacking a country like Iran is in a whole different stratosphere. As a comparison, look at Libya vs. Iraq. Libya is a mess, but because we didn't invade and didn't engage in a full-scale bombing campaign for over a decade the casualties have been fairly limited. Wikipedia lists about 9,000 Libyan deaths since 2014, but let's assume that's off by an order of magnitude and call it 90,000 deaths over about six years. We've killed 2.4 million Iraqis and counting since 2003; a full tenth of their pre-war population. That's another order of magnitude greater than our damage to Libya even if you assume the Libyan Civil War will continue as long as the Iraq War has continued, and it doesn't even factor in the long-term effects of a sustained bombing campaign (CW for fucked up images of babies we've deformed). There's no comparison.
All this stuff runs together because even Democratic imperialism is fucking awful, but there's an enormous difference between run-of-the-mill CIA crimes against humanity and war.
Biden was part of an administration that reached a major diplomatic agreement with Iran. Trump ripped that up and took us to the brink of an invasion.
He also helped invade Iraq, and Trump was too much of a coward to actually do anything Bolton wanted to
He assassinated a top Iranian general while the guy was on a diplomatic mission to Iraq
And then backed the fuck down
So we're giving credit to Trump for committing war crimes but -- at the last possible minute -- not starting a war that would make Iraq look like a backyard wrestling match.
But Biden would totally be worse because checks notes he wants to rejoin Obama's U.S.-Iran deal? Quit while you're miles behind here.
And "Push back against Iranian influence in the region." I know the stereotype about libs not reading, but damn. I sent you his proposal a few comments ago
You sent me an article stating that Biden wants to rejoin the U.S.-Iran deal. Thats a hell of a lot more material than vague "push back on their influence" rhetoric, especially when the comparison point is a guy who's already committed an act of war against Iran.
But I see we've shut our brains off and concluded that Biden bad = Biden is worse than Trump on all dimensions, ackshually.
You're framing it as "credit" again, which makes no sense. People here aren't patting Trump on the back. They're arguing why he's less apocalyptically awful than Biden by a small degree.
You know this, and you keep trying to frame it as people like Trump, which is from the Lib 101 playbook ("oh you aren't all-in on Ridin' with Biden, huh? What time is it in Moscow, Boris")
I still believe the whole Iran general assassination was a compromise with Bolton so that Bolton would not testify during impeachment. Bolton has been wanting to invade Iran since the day he was born. Although trying to assign logic to anything Trump does is another futile exercise
Just hiring John Bolton in the first place should show how dangerous Trump is on foreign policy.
And yet Bolton, or someone like him, will 100% be in the Biden cabinet, making the same decisions.
Except with Biden, he will be sealed up in the basement of the White House like an entombed mummy while those guys have free rein to murder and enslave people. As opposed to having to navigate Trump's witless interference and incompetence, saying counterproductive things about peace talks with North Korea and pulling out of Afghanistan, in between diss tweets at Bette Midler.
Biden was part of an administration that negotiated a diplomatic agreement with Iran, and he's stated he wants to rejoin that agreement. How is that remotely similar to John "literally been trying to invade Iran since the revolution" Bolton? I have no doubt Biden will be a shitty imperialist in many other areas, but on this particular point equating him with Trump is just laughable. Trump was hours away from starting a war with Iran this January.
I mean literal war criminal Colin Powell spoke at the DNC and endorsed biden too, so like i'm not sure that's really any worse
An endorsement =/= a cabinet position.
The baseline here is what Trump has already done: attacking Iran and getting us within hours of a full-scale war against a country with 80+ million people. To find an example of a Democratic president doing anything close to that you'd have to go back to, what, LBJ?
Biden will no doubt continue the standard-issue imperialism of Obama and Trump -- expanding our drone terror campaign, trying (sometimes successfully) to initiate coups in places like Venezuela and Bolivia, etc. -- but attacking a country like Iran is in a whole different stratosphere. As a comparison, look at Libya vs. Iraq. Libya is a mess, but because we didn't invade and didn't engage in a full-scale bombing campaign for over a decade the casualties have been fairly limited. Wikipedia lists about 9,000 Libyan deaths since 2014, but let's assume that's off by an order of magnitude and call it 90,000 deaths over about six years. We've killed 2.4 million Iraqis and counting since 2003; a full tenth of their pre-war population. That's another order of magnitude greater than our damage to Libya even if you assume the Libyan Civil War will continue as long as the Iraq War has continued, and it doesn't even factor in the long-term effects of a sustained bombing campaign (CW for fucked up images of babies we've deformed). There's no comparison.
All this stuff runs together because even Democratic imperialism is fucking awful, but there's an enormous difference between run-of-the-mill CIA crimes against humanity and war.