I don't know that I can say I "support" Trump's bombing of Iran. It's more like when you notice a broken clock is accidentally showing the correct time. That is not the moment to go on a rant about how broken the clock is. Trump is doing SO much that is horrible -- and blatantly unconstitutional -- that desperately needs to be fought against. But in this case, although he is probably doing it for the wrong reasons, and certainly without proper consideration of all the ramifications, I can't say unequivocally that bombing Iran was the wrong thing to do. Whereas I can say, and have been saying for months, that Trump is constantly doing other things that are clearly evil and wrong. I don't think I'm just being rationalistic here. Believe me, I wish ANY other world leader were in charge. And it's entirely possible that within a short amount of time, it will be clear that his actions were a mistake. But right now, I just don't think it's clear.
This sounds a little like you're trying to have faith that something good will happen, accidentally, maybe. And what exactly is it that you hope is happening? Is it ending Iran's nuclear program? Is it ending the regime? Because dropping a few bombs was always very unlikely to accomplish anything meaningful without a massive followup, and it was almost certainly going to be purely performative, if you maintain the full context of who we're actually talking about.
And as I think we're seeing, it's turning out precisely as anyone could have predicted. Again, that's because the reality is that this is Trump (and Netanyahu) we're talking about, and dropping bombs is a serious thing for serious people. We have enough facts to know that these aren't serious people -- or, depending on who, good people, even if they're serious. So supporting some random thing they do because maybe, hopefully it will accomplish some good thing, accidentally, when it could also accomplish some very bad things, doesn't seem very reality-based to me.
As I mentioned elsewhere, NOT dropping these bombs and taking out Iran's nuclear capability also has risks and unforeseen ramifications. The sad truth, I fear, is that there are no good outcomes when you have terrible leaders. And yes, things are already going south -- no surprise. As usual, Trump doesn't seem to know what he wants or what he's trying to do. But it's not clear to me that things would have been better if Trump hadn't dropped the bombs.
Yes, it’s a completely fucked up situation with no good way out because the people involved are all so corrupt. But I simply think that the only rational approach in evaluating something like Trump dropping some bombs is to consider the entire context — because, to keep stressing the point, it’s Trump that’s _doing it_. It’s not some purely theoretical action disconnected from that reality.
I definitely get your point. But the reality is we don't have access to the full context. How close was Iran to having a bomb? If Israel or our intelligence services know, WE certainly don't (and can't trust what they tell us). Has full consideration of the geopolitical situation been taken into account? Almost certainly not -- but we have no way of knowing what has and hasn't been weighed. In the absence of this knowledge and context, I think we can fall back on some known truths. Iran's regime is evil. They are a threat to the West as well as to their own people. We have been appeasing this evil for far too long. They should NOT be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Given all that, I don't think it's irrational to give a tentative thumbs up to the bombings -- with the full awareness that Trump is almost certain to screw up what comes next (as we are already seeing). Still, whatever mess he might get us into in the Middle East pales compared to the damage he's doing right here at home. THAT is where I want to focus my disapproval. At least for now.
Okay, so, I think we've both laid out our positions. But if I were to fully encapsulate mine: you keep talking about these bombings like they're actually something that could have been intended to do something good, like end Iran's nuclear program, or were ever capable of doing so. They're simply not, and there was never any rational basis to suggest that they could be.
And I disagree that there is ever a time to "give a tentative thumbs up" to something that Trump is doing. He must be opposed with every waking breath and with every word we write. We know enough now -- really, we should have known a long time ago -- to conclude that we're dealing with an evil man whose every action is taken for some evil purpose. The fact that we might, on the surface and as a floating abstraction, agree with some random thing shouldn't alter that evaluation.
My evaluation of Trump has not altered in any way. I guess we do genuinely disagree on this particular (I do think something good was intended by Israel) -- but on Trump being evil we are fully in accord.
I don't know that I can say I "support" Trump's bombing of Iran. It's more like when you notice a broken clock is accidentally showing the correct time. That is not the moment to go on a rant about how broken the clock is. Trump is doing SO much that is horrible -- and blatantly unconstitutional -- that desperately needs to be fought against. But in this case, although he is probably doing it for the wrong reasons, and certainly without proper consideration of all the ramifications, I can't say unequivocally that bombing Iran was the wrong thing to do. Whereas I can say, and have been saying for months, that Trump is constantly doing other things that are clearly evil and wrong. I don't think I'm just being rationalistic here. Believe me, I wish ANY other world leader were in charge. And it's entirely possible that within a short amount of time, it will be clear that his actions were a mistake. But right now, I just don't think it's clear.
This sounds a little like you're trying to have faith that something good will happen, accidentally, maybe. And what exactly is it that you hope is happening? Is it ending Iran's nuclear program? Is it ending the regime? Because dropping a few bombs was always very unlikely to accomplish anything meaningful without a massive followup, and it was almost certainly going to be purely performative, if you maintain the full context of who we're actually talking about.
And as I think we're seeing, it's turning out precisely as anyone could have predicted. Again, that's because the reality is that this is Trump (and Netanyahu) we're talking about, and dropping bombs is a serious thing for serious people. We have enough facts to know that these aren't serious people -- or, depending on who, good people, even if they're serious. So supporting some random thing they do because maybe, hopefully it will accomplish some good thing, accidentally, when it could also accomplish some very bad things, doesn't seem very reality-based to me.
As I mentioned elsewhere, NOT dropping these bombs and taking out Iran's nuclear capability also has risks and unforeseen ramifications. The sad truth, I fear, is that there are no good outcomes when you have terrible leaders. And yes, things are already going south -- no surprise. As usual, Trump doesn't seem to know what he wants or what he's trying to do. But it's not clear to me that things would have been better if Trump hadn't dropped the bombs.
Yes, it’s a completely fucked up situation with no good way out because the people involved are all so corrupt. But I simply think that the only rational approach in evaluating something like Trump dropping some bombs is to consider the entire context — because, to keep stressing the point, it’s Trump that’s _doing it_. It’s not some purely theoretical action disconnected from that reality.
I definitely get your point. But the reality is we don't have access to the full context. How close was Iran to having a bomb? If Israel or our intelligence services know, WE certainly don't (and can't trust what they tell us). Has full consideration of the geopolitical situation been taken into account? Almost certainly not -- but we have no way of knowing what has and hasn't been weighed. In the absence of this knowledge and context, I think we can fall back on some known truths. Iran's regime is evil. They are a threat to the West as well as to their own people. We have been appeasing this evil for far too long. They should NOT be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Given all that, I don't think it's irrational to give a tentative thumbs up to the bombings -- with the full awareness that Trump is almost certain to screw up what comes next (as we are already seeing). Still, whatever mess he might get us into in the Middle East pales compared to the damage he's doing right here at home. THAT is where I want to focus my disapproval. At least for now.
Okay, so, I think we've both laid out our positions. But if I were to fully encapsulate mine: you keep talking about these bombings like they're actually something that could have been intended to do something good, like end Iran's nuclear program, or were ever capable of doing so. They're simply not, and there was never any rational basis to suggest that they could be.
And I disagree that there is ever a time to "give a tentative thumbs up" to something that Trump is doing. He must be opposed with every waking breath and with every word we write. We know enough now -- really, we should have known a long time ago -- to conclude that we're dealing with an evil man whose every action is taken for some evil purpose. The fact that we might, on the surface and as a floating abstraction, agree with some random thing shouldn't alter that evaluation.
My evaluation of Trump has not altered in any way. I guess we do genuinely disagree on this particular (I do think something good was intended by Israel) -- but on Trump being evil we are fully in accord.