Back to the original topic
Getting us involved in a war of choice, and then suggesting that American people sacrifice for it to higher prices, takes a special kind of arrogance, especially coming from a billionaire president was wealth has increased since taking the presidency
I thought those of us who are conservative were against putting further financial burdens on the American people and businesses? I guess I’m not in sync with this new conservatism that requires fealty to a man….🤷♂️
Remember how mad the Fox News crowd got when Obama said that energy prices would have to “necessarily skyrocket” to pay for his cap and trade scheme
Before you put me on ignore, let’s settle the question you keep avoiding.
Why are you here?
I’m not asking why you oppose Trump. You’re entitled to oppose him. I’m asking why you’re spending your time in a GOP forum when, from everything I’ve read from you here and elsewhere, your consistent contribution is anti-Trump commentary and predictions that Republicans are going to get swept in the fall.
I’ve seen the pattern. Frankly, your posts sound about as anti-Trump as the old Democratic Underground crowd. Are they even still around?
And let’s make this even simpler.
Would you have been happier with Kamala Harris as President?
That’s not a trick question. If the answer is yes, say yes. If it’s no, say no.
Now, to your “war of choice” argument.
What exactly does that prove?
Wars aren’t normally fought because the president expects to win a popularity contest. The relevant question is whether the administration believed there was a national-security threat serious enough to justify military action.
So here’s another question for you:
Would the argument have been more acceptable to you if Iran had been allowed to finish developing a nuclear weapon and then use it against Israel or the United States?
That’s the problem with preventive action. The evidence is necessarily incomplete because you’re trying to prevent something from happening. Once the bomb is used, you no longer have a preventive problem. You have a catastrophe.
And that’s why the historical comparison matters.
Let’s make a list of American wars that were genuinely unavoidable, then compare the stated reasons for entering each one. You’ll find that “war of choice” is not some magic phrase that settles the argument.
Even Iraq is commonly described by historians and policymakers as a “war of choice.” The first Gulf War is generally treated very differently. (Council on Foreign Relations)
And consider the 9/11 analogy.
Suppose George W. Bush had received credible advance intelligence that specific Islamic extremists were preparing attacks inside the United States, but the evidence wasn’t sufficient to prove exactly where or when the attacks would occur.
If he had responded by rounding up large numbers of American Muslims simply because the government believed some extremists were preparing an attack, the country would quite rightly have accused him of racism, collective punishment, and authoritarianism.
But there’s the other side of the dilemma.
If he had acted against the actual threat before the attack occurred, critics would have demanded proof of what he was supposedly preventing.
That’s the fundamental problem with prevention.
You get attacked for acting before the disaster, and condemned for failing to act after it.
And that brings us back to your original argument.
You’ve spent all this time listing Trump’s changing statements about regime change, uranium, surrender, and other objectives. Fine. Those statements can be debated. The administration itself has acknowledged multiple operational objectives, while consistently identifying prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon as a central objective. (CBS News)
But none of that answers the question you keep avoiding.
Why are you here?
And would you have preferred Harris in the White House?
Those are pretty straightforward questions.
You can answer them honestly.
