Will a new war win the next election for Trump?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

EVERY time a nation preached 'peace' to the point that it messed with its military, someone else did something, er...mean spirited to them.

Pearl Harbor
Bombing London
Oh....you can look these things up.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Pearl Harbour and the Blitz had nothing to do with countries "preaching peace to the point of messing with their military". What alternative history are you referring to?

 

[Revoltingest]

Going out on a limb, I predict that something will or won't be done.

 

[BSM1]

War or no war....that won't win the election for Trump.

Who was it who said 'it's the economy, stupid?'

John "Snake-Head" Carvel

 

[Stanyon]

I'm surprised American regular troops aren't on the ground in Venezuela already, frankly. Stand by for a heapin' helpin' of "I told you so" when it happens, though.

Since Russia has already sent troops to Venezuela how would that fit in the collusion narrative?

 

[Enoch07]

Well, will he or won't he? And might it work?

I hope he won't.

I'm not sure if he will, I am leaning towards no, for multiple reasons.

And if he does, I don't think it helps his chances. I think it hinders his chances at winning 2020. (One of the reasons I lean towards he won't).

Trump wins by continuing to improve the economy, creating jobs, decreasing inflation, keeping taxes low, and working on social programs to help people rehabilitate from prison/drug abuse. This is Trumps sweet spot, and the only reasons I thought he might make a good President, even though I didn't vote for him.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The ......... a war that would be pretty much useless with very little to gain.

What would we be fighting for exactly?

Venezuela Natural Resources - Emba Venezuela
“

• Amongst all, Venezuela is one of the most famous countries in the production of oil. Based on an online report, in the year 2014, the country produced 298.350 million barrels of oil reserves with over 2000 barrels produced daily. Venezuela is also part of the founding members of the international organization (OPEC) Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.”

Along with..

Plus even tRump knows that incumbent presidents stay in power when there is a war on. It worked for Bushy Jr.

TRump has suggested it before. Sorta like Cheney discussing Iraq.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Venezuela Natural Resources - Emba Venezuela
“

• Amongst all, Venezuela is one of the most famous countries in the production of oil. Based on an online report, in the year 2014, the country produced 298.350 million barrels of oil reserves with over 2000 barrels produced daily. Venezuela is also part of the founding members of the international organization (OPEC) Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.”

Along with..

Plus even tRump knows that incumbent presidents stay in power when there is a war on. It worked for Bushy Jr.

TRump has suggested it before. Sorta like Cheney discussing Iraq.

Bingo. At this point anyone acting like Trump isn't just looking for an excuse to get into Venezuela is either ignorant or delusional.

 

[Stanyon]

Venezuela Natural Resources - Emba Venezuela
“

• Amongst all, Venezuela is one of the most famous countries in the production of oil. Based on an online report, in the year 2014, the country produced 298.350 million barrels of oil reserves with over 2000 barrels produced daily. Venezuela is also part of the founding members of the international organization (OPEC) Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.”

Along with..

Plus even tRump knows that incumbent presidents stay in power when there is a war on. It worked for Bushy Jr.

TRump has suggested it before. Sorta like Cheney discussing Iraq.

What do you make of Obamas outgoing executive order signed in 2016 that claimed Venezuela was an " unusual and extraordinary" threat to U.S. national security?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What do you make of Obamas outgoing executive order signed in 2016 that claimed Venezuela was an " unusual and extraordinary" threat to U.S. national security?

Cool whataboutism. We're talking about Trump and the imminent situation.

 

[Stanyon]

Bingo. At this point anyone acting like Trump isn't just looking for an excuse to get into Venezuela is either ignorant or delusional.

Obama seemed all for it, that is why he signed the executive order in 2016, so future presidents would have an excuse if they needed it.

Since Russians have already sent troops to Venezuela, how does sending U.S. troops fit in with the collusion/Putin's puppet narrative?

 

[Stanyon]

Cool whataboutism.

You mean an inconvenient fact for your narrative.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Obama seemed all for it, that is why he signed the executive order in 2016, so future presidents would have an excuse if they needed it.

and? How does that relate to what we're discussing?

Since Russians have already sent troops to Venezuela, how does sending U.S. troops fit in with the collusion/Putin's puppet narrative?

I see the concept of multilateral politics is new to you. I'm really not sure how to help you with that.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You mean an inconvenient fact for your narrative.

Nope, I meant what I said. Obama is not the topic here. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss Obama's relations and policies toward Venezuela.

 

[Stanyon]

Nope, I meant what I said. Obama is not the topic here. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss Obama's relations and policies toward Venezuela.

Obama is a part of the picture you don't seem to want to see.
If you fail to consider the past policies of the U.S. towards Venezuela and Central America and a very recent executive order by an outgoing president in the overall assessment of the current situation then I would say that you do not have a very good grasp of the bigger picture.
I'd say you are more interested in petty sniping than actual discussion.

 

[Stanyon]

I guess just be perfectly frank here, the idea thatTrump would go to war in Venezuela to supposedly win an election is a pretty absurd if not idiotic idea. The economy is booming, the democrats can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot and even Trumps enemies seem to fear his more than likely re-election without one, it doesn't make sense. Why send Americans to war when things are going so good? If Trump does make the decision to do so I would imagine it would be the very last option since selling a war in Venezuela would be difficult.

 

[PureX]

A war right now would be good for the republicans in two ways. One is that people tend not to want to change administrations during a military altercation. And the other reason is money. It takes a lot of money to win elections, and even more-so when you are running a very unpopular set of candidates. So the republicans are going to need a mountain of money to win enough elections to hold onto their positions of power in 2020, and that means they are going to have to whore themselves out to the corporate sponsored lobbyists in a very big way. And one very big way to do that is to start a war. Because warfare means a LOT of money going to a LOT of big corporate interests. And that means big kick-backs to the politicians starting and maintaining that warfare. A war on behalf of global corporate expansion right now would be just the thing to pull in the massive monetary support they're going to need to try and hold onto their positions of power in 2020.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A war right now would be good for the republicans in two ways. One is that people tend not to want to change administrations during a military altercation. And the other reason is money. It takes a lot of money to win elections, and even more-so when you are running a very unpopular set of candidates. So the republicans are going to need a mountain of money to win enough elections to hold onto their positions of power in 2020, and that means they are going to have to whore themselves out to the corporate sponsored lobbyists in a very big way. And one very big way to do that is to start a war. Because warfare means a LOT of money going to a LOT of big corporate interests. And that means big kick-backs to the politicians starting and maintaining that warfare. A war on behalf of global corporate expansion right now would be just the thing to pull in the massive monetary support they're going to need to try and hold onto their positions of power in 2020.

Also oil.

 

[dianaiad]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Pearl Harbour and the Blitz had nothing to do with countries "preaching peace to the point of messing with their military". What alternative history are you referring to?

Good heavens.

Here's a name for you:

Neville Chamberlain.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Good heavens.

Here's a name for you:

Neville Chamberlain.

What about him? Yes, yes, "peace in our time", I get that, what's that got to do with your earlier claim? Specifically, I mean? Not as a vague soundbite?

 

[dianaiad]

What about him? Yes, yes, "peace in our time", I get that, what's that got to do with your earlier claim? Specifically, I mean? Not as a vague soundbite?

I didn't make a claim, specifically. I responded to a claim/idea that being...what...making the politicians who support wars should be 'required to fight in them on the front lines,' and that the draft and selective service should be abolished (which is rather silly, since we've had a volunteer military for forty years. Nobody is going to be drafted). The claim is that if this were done, few wars would be fought because nobody would support them and nobody would want to fight in them.

I concentrated on this: throughout history, enemies attack those who are not able to defend themselves. Chamberlain's Britain is a great case in point, and AMOF, so was the attack on Pearl Harbor. In both cases, the politicians in power were very much 'appease and peace' oriented, getting rid of the military, etc., as a result, a LOT more lives were lost than would have had the enemy decided that their targets were too strong to go after. That is, after all, why the 'cold war' WAS a 'cold war,' without pitched battles. Neither side wanted to provoke the other into using the weapons which had ended WWII.

I would LOVE to live in a world where everybody was peaceful and nobody wanted to invade and conquer anybody else. That world doesn't exist.

Should we follow those suggestions....sheesh.

Not to mention that just as you don't put the generals on the front lines, you don't put the elected officials there. Soldiers go there. The people in charge have to be where they can see what's happening on more than one 'front line.' It may be sad that 'young men fight in old men's wars..." but it's also the only way wars, should they need fighting, CAN be fought with any hope of a conclusion, never mind winning.

As for putting a war up for general election....

My father fought in WWII. He dropped out of high school the day after Pearl Harbor and enlisted in the Navy. So did pretty much everybody else who possibly could. If the nation is attacked again, there would be no need for a draft....just as there was no need for a draft after 9/11.

What I was reacting to was this claim, borne out of some vague, wishful thinking idealist, that somehow if only the USA would just be more peace loving, that the entire world would be equally peaceloving, and would leave us entirely alone.

History has proven exactly the opposite...and not just for America. People are people wherever and whoever they are. People are nasty. If they see weakness, they attack. If they see strength, they won't. They'll argue, insult, bait and blame, but they won't attack, not as nations and in force (terrorist groups are a whole 'nuther thing).

I WISH it would work. I would love it if it would work.

It won't work.