| ▲ | somenameforme 4 hours ago |
| While I think this (and Venezuela) are arguably the biggest missteps this administration is making, it's hardly a partisan point. The political establishment loves war more than perhaps anything else. In 2016 alone Obama bombed half a dozen different countries with more than 26,000 munitions for an average rate of three bombs dropped every hour, every day, for a year. [1] Nobel Peace Prize embodied. I think the only way to get away from the warmongering is to go for a third party. But even they would likely be corrupted by the excessive influence of the military industrial complex. Eisenhower was not only right, but plainly prophetic. [1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/list-of-c... |
|
| ▲ | hvb2 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not defending that peace price but:
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. Trump this time around didn't inherit a major us deployment in a conflict area. No Iraq, no Afghanistan. Also, he's doing military strikes by himself, no Congress involved. Syrian and Libia were both essentially civil wars with an oppressive regime with Syria using allegedly chemical weapons. Your source is a very weird site. Countries Obama bombed 2026??? What does that even mean. Is it just a typo in the main heading and the title? |
| |
| ▲ | somenameforme 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Large scale deployments shifted under Obama to widescale bombing campaigns. The site mentions its various sources such as this [1] which mentions that Obama also increased the number of drone strikes by an order of magnitude relative to his predecessor. To be clear I'm not picking on Obama, but saying solely that this isn't a partisan issue. "They" all love war. And places being in a state of internal conflict, conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces, is hardly some reason to go bomb them. Even moreso when you look at results. See what Libya turned into, and what Syria is now turning into. It turns out that Al Qaeda in a suit is still Al Qaeda, to literally nobody's surprise if you're even vaguely familiar with our history of backing extremists and putting them in power, something which we have done repeatedly. This war, if it escalates, is not going to be good for Iran, the people of Iran, or likely even the US. The only country that might come out a winner is Israel, but even that might not end up being the case, as Iran's retaliation will likely focus on them. To say nothing of longer term consequences. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preside... | | |
| ▲ | Qem 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > And places being in a state of internal conflict, conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore | |
| ▲ | JasonADrury 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Large scale deployments shifted under Obama to widescale bombing campaigns This isn't true. Small-scale targeted raids, not B52s recreating Dresden. | |
| ▲ | hvb2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Drone strikes picked up, obviously as that technology became more and more mature. They're cheaper to operate and don't put a pilot in harms way. So that's kinda expected? Agreed with most of the rest you said though | | |
| ▲ | thunky 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > So that's kinda expected? Sure, if the choice is between drone bombings and conventional bombings. But no, not expected if the choice is between bombing and not bombing. |
|
| |
| ▲ | NoLinkToMe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not only that but it should be noted what the stated aim is of these strikes and earlier Trump strikes on Iran: take out the nuclear threat. That nuclear threat was contained under a plan backed by US, EU, Russia, China and Iran, in which Iran would not pursue nuclear expansion and let a team of international experts in to verify this on a continuous basis, in exchange for some sanction relief. A solution Trump threw in the trash, reinstating the sanctions, pressuring Iran to pursue nuclear again as one of its few levers of power it can pull on. In other words he created the necessity for violence by throwing away a unique solution that the entire world got behind including US allies & enemies, throwing away goodwill and trust in future deals (why would Iran negotiate now if it's clear how Trump views deals, as things to be broken even irrationally?) Those who claim this is an anti-war president have no clue, even in the context of a 'just war' argument it simply falls flat. | | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is it just another distraction from the Trump/Epstein files? It does seem that military action is correlated with increased coverage in the media of the Trump/Epstein files. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | catlikesshrimp 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Regarding intervention in Venezuela, is that seen as a mistep in the US? In the rest of America it is considered as a win, except of course by Cuba (Cubans are the most, almost the only, affected) Regarding politicians: Gustavo Petro was the most vocal protester; now that Trump told him in the White house to shut up, he is wagging his tail happily. |
| |
| ▲ | roenxi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The operation in Venezuela could be characterised as an enormous success in the sense that it didn't seem to do anything and therefore was a big improvement on most times the US activates its military. But it was still a misstep in the sense that it keeps US aggression top of mind without achieving very much. | |
| ▲ | nkrisc 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It successfully didn’t backfire on the US. |
|