War with...Iran?

[IlleglWpns]

Idk, @Soriak , I feel I'd need to format c:\ your entire framework before we could have a meaningful discussion.

I mean, your conclusions seem to me so wrong on such a fundamental level that I don't think there's any possibility for a discussion to be had here.

Especially because you're focusing on (questionable) "good outcomes" while ignoring basically all the rest. It's like observing an old-school scale with a 200kg pile of crap on one side and a couple of gold scrap on the other and you decide to focus on the gold scrap. It's a way of doing it but... Not the best, maybe?

Soriak thought Trump's "annex Canada" bloviation was an actual negotiating strategy which says it all.

 

[IlleglWpns]

Oh yeah, that was before he was going to invade Greenland. And Iceland. Turns out, none of which happened or was going to happen, which doesn't stop people from hyperventilating about it. Wasn't he also going to go to war against Mexico? I'm probably forgetting a few. You could write many books about all the things some "experts" thought were going to happen that didn't happen. You'd be more informed if you didn't listen to any of them.

I didn't say that Trump was serious, I said that you thought that was an actual negotiating strategy. Which is true.

That the threatener doesn't intend to follow through does not imply that the threat was calculated, nor does it imply that making the threat was a good idea.

It's shameful that I have to spell this out for you, please try harder.

 

[IlleglWpns]

What Trump has figured out is that he can ignore the online keyboard warriers and just actually effect change in the world. And it turns out nobody with any actual influence (i.e., not the AOL brigade) is bothered enough to do something about it.

I'm not sure what the point of this bloviation is except to waste everyone's time. There's no requirement that posters who disagree with Trump demonstrate their commitment to you, nor is there any value in vapidly regurgitating the status quo. Yes, Trump is doing what he's doing. No he doesn't care if people disagree. No, there's no need for you to point that out.

 

[IlleglWpns]

I hardly agree with a certain poster in anything, but can we just fucking stop calling out and single out a single member even if we do not agree with this poster? Perhaps tackle the ball, not the man.
This forum is great, but it really is starting to look like an echo chamber in many ways. I for one would appreciate if more people with different opinions and even radically different could participate here, but this singling out stuff. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" should mean something in here.

No. Posters who adopt unpopular positions have exactly the same tools as the rest of us and should use them. They can choose to ignore posts or posters they don't wish to engage with. We all have the obligation to be civil and to respect the terms of debate. Anything else is special pleading.