If that is where we end up, won't yesterday be the obvious point at which the embroilment happened?
I am definitely not in the camp that's hoping to be proven right. I'll never agree that what happened yesterday was right, but I'll be very happy to be wrong about what I think it means.
Not necessarily. Remember the MOAB he dropped on Syria in his first term? Nothing came of that.
The embroilment is the embroilment itself. If you believe as I do that he doesn’t want that, then you would see him bombing evacuated sites as not leading to it, but a way to avoid it.
If you believe he’s owned by Israel and wants Iraq 2.0 for the purpose of regime change, then you’ll see it as the key first step.
Whether bombing those sites was right or wrong then depends on your interpretation of what’s happening, what the purpose was.
I have no special information about this, but one thing I’m not doing is rushing to conclusions, e.g., that it’s wrong or it’s the start of WWIII, or whatever.
But that’s the narrative right now. I choose to ignore it, make up my own mind. If facts prove me wrong, then I’ll change it. But seems like “Israel owns the US including Trump”, once a counter narrative, is now the new narrative, and many seem caught up in that mania.
Reminds me of the covid vaccine. I didn’t take it, didn’t even say it was bad initially — just argued mandates were bad. People lost their minds over that because of the mania, the rush to conclusions about what was necessary and what “good people” obviously thought.
Turns out they were all wrong. We’ll see whether that’s the case here.
I agree with all of that. My point is basically that if the MOAB had been followed by something (which neither of us expected), then it would make the most sense to think of it as starting with the MOAB and to think that we had been perceiving it incorrectly.
Right, but you're framing it as though it's random that the MOAB didn’t lead to a protracted quagmire, and similarly that this might randomly be the start of one.
I’m saying I don’t believe it’s random because the guy doing it is a rational actor, contra the legacy media and credulous narrative swallowers, and doing so was neither in his interest then or now.
I’d say it’s not about randomness but rather each of us operating with imperfect information. That leads us to each have different priors and therefore different expectations. When things proceed along someone else’s expectations rather than our own, it’s evidence in favor of the priors they had held.
Basically, it’s also not random when we’re wrong.
I see what you're saying. I think it's partly a matter of how confident one is with their assessment of Trump's motivations and commitment to promises, based on lots of interviews and past actions, vs conceding he's no different based off a few recent actions that are still playing out. Definitely waning a bit, but feels too soon to declare him an outright fraud.
Right and even amongst those who think he’s different, we’ll still differ on how different we think he is and in what ways.
