An alternative president might have done something even worse: goaded Iran in the same way but more smoothly, and gotten more buy in from the American people.
As it is, anti-war protests have already exploded all over the country, and they're as much protests against Trump as against war. Now, a more rational president might not have done this in the first place, but if they did, and if they were better liked by the American people, it wouldn't be quite as easy to get that many people protesting that fast. People might oppose the war, but if most of the people who are against the war voted for the president, it's not the same level of protest.
But any war Trump starts is going to be a very hard sell. More than half of Americans strongly disapproved of him even before he did this. And this kind of war will never have much support. It's not like there was a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to stir people up this time. Even people who aren't necessarily opposed to war in general are likely to oppose this one in great numbers.
It’s refreshing to hear an unbiased opinion of Trump and to say basically that he’s no better or worse than any other president, perhaps better because he is more honest in his ruthlessness. I personally dislike people who wear a mask and hide their true motives, that’s probably why I tolerate him even though he’s done horrible things like separate Mexican children from their parents etc.
It’s not been as widely reported but just before Xmas the Iranians killed an American ‘employee,’ he wasn’t a general or a diplomat but he was an ambassador of some sort, although I’m sure that wasn’t the real reason for taking out that Iranian General but it could be used as a selling point to start a war because Iran is just as aggressive.
The problem I have is why people are against war, as if it could be stopped. If a terrorist attacked US or UK soil, everyone would feel safer when that terrorist is taken down and killed, just like the recent London Bridge knife attack when the terrorist was shot by police. Jeremy Corbyn said the terrorist should have been put on trial instead and he was treated like a coward by the biased press. If anyone is against war then they should also agree that home terrorists shouldn’t be killed but sent to trial instead, could they say that if they were attacked?
Plus i think war is a mindset where you look at the bigger picture whereas thinking about saving innocent civilians is looking at people as individuals. I can see the need for both mindsets but from a war perspective, you do need to take the enemy by surprise and weaken them, which is what the USA has done by killing a key Iranian figure.
I just don’t think the world is conscious enough to stop war, we all have violence within ourselves still, at home and in our everyday lives. Until humanity has all reached a fifth dimension level of consciousness then war will happen because we are at war with ourselves still.
Animals are a modern day slave trade, children are taken from their mothers and killed if they’re not considered useful, while the mother’s make a noise pining for their children back, baby calves shot in the head because they can’t produce milk, the female calves artificially inseminated (ie raped) so their bodies produce milk and the cycle repeated until they can no longer bare children and then they are killed and sold as beef.
But the propaganda is that dairy cows wear Jersey bells and there is such a thing as organic or high welfare slaughter and animals are free to roam in green fields, somehow suggesting that there is such a thing as humane slaughter. And I bet you these anti war protesters go home and cook a nice big steak, feeling happy that they are peaceful creatures.
No, the world consciousness is not ready to stop war until humans stop all the hypocrisy.