• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    3 hours ago

    That’s not quite that what the said.

    “We expect casualties with something like this,” the president said. “We have three, but we expect casualties - but in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world.”

    Not the phrasing I would have chosen, but it sounds like he means “a great deal of good” as in “We’ve done a great deal to help.”

    With that said, any President has to weigh the costs and benefits in lives of military action - it would be crude to explicitly say that some number of soldiers’ lives is a favorable exchange for a military objective, but it’s essential to do that math in private.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Not sure why you’re bending over backwards to extend such grace to trump. He called them suckers and losers in his first term, and it should be obvious he means a deal as in extracting wealth by way of invasion. Mostly for oil companies but surely for trump personally as well. Have you been paying any attention for the past 10 years?

    • HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 hours ago

      If he didn’t refer to every single foreign policy interaction ever as a “deal” you might be on to something. But you’re not.

    • ProfessorScience@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I’m with you on this. Trump is human garbage, and his war with Iran is a terrible decision, but the idea that we sometimes have to trade lives for the greater good (whether or not we agree that the trade is worth it in this particular instance) is not new. Outrage is better spent on the war itself, not his stupid choice of words.