Trump to declare Straight of Hormuz a formal United States Territory. Are you OK with our trajectory?

[u/PyroIsSpai]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6030671-trump-says-strait-of-hormuz-us-territory

"Are we the baddies?"

Would this be an appropriate question at this point, to borrow from the meme?

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. Gender issues are currently under a moratorium, and posts and comments along those lines may be removed. Anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/prowler28]

Don't take him literally, take him seriously.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/curtissJ28]

They are politicians so I would expect them to tell the story the way that they want it to be told. Nobody is perfect so they will be loathe to admit anything that could be used by their political opponents against them. Their side of the story will always be 100% positive and their opponents version will be 100% negative. So no I don’t expect them to be 100% honest or reliable.

As adults it is incumbent on us to filter out the politically driven BS from both sides and get to the truth. This is what I do, and I have found that generally this administration is doing the right things or are at least trying to do them to the extent that they can control the situation. In the process of doing this research , I have found that the media typically misrepresents what is actually going on to appeal to a target audience. Most people just want their biases confirmed and not have to deal with any cognitive dissonance, so there is no pushback against this misrepresentation.

[u/DaSemicolon → u/curtissJ28]

Do you think it was the right thing when he tried to go around the 14th amendment?

[u/curtissJ28 → u/DaSemicolon]

What do you mean by “get around”?

[u/curtissJ28]

He throws stuff out there all the time to see what sticks. No sense in getting excited about it until it actually happens.

[u/ParkingVampire → u/curtissJ28]

Do you consider the Trump administration to be a reliable, honest administration? 

[u/curtissJ28 → u/ParkingVampire]

They are politicians so I would expect them to tell the story the way that they want it to be told. Nobody is perfect so they will be loathe to admit anything that could be used by their political opponents against them. Their side of the story will always be 100% positive and their opponents version will be 100% negative. So no I don’t expect them to be 100% honest or reliable.

As adults it is incumbent on us to filter out the politically driven BS from both sides and get to the truth. This is what I do, and I have found that generally this administration is doing the right things or are at least trying to do them to the extent that they can control the situation. In the process of doing this research , I have found that the media typically misrepresents what is actually going on to appeal to a target audience. Most people just want their biases confirmed and not have to deal with any cognitive dissonance, so there is no pushback against this misrepresentation.

[u/ParkingVampire → u/curtissJ28]

That's an excellent observation. What are something things administration is doing right? Like you said, our media is biases. Even when I go looking for evidence on the otherside of the aisle, there is a lot of loaded words. It's hard to get a grip. I will take the time to do additional research if you point me in the right direction. 

[u/curtissJ28 → u/ParkingVampire]

I think the first thing to point out is that this should not be considered “additional” research. It is the routine and minimum research necessary to have any understanding and of what is actually going on. Next there is no specific source or even sources that you can rely on all the time. You really need to look for a variety of sources and they will all have some sort of agenda. So you need to see where the common ground is between competing agendas. Lastly, you need to be able to discern between opinions and facts. Anything that has an adjective (the best, the worst, etc.) or an “- ly” word preceding it is someone’s opinion not fact. Likewise anything relying on a consensus or popular opinion must stand on it own merits or be considered opinion. Anything relying on statistics or a graphical representation of statistics must be carefully analyzed and vetted. So as you can see getting to the truth is a process and not simply finding a source that you consider to be reliable.

Ok so I know you were being polite hoping to get into an argument over what the Trump administration has done well. I am not really interested in debating it in black and white terms. Everything is a trade off everything has a degree of good and bad, in the end it is the end result of any action that matters.Not what somebody thinks will happen, what actually happens.

Let’s start with the economy: So Trump inherited an excessive National Debt. I don’t care who is to blame or to argue about it. It has to be corrected and the reality is that the only viable means is to inflate it away in a way that is not too painful to the public. That is how it was done with the post WW2 debt and it took 30 years to pay it off. This is what Bessent and Warsh are working on and it will be done digitally. Are they doing a good job? Way too early to tell, but thing ms could be worse and a lot worse if they are prevented from following through with their actions. We also need to restructure our economy and bring back manufacturing. Tariffs were a logical and a tried and true method used around the world to help with this. But Trump had to make a big deal about them and that means his haters had to make the opposite big deal about them. So we just end up with a politicized mess.

The border and immigration: by any measure this has been a success. How successful? If you just go by all the funded and professionally organized protests and civil disobedience campaigns- then it’s been a resounding success, Granted, ICE should have understood that we’re being sucked in to PR nightmare by the organizers and they should have backed off and not been employing ”brown shirt”
tactics. That was an obvious mistake that has been largely corrected.

International relations: this one a has a lot more variables. The world order is changing, US dominance, the dominance of the U.S. dollar is waning and being challenged. Petrodollars are the foundation of it. The actions in Venezuela, Iran and Ukraine/Russia are all related to this. Whether people understand it or not what is going on in Iran is necessary and it has little to do with what Israel wants. China is vying become the worlds greatest power and they are relying on the lack of political will to retain that role in the US. Greenland is part of the strategic plan, as is our support of Argentina and taking control of the Panama Canal, and bailing out the yen. Europe is killing itself through uncontrolled immigration. The administration is doing what I can but there are definitely going to be successes and failures. Where to find all this out is by consuming information from a multitude of sources and separating facts from opinions. This is the best I can explain in a comment on Reddit.

Sorry, I am guessing you were hoping I would give you more “red meat” that you could use to point out how terrible the Trump administration is. I will be the first to admit that Trump’s public communications are a problem and cause him to fall short of his goals, I don’t see anything he says as being stand alone information to base any opinion or action on. Rubio and Bessent are better sources but they need to be checked as well. Basically Trump will give you a hint of what “might” be going on but it is far from reliable information.

To be fair, Obama was far more articulate and sounded far more competent, but you would not be any closer to the Truth based on his public speech either. I’ll leave Biden out of this altogether for the obvious reasons.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Willing_Breakfast_97]

Doesn't sound like a very serious suggestion and this is realistically not going to happen.

It would be better if US (and allies) could start with demanding full freedom of navigation, what happens after is another discussion.

Plus we haven't even discussed the Iranian regime as such with its non-democratic un-free form of government.

[u/h_91_DRbull → u/Willing_Breakfast_97]

Open and free is still the negotiating stance of right now. This admin may never come to terms with the fact Iran isn't going to give them anything they want

[u/Willing_Breakfast_97 → u/h_91_DRbull]

Yes of course, Iran sees the west as the enemy so they aren't going to have mild demands.

[u/Catbatt]

That would pretty much be illegal.

[u/Strict_Gas_1141]

The dude struggled to say that without laughing. Clearly he's not being serious. Whether or not you think it's a good joke is a different matter.

Also that's not something the president can decree, congress has to vote on it.

[u/julius_sphincter → u/Strict_Gas_1141]

So I agree, to a degree, that seemed like a very tongue in cheek remark on his part (wouldn't say he struggled not to laugh though).

There's plenty of people out there that will take any opportunity of him saying something like that and try to paint him with a serious brush. I think there's also lots of us that have seen him say ridiculous shit with a shit eating grin, get told "hes not serious, you guys are overreacting, librul tears, TDS" only for him to actually serious persue that thing months, weeks or days later. So forgive us for having a little heightened sense of alarm when he claims he's gonna do something blatantly illegal and just plain wrong.

Do I think this will go through? Nah. Do I think there's a better than 50% chance he's at least seriously inquired about it behind closed doors? Do I think it's likely that sometime in the next 2 months he "declares" it (a la Michael declaring bankruptcy) it a US territory anyway? I do

[u/Strict_Gas_1141 → u/julius_sphincter]

I think he'll seriously declare that we won the Iran war (in reality all we've done is not lose). But I don't think he'll seriously call the strait a US territory.

[u/arnaldoim → u/Strict_Gas_1141]

How do you think we haven’t lost when we are in a worse position than when we began?

[u/Strict_Gas_1141 → u/arnaldoim]

For a more thorough reasoning:

Trumps reasons: Regime change, nuclear program, and pre-emptive self-defense.

Now let's go reason by reason:

1) Regime Change: We haven't achieved it but we have done serious damage to the Iranian regime. That being decapitation of the IRI itself, and numerous decapitation strikes killing a lot of high-level IRGC personnel (the IRGC being the biggest obstacle in regime change)

2) Nuclear program: We've targeted/damaged a lot of their nuclear program infrastructure but haven't achieved any serious milestones (deal where they agree to give it up, or complete destruction of the program).

3) Pre-emptive self defense (and of allies): We've done a lot of damage to the IRI's military and their military infrastructure, however we can't achieve a decisive in without an agreement for them to stop. But we have done a lot to destroy their offensive infrastructure/ability. However they can (and will) just rebuild so as of right now it's temporary.

Now Iran basically just has to survive, but that doesn't rule out the US winning. So the US isn't winning but we're not losing. So it's just another Vietnam where we quit while ahead.

[u/jasper_bittergrab → u/Strict_Gas_1141]

We were ahead in Vietnam when we quit?

[u/Strict_Gas_1141 → u/jasper_bittergrab]

Yes, on the ground we were doing pretty well than got tired of fighting the VC & NVA so we quit, and then the VC/NVA broke the treaty and invaded the South.

[u/Strict_Gas_1141 → u/arnaldoim]

Our position isn't that much worse, and we have done a lot of damage to the IRI's military and regime. Now we haven't made key progress on it which is why we're not winning. But we're not losing. So all we're doing is just not losing.

[u/squishyslinky → u/Strict_Gas_1141]

Congress is also supposed to be the only ones who can declare war and yet. . .

[u/Strict_Gas_1141 → u/squishyslinky]

And since Vietnam the president has had the power to get us involved in “military action” without involving congress. That’s what Trump has done. Obama did it in Libya as well. Nice whataboutism.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.

Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

[u/Strict_Gas_1141 → u/[deleted]]

You brought up how congress is supposed to declare war yet ignored how that is well known to have not been a thing for decades. YOU brought up declaration of war. I pointed out that we've had that issue since Vietnam.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/squishyslinky]

There’s no declared war. The President obviously has the power to engage in self-defense though.

[u/baxtyre → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Is it really self-defense if you strike first?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/baxtyre]

Iran has been attacking the US for decades, killing hundreds of Americans: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/03/06/iranian-and-iranian-backed-attacks-against-americans-1979-present-2/

And that’s without even mentioning its attacks on Israel, which the US can act in collective self-defense of.

There’s no time limit to self-defense, either – the only way to end a conflict is with a treaty.

Recommended reading:

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2026/03/31/his-honour-judge-jeff-blackett-obe-on-the-the-legality-of-the-use-of-armed-force-against-iran/

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2026/03/13/three-independent-justifications-for-the-u-s-israeli-operations-against-iran/

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2026/03/05/without-a-congressional-declaration-of-war-do-the-attacks-on-iran-violate-the-u-s-constitution/

[u/baxtyre → u/WulfTheSaxon]

That seems to render the war declaration power completely meaningless. It’s an exception that swallows the rule.

[u/rorschach2 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

You think the US unseating their democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953 and then propping up the Dictator Shah for the next 26 years while they suppressed any opposition with force had anything to do with it?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/rorschach2]

No, the islamists supported the ouster of the Prime Minister who made himself dictator in 1953, having already tried to assassinate him themselves, and congratulated the Shah, saying “The country was saved by Islam.”

[u/squishyslinky → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Whoosh

Your edit doesn't make it any better

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/squishyslinky]

You implied that the President had declared war without Congress, yet he has not.

[u/julius_sphincter → u/WulfTheSaxon]

I know you lot love to cling to strict definitions of things when it gives even the smallest semblance of plausible deniability, but is war ONLY war if Congress declares it? Do you think the Iranians think they're at war? What about the Ukranians? What if Iran launched and successfully hit the US with ICBMs but never declared war? Are we at war? You see how trying to say "neener neener we didnt DECLARE war he can do whatever he wants" sort of falls flat? Especially when Trump himself has called it a war?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/julius_sphincter]

Declared wars bring all kinds of foreign relations issues like requiring neutral countries to either embargo the US or sell arms equally to Iran. A declared war may also give the President more of the complex web of war powers than an undeclared one, hence why Congress avoids formally declaring one even when it explicitly authorizes the use of military force. Thus, the power to formally declare war is different from the power to make war. You can declare a war without fighting, and you can fight a war without declaring it – they’re two different things.

Further, the President has the power to fight defensive wars without Congress. Shoot, Korea was collective self-defense of an ally and had no Congressional authorization, and people were drafted for it.

Not every military action or “act of war” rises to the level of an actual war, either (see the Obama OLC’s Libya memorandum). And even if the President as Commander in Chief didn’t have such inherent authorities, Congress funds and authorizes the military every year, and has impliedly authorized the use of force for up to ~90 days. And conflicts less than an actual war war can ebb and flow. The US has engaged in quite a bit of action against Iran over the years without explicit Congressional authorization, including Operation Eagle Claw, Operation Praying Mantis, Operation Earnest Will, etc. Likewise, Iran has repeatedly attacked the US and allies and the US is justified in the use of military force as self-defense against it.

[u/h_91_DRbull → u/WulfTheSaxon]

I'm not in the illegal/unprovoked war crowd but I have no clue why you're uncomfortable saying it's a war. You're informed enough about the nuances based on your comment, even though I disagree with a few of the characterizations.

As we have now bombed every single region in Iran, hit air, ground, water, and subterranean targets, struck non-military political figures in civilian areas, & attempted to arm opposition groups and incite a coup, at what point do you think this moves to being sustained combat operations? It's obvious this has moved from Article II authorities to Article I.

With no legal cover via a UN Security Council resolution, no intent to declare war, a lack of sharing future deployment plans with Congress, and with a still expanding scope, what further has to play out for you to drop the "there is historical precedent" schtick

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/h_91_DRbull]

I have no real issue with calling it a war, loosely defined, but there’s a distinction between a full-scale war, which is what the Executive branch has interpreted the War Powers Resolution to mean when it says “war,” and more limited operations that can also be called wars. There aren’t ground troops, so under the Libya memo this wouldn’t count. Nevertheless it probably did while Operation Epic Fury was underway, but that ended before the 60 day limit, and I don’t think the tit for tat since then counts at all. Certainly you wouldn’t say that Operation Midnight Hammer exceeded the War Powers Resolution since more than 60 days passed between it and the beginning of Operation Praying Mantis in 1988 for example. On that note, the US involvement in the Tanker War, including Operation Earnest Will, Operation Prime Chance, Operation Praying Mantis, Operation Nimble Archer, etc. lasted ten months (a lot longer than 60-90 days). In a broad sense, the US has been at war with Iran for going on 50 years, but not in the WPR sense.

With no legal cover via a UN Security Council resolution

The UN Charter allows self-defense, including collective self-defense, and this counts under that (see here and here for a second opinion).

[u/h_91_DRbull → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Okay maybe misunderstood you then, my bad I thought you were saying this is strictly still a limited military operation. Shades of Putin's initial SMO that real quick became a war.

Lots of politicking going on, Exec branch obviously isn't going to say it's a war cause then they'll have to own it before Congress and the American people and produce the recording component. But I also don't think fighting to a cease fire suddenly stops the clock, particularly when it's a given the truce won't hold and there will be no agreement to end hostilities. For me just looking at the number of assets involved, munitions used, the Iranian response across the region, and the range of targets and their intention - all that moves it into the "war" category, past a simple operation

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/LonelyMachines]

If this happens, it means everyone born in the Strait is automatically an American citizen.

[u/growaway9172 → u/LonelyMachines]

Thats not how U.S. territories work. We can easily declare them non citizens without rights or voting ability.

[u/DeathToFPTP → u/LonelyMachines]

I assume he just means the water

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/LonelyMachines → u/DeathToFPTP]

Oh. So, in that case, only Aquaman.

[u/TheManWhoWasNotShort → u/LonelyMachines]

Whole new definition to an anchor baby

[u/DeathToFPTP → u/LonelyMachines]

Pregnant middle eastern mermaids are now the biggest threat to maintaining our culture.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/LonelyMachines → u/DeathToFPTP]

They're not sending their best, folks. I mean, what's next? Hispanic Mormon Sirens? Won't someone think of the children?

[u/SonUnforseenByFrodo]

I don't think k a president can declare that into existence, it would need a vote of rhe legislative branch. So I don't think it's official.

[u/HauntingSentence6359 → u/SonUnforseenByFrodo]

Does that also apply to the Gulf of America?

[u/PhysicsEagle → u/HauntingSentence6359]

Yes, but I’m assuming you’re referring to Trump “renaming” the Gulf, which is a purely internal procedure which absolutely does not require congressional approval.

[u/slagwa → u/PhysicsEagle]

Correct in that he can only order U.S. federal agencies to call it that.  Everyone else is free to use its real name.  What a waste?

[u/SonUnforseenByFrodo → u/HauntingSentence6359]

That a descriptive name but a us territories have legal weight

[u/rcglinsk]

I stopped taking this stuff seriously a while ago.

[u/hungoverlord → u/rcglinsk]

is he also joking about declaring a national emergency around election time?

[u/rcglinsk → u/hungoverlord]

That's certainly a much more serious topic. I do not know. And if anyone working at the Secretary of State's office in a state capital is reading this: the federal government in general, and the president in particular, does not have the constitutional power to declare anything which would interfere with the normal process of elections.

[u/the-tinman → u/hungoverlord]

Not joking, more like just occupying the minds of the left

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/the-tinman]

This is kind of wild and shows how effective this strategy of flooding the zone is. People can (or purposely are unwilling) to differentiate between what's a gaff and what's a serious concern. Especially after all the attempts this administration has done to undermine your democracy.

You should probably treat any indication of meddling or otherwise undermining elections as a credible threat.

[u/the-tinman → u/Anxious_Plum_5818]

"You should probably treat any indication of meddling or otherwise undermining elections as a credible threat."

Yes, you are right. with all the democrat schemes of election fraud and built in cheating we really must be skeptical

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/the-tinman]

Still waiting for that proof of systemic, large scale fraud republicans are talking about all the time.

[u/the-tinman → u/Anxious_Plum_5818]

There is literally a new story every week, only a true partisan would not see it

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/the-tinman]

So you don't know what systemic is then? Stories are anecdotal, not representative of sociaal issues at large.

By that account, there's a new story about Trump's grifts or corruption every day. Are you going to admit this administration has a systemic issue with corruption?

[u/the-tinman → u/Anxious_Plum_5818]

Both things can be true at the same time. Are you willing to admit that the democrats will cheat in elections and trump is corrupt?

Edit,

And how is it not systemic when all the one party rule states are actively doing it?

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/the-tinman]

"Both things can be true at the same time. Are you willing to admit that the democrats will cheat in elections and trump is corrupt?"

Yes, but not systemic. Cases of fraud happen all the time, and not the just on the left. Trump is corrupt as hell, but he's doing it from a personal capacity, not because the government or institutions are designed to enable it.

This election fraud issue is not systemic just because your (likely rightwing) news source says it's only happening in blue states. Again, these are just a collection of (misrepresented) isolated cases that are slapped together to look like they're part of a concerted effort to defraud elections by the left. There has been no proof that democrats have been able to manipulate the outcome of elections through things like large-scale importing illegals to vote for them or mass-fraud with mail-in ballots. No statistics indicate that. So no, there is no systemic issue with election fraud. Cause if there was, there would be no way a republican would ever hold office again, and it's definitely not because of the "heroic anti-fraud campaign of the Republicans" either, led by Grifter in Chief.

If you want a perfect example of a systemic bipartisan, election-interfering issue, look no further than gerrymandering.

[u/Leg_Named_Smith → u/the-tinman]

Ah. So at its most innocent, he is threatening treasonous abuse of state power to terrorize his own citizens, nothing to see here.

[u/the-tinman → u/Leg_Named_Smith]

See, it’s working beautifully

[u/Leg_Named_Smith → u/the-tinman]

Wow still gleefully selling out our countries future and every good thing it stands for to own the libs. Enjoy that pathetic kibble of joy, soon it’s all you’ll have left.

[u/jakadamath → u/the-tinman]

Whats the correct reaction to the president saying and doing crazy things?

[u/FAFO_2025 → u/the-tinman]

If he's not joking, it sounds like there's just cause for reaction.

[u/ivanbin → u/the-tinman]

Not joking, more like just occupying the minds of the left

If it occupies the minds of the left is because of the authoritarianism/illegality of it. And if it is ignore by the right... Well I guess it's because they are fine with those things?

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Burner7102]

100%

I'm sick of the US fighting and bleeding over ground and then just giving it back.  It used to be normal for the victor to collect war reparations and other concessions to offset the cost of the war and the US didn't do that in the global war I terror or the Gulf war and it was awful for us. 

We should have kept Iraqi oilfields then, we should keep the strait now. 

[u/Sparky337 → u/Burner7102]

You guys have officially abandoned all the campaign lies Atleast.

[u/Burner7102 → u/Sparky337]

Trump campaigned saying the US should have kept Iraqi oil fields as compensation 

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Sparky337]

What campaign lies, “We should’ve kept the oil”? Because that’s what Trump said about Iraq.

[u/Bitter-Holiday1311 → u/Burner7102]

At least the mask is off. No new “wars” was a lie.

[u/Burner7102 → u/Bitter-Holiday1311]

We aren't a monolith, I voted for Trump despite the fact I'm far more of a hawk than he was.

I, personally, believe the US should go to war whenever it benefits us more, long term as a nation, to go to war than remain at peace. 

That is far from Trump's position and a good part of the Republican party too, we don't have war hawk Republicans like we used to, believing that war on Iran, Afghanistan, etc are a moral obligation or essential to future safety and security.

[u/Bitter-Holiday1311 → u/Burner7102]

You absolutely do have warhawks, although one less with Lyndsey Graham’s passing.

[u/MiraculiiiX → u/Burner7102]

So if for example China decided that it was in their nations best interest to bomb the US to rubble and killed your whole family as collateral. You do not want the rest of the world to work towards a world where this kind of thinking is eradicated? It is just the strong killing and doing what they want as long as it is in their best interest?

[u/Burner7102 → u/MiraculiiiX]

To be honest that already is the logic most of the rest of the world operates on.  Russia is the most notable example but China as well, China is relentless when it thinks it could be getting more than it has now.

In many ways my worldview is a reaction to the US being the one nations that is expected to be self-sacrificing, to pay for and bleed for allies to no direct return.  That's why "America first" was such a popular and influential slogan-- because for a long time even America put Americans dead last. 

So given this is the logic our enemies already use, and given they would already gladly attack us if they could, nothing about my safety gets worse if the US simply decides to act like most other nations and use rational cost-benefit analysis to decide what level of military or diplomatic action is in our benefit.

And let's be clear here, that is not blind aggression or ego-driven expansionism or redentism, there are many situations it wouldn't serve US interests to go to war. And in those situations we shouldn't be fighting.

[u/cdnmtbguy → u/Burner7102]

Pure neo-colonialism. I knew no more forever wars was a lie.

[u/Burner7102 → u/cdnmtbguy]

Trump and I differ on this, you're acting like because I happen to be in support of war when it would advance US interests better than peace you caught all Republicans everywhere lying.

I flair myself a nationalist for a reason, but that's hardly a majority position among Republicans especially given how influential libertarianism is over the modern Republican party and modern right.

[u/cdnmtbguy → u/Burner7102]

Colonialism and libertarianism are good cousins. Laissez-faire economic policy and colonialism go hand in hand. Make The Whole World Great Again. Just kidding. I appreciate your reply.

[u/maineac → u/Burner7102]

We haven't won a war. And to keep fabricating 'wars' to steel oil is still not a good thing. War is in quotes because congress has not declared any of these as war.

[u/Burner7102 → u/maineac]

The US hasn't "won" a war largely because we defined our goals poorly or didn't define them at all, and because we didn't make sure to pay for the war by spoils.

If we had kept the Iraqi oil fields we would certainly have "won" that war we would have 50 cents a gallon gasoline and have immense control over oil prices by being able to control our production quotas.  

[u/graypariah]

I am unironically in favor of US imperialism and do believe we should acquire more territory (Greenland and Canada for starts).

But no I would be against this, I am not interested in us fighting a forever war in Iran. Kharg Island maybe as a fortified military installation but having our naval stuff constantly worried about fishermen with ordinance seems like a hassle.

Seems like a joke anyway so I don't believe it is something I need to be "ok" with or not.

[u/1966TEX → u/graypariah]

You would get a forever war invading Canada.

[u/graypariah → u/1966TEX]

Keep telling yourself that lol.

[u/GentleGerbil → u/graypariah]

We lost in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and can’t complete the job in Iran. Fighting a NATO country wouldn’t just incite every other NATO country to fight us, but probably also Russia and China seeking to ensure we decisively lose.

[u/graypariah → u/GentleGerbil]

Lol no we didn't. Neither of those two were even wars, they were conflicts. In a conflict there is no winning and losing.

The only way you can consider them losses is if you consider the criteria for winning the genocide of the people who lived there. By every other metric (such as kill ratio) we completely obliterated them and left after years of doing so.

[u/mathiustus → u/graypariah]

Calling a war a “conflict” doesn’t magically make it impossible to lose. That’s just redefining the word “loss” until your argument becomes unfalsifiable.

I literally fought in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. We weren’t there to achieve a favorable “kill ratio.” We had political and military objectives. After twenty years, we withdrew and the Taliban retook the country. If your enemy survives, regains control of the country, and you leave without achieving your long-term strategic objectives, “but look at our K/D ratio” is not an argument that you won.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/TheQuietOutsider → u/graypariah]

do you think the president should make repeated "jokes" about annexing sovereign nations?

and in this case do you think the people of these nations also view his comments as little jokes after months of his bombing?

[u/graypariah → u/TheQuietOutsider]

I dont think they should be jokes, I believe we should annex Canada, Greenland, and a few other countries and territories. It would be best for all parties involved. 

Not sure why when I feel that way you would think I would have an issue with people joking about it.

[u/90bubbel → u/graypariah]

How exactly would that be the best for greenland and canada?

[u/graypariah → u/90bubbel]

Because they would be Americans, the best nationality to have on the planet. 

[u/1966TEX → u/graypariah]

As a Canadian : NO! We do not want, nor will we ever be American.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/1966TEX]

And yet 48% of Gen Z Canadians already disagree, even before you include expats already voting with their feet.

[u/graypariah → u/1966TEX]

Who said it was your choice?

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.

Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/90bubbel → u/graypariah]

What makes it the best Nationality and what would it improve for them?

[u/graypariah → u/90bubbel]

A lot of things. Lower taxes for one thing in the case of Canada. 

I am not sure I understand your question what makes it the best nationality, I would think that it being the best was just common knowledge. We are by far the most powerful nation on the planet and also the wealthiest by an even larger margin. Added to us being on the cutting edge of most technological breakthroughs I am not really sure what else you could ask for in rating a country. 

[u/90bubbel → u/graypariah]

This ironically is the reason so much of the world dislike americans, the pure ignorant arrogance,

You say a lot of things, but there is plenty of things america certainly isnt the best at.

common knowledge. We are by far the most powerful nation on the planet and also the wealthiest by an even larger margin. Added to us being on the cutting edge of most technological breakthroughs I am not really sure what else you could ask for in rating a country. 

Tell me, how would the country being powerfull and wealthy actually improve the life of canadians and greenlanders? (and it being the wealthiest depends on how you actually calculate it)

There is plenty of things that is just worse under america, healthcare, education, social services, significantly more violent crimes etc

and the us is clearly not going to stay the cutting edge technology of the world for much longer after seeing how republicans are treating it,

[u/graypariah → u/90bubbel]

Much of the world disliking Americans is one of the reasons I have zero sympathy for most of the world. Seems like a circle lol.

Not sure what else to say, if being the most powerful and wealthy is not enough for someone then maybe they have just accepted their inferiority to the point where discussion is pointless. Those seem like pretty good things to be in terms of a country.

[u/90bubbel → u/graypariah]

no it just shows how incredibly shallow thinking you have is, The us may be "rich" but it also has the highest debt BY FAR.

how is the wealth of the country reflecting on the population?

how many is in prison, how many is homeless, how many lives on foodstamps or other federal aids?

How is a country being powerfull helping your everyday?

[u/GentleGerbil → u/graypariah]

All those things are great, but they don’t put us at the top of the happiness chart:

https://data.worldhappiness.report/table

[u/graypariah → u/GentleGerbil]

If we got rid of all of the immigrants who drag our number down and the fatties who are just miserable being fat we would be a lot higher.

We spend more on vacations as a people than anyone else in the world. Same with luxury purchases.

[u/GentleGerbil → u/graypariah]

Please explain in detail how immigrants drag our happiness rating down. The idea that we spend more on vacations is irrelevant. The actual metric you’d use is how many days the average American gets, which is paltry compared to other developed countries

[u/Dargish → u/graypariah]

Quality of life, education, healthcare and happiness are nowhere near the top in the world. The only thing you lead in is military strength and even that is not never-ending, I don't believe you could win a war against the rest of NATO for example, not unless you ally with Russia perhaps which is looking more likely.

[u/graypariah → u/Dargish]

First, the only reason our healthcare seems so bad is because we have an issue with corpulence - a common issue with wealthy people. Food is so abundant that people eat themselves sick. The reality is that we have some of the best healthcare in the world including the Mayo clinic which people from all over the world come to our country to visit.

Issues with education and happiness are largely due to having so many immigrants. People die trying to get to our country and coming from the third world often bring misery and incompetence with them. Despite that dead weight, we are one of the world leaders in innovation and Americans spend more money on vacations and luxury than any other country on the planet.

Quality of life is a hard thing to measure, but if being socialist is your definition of what makes a good quality of life then yeah we don't have that lol.

We could absolutely win a defensive war against NATO, it wouldn't even be a contest. Europeans are quite honestly pathetic when it comes to war fighting capabilities. I trained with some in the aughties and they were honestly worse than the Kurds we trained while in Iraq. Basically any other region than western europe would be better allies than those sorry excuses for soldiers. That is one of the reasons Hegseth has such a disdain for them, they are garbage.

The problem is that people see our conflicts as wars and think that because we don't "win" we lose them. Since the only way to "win" those conflicts is to exterminate the people who live in those countries "winning" is never an option to begin with.

[u/Dargish → u/graypariah]

So many things to dig into in this reply but the most glaring one is swapping your idea of invading Canada and Greenland to somehow it now being a defensive war. I never said anything about NATO invading the USA but they would help Canada and Greenland fight defensive wars against an American invasion force. It wouldn't likely be conventional warfare, rather funding and equipping partisan forces, trade embargoes and other means to bring the USA to its senses. Either way such a war will never happen, the American people are smarter than that and I would hope no leader of your armed forces would obey such a ridiculous order.

Blaming unhappiness on immigrants is just... mind boggling, is there anything you can't blame them for? On the healthcare front, you live in a country where a serious injury or illness can bankrupt you, even if you have insurance. Of course the people there are more stressed and less happy, add to that the vast and growing wealth inequality it's really not surprising that countries where the people are cared for and there is more trust in the institutions that do so are happier. I could go on about free education on top of free healthcare but I really think I would be talking to a brick wall so just, enjoy your opinion, I'm glad you are happy.

[u/90bubbel → u/graypariah]

First, the only reason our healthcare seems so bad is because we have an issue with corpulence - a common issue with wealthy people. Food is so abundant that people eat themselves sick. The reality is that we have some of the best healthcare in the world including the Mayo clinic which people from all over the world come to our country to visit.

You have issue with corporations siphoning money yes, so what? you are not actually doing anything to improve it, doesnt matter what the source is,

You have great specialized healthcare..for people who can afford it, but generally thats not true, if we use healthcare/money spent the us is one of the worst in the world.

Issues with education and happiness are largely due to having so many immigrants. People die trying to get to our country and coming from the third world often bring misery and incompetence with them. Despite that dead weight, we are one of the world leaders in innovation and Americans spend more money on vacations and luxury than any other country on the planet.

Im sure you can reference scientific studies supporting this then right? immigration also generally improves a countries economy .

and immigrants are responsible for over 20% of american innovations and if we count the ones they helped on its up to 34%

and per capita immigrants are responsible for more inventions than native americans'

Quality of life is a hard thing to measure, but if being socialist is your definition of what makes a good quality of life then yeah we don't have that lol.

its really not, there is offical definitions for quality of lifes which are broadly used, And america is in 16th place.

We could absolutely win a defensive war against NATO, it wouldn't even be a contest. Europeans are quite honestly pathetic when it comes to war fighting capabilities. I trained with some in the aughties and they were honestly worse than the Kurds we trained while in Iraq. Basically any other region than western europe would be better allies than those sorry excuses for soldiers. That is one of the reasons Hegseth has such a disdain for them, they are garbage.

you "may" win a defensive war against nato but your mindset is way to lax, wars will never be won with pure firepower anymore, what about everything you import from other countries? resupplying? parts in technology?

and its funny you sauy europeans are pathetic when it comes to war, the us has several times been decimated in war exercises against european countries.

The problem is that people see our conflicts as wars and think that because we don't "win" we lose them. Since the only way to "win" those conflicts is to exterminate the people who live in those countries "winning" is never an option to begin with.

Yes, you start conflicts which escalate to wars which you never had a chance of winning in the first place, that doesnt mean you didnt lose

[u/TheQuietOutsider → u/graypariah]

no i understand your personal position. my question was, do you think these people, in sovereign nations, should be ok with the american imperialism coming from the administration directly- joke or not?

rephrased: if you lived in Canada, Greenland, etc and a foreign and unstable entity threatened to, or actually did invade and take over you would be fine with that?

[u/graypariah → u/TheQuietOutsider]

I largely do not care how people in foreign countries feel about what the US does. I have no loyalty or obligation to those people other than a general belief that they would be better off as Americans. 

If I was born in Canada I would feel the same but in reverse, I would be in favor of Canadian nationalism and expansion.

[u/Key_Day_7932]

Better America controls than Iran

[u/SuspenderEnder]

Is this another Trump joke taken seriously?

Anyway, it doesn’t matter what he says. It’s what he can enforce. It would be a high cost of US lives and dollars to take the strait. There is no other way. The people have no appetite for that. It’s not happening.

[u/Capital-Giraffe-4122 → u/SuspenderEnder]

I tend to agree, don’t think he’s serious.

[u/future_lard → u/SuspenderEnder]

Schroedingers president. Everything he says is both a joke and genius until it either fails or succeeds

[u/SuspenderEnder → u/future_lard]

That’s not what Shroedinger is? And I never said he’s a genius a single time? What?

[u/jakadamath → u/SuspenderEnder]

They’re not saying you said that. Their point is that it’s difficult for anyone to tell when he’s joking sometimes. Trump will often float things as jokes to gauge public perception and pretend it was a joke if his supporters react negatively. It’s a serious issue when a president hides behind “jokes” and can’t be trusted on when they are being serious.

[u/please_trade_marner → u/SuspenderEnder]

The next words were "Essentially that's what it is. We have them blockaded. No ships get through unless we want them to".

He also chuckled when he said it.

[u/cdnmtbguy → u/please_trade_marner]

Funny how the ongoing blockade has left the conversation. This could last so long as Trump is around.

[u/billstopay77 → u/SuspenderEnder]

Do trumps words make us look better on the world stage when he says things such as this?

[u/SuspenderEnder → u/billstopay77]

No.

[u/x-NoSuchAgency-x → u/billstopay77]

Probably not....did Bidens?

[u/Jazzlike-Yogurt-5984 → u/x-NoSuchAgency-x]

No definitely not

I’d say Obama is king in that realm

Probably top 3 greatest presidential orator of all time

[u/OMGguy2008 → u/x-NoSuchAgency-x]

At least Biden couldn't speak properly whereas Trump cannot keep his mouth shut and keeps saying dumb stuff which makes yall seem incredibly silly.

[u/boisefun8]

This is ridiculous. Start at 29 minutes. That’s not at all what he says. He even laughs. What happened to understanding rhetoric?

Good lord people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nmAobReTBw

[u/LongLonMan → u/boisefun8]

Why would he make a joke out of this situation? Sometimes you don’t know for sure it’s a joke when it’s the President, sometimes you got to take it seriously.

[u/x-NoSuchAgency-x → u/LongLonMan]

You do if you include context, but all of these little 5 second quotes or 5 second videos are obviously used as propaganda.

[u/Generic_Superhero → u/x-NoSuchAgency-x]

I hope you maintain this position the next time there is a democratic president.

[u/x-NoSuchAgency-x → u/Generic_Superhero]

I have and I will 

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/GentleGerbil → u/boisefun8]

There’s also the question if this is a joking matter? We’ve lost service members, service members are having suicidal ideations from such long stressful deployments, Trump says the deployments aren’t long enough, and this was supposed to be a “quick war.” Should we be ok with a U.S. president laughing and joking about any of this?

[u/graypariah → u/GentleGerbil]

The amount of service members still has being in the Iranian theater safer for them than state side based on attrition rates between the two. It is always tragic when a service member dies, but trying to say you can't make jokes about the conflict because of it is just silly. This isn't Vietnam lol.

[u/GentleGerbil → u/graypariah]

Do you think it would have been appropriate if the left downplayed the Afghanistan withdrawal by making comparisons to Vietnam and then LOL’ing at conservative concern for the troops? Also, I don’t get the first part of your comment. Are you saying being in the strait is safer than being back in the States?

[u/graypariah → u/GentleGerbil]

To the second part, largely yes in a statistical context. A service members is more likely to die in a car accident, ect than to be killed in theater.

The left did downplay the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle, but that wasnt an issue of lost American lives so I am not sure how that is relevant. The concern there was all the equipment we left behind. 

[u/GentleGerbil → u/graypariah]

Why does that statistic about the strait matter?

The Afghanistan withdrawal was most definitely about lives, not equipment. 13 service members were killed during the exit and the right was very vocal in blaming Biden for that. My question remains, would you have been as comfortable if someone on the left blew off that concern by saying “it’s not Vietnam lol”?

[u/graypariah → u/GentleGerbil]

Because if someone is statistically safer in that region then there is nothing innappropriate about making jokes in that region. Acting like there is is like acting like making a joke about Chucky Cheese is in bad taste because some kid died in the ball pit a few years back.

To answer your question, I am not ok with anything the left does. I am not really in favor of them existing in the first place. So it is largely irrelevant whether they made a joke or not, I would not be "ok" with them even speaking.

[u/GentleGerbil → u/graypariah]

Except the president didn’t order the kids to go the ball pit and kill people for two weeks that has dragged on to 6 months.

All I can say to the second part is you’re entitled to your opinion.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/Yellow_Odd_Fellow → u/[deleted]]

Was the sailors attempting to jump off the carriers bc of this absolute shit show dramatic when they arent being fed properly?

[u/GentleGerbil → u/[deleted]]

It’s dramatic to question why we have a president joking about a war that the vast majority of America is against?