• MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    No one is proposing they rattle their saber. The scale of the threat has long been too great to bother speaking aloud, and putting it into words instead of action would just be laugable.

    Again, the “listened to” or no phase is past the horizon, around the curve and honestly several hills and valleys back in the rear-view mirror. A threat that isn’t followed-through on or is spoken only after you’ll obviously never act isn’t even a threat any more; Its a mark of submission.

    Nice job contradicting yourself in that second paragraph though. Let me ask you this: Did Trump bother saying we were going to, could, or “should” abduct Maduro in advance?

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 minutes ago

      Did they make this threat before? I never heard it if they did. Yeah, a threat is only good as long as the other party believes you’re going to act on it, so if they did threaten it before then they should. However, again, this isn’t going to prevent anything, except for making them believe your threats are good. What good will come out of them taking this action? (By this, I don’t mean collapsing the US economy, which will hurt a lot of people. I mean, does it prevent harm.)

      I don’t believe I contradicted myself. Could you point out how? I’m not sure how abducting Moduro is related to this. However, I do believe he’s been saying we should remove him for a long time, though I think most people ignored it because it would have been seen as crazy, and gets mixed up with all his other insane ramblings. I don’t know the relevance of this question though.