← Back to context

Comment by stavros

10 hours ago

> We still tend to attribute those deaths to those leaders, because their brutally authoritarian rule was what allowed those mistakes to go unchallenged and get fixed before they caused that level of harm.

What is the analogue here for attributing the rise of alternative energy sources to Trump? Being too incompetent to avoid harm isn't the same as being too incompetent to avoid benefit, because your job is to create benefit.

It's Trump's job to create positive outcomes. If he creates positive outcomes by accident while trying to create negative ones, he should get panned for trying to create negative outcomes.

9 comments

stavros

Reply
decimalenough  9 hours ago

Trump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened. The problem is that it hasn't.

  • deaux  8 hours ago

    > Trump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened

    The number of Americans still believing this is baffling and saya everything about their history education.

    "The previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative for the people in those countries, but surely this time it would've been different!".

    • JumpCrisscross  7 hours ago

      > previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative

      Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea. Potentially Venezuela, mostly because we constrained our objectives.

      I also don’t think it’s fair to constrain OP’s statement to “the people in those countries.” Regional impacts matter, too. An Iran that isn’t funding terrorist proxies everywhere could still be a net positive even if the average Iranian is no better off afterwards. (To be clear, I’m in no way supporting this stupid war.)

      2 replies →