Currently Online 
sc94597 said:
If it were just a randomly selected senator sure, I wouldn't expect them to know this detail off the top of their head. But we're not talking about just a random senator. Just like I wouldn't expect Cruz to know the rough population of Lesotho off the top of his head. We are talking about a senator who is actively campaigning to go to war with the country in question. I'd expect that senator to know basic things about said country, like its rough population size and which ethnic groups exist in it. Honestly, I feel like not expecting senators to know things in general is what is lowering the bar. It's in fact why we are in the crises we are in currently. Congress, due to its low standards, has been inactive and weak as a branch for decades now. I actually think Johnson's gaffe is less bad, because action (or in-action more likely, given his views) on Syria weren't a primary policy of his. He was mostly focused on domestic policies, with just a generic non-interventionist approach for foreign policy. Cruz, on the other-hand, is doing a media circuit explicitly advocating for war with the country being inquired about. He should know that said country has a population nearing 100 million, even if he doesn't know the specific number. It's directly relevant to the question of whether or not the United States should enter a war with Iran. |
I think the reason why Johnson's gaffe was particularly bad was because, by my recollection, people were widely concerned about his ability to handle foreign policy without much experience in the area. It was seen as a weak point for him when pursuing the presidency, so when he didn't know what Aleppo was, he reinforced those doubts. As a longshot candidate, that was a heavy blow.
On Cruz, I think you may be right on the intention of the "What is the population of Iran" question, but I still think it was a bad question. Maybe if Tucker explained any of what you said, it might have been a bit better, but the way it was asked and the way it was followed up, it reads like a gotcha about trivia and I can't get past that.
SanAndreasX said:
I agree with your overall post, but this part absolutely does matter. A war with Iran is going to be much bloodier than a war with Iraq, which was one fourth the population of Iran. The U.S. has not gone up against an adversary of Iran’s size since World War II. The bigger the population involved, the bigger the casualties for both sides. |
Maybe, maybe not.
I don't think anyone is really expecting or advocating for a war that looks like Iraq. The question at hand from what I can see is "should we launch missiles at Iran". Even Ted hasn't been advocating for boots on the ground.
So, what would that look like? I don't really know, but I think the factors which are primarily relevant to that question aren't "how big is the population" is it more, "what is Iran's capability to launch missile attacks at the US or areas of US interest".
