The Tail is wagging...
- Thread starter sglowrider
- Start date
What happened to you? You seem to have let the Donald's election and anti Iran rhetoric eliminate your rational thinking which you displayed years back.
When was that exactly?
toasted is sometimes smack dab on a nail head that nobody else knew needed to be hit, or he's bounced off a wall that nobody knew he was headed for. I always wait a bit to see whether what he says has some legs before I decide which of those any given post of his might be . . . .
When was that exactly?
toasted is sometimes smack dab on a nail head that nobody else knew needed to be hit, or he's bounced off a wall that nobody knew he was headed for. I always wait a bit to see whether what he says has some legs before I decide which of those any given post of his might be . . . .
We had some good discussions about Saudi, Israel, finance etc. He's gone off the deep end.
It's too early to know whether he's off the deep end yet. His vantage point is so different from ours it might just take a long time for what he sees now to filter over our way.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnew...inister-russia-warned-ahead-joint-us-54463493
Would this be considered normal?
Would this be considered normal?
I'll reply to this later entire thread later. In the meantime I'm going to write goat a PM and politely ask that he forward to you. I'll include my email as well. Nothing very important, though a bit ironic in light of this thread.
What bothers me is that if a guy can't control his initial reactions (i.e. tweets, outbursts etc.), then how do I trust him to amazingly regroup and quickly control his temper and untimately, at the last minute, listen to the tempered opinionsof the professional and military people (at least the ones he hasn't fired yet because of his Sopranoish notions of loyalty) to make critical, military decisions.
Even if you truly believe that skunks and politicians can change their stripes, there is no reason to believe they can change their nature so quickly.
False.
All we can do to avoid civilian deaths would include no bombing in the first place.
This bombing sucks. Huge waste of taxpayer money. God damn Trump.
OK, we do all we can to avoid civilian deaths when we carry out a military attack.
What do you think the appropriate multinational response to a despot gassing to death his own people?
Edit: By the way, I'm not 100% convinced that this was the right response this time either.
You're trying to be rhetorical here, but it's a legitimate question. As I said, it's all very transactional, and as Twenty said, it's basically a West Wing episode: "It's what there is." That doesn't mean it's right. I wonder when the last time was that anyone actually sat down and did the math to figure out what the proper response really was, or if we've simply been following a script for, I dunno, decades?
You missed my edit - I'm not convinced it was the correct response either. It's been our standard response for many years, but that doesn't mean it's the best one.
You're right. I quoted while you were editing.
For my part, I'm not saying it was the wrong response. But I am naturally a little cynical and skeptical about the fact that it's, as you say, "standard" for "many years." Everything deserves to be revisited once in a while.
For starters, I think we shouldn't be committing acts of war on foreign sovereign soil without a DoW, which is approved by Congress. I get that the POTUS has some latitude, but you ask what I think. The world powers have become too gun-happy and among other things, our warmongering has green-lighted warmongering by Russia.
My guess is that if he were to replicate W's carrier landing Trump would produce a golden shower of his own . . . right down his leg.
BTW, can we pencil his favorite movie in as "On Golden Pond"?
Meanwhile back at base central:
'Trump's now a fraud!': Alex Jones CRIES during rant about Syria attack on InfoWars livestream
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ES-rant-Syria-attack-InfoWars-livestream.html
'Trump's now a fraud!': Alex Jones CRIES during rant about Syria attack on InfoWars livestream
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ES-rant-Syria-attack-InfoWars-livestream.html
- InfoWars founder Alex Jones broke down in tears during a rant about president Donald Trump authorizing an airstrike on Syria
- Trump said during a speech Friday he was joining forces with France and Britain in a coordinated 'precision strike' in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack
- Jones said Trump's decision made him 'sick' and started crying as he discussed how Trump had been doing so good
- Jones later called the president a 'fraud' and said he was 'done' with Trump
I'm off to bed too . . . MrsSope is in a performance of Hayden's Lord Nelson Mass tomorrow at the 11 am service. Both of us have got to get some sleep; big day tomorrow.
I guess it how you define Mission accomplished. If you define it as the Syrian problem is solved then you can pot shoot. If the ,mission was to degrade the chemical weapons capability of Assad then it maybe "Mission Accomplished".
I don't like him and I didn't vote for him but I see reasonable results for our national interest.
When was that exactly?
toasted is sometimes smack dab on a nail head that nobody else knew needed to be hit, or he's bounced off a wall that nobody knew he was headed for. I always wait a bit to see whether what he says has some legs before I decide which of those any given post of his might be . . . .
Forgiving my Trump prejudice, of which I have valid reason for. What exactly am I stating that is irrational?
Beyond my suggestion that we still don't have 100% certainty who gassed the victims, (and I'm making the assumption that someone was gassed)
my main argument was that 40 are dead from this attack, while 400k have died over the course of the Syrian war, and that we should simply let Assad finish the job as quickly as possible. It's nearing it's conclusion. What do we achieve from this? What happens if there is now another chemical attack? Perhaps my thoughts are controversial, but I now see Goat is questioning our path chosen, and Aloha Hoosier concedes that perhaps we shouldn't have responded.
Furthermore, we have the ability to stop the atrocity in Yemen, which is ongoing and not nearing it's conclusion. Why the urgency to act in Syria, but not in Yemen after schools and hospitals are bombed? (And actually we are refueling those planes and supplying ammunition)
I fail to understand what is so controversial about these points, or how writing them is "Anti-American". I think it's extremely pro-american to recognize that our actions are contributing to many of the world's problems and that sometimes the best response is no response. (And I don't mean that in this specific case, but in general) American involvement is not categorically a positive thing. We continue to involve ourselves in conflicts in which the local population does not appreciate our involvement. Afghanistan the perfect case in point.
Edit: As for my point about friends v foes. We criticize our foes for the sample violations of which we turned a blind eye to our "friends". Often our "friends" our greater oppressors in terms of said violations. Why is that? And who decided our interests align? Because we have been historical allies?
At 1.4 million per cruise missile to hit targets that were prewarned and will just be up and running again within months.
At least they didn't bomb an empty airfield, again.
At least they didn't bomb an empty airfield, again.
You mean the ones that traveled through the desert in the night too Assad? "Bush Lied people died".
Similar threads
