Jump to content

Donald Trump 2020

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1391

  • Biff Tannen

    1374

  • 4th&Five

    1222

  • WhatTheBuck

    910

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thatguy
Thatguy

Let me be candid and honest here my man. I cannot be sympathetic to your comments because this is how adult life has always been. From the moment I stepped out of my home and headed off to college I h

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

it won't matter if his taxes ever come out.  it won't matter if his taxes don't ever come out.  you wanna know why?  because we already know what's in them. since early 2017 when people starting

Posted Images

atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89791

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Lobo said:

Sorry yeah, that should be Meatlode.  A really big score of Meats.  Like Arby's but with cock for Pence.

Thread derail:  I've been hearing for years that Meatloaf lives in the Austin area.  Is that true?  

 

5 hours ago, Jack Straw said:

Yes.  So does The Undertaker.  

And Christopher Cross.

Meat Loaf is from Dallas, Undertaker from Houston, Cross from San Antonio.

So of course they live in Austin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Instead of taking out military or even political targets, trump is threatening cultural locations?  Why do I doubt our military or intelligence is in charge if choosing or recommending targets. 

Well, that could be good for the geopolitical ecosystem.  Cultural targets to Trump are golf courses, Thornton Mellon tailors, and Cheesecake Factory restaurants.  Luckily for Iran, they have none of those.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Instead of taking out military or even political targets, trump is threatening cultural locations?  Why do I doubt our military or intelligence is in charge if choosing or recommending targets. 

delete.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Instead of taking out military or even political targets, trump is threatening cultural locations?  Why do I doubt our military or intelligence is in charge if choosing or recommending targets. 

delete.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Instead of taking out military or even political targets, trump is threatening cultural locations?  Why do I doubt our military or intelligence is in charge if choosing or recommending targets. 

delete. 

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Instead of taking out military or even political targets, trump is threatening cultural locations?  Why do I doubt our military or intelligence is in charge if choosing or recommending targets. 

delete.

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Then I suppose DHS really isn't going to like the other image I posted of another Revolutionary Fist in a bleeding orifice...Ivanka's Cunt.  

 

Also, I think I figured out the brilliant Deep State move here.  They fed him the shit to take out Souleimani and then quickly got the DoD to point fingers saying it was all Trump's idea.  Now some handful of Iranian operatives here will get all wound up and gaslit by our folks and theirs and make an attempt on his life.  This way, we avert civil war because if it's a foreign national that does it, his idiotic followers can't really turn their guns on non-Trumpkins.  This way, we can all rally against an overseas adversary.  Pence serves out the last year relatively painlessly, we dust up a bit with Iran and their proxies, nothing more.  And in November, we hit the reset button.  I used to worry about what would happened if Trump died in office from being a fat, stressed out piece of shit after the Convention.  But that would create a very unstable and violent environment between his supporters and everybody else.  This is actually a more elegant solution.  So whoever you are, Mr. Persian---Rock n' Roll

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26353

Posted
Posted

President Donald Trump flashed a smile and gave a thumbs up after playing a round of golf at Mar-a-Lago as hundreds of soldiers from Fort Bragg left for the Middle East as part of his push to send another 3,000 to Iraq

22992174-7851623-image-a-3_1578173332328

About 3,500 paratroopers from Fort Bragg’s 82nd Airborne Division are being sent to the Middle East, after the U.S. airstrike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general and head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force. The first 650 of the paratroopers deployed on New Year’s Day. The forces are heading to Kuwait.

As tensions escalate, the mood around the sprawling installation with more than 50,000 soldiers has turned serious. This is the first short-notice combat deployment for the 82nd – meaning soldiers leave within 18 hours of the call – since the invasion of Panama in 1989.

22988338-7851755-image-a-39_157816341272

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MillerEP

MillerEP 30497

Posted
Posted

That guys been on the terrorist watch list for years, we finally got a bead on him and another one on the list inside Iraq’s borders, 2 for 1 drone shot, it’s not a political assassination. No different than Obama’s drone killings. This fucker is one of the big suppliers of plater charges which are nasty fuckers that scared the shit out of us every mounted patrol, and the cause of many a legless vet. Word is around the intel community is that he was now trying to bring katyusha rockets across the border, which really would have bad news.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MillerEP

MillerEP 30497

Posted
Posted (edited)

Don't get wrapped up thinking Iran plays by the same rules as other countries. If they had a CIA/FSB/MI6 etc. then it'll be a fair game. We'd adhere to international norms related to foreign agents (i.e. spies) , and I don't think anything would've happened. Instead they have paramilitary orginazations and hezbollah terrorist organizations which are directly funded by their government and are led, trained, supplied, and directed openly by their staff. This goes against Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

Edited by MillerEP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LABEVO

LABEVO 928

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Don't get wrapped up thinking Iran plays by the same rules as other countries. If they had a CIA/FSB/MI6 etc. then it'll be a fair game. We'd adhere to international norms related to foreign agents (i.e. spies) , and I don't think anything would've happened. Instead they have paramilitary orginazations and hezbollah terrorist organizations which are directly funded by their government and are led, trained, supplied, and directed openly by their staff. This goes against Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

Yes, the US doesn’t fund paramilitary groups ever....

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28798

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Don't get wrapped up thinking Iran plays by the same rules as other countries. If they had a CIA/FSB/MI6 etc. then it'll be a fair game. We'd adhere to international norms related to foreign agents (i.e. spies) , and I don't think anything would've happened. Instead they have paramilitary orginazations and hezbollah terrorist organizations which are directly funded by their government and are led, trained, supplied, and directed openly by their staff. This goes against Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

How does that differ from Russia? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MillerEP

MillerEP 30497

Posted
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

Yes, the US doesn’t fund paramilitary groups ever....

Oh for sure we have, but we've always adhered the the rules if that makes sense. There is a code of conduct about these things, actually codified into international law and "norms" about what is acceptable for covert operations. Northern Alliance, Brigade 2506, Nicaraguan Democratic Force, Syrian Democratic Force, etc. As you can tell from the names, we've actually supported some "declared" group, or at least made one up ensuring that we were following the Convention. We're not angels but everything we do has some legitimacy to it, even if the intentions aren't the greatest. It certainly isn't seen as kosher for all the citizens of that country I'm sure, but it's how the game is played. Russia usually adheres to the conventions also, we just don't like it because it's counter to our goals. The only time they crossed a line that we know about was the Crimea annexation, which is why it was such a big deal.

Edited by MillerEP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30016

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
44 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Don't get wrapped up thinking Iran plays by the same rules as other countries. If they had a CIA/FSB/MI6 etc. then it'll be a fair game. We'd adhere to international norms related to foreign agents (i.e. spies) , and I don't think anything would've happened. Instead they have paramilitary orginazations and hezbollah terrorist organizations which are directly funded by their government and are led, trained, supplied, and directed openly by their staff. This goes against Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

Don't you get wrapped up in thinking it's all a simplistic good guys versus bad guys world. 

The final question is always, "does this action help or harm the long term interests of the US?" Shifting to an argument about good versus evil to justify idiocy is itself profoundly idiotic. Yet we do that all the time and keep blundering into conflicts that do us no good.

By the way, the simplistic world view, we're not actually viewed as the good guys by the nations we bomb with impunity. People don't like having their countrymen chalked up to collateral damage in the furtherance of pristine US objectives. Further, I doubt these peoples are moved by our loud claim that killing somebody in another country with a drone strike is a "decisive defensive" action. 

Our foreign policy is too often cheap theater for the morons at home. Now we've put a moron in charge of the show.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MillerEP

MillerEP 30497

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Don't you get wrapped up in thinking it's all a simplistic good guys versus bad guys world. 

The final question is always, "does this action help or harm the long term interests of the US?" Shifting to an argument about good versus evil to justify idiocy is itself profoundly idiotic. Yet we do that all the time and keep blundering into conflicts that do us no good.

By the way, the simplistic world view, we're not actually viewed as the good guys by the nations we bomb with impunity. People don't like having their countrymen chalked up to collateral damage in the furtherance of pristine US objectives. Further, I doubt these peoples are moved by our loud claim that killing somebody in another country with a drone strike is a "decisive defensive" action. 

Our foreign policy is too often cheap theater for the morons at home. Now we've put a moron in charge of the show.

Oh there's a lot of grey area, which is why Bush and Obama didn't off him even though they knew he was supplying and training local Iraqi insurgents on how to build and plant plater charges. To answer your question though. Yes the US benefits from wiping out him and the head of Hezbollah in Iraq, because it impacts current ongoing anti-US operations and weakens the Iranian influence over a key strategic partner in the middle east. We disrupt the money, mastermind, and supplies to anti-US milita groups, while maintaining a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East. The short-term pain of the act will fade eventually, we're also keeping terrorists and wannabe terrorists occupied over there instead of them flying over here, attacking us civilians in our own backyards. We'll have a semi-friendly government in the heart of the ME to help keep a check on the other bad actors next door. I know that others don't see us as the good guys, because their goals run counter to ours.

Put it this way: There are two men, one of then is color-blind. He points to a normal US stop sign and says "That sign is grey," the other man says "No it's Red." Which man is telling the truth? Which man is right and which is wrong? They are both telling the truth as they see it.

Edited by MillerEP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89791

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The final question is always, "does this action help or harm the long term interests of the US?" Shifting to an argument about good versus evil to justify idiocy is itself profoundly idiotic. Yet we do that all the time and keep blundering into conflicts that do us no good.

The final question is whether or not this will get him likes from Fox and Friends.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30016

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Oh for sure we have, but we've always adhered the the rules if that makes sense. There is a code of conduct about these things, actually codified into international law and "norms" about what is acceptable for covert operations. Northern Alliance, Brigade 2506, Nicaraguan Democratic Force, Syrian Democratic Force, etc. As you can tell from the names, we've actually supported some "declared" group, or at least made one up ensuring that we were following the Convention. We're not angels but everything we do has some legitimacy to it, even if the intentions aren't the greatest. Russia usually adheres to the conventions also, we just don't like it because it's counter to our goals. The only time they crossed a line that we know about was the Crimea annexation, which is why it was such a big deal.

Thanks for illuminating your earlier post. Russia and the US can make up rules to give their crimes the fig leaf of semantic legitimacy; they were superpowers at the head of large alliances. The fig leaf is, again, for the morons at home that want to wave the flag and find some way to say we are always the good guys. (I recognize that you do not go that far. I don't call you a moron. I think your comparison is superficial.)

That legitimacy you describe is as much of an embarrassment as anything else. It's like our justification blowing civilians to smithereens when they get in the way: "We're different! We're not actually trying to kill the civilians! We got policies against that! 

That's just bullshit if you find a disembodied liver or shin near the blast site and try to figure out who it belonged to.

When we decide to use bombs and missiles, we are deciding to kill civilians. Own it. Own that the assassination of this Iranian fuck wasn't really a "defensive" action. It's an act of aggression, so justify it in that light. 

When Reagan bombed Libya we absurdly called that defensive. We bombed Qaddafi's houses clearly in hopes of killing him. We did manage to kill some of his family as well blow up military targets. Even when he did something justified, the choice was to lie about it. We blamed them for a disco bombing in Germany when we knew it was the Syrians (whom we didn't bomb).

I supported the airstrike. I might quibble about assassination of a foreign leader by the Air Force, but Libya needed to be smacked for a variety of other acts. "The acts of murder and terror supported by Libya justify a military response. The United States will not tolerate a foreign state conducting a proxy war against its citizens." Fuckin' A. I'm with you on this one, Ronnie.

As for this assassination, this shit never does any good anyway. We're not cutting off the head of the snake. That thing is a fucking hydra and who knows where the other heads will strike? Was it worth the temporary thrill of cutting off the one head? How are our interests advanced beyond a dull-minded high five?

 

Edited by RomaVicta
was to wasn't.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30016

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

the US benefits from wiping out him and the head of Hezbollah in Iraq, because it impacts current ongoing anti-US operations and weakens the Iranian influence over a key strategic partner in the middle east. We disrupt the money, mastermind, and supplies to anti-US milita groups, while maintaining a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East. The short-term pain of the act will fade eventually, we're also keeping terrorists and wannabe terrorists occupied over there instead of them flying over here

This is one of the rationales for the Iraq Invasion.  We create terrorists more often than diminish them. 

Rumsfeld was on the right track in musing about an effective metric for judging our success. Americans don't want to face that possible truth. We want to believe the happy fiction above. And we keep making things worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MillerEP

MillerEP 30497

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Thanks for illuminating your earlier post. Russia and the US can make up rules to give their crimes the fig leaf of semantic legitimacy; they were superpowers at the head of large alliances. The fig leaf is, again, for the morons at home that want to wave the flag and find some way to say we are always the good guys. (I recognize that you do not go that far. I don't call you a moron. I think your comparison is superficial.)

That legitimacy you describe is as much of an embarrassment as anything else. It's like our justification blowing civilians to smithereens when they get in the way: "We're different! We're not actually trying to kill the civilians! We got policies against that! 

That's just bullshit if you find a disembodied liver or shin near the blast site and try to figure out who it belonged to.

When we decide to use bombs and missiles, we are deciding to kill civilians. Own it. Own that the assassination of this Iranian fuck was really a "defensive" action. It's an act of aggression, so justify it in that light. 

When Reagan bombed Libya we absurdly called that defensive. We bombed Qaddafi's houses clearly in hopes of killing him. We did manage to kill some of his family as well blow up military targets. Even when he did something justified, the choice was to lie about it. We blamed them for a disco bombing in Germany when we knew it was the Syrians (whom we didn't bomb).

I supported the airstrike. I might quibble about assassination of a foreign leader by the Air Force, but Libya needed to be smacked for a variety of other acts. "The acts of murder and terror supported by Libya justify a military response. The United States will not tolerate a foreign state conducting a proxy war against its citizens." Fuckin' A. I'm with you on this one, Ronnie.

As for this assassination, this shit never does any good anyway. We're not cutting off the head of the snake. That thing is a fucking hydra and who knows where the other heads will strike? Was it worth the temporary thrill of cutting off the one head? How are our interests advanced beyond a dull-minded high five?

 

No worries, for the record I don't dispute most of what you said. I'm also not a Trump supporter, but I am a hugely patriotic American. Warts and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30016

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MillerEP said:

No worries, for the record I don't dispute most of what you said. I'm also not a Trump supporter, but I am a hugely patriotic American. Warts and all.

I'm running a post behind in our exchange. I don't sense that you're defending Trump. The discussion has been good. Thanks for that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shady Ray

Shady Ray 1633

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have an old college buddy who moved to Austria maybe 25 years ago.  Let's just say a great deal of western Europe even thinks we're war-mongering shitheads.

Yep. I have been here for years and the disconnect between how Americans see our military actions and how most Western Continental Europeans see our actions still amazes me.

 

The legacy of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with respect to European popular opinion is that we are largely seen as trigger-happy oil looters by all levels of society. In the urban/higher educated areas, I would say over 90% of the population has an extremely negative view of US military and foreign policy decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...