Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:12 PM, bad_teammate said:

Millions of lives. Billions of dollars. All wasted.

Pulling out of Syria is a good thing. Fewer of our tax dollars will now go to killing innocent people.

Expand  

Even more innocent people will die.  And we'll end up spending even more in blood and treasure dealing with the consequences.

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:31 PM, bad_teammate said:

But guys guys guys were <<<THIS CLOSE>>> to installing peaceful liberal democracies with bullets and bombs. You know, like it always works!

Expand  

Your point is a powerful one when it comes to the lesson of "think about it long and hard before you step into that shit."  It's not nearly as powerful once we already decided to step into it.  Now we're committed -- even Colin Powell noted that if you break it, you buy it.  

We absolutely fucked up and helped create the perfect growing conditions for ISIS.  We made the mess.  We had an obligation to clean it up.  The point of "we shouldn't have made the mess in the first place" may be a good one, but it's academic now.  And now....we're going to repeat the same stupid fucking mistake, and to top it off, it's not even a strategic or tactical decision, it's just a transitory brainfart traveling through the colon that Trump calls a head.

  • Like 3
Posted

And the gist of that farm bill is that we borrow money from China because they won't buy from our farmers to stop China from buying more foreclosed farms of our farmers.  Nice presidenting there, fatty.

  • Like 3
Posted

We currently have more troops deployed to the Mexican border fighting a fictitious caravan than in Syria.

However, the guys in Syria were actually doing good work, like killing Russian mercenaries trying to capture territory we were protecting. 

We have troop buildups all over the globe for a reason... so shit doesn’t get out of hand.  

But those fleeing women and children at the southern border...they’re the real threat.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:31 PM, Ghost of LL said:

Even more innocent people will die.  And we'll end up spending even more in blood and treasure dealing with the consequences.

Expand  

I have no idea on which you base this certainty. I have 15+ years of evidence backing up my completely obvious observation that our unilateral military adventurism doesn't lead to the results we claim to desire.

You have nothing. You have no articulated rationale for why we will have to spend "more" in either blood or treasure. And what "consequences" would you even be talking about?

  On 12/20/2018 at 8:35 PM, Brisketexan said:

Your point is a powerful one when it comes to the lesson of "think about it long and hard before you step into that shit."  It's not nearly as powerful once we already decided to step into it.  Now we're committed -- even Colin Powell noted that if you break it, you buy it.  

Expand  

ok let's make sure to base the wasting of billions more and the killing of millions more on this guy

colin_powell_at_the_un_feb_5_2003.jpg

  Quote

We absolutely fucked up and helped create the perfect growing conditions for ISIS.  We made the mess.  We had an obligation to clean it up.  The point of "we shouldn't have made the mess in the first place" may be a good one, but it's academic now.  And now....we're going to repeat the same stupid fucking mistake, and to top it off, it's not even a strategic or tactical decision, it's just a transitory brainfart traveling through the colon that Trump calls a head.

Expand  

How? Beyond being happy with the simplicity of the metaphor of making a mess and cleaning it up, what on earth are you even talking about? What would it look like and how would we help facilitate that end goal?

All you are advocating is managing our ego and pride by convincing ourselves we can make it right. We can't.

Posted

In the same way that he refers to 'his generals,' I think a big motivator for him is knowing that the troops have to do what he says. Never mind the long-term effects.

It's a high for him just like the Adderall that he snorts.

Posted

Watching him right now. It’s like a Mack Brown press conference with random numbers and fake awards that mean nothing. All while the Dow keeps ticking down beside his dumb, orange, bloated face. 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:44 PM, bad_teammate said:

All you are advocating is managing our ego and pride by convincing ourselves we can make it right. We can't.

Expand  

We can't make it right.  You are absolutely correct on that point.

Of course, that unreachable goal isn't the point.

We can't make it right.  But we can help manage how "wrong" it gets.  

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 7:47 PM, softlynow said:

I don’t watch “unscripted” tv. Can one of y’all Survivor, Pawn Stars or Big Brother fans tell me what usually happens now at this point in the plot? 

Expand  

 

  On 12/20/2018 at 8:30 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

You say that like you think fans of those shows are watching unscripted tv. They're not.  

Expand  

 

  On 12/20/2018 at 8:38 PM, softlynow said:

“Did I?”

Expand  

Obviously yes. 

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:48 PM, bad_teammate said:

We're like a coke-addled gambler in Vegas convinced that we can make it right with just one more bet.

Expand  

Like HBO thinking Vinyl would be a hit if they just aired more episodes while everyone is wondering wtf are you thinking.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:57 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Until Nancy Pelosi can claim credit for reopening the government 

Expand  

But let's think about this.

Nancy & Company come up with something. Send it to the Senate.  Hey, Mitch and the boys agree, so yeah!

But no funding for a fucking wall, so he decides to veto it again.  Sure, 2/3rds can override, but in the House?  

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:21 PM, A-Tex Devil said:

Override his ass.  I guess the Senate is too pussy for that. 

Expand  

You're forgetting the House...they didn't even vote on it because the President said he wouldn't sign.  Paul Ryan couldn't even pretend to have a spine.

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:48 PM, bad_teammate said:

We're like a coke-addled gambler in Vegas convinced that we can make it right with just one more bet.

Expand  

I’m not a fan of how we use the military as the primary instrument to conduct foreign policy, we could do a lot better with fewer resources invested.

However, it would take a massive ideological, structural, and logistical paradigm shift that seems unattainable in the short term.  

Nevertheless, our military hegemony is better than the alternative of isolationism. 

Posted

Putin's gotta be laughing his ass off at this level of dysfunction.  His chosen party still controls the government, and it's going to shut down because the toddler in chief didn't get funding for a useless prop.  And the options are either (1) Putin's chosen king gives in showing his weakness, (2) the government shuts down/stays shut, or (3) we waste a shit ton of money we don't have on something we don't need that's going to tick off our allies.

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 9:09 PM, lemonlime said:

Putin's gotta be laughing his ass off at this level of dysfunction.  His chosen party still controls the government, and it's going to shut down because the toddler in chief didn't get funding for a useless prop.  And the options are either (1) Putin's chosen king gives in showing his weakness, (2) the government shuts down/stays shut, or (3) we waste a shit ton of money we don't have on something we don't need that's going to tick off our allies.

Expand  

What is stopping him from going with option 2?  Does he get 25th amendment'd if he just continually refuses to sign the CR?

Posted

 

 

  On 12/20/2018 at 9:09 PM, lemonlime said:

Putin's gotta be laughing his ass off at this level of dysfunction.  His chosen party still controls the government, and it's going to shut down because the toddler in chief didn't get funding for a useless prop.  And the options are either (1) Putin's chosen king gives in showing his weakness, (2) the government shuts down/stays shut, or (3) we waste a shit ton of money we don't have on something we don't need that's going to tick off our allies.

Expand  

My guess is they are trying to figure out how to give him something to save face that isn't just going to disappear into the wind.  If they approve $600,000,000 for advance study and feasibility for wall structures and eminent domain across the deserts of blah blah blah, that's fine.  But Ds are about to take over and will tell him to shove it next time he asks.  So we are out $600 million.

Posted

How can a family that can’t run a charity run a country?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/opinion/trump-russia-michael-cohen-charity.html?fallback=0&amp;recId=1EdSCDhTeSCrvqDqv9YQW7lRxqy&amp;locked=0&amp;geoContinent=NA&amp;geoRegion=OK&amp;recAlloc=top_conversion&amp;geoCountry=US&amp;blockId=most-popular&amp;imp_id=818862013

 

  Quote

I will be going on book leave soon — today is my last column for a while because of the holiday schedule — to write what I believe to be the most important thing that I’ve ever written.

No, it’s not about Donald Trump, just in case you were wondering.

But since I have written almost exclusively about Trump for more than two years, please allow me this parting assessment: It is so much worse than I thought.

Expand  

 

  Quote

My original objections to Trump, the things that pushed me into the Resistance, were his immorality, dishonesty, fraudulence and grift.

I freely admit now that I was seeing only the pointy edge of an enormous machine. I had no idea how immoral Trump actually is.

Expand  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • Like 4
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, Brisketexan said:

We can't make it right.  But we can help manage how "wrong" it gets.  

Expand  

At some point, there has to be an idea beyond platitudes that motivates our continued military adventurism. Right? I mean, it can't just be metaphor and aphorism all the way down, can it?

What is our end-game in Syria? What's the specific outcome that (1) we would like and that (2) our current military action is bringing to bear?

  On 12/20/2018 at 9:08 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m not a fan of how we use the military as the primary instrument to conduct foreign policy, we could do a lot better with fewer resources invested.

However, it would take a massive ideological, structural, and logistical paradigm shift that seems unattainable in the short term.  

Nevertheless, our military hegemony is better than the alternative of isolationism. 

Expand  

Great false choice.

We could be a normal participant in the UN Security Council and not, in solo missions, murder millions of brown people in order to gratify our inflated sense of self. How about that?

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 8:17 PM, Lagunamadre said:

We just better hope we never need any favors in that region ever again because what we are doing to the Kurds is fucking cold-blooded and will be remembered. Also, be ready to accept Iran expanding their influence in the region. 

Expand  

We've always played Lucy to their Charlie Brown. It's a national disgrace.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 9:33 PM, bad_teammate said:

What is our end-game in Syria? What's the specific outcome that (1) we would like and that (2) our current military action is bringing to bear?

Expand  

THERE IS NO END GAME.  Thus, the strength of your point about starting a dance that you can't just walk away from.

What is the GOAL?  To keep the circumstances that allow a violent jihadist movement, proven to inflict horrendous suffering both locally and globally, below a boil.  That's it.

Diseases, fires, floods, ISIS: if your argument is "you can't totally eliminate them, so don't do anything," that's bad logic.  PARTICULARLY when we helped create the "disease" at issue.  You don't stop them from happening.  You manage them.

It's a messy fucking business.  Again, a big reason why we shouldn't have entered into it so cavalierly.  But we're in this business now.

  • Like 5
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 9:40 PM, Brisketexan said:

THERE IS NO END GAME.  Thus, the strength of your point about starting a dance that you can't just walk away from.

What is the GOAL?  To keep the circumstances that allow a violent jihadist movement, proven to inflict horrendous suffering both locally and globally, below a boil.  That's it.

Diseases, fires, floods, ISIS: if your argument is "you can't totally eliminate them, so don't do anything," that's bad logic.  PARTICULARLY when we helped create the "disease" at issue.  You don't stop them from happening.  You manage them.

It's a messy fucking business.  Again, a big reason why we shouldn't have entered into it so cavalierly.  But we're in this business now.

Expand  

Does the state in which this is taking place have a say in any of this?

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 9:40 PM, Brisketexan said:

THERE IS NO END GAME.  Thus, the strength of your point about starting a dance that you can't just walk away from.

What is the GOAL?  To keep the circumstances that allow a violent jihadist movement, proven to inflict horrendous suffering both locally and globally, below a boil.  That's it.

Diseases, fires, floods, ISIS: if your argument is "you can't totally eliminate them, so don't do anything," that's bad logic.  PARTICULARLY when we helped create the "disease" at issue.  You don't stop them from happening.  You manage them.

It's a messy fucking business.  Again, a big reason why we shouldn't have entered into it so cavalierly.  But we're in this business now.

Expand  

Pulling out of unilateral military action is "don't do anything"? Either you're not thinking rationally or you're just operating in pure bad faith.

We have international bodies intended to deal with international problems. We have powerful non-military tools to use in diplomacy. We are squandering both of those with our unilateral military adventurism.

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 9:45 PM, Fozzz said:

Does the state in which this is taking place have a say in any of this?

Expand  

It did.

But that ship sailed.

All of these arguments are based on "we shouldn't have fucked shit up in the first place."  Nifty.  BUT....irrelevant.  Because we did.  You don't get to go back in time and rearrange the chess board.  You play the board as the pieces lie.  The fact that we helped put those pieces in their current position emphasizes that point.

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 9:46 PM, bad_teammate said:

We have international bodies intended to deal with international problems. We have powerful non-military tools to use in diplomacy. We are squandering both of those with our unilateral military adventurism.

Expand  

Well, my starting point is my acknowledgment of the fact that we don't live in a fantasyland where 1) we didn't fuck shit up in the first place, and 2) even if we did, the UN will come in and clean up our mess so it won't come back and kill a shitload of people.  Neither of those things are real.  So, no, I didn't include them in my calculus.

Posted
  On 12/20/2018 at 9:47 PM, Brisketexan said:

It did.

But that ship sailed.

All of these arguments are based on "we shouldn't have fucked shit up in the first place."  Nifty.  BUT....irrelevant.  Because we did.  You don't get to go back in time and rearrange the chess board.  You play the board as the pieces lie.  The fact that we helped put those pieces in their current position emphasizes that point.

Expand  

So because we did something bad in the past we need to keep doing that bad thing because...?  Maybe if we were willing to work with Syria and Russia they wouldn't mind us providing assistance in some capacity.  I don't see how illegally maintaining an occupation force in a country on the other side of the planet really helps anyone.  How is Afghanistan doing these days?  

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...