Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

53 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Two of them? Are you sure about that?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/us-drone-tracked-iranian-boats/index.html

From the article.

Quote

Washington (CNN)In the hours before the attack on the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday, the Iranians spotted a US drone flying overhead and launched a surface-to-air missile at the unmanned aircraft, a US official told CNN.

Quote

The same official also said in the days prior to the attack, a US Reaper drone was shot down in the Red Sea by what is believed to be an Iranian missile fired by Houthi rebels.

I also recall a drone being shot down over Saudi Arabia by "Iranian backed rebels" last week but can't find the article. Our drones are dropping like flies, time to restock the inventory.

[RomaVicta 29803]

 

 

Quote

stephen miller and john bolton have to be eliminated

 

With extreme prejudice.

Edited June 21, 2019 by RomaVicta

[cactusflinthead 27594]

 

[yoladu 4067]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

The fucking stupid.....it hurts. 

Did Trump just tweet Death to America?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

1 hour ago, Hanrahan said:

Fuck Iran.

I hear ya.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Our president is a complete joke.   He somehow found a way to make the right decision (in yet another a terrible dangerous situation that he created in the first place) in the weakest, most incompetent way possible.  

[bad_teammate 13133]

Imagine being such a fucking dunce that you're critical of a president's decision not to kill people for no reason. Twitter and mass media are FULL of people just dogging him for not attacking and being Putin's stooge.

 

I read New Republic and Nation, I've learned to take every view
You know I've memorized Lerner and Golden, I feel like I'm almost a Jew
but when it comes to times like Korea, there's no one more red, white, and blue!
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Edited June 21, 2019 by bad_teammate

[WhatTheBuck 28718]

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Isn't this a review of how he created a crisis that he now wants to take credit for solving except that it isn't solved?

When he took office, we were miles away from armed conflict with Iran. He takes steps that make Iran (correctly) believe that the US is making war on them through economic means.

Iran responds by attacking economic targets. We come just short of blasting 150 Iranians to bits in a raid inside their borders.

Heroic Donald Trump calls off the strike.

It's all crazy. Absolute insanity.

Then we talk about the actions of a shit-hurling monkey president as though they are actually policies. They're not. They're disastrous impulses based on astonishing ignorance.

And he won a national election.

Mouth agape.

It's amazing to me that anyone takes this buffoon seriously. 

[retread 2951]

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Then we talk about the actions of a shit-hurling monkey president as though they are actually policies. They're not. They're disastrous impulses based on astonishing ignorance.

If this episode is a trailer for the movie that will be WWIII, then the movie will be something else.

It will be 2023, and cable news will be scratching their heads wondering what Trump's motivations were for insane action #1342. I wonder if he has some super-sensitive intelligence on this? Or maybe one of his advisers has some background info on the problem?

No. Just more shit slinging.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

33 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oooh yer on a roll today.  

let's talk specifics, to provide some context around the hilarity of your wheelin' and dealin' position.

1) An international accord was brokered that had stopped Iran from doing the one thing Dotard said he wants Iran to stop doing.

2) Because it was brokered by Obama (and because Dotard's only driving philosophies on policy are a) Did Obama do it? Then let's undo it and b) What does Fox News say?), he tore up the agreement.

3) As a result, we are now on the verge of entering a war he campaigned against.

4) Realizing he's completely fucked (due to his own actions), he passed a note that said 'Hey Supreme Leader, totes sorry about all this, can we talk?' and the response he got was 'Go fuck yourself, Dotard'

WHEELIN' AND DEALIN', BABY!!!

 

 

[InkaUtexas 25533]

10 hours ago, TornACL said:

Since you missed the point, my point was, once you make the decision to put troops into combat, it needs to be done with such judicious thought that a last minute change of heart is unable to factor into the equation. If you're wishy washy about it, you were unprepared to make the initial decision to begin with. 

To put it another way, this isn't some god damn fucking real estate deal. 

Agree. If you are going to take the hill, take the fucking hill. 

[TornACL 7680]

Quote

Imagine being such a fucking dunce that you're critical of a president's decision not to kill people for no reason. Twitter and mass media are FULL of people just dogging him for not attacking and being Putin's stooge.

There are always going to be war hawks who get riled up about this stuff, and it probably has nothing to do with being either liberal or conservative.

The justified criticisms come not from the ultimate decision but from the three ring circus surrounding it. Including....

1. How in the ever living hell are these sensitive discussions and decisions being leaked? This gives the appearance of a two bit operation run by clueless imbeciles. 

2. Then, after the report leaks, Trump doubles down and announces to the world (via Twitter, of course) his decision making process, and more of the details behind the planned actions, as if he wants to be commended for being wishy washy and making an initial decision without even fucking having all of the facts. Because, still, this is all about the Trump brand first and foremost. I have no idea how some of you people aren't fatigued by this act yet. Newsflash: Sometimes it's best to say nothing. 

3. Now we're continuing to see diplomacy via Twitter, which is a complete waste of time, and a glaring example of someone who is completely unfit for the responsibilities bestowed upon him. This is a fucking clown show. 

[bad_teammate 13133]

I would MUCH rather see a fractured, embarrassing, and idiotic peace than a well-structured, fully-McKinseyed, board-room-certified war.

[Zavala 1384]

22 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Now, imagine someone is on mobile and show them the way.... 

Rocket surgery

 

[RomaVicta 29803]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Imagine being such a fucking dunce that you're critical of a president's decision not to kill people for no reason. Twitter and mass media are FULL of people just dogging him for not attacking and being Putin's stooge.

 

I read New Republic and Nation, I've learned to take every view
You know I've memorized Lerner and Golden, I feel like I'm almost a Jew
but when it comes to times like Korea, there's no one more red, white, and blue!
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I, too, find it odd that his decision to call off the strike is drawing the usual facile comments about the horrors of a US president looking indecisive. No matter what his part is in setting up this idiotically volatile situation, I'm glad he called off the attack.

[yoladu 4067]

From Mr.Trump's tweet:

Quote

They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my Presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are Bust!.

umm, didn't they (Iran) just blow up two oil tankers and shoot down a drone in the last 7 days?

[Nivek 16866]

"cocked and loaded"

He joined the military in a time of war. That man has infinitely more balls than trump.

[Francisco 2.0 32346]

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/449667-report-iranian-officials-say-trump-warned-them-attack-was-imminent

 

Quote

Iranian officials said Friday that they were warned by President Trump to expect an imminent attack shortly before the U.S. ordered forces preparing a tactical strike on the country to stand down.

Officials speaking under the promise of anonymity told Reuters on Friday that the Trump administration informed them of the attack a "short period" before they were set to occur, only to watch as U.S. forces were called off moments late

Quote

“In his message, Trump said he was against any war with Iran and wanted to talk to Tehran about various issues,” one Iranian official told Reuters.

“He gave a short period of time to get our response but Iran’s immediate response was that it is up to Supreme Leader Khamenei to decide about this issue,” the official added.

A second official told Reuters that Iran had made it clear that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, was currently against the prospect of negotiations but that his message would be delivered to Iran's leadership nonetheless.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28718]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I, too, find it odd that his decision to call off the strike is drawing the usual facile comments about the horrors of a US president looking indecisive. No matter what his part is in setting up this idiotically volatile situation, I'm glad he called off the attack.

Fox, Rush, Trump -- they all would've gone scorched earth on Obama if he had done anything similar. Of course, it never would've come to this with Iran under Obama because he made a deal and Iran was complying with it. But you know what I mean. 

[bad_teammate 13133]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fox, Rush, Trump -- they all would've gone scorched earth on Obama if he had done anything similar.

This is true, which only proves how stupid the pro-war liberal position is.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

18 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

let's talk specifics, to provide some context around the hilarity of your wheelin' and dealin' position.

1) An international accord was brokered that had stopped Iran from doing the one thing Dotard said he wants Iran to stop doing.

2) Because it was brokered by Obama (and because Dotard's only driving philosophies on policy are a) Did Obama do it? Then let's undo it and b) What does Fox News say?), he tore up the agreement.

3) As a result, we are now on the verge of entering a war he campaigned against.

4) Realizing he's completely fucked (due to his own actions), he passed a note that said 'Hey Supreme Leader, totes sorry about all this, can we talk?' and the response he got was 'Go fuck yourself, Dotard'

WHEELIN' AND DEALIN', BABY!!!

 

 

So to stop wasting time. Where have I ever supported what he did in this instance ? My reference to his deal making has been his history in business (which would n= are him like most other people who've done what he's done in their business lives. I do not support in any way an invasion of Iran, or the rattling of sabres.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

The decision not to strike and the process by which that decision was made (and made public) are two separate issues.  

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Longhorn94 2436]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

This is true, which only proves how stupid the pro-war liberal position is.

is there a "pro-war liberal position?" if it exists, i havent seen it.

i dont think anyone criticizing trump's indecisiveness are saying they wish he would have let it happen. i think they are saying that he should have been asking that question BEFORE the operation began not during. if you pull out your weapon, you better use it.  and that doesnt mean anyone other than bolton wanted him to use it. he shouldnt have ever pulled it out to begin with if he wasnt 100% certain to follow through. the hesitation, indecisiveness will be perceived as weakness by our enemies. its that simple. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

My reference to his deal making has been his history in business

clearly you're using his history in business to suggest that history will have a positive impact on his abilities as President. so, care to share with us evidence of his deal-making prowess in business, and then provide evidence that said prowess has positively impacted his ability to strike deals on behalf of our Country?

[bad_teammate 13133]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

is there a "pro-war liberal position?" if it exists, i havent seen it.

The "pro-war liberal position" is not someone who says, "I think we should go to war with Iran", it's someone who supports increasing the military budget, praises (or does not openly and loudly oppose) every military action we take, tries to make Iran the bad guy rhetorically, and frames their objection primarily around process ("we need a new AUMF").

They are pushing towards war with every action they take except outright saying it. They are the ones who grease the wheels in favor of the openly-pro-war in the race against the openly-anti-war.

Furrowed brows. Very concerned. *votes to increase military budget*

That's the pro-war liberal.

Edited June 21, 2019 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13133]

Unsurprisingly, Bernie has the messaging arranged properly.

#1 - State the anti-war position as the central motivator
#2 - Talk about process fully in the context of stopping war

It is the process-focused robot shitlibs that allow the reactionary right to continue and expand our forever-wars.

 

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

7 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

is there a "pro-war liberal position?" if it exists, i havent seen it.

[WhatTheBuck 28718]

34 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/us-drone-tracked-iranian-boats/index.html

From the article.

I also recall a drone being shot down over Saudi Arabia by "Iranian backed rebels" last week but can't find the article. Our drones are dropping like flies, time to restock the inventory.

I heard the last shot Iran fired at a drone missed. I know that they shot down a drone back in 2011 or somewhere around there. But if they really did shoot down another drone recently, then why is no one, not Trump or anyone in Congress, in either party, or Fox or CNN or MSNBC, talking about it?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

And let's recall Obama's red line.  He made the right decision not to engage, but a bad decision earlier in making a threat that he wasn't going to back up.   But at least he was decisive at each point; he bluffed, and then he folded, or whatever you want to call it. 

Trump's already done that multiple times, with NK alone.    Now he makes an uniformed decision to strike, then sends a back-channel message to Iran begging for them to bail him out with an agreement to talks, which they blow off, then he calls it off, and now he admits his indecisiveness to the entire world.

It's a total and complete joke.   Our president is weak and cowardly and stupid.   Both in making the decision to strike, and then in calling it off.   That he reached the right result in the specific decision of whether to strike doesn't change any of that. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[WhatTheBuck 28718]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is true, which only proves how stupid the pro-war liberal position is.

The pro-war liberal position? Yeah, that's a thing.  

[Longhorn94 2436]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The "pro-war liberal position" is not someone who says, "I think we should go to war with Iran", it's someone who supports increasing the military budget, praises (or does not openly and loudly oppose) every military action we take, tries to make Iran the bad guy rhetorically, and frames their objection primarily around process ("we need a new AUMF").

They are pushing towards war with every action they take except outright saying it. They are the ones who grease the wheels in favor of the openly-pro-war in the race against the openly-anti-war.

Furrowed brows. Very concerned. *votes to increase military budget*

That's the pro-war liberal.

i dont see a whole lot of liberals pushing for increases to the military budget. i think the rest is about diplomacy not war and disagree they are pushing towards war with diplomatic actions. i think its just the opposite that they are suggesting and pushing policies and proposals that move away from war in favor of diplomatic alternatives that will address the issues.

thats the responsible course whether they are conservative or liberal.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The "pro-war liberal position" is not someone who says, "I think we should go to war with Iran", it's someone who supports increasing the military budget, praises (or does not openly and loudly oppose) every military action we take, tries to make Iran the bad guy rhetorically, and frames their objection primarily around process ("we need a new AUMF").

They are pushing towards war with every action they take except outright saying it. They are the ones who grease the wheels in favor of the openly-pro-war in the race against the openly-anti-war.

Furrowed brows. Very concerned. *votes to increase military budget*

That's the pro-war liberal.

i'm really confused as to why democrats' message isn't 'we're in the position because Donald Trump chose to unilaterally withdraw from an agreement that was preventing the thing he says he wants to prevent. as a country, we'll now have to face the consequences of his short-sighted actions.'

that's really all they need to say.

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

i dont see a whole lot of liberals pushing for increases to the military budget. i think the rest is about diplomacy not war and disagree they are pushing towards war with diplomatic actions. i think its just the opposite that they are suggesting and pushing policies and proposals that move away from war in favor of diplomatic alternatives that will address the issues.

thats the responsible course whether they are conservative or liberal.

What?  Even ultra-mega-progressive Warren voted to increase the military budget.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Fozzz

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

14 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

clearly you're using his history in business to suggest that history will have a positive impact on his abilities as President. so, care to share with us evidence of his deal-making prowess in business, and then provide evidence that said prowess has positively impacted his ability to strike deals on behalf of our Country?

Clearly you're jumping to conclusions, have a nice day now.

[WhatTheBuck 28718]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

And let's recall Obama's red line.  He made the right decision not to engage, but a bad decision earlier in making a threat that he wasn't going to back up.   But at least he was decisive at each point; he bluffed, and then he folded, or whatever you want to call it.

That's a good analogy. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Clearly you're jumping to conclusions, have a nice day now.

[NowThis 931]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The pro-war liberal position? Yeah, that's a thing.  

lots of Dems voted for the Iraq resolution , no?  They all get caught up in the "support the troops" mantra, where a no vote means you are unpatriotic, so given that massacring hundreds of thousands of the enemy is just an abstraction (if that), so there's never a downside in voting pro-war. Especially now when US casualties are almost nil, even in Iraq, just 2 a day is nothing when 20,000 Americans murder each other every year. 

[Longhorn94 2436]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

What?  Even ultra-mega-progressive Warren voted to increase the military budget.

there is a difference between pushing for increases and voting to increase the military budget.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

i'm really confused as to why democrats' message isn't 'we're in the position because Donald Trump chose to unilaterally withdraw from an agreement that was preventing the thing he says he wants to prevent. as a country, we'll now have to face the consequences of his short-sighted actions.'

that's really all they need to say.

Exactly this.   And the sad reason why is that they're weak.   They're scared to defend the deal because of the anti-deal false messaging from the right.  Just as they were scared to defend Obamacare until 2018, when protecting it swept a blue wave into a takeover of the house.   If Trump had negotiated a deal with Iran that had half of the protections against their development of nukes and paid 10 times the frozen money returned to Iran, the right would be selling it as the greatest deal in the history of the world.  But Dems just can't find the courage to stand behind something and sell it. 

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Longhorn94 said:

there is a difference between pushing for increases and voting to increase the military budget.

Pretty meaningless difference. 

[Longhorn94 2436]

12 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

i still dont understand why people think Hillary is "pro-war." i think her foreign policy would have been pretty conservative in nature and mirrored Obama's more or less.

[Longhorn94 2436]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Pretty meaningless difference. 

i disagree. i think the difference is huge and it what leads to political votes instead of what makes the most sense for our nation.

[Brisketexan 104673]

is there a "pro-war liberal position?" if it exists, i havent seen it.
i dont think anyone criticizing trump's indecisiveness are saying they wish he would have let it happen. i think they are saying that he should have been asking that question BEFORE the operation began not during. if you pull out your weapon, you better use it.  and that doesnt mean anyone other than bolton wanted him to use it. he shouldnt have ever pulled it out to begin with if he wasnt 100% certain to follow through. the hesitation, indecisiveness will be perceived as weakness by our enemies. its that simple. 

And let's recall Obama's red line.  He made the right decision not to engage, but a bad decision earlier in making a threat that he wasn't going to back up.   But at least he was decisive at each point; he bluffed, and then he folded, or whatever you want to call it. 
Trump's already done that multiple times, with NK alone.    Now he makes an uniformed decision to strike, then sends a back-channel message to Iran begging for them to bail him out with an agreement to talks, which they blow off, then he calls it off, and now he admits his indecisiveness to the entire world.
It's a total and complete joke.   Our president is weak and cowardly and stupid.   Both in making the decision to strike, and then in calling it off.   That he reached the right result in the specific decision of whether to strike doesn't change any of that. 

These. I’m not disgusted with Trump for not attacking Iran - I don’t want us to attack Iran. I’m fucking embarrassed, stunned, and appalled that the dumbass stumblefucked his way into both deciding to attacking and then deciding not to attack. His decision making processes are fucking pathetic.

[bad_teammate 13133]

1 minute ago, Longhorn94 said:

i disagree. i think the difference is huge and it what leads to political votes instead of what makes the most sense for our nation.

How do increased military budgets make sense for our nation? There is one reason to have a huge military: To make war.

[Longhorn94 2436]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

How do increased military budgets make sense for our nation? There is one reason to have a huge military: To make war.

they dont. that was my point. we should focus on making our military more efficient and effective. 

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

This is a pretty good summary of how the media gets in line when it's time for a war. 

Spoiler

Say 'No War' You Cowards

How are the psychological conditions in which a nation comes to accept fundamentally insane wars created? For an answer, you need only read the words of the sober, respected, and responsible New York Times editorial board.

This, truly, is a formulation of the issue that should be placed in the Newseum to illustrate exactly how the establishment press—under the guise of being the responsible and unbiased voices in the room—smooths the path to war for bloodthirsty, power-mad leaders.

Want war with Iran? Ask Congress first. In this headline you see all of the soulless, substance-free worship of process and power that defines the worst failures of the Washington press corps. On a day when U.S. war tensions with Iran have reached the point of actually launching military strikes, the editorial board of the New York Times, which can serve as well as anything in the media world as a proxy for “the voice of the establishment,” is focused most closely on the bureaucratic process by which war is authorized. They write that “cooler heads must prevail — and Congress must be consulted — as American and Iranian forces inch closer to open conflict in and around the Strait of Hormuz.” The most stringent lifelong right-wing warmongers who now hold power within the administration of our addled racist TV man president will surely think twice when they read these words from the New York Times: “if Mr. Trump and the Warhawk Caucus — led by the national security adviser, John Bolton; the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo; and Senator Tom Cotton — want a wider military conflict with Iran, they first need to persuade Congress and receive its approval.”

This insane, unnecessary sham war of a discredited ideology must be properly authorized, you see. We must have our paperwork in order before we start raining missiles down on Iranians who have already been economically destroyed by our sanctions. If the New York Times editorial board were babysitting your kids, they would make sure that they signed each and every release form before they let them go play in traffic.

This is how it happens. This is how the press becomes complicit in war. The mainstream press does not call for the war outright; they simply allow themselves to be dragged along into war by more cutthroat actors, insisting the entire time that the paperwork must be in order. This happened in Vietnam, and it happened in the buildup to the disastrous Iraq war, and you can see it happening again now. It is as if we are cursed to get into the same car wreck once per decade, watching it all play out in front of our eyes in dreadful slow motion, paralyzed and unable to stop it. If we have learned anything from all of the reporting on the Trump administration—and, for that matter, all of the reporting on previous administrations that went to war—it is that the process is just a tool for the final goal. The people who make wars don’t care about the process. They will manipulate the process as necessary to reach a desired end. The only suckers stuck on process are the press, the hapless referees, waving their finger about Congressional authorization as the warplanes are being armed.

As much as the media has bragged about how it is a heroic voice of truth and light, and as much as it has used the idea that the press is the front line of truth’s resistance to Donald Trump as a way to juice subscription numbers, when it comes right down to it, the sort of people who are empowered to speak for a thoroughly establishment institution like the New York Times find it impossible to free themselves from the hypnosis of Washington process in order to see the bigger picture. They are too close. They have just enough access to imagine that they are important players in this drama. Because of that, they are blind. This is why, in the buildup to the Iraq war, it was quite easy for millions of 19 year-olds to see that the entire enterprise was a predetermined, unjustified con job, yet the most powerful institutions of journalism in the United States could not. Forest, trees. The US government has many years of practice exploiting this basic flaw in the way that self-important media outlets approach their jobs. And it will be exploited again.

The only thing to write is “no war.” You know, and I know, and every regular man and woman waking up and sending their kids to school and going to work knows that there is no fucking earthly reason for the United States of America to go to war with Iran in 2019. We do not need it. We are not calling for it. We do not need to be protected. This time around, the deliberate and intentional process of escalating “incidents” is even more transparent than it was before Iraq. A fucking random oil tanker? A fucking drone shot down? Nobody wants this, except a small sliver of right wing political players who have been pursuing this fight for many years and now, inside of a weak and persuadable and incompetent and corrupt administration, see their chance. You know this. I know this. Republicans know this, and Democrats know this as well. Now is the time to say no. No war, no war, no war, no war, no matter how much a few middle-aged men in suits who will not die in that war want one. No, no, no. This is all that needs to be reported. And yet here we are again, watching the press contort itself into unnatural shapes, struggling within the straitjacket of its own proclaimed lack of bias, used as a tool by unscrupulous politicians, unable to say what every rational person knows in their bones: This is crazy.

https://splinternews.com/say-no-war-you-cowards-1835724900

 

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

Just now, Longhorn94 said:

they dont. that was my point. we should focus on making our military more efficient and effective. 

OK wait, I think I figured it out. Are you Hilary Clinton? Because making the military "more efficient and effective" is the most double speak shitlib talk I have ever heard. 

[bad_teammate 13133]

1 minute ago, Longhorn94 said:

they dont. that was my point. we should focus on making our military more efficient and effective. 

Again, this is process-minded, value-blind thought that allows the right to constantly push us into murdering innocent people.

Why the hell is "efficiency" of ANY importance in the face of war? This isn't a god damned assembly line for XBox controllers. Fuck "efficiency".

And what the hell does "effective" actually mean? It means MORE lethal.

I want a smaller, less efficient, and less effective military.

I want no more fucking war.

[RomaVicta 29803]

15 minutes ago, NowThis said:

lots of Dems voted for the Iraq resolution , no?  They all get caught up in the "support the troops" mantra, where a no vote means you are unpatriotic, so given that massacring hundreds of thousands of the enemy is just an abstraction (if that), so there's never a downside in voting pro-war. Especially now when US casualties are almost nil, even in Iraq, just 2 a day is nothing when 20,000 Americans murder each other every year. 

The sad thing there is that they were actually anti-invasion but too chicken to state it outright. They thought they'd come up with a fancy answer that they could use to deflect their complicity later on. They were wrong. Dennis Kucinich rightfully pounded his fellow Dems on this.

[triplehorn 2664]

12 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

i still dont understand why people think Hillary is "pro-war." i think her foreign policy would have been pretty conservative in nature and mirrored Obama's more or less.

Putin disagrees.