Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.

[Longhorn94 2436]

Just now, Hank Scorpio said:

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. 

like i would admit to that...

you dont think we should focus on reducing our military spend? our military and military budget are horrific examples of bloat and waste. If we could actually reduce both, reward units and divisions for efficiency and encourage a more streamlined effective approach, then we would actually improve our military while reducing our budget. instead we encourage waste and bloat through stupid budgetary policies of "use it or lose it" resulting in stockpiles of supplies we don't currently need. 

[Fozzz 152]

7 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

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

What we need to do is make our military more green.  Solar powered predator drones double tapping Yemeni funeral processions and stuff like that.  Has any bold, transformative progressive leader thought of something like that?

Edited June 21, 2019 by Fozzz

[Longhorn94 2436]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

because the point of the military is to be effective in deterring others and defending our nation. i want no more war as well but we can't pretend like that is something that is solely in our control. we should have a smaller, less costly military that is able to carry out the defense of our nation and allies.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Longhorn94

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

We need a compassionate military as well. After a drone strike kills 1 "terrorist" and 12 children we should make a subsequent airdrop of vouchers that can be redeemed at any US Military base for a free McDonald's happy meal (with the purchase of one full price happy meal). 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

16 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.

Libya, for one.  Iraq, for another.   It's not that she's pro-war per se.  It's that she's consistently played the hawk to burnish her own resume. 

[bad_teammate 13136]

1 minute ago, Longhorn94 said:

because the point of the military is to be effective in deterring others and defending our nation.

If that's all then we are already way more efficient and effective than we need to be. It's like saying, "I just want something to get me to work and back at 30mph" and then giving the thumbs up when the car builder says, "Hey, want me to make it 1000hp for $500k more?"

We have two big fuckoff oceans and nukes. We could cut our standing army by 80% and still be safe from invasion.

Efficiency and effectiveness are non-issues.

Quote

i want no more war as well but we can't pretend like that is something that is soley in our control.

It pretty much IS under our control. We're the ones who pushed for all of these adventures and we're the ones pushing for the Iran adventure.

[bad_teammate 13136]

THIS:

 

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

If we're going to war I want a leader who can give a 30 minute Ted talk about how we're going to maximize the synergy between our military branches to increase effective response payload to enemy combatants while still being carbon neutral and non discriminatory in our targeting practices. Also, knife bombs. 

 

[Longhorn94 2436]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If that's all then we are already way more efficient and effective than we need to be. It's like saying, "I just want something to get me to work and back at 30mph" and then giving the thumbs up when the car builder says, "Hey, want me to make it 1000hp for $500k more?"

We have two big fuckoff oceans and nukes. We could cut our standing army by 80% and still be safe from invasion.

Efficiency and effectiveness are non-issues.

It pretty much IS under our control. We're the ones who pushed for all of these adventures and we're the ones pushing for the Iran adventure.

i dont think we disagree on much on these points. i think its more in packaging and how you can successfully achieve it. meaning in order to reduce military budgets, you are going to have to package it in terms of reducing overall cost while retaining or increasing efficiency and effectiveness.

i dont think it would be wise to actually cut our army by 80% but i understand your point. 

the only war i would have voted for in the last 20 years is Afghanistan for the sole purpose of striking back at Al Qaeda. I don't think we should have stayed as long as we did and I dont think we should have stepped foot in Iraq. 

But I do think the threats from Russia and China are real so its important to maintain our alliances around the world.  

Edited June 21, 2019 by Longhorn94

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

THIS:

 

Bullshit.   Dems should not accept, much less support, such a low standard for "wisdom" as the clusterfuck last night.    Dems should be vocally attacking Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal, threatening war, sending troops, and taking us to the brink of war.  They can and should make all of those pro-peace arguments without calling him a pussy for calling it off at the last second. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

And let's be clear:  the decision not to strike last night wasn't the product of careful and intelligent analysis by Trump.   It was a decision as random and erratic as the initial one to strike, because he happened to have a pang of fear at a key moment (and thank God for that).  That process is just as likely to lead to war as not in the future.  Praising it would be completely nuts. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13136]

Trump's process, such as it is, is LESS likely to lead to military intervention than relying on established political and military powers to soberly make these decisions. You have far more faith in the establishment's ability to direct wise course than I do.

[Jhawk 1075]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

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

Exactly... Remember Obama's syrian red line?  He got massacred on that and his supporters said he made the right decision.  Now those same supporters are going after trump for not getting into a war/conflict?

It's almost like some people are just against the president regardless of the situation and/or party and aren't principled in their stance against everlasting war unless the other team is in office.

[bad_teammate 13136]

Liberal war hawks

[CO Horn 155]

Just now, Jhawk said:

Exactly... Remember Obama's syrian red line?  He got massacred on that and his supporters said he made the right decision.  Now those same supporters are going after trump for not getting into a war/conflict?

It's almost like some people are just against the president regardless of the situation and/or party and aren't principled in their stance against everlasting war unless the other team is in office.

Give Trump time and he'll get us into a war/conflict.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Trump's process, such as it is, is LESS likely to lead to military intervention than relying on established political and military powers to soberly make these decisions. You have far more faith in the establishment's ability to direct wise course than I do.

except in this instance, key members of his administration were the ones advising us to attack, while the DoD was arguing against an attack.

[Jograves 357]

27 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

We need a compassionate military as well. After a drone strike kills 1 "terrorist" and 12 children we should make a subsequent airdrop of vouchers that can be redeemed at any US Military base for a free McDonald's happy meal (with the purchase of one full price happy meal). 

Military bases have Burger Kings.

[Skyline 325]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

And let's be clear:  the decision not to strike last night wasn't the product of careful and intelligent analysis by Trump.   It was a decision as random and erratic as the initial one to strike, because he happened to have a pang of fear at a key moment (and thank God for that).  That process is just as likely to lead to war as not in the future.  Praising it would be completely nuts. 

I want to believe that he watched Tucker last night who pleaded for the president to not strike. 

If so, it's good. But also, Tucker holds the line between another war and the current status quo. 

[bad_teammate 13136]

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Trump's process, such as it is, is LESS likely to lead to military intervention than relying on established political and military powers to soberly make these decisions. You have far more faith in the establishment's ability to direct wise course than I do.

You've got to be joking.   You sound like every Republican who thought they could control him through flattery.   He's a complete nutcase.   He's Joe Pesci in Goodfellas.   His decision-making is at all times a 50-50 coin flip based on what part of his mental illness is at the wheel.   The Dems need to be doing everything they can legally do to get him out, including impeachment yesterday.  Coming together behind him as some kind of wise decisionmaker we can trust at the helm of our military — based on last night of all things — is just absurd. 

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

2 minutes ago, Jograves said:

Military bases have Burger Kings.

Exactly. The vouchers are worthless. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Skyline said:

I want to believe that he watched Tucker last night who pleaded for the president to not strike. 

If so, it's good. But also, Tucker holds the line between another war and the current status quo. 

And maybe tonight the last thing he'll see before making a decision is Hannity and he'll bomb the hell out of them.  

[Jhawk 1075]

2 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

Give Trump time and he'll get us into a war/conflict.

I stated when he was elected that this would turn me off to him.  It is almost like his political opponents are trying to goad him into war.  Why the fuck is Joe Scarborough calling for war? He is either a war hawk or a guy who wants another avenue to attack trump in the media.  I know that everyone is going to say "look at the polls" when I say this but fuck off... War is probably the greatest threat to a second term for trump.  Not just the conflict but the political shitshow that comes with it and the talking points that his opponents will have.  Every single candidate could say tomorrow that the USA needs to attack ASAP and then in 2020 they will all talk about how they supported the attack initially but now Trump is out of control.

Never let a crisis (or potential crisis) go to waste... even if you have to create it first.

[Chad Fuck 17574]

1 minute ago, Jhawk said:

I stated when he was elected that this would turn me off to him.  It is almost like his political opponents are trying to goad him into war.  Why the fuck is Joe Scarborough calling for war? He is either a war hawk or a guy who wants another avenue to attack trump in the media.  I know that everyone is going to say "look at the polls" when I say this but fuck off... War is probably the greatest threat to a second term for trump.  Not just the conflict but the political shitshow that comes with it and the talking points that his opponents will have.  Every single candidate could say tomorrow that the USA needs to attack ASAP and then in 2020 they will all talk about how they supported the attack initially but now Trump is out of control.

Never let a crisis (or potential crisis) go to waste... even if you have to create it first.

His political opponents?  How about the guys he hired? Bolton, Pompeo, Miller?

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, Jhawk said:

I stated when he was elected that this would turn me off to him.  It is almost like his political opponents are trying to goad him into war.  Why the fuck is Joe Scarborough calling for war? He is either a war hawk or a guy who wants another avenue to attack trump in the media.  I know that everyone is going to say "look at the polls" when I say this but fuck off... War is probably the greatest threat to a second term for trump.  Not just the conflict but the political shitshow that comes with it and the talking points that his opponents will have.  Every single candidate could say tomorrow that the USA needs to attack ASAP and then in 2020 they will all talk about how they supported the attack initially but now Trump is out of control.

Never let a crisis (or potential crisis) go to waste... even if you have to create it first.

are you angry with yourself that you support a complete con-artist (and a piece of human shit to boot)? help me understand where you are currently projecting that self-loathing, i'm a bit confused...

[Chad Fuck 17574]

5 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

I stated when he was elected that this would turn me off to him.  It is almost like his political opponents are trying to goad him into war.  Why the fuck is Joe Scarborough calling for war? He is either a war hawk or a guy who wants another avenue to attack trump in the media.  I know that everyone is going to say "look at the polls" when I say this but fuck off... War is probably the greatest threat to a second term for trump.  Not just the conflict but the political shitshow that comes with it and the talking points that his opponents will have.  Every single candidate could say tomorrow that the USA needs to attack ASAP and then in 2020 they will all talk about how they supported the attack initially but now Trump is out of control.

Never let a crisis (or potential crisis) go to waste... even if you have to create it first.

The subtext here is that you agree that Trump is more swayed by the media rather than his own advisers.  

So either he's an idiot because he's swayed by watching pundits on TV, or he's an idiot because he hired bad advisers.

Either way: Idiot.

What does that make his enabling supporters?

[Jhawk 1075]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

are you angry with yourself that you support a complete con-artist (and a piece of human shit to boot)? help me understand where you are currently projecting that self-loathing, i'm a bit confused...

When you attack the person and not the topic you lose credibility.

3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

His political opponents?  How about the guys he hired? Bolton, Pompeo, Miller?

 

The fact that he has been able to keep Bolton and Pompeo in check should be seen as a victory for the USA.  Like it or not, those guys have great experience and knowledge on foreign relations.  Trump taking in their information and telling them he isn't going to just go along with their decisions is a good thing, not a bad thing.  If you mean stephen miller, I'm not sure you can include him in the war hawk group since he has no prior experience in a white house admin and is definitely not a part of the pro-war establishment.

[Dirk X West 772]

1 minute ago, Jhawk said:

The fact that he has been able to keep Bolton and Pompeo in check should be seen as a victory for the USA.  Like it or not, those guys have great experience and knowledge on foreign relations.  Trump taking in their information and telling them he isn't going to just go along with their decisions is a good thing, not a bad thing.  If you mean stephen miller, I'm not sure you can include him in the war hawk group since he has no prior experience in a white house admin and is definitely not a part of the pro-war establishment.

The only reason why Pompeo and Bolton have to be kept in check is because Trump hired them.  Good lord.

[Jhawk 1075]

3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

The subtext here is that you agree that Trump is more swayed by the media rather than his own advisers.  

So either he's an idiot because he's swayed by watching pundits on TV, or he's an idiot because he hired bad advisers.

Either way: Idiot.

What does that make his enabling supporters?

You're searching for something that isn't there.  I never said anything close to the media is going to sway him into something.  I said the media/political opponents are trying to sway him into something.  Trump is doing what trump wants to do.  The media isn't swaying him and his advisers aren't swaying him as evidenced by him not attacking.

[Jhawk 1075]

1 minute ago, Dirk X West said:

The only reason why Pompeo and Bolton have to be kept in check is because Trump hired them.  Good lord.

Like it or not, they are experts on foreign relations.  There isn't anything wrong with hiring people you disagree with on actionable items if they can bring good information/experience to the table.  Anyone who has a minute and a half of life experience knows that surrounding yourself with yes men is a terrible idea.  Trump flat out has denounced war since the second he was a candidate.  That doesn't mean disband the military and never speak to career war-fighters.  It means take in the information at hand and make a reasoned decision. 

[sidis 9755]

1 minute ago, Jhawk said:

The fact that he has been able to keep Bolton and Pompeo in check should be seen as a victory for the USA.  Like it or not, those guys have great experience and knowledge on foreign relations.  Trump taking in their information and telling them he isn't going to just go along with their decisions is a good thing, not a bad thing.  If you mean stephen miller, I'm not sure you can include him in the war hawk group since he has no prior experience in a white house admin and is definitely not a part of the pro-war establishment. 

great experience.  knowledge on foreign relations.  wtf does that even mean?  jesus christ, the shallow superficiality.  you're happy he drains the swamp and puts nincompoops like perry in charge of doe, ben in charge of doh, barbie in charge of doe...but great experience and knowledge on foreign relations y'all!

keeping "bolton and pompeo in check."  we are in a hair thin brinksmanship showdown with iran after affirmatively pulling out of the deal.  why are we to a point that the president is having to call off attack assets in mid-air? we are in a trade war with china and threatening every other country we trade with daily.  we are artificially excluding saudi arabia from child soldier recruitment lists and trashing any pathetic level of credibility we had left.

you're somethin'.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

10 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

When you attack the person and not the topic you lose credibility.

what's the topic?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

8 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

I said the media/political opponents are trying to sway him into something.

ah, there's the topic. Trump's own administration isn't trying to sway him into war, it's the media and his political opponents' fault for swaying him into war.

noted.

[Jhawk 1075]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

great experience.  knowledge on foreign relations.  wtf does that even mean?  jesus christ, the shallow superficiality.  you're happy he drains the swamp and puts nincompoops like perry in charge of doe, ben in charge of doh, barbie in charge of doe...but great experience and knowledge on foreign relations y'all!

keeping "bolton and pompeo in check."  we are in a hair thin brinksmanship showdown with iran after affirmatively pulling out of the deal.  why are we to a point that the president is having to call off attack assets in mid-air? we are in a trade war with china and threatening every other country we trade with daily.  we are artificially excluding saudi arabia from child soldier recruitment lists and trashing any pathetic level of credibility we had left.

you're somethin'.

Would you rather him have hired the cleaning lady? 

What is the DOH?

Why are you talking about trade wars in a thread about real wars?

Did you care about slave labor when you found out about Qatar using actual slaves (who died in the desert) when building soccer stadiums for the world cup under the obama administration?  You know Obama was directly involved in lobbying for the world cup. Why do you care about child soldiers and not child slaves?

And what about Obama's red line again?

You're somethin'

[Jhawk 1075]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

ah, there's the topic. Trump's own administration isn't trying to sway him into war, it's the media and his political opponents' fault for swaying him into war.

noted.

So he has a room full of war mongers and the media is full of war mongers but he answers to a country full of people who are tired of war.

Simple question, are you happy or sad that he is trying to avoid war.  I'm happy about it.  Would you rather he answer to the assholes who want war and declare his 100 day occupation of Iran?

[Jograves 357]

What gives you the impression he's trying to avoid war? He's been building this shit up for years.

And if we're to believe this particular lie, asking about the number of casualties 10 minutes before the strike and then canceling is not a 'reasoned decision.' It's pretty much the exact opposite.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

So he has a room full of war mongers and the media is full of war mongers but he answers to a country full of people who are tired of war.

Simple question, are you happy or sad that he is trying to avoid war.  I'm happy about it.  Would you rather he answer to the assholes who want war and declare his 100 day occupation of Iran?

He's fucking not even close to trying to avoid war.  He's done everything up to pulling the trigger, which he even did but thankfully had enough time to call it off.  

[CO Horn 155]

5 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

So he has a room full of war mongers and the media is full of war mongers but he answers to a country full of people who are tired of war.

Simple question, are you happy or sad that he is trying to avoid war.  I'm happy about it.  Would you rather he answer to the assholes who want war and declare his 100 day occupation of Iran?

Are you on the record stating that if Trump strikes Iran over the downing of the drone, you'll no longer support him?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just now, Jhawk said:

So he has a room full of war mongers and the media is full of war mongers but he answers to a country full of people who are tired of war.

Simple question, are you happy or sad that he is trying to avoid war.  I'm happy about it.  Would you rather he answer to the assholes who want war and declare his 100 day occupation of Iran?

can you we both agree that we're in the position we are in because trump decided to walk away from an agreement that was producing the desired intent he says he wants? let's start there, can we?

now, let's be clear on who the most vocal advocates are that are pushing for military intervention in iran: his national security advisor, his chief of staff, tom cotton, lindsey graham, sean hannity, the list goes on and on...you know what they all have in common? your support.

he's in a position of his own making, and he has no idea how to resolve it (because he's a fucking idiot and there is no driving philosophy behind his decisions other than 'Obama bad, Fox News good'). but you can't wrap your pea brain around that, so you're forced to find blame in others. 

you're a fucking fraud.

 

[sidis 9755]

12 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Would you rather him have hired the cleaning lady? 

What is the DOH? 

Why are you talking about trade wars in a thread about real wars?

Did you care about slave labor when you found out about Qatar using actual slaves (who died in the desert) when building soccer stadiums for the world cup under the obama administration?  You know Obama was directly involved in lobbying for the world cup. Why do you care about child soldiers and not child slaves?

And what about Obama's red line again?

You're somethin'

that was a very weak effort at responding and presumes a lot for which you have no foundation.  it looks like a very emotive attempt to deflect and is tantamount to a hissy fit.

than john bolton?  yes.  anyone else.

u.s. dept of housing and urban development.  often referred to has hud. 

you were talking about all of this remarkable foreign relations experience.  do you not believe that such a thing plays into a trade wars with our foreign trading partners?  do you not believe trade wars increase the tension among foreign parties?  do you not recall any instances in which economic warfare has led to kinetic warfare?  are you a fucking simpleton?

yes, i care about slave labor.  i am against it.  i did not know that the obama administration presided over qatar.  you'll need to clarify.  it is my understanding that obama was lobbying for the world cup to take place in the united states in 2022.  how did obama calling the decision to award qatar the world cup "the wrong decision" in any way an endorsement of slave labor or child slavery?  once you clarify, i can perhaps respond to your delusion.

what about obama's red line?  what does that have to do with anything in my post? 

you seem to be a little too angry and overly-emotional to converse in any rational kind of way on this topic right now.  i am not sure why that would be the case...

Edited June 21, 2019 by sidis

[bad_teammate 13136]

55 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

You've got to be joking.   You sound like every Republican who thought they could control him through flattery.   He's a complete nutcase.   He's Joe Pesci in Goodfellas.   His decision-making is at all times a 50-50 coin flip based on what part of his mental illness is at the wheel.   The Dems need to be doing everything they can legally do to get him out, including impeachment yesterday.  Coming together behind him as some kind of wise decisionmaker we can trust at the helm of our military — based on last night of all things — is just absurd. 

Damn, I didn't know "praise his good decision" meant "don't impeach" and "come together behind him". lol 

Yes, he is capricious. That's the entire point. He is so ruled by image and feeling that he can be manipulated. Heaping praise on anti-war decisions will make him more likely to move that direction because he will get to feel like the smartest good boy.

[Jhawk 1075]

 

21 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

Are you on the record stating that if Trump strikes Iran over the downing of the drone, you'll no longer support him?

 I've said from day one that if he gets us into a war then I'm out.  We don't need to have another Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

[RomaVicta 29803]

40 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Like it or not, they are experts on foreign relations.  

 

34 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Would you rather him have hired the cleaning lady? 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

 

 I've said from day one that if he gets us into a war then I'm out.  We don't need to have another Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

He had choices other than Pompeo, Bolton and the cleaning lady. He chose Bolton who has a hard on for displaying toughness and war.

Trump assembled these guys. If any other president chose them, we could assume the intent. Your narrow defense is that Trump knows what he's doing and chose these very experienced experts knowing he could apply his own sober policy making judgment to keep them in check.

Does that really sound reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.

Trump either chose poorly or his choice reflects an inclination.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

I like to think that wherever John McCain is (hell) he was super excited and singing his bomb Iran song when Trump first ordered the attack and then when Trump called it off he like took off his hat and threw it on the ground and started cartoonishly stomping on it. 

[wildcat09 29268]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Trump's process, such as it is, is LESS likely to lead to military intervention than relying on established political and military powers to soberly make these decisions. You have far more faith in the establishment's ability to direct wise course than I do.

Trump is reluctant to go to war with Iran because he's afraid he'll fail more spectacularly than Bush did in Iraq and that he'll be universally mocked and derided for it. But he also appointed Pompeo and Bolton and all the other war hawks in his administration, and gave them the power to take us to the brink of war while he watches Fox News. They'll keep escalating tensions until Iran does something that enrages Trump, and they'll convince him that it'll be an easy war to win.

This war is inevitable unless he wises up enough to recognize what they're doing and fire them. I seriously doubt he's going to do that.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 

 

He had choices other than Pompeo, Bolton and the cleaning lady. He chose Bolton who has a hard on for displaying toughness and war.

Trump assembled these guys. If any other president chose them, we could assume the intent. Your narrow defense is that Trump knows what he's doing and chose these very experienced experts knowing he could apply his own sober policy making judgment to keep them in check.

Does that really sound reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.

Trump either chose poorly or his choice reflects an inclination.

here's how john bolton, a person that has spent a career advocating bombing brown people, ended up as dotard's NSA:

1) somebody said 'you should look at john bolton'...trump had never heard the name before, but beggars can't be choosers, so he said 'let's bring him in and talk to him!'

2) bolton showed up for the interview.

3) during the interview, he heaped tons of praise on dotard.

4) not one to get bogged down in the details, he was offered the job.

there was no policy debate that occurred, no thought placed on how they would work together to drive his administrations policy initiatives forward.

kiss the ring, you're in. 

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

[Jhawk 1075]

20 minutes ago, sidis said:

that was a very weak effort at responding and presumes a lot for which you have no foundation.  it looks like a very emotive attempt to deflect and is tantamount to a hissy fit.

than john bolton?  yes.  anyone else.

u.s. dept of housing and urban development.  often referred to has hud. 

you were talking about all of this remarkable foreign relations experience.  do you not believe that such a thing plays into a trade wars with our foreign trading partners?  do you not believe trade wars increase the tension among foreign parties?  do you not recall any instances in which economic warfare has led to kinetic warfare?  are you a fucking simpleton?

yes, i care about slave labor.  i am against it.  i did not know that the obama administration presided over qatar.  you'll need to clarify.  it is my understanding that obama was lobbying for the world cup to take place in the united states in 2022.  how did obama calling the decision to award qatar the world cup "the wrong decision" in any way an endorsement of slave labor or child slavery?  once you clarify, i can perhaps respond to your delusion.

what about obama's red line?  what does that have to do with anything in my post? 

you seem to be a little too angry and overly-emotional to converse in any rational kind of way on this topic right now.  i am not sure why that would be the case...

Wait wait wait... So you put no effort in your response as shown by you talking about department of education and department of energy instead of addressing the topic, but when I address your comments it is me showing no effort?

And regarding HUD, you couldn't be more wrong about HUD and Carson's aptitude for that job.  I specifically work in affordable housing development and the dude has cleaned it up like crazy.  It isn't the glory days of yesteryear where you could do jack shit and pay no penalty for your property falling out of compliance.  I just sat through a class for 24 hours last week on new regulations that are definitely going to end the HUD abuse by developers in the space. 

Why is Saudi Arabia brought into the conversation?  Seems like another complete bullshit side argument that you are trying to draw equivalency on with iran.  SA having child soldiers has nothing to do with Iran or this thread but you use it as an attack on Trump and then use it as a reason why iran is fucked.  In your arguments you've done everything but address Iran, the topic at hand.  Why should everyone else have to argue only about Iran and you get to use a million other topics to describe why iran is fucked?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Damn, I didn't know "praise his good decision" meant "don't impeach" and "come together behind him". lol 

Yes, he is capricious. That's the entire point. He is so ruled by image and feeling that he can be manipulated. Heaping praise on anti-war decisions will make him more likely to move that direction because he will get to feel like the smartest good boy.

The proposal was to "rush to flatter his wise statesmanship and restraint and compare him to George Washington."   Yeah, that's coming together behind him on this.   

And again, you're misreading his motivations in the same way as Lindsey Graham, Reince Preibus, and everyone else who thought they could manipulate him to their ends.   Flattery will get you access or a job because he likes to hear it.   It doesn't make controlling him any more likely. It only empowers him more to make whatever decisions he was already going to make, and when he makes them and you disagree, the result is that you're gone and replaced by another flatterer, not him changing his mind to please you.  Dems praising him as the second coming of George Washington because of his wise statesmanship and restraint would substantially undercut the essential message that he is a mentally ill idiot who is putting our country in grave danger every day they he continues at the helm.  

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[wildcat09 29268]

36 minutes ago, sidis said:

that was a very weak effort at responding and presumes a lot for which you have no foundation.  it looks like a very emotive attempt to deflect and is tantamount to a hissy fit.

than john bolton?  yes.  anyone else.

u.s. dept of housing and urban development.  often referred to has hud. 

you were talking about all of this remarkable foreign relations experience.  do you not believe that such a thing plays into a trade wars with our foreign trading partners?  do you not believe trade wars increase the tension among foreign parties?  do you not recall any instances in which economic warfare has led to kinetic warfare?  are you a fucking simpleton?

yes, i care about slave labor.  i am against it.  i did not know that the obama administration presided over qatar.  you'll need to clarify.  it is my understanding that obama was lobbying for the world cup to take place in the united states in 2022.  how did obama calling the decision to award qatar the world cup "the wrong decision" in any way an endorsement of slave labor or child slavery?  once you clarify, i can perhaps respond to your delusion.

what about obama's red line?  what does that have to do with anything in my post? 

you seem to be a little too angry and overly-emotional to converse in any rational kind of way on this topic right now.  i am not sure why that would be the case...

Just FYI, you're arguing with someone who has a disadvantaged child's mind.

[Jhawk 1075]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 

 

He had choices other than Pompeo, Bolton and the cleaning lady. He chose Bolton who has a hard on for displaying toughness and war.

Trump assembled these guys. If any other president chose them, we could assume the intent. Your narrow defense is that Trump knows what he's doing and chose these very experienced experts knowing he could apply his own sober policy making judgment to keep them in check.

Does that really sound reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.

Trump either chose poorly or his choice reflects an inclination.

At least you always know what Bolton's intentions are.  He's a known quantity with good knowledge.  That doesn't mean you have to take his recommendations.

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Trump is reluctant to go to war with Iran because he's afraid he'll fail more spectacularly than Bush did in Iraq and that he'll be universally mocked and derided for it. But he also appointed Pompeo and Bolton and all the other war hawks in his administration, and gave them the power to take us to the brink of war while he watches Fox News. They'll keep escalating tensions until Iran does something that enrages Trump, and they'll convince him that it'll be an easy war to win.

This war is inevitable unless he wises up enough to recognize what they're doing and fire them. I seriously doubt he's going to do that.

EVERY PRESIDENT SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO GO TO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST BECAUSE THEY WILL FAIL AS, OR MORE, SPECTACULARLY THAN BUSH.  The only country that has successfully fought a war against a muslim based country is Israel and that war didn't last very long.