https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-WuPFlMThw
Not really ... "We've always been at war with Eastasia"
Quote from: pr126 on April 12, 2018, 02:13:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-WuPFlMThw
Bashar al-Assad is chemically bombing his own people. Kim Jong-un is starving and torturing his people. There are dictators all over the world treating their citizens even worse. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have become dictators-for-life. Democracy is under attack...
So where am I going with this? I am saying that WE in the US have a President who envies their control over the government and is deliberately attacking democracy HERE! And not enough people care...
If the US falls, Western Europe will fall, and everything will fall. It's happened before. Even worse, it has MOSTLY happened before.
A few thoughts: History has been mostly brutal. Democracy is rare and easily lost. Given an established dynasty, democracy is hard to regain. Most revolutions fail. All it takes for people to give up a democracy is complacency. When you follow personality leaders, you don't keep democracy. When a leader attacks democracy, the reaction must be swift and uncomprimisingly severe. Hang dictators the 1st chance you get. A military junta is NEVER the best option. To get rid of a wanna-be dictator, defeat him from the bottom up. Keep military control among civilians. It is the small change that happen 1st when someone wants to become a dictator; attacks on the Press, attacks on the Congress, attacks on the Courts.
The snide remarks in any media, usually by subordinates but sometimes direct from the wanna-be dictator are designed to pry out the bricks at the foundation of democracy. Bit by bit, the ones who desire to diminish democracy start slow and suggest lies, "fake news, lying Press, and attacking past politacal opponents are routine... When they succeed at that, the feel free to be more open an attacking.
Just saying...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DalcyN4W4AEETZC.jpg:small)[/quote]
Quote from: pr126 on April 13, 2018, 12:04:35 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DalcyN4W4AEETZC.jpg:small)
The idea is to stop a mad tyrant from gassing children... I'm pretty sure that even YOU wouldn't agree that is a good thing...
Is there REAL evidence that it was the work of Assad? I am not convinced. Yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=LcBE6WYooTY
Quote from: pr126 on April 13, 2018, 12:14:29 AM
Is there REAL evidence that it was the work of Assad? I am not convinced. Yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=LcBE6WYooTY
You constantly amaze me! France has evidence that Syria used chemical weapons against its own citizens, French President Emmanuel Macron President said this afternoon, five days after a suspected chemical attack there.
“We have the proof that last week ... chemical weapons â€" at least chlorine gas â€" were used by [President Bashar] Assad's regime," Macron told a French today."
Nonetheless, I remain skeptical.
Always some form of war in the Middle East
Quote from: pr126 on April 13, 2018, 12:31:06 AM
Nonetheless, I remain skeptical.
You have a right to remain skeptical. In the face of conclusions by other world leaders that Assad has been doing these kinds of attacks rather routinely. But your skepticism doesn't change the facts. Assad has been, and is continuing to, gas civilians including children.
And what happens if the West kills Assad? More infighting for control, more migrants flooding from those regions and flooding into europe, another power and dictator rises after Assad and the whole things starts all over again.
Couldn't be a better example of those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Quote from: Munch on April 13, 2018, 06:08:54 AM
And what happens if the West kills Assad? More infighting for control, more migrants flooding from those regions and flooding into europe, another power and dictator rises after Assad and the whole things starts all over again.
Couldn't be a better example of those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I have no idea who would replace him, but probably some rebel leader who would NOT be gassing the children...
I don't like too put it this way, but almost anyone who doesn't gas-attack children has to be better.
Do you disagree?
Quote from: pr126 on April 13, 2018, 12:31:06 AM
Nonetheless, I remain skeptical.
Yeah, if France claims something, that is soo believable ;-) Germany and Italy are declining to participate in the most recent stupidity.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 12:50:17 AM
You have a right to remain skeptical. In the face of conclusions by other world leaders that Assad has been doing these kinds of attacks rather routinely. But your skepticism doesn't change the facts. Assad has been, and is continuing to, gas civilians including children.
The US has 2000 troops in Syria, yet we haven't a declared war anywhere since 1941. Do you really think we are doing that "for the children"? And Sen McCain being photo-oped with those ISIS guys a few years ago was so ...
There are young women routinely assaulted in certain Muslim neighborhoods in England, yet the English government turns a blind eye. Should we begin military operations to remove PM May from office? Will Putin/Iran/Hezbullah try to defend her?
Minor detail. The Russian military is also present there.
If they become collateral damage, it could be the start of something very unpleasant.
Unintended consequences?
Russia says Syrian 'chemical attack' was staged (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43747922)
Quote from: pr126 on April 13, 2018, 10:56:47 AM
Minor detail. The Russian military is also present there.
If they become collateral damage, it could be the start of something very unpleasant.
Unintended consequences?
Russia says Syrian 'chemical attack' was staged (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43747922)
If Russia is saying it's staged, that makes it even more likely it wasn't.
I don't know if you know this, but Russia isn't particularly the most trust worthy country in the world, particularly as Putin want's more and more to restore the USSR and his own empire.
Again, another war over oil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoIbgmGxdmE
Syria: Another Pipeline War (https://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqz9LT-pt-g
We could have cut to the chase. Had Gen McArthur's nuclear war in 1950, and killed all the communists. No need for proxy wars or alliances then. As a minor form of alternative history, I wouldn't have had the problems I have from having lived ... my parents would have died before I got born.
Well, woulda coulda shoulda...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 06:36:45 AM
I have no idea who would replace him, but probably some rebel leader who would NOT be gassing the children...
I don't like too put it this way, but almost anyone who doesn't gas-attack children has to be better.
Do you disagree?
I wouldn't disagree with the last sentence, but I'm skeptical about the first one.
Apparently nobody here ever got the point of the movie ... Team America: World Police ;-( Continue like this, and projectile vomit we will.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 06:36:45 AM
I have no idea who would replace him, but probably some rebel leader who would NOT be gassing the children...
I don't like too put it this way, but almost anyone who doesn't gas-attack children has to be better.
Do you disagree?
I'm not sure I agree, but I don't disagree either.
Assad, pre-revolution, was at least mostly not violent; there was practically no social mobility without money or connections, but in terms of people being killed... as long as you didn't cause waves, you were fine.
The problem with the rebel groups is even once the war is won in their favour... what happens when the rebel group turns out to be a fundamentalist group? Instead of a secular dictatorship you now have a religious dictatorship, or perhaps some political group, that continues the slaughter even after the fighting is over.
I'm just not sure a rebel lead Syria is better off than a Assad lead Syria. Both are horrible options, but they seem to be the only two options they have. But at least Assad lead Syria is more likely to end up back in a secular dictatorship rather than a theocracy, and that is the lesser of two evils.
"you now have a religious dictatorship"
Exactly why SA and Qatar are funding it. And Turkey wants their cut too.
For the life of me I don't really see a hell of a lot of difference between killing someone will chemical weapons vs plain old high explosive bombs..
If I had to choose which one killed me I'd have to punt and choose an overdose of pain killers..
Getting dead isn't particularly discriminating.. Guns, bombs, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, or getting stabbed with 15 butter knives. I don't suppose anyone in WWI who had a bayonet jammed into their guts said, at least it wasn't gas!
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 14, 2018, 12:04:03 AM
For the life of me I don't really see a hell of a lot of difference between killing someone will chemical weapons vs plain old high explosive bombs..
If I had to choose which one killed me I'd have to punt and choose an overdose of pain killers..
Getting dead isn't particularly discriminating.. Guns, bombs, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, or getting stabbed with 15 butter knives. I don't suppose anyone in WWI who had a bayonet jammed into their guts said, at least it wasn't gas!
The hypocrisy is so thick ... you can eat it with a spork!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOEZb-pLe6Y
So, apparently the missiles have started flying. Let's see how Russia responds.
QuoteFor the life of me I don't really see a hell of a lot of difference between killing someone will chemical weapons vs plain old high explosive bombs..
I rather die in an explosion than hours or days of having my internal organs fail.
I have watched the alleged gas attack on Youtube.
Here are some questions.
How come only children are affected? Appeal to emotion?
Why the people decontaminating are not wearing any protective clothing?
Where are the dead from this attack?
How can sarin gas be decontaminated with simple tap water?
Who is doing the filming? Who is verifying?
What benefit could Assad have from all the negative response and possible attack from the world?
Cui bono?
(https://i.redd.it/0tzhko09yvf01.gif)
You are being lied to.
The reliability of "news" coming out from the Middle East is in these videos made by the Palestinians for propaganda purposes.
News in the making, a small sample:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pallywood+youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2QoGtJwZH0&t=163s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uartJGBVHwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrbxbTulzNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCHzVE4Ymgw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xet98TTgBu0
And another thing.
Those heroic "White Helmets" rescuing war victims? They are fake too.
Syria and the « White Helmets »: Fake Humanitarian Entity Supported by US-NATO. A Politically Motivated Hoax? (https://www.mondialisation.ca/syria-and-the-white-helmets-fake-humanitarian-entity-supported-by-us-nato-a-politically-motivated-hoax/5552246)
Russian officials have accused Syria's civil defence volunteers known as the "White Helmets" of staging the recent chemical attack in the rebel-held town of Douma (https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2018/4/11/russia-says-syria-chemical-attack-staged-by-white-helmets)
Every day in every way, burn down the Reichstag and pin it on your political enemies! Yes, a billion raping Poles were looking sexily at our German women (who are on the wrong side of the border). The Wehrmacht must roll in and stop the potential miscegenation!
France and Britain ... we can't do anything to help Poland, let's Red Line it and hope that the Germans don't cross it ;-(
“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
 leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
 fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
 the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are 
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and 
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
 country.â€â€¨--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
 Trials after World War II.
The attack targeted chemical weaponry facilities that were also low in population. Relax. Don't get your panties in a bunch, yet, at least.
On a lighter note, here is yaboi, Alex having a hilarious reaction to it https://twitter.com/Millenniel_Matt/status/984991225211125760
Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2018, 09:08:40 AM
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.

Like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or communist dominoes in Vietnam. I certainly fell for that stuff up into my teens, and if it were well done, I'd probably have bought it much later in life. Iraq was the wake up call for me. I was stunned at how happily 67% of the voters bought obvious lies and naked propaganda and rushed to support Bush's idiotic plan. Someone had to pay so voters could have closure.
Although, Bush also used a clever a shot gun approach that covered an array of issues to please the palates of all the main ideological groups in the voting registry: "Our way of life was under attack," for the
PATRIOTS. "Freeing the Iraqi people," for the
COMPASSIONATE SOFTIES," and "Bring it on," for the knuckle dragging
REDNECKS. If some voters opposed the war for one of the lies, there was another lie that would convince them.
There was also the 9-11 catalyst working for the leaders. The voters were in a state of hysteria which interfered with their ability to process information. In fact, we had been attacked... by someone... Maybe they were from Saudi Arabia, or probably Afghanistan. But Saddam might have been behind the whole thing... Yes, it must have been Saddam... that was obvious.
It was like watching a tragic comedy taking place among my compatriots. The US had gone insane. OK, we were always insane, but this time it wasn't the familiar pleasant kind of insane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbffI52stc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WisDjl6g6rk
Quote from: Shiranu on April 14, 2018, 01:30:31 AM
So, apparently the missiles have started flying. Let's see how Russia responds.
I rather die in an explosion than hours or days of having my internal organs fail.
Out with a bang, not a whimper?
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 14, 2018, 01:16:03 PM
Out with a bang, not a whimper?
Eh, more like out with a bang instead of wailing misery for hours as my lungs ooze out of my mouth and my eyes are seared and boiled out of my head...
Baruch:
it is the leaders of a country that determine policyIn the case of the U.S. that policy would be scatter-brained
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 14, 2018, 12:04:03 AM
For the life of me I don't really see a hell of a lot of difference between killing someone will chemical weapons vs plain old high explosive bombs..
dead is dead, but bombs are quick and chemicals slow and painful
Of course we could ask why he used them instead of reg bombs. Maybe they had already been purchased and it aggravated Syria’s government to buy stuff they couldn’t use.... maybe Assad knew they would die painfully and it turned him on
PickledEggs:
The attack targeted chemical weaponry facilities that were also low in population. Relax. Don't get your panties in a bunch, yet, at least.It doesnt bother me in the least that a chemical warehouse got destroyed. It does aggravate me that he had zero Constitutional authority to launch the attack without the express permission of Congress. It does aggravate me to no end that members of Congress are so stupid when it comes to the Constitution they dont really care if he has authority or not. (using my Goofey voice “ garsh we gave George Bush authority to fight terorists in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001. uhhh, yup! I’m pretty sure that applies to a civil war in Syria in 2018, yupâ€)
Did Obama ask the Congress when Lybia was attacked? (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html)
Quote“When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected representatives in Congress,†wrote Representative Justin Amash, a freshman Republican of Michigan, on his Facebook page. “No United Nations resolution or Congressional act permits the president to circumvent the Constitution.â€
>mfw almost literally every single military engagement by an American president since Vietnam has been initiated without the approval of Congress.
At this point, it really doesn't matter what the law says. As fun as it is to say fuck Trump, or fuck Obama, or fuck Bush for doing it... it is de facto law at this point. Just like medical marijuana is federally illegal, but legal in several states. The law says one thing, but reality does another.
That said, I'm not sure what Obama has to do with this, but sure lets go with it.
the article says March 2011. I was driving OTR at that time and I missed a few things that happened in the news. I dont give Obama a pass but I dont know anything about what happened in Lybia March 2011.
plain and simple the Constitution gives the president authority to command the military. It gives Congress authority to decide when to use them.
A prememptive first strike against North Korea (without express permission of Congress) would not only be an impeachable offense, it would be an offense that requires impeachment. My own personal opinion is that it should also require prison time.
if it doesnt matter what the law says then why do us ordinary folks still get in trouble for violating it with our “creative†business practices?
Is there a double standard here? one for the gvment and the wealthy and another for the rest of us??? Naaah couldnt happen in the USðŸ¤"
The FISA court (which didn't exist earlier) gives the President to right to F anyone he/she wants without anyone's approval. But of course it is up to the alphabet agencies (and Alphabet aka Google) to tell the President what he/she thinks. Congress delegated their war making authority to the Executive long ago ... and per the Supremes, whatever Congress does, is legal by definition (not what Nixon said).
Basically the true Congressional view is ... saying to the President, consult with some of us (the one's directly involved with the military) before you do anything serious. We don't have to inform the other representatives ... because they don't have clearance. Then if you do well, we will praise you and claim partial credit for our wise policies ... but if you do badly, we will condemn you, and claim you ignored our wise policies.
Quote from: pr126 on April 13, 2018, 10:56:47 AM
Minor detail. The Russian military is also present there.
If they become collateral damage, it could be the start of something very unpleasant.
Unintended consequences?
Russia says Syrian 'chemical attack' was staged (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43747922)
In a very abstract sense, I wouldn't mind seeing who has better weapon tech. I bet the Russians don't.
But in the general sense, I don't want anyone to die in a test.
Here is my take on this Syrian episode so far. Take it or leave it.
The rebels/jihadist/ISIS/ call them what you will are losing the game with Assad.
They know that when chemical weapons are used Assad gets ass whipped by the Americans (who were arming and financing these dudes all along), and they are using the same tactic as last year, almost to the day and create the conditions for America, UK, and France to fight their wars for them.
Every little helps.
Actually, roumors are that the British did it. I don’t know, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201804121063460158-british-forces-syria-ghouta/
America and the EU are always chomping at the bits to give Assad a good slap.
Cui bono? The rebels of course, by destroying Assad's reputation (again) and weakening his position.
But we have evidence that he did it! Really? Is it so difficult to manufacture evidence?
Who do you believe? Assad or the others?
Just my two cents.
Quote from: pr126 on April 15, 2018, 07:19:04 AM
Here is my take on this Syrian episode so far. Take it or leave it.
The rebels/jihadist/ISIS/ call them what you will are losing the game with Assad.
They know that when chemical weapons are used Assad gets ass whipped by the Americans (who were arming and financing these dudes all along), and they are using the same tactic as last year, almost to the day and create the conditions for America, UK, and France to fight their wars for them.
Every little helps.
Actually, roumors are that the British did it. I don’t know, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201804121063460158-british-forces-syria-ghouta/
America and the EU are always chomping at the bits to give Assad a good slap.
Cui bono? The rebels of course, by destroying Assad's reputation (again) and weakening his position.
But we have evidence that he did it! Really? Is it so difficult to manufacture evidence?
Who do you believe? Assad or the others?
Just my two cents.
I don't place much credibility in either the Assad or the Rebel argument. I'd like to believe my government, but I've learned the hard way over the years how duplicitous my government is. I can't believe anything they say anymore, especially when it comes in the form of evidence that just happens to justify the mindset of my leaders. We had evidence of WMD in Iraq, for example. And Trump doesn't even act like he knows what's going on or cares one way or the other. He acts like his military advisors briefed him of the attack a couple of days ago, just to keep him in the loop.
Maybe the rebels did it. It's not out of the question. They can blame it on Assad and gain worldwide support, even though they're just as big a dicks as Assad himself, possibly bigger. Maybe Assad did it to warn pockets of rebel support what he will do to them, and then say the rebels did it. Neither of those two parties can be trusted either.
I think for humans in the current global environment, the default psychological setting is to choose who the guilty party is. I don't think the default setting is not to know.
I have no objections when the Arabs/Muslims killing one another. That’s what they do best.
The proper thing to do is stand back and watch.
Don’t interfere. Let them get on with it. As long as they stay in their own sand pits.
The depth of vendetta feeling is hard for us to imagine. Once you kill someone's cousin, 3 times removed ... you will never be able to walk in public again, without fear. This is the problem for Assad ... he killed some folks, and their relations will never forget, never forgive. He is an ophthalmologist, and originally practiced in military medicine. He literally and ironically, didn't see what the consequences of his initial reaction to the Arab Spring would be. His advisors were morons ... that is what you get when you inherit your daddy's business, and daddy was a violent dictator. No truth speaking to power there.
Quote from: pr126 on April 15, 2018, 08:38:00 AM
I have no objections when the Arabs/Muslims killing one another. That’s what they do best.
The proper thing to do is stand back and watch.
Don’t interfere. Let them get on with it. As long as they stay in their own sand pits.
If they kept it to themselves, the world would reasonably offended and feel compelled to act to help the victims.
But it could also spread to include more innocent victims. So here is a suggestion: Round up some thousand of the fanatics on both sides, put them on some large island dedicated to the purpose, give them equal weapons, and let them fight it out where they can't hurt innocent people, and film the outcome with drones.
I don't care whether it turns out to be a real reality show or a scientific study, but getting rid of most of them wouldn't be too harmful.
And yes, I am ignoring "justifications".
So Trump's attack hit absolutely nothing. Again. The Syrian government was warned ahead of time, and they were able to move all their stuff and people out of the way. That's the second time that's happened. Just another pointless display of power to make his supporters hard for him.
Quote from: SGOS on April 15, 2018, 08:21:11 AM
I think for humans in the current global environment, the default psychological setting is to choose who the guilty party is. I don't think the default setting is not to know.
Honestly, ignorance is my default setting. I can't comment on Syria because I don't have enough unbiased information on the current situation and my historical knowledge of Syria is elementary at best. In order to form an opinion on such a complex situation I would need to do research and I'm just not interested enough to invest that kind of time. Also my opinion on Syria is irrelevant to anything. My inability to express an opinion without sufficient information is something that my husband finds very annoying because he seems to have an instant opinion on everything.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 19, 2018, 12:01:04 PM
So Trump's attack hit absolutely nothing. Again. The Syrian government was warned ahead of time, and they were able to move all their stuff and people out of the way. That's the second time that's happened. Just another pointless display of power to make his supporters hard for him.
Probably providing a distraction for the real thing, Israel attacking Syrian targets (Iran/Hezbullah).
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 19, 2018, 12:01:04 PM
So Trump's attack hit absolutely nothing. Again. The Syrian government was warned ahead of time, and they were able to move all their stuff and people out of the way. That's the second time that's happened. Just another pointless display of power to make his supporters hard for him.
Trump couldn't hit a barn wall with a dart if he was inside the barn. He never actually knows what the target IS! Everything he faces is outside his comprehension and mental reach. I can hardly wait for the mid-term elections...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 01:03:58 AM
Trump couldn't hit a barn wall with a dart if he was inside the barn. He never actually knows what the target IS! Everything he faces is outside his comprehension and mental reach. I can hardly wait for the mid-term elections...
I don't think that it's that he can't hit anything so much as he doesn't want to. While he is a raging egomaniac, there are a few countries he doesn't want to piss off who have stakes in Middle-Eastern conflicts. Namely one that starts with an R and ends with an Ussia. How was it absolutely everything was moved out of the way in time for the missile strikes? They were warned ahead of time. It's nothing but a show. Trump never intended to do any actual damage.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 24, 2018, 02:58:03 AM
I don't think that it's that he can't hit anything so much as he doesn't want to. While he is a raging egomaniac, there are a few countries he doesn't want to piss off who have stakes in Middle-Eastern conflicts. Namely one that starts with an R and ends with an Ussia. How was it absolutely everything was moved out of the way in time for the missile strikes? They were warned ahead of time. It's nothing but a show. Trump never intended to do any actual damage.
As one republican talking head said "it was the least he could do". And indeed it WAS "the least" he could do. He warned every one to get "their good stuff" out of the way, the Russians were warned a symbolic bombing was coming, and it was all so unthreatening that no actual harm was caused. It was utterly without serious damage. We spent a lot of money on fancy missiles for no real effect.
What would have made some damage was one surprise missile landing in the middle of the Syrian airforce center in the dead of night. Just to remind everyone that we could...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 01:03:58 AM
Trump couldn't hit a barn wall with a dart if he was inside the barn. He never actually knows what the target IS! Everything he faces is outside his comprehension and mental reach. I can hardly wait for the mid-term elections...
Yea, will be 1917 all over again, or is that 1788?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 03:15:52 AM
As one republican talking head said "it was the least he could do". And indeed it WAS "the least" he could do. He warned every one to get "their good stuff" out of the way, the Russians were warned a symbolic bombing was coming, and it was all so unthreatening that no actual harm was caused. It was utterly without serious damage. We spent a lot of money on fancy missiles for no real effect.
What would have made some damage was one surprise missile landing in the middle of the Syrian airforce center in the dead of night. Just to remind everyone that we could...
Don't pay attention to what the US hand is doing, it is what the Israeli hand is doing, that you are not watching ...
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 24, 2018, 02:58:03 AM
I don't think that it's that he can't hit anything so much as he doesn't want to. While he is a raging egomaniac, there are a few countries he doesn't want to piss off who have stakes in Middle-Eastern conflicts. Namely one that starts with an R and ends with an Ussia. How was it absolutely everything was moved out of the way in time for the missile strikes? They were warned ahead of time. It's nothing but a show. Trump never intended to do any actual damage.
Blackleaf, I think you assign more deliberate action to Trump than he can give. His brain is set on "transmit", and the "receive" button is broken...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 03:15:52 AM
We spent a lot of money on fancy missiles for no real effect.
What - $100 million bucks or so, just for a gesture!? Wasn't Chump's money, so what does he care?
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 24, 2018, 01:20:47 PM
What - $100 million bucks or so, just for a gesture!? Wasn't Chump's money, so what does he care?
with the government, it is never about the expense. They can always tax you some more.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 24, 2018, 01:20:47 PM
What - $100 million bucks or so, just for a gesture!? Wasn't Chump's money, so what does he care?
Yeah, if it isn't HIS money (and not much of it is) why should he care? I mean he RAN for president just to make money from it, but never expected to win. UNLESS he did and then there was money to be made from THAT!
People around him are reported to relate that he was both shocked and rather dismayed at winning. He loves the limelight, but 24/7 is not what he is used to.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 04:53:36 PM
Yeah, if it isn't HIS money (and not much of it is) why should he care? I mean he RAN for president just to make money from it, but never expected to win. UNLESS he did and then there was money to be made from THAT!
People around him are reported to relate that he was both shocked and rather dismayed at winning. He loves the limelight, but 24/7 is not what he is used to.
Those who hate money, are free to give everything they own and all their income to the DNC. But that isn't what people want, they want their neighbor to do that, so they don't have to. This is why the corruption of the people, knows no bounds.