Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, chrisg said:

Someone must at least try, surely?

 

I think everybody knows the lunatics are running the dumpster fire now... Best not to get involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luv to know who you think is not a lunatic ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

The lunatics have been in charge of the asylum for quite a spell ev.

 

My only hope is that continuity of government, the underlying inertia of public service will see us through the crisis called Trump.

 

So far it does not seem too bad, a deal of his ludicrous excesses have been blunted or his attention has been diverted.

 

Doesn't take much, he's a certifiable moron after all.

 

He probably picked a very bad target in messing around with the US Navy and their teething troubles with electromagnetic catapults to replace the archaic steam ones. He doesn't get it, evolution is beyond him but messing with crusty Admirals is one very, very bad idea.

 

At the moment all we can do is ride out his lunacies.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, chrisg said:

So far it does not seem too bad, a deal of his ludicrous excesses have been blunted or his attention has been diverted.

Doesn't take much, he's a certifiable moron after all.

Unlike every othe person that has or could have that job, I guess.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The past is irrelevant Nich, can't be changed, the future is not to be honest particularly bright given Biden, a nice enough guy, but hardly startling, is well and truly leading the polls.

 

It's a sad situation that has him looking so good, frankly he's old, he's tried many times and only ever made it to VP under Obama and that seems to be about all he can put up as an argument to elect him.

 

It may get him the office but it doesn't provide much promise of improvement.

 

The U.S. needs something much better, new ideas, radical change not old news.

 

O'Rourke  has promise but it would be a gamble however perhaps it really is time to just roll the dice.

 

One thing is certain, the role has simply become to large for one person but just how to address that is a nettle the populace does not want to grasp, they need their demi-gods, and their scapegoats.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was always just a matter of time...

 

Trump really has screwed the pooch with Iran.

 

He denigrated the accord that Obama had brokered with them, not ideal but it kept them away from pursing a nuclear option whilst something else, like maybe a new Iranian revolution could take hold and that has set the Mullahs on the war path.

 

He expected to deal with them like it was just another business deal, which he is contrary to belief not particularly adept at. It's not- when dealing with religious fanatics the only thing to expect is the irrational.

 

As a result after stewing for a time the Iranians are now it seems attacking tankers in the Gulf, stirring things up with Saudi, a country they despise and basically daring him to respond.

 

So what is the response thus far ?

 

There's a carrier group in the gulf - there's been a carrier group in the gulf for years, nothing new.

 

1000 more troops are being sent to the region.

 

That's about it....

 

If things turn ugly that is just Benghazi writ large.

 

What he SHOULD be doing but I doubt he will because he is a narcissist who can never admit he is wrong is to back off on the deal and admit it is acceptable for now, appease the Mullahs, give them a little back now so there is a breathing space to take stock and mend fences.

 

Which would not be necessary if he had not fucked it up in the first place.

 

America has to accept, as hard as it may be, that other people may choose to live their own lives and as long as they do not seek to enforce them upon you it is not in your interest to force your ways upon them.

 

I do not like the Muslim faith one iota, I believe it to be false, built upon irrational premises,  primarily anti-Semitic and anti-feminist, designed to keep nutcases in control.

 

That is irrelevant, the people have to have the right to self determination, given time I believe they will but ham-fisted intervention by America does not help, it hinders.

 

The lesson of Iraq ought to suffice, but apparently it does not.

 

Afghanistan could be seen as even more stark but dealing with those cluster-fucks is a fools errand, leave them to kill each other, they seem to enjoy it.

 

Prepare for another dragged out Middle East war, bar a miracle it is coming...

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of odd, he pretty much dismissed it saying he thought some General had a bad day.

 

Probable reality, the USN was caught with their hand in the cookie jar. If the published figures for the missile reported to have been used and the altitude the Global Hawk was at, 70.000 feet, the slant range of the missile is inadequate to have downed the drone outside of Iranian air space.

 

Which raises a different argument about open skies policies but I do sort of wonder why they wanted to use a drone anyway, they have satellites in orbit that get very close to the same resolution these days.

 

Navy playing with their relatively new toys probably.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA intentionally flew it into Iran to get shot down, they wanted Iran to be provoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duuno,

 

I'd have thought Trump would be jumping up and down more about it if that were the case.

 

Then again he's becoming more and more erratic so who can say ?

 

Those drones are not cheap either, over 20Mil, I'd have thought if they wanted to provoke they would have just used an older Reaper or Predator. Those by the by can go aggressive with Hellfires Global Hawk so far as I know is a purely recon platform.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they underestimated the capabilities of the Iran's defense systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😉

 

That would not be hard 🙂

 

There is no information on whether they salvo ed to bring the Hawk down but the  chances of a hit by a single missile would not be great.

 

By the by the U.S may have inadvertently let a small cat out of the bag if the Hawk was at 70.000 as reported, the last claim was for a maximum ceiling of 60,000 but with the abysmal levels of journalism these days again, who knows ?

 

In any protracted conflict between Iran and the U.S. the U.S is going to pretty much blink and it's over, provided they do not go stupid and want to put boots on the ground.

 

Another Afghanistan or Iraq they most definitely do not need asymmetric war against an enemy that does not want you there is a fool's errand.

 

But in Iran they may not have that problem, there is an undercurrent of revolt in Iran, give them a chance and they will overthrow the Mullahs .In general, and it is a broad brush, the Mullahs are not liked by the undercurrent of the decidedly once liberated population of Iran.

 

It needs to be remembered that Iran is not an Arab nation, they are PERSIANS and they will insist upon reminding you of that.

 

It may be subtle but in some ways it is not, particularly when it comes to religion.

 

The mistake that the long dead Shah made was trying to subvert the entire population - doesn't work, especially with Muslim fanatics, just gets their backs up but Iran is ripe for change, in, in my opinion, a very healthy manner if it is played correctly. The return of SAVAK is definitely not needed.

 

There are some large obstacles to overcome, not least Russia, that does not give a fuck about religious beliefs but does not want the U.S. back in its backyard.

 

That can be overcome, if Langley get its thump out of its ass, it wont happen from the White House, could be helped by long associations at Foggy Bottom.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do have to have grudging respect for him on this occasion although he really did not need to admit to it at all.

 

Specifically he said that weighing an estimated 150 lives against the loss of an unmanned drone did not add up.

 

The Pentagon would be steaming about that but it does make me wonder what the hell kind of an attack they were proposing. To have the potential for that kind of kia count they would have to have been considering invasion and that is just plain stupid.

 

The alternative of course is that the Pentagon itself is toying with him to test his mettle, that would not surprise me much at all.

 

A sensible retort for the loss of the drone would have  been an El Dorado Canyon type of raid where only two lives were lost.

 

There is another, completely different way of looking at it that being the estimate given to him was of potential collateral damage in which case again I have to respect his decision but he could have made himself much clearer.

 

The reality is that his motives, intentions and even thoughts have been so damned confused for so long that all he sows is confusion.

 

That may read like very begrudging respect but it isn't really. I give him credit for taking his finger off the trigger now let's see if he can completely defuse the situation.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well that John Bolton almost got what he wanted! But Trump maybe worked out he didn't want to be one to start an actual war with Iran

Edited by Jeruselem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolton is a war mongering cunt, no two ways about it.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jeruselem said:

John Bolton

 

The mandarine candidate sure knows how to pick em. 

 

fuckheads-fuckheads-everywhere.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit curious to know which history books AOC has been reading to use the description " concentration camps ", and then think she got it right :\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There isn't an exact analogy I agree, it depends upon what you regard as a "concentration camp."

 

Is it the forced detainment of specific nationals for the duration, as happened with Japanese in WWII America, the enslavement and extermination of the German camps, or perhaps the obscenity that Australia practices on places such as Manus and Nauru or is it in fact all of them ?

 

As an emotive grab it most certainly is all of them but the phrase will typically have connotations of the death camps most closely associated with it..

 

Making that assumption she most definitely quite deliberately used the wording for shock value and succeeded in establishing a dialogue.

 

Refugee camps, which of course is what she is really referring to are ugly extremely unpleasant places even when established with the best of intentions - to give food and shelter to those fleeing any of a multitude of events.

 

I have the dark suspicion knowing the way in which Southern American authorities can and do behave when given the opportunity to be placed in control of others that she knew exactly what she wanted to say. I very much doubt those being detained on the border are being in the least bit well treated.

 

The refugee crisis is a global issue not confined just to the Mexican border but it has a nasty way of bringing out the worst in people, and no, I don't have an answer for it. The last time any real answer appeared the Jews went off and established a new nation, which has lead to approaching a century of strife and there is no where really left on this over crowded planet to repeat that experiment even if anyone wanted to.

 

Cheers

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, chrisg said:

As an emotive grab it most certainly is all of them but the phrase will typically have connotations of the death camps most closely associated with it..

 

Making that assumption she most definitely quite deliberately used the wording for shock value and succeeded in establishing a dialogue.

 

Given that she opened her remark by saying that she was specifically NOT referring to "death camps", I think that's a stretch.  Also given that Trump administration lawyers argued in court that the "detainees" did not need such "luxury items" as toothbrushes and soap, and that kids are *still* being forcibly separated from their families (though no longer routinely), I'd reckon it's pretty obvious that these places are an unhealthy step beyond simple refugee camps.

 

Yeah, MSNBC - I know.  But it's the woman being interviewed that matters: Andrea Pitzer.

 

Edited by Cybes
Added cllip.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

It's true Cybes, she did preface her remarks in that matter. But, she's a very astute orator in my view, I'd suggest she expected full well that the sound bite that would persist would be "concentration camp," and so it is.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisg said:

Hmm,

 

It's true Cybes, she did preface her remarks in that matter. But, she's a very astute orator in my view, I'd suggest she expected full well that the sound bite that would persist would be "concentration camp," and so it is.

 

Cheers

 

George Takei agrees with her, he did get locked up in two by US during WW2

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/george-takei-aoc-concentration-camps-trnd/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if George was made to strip and walk into a shower block... I guess if he did, he was fortunate to leave it alive.

 

As hard as it was for George and his family to be interned in the States, it still does not compare with the concentration camps referred to by AOC. That is just the simple fact of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's just stating the USA is doing what it did to potential ("illegal") immigrants what it did to it's own citizens during WW2, so nothing has actually changed in 50 years. The government will and can lock you up in camp when it wants to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×