Triumph is going to destroy the 'BUSA :(

[Fist 666]

Add resurgence of Isis to cheeto jesus' legacy. 

 

Loss of mattis is terrifying to me.

[Hua Guofang]

Same mistake Obama made pulling out of Iraq early. 

 

Shouldn't be there in the first place, but

once you’re there, do it right. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Hua Guofang

[Mercer]

Do you see a feasible end to active military intervention in the region, or do you assume it's absolutely necessary indefinitely? I mean, personally I consider trump a xenophobic, sociopathic moron. That doesn't mean I disapprove of every move he makes by default. If the only route to stability in Iraq, or Syria is U.S. involvement, fuck em. All the more incentive for them to get their shit together.

 

I'd prefer we offer our local allies support, and go in and out as needed to respond to (direct) threads to our security, as opposed to long term deployments. That's just me, I'll always choose to keep our troops out of harms way unless there's a direct threat to our national security.

[Mercer]

To add a little humor to the subject:

 

[Brink]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

Do you see a feasible end to active military intervention in the region, or do you assume it's absolutely necessary indefinitely? I mean, personally I consider trump a xenophobic, sociopathic moron. That doesn't mean I disapprove of every move he makes by default. If the only route to stability in Iraq, or Syria is U.S. involvement, fuck em. All the more incentive for them to get their shit together.

 

I'd prefer we offer our local allies support, and go in and out as needed to respond to (direct) threads to our security, as opposed to long term deployments. That's just me, I'll always choose to keep our troops out of harms way unless there's a direct threat to our national security.

Well, considering how hard the US fucked those regions to begin with, I don't see a time where we can be completely removed while simultaneously protecting our interests. Stability in that region would most likely result from a dictator like Ghaddafi; however, that would not be a "democratic" region anymore, which would not allow the US to continue to rape the land of fossil fuels.

 

 

[Mercer]

Granted the power vacuums created by the loss of Saddam was devastating, but the only people capable of actually fixing the problem we've created unfortunately aren't Americans, or other foreign coalition members.

 

This concept applies to anyone who's ever been wronged by another, it's your responsibility to either recover and thrive, or not. Because of it's temporary nature, our presence in that region is destabilizing in the big picture, only delaying a more permanent, stable, and and sustainable hierarchy, and political organization from forming.

 

It's not our right to choose what that organization looks like, or if it's in line with our interests. Our only responsibility is, and always has been to defend ourselves should a direct threat arise. The fact that we fucked up and defended ourselves from a non-threat, that in retrospect actually favored our interests is irrelevant to what's required to improve the regional stability in the aftermath.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Mercer

[Hua Guofang]

On 12/23/2018 at 1:56 AM, Mercer said:

Do you see a feasible end to active military intervention in the region, or do you assume it's absolutely necessary indefinitely? I mean, personally I consider trump a xenophobic, sociopathic moron. That doesn't mean I disapprove of every move he makes by default. If the only route to stability in Iraq, or Syria is U.S. involvement, fuck em. All the more incentive for them to get their shit together.

 

I'd prefer we offer our local allies support, and go in and out as needed to respond to (direct) threads to our security, as opposed to long term deployments. That's just me, I'll always choose to keep our troops out of harms way unless there's a direct threat to our national security.

There's an obvious difference between intervention and supporting local allies but both often mean having US deployed to other regions, based on the virtue of America's power alone. Keep in mind that there are only about 2000 US troops deployed specifically for the Syria gig, but there are a lot more contractors and govt employees (State, DoJ, CIA, Defence, etc) that rely on the troops being there. If and when the troops go, they will all have to go, so that means a lot of work that assists in stabilising the region, providing humanitarian relief for civilians, etc. etc. will all also come to an end.

 

There has to be a clear eyed approach to what the US troops are doing there as well. There's not only the combat and security roles they are participating in but they are also a trip wire and a backbone. The trip wire is where you have a small amount of troops deployed somewhere to deter other major actors from making strategic moves. The 2000 troops wouldn't be able to stop Iran from rolling over the country or Russian airborne divisions taking over large swathes of territory. But should either of those, or any other major actor, kill/capture those troops, the might of the US military would ramp up and charge a very high cost. That's the trip wire.

 

The backbone is what other countries like the UK, France, Australia, Canada, etc grow when they know the US is committed. Without the knowledge that the national might of the US is involved, there would be no way those other powers could remain in place, provide the logistics required for such a significant action or promise an overwhelming response should another major actor attempt to take the initiative.

 

So with that as the context, it's difficult to lend support to local and regional allies without committing skin to the game. Unless you throw in as well, it's too easy for you to pull away and no one will be able to commit without trusting you're in it for the long haul. Hence, why so many people were so pissed that Trump made the call out of nowhere (actually, he made the call in consultation with a foreign leader, not even his own people, FFS!). The US had committed and pressured its friends an allies (such as Australia, the UK, etc.) to put in, which they did. Then Trump just pulls stumps without any consultation at all. With that kind of behaviour, you won't HAVE any allies!

 

Lastly, if you wait until there is a direct threat to your national security before you get involved, you're already in the shit. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean you have to get involved in everyone's shitfights (or start your own like Iraq 2003). But simply manning the walls and putting all of your bets on passive defensive is a one shot strategy. Much better to shape the world to your liking (and you don't have to be an arsehole in the way you do it, a la Dick Chenney, Nixon, LBJ, Stalin, Xi Jinping, etc. the US has done an unmeasurable amount of good in the world since WWII, most people just aren't aware of it), and be in a position to act should action be called for.

[Hua Guofang]

On 12/23/2018 at 4:14 AM, Brink said:

Well, considering how hard the US fucked those regions to begin with, I don't see a time where we can be completely removed while simultaneously protecting our interests. Stability in that region would most likely result from a dictator like Ghaddafi; however, that would not be a "democratic" region anymore, which would not allow the US to continue to rape the land of fossil fuels.

 

 

 

On 12/23/2018 at 7:18 AM, Mercer said:

Granted the power vacuums created by the loss of Saddam was devastating, but the only people capable of actually fixing the problem we've created unfortunately aren't Americans, or other foreign coalition members.

 

This concept applies to anyone who's ever been wronged by another, it's your responsibility to either recover and thrive, or not. Because of it's temporary nature, our presence in that region is destabilizing in the big picture, only delaying a more permanent, stable, and and sustainable hierarchy, and political organization from forming.

 

It's not our right to choose what that organization looks like, or if it's in line with our interests. Our only responsibility is, and always has been to defend ourselves should a direct threat arise. The fact that we fucked up and defended ourselves from a non-threat, that in retrospect actually favored our interests is irrelevant to what's required to improve the regional stability in the aftermath.

Don't mean to come across as patronising but there are huge problems with the above posts.

 

1 - The US is not the architect of the instability of the M/E. Sure, it's done a lot that hasn't helped, but look at history, the place was a crucible of cultures and conflict thousands of years before white man ever even stepped foot in North America!! We all know the story of Lawrence of Arabia, Sykes Picot, the Balfour agreement, etc. etc. The Europeans have been in there being pricks well before the US was able to. And lastly, try not to be too patronising towards the locals as well. You think they're innocent parties in their situation? As I said, the place was a shitfight already when the Hittites were running the show. Things were made worse in 2003, without a doubt. But it's not like it was all kebabs and cardamon tea before that.

 

2 - Yes, the energy in the region has been a major reason for foreign presence there previously. However, the significance of energy to the US has been reducing a shitload over the recent decades. The US is one of the largest energy producers in the world and has only grown in significance with the new extraction tech and renewable tech that's come on line over the last 20+ years. Energy is only an element of what makes the M/E important. I would suggest that security issues are more important to the US these days than energy (not that it doesn't play a part, just a part that is shrinking in comparison to other reasons).

 

3 - "recover and thrive or not" - And this gets to the security element I was mentioning above. If the place goes to shit, it's not as if it all ends there. The most current lesson is Afghanistan; the place went to shit, the US didn't care and then some arseholes were able to use it as a base to damage US interests (then you've also got the lover-level stuff, such as drug production, arms/people smuggling, organised crime and the shit that inevitably happens in the badlands). Given how interconnected the world is today, when you have a failed state, the instability radiates around the world - think of Somalia and pirates, Honduras and gangs/refugees, etc).

 

4 - The US presence in the region is not troops deployed in Syria, Iraq, Libya, wherever. It's the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain. This deployment, along with the 7th fleet in Japan, etc. etc. contribute MASSIVELY to regional stability. In East Asia, there are only 3 countries that want the US out: China, Russia and DPRK. Every other country in the region wants the US to stay. The same with the 5th Fleet, It's really only Iran that wants them out of there. The rest of the countries would end up ripped up by war between Iran, KSA, Turkey and Egypt (with Russia, China, France, the UK, Sudan, Italy, etc. also having to get involved due to interests and proximity) if the US was to walk out. That's not to say that stability wouldn't eventually emerge, but think of the decades of war, insurgencies, instability and bullshit the world would have to deal with in the meantime.

[+plus+]

great answer Hua 

[Mercer]

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

Don't mean to come across as patronising but there are huge problems with the above posts.

Not at all, I'd prefer to debate and learn here. 

 

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

1 - The US is not the architect of the instability of the M/E. Sure, it's done a lot that hasn't helped, but look at history, the place was a crucible of cultures and conflict thousands of years before white man ever even stepped foot in North America!! We all know the story of Lawrence of Arabia, Sykes Picot, the Balfour agreement, etc. etc. The Europeans have been in there being pricks well before the US was able to. And lastly, try not to be too patronising towards the locals as well. You think they're innocent parties in their situation? As I said, the place was a shitfight already when the Hittites were running the show. Things were made worse in 2003, without a doubt. But it's not like it was all kebabs and cardamon tea before that.

The US is responsible for at least a small potion of the current instability in Syria & Iraq, this isn't a black/white with no gray area type of situation.  Agreed, there's always been tension in the region since the fall of the Ottomans. But to say that the recent removal of Saddam, the guy who killed terrorists, the guy who had no ISIS problem, to think that didn't have a destabilizing effect. Really?

 

With that said, my point here was that we should not fix it for them with our indefinite presence, regardless of our own interests in that region.  Furthermore, it's not only a waste of resources, but it's just immoral to impose our will in that area through coercive means. That's not to say I'm a passivist, and wouldn't destroy actual threats. I just think national defense means just that, national DEFENSE. Establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq, or Syria may actually work to stabilize that region, but that isn't the point. My point is we have neither the right to, nor the resources of human lives, and limbs to waste on this cause, however noble it may seem in the short term.

 

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

2 - Yes, the energy in the region has been a major reason for foreign presence there previously. However, the significance of energy to the US has been reducing a shitload over the recent decades. The US is one of the largest energy producers in the world and has only grown in significance with the new extraction tech and renewable tech that's come on line over the last 20+ years. Energy is only an element of what makes the M/E important. I would suggest that security issues are more important to the US these days than energy (not that it doesn't play a part, just a part that is shrinking in comparison to other reasons).

I never assumed the energy interests in that region truly reflected the  interests of American taxpayers at all. It benefits only a small portion of politically connected in the position to profit like oil companies etc, but as a whole it's not making gas any cheaper at the pumps for the vast majority of the people funding this disaster.

 

You're right, with the recent boom in shale/fracking etc. we've become much less dependent on their energy resources. With that said, the only other major interest in that region are the continued establishment of a Jewish ethnostate, again, not helpful to most of the American taxpayers either. As for the remaining legitimate business interests we do have in that region, or any other region for that matter, shouldn't require use of force as a pre-emptive measure period. If the risk is too high for our businesses, they don't need the taxpayers to subsidize their security costs needed to operate there.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

3 - "recover and thrive or not" - And this gets to the security element I was mentioning above. If the place goes to shit, it's not as if it all ends there. The most current lesson is Afghanistan; the place went to shit, the US didn't care and then some arseholes were able to use it as a base to damage US interests (then you've also got the lover-level stuff, such as drug production, arms/people smuggling, organised crime and the shit that inevitably happens in the badlands). Given how interconnected the world is today, when you have a failed state, the instability radiates around the world - think of Somalia and pirates, Honduras and gangs/refugees, etc).

So if we're attacked, or have intelligence showing we will be attacked we deal with it. It's almost as if you're suggesting we should have occupied right after the Soviets left Afganistan as a mess? I look at it like this,  I can't continually punch someone in the face forever, after they punched me once, or just threatened to once, that would be wrong and destructive.

 

Use of force shouldn't be based whim, and needs to follow some sort of logical consistency. There's nothing separating this situation, from thinking we should occupy any and all other potential threats. The fact that we've been getting away with it isn't good enough for me. If we're following some sort of rule of law, and not following a "might makes right" or "eye for an eye till we're all blind" philosophy we need to be measured, and respond directly to direct threats, and respond indirectly to indirect threats. It's a waste of resources, and lives to occupy regions that may be potential threats in a never ending series of war crimes, and violations of national sovereignty. 

 

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

4 - The US presence in the region is not troops deployed in Syria, Iraq, Libya, wherever. It's the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain. This deployment, along with the 7th fleet in Japan, etc. etc. contribute MASSIVELY to regional stability. In East Asia, there are only 3 countries that want the US out: China, Russia and DPRK. Every other country in the region wants the US to stay. The same with the 5th Fleet, It's really only Iran that wants them out of there. The rest of the countries would end up ripped up by war between Iran, KSA, Turkey and Egypt (with Russia, China, France, the UK, Sudan, Italy, etc. also having to get involved due to interests and proximity) if the US was to walk out. That's not to say that stability wouldn't eventually emerge, but think of the decades of war, insurgencies, instability and bullshit the world would have to deal with in the meantime.

Yes, this is a different subject entirely, and if I get more time later I'll respond in depth. My basic stance on this is "bang for the buck", if we're generating more tax dollars than it costs, by way of international trade with Japan, Korea etc. it's an excellent investment to have a presence. In the case of the South China sea, there's no doubt it's worth it. When it comes to troops on the ground in Iraq, Syria, Afganistan, I have very serious doubts financially, and no method of calculating the blood lost into the equation.

[+plus+]

another nugget just dropped about Manafort's contact with Russian connections in the last hour.

Fucking dumbass had unsecured Adobe documents being him down LOL fuck tard 

[Hua Guofang]

@Mercer

 

Agreed, the 2003 invasion was a disaster and caused a massive shitfight, thought I was pretty clear in saying that in my posts. No disagreement there and I'd also add the installation of Reza Pahlavi, blank cheques to Israel/KSA, etc. etc. etc. My response in that paragraph was more directed to @Brinkclaim that the US fucked the region to start with. It didn't, the region has been messy since day dot. I don't think the US ever wanted a permanent presence in Iraq/Syria. In regards to this current deployment, they don't want an organisation like ISIS gaining strength in any way. They also want Assad out but are doing very little on that front. At this point, they don't want organisations committed to the destruction of the USA to grow in strength, that being the primary aim of the deployment. The secondary aim is to block Iran and Russia from making big strategic gains.

 

Regards 2003, that was a text book case of imposing your will on another people, no doubt about that. And if that invasion hadn't have taken place, there is a very high chance that ISIS/AQ would never have risen to prominence anything like they did over the last 10 years. That invasion was badly conceived, badly conducted and badly instituted. Everything around it was a disaster. I've worked with numerous people directly responsible for the big calls of the intelligence and decision making and not one of them is proud of it. I have some of that  materialon record and am happy to direct you to it if you want to discuss via direct message.

 

The point about energy was also more a response to Brink.

 

I think the way you characterise Post-Soviet Afghanistan and security deployments in general as lacking a little in the nuances of operational and tactical realities. And it shouldn't be expected that everyone should be full boot on that kind of stuff. I'm an ex-soldier that studied and moved into the policy/strategy world after discharging, which is why I claim to have an understanding of this kind of stuff.

 

The US occupied Afghanistan post-2001 and Iraq post-2003. However, the occupation of Iraq stopped when no SOFA could be negotiated in 2010 and the subsequent complete withdrawal in 2011. The current deployment was at the REQUEST of the IRaqi govt that lost control of a major part of its territory, it's not an occupation at all (or even reminiscent of it, to be honest). The work in Syria is very small and focused on combat operations and intelligence collecting on terror groups (yes, there were operations previously supporting forces opposing Assad and intel ops continue regards Iran and Russia). The US is not attacking the Syrian state - truth be told, Assad is likely to be very happy the US did what they did as with the US focusing on ISIS/AQ, Assad was able to commit greater resources against fighting the other groups looking to overthrow him. That's a pretty simplistic way to put things, but just trying to put into perspective what the US deployment is (not an occupation) and why it's there (at request of one govt and COIN ops against Islamist orgs).

 

There's also a very wide gulf between occupation of a country - using post-Soviet Afghanistan as your example - and supporting a weak govt or assisting in building the capacity of a failed state. Take a look at the UN lead deployment to Somalia when it collapsed (ok, things went to shit after Clinton pulled the troops/blackhawk down). There is a lot that the US and partnering states can do in these situations, short of occupying a whole country. It can be anything from simply providing diplomatic support, to capital, to expertise, to intelligence and logistics, to combat support, to training, etc. etc. Many of these things require troop deployments but none of it is akin to punching a nation in the face. The current deployment in Afghanistan is in support of the current Afghani govt - without the US forces there that country would no doubt collapse again and come under the Taliban - the same people that supported bin Laden and harbored him post-9/11.

 

Is it worth the US keeping troops in Afghanistan to stop it collapsing? Well, that becomes a discussion about risk, cost/benefit, etc. One thing is for sure, the way Trump discussed the situation has no relationship to reality, in the slightest.

 

Regards the strategic deployments like that in Japan, Bahrain, Europe, etc. There are a lot of variables in that to consider - arguably, the most important one is what would happen if the US left. The standard response to that is a) the US would find it very hard to retain allies and partners around the world after throwing Japan, ROK, Taiwan, Australia, KSA, Israel, Germany, etc. under the bus, because, b) China would be empowered to dominate East Asia, Iran would be empowered to dominate the M/E and Russia would be encouraged to destabilise Europe. None of these outcomes, in and of themselves, are in the interests of the US.

 

Of course, then we have the discussion what the US national interests are. And if we're going to discuss that, I need to go get some beer.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Hua Guofang]

Sorry, forgot to add the following paragraph after I talked about the occupation of Iraq:

 

The occupation of Afghanistan has been in draw down since the Obama administration. There are only about 10,000 troops there now (might have to check that number) and they are doing COIN ops against the Taliban and ISIS, which are support operations for the Afghani govt. They are also still training and building capacity for the Afghani national military and police. It hasn't been an occupation for a long time and a very significant element of the population would prefer the US to remain in the country.

[Mercer]

I agree with the more on topic post about Trump appearing to stumble into this major military/foreign policy shift. Personally I suspect he's got more nefarious intent, and with recent statements like "Russia was justified in invading Afganistan" and other propaganda straight from Putin's playbook I have grown even more suspicious recently.

 

While he's not doing this for the "right" reasons in my book, I still can't automatically "orange man bad" this move because ultimately this is exactly what I wanted in the first place. This is EEEugeee, I mean like major league good stuff here. Again, I'm not against using the military, I just don't feel justified sending an 18 year old over there to get blown up solving Iraq/Syrias problems with internal political violence when they signed up to defend this country and our allies, not a country that wouldn't shed a drop of blood for  us if we needed it, if that makes any sense.

[Hua Guofang]

Agree with a lot of that, especially the sentiment. However, the current deployment to Iraq/Syria wasn’t really to help them out, it was to stop ISIS - an org that wants to attack the US - from becoming powerful enough to harm the US. I think the first question to ask, is whether that aim has been achieved. Second question would be: what has occurred in the meantime, and the answer to that would be Iran and Russia. The obvious questions flow from there, all regards the US national interest and how best to achieve them. 

 

My fucking jaw dropped when I saw Trump saying that the USSR invaded Afghanistan because of terrorism and that it was justified. He is either clueless or without any moral compass at all. 

 

Agree that you can’t hate what he does just because it’s him doing it. I fully support a tough line on fairness of trade/investment with China (not sure if tariffs are the answer though). I also fully supported the talks with North Korea (the content and outcome of those talks has been poor so far though).

[Hua Guofang]

Gut tells me that Trump will call a national emergency and it will be a turning point in his presidency. Not sure which direction but an inflection none the less n

[Mercer]

Agreed, and that's also good, enemies are on high alert/best behavior. lol

Edited January 9, 2019 by Mercer

[Hua Guofang]

45 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Gut tells me that Trump will call a national emergency and it will be a turning point in his presidency. Not sure which direction but an inflection none the less n

Lol, guess my gut feeling was just gas!

[Brink]

On 1/8/2019 at 7:17 PM, Hua Guofang said:

@Mercer

 

Agreed, the 2003 invasion was a disaster and caused a massive shitfight, thought I was pretty clear in saying that in my posts. No disagreement there and I'd also add the installation of Reza Pahlavi, blank cheques to Israel/KSA, etc. etc. etc. My response in that paragraph was more directed to @Brinkclaim that the US fucked the region to start with. It didn't, the region has been messy since day dot. I don't think the US ever wanted a permanent presence in Iraq/Syria. In regards to this current deployment, they don't want an organisation like ISIS gaining strength in any way. They also want Assad out but are doing very little on that front. At this point, they don't want organisations committed to the destruction of the USA to grow in strength, that being the primary aim of the deployment. The secondary aim is to block Iran and Russia from making big strategic gains.

 

Regards 2003, that was a text book case of imposing your will on another people, no doubt about that. And if that invasion hadn't have taken place, there is a very high chance that ISIS/AQ would never have risen to prominence anything like they did over the last 10 years. That invasion was badly conceived, badly conducted and badly instituted. Everything around it was a disaster. I've worked with numerous people directly responsible for the big calls of the intelligence and decision making and not one of them is proud of it. I have some of that  materialon record and am happy to direct you to it if you want to discuss via direct message.

 

The point about energy was also more a response to Brink.

 

I think the way you characterise Post-Soviet Afghanistan and security deployments in general as lacking a little in the nuances of operational and tactical realities. And it shouldn't be expected that everyone should be full boot on that kind of stuff. I'm an ex-soldier that studied and moved into the policy/strategy world after discharging, which is why I claim to have an understanding of this kind of stuff.

 

The US occupied Afghanistan post-2001 and Iraq post-2003. However, the occupation of Iraq stopped when no SOFA could be negotiated in 2010 and the subsequent complete withdrawal in 2011. The current deployment was at the REQUEST of the IRaqi govt that lost control of a major part of its territory, it's not an occupation at all (or even reminiscent of it, to be honest). The work in Syria is very small and focused on combat operations and intelligence collecting on terror groups (yes, there were operations previously supporting forces opposing Assad and intel ops continue regards Iran and Russia). The US is not attacking the Syrian state - truth be told, Assad is likely to be very happy the US did what they did as with the US focusing on ISIS/AQ, Assad was able to commit greater resources against fighting the other groups looking to overthrow him. That's a pretty simplistic way to put things, but just trying to put into perspective what the US deployment is (not an occupation) and why it's there (at request of one govt and COIN ops against Islamist orgs).

 

There's also a very wide gulf between occupation of a country - using post-Soviet Afghanistan as your example - and supporting a weak govt or assisting in building the capacity of a failed state. Take a look at the UN lead deployment to Somalia when it collapsed (ok, things went to shit after Clinton pulled the troops/blackhawk down). There is a lot that the US and partnering states can do in these situations, short of occupying a whole country. It can be anything from simply providing diplomatic support, to capital, to expertise, to intelligence and logistics, to combat support, to training, etc. etc. Many of these things require troop deployments but none of it is akin to punching a nation in the face. The current deployment in Afghanistan is in support of the current Afghani govt - without the US forces there that country would no doubt collapse again and come under the Taliban - the same people that supported bin Laden and harbored him post-9/11.

 

Is it worth the US keeping troops in Afghanistan to stop it collapsing? Well, that becomes a discussion about risk, cost/benefit, etc. One thing is for sure, the way Trump discussed the situation has no relationship to reality, in the slightest.

 

Regards the strategic deployments like that in Japan, Bahrain, Europe, etc. There are a lot of variables in that to consider - arguably, the most important one is what would happen if the US left. The standard response to that is a) the US would find it very hard to retain allies and partners around the world after throwing Japan, ROK, Taiwan, Australia, KSA, Israel, Germany, etc. under the bus, because, b) China would be empowered to dominate East Asia, Iran would be empowered to dominate the M/E and Russia would be encouraged to destabilise Europe. None of these outcomes, in and of themselves, are in the interests of the US.

 

Of course, then we have the discussion what the US national interests are. And if we're going to discuss that, I need to go get some beer.

I wasn't really claiming that the US was the cause of instability in the region, I was just mentioning that we certainly had a role in how the region operates currently. 

Other than that, very good points: I certainly gained a bit more perspective on the situation. It's definitely a tricky situation regardless of how you look at it, with religion being the root of many problems that seem to be arising (maybe less of a root and more of an excuse), theres not really a clear-cut solution to a centuries old battle.  

[One Man Banned]

Not pro Trump, but not into Pelosi either (she strikes me as Hillary2 in a scarecrow's body).  As such, enjoying the tit for tat.  Thought it was kind of foul of her to try to cancel the State of The Union (even though wouldn't watch), but then Trump takes her plane, lolz, take that bitch!

 

On other hand, have also said during past shutdowns what a job to have as politicians.  They work for us, in theory.  Only job I can think of where you can say hey, we didn't get the job done, but let's take a recess along with our pay and shit.  And people tolerate it!  Normal work world don't work like that.  Shit, you go to your job and say hey boss, didn't get shit accomplished today because me and coworker don't get along and you'll find 2 asses on the curb without pay or a job.

 

But yeah, petty and wasteful infighting, shitty, but amusing.

 

[Mercer]

15 minutes ago, One Man Banned said:

They work for us, in theory. 

 

The only thing you can count on is people work towards serving their self interests, most of the time it's in a non-destructive manner, but it can also come at the expense of others. Sure, we do have free will as humans, and occasionally some of us do stuff that is truly altruistic but hat isn't the norm. Breaking this myth that they are helping us, more than they're helping themselves is tougher than breaking self destructive religious beliefs.

 

They work for your vote, along with the rest of the fickle crowd's vote. Profiting from, and manipulating our collective ignorance on a multitude of subjects the vast majority of voters are unqualified to judge for themselves.

[One Man Banned]

I fully understand that most of these politicians do not represent my interests, nor can they satisy everyone.  Point is, we choose them and they get paid off our money, kind of makes us their boss, and to sit around with your dick in your hand collecting a fat check to not accomplish anything at all is bullshit.  

 

Also re: the above, while the vast majority of voters may be unqualified to judge, the unfortunate fact is that many of those politicians are equally unqualified.

[Kults]

3 hours ago, One Man Banned said:

Not pro Trump, but not into Pelosi either (she strikes me as Hillary2 in a scarecrow's body).  As such, enjoying the tit for tat.  Thought it was kind of foul of her to try to cancel the State of The Union (even though wouldn't watch), but then Trump takes her plane, lolz, take that bitch!

 

On other hand, have also said during past shutdowns what a job to have as politicians.  They work for us, in theory.  Only job I can think of where you can say hey, we didn't get the job done, but let's take a recess along with our pay and shit.  And people tolerate it!  Normal work world don't work like that.  Shit, you go to your job and say hey boss, didn't get shit accomplished today because me and coworker don't get along and you'll find 2 asses on the curb without pay or a job.

 

But yeah, petty and wasteful infighting, shitty, but amusing.

 

He waited until they were all in the bus en route to the airport to pull the rug out. Master level troll ?

[glorydays]

the government and the rich want the poor and middle class to fight amongst themselves to keep power

 

once the lower classes realize that we outnumber those at the top of the hierarchy, it's game over man

[mn1_fuckos]

14 minutes ago, Kults said:

He waited until they were all in the bus en route to the airport to pull the rug out. Master level troll ?

Then his wife hops on a flight to florida.

 

 

[Kults]

3 hours ago, mn1_fuckos said:

Then his wife hops on a flight to florida.

 

 

Can’t make that shit up ? 

 

TBH he can give his state of the union elsewhere it’s really just symbolic more than anything. On the other hand, wtf are House of Reps doing going overseas? Aren’t they meant to, you know.. represent the people domestically?  They likely just wanted to go to that globalist summit for the Uber rich in Davos next week. Oops! They’re grounded!! In every sense of the word lol

Edited January 18, 2019 by Kults

[One Man Banned]

Shit made me laugh.  

I'm not happy with politicians, but currently I was at least entertained.  

I'd like Trump to lock/block her out of her office like George Costanza.  

I also had the recent thought that Ann Coulter vs Nancy Pelosi would be a dope fight to see.

[mn1_fuckos]

so what are your thought on this whole sitaution.

 

There was also a response by the mother of this kid that said they were being harassed by black israelites prior to this happening. 

 

 

 

[Kults]

5 minutes ago, mn1_fuckos said:

so what are your thought on this whole sitaution.

 

There was also a response by the mother of this kid that said they were being harassed by black israelites prior to this happening. 

 

 

 

Check the full vid. Its been debunked.

[Hua Guofang]

Yeah, the kid has been ufairly pilloried for this. The whole thing is emblematic of the us and themism we're going through these days. People want to hate their social opposites and treat them like they are the enemy. The chaperones and the teachers responsible for those school kids should be fucking sacked, though. How on earth could they have let the situation escalate like that?

 

I dig on those black Israelites though. They were hanging around Times Square a few years back when  I was killing a few days there. They really kept me entertained.