America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,021 comments
  • 1,488,298 views
Rage Racer
I can't disagree with you here, but for your government, it seems like there is a difference. Not by nationality, but by whose side is the suspect on.

Not so long time ago, the insurgents from Eastern Ghouta - who's seen (by Washington) as the more legitmate government than Assad - opened mortar fire on a marketplace on the "red" (govt. controlled) territory, killing dozens of civilians. No one in the US government gave a damn. As well as they don't when the regime forces level civilian areas with heavy artillery and MLRS in Ukraine. And yet the Ukrainian government is being a quite legitmate ally of the USA.
Click to expand...

Yea I can't really speak to what my government decides. I will say that just because a government violates the rights of their people and is illegitimate, does not confer a responsibility on other nations to intercede. So, for example, one country may be killing their civilians and get ignored, while another country may be killing their civilians and get attacked, simply because getting involved in with the latter country was more beneficial.

If you spot two people drowning and in need of help, and there is nobody else to help them, it is not your obligation to help either of them. But if you do, and you have to pick one, then you get to pick whichever one you want.
 
Peter.
Did he ever have it?
Click to expand...
The important thing is did he ever have political support, and has he lost that? Do most MSM and most people, especially his base, think more bombing in Syria is a good thing? What about the military and the intelligence communities? Wall Street? What about the advisors clustered around the president? What about a majority of the congress, both house and senate?
 
Tony Blair in a dress has announced that Britain will support the US in a retaliation on Assad.


This is going to be Saddam's Iraq nr 2.
 
Long day at work, just catching news of all this.

I just don't have the words and this Twitter nonsense is really pissing me off, I'm tired of it.

This reminds me of when I was in Iraq and Geraldo was 5 clicks north of our position drawing a map in the sand on live television.

If I were Mattis there would be a serious one sided conversation with our president about stealth, and the fact we do not need more conflict anywhere.
 
While y'all laugh at his Tweet, Russia has moved their troops out of Syria.
As usual something I heard at work.
I'll gladly read a link that disproves it.
 
ryzno
While y'all laugh at his Tweet, Russia has moved their troops out of Syria.
As usual something I heard at work.
I'll gladly read a link that disproves it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you heard that the Russian warships are leaving the Syrian port Tartus...

...but some sources say, they're doing it to take combat positions in the Mediterranian sea.
And to begin with, they're not supposed to locate in the port all the time. They only visit it for resupplies and maintenance.
 
As if things couldn't get any worse.

A former employee of my college was detained earlier today for issuing threats towards our community.

Definitely going to be paranoid for the rest of the semester.
 
Grayfox
https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018...ol-teacher-arrested-leaving-gun-public-toilet

And they want teachers to carry guns?
Click to expand...
This was a mistake that could be made by anyone. Unfortunately for the sarcastic remark you're trying to push, he actually agrees with you.
Mr Simpson has previously said he was open to teachers bearing arms.

I know there are some of us that are willing to take the training if it was offered and probably be another line of defence," he said in an interview with MSNBC.

"But again that is a complicated subject and I'm not sure if it's the answer. I think it's easier to get these types of weapons out of the hands of people that aren't meant to do anything but kill."

Last month, Mr Simpson attended the March for Our Lives protest in Washington DC.
Click to expand...
 
McLaren
Unfortunately for the sarcastic remark you're trying to push, he actually agrees with you.
Click to expand...
Is it the teacher he was directing the remark at, or those people who want teachers to be armed?
 
UKMikey
Is it the teacher he was directing the remark at, or those people who want teachers to be armed?
Click to expand...
The attempt to act like what he did off school property somehow affects all teachers willing to be armed, is casting a blanket over everyone.

Said attempt becomes redundant when the teacher in question doesn’t believe arming teachers is the best answer to begin with.
 
UKMikey
Is it the teacher he was directing the remark at, or those people who want teachers to be armed?
Click to expand...

People that want teachers being armed.

This was just one example of the problems.
What if the homeless guy didn't fire the gun but just pocketed the gun and walked out?
What if the teacher didn't realize he forgot the gun till a later point in time?
What if another unstable person got it, shot the teacher and then went on a shooting spree?

One shouldn't forget they left a gun behind.
 
The odds are there will be escalation in the open military conflict between Americans and Russians in Syria. If so, Britain and France will likely be involved. Obviously there is much to lose from such an escalation. I am unclear as to what there is to win.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-military-killed-apos-couple-181324480.html

"In Syria, now, a handful of weeks ago, the Russians met their match. A couple hundred Russians were killed," Pompeo said during his confirmation hearing in Washington.

0b8885d95ecfcefb5775664e5bd66879

CIA Director Mike Pompeo testifies before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on Pompeo’s nomination to be secretary of state on Capitol Hill in Washington, April 12, 2018. Pompeo has vowed to take a tough stance against Russia at a time of volatile relations between Washington and Moscow.
Leah Millis/Reuters
 
Grayfox
People that want teachers being armed.

This was just one example of the problems.
What if the homeless guy didn't fire the gun but just pocketed the gun and walked out?
What if the teacher didn't realize he forgot the gun till a later point in time?
What if another unstable person got it, shot the teacher and then went on a shooting spree?

One shouldn't forget they left a gun behind.
Click to expand...
What if the homeless person found it and stopped another homeless person from being murdered?
What if the homeless person used it to commit suicide instead of jumping off a bridge into traffic?
What if the homeless person found it and no one was hurt as a result?
 
Johnnypenso
What if the homeless person found it and stopped another homeless person from being murdered?
What if the homeless person used it to commit suicide instead of jumping off a bridge into traffic?
What if the homeless person found it and no one was hurt as a result?
Click to expand...

As usual, you are right on the money JohnnyP! In fact, gun owners should be encouraged to leave their guns lying about. Who knows what unpredictably positive consequences might result! :cheers:
 
Biggles
As usual, you are right on the money JohnnyP! In fact, gun owners should be encouraged to leave their guns lying about. Who knows what unpredictably positive consequences might result! :cheers:
Click to expand...
Yeah because that's what I said:lol:
 
Grayfox
People that want teachers being armed.

This was just one example of the problems.
What if the homeless guy didn't fire the gun but just pocketed the gun and walked out?
What if the teacher didn't realize he forgot the gun till a later point in time?
What if another unstable person got it, shot the teacher and then went on a shooting spree?

One shouldn't forget they left a gun behind.
Click to expand...
What if it was an off duty cop who left his gun behind? Well damn, pull all the guns off cops bc we had one do something stupid, so we can’t trust them to handle firearms even with training.

Your logic suddenly becomes flawed bc of one person’s negligence, we hold the rest accountable.

The situation had nothing to do with schools or teachers, just a gun owner who happened to be a teacher which again, made your whole point useless bc said gun owner didn’t think they should arm teachers in classrooms.
 
McLaren
What if it was an off duty cop who left his gun behind? Well damn, pull all the guns off cops bc we had one do something stupid, so we can’t trust them to handle firearms even with training.

Your logic suddenly becomes flawed bc of one person’s negligence, we hold the rest accountable.

The situation had nothing to do with schools or teachers, just a gun owner who happened to be a teacher which again, made your whole point useless bc said gun owner didn’t think they should arm teachers in classrooms.
Click to expand...

Well he forgot his gun in a public place
What would happen say if he forgot his gun in a school?

It is easier to get distracted in a school than a public place
 
Grayfox
Well he forgot his gun in a public place
What would happen say if he forgot his gun in a school?

It is easier to get distracted in a school than a public place
Click to expand...
And what would happen if a cop forgot his gun in a school?

You can play what if’s all day, the fact is you want to hold everyone accountable for the actions of 1 person off site who only shares the same profession.

The man was an irresponsible gun owner, not a teacher.
 
I’m sure everyone knows this, but in parts of Alaska it is illegal to import, or possess Alcohol

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/amco/AlcoholLocalOption.aspx
If a community decides not to allow alcoholic beverages, it is called a dry community. If the community allows limited amounts of alcoholic beverages, it is called a “damp” community. The rest of this page discusses acquiring alcoholic beverages in damp communities.
Click to expand...

Local area option map

I brought this up after I saw this warrant for arrest
XhV80x0.jpg
 
From the pages of Antiwar.com, my favorite libertarian site.

Trump: Prisoner of the War Party?
by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted on April 17, 2018


"Ten days ago, President Trump was saying ‘the United States should withdraw from Syria.’ We convinced him it was necessary to stay."

Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron Saturday, adding, "We convinced him it was necessary to stay for the long term."

Is the U.S. indeed in the Syrian civil war "for the long term"?

If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic?

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria, until three objectives were reached. We must fully defeat ISIS, ensure chemical weapons would not again be used by Bashar Assad and maintain the ability to watch Iran.

Translation: Whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria. We are going deeper in. Trump’s commitment to extricate us from these bankrupting and blood-soaked Middle East wars and to seek a new rapprochement with Russia is "inoperative."
Click to expand...

The War Party that Trump routed in the primaries is capturing and crafting his foreign policy. Monday’s Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war plans:

"The better U.S. strategy is to … turn Syria into the Ayatollah’s Vietnam. Only when Russia and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based enclaves."

Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah and Iran until they cannot stand the pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.

But suppose that, as in our Civil War of 1861-1865, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949, Assad and his Russian, Iranian and Shiite militia allies go all out to win and reunite the nation.

Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of civil war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb mercilessly?

The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used, but they are not plunging into Syria.

Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will."

The Journal’s op-ed page Monday was turned over to former U.S. ambassador to Syria Ryan Crocker and Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon: "Next time the U.S. could up the ante, going after military command and control, political leadership, and perhaps even Assad himself. The U.S. could also pledge to take out much of his air force. Targets within Iran should not be off limits."

And when did Congress authorize U.S. acts of war against Syria, its air force or political leadership? When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has not attacked us?

Can the U.S. also attack Iran and kill the ayatollah without consulting Congress?
Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election.

We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush’s war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMD.

The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands.

But where is the evidence for this?

What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared for that?

As for Trump’s statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post Sunday dismissed this as "fatalistic" and "misguided."

We have a vital interest, says the Post, in preventing Iran from establishing a "land corridor" across Syria.

Yet consider how Iran acquired this "land corridor."

The Shiites in 1979 overthrew a shah our CIA installed in 1953.

The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite majority take control of the country.

The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in 1982 to run out the PLO.

How many American dead will it take to reverse this history?

How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni over Shiite?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
Click to expand...
 

Latest Posts

Back