Digby wrote:Possibly the most worrying thing in there is the reminder they still refer to the metric tonne when in the rest of the world that's surely a tautology, who would assume a non metric tonne if you simply used tonne? That's where the focus should be!
The USA is slowly adopting the metric system...
Inch by inch
Digby wrote:Possibly the most worrying thing in there is the reminder they still refer to the metric tonne when in the rest of the world that's surely a tautology, who would assume a non metric tonne if you simply used tonne? That's where the focus should be!
The USA is slowly adopting the metric system...
Inch by inch
I see what you did there.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
Digby wrote:Possibly the most worrying thing in there is the reminder they still refer to the metric tonne when in the rest of the world that's surely a tautology, who would assume a non metric tonne if you simply used tonne? That's where the focus should be!
The USA is slowly adopting the metric system...
Inch by inch
Someone needs to explain strategy to this dickhead. If you are going to leave, then do so. If you intend to keep troops over there then don't state that you are going to walk away as that makes you look weak and invites attack. Have clear strategy for f*cks sake.
This is obviously supposed to be a 'don't mess with us message' to the Iranians. Yet its a confusing one given the other messages he and his administration have given on the future of American involvement in the region. Whilst a bit of confusion can be a good thing, this is confusing everyone continually. Iran will probably provide more resources to those militias who want to take on the Americans. More Americans will be killed. Trump then either escalates or walks away. What are the odds that he hasn't thought that through?
Someone needs to explain strategy to this dickhead. If you are going to leave, then do so. If you intend to keep troops over there then don't state that you are going to walk away as that makes you look weak and invites attack. Have clear strategy for f*cks sake.
This is obviously supposed to be a 'don't mess with us message' to the Iranians. Yet its a confusing one given the other messages he and his administration have given on the future of American involvement in the region. Whilst a bit of confusion can be a good thing, this is confusing everyone continually. Iran will probably provide more resources to those militias who want to take on the Americans. More Americans will be killed. Trump then either escalates or walks away. What are the odds that he hasn't thought that through?
FB_IMG_1578057056911.jpg
Idiot as Trump is, he's not so stupid that he doesn't understand wartime Presidents get reelected. This is very deliberate.
Puja
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Someone needs to explain strategy to this dickhead. If you are going to leave, then do so. If you intend to keep troops over there then don't state that you are going to walk away as that makes you look weak and invites attack. Have clear strategy for f*cks sake.
This is obviously supposed to be a 'don't mess with us message' to the Iranians. Yet its a confusing one given the other messages he and his administration have given on the future of American involvement in the region. Whilst a bit of confusion can be a good thing, this is confusing everyone continually. Iran will probably provide more resources to those militias who want to take on the Americans. More Americans will be killed. Trump then either escalates or walks away. What are the odds that he hasn't thought that through?
FB_IMG_1578057056911.jpg
Idiot as Trump is, he's not so stupid that he doesn't understand wartime Presidents get reelected. This is very deliberate.
What a stupid fucking cunt. Casually ordering a strike from a golf club for fuck knows what reason. Every decision he makes worsens the situation. Come on America, the whole world wants you to reign this thundering idiot in. At least have the decency to take his social media taunts out of the picture until an adult can try and deal with this state of affairs. Its beyond ridiculous.
morepork wrote:What a stupid fucking cunt. Casually ordering a strike from a golf club for fuck knows what reason. Every decision he makes worsens the situation. Come on America, the whole world wants you to reign this thundering idiot in. At least have the decency to take his social media taunts out of the picture until an adult can try and deal with this state of affairs. Its beyond ridiculous.
The BBC's Newsnight did a great job covering this. There's nothing like asking the RAND Corp for an unbiased opinion on an assassination by the US military.
Someone needs to explain strategy to this dickhead. If you are going to leave, then do so. If you intend to keep troops over there then don't state that you are going to walk away as that makes you look weak and invites attack. Have clear strategy for f*cks sake.
This is obviously supposed to be a 'don't mess with us message' to the Iranians. Yet its a confusing one given the other messages he and his administration have given on the future of American involvement in the region. Whilst a bit of confusion can be a good thing, this is confusing everyone continually. Iran will probably provide more resources to those militias who want to take on the Americans. More Americans will be killed. Trump then either escalates or walks away. What are the odds that he hasn't thought that through?
FB_IMG_1578057056911.jpg
Idiot as Trump is, he's not so stupid that he doesn't understand wartime Presidents get reelected. This is very deliberate.
Puja
Yup. Let’s just hope he has a longer term vision in mind. I doubt it but I’d live to be pleasantly surprised for once.
This is purely to gain patriotic points from the masses and discredit the impeachment.
When the trial starts in the senate, all the GOP senators will be waxing lyrical about what a great American Trump is and how he is strong, decisive and has saved the world.
There will be no direct defence to the actual charges because they all know he has no defence. Everything the GOP has done, and is doing is all about bigging Trump up. Killing an evil general from an evil country is the perfect coup for Trump.
I've no idea whether this works, or whether this works for Trump. It'd be hard enough if not impossible to judge at the best of times, but given he has no values one can be guided by, has no coherent narrative around what he wants to happen, doesn't talk to his allies about potential actions and even carries out the attack in the nation of a supposed/sort of ally it's a tricky read, and that before we see what the Iranians do.
Digby wrote:I've no idea whether this works, or whether this works for Trump. It'd be hard enough if not impossible to judge at the best of times, but given he has no values one can be guided by, has no coherent narrative around what he wants to happen, doesn't talk to his allies about potential actions and even carries out the attack in the nation of a supposed/sort of ally it's a tricky read, and that before we see what the Iranians do.
I think many are reading way too much into his actions. I think it's entirely down to self-preservation. I don't think he came up with the idea though. Those who are loyal to him and want to continue the status quo probably advised that a strike is likely to boost his appeal to the dark skin fearing patriots, as well as make it easier for the GOP senators to spin the impeachment trial as a Democrats Vs America narrative.
Digby wrote:I've no idea whether this works, or whether this works for Trump. It'd be hard enough if not impossible to judge at the best of times, but given he has no values one can be guided by, has no coherent narrative around what he wants to happen, doesn't talk to his allies about potential actions and even carries out the attack in the nation of a supposed/sort of ally it's a tricky read, and that before we see what the Iranians do.
I think many are reading way too much into his actions. I think it's entirely down to self-preservation. I don't think he came up with the idea though. Those who are loyal to him and want to continue the status quo probably advised that a strike is likely to boost his appeal to the dark skin fearing patriots, as well as make it easier for the GOP senators to spin the impeachment trial as a Democrats Vs America narrative.
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
I don't doubt his decision making process is for shit, but apart from anything else I can't imagine anyone knows how Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia and so on will respond, but it's entirely possible it'll be in a fashion that doesn't promote Trump as he'd want.
Digby wrote:I've no idea whether this works, or whether this works for Trump. It'd be hard enough if not impossible to judge at the best of times, but given he has no values one can be guided by, has no coherent narrative around what he wants to happen, doesn't talk to his allies about potential actions and even carries out the attack in the nation of a supposed/sort of ally it's a tricky read, and that before we see what the Iranians do.
I think many are reading way too much into his actions. I think it's entirely down to self-preservation. I don't think he came up with the idea though. Those who are loyal to him and want to continue the status quo probably advised that a strike is likely to boost his appeal to the dark skin fearing patriots, as well as make it easier for the GOP senators to spin the impeachment trial as a Democrats Vs America narrative.
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
Given the sheer number of times he said that Obama was going to do precisely this to stir up opinion at home - he didn't need anyone to suggest the idea.
Details? Yes, but notnthe "launch an attack on Iran"
What is the point trying to analyze anything this spunk basket does? He has no idea what is going on around him. He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason. This is so far beyond him. Right now he is standing at the omelette bar at a golf club struggling to settle on salmon or bacon, or both.
morepork wrote:What is the point trying to analyze anything this spunk basket does? He has no idea what is going on around him. He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason. This is so far beyond him. Right now he is standing at the omelette bar at a golf club struggling to settle on salmon or bacon, or both.
Don't be so daft. He'd be struggling to settle on a Big Mac or a KFC bucket, or both.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
morepork wrote:He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason.
Hmmm. Loathe the big aul orange hoore as I do, I have no qualms about the killing of Suleimani by the US. He was an active and extremely influential lynch-pin in numerous state-sanctioned operations that led to or were leading to attacks on American citizens and was, consequently, a perfectly legitimate target. His killing was no more nor less an act of war than any one of the many Iranian state-sanctioned attacks on Americans and the only uncertainty that it has raised is whether Iran will retaliate and then get hit even harder.
That Suleimani was a top-ranking Iranian military official visiting Iraq, where Iranian influence is both illegitimate and destabilising (As, I agree, were the consequences of the US-led coalition invasion and occupation of that country in 2003), does not add or detract one iota from the justification or legitimacy of killing the turd. Good riddance.
