ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP
" 'Flexing muscles' is a retarded concept in the first place. It's something insecure hormone freaks do, not world leaders. I'm fine with solving any situation peacefully, but if you keep pestering me and threaten to use force, you'll find yourself on the ground with more than likely life long injuries before you can even register what's happening. It's the same in world politics. One day you'll try to threaten someone who doesn't care about consequences and you pay the price for your stupidity. |
|
" "You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on May 11, 2018, 4:33:11 AM
|
|
|
Flexing muscles is a valid strategy, the problem becomes when it's the only strategy. Too many times the US act only from the position of power ("axis of evil" hurr durr) and forgets that if you want to actually talk to people, you need to treat them as equal diplomatic partners - yes, even fatboy Kim and iranian "mad ayatollahs". The development around NK also shows that calling somone "rocketman" and nuclear e-peening, does not preclude achieving diplomatic results some time down the line.
" You are wrong. Many Trump supporters have a problem with warmongering foreign policy and do call him out on it. When night falls
She cloaks the world In impenetrable darkness | |
" lmao GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
| |
" You must be a huge Neville Chamberlain fan. Glad we do not a majority of people like you in the USA. Just remember, when the Russians roll over Europe, I'll be voting for non-interference by the USA, in support of our Russian allies. | |
" Looks like you got something wrong here. 'Flexing muscles' and 'taking action' are two different things. Besides, fist fighting is a barbaric habit. I much prefer going for the fragile parts in human body, those that either cause excruciating pain or can straight out cripple you. I'd probably end up in jail afterwards, but let's be real here: if someone comes to fuck with me and ends up being crippled as a result, it's not my fault in the slightest, no matter what the law book says. " You do realize that France and UK both got nukes available? They'd have a lot more success if they teamed up with China and went for USA. EU would become fragmented as a result. " Oh yeah, you mean that one person who realizes that Trump was actually bullshitting the voter base? No worries though, everyone else will defend his actions all the same no matter what he does! |
|
" What good are nukes in a continent full of Neville Chamberlains who will roll over for the Russians, just like in Crimea. The Russian conquest of Europe has already begun. Crimea was a test. I doubt Russia wants to mess with the USA while conquering Europe. Last edited by Khoranth on May 11, 2018, 9:37:48 AM
| |
"They are, but I'm not getting them wrong - there you go flexing again, while presumably you're not typing from jail as a result of actually doing what you say you'd do.* "It depends what you meanby "fuck with me." If you mean you cripple them because they flexed on you, then you're claiming a right to escalate a verbal/body-language conflict into a physical one. If you mean you cripple them after they attack you first, then it seems you either don't understand how ambushes work or have delusions of invulnerability. *Not that I'm anti-flexing; you're the one who denounced it, not me. I think there's a lot less robberies when gunowners let would-be criminals know they're packing, and a lot less dead trespassers when there's a "trespassers will be shot" sign versus shooting trespassers with no warning whatsoever. Indeed, I'd say there's zero justification ever for any violence that was not clearly threatened first; at best, violence divorced from ultimatum is naked revenge with no power as a deterrent. In conclusion, I've established that: - the moral is the opposite of what you preach - you practice the opposite of what you preach Therefore, this is for you. (Disclaimer: I'm not an ancap.) When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on May 11, 2018, 10:10:40 AM
|
|
|
'Flexing', in terms of alpha-hoodlum posturing to try and out-bravado someone into capitulating to your desires (i.e. the way I've always encountered the term being used) is...sad, really. We're all guilty of it at some point, but that doesn't mean our better minds can't recognize it for the base intimidation it is and wish there were better alternatives sometimes.
As Scrotie says, however: jumping straight to lethal force without a warning of lethal force first is not only against the law, it's against best moral code, as well. CCL holders are required by law to warn people they're going to shoot if at all possible - unless a case can be made that there was no time for a warning (i.e. someone is in your car/bedroom and trying to do you harm; trying to warn them gives you no time to actively defend yourself) or unless the target has already gone past the point where a warning matters (i.e. they've got a gun themselves and are blazing away), you're required to try and avoid escalating to actual violence. "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT" is an important part of the process. As Scrotie said, violence with no warning - no prior threat of violence - is not a deterrent, it's an attack. Consider this in terms of the actions of nations, rather than people. The idea of a 'pre-emptive strike' - attacking a target without a formal declaration of war - is always, always hotly debated and contested. The legality of it is questionable in virtually all cases, no matter how tense and flex-y the two belligerents in question have been for how long, and a pre-emptive strike always paints the striker as the aggressor in the conflict. You don't get to shoot first and then be the defending party. Even recently, the general world climate on the North Korea situation before Kim got possessed by the Ghost of Christmas Future was "if Rocket Boy hurls nukes at the U.S. first, then it deserves what's coming to it. We ain't getting between a world superpower and some pissant dictator who dropped nukes on it - not a chance in hell." OR... "If the U.S. drops nukes on North Korea first, we're going to dogpile you guys. You don't get to erase another country just because they're bothering you." Even with warnings aplenty on both sides, whoever actually pulled the trigger first was going to be considered the aggressor and the party "in the wrong". And this is against an entity we do have an active* declaration of war against. Violence enacted is not a deterrent. Not against whatever has been violence'd. Violence threatened is a deterrent. 'Trespassers will be shot' is a deterrent - shooting trespassers is not. Threats are an effective means of stopping a conflict before it reaches critical mass, provided the threat is both credible and dire. If neither of those conditions are true, then the threat is nothing but contemptible empty posturing that accomplishes nothing. Which is why every single threat on the Internet is contemptible empty posturing. | |
" :D lol... I'm sorry but you probably know nothing about Russia, the history of the region or the people there. Crimea is to Russia as Texas is to USA. When night falls
She cloaks the world In impenetrable darkness |
