ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP
|
I knew Bolton would be disaster and snake in the grass. Basically Bolton ruined Trumps NK deal telling NK they are looking at Libya model for NK. Kadaffi was sodomized in the street by a bayonet and his throat cut in Live TV but US supported militants after giving up his weapons.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/bolton-says-us-is-considering-libya-model-for-north-korea.html He basically warned Kim directly that regime change is in the cards no matter what happens. No way NK will deal now. Washington establishment doesnt want peace with NK and SK. Whole MO around the world and domestically is divide and conquer. Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep on May 17, 2018, 11:00:44 PM
| |
|
Bolton will do as he's told.
Certain people are just around to obey. He is one of them. As for your comment on Iraq, Trump is with you on Iraq, and will in no way start some stupid war with Iran. You're making up issues with trump that aren't even there. As for NK and Bolton... NK will do as Trump and SK wants. NK knows Bolton is just a pissant and has no real say in anything. It's all trump and like minded people at the top. It amuses me though the press (fake news trash and bush supporting foxnews even) are pushing the idea that NK will not come to the table. Last gasp of air from the has beens. Don't believe their soundbites. The fact that you lumped Trump up at the end of your words with being one of the establishment, or one to do their bidding, shows me you need to take a step back from your negative opinions of him and, just watch. 1 month | |
"I'm not sure. I suggest you look into Yemen drone strikes; although technically the US military was involved during the Obama administration, under Trump US action increased to more than ten times Obama levels. Basically Yemen is Trump walking the neocon walk, quietly, noticed only by those looking for it (and certainly unreported by the otherwise permanently-NeverTrump MSM). Like Obama, Trump campaigned on an aggressively anti-neocon platform. Like Obama, Trump's military loves drone strikes. So far, Trump hasn't brought war to a nation untouched by Obama, but 1) we still have a least two years left, and 2) if Trump's aim is to be only slightly, but noticeably, less neocon than Obama, then he seems to be exactly where he'd want to be to maximize the perception of contrast while minimizing the reality of one. It's as if he knows his supporters will exaggerate any tiny improvement over how things were under his predecessor, so long as it's a real improvement. I have to agree with Aim_Deep about Trump's neocon advisors. When you have a huge public feud with John fucking neocon McCain but you hire John fucking neocon Bolton, there's basically only two possibilities: you're secretly anti-neocon but want to appear pro-neocon, of you're secretly pro-neocon but want to appear anti-neocon. Given the strength of the military-industrial complex, the latter is more likely. However, I never had high expectations in this department. Even if we assume Trump merely wants to insincerely appear anti-neocon, it seems he's keenly aware that his base hates that shit. I doubt he'll do anything overtly, obviously regime-changey during his first term; furthermore, given how his base is attuned to alternative media, I doubt he'd even try anything much bigger than the Yemen thing he's already done, even if there was a yuge coverup involved. That's about as much as we could have reasonably hoped for; ironically, when I said Trump thought his base would rejoice at any tiny improvement, I didn't mean he was at all mistaken. Still just a tiny improvement though. Let's not pretend Trump is against massive military budgets or anything. I'm still picking my jaw of the floor after his "explanation" of why he signed the omnibus spending bill. Point is: don't be surprised if a Trump re-election (or defeat) is promptly followed by a new US ground invasion. Bolton is hard at work planning something. If anything, his hiring seems to have been a signal that Trump is confident about his chances in 2020; I'm confident about them too. 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 18, 2018, 2:02:16 AM
|
|
" Do you know only propaganda alternate history? You think Constantinople converted by pleasure while being sieged? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople or egypt and north africa? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt Or spain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania and many others... In what world do you live that history fact seems to be changed and turned around to please your narrative? Jews protected by muslims countries during world war 2? Did you forget the kingdom of Iraq sided with Hitler? did you forget Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem participated in the Holocaust? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#Al-Husseini's_attempts_to_block_Jewish_refugees What s that alternate reality of yours, 1000 years of peace? Jews were treated as dhimmis,had to pay the jizya. In 1066 Jews in Granada were massacred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre Poe Pvp experience
https://youtu.be/Z6eg3aB_V1g?t=302 | |
" I wouldn't call it a tiny improvement, or "slightly less" than obama... Considering the fact the US state department was behind the arab spring and backed the aftermath... muslim brotherhood organization in egypt, fall of tunisia, fall of libya, and turning syria into a hell hole when just before the arab spring it was a completely moderate nation and very peaceful (under the current assad anyway). And that's just the mideast. US state department was also behind the coup in Ukraine. "slightly" less than obama? Trump is miles, and miles, and miles, from Obama you mean. complete night and day here. | |
" Lies, hypocrisy and half-truths are all we get out of you. All the Arabian Christians did NOT convert to Islam. Many died under the swords of warmongering Muslims, many more survived, and continue to survive in the middle east. If Muslims deserve half of Jerusalem, then Arabian Christians deserve half of Mecca, it is perfectly comparable to the demands you make of the Jews. If Israel has to be split in a two-state solution, then every middle eastern country should be split into a two-state solution, and the Arabian Christians (and other ancient Arabian religions, like Yazidi), who continue to survive, should get half of every single middle eastern country that the Muslims stole from them through warmongering and land theft. (and I expect you to be consistent and sell half of everything you own and give it to the native tribes, and donate 50% of your salary for the rest of your life to the native tribes here, since their land was stolen as well) and BTW UN resolutions are irrelevant if the USA doesn't back them, because contrary to what you may think, power decides who gets what. That's why Russia was able to take Crimea, cause no one in the USA cares(or even knew what Crimea was) and the Russians knew it. Again: if you think the Muslims deserve any part of Israel, then try winning a war next time, instead of losing over and over and over. Last edited by Khoranth on May 18, 2018, 12:31:46 PM
| |
" I lol’d. For what it’s worth, I think the entire argument can fuck right off. Wah wah history etc etc. How what came to be is irrelevant; there are now multiple innocent generations of Israelis and Palestinians who, according to western values, do not bear the sins of the father. Two states is the sins of the father. While I appreciate Scrotie’s fracturing regression to a semi-structured state of anarchy, at some point there becomes too many tribes to retain peace, new hierarchies emerge, rinse repeat, same boat, new christening. By all appearances, Israel seems to be doing better at everything, to include receiving and integrating Palestinian immigrants. Looks to me like we have a clear case of winners and losers, so let’s stop pretending there’s winners on both sides. Not every conflict can be resolved via compromise. So, yeah. QFT.
Spoiler
Opinions from Panem.
Devolving Wilds
Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” |
|
"I have to disagree there. "How what came to be" isn't irrelevant; it's the proper means for determination of ownership. One has a right to the fruits of one's labor, and in a case like this it means determining who earned what in the past determines which descendants own what in the present. The problem is that land and other raw natural resources are a murky area as far as property rights go. Let's consider a marble statue: It's currently owned by a collector who paid a sculptor for it; the sculptor bought it from a stone dealer then sculpted it; the stone dealer bought it from a miner then cut it into a rectangular shape; the miner extracted the marbel raw from a plot of land he bought from a real estate agent. The collector has a right to tell people they can't try to improve upon his statue, as his ownership is clear; same with everyone else in the chain of custody except for the real estate agent. How is a natural resource untouched by human labor the property of anyone by right, as opposed to property by arbitrary claim? While it's obviously important that some entity can make business decisions in this regard, and thus owns it for all practical purposes - for instance, such land is better allocated to miners than to clowns, even if a clown is first in line on Land Handout Day - the decision of who gets that responsibility seems more the result of a will to power than of any particular theory of rights. What I'm getting at is that, as far as land development goes (ex: a house on a plot of land) I fiercely defend property rights, but as far as natural resources go (ex: the plot of land itself) I'm far more open to the idea that perhaps the current owner doesn't have a right to said ownership. This is part of the reason I tend towards the support of secessionist movements -- I see the government's claim to the territory is, although perhaps not entirely without merit, st least more dubious than the homeowners' claim to their buildings, and if the latter want to cast their lot with a different government (in this case, a Palestinian one) I don't see a solid argument why not. All of this bothers me though. Raw natural resources are a critical component of the economy, and I acknowledge that my contempt for current answers is not a proper answer itself. Any insights? BTW, there's one condition under which I'm not anti-unity: when it's 100% unanimous and voluntary. I know there's plenty of residents of Israel who love or at least agree with their government and want to be a part of it; I'm not advocating they be broken up further into arbitrarily smaller and smarter governments... well, at least not against their own individual wills, anyway, although I might try to persuade them. It's the residents of Israel who hate Israel and want to secede for whom I believe have an unrecognized (negative) right to secede that is being trampled upon. 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 18, 2018, 2:30:53 PM
|
|
|
Certain of you talking about israel as if it's israel vs muslims...
Need to remember that there are many israeli muslims. And as for a "two state solution"... there is no single israeli state over that land. It's israel, and occupied lands, combined. No matter how hard certain israeli jews want it to be a single state, it is most certainly not. They have this dream of a single israeli land as a "Jewish State" like they keep pushing. How can this happen without mass ethnic cleansing? It can't happen without that and Israel can't get away with that in modern times. There IS a two state situation. The SOLUTION, is for certain people to finally just admit what is so obvious, and never, ever going away. | |
" Maybe the Jews could treat Muslims the exact same way that Muslims treat Jews in Muslim controlled countries. The Jews have little to no rights and have to pay a tax for being Jewish, and have little to no control in the government. Maybe the Jews in Israel could follow the exact same set of rules Iran has for Jews. When a Jew gets out of line in Iran they get disapeared. Last edited by Khoranth on May 18, 2018, 6:55:00 PM
|
