You guys are gonna love this
Trump: Maybe 'fire and fury' statement on North Korea wasn't tough enough
Trump: Maybe 'fire and fury' statement on North Korea wasn't tough enough
General so much for not drawing any red lines...
- Thread starter drjones
- Start date
i forget what thread we were discussing it in so im dropping it here - trump just repeated that he "modernized and renovated" the nuclear system already, first thing he did and its much better shape now than it was when he took office. when asked for anything specific he had done he had nothing.
when asked about russia dismissing 750 american diplomats he took the opportunity to thank putin because it lowered the US payroll (it didnt) and so putin saved us some money (he didnt) and we wont need to send those diplomats back...
when asked about russia dismissing 750 american diplomats he took the opportunity to thank putin because it lowered the US payroll (it didnt) and so putin saved us some money (he didnt) and we wont need to send those diplomats back...
Last edited:
China does not, but Cray boy doesn't give a shit. He's too deep in his bluster to even show any sign of backing down or scaling back.
And China is (surprisingly) complying. In fact the 'best' news to come out is that China is agreeing to comply with NK sanctions.
That alone should have made Trump stop, drop and roll - maybe even beat his chest a little & praise China.
Instead, we get "fire and fury". Something which took e'eryone by surprise - including his own advisers. You said you think he wrote it earlier & waited for the right time to ... 'drop that beat'. I think you're right. Which is very cray.
It's like he was reading off one of his twitter drafts he hadn't yet posted. Impetuously not thinking that words have consequences. And in return, his cray counterpart, NK Fatboy (sounds like a rap name eh?) threatens to blow up Guam as if to say "Oh? 'fire and fury' if I make a threat? Check this out... GUAM!"
i just saw his comments, so i guess his first statements were actually too strong instead of not strong enough because his original comment was "no more threats or else", now in response to more direct threats his response is "well just dont go through with it".
"we will see what they do with guam, if they go through with it they will see an event in NK like the world has never seen before"
then a few minutes later he said this "apple is building a factory here the likes of which the world has never seen"
his lunch was probably followed up by "the most impressive piece of chocolate cake the likes of which, actually, the world has never seen before"
Last edited:
Oh FFS..................
Now tell me he doesn't really want a war .....
It's like since Iran's been behaving themselves
and he can't start his 'Trump War' with them, NK is the next best thing ... except it isn't.
There's never been a better example of a victimized president in the history of the United States.
On the chance you get American cable "news" networks, try dropping in on, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC at any given time. Occasionally FOX as well.
In case you haven't been paying attention over the last 7 years, and want to blame a puppet over the M.I.C., then you can blame Obama over Trump on that one.
Yet you're not seeing the parallel to your accusation in this particular situation?
And your example to this, other than an (R) in front of his name is what?
Lobbing cruise missiles at a hangar after a purported Russia-backed chemical attack?
Didn't Barrack "allow" the fomentation of a civil war for the exact same accusation?
I agree there.
Your recollection of events, or historical absence of intelligence on the matter kinda sums the typical position.
Bush quoted "mushroom cloud" when referencing Iraq's WMD program multiple times, including to the United Nations, as a scare tactic to justify the invasion of Iraq.
So was he a puppet, or was that "Bush's war"?
Obama's White House(MIC) dropped more bombs than Bush's, on more nations.
While candidate Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves office having been at war longer than any president in US history. He is also the only president to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.
President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.
Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.
America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign | Medea Benjamin
His proxy war with Russia has spanned half a decade, and when he starts losing the public trust on the matter, he demonizes Russia further by sending in the CIA to foment a Ukrainian civil war, infiltrates Crimea for strategic positioning, and lines up anti-ballistic missiles along the eastern block continuing to break treaties. Then touts Russia as "Tyrants occupying Crimea, which the world must collectively rebuke".
So he entertains a no-fly zone over Syria with the other warhawk Mrs.Clinton, an ABSOLUTE guarantee of Nuclear War, and 40 million Russians dive underground over the span of a week. You're trying to absolve this man?
So when Eisenhower made this speech, he outlined himself that he was not the one in ultimate power, as long as a pragmatist is in office, which Obama is.
So at what point in the last 70 years has the Military Industrial complex and shadow government lost it's power?
I remember one guy who was an idealist trying that, but he seems to have had his head blown off by a magic Russian bullet.
Then his killers head was blown off, then his killer was "pulmonary embolism'd" before trial #2.
Coincidence I'm sure, as conspiracies only happen in past-tense.
Nearly every single president in the last 70 years has found themselves in war, yet you seem to think this is the power of a Presidency at play?
You say you don't care what side of an arbitrary line a guy is on, yet where were you when Obama's WH was dropping 26,000 bombs across the globe last year?
Where were you when Bill Clintons dick hung Slobodan Milosevic?
Hell, I didn't even want Trump to be President, the only guy on stage for that was Rand Paul, and as far as interventionalism, Johnson on the second tier.
So what does it tell you when across the globe the worst candidates are strategically installed in the first tier?
And you're blaming Donald fucking Trump?
Of any of the loudest guys on tier one, America might be luckiest to have a loudmouth tweeter that everybody's been told to hate, just on the off-chance he can hold his own against the warhawks puppeteering this bullshit.
Question:
Of what you know of the candidates on either side,1st tier, you are handed THE American ballot to decide the election.
Who would've your vote gone to Q @Qat ?
Last edited:
I don't and won't.
But you should think a sec about your assessment here. Trump is a bully and attacks people and institutions non-stop. To paint him as a victim is laughable.
So now he is a puppet? Why would both parties want to get rid of a puppet?
Again, not sure what you are getting at. It doesn't matter how I personally judge what he says. I don't possess nuclear weapons.
I can still judge what he does though, and how I see the political climate developing.
You are mixing shit left and right. Just look at how he changes his staff more often than his underwear. Or how he says what. If you can't see that he is a hard guy to work with for any organization, you are a fool.
And again with the Obama stuff. Does it say Obama-fan anywhere on my account? That is just very cheap deflection, bro.
What a weird chapter. I don't often write lol, but here I have to: lol!
Yeah we have been hearing about new nuclear war ever since WW2 ended. And Trump was not in office. But neither were a lot of others. That is all I said and meant, in order to put your weak statement into perspective..
It's amazing what you draw out of it and how patronizing you become. For an argument that we didn't even have. All in your head buddy. So: lol!
Ever since I'm here I'm shitting on American policy, you goof.
And no I won't even read that blue shit, post something eye-friendly next time.
I wouldn't have voted for Trump nor Hillary. Which other candidate, or none, I can't answer with a good conscience now, since I would put much more research into them in the situation.
That is a question of trust in people. One false action might set off a Cascade of bad decisions.
As you see with suicide bombers or people who go on a killing spree or whatever, some people are crazy, and it's not black and white.
And we already had a country dropping nuclear bombs in the past.
To say the possibility doesn't exist, is pretty optimistic.
M
member 3289
Guest
M
member 3289
Guest
Rule 1: a paragraph is not determined by a certain number of sentences.
Yes it is.
M
member 3289
Guest
No, it's not.
Read the Unabomber's manifesto. The sheeple are doing (thinking) what they are told by the media@Shinkicker I need a translation.
ps Didn't read all that so I don't know Spark's context.
I have to give you the randomness of people is of course an unknown. I just don't think the N Korea pieces are a higher chance for a nuclear end of the world than say...Taiwan or various Eastern europe tensions with Russia. And no one is up all night about those. In fact, there is hope for more aggressive posturing with Russia, a country that can end the planet on its own, from many circles that are panicking about Trump dare speaking rhetoric at a country that regularly threatens to nuke the western USA.
So your argument is, it's not that bad, because it could be worse?
is this dude an active general or retired?
It means, my fine-feathered friend, that establishment politicians are essentially two sides to the same coin, and both sides didn't want him as President.
They both want power, and cater to the tiny frustrated brains of those who've elected to forget lessons of history of government, by targeting social issues, like homosexuality and the liberty-oriented spectrum.
The reference to the Mises institute, is regarding the members of that libertarian organization that have voted for Trump, because they have seen that his personality and beliefs are strong enough to be a gateway for Independent candidates in the future, which could potentially bring down the two-party system.
The left have targeted issues like the wall, immigration, and transgenders, and re-packaged them as racism and bigotry.
The right & left know he could potentially destroy their power structure by marring the illusion of integrity held by the office of the presidency among other things.
So hatred is fomented and citizens take and defend either side, keeping the establishment in power. Just like war.
If you believe in socialism effectively working better than a free market btw, we can save ourselves some time.
Last edited: