Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III
Options
Comments
-
Breaking News : The Hill are reporting that Stormy Daniels’s attorney Michael Avenatti said on Tuesday that President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen received $500,000 in the months after the 2016 election from a company run by a Russian oligarch with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/993959992762994688
This would be explosive if true. Avenatti said that the funding may have been used to reimburse the $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Trump.
Just to flesh out this, the Russian Oligarch was Viktor Vekselberg, who was stopped by Mueller's team while entering the US on a private jet, earlier this year. He was questioned and all his electronic equipment was copied. This could add another layer to the Russian collusion.
Here is Michael Avenatti's executive summary.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pskgpwr15r48tx5/Executive%20Summary.pdf?dl=00 -
Water John wrote: »I accept I read 2016 as the payment time, when they stated it was following the 2016 election.
What they appear to be suggesting is that Cohen borrowed money to make the payments at the time, and got re-imbursed from Vekselberg in 2017. Why would he even need to do that, is what is wierd. BTW, Cohen got a $9m mortgage on a Trump Tower apartment that he and his wife owned, on April 24th.0 -
David Corn of Mother Jones is just on Ari Melber's show and said that same Russian AND Wilbur Ross saved a Cypriot Bank, which is known for money laundering.0
-
Beechwoodspark wrote: »Imagine being in the US army with this warmongering feckless buffoon as the chief.
Actually, life is getting better for us. We have some very capable people in charge of DoD and Dept of the Army, and we are quite happy that some common sense is coming down the pipe. Morale right now is very high.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Actually, life is getting better for us. We have some very capable people in charge of DoD and Dept of the Army, and we are quite happy that some common sense is coming down the pipe. Morale right now is very high.
Not worried about rolling that tank across Persia to fight the most well equipped and capable army that the US has fought since Korea Manic? Or maybe Trump will just drop the bomb on Tehran and get it done quick.......
What do you think about the president trying to precipitate another international conflict in the middle east at the behest of Israel and the Saudis?0 -
Advertisement
-
There's a fairly strong culture in the US defence forces (and in the defence forces of most democracies) that it's not the business of soldiers to say what wars the US should or shouldn't fight. That is the business of politicians, for which they are accountable through the democratic process. The professional soldier's job is to fight legally, honourably and effectively when committed to combat, but he has no business second-guessing political decisions about when the rights or interests of the state call for troops to be committed to combat.
The opposite tendency, whereby the army seeks to influence political decisions about recourse to war, is sometimes known as Bonapartism. It's strongly discouraged in officer training school, and in the service culture of the US forces.0 -
Was it coincidence the iran deal decision was made the day the Cohen story broke i wonder...0
-
Stories embarrassing to Trump break every day. No matter when the Iran decision was made, you could certainly speculate that it was a distraction from some embarrassment or other.everlast75 wrote: »Was it coincidence the iran deal decision was made the day the Cohen story broke i wonder...
The timing of the Iran story was determined by the fact that the President has to "recertify" the Iran deal every 90 days, and the due date for recertification is upon us.0 -
Even if the Meuller investigation never indicted anyone, if there really was "no collusion!", if Trump wasnt enriching himself on the back of his presidency and hadn't filled his administration with incompetent cronies, if he hadnt told 3000 lies since he took office and didnt have the personal morality of a Vegas pimp... even then his pathological drive to destroy Obama's legacy (first Obama-care, now the Iran-deal) will earn him a spot at top of histroically Bad Presidents alongside Buchanan, Harding and Pierce.0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Stories embarrassing to Trump break every day. No matter when the Iran decision was made, you could certainly speculate that it was a distraction from some embarrassment or other.
The timing of the Iran story was determined by the fact that the President has to "recertify" the Iran deal every 90 days, and the due date for recertification is upon us.
Tbf the Cohen story is f'n huge, but you're probably right. Sceptical me0 -
Advertisement
-
Not worried about rolling that tank across Persia to fight the most well equipped and capable army that the US has fought since Korea Manic? Or maybe Trump will just drop the bomb on Tehran and get it done quick.......
What do you think about the president trying to precipitate another international conflict in the middle east at the behest of Israel and the Saudis?
We don't think very much about it. Whether it's a war that the US gets itself into by bumbling about, or one which comes to us without anything we did, our job is to fight and win. The reason behind it becomes rather irrelevant once the shooting has started. The problem is that we have generally lost this focus. When we lost the Strong Europe Tank Challenge to Austria last year, comments were along the lines of "The contest was rigged: Austrian tankers don't have to do quarterly Sexual Harassment Training and it wasn't evaluated in the competition!"
Compare the CVs of the current SecDef and SecArmy with those of the previous administration. We currently have the hugely popular St Mattis of Quantico, well respected by all and who unashamedly is of the opinion that if it doesn't help us fight better, we shouldn't be doing it, and Dr Esper is a West-Pointer with 21 years in Army Green. Their predecessors were a theoretical physicist and a career politician.
The upshot of it is that we now believe we have people running the show who actually understands what the military is supposed to be doing. We started doing (metaphorical) cartwheels of joy when we started hearing our leaders say things like this
This isn't a big geopolitical strategy issue like you're presumably concerned about. This is 'keeping the military functioning and effective'. In 2015, Ft Leavenworth concluded that we were mandated to conduct 20 months' worth of training every year. The result, a whole lot of BS training which nobody is interested in, and a mandated integrity problem when it became acceptable for leaders to lie about training having been conducted. It is murderous for morale. We did not join the Army to sit in front of a computer to repeatedly be told not to share a password.
These changes have already started coming down the pipe. I am currently the Operations Officer of my unit, it's my job to come up with the training schedule. This last weekend alone, we shaved three hours, which we gleefully spent at the range instead. It also helped that for the first time in years, we had more ammunition than we needed, which allowed for additional trigger time, though that may just have been a lucky break at the ammo point.
So, yes. We are well aware of the characteristics of the President, and the proclivities of his new National Security Advisor. What is more important to us, though, is that we actually get the focus back to training to fight, supplied with time, dollars and equipment. Mattis has said we have need to regain the art of warfighting, and he is not wrong. Our next war may come in this administration, or it may come in the next one. Either way, if the leadership we have under the Trump administration continues on the course they have both claimed and demonstrated to date, we are going to be better prepared for it.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »We don't think very much about it. Whether it's a war that the US gets itself into by bumbling about, or one which comes to us without anything we did, our job is to fight and win. The reason behind it becomes rather irrelevant once the shooting has started. The problem is that we have generally lost this focus. When we lost the Strong Europe Tank Challenge to Austria last year, comments were along the lines of "The contest was rigged: Austrian tankers don't have to do quarterly Sexual Harassment Training and it wasn't evaluated in the competition!"
Compare the CVs of the current SecDef and SecArmy with those of the previous administration. We currently have the hugely popular St Mattis of Quantico, well respected by all and who unashamedly is of the opinion that if it doesn't help us fight better, we shouldn't be doing it, and Dr Esper is a West-Pointer with 21 years in Army Green. Their predecessors were a theoretical physicist and a career politician.
The upshot of it is that we now believe we have people running the show who actually understands what the military is supposed to be doing. We started doing (metaphorical) cartwheels of joy when we started hearing our leaders say things like this
This isn't a big geopolitical strategy issue like you're presumably concerned about. This is 'keeping the military functioning and effective'. In 2015, Ft Leavenworth concluded that we were mandated to conduct 20 months' worth of training every year. The result, a whole lot of BS training which nobody is interested in, and a mandated integrity problem when it became acceptable for leaders to lie about training having been conducted. It is murderous for morale. We did not join the Army to sit in front of a computer to repeatedly be told not to share a password.
These changes have already started coming down the pipe. I am currently the Operations Officer of my unit, it's my job to come up with the training schedule. This last weekend alone, we shaved three hours, which we gleefully spent at the range instead. It also helped that for the first time in years, we had more ammunition than we needed, which allowed for additional trigger time, though that may just have been a lucky break at the ammo point.
So, yes. We are well aware of the characteristics of the President, and the proclivities of his new National Security Advisor. What is more important to us, though, is that we actually get the focus back to training to fight, supplied with time, dollars and equipment. Mattis has said we have need to regain the art of warfighting, and he is not wrong. Our next war may come in this administration, or it may come in the next one. Either way, if the leadership we have under the Trump administration continues on the course they have both claimed and demonstrated to date, we are going to be better prepared for it.
Would a civil war do as well ? ... Spill your ammo on your own ... Instead of looking for another illegal war
Another plus is that it would finally legitimise that second amendment waffle .... Win win ... USA USA USA USA0 -
and this post sums up why the world will always be unstable, somehow America needs wars to prove how great and herioc they are. Instead of taking needless lives treaties like the Iran treaty have stopped that but Trump and his war mongerers have now put the world on course for a huge needless war.Manic Moran wrote: »Not worried about rolling that tank across Persia to fight the most well equipped and capable army that the US has fought since Korea Manic? Or maybe Trump will just drop the bomb on Tehran and get it done quick.......
What do you think about the president trying to precipitate another international conflict in the middle east at the behest of Israel and the Saudis?
We don't think very much about it. Whether it's a war that the US gets itself into by bumbling about, or one which comes to us without anything we did, our job is to fight and win. The reason behind it becomes rather irrelevant once the shooting has started. The problem is that we have generally lost this focus. When we lost the Strong Europe Tank Challenge to Austria last year, comments were along the lines of "The contest was rigged: Austrian tankers don't have to do quarterly Sexual Harassment Training and it wasn't evaluated in the competition!"
Compare the CVs of the current SecDef and SecArmy with those of the previous administration. We currently have the hugely popular St Mattis of Quantico, well respected by all and who unashamedly is of the opinion that if it doesn't help us fight better, we shouldn't be doing it, and Dr Esper is a West-Pointer with 21 years in Army Green. Their predecessors were a theoretical physicist and a career politician.
The upshot of it is that we now believe we have people running the show who actually understands what the military is supposed to be doing. We started doing (metaphorical) cartwheels of joy when we started hearing our leaders say things like this
This isn't a big geopolitical strategy issue like you're presumably concerned about. This is 'keeping the military functioning and effective'. In 2015, Ft Leavenworth concluded that we were mandated to conduct 20 months' worth of training every year. The result, a whole lot of BS training which nobody is interested in, and a mandated integrity problem when it became acceptable for leaders to lie about training having been conducted. It is murderous for morale. We did not join the Army to sit in front of a computer to repeatedly be told not to share a password.
These changes have already started coming down the pipe. I am currently the Operations Officer of my unit, it's my job to come up with the training schedule. This last weekend alone, we shaved three hours, which we gleefully spent at the range instead. It also helped that for the first time in years, we had more ammunition than we needed, which allowed for additional trigger time, though that may just have been a lucky break at the ammo point.
So, yes. We are well aware of the characteristics of the President, and the proclivities of his new National Security Advisor. What is more important to us, though, is that we actually get the focus back to training to fight, supplied with time, dollars and equipment. Mattis has said we have need to regain the art of warfighting, and he is not wrong. Our next war may come in this administration, or it may come in the next one. Either way, if the leadership we have under the Trump administration continues on the course they have both claimed and demonstrated to date, we are going to be better prepared for it.
It is so ironic when they refer to Iran as the biggest sponsors of terrorism, when the Saudis are there sitting in the White House.
As for Israel and that leader of theirs the least said the better0 -
jooksavage wrote: »Even if the Meuller investigation never indicted anyone, if there really was "no collusion!", if Trump wasnt enriching himself on the back of his presidency and hadn't filled his administration with incompetent cronies, if he hadnt told 3000 lies since he took office and didnt have the personal morality of a Vegas pimp... even then his pathological drive to destroy Obama's legacy (first Obama-care, now the Iran-deal) will earn him a spot at top of histroically Bad Presidents alongside Buchanan, Harding and Pierce.
He has eclipsed those Presidents many times over. My concern is how much worse will it get?
I think it's important that every effort is made to keep Iran at the table and the agreement working, with or without the USA.
Bolton can not be allowed to influence Trump and push for a war with Iran. This would be a folly of the highest order.
One of the only ways to prevent this is for all remaining parties in the agreement to maintain their support and to not back down in the face of a bully.0 -
and this post sums up why the world will always be unstable, somehow America needs wars to prove how great and herioc they are.
A bit of a non-sequitor that, isn't it? Is there any professional military on the planet which doesn't want to focus on preparing for its primary job of warfighting? Where did I say anything about proving great heroism?0 -
I totally agree with Manic that the job of the military is not politics but to be ready and able to carry out military operations as decided upon by those tasked with that.
There is no doubt that the US military's ability to fight has been greatly diminished, ever since WWII if they are being honest with themselves. Operation Desert Storm was a massive success, but in reality it was a massive force against what was effectively a non existent enemy, though that may be largely down to the planning and the operation.
There is no doubt a huge amount of wasted resources in the military though I fail to see how an additional $54bn will greatly help since the issue is clearly not money. Overall, the US fails to properly plan and execute and that leads to getting bogged down like in Korea, Vietnam, Irag, Afghanistan and Syria.
Trump is the definition of this. He acts first and thinks about it second. The tweets about NK, the claim that talking would be no good, pulling out of the Iran deal. There is no evidence that there is any overall strategy behind any of these apart from Trump wanting to be seen to be tough.
So regardless of all your training, it is likely that you will be led into a war on the basis of a whim, or even political necessity, or Trump with little planning, no overall goal (apart from 'win') and no exit strategy.0 -
Christ this is depressing.Manic Moran wrote: »We don't think very much about it. Whether it's a war that the US gets itself into by bumbling about, or one which comes to us without anything we did, our job is to fight and win. The reason behind it becomes rather irrelevant once the shooting has started. The problem is that we have generally lost this focus. When we lost the Strong Europe Tank Challenge to Austria last year, comments were along the lines of "The contest was rigged: Austrian tankers don't have to do quarterly Sexual Harassment Training and it wasn't evaluated in the competition!"
Compare the CVs of the current SecDef and SecArmy with those of the previous administration. We currently have the hugely popular St Mattis of Quantico, well respected by all and who unashamedly is of the opinion that if it doesn't help us fight better, we shouldn't be doing it, and Dr Esper is a West-Pointer with 21 years in Army Green. Their predecessors were a theoretical physicist and a career politician.
The upshot of it is that we now believe we have people running the show who actually understands what the military is supposed to be doing. We started doing (metaphorical) cartwheels of joy when we started hearing our leaders say things like this
This isn't a big geopolitical strategy issue like you're presumably concerned about. This is 'keeping the military functioning and effective'. In 2015, Ft Leavenworth concluded that we were mandated to conduct 20 months' worth of training every year. The result, a whole lot of BS training which nobody is interested in, and a mandated integrity problem when it became acceptable for leaders to lie about training having been conducted. It is murderous for morale. We did not join the Army to sit in front of a computer to repeatedly be told not to share a password.
These changes have already started coming down the pipe. I am currently the Operations Officer of my unit, it's my job to come up with the training schedule. This last weekend alone, we shaved three hours, which we gleefully spent at the range instead. It also helped that for the first time in years, we had more ammunition than we needed, which allowed for additional trigger time, though that may just have been a lucky break at the ammo point.
So, yes. We are well aware of the characteristics of the President, and the proclivities of his new National Security Advisor. What is more important to us, though, is that we actually get the focus back to training to fight, supplied with time, dollars and equipment. Mattis has said we have need to regain the art of warfighting, and he is not wrong. Our next war may come in this administration, or it may come in the next one. Either way, if the leadership we have under the Trump administration continues on the course they have both claimed and demonstrated to date, we are going to be better prepared for it.
You're a grunt and happy to be used as a battering ram, a plaything of an unhinged lunatic in the whitehouse.
The Irish army take their pride in their mission, which is to keep the peace and protect innocent lives. You seem to focus your pride on being the best at killing anyone you're told to kill.
A shameful attitude that was shared by marauding hoards of invaders throughout history0 -
War is the last resort for many countries but for the US it does not seem soManic Moran wrote: »and this post sums up why the world will always be unstable, somehow America needs wars to prove how great and herioc they are.
A bit of a non-sequitor that, isn't it? Is there any professional military on the planet which doesn't want to focus on preparing for its primary job of warfighting? Where did I say anything about proving great heroism?
Imagine if they took even 50% of the budget the spend on military each year, how many lives they would save from soldiers not going into war and what good use that 50% could be put towards, things like health and education
Would any soldier could be happy laying down their lives for the egotistic man-child living in the White House, where he puts their lives at risk on a whim or for revenge on Obama because his ego was hurt0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »A bit of a non-sequitor that, isn't it? Is there any professional military on the planet which doesn't want to focus on preparing for its primary job of warfighting? Where did I say anything about proving great heroism?
You can train with purpose. If your purpose is to protect lives your training is worthwhile. If your purpose is to execute your orders effectively and kill who you're told to kill you're on the same level as the SS.
You seem to think the only worthwhile training is combat training, but the US military spends most of its time as an occupying force. You need training in humility, that you're there to serve the citizens of the country you're occupying as much as to follow the orders of your commanders. if your goal is to bring 'freedom and democracy' the military need to be a beacon of virtue and a role model for the world, not just a weapon of war.0 -
War is the last resort for many countries but for the US it does not seem so
Imagine if they took even 50% of the budget the spend on military each year, how many lives they would save from soldiers not going into war and what good use that 50% could be put towards, things like health and education
It does amaze me that there seems to be so little questioning of the spend on the military and what it actually brings to the US.
In terms of the Iraq war, I think we are into the Trillions at this stage, and what would the attitude of most Americans be on it? Do they really think that they have made America any safer as a result?
Think even of Trump himself. He is calling for a border wall yet spends $54bn additional on the military leaving himself with nothing for the wall. So lots of big boats and fast planes but nothing to stop the rapists and drug dealers that affect the everyday lives of America.
Manic talked about saving 3 hours in a week. Thats nearly 2% of wasted effort with, all due respect to Manic, little actual effort (I don't mean that Manic didn't work hard, rather that it was pretty low hanging fruit). Spread that out across the entire military and expand it to focus on actual needs. No military parade would be a starting point!
Take all that saved money and spend it on better immigration, better healthcare, better education. Hell spend it on politics to remove corporate money from the game.0 -
Advertisement
-
The US is currently involved in 6 wars. I do wonder how much of the "Theirs not to reason why..." mindset of US military has contributed to this state of affairs.0
-
Christ this is depressing.
You're a grunt and happy to be used as a battering ram, a plaything of an unhinged lunatic in the whitehouse.
The Irish army take their pride in their mission, which is to keep the peace and protect innocent lives. You seem to focus your pride on being the best at killing anyone you're told to kill.
A shameful attitude that was shared by marauding hoards of invaders throughout history
You might want to ask the Irish Government what the mission of the Irish Defense Forces is. You may find that the very first thing on the list is "To defend the State against armed aggression".
That means warfighting.
Other missions, even under the UN peace umbrella, also mean 'warfighting', such as ONUC or ISAF.
So, yes, the Irish military is trained and equipped to kill anyone they are told to kill. It's why they have all those guns and artillery pieces and missiles and whatnot.0 -
So would you be happy to go into War and put your life on the line for the ego of an overly sensitive man?Manic Moran wrote: »Christ this is depressing.
You're a grunt and happy to be used as a battering ram, a plaything of an unhinged lunatic in the whitehouse.
The Irish army take their pride in their mission, which is to keep the peace and protect innocent lives. You seem to focus your pride on being the best at killing anyone you're told to kill.
A shameful attitude that was shared by marauding hoards of invaders throughout history
You might want to ask the Irish Government what the mission of the Irish Defense Forces is. You may find that the very first thing on the list is "To defend the State against armed aggression".
That means warfighting.
Other missions, even under the UN peace umbrella, also mean 'warfighting', such as ONUC or ISAF.
So, yes, the Irish military is trained and equipped to kill anyone they are told to kill. It's why they have all those guns and artillery pieces and missiles and whatnot.0 -
Big difference between defending against aggression and being the aggressorsManic Moran wrote: »You might want to ask the Irish Government what the mission of the Irish Defense Forces is. You may find that the very first thing on the list is "To defend the State against armed aggression".
That means warfighting.
Other missions, even under the UN peace umbrella, also mean 'warfighting', such as ONUC or ISAF.
So, yes, the Irish military is trained and equipped to kill anyone they are told to kill. It's why they have all those guns and artillery pieces and missiles and whatnot.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »We don't think very much about it. Whether it's a war that the US gets itself into by bumbling about, or one which comes to us without anything we did, our job is to fight and win. The reason behind it becomes rather irrelevant once the shooting has started. The problem is that we have generally lost this focus. When we lost the Strong Europe Tank Challenge to Austria last year, comments were along the lines of "The contest was rigged: Austrian tankers don't have to do quarterly Sexual Harassment Training and it wasn't evaluated in the competition!"
Compare the CVs of the current SecDef and SecArmy with those of the previous administration. We currently have the hugely popular St Mattis of Quantico, well respected by all and who unashamedly is of the opinion that if it doesn't help us fight better, we shouldn't be doing it, and Dr Esper is a West-Pointer with 21 years in Army Green. Their predecessors were a theoretical physicist and a career politician.
The upshot of it is that we now believe we have people running the show who actually understands what the military is supposed to be doing. We started doing (metaphorical) cartwheels of joy when we started hearing our leaders say things like this
This isn't a big geopolitical strategy issue like you're presumably concerned about. This is 'keeping the military functioning and effective'. In 2015, Ft Leavenworth concluded that we were mandated to conduct 20 months' worth of training every year. The result, a whole lot of BS training which nobody is interested in, and a mandated integrity problem when it became acceptable for leaders to lie about training having been conducted. It is murderous for morale. We did not join the Army to sit in front of a computer to repeatedly be told not to share a password.
These changes have already started coming down the pipe. I am currently the Operations Officer of my unit, it's my job to come up with the training schedule. This last weekend alone, we shaved three hours, which we gleefully spent at the range instead. It also helped that for the first time in years, we had more ammunition than we needed, which allowed for additional trigger time, though that may just have been a lucky break at the ammo point.
So, yes. We are well aware of the characteristics of the President, and the proclivities of his new National Security Advisor. What is more important to us, though, is that we actually get the focus back to training to fight, supplied with time, dollars and equipment. Mattis has said we have need to regain the art of warfighting, and he is not wrong. Our next war may come in this administration, or it may come in the next one. Either way, if the leadership we have under the Trump administration continues on the course they have both claimed and demonstrated to date, we are going to be better prepared for it.
It's interesting that you picked sexual harassment training. It's not something that would make you more combat ready as an individual that's true but it's not like it was introduced by some white knight. Sexual assault and harassment was a gigantic issue in the US military.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »You might want to ask the Irish Government what the mission of the Irish Defense Forces is. You may find that the very first thing on the list is "To defend the State against armed aggression".
Of which of the six wars America is currently actively engaged or actively supporting are american troops "defending the state"?
Which of the dozens in the last 70 years for that matter?0 -
What’s interesting is how much of the base still support him. I mean a lot of arguments for him were about the continuous wars.
I still think that the Russian allegations are spurious, and the dossier a deep state attempt at a coup but they needn’t have worried.
The US has effectively abandoned its old allies and is now in a Saudi Israel US axis. This should mean the breakup of NATO but given the lack of alternative thinking, it won’t.0 -
You're normally, by a decent margin, one of the more thoughtful and intelligent posters on this forum, even if I fundamentally disagree with much of what you say. But wow, have you ever managed to undermine that reputation with this post.Manic Moran wrote: »...Austrian tankers don't have to do quarterly Sexual Harassment Training...
...if it doesn't help us fight better, we shouldn't be doing it...
...a whole lot of BS training which nobody is interested in...
"It doesn't matter that the commander-in-chief is mentally unstable; all that matters is that we're suitably equipped to fight the pointless wars he's idiotically dragging us towards."So, yes. We are well aware of the characteristics of the President, and the proclivities of his new National Security Advisor. What is more important to us, though, is that we actually get the focus back to training to fight, supplied with time, dollars and equipment.
That's one of the most depressing things I've read on this thread.0 -
So would you be happy to go into War and put your life on the line for the ego of an overly sensitive man?
One of the big problem in the states is that if you say anything that might criticise the Country, all others are short of doing is rounding up a posse and burning you at the stake.
They need to understand that you can be "for America" AND against one of the decisions of its government to go to war.
However, if oppose a war, you are called out for being against the army and the veterans.
"How dare you, when they put their life on the line for your freedom"
or
"you're not a patriot!"
And btw, you will note all those warhawks do not have kids that are in the army, risking mutilation, serious psychological damage or death.
F**k it, Donny dodged the draft himself five times.
I won't mind, but they can't even look after their veterans properly. How about addressing those that currently need serious medical help before you go create thousands more.
They need to address their fascination with this "America is the best country in the world" nonsense. Obama called it correctly - you can love your Country but want it to do better. They are not mutually exclusive.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »You're normally, by a decent margin, one of the more thoughtful and intelligent posters on this forum, even if I fundamentally disagree with much of what you say. But wow, have you ever managed to undermine that reputation with this post. "It doesn't matter that the commander-in-chief is mentally unstable; all that matters is that we're suitably equipped to fight the pointless wars he's idiotically dragging us towards."
That's one of the most depressing things I've read on this thread.
Any other way and you have the military deciding policy rather than democratically elected leaders, don't see how that's much better.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement