Bump When "Radical Islamic Terrorism" is Defeated..

Cameron wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I understood what you we saying but think for 10 seconds about why a statistically rare occurrence (even in Britain) elicits compassion and outrage but the bombing of a church in Aleppo by Americans on March 16 that killed at least 37 people, all civilians, including children, doesn't. The "war on terror" is a war of attrition that WE WILL LOSE. Our taste for death will tire much sooner than extremists will. As long as rich people who refuse to send THEIR kids to die continue to murder in our names this continues. And I believe they want it that way. Keep us focusing on the brown people's barbarism and we don't focus on how they are systematically stripping away all our public resources and giving them away to for profit interests.

So what's your proposal vis a vis terrorism? That we just do nothing? You think it will just work itself out? Because that seems rather naive to me.

Seriously, did you listen to the Sam Harris podcast? You really should.

No, it's that we continue to do what we have been doing related to protecting our citizens, and we stop fucking around in Middle East politics. Let's not pretend we are there for humanitarian reasons. It's always been about Oil and global strategic alliances (Israel). We don't need their oil like we once did and Israel is the biggest badass on the block thanks to our military aid. Further, they continue to thumb their noses at us when we ask them to work with the Palestinians (while we GIVE them 3.8 billion a year on average). Fuck them. Let the Arab hordes close in around them a bit and make them sweat. Then maybe they understand that they need to make peace. I'm getting in the weeds a bit, but here's my point: What do we, the people if the U.S. get out of this conflict? I see no benefits to ousting Assad, or bombing ISIS (or any other iteration of Islamist extremism). We have vastly superior military capabilities, but they have nothing but time to pick away at our soldiers, and dink and dunk when they can in our countries with terrorist tactics. They have the advantage. Any leader that comes after Assad appears to be a puppet, just like Karzai and Ghani in Afghanistan are seen to be by large swaths of the country. Or they are seen as representing only a small subset of the people, like in Iraq. You cannot install democracy. This is the forever war and there is no way out because there is no real objective. As Colin Powell famously said "you break it, you own it." Well, it's time we take the loss and walk away from active combat, INCLUDING airstrikes. Nothing solidifies hatred of America more in the region than drones. We are helping to radicalize people with our actions. We are still the face of what's happened in the region. We started the instability with the invasion of Iraq. But we have to just say "oops" and get out. If we want to supply certain factions on the downlow, cool. If we want to do humanitarian stuff, cool. We continue to keep our citizens as safe as possible at home, we focus on conventional enemies with borders and leaders and armies (N. Korea, Russia) and we get the fuck out.

But there are advantaged to a never ending war. Dollars and distraction. It's a tool to divide us, keep us hating the brown man while weapons manufacturers get rich, and keep us looking overseas while our American resources (public lands, public schools, public roads, healthcare, the fucking internet) get divvied up to private interests that can squeeze every last penny of profit out of them while supposedly giving us "choices". This isn't 1984 as so many fear, this really is A Brave New World. We are so buried in information that the truth doesn't matter anymore.

okay I'm done, for now.

Rocinante wrote:

Cameron wrote:

So what's your proposal vis a vis terrorism? That we just do nothing? You think it will just work itself out? Because that seems rather naive to me.

Seriously, did you listen to the Sam Harris podcast? You really should.

No, it's that we continue to do what we have been doing related to protecting our citizens, and we stop fucking around in Middle East politics. Let's not pretend we are there for humanitarian reasons. It's always been about Oil and global strategic alliances (Israel). We don't need their oil like we once did and Israel is the biggest badass on the block thanks to our military aid. Further, they continue to thumb their noses at us when we ask them to work with the Palestinians (while we GIVE them 3.8 billion a year on average). Fuck them. Let the Arab hordes close in around them a bit and make them sweat. Then maybe they understand that they need to make peace. I'm getting in the weeds a bit, but here's my point: What do we, the people if the U.S. get out of this conflict? I see no benefits to ousting Assad, or bombing ISIS (or any other iteration of Islamist extremism). We have vastly superior military capabilities, but they have nothing but time to pick away at our soldiers, and dink and dunk when they can in our countries with terrorist tactics. They have the advantage. Any leader that comes after Assad appears to be a puppet, just like Karzai and Ghani in Afghanistan are seen to be by large swaths of the country. Or they are seen as representing only a small subset of the people, like in Iraq. You cannot install democracy. This is the forever war and there is no way out because there is no real objective. As Colin Powell famously said "you break it, you own it." Well, it's time we take the loss and walk away from active combat, INCLUDING airstrikes. Nothing solidifies hatred of America more in the region than drones. We are helping to radicalize people with our actions. We are still the face of what's happened in the region. We started the instability with the invasion of Iraq. But we have to just say "oops" and get out. If we want to supply certain factions on the downlow, cool. If we want to do humanitarian stuff, cool. We continue to keep our citizens as safe as possible at home, we focus on conventional enemies with borders and leaders and armies (N. Korea, Russia) and we get the fuck out.

But there are advantaged to a never ending war. Dollars and distraction. It's a tool to divide us, keep us hating the brown man while weapons manufacturers get rich, and keep us looking overseas while our American resources (public lands, public schools, public roads, healthcare, the fucking internet) get divvied up to private interests that can squeeze every last penny of profit out of them while supposedly giving us "choices". This isn't 1984 as so many fear, this really is A Brave New World. We are so buried in information that the truth doesn't matter anymore.

okay I'm done, for now.

this pretty well outlines how and why republicans are basically the VP of Marketing for terrorists.. while Obama can't be absolved from participating in a similar strategy to a much lesser extent, between bu$h and now the sexual predator, there is a reason why terrorists celebrate their election.

Republicans are the best recruiters that ISIS and other extremists could ever hope for.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

No, it's that we continue to do what we have been doing related to protecting our citizens, and we stop fucking around in Middle East politics.  Let's not pretend we are there for humanitarian reasons.  It's always been about Oil and global strategic alliances (Israel).  We don't need their oil like we once did and Israel is the biggest badass on the block thanks to our military aid.  Further, they continue to thumb their noses at us when we ask them to work with the Palestinians (while we GIVE them 3.8 billion a year on average).  Fuck them.  Let the Arab hordes close in around them a bit and make them sweat.  Then maybe they understand that they need to make peace.  I'm getting in the weeds a bit, but here's my point: What do we, the people if the U.S. get out of this conflict?  I see no benefits to ousting Assad, or bombing ISIS (or any other iteration of Islamist extremism).  We have vastly superior military capabilities, but they have nothing but time to pick away at our soldiers, and dink and dunk when they can in our countries with terrorist tactics.  They have the advantage.  Any leader that comes after Assad appears to be a puppet, just like Karzai and Ghani in Afghanistan are seen to be by large swaths of the country.  Or they are seen as representing only a small subset of the people, like in Iraq.  You cannot install democracy.  This is the forever war and there is no way out because there is no real objective.  As Colin Powell famously said "you break it, you own it." Well, it's time we take the loss and walk away from active combat, INCLUDING airstrikes.  Nothing solidifies hatred of America more in the region than drones.  We are helping to radicalize people with our actions. We are still the face of what's happened in the region.  We started the instability with the invasion of Iraq. But we have to just say "oops" and get out.  If we want to supply certain factions on the downlow, cool.  If we want to do humanitarian stuff, cool.  We continue to keep our citizens as safe as possible at home, we focus on conventional enemies with borders and leaders and armies (N. Korea, Russia) and we get the fuck out.  

But there are advantaged to a never ending war.  Dollars and distraction.  It's a tool to divide us, keep us hating the brown man while weapons manufacturers get rich, and keep us looking overseas while our American resources (public lands, public schools, public roads, healthcare, the fucking internet) get divvied up to private interests that can squeeze every last penny of profit out of them while supposedly giving us "choices".  This isn't 1984 as so many fear, this really is A Brave New World.  We are so buried in information that the truth doesn't matter anymore.

okay I'm done, for now.

this pretty well outlines how and why republicans are basically the VP of Marketing for terrorists.. while Obama can't be absolved from participating in a similar strategy to a much lesser extent, between bu$h and now the sexual predator, there is a reason why terrorists celebrate their election.

Republicans are the best recruiters that ISIS and other extremists could ever hope for.

To a much lesser extent      

There were ten times more air strikes in the covert war on terror during President Barack Obama’s presidency than under his predecessor, George W. Bush.  Let's give him another Nobel Peace Prize!  

Obama embraced the US drone programme, overseeing more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed in those countries, according to reports logged by the Bureau.

Obama ordered 10 times more drone strikes then Bush

EDIT: Countdown to Bob responding with a "snowflake" comment that is out of context because he's a poor debater...

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
this pretty well outlines how and why republicans are basically the VP of Marketing for terrorists.. while Obama can't be absolved from participating in a similar strategy to a much lesser extent, between bu$h and now the sexual predator, there is a reason why terrorists celebrate their election.

Republicans are the best recruiters that ISIS and other extremists could ever hope for.

To a much lesser extent      

There were ten times more air strikes in the covert war on terror during President Barack Obama’s presidency than under his predecessor, George W. Bush. Let's give him another Nobel Peace Prize!

Obama embraced the US drone programme, overseeing more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed in those countries, according to reports logged by the Bureau.

Obama ordered 10 times more drone strikes then Bush

I'm sorry that 9/11 occurred on bu$h's watch... I know you guys really wanted such a thing to happen while the colored boy was president.

however, he spent his time wisely, listened to to his advisors and kept America the safest it had been in a decade.

which, of course, is why republicans hate him so much - among other reasons such as his integrity, his level of education and the class in which he conducted himself in the face of racism every single day.

You won't hear any arguments from me Re: Obama and drones. I failed to pay as close attention to that as it deserved and I know that. I think at the time I thought there were legitimate reasons for an active American presence in the region and considered drones better than troops on the ground. I was wrong. Won't happen again. No matter who's in office.

Rocinante wrote:You won't hear any arguments from me Re: Obama and drones. I failed to pay as close attention to that as it deserved and I know that. I think at the time I thought there were legitimate reasons for an active American presence in the region and considered drones better than troops on the ground. I was wrong. Won't happen again. No matter who's in office.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
this pretty well outlines how and why republicans are basically the VP of Marketing for terrorists.. while Obama can't be absolved from participating in a similar strategy to a much lesser extent, between bu$h and now the sexual predator, there is a reason why terrorists celebrate their election.

Republicans are the best recruiters that ISIS and other extremists could ever hope for.

To a much lesser extent      

There were ten times more air strikes in the covert war on terror during President Barack Obama’s presidency than under his predecessor, George W. Bush.  Let's give him another Nobel Peace Prize!  

Obama embraced the US drone programme, overseeing more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed in those countries, according to reports logged by the Bureau.

Obama ordered 10 times more drone strikes then Bush

EDIT: Countdown to Bob responding with a "snowflake" comment that is out of context because he's a poor debater...

Thing is, it's really a bullshit article. Knowing it was only the CIA that used unarmed drones until once after the 9/11 attacks. Their first armed drone was I think a year and a half or two years after 9/11. That's like two or maybe even three years into Bush's Presidency. Even then, I dont' think the CIA worked side by side with the military for 4 more years or so. Now, it's a full fledged effort.

That stat is like saying that Knute Rockne didn't throw the ball as much as Tom Landry did. Pass wasn't really used till he beat Army. Then it started being used, and now we see 40 or so passes from each side in a game.

Anyway, I just think you should compare apples to apples. I'm not that familiar with Drone's and how they're being used now, but it seems pretty fucked up no matter what. All this shit pretty much sucks.

Robert J Sak wrote:I'm sorry that 9/11 occurred on bu$h's watch... I know you guys really wanted such a thing to happen while the colored boy was president.

however, he spent his time wisely, listened to to his advisors and kept America the safest it had been in a decade.

There were 13 known terrorist attacks on US soil during his presidency Bob.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/11410/complete-list-radical-islamic-terror-attacks-us-james-barrett#

DWags wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

To a much lesser extent      

There were ten times more air strikes in the covert war on terror during President Barack Obama’s presidency than under his predecessor, George W. Bush.  Let's give him another Nobel Peace Prize!  


Obama ordered 10 times more drone strikes then Bush

EDIT: Countdown to Bob responding with a "snowflake" comment that is out of context because he's a poor debater...

Thing is, it's really a bullshit article. Knowing it was only the CIA that used unarmed drones until once after the 9/11 attacks. Their first armed drone was I think a year and a half or two years after 9/11. That's like two or maybe even three years into Bush's Presidency. Even then, I dont' think the CIA worked side by side with the military for 4 more years or so. Now, it's a full fledged effort.

That stat is like saying that Knute Rockne didn't throw the ball as much as Tom Landry did. Pass wasn't really used till he beat Army. Then it started being used, and now we see 40 or so passes from each side in a game.

Anyway, I just think you should compare apples to apples. I'm not that familiar with Drone's and how they're being used now, but it seems pretty fucked up no matter what. All this shit pretty much sucks.

So Bush used 57 strikes in approx 5 years. 11/year. Obama used 567 strikes in 8 years. 71/year. So a more fair answer might be 7/1 I guess.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sak wrote:I'm sorry that 9/11 occurred on bu$h's watch... I know you guys really wanted such a thing to happen while the colored boy was president.

however, he spent his time wisely, listened to to his advisors and kept America the safest it had been in a decade.

There were 13 known terrorist attacks on US soil during his presidency Bob.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/11410/complete-list-radical-islamic-terror-attacks-us-james-barrett#

congratulations on believing the mainstream media... I'm sure they appreciate your support.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

There were 13 known terrorist attacks on US soil during his presidency Bob.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/11410/complete-list-radical-islamic-terror-attacks-us-james-barrett#

congratulations on believing the mainstream media... I'm sure they appreciate your support.

congratulations on believing the mainstream media... I'm sure they appreciate your support.

[/quote]

Are you saying those terrorist attacks didn't happen???  Great comeback!

CheesySpartan wrote:

DWags wrote:


Thing is, it's really a bullshit article. Knowing it was only the CIA that used unarmed drones until once after the 9/11 attacks. Their first armed drone was I think a year and a half or two years after 9/11. That's like two or maybe even three years into Bush's Presidency. Even then, I dont' think the CIA worked side by side with the military for 4 more years or so. Now, it's a full fledged effort.

That stat is like saying that Knute Rockne didn't throw the ball as much as Tom Landry did. Pass wasn't really used till he beat Army. Then it started being used, and now we see 40 or so passes from each side in a game.

Anyway, I just think you should compare apples to apples. I'm not that familiar with Drone's and how they're being used now, but it seems pretty fucked up no matter what. All this shit pretty much sucks.

So Bush used 57 strikes in approx 5 years. 11/year. Obama used 567 strikes in 8 years. 71/year. So a more fair answer might be 7/1 I guess.

Again, when you're telling us it's an even playing field when under one president the program was in it's infancy, and the other one the CIA was working with the military, it's a different deal. Not many people had PC's in 1992. Six years later there were a ton more.

Maybe you don't get what I'm saying. No big deal, I don't personally like the program, it is what it is.

you can believe what you wish. I'm not here to argue facts.

in fact, I'm not here to argue at all.

DWags wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

So Bush used 57 strikes in approx 5 years. 11/year. Obama used 567 strikes in 8 years. 71/year. So a more fair answer might be 7/1 I guess.

Again, when you're telling us it's an even playing field when under one president the program was in it's infancy, and the other one the CIA was working with the military, it's a different deal. Not many people had PC's in 1992. Six years later there were a ton more.

Maybe you don't get what I'm saying. No big deal, I don't personally like the program, it is what it is.

I understand what you're saying. IMO, Obama used heavy numbers of drone attacks as a way to carry on the war in secret all the while publicly saying he was ending our involvement in the region by removing troops.

My goddaughter, USAF Academy grad, former USAF single engine short runway pilot (currently flying for one of the big US Airline) is married to a fellow USAF grad who went to Wright Patterson in Ohio and is still in unmanned aircraft research.

The USAF is all in on drones/unmanned aircraft.  So much so they are riffing fighter pilots and reducing fighter pilot billets for academy grads.

They see drones being able to deliver bombs/cruise missiles with smaller, cheaper aircraft.  Regardless of who is President the military has made the decision and drones are here to stay.

GRR Spartan wrote:My good daughter, USAF Academy grad, former USAF single engine short runway pilot (currently flying for one of the big US Airline) is married to a fellow USAF grad who went to Wright Patterson in Ohio and is still in unmanned aircraft research.

The USAF is all in on drones/unmanned aircraft. So much so they are riffing fighter pilots and reducing fighter pilot billets for academy grads.

They see drones being able to deliver bombs/cruise missiles with smaller, cheaper aircraft. Regardless of who is President the military has made the decision and drones are here to stay.

I hear Amazon is all in as well, hopefully without the bombs.

GRR Spartan wrote:My good daughter, USAF Academy grad, former USAF single engine short runway pilot (currently flying for one of the big US Airline) is married to a fellow USAF grad who went to Wright Patterson in Ohio and is still in unmanned aircraft research.

The USAF is all in on drones/unmanned aircraft. So much so they are riffing fighter pilots and reducing fighter pilot billets for academy grads.

They see drones being able to deliver bombs/cruise missiles with smaller, cheaper aircraft. Regardless of who is President the military has made the decision and drones are here to stay.

And this is why I disagree with the cheesy. We're going to see huge escalations in my opinion.

We could elect people that don't want to use them.

Isn't it also getting tough on the owner of personal drones? Are they asking to get special licenses for certain ones? Also, some of them are being used for commercial shots, and I think that's another license. It's a weird thing.

Rocinante wrote:We could elect people that don't want to use them.

I think it's equivalent to hiring a football coach who doesn't want to pass Roc. It's a moot point. You have to use them or you're way behind.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:you can believe what you wish. I'm not here to argue facts.

in fact, I'm not here to argue at all.

I found a shirt for you Robert.


I'll put it in a book at the Main library on campus.  The book will be in the non-fiction section though so you might need to ask for assistance in locating it.  Either way I hope you wear it with pride.  I figure you're a size M right?  Enjoy!

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:We could elect people that don't want to use them.

I think it's equivalent to hiring a football coach who doesn't want to pass Roc. It's a moot point. You have to use them or you're way behind.

Let me rephrase: we could elect people who don't want to use them to rain terror down on civilian populations in poor countries the world over.

DWags wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:My good daughter, USAF Academy grad, former USAF single engine short runway pilot (currently flying for one of the big US Airline) is married to a fellow USAF grad who went to Wright Patterson in Ohio and is still in unmanned aircraft research.

The USAF is all in on drones/unmanned aircraft. So much so they are riffing fighter pilots and reducing fighter pilot billets for academy grads.

They see drones being able to deliver bombs/cruise missiles with smaller, cheaper aircraft. Regardless of who is President the military has made the decision and drones are here to stay.

And this is why I disagree with the cheesy. We're going to see huge escalations in my opinion.

Probably true

Rocinante wrote:

DWags wrote:

I think it's equivalent to hiring a football coach who doesn't want to pass Roc. It's a moot point. You have to use them or you're way behind.

Let me rephrase: we could elect people who don't want to use them to rain terror down on civilian populations in poor countries the world over.

OK, thats fair

The purpose of a military is to protect and sometimes part of that protection not nice.

For all intent and purposes part of the militay's job is to break things and kill people.

I would rather have our USAF trained pilots sitting in Steelcase Leap chairs in Ohio, Nebraska and Florida finding targets on video screens that dodging anti aircraft guns and rockets launch from a shoulder of an enemy before releasing weapons.

Maybe that's me. I don't think many of you have learned anything from 9-11. I'm of the opinion Bush2's choice to ignore intel the Clinton administration made 9-11 an easier plan to accomplish than if we would have been more active in taking out Al Qaeda

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:you can believe what you wish. I'm not here to argue facts.

in fact, I'm not here to argue at all.

I found a shirt for you Robert.


I'll put it in a book at the Main library on campus.  The book will be in the non-fiction section though so you might need to ask for assistance in locating it.    Either way I hope you wear it with pride.  I figure you're a size M right?  Enjoy!

I don't wear a lot of t-shirts with words on them.. especially ones that appear to belong at a white supremacist rally.

(I will wear band t-shirts.. but they have to be the right band and the right fit - yes, probably a medium - but not those boxy sorts of cuts that look like something that someone at tRCMB tailgate would wear).

(I'm kinda girly about stuff like that).

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

I found a shirt for you Robert.


I'll put it in a book at the Main library on campus.  The book will be in the non-fiction section though so you might need to ask for assistance in locating it.    Either way I hope you wear it with pride.  I figure you're a size M right?  Enjoy!

I don't wear a lot of t-shirts with words on them.. especially ones that appear to belong at a white supremacist rally.

(I will wear band t-shirts.. but they have to be the right band and the right fit - yes, probably a medium - but not those boxy sorts of cuts that look like something that someone at tRCMB tailgate would wear).

(I'm kinda girly about stuff like that).

Holy shit!  There is actually a band named that!  Probably not your "right band" though.  The fit looks good on the dude wearing it though.

Cameron wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

No, it's that we continue to do what we have been doing related to protecting our citizens, and we stop fucking around in Middle East politics.  Let's not pretend we are there for humanitarian reasons.  It's always been about Oil and global strategic alliances (Israel).  We don't need their oil like we once did and Israel is the biggest badass on the block thanks to our military aid.  Further, they continue to thumb their noses at us when we ask them to work with the Palestinians (while we GIVE them 3.8 billion a year on average).  Fuck them.  Let the Arab hordes close in around them a bit and make them sweat.  Then maybe they understand that they need to make peace.  I'm getting in the weeds a bit, but here's my point: What do we, the people if the U.S. get out of this conflict?  I see no benefits to ousting Assad, or bombing ISIS (or any other iteration of Islamist extremism).  We have vastly superior military capabilities, but they have nothing but time to pick away at our soldiers, and dink and dunk when they can in our countries with terrorist tactics.  They have the advantage.  Any leader that comes after Assad appears to be a puppet, just like Karzai and Ghani in Afghanistan are seen to be by large swaths of the country.  Or they are seen as representing only a small subset of the people, like in Iraq.  You cannot install democracy.  This is the forever war and there is no way out because there is no real objective.  As Colin Powell famously said "you break it, you own it." Well, it's time we take the loss and walk away from active combat, INCLUDING airstrikes.  Nothing solidifies hatred of America more in the region than drones.  We are helping to radicalize people with our actions.  We are still the face of what's happened in the region.  We started the instability with the invasion of Iraq. But we have to just say "oops" and get out.  If we want to supply certain factions on the downlow, cool.  If we want to do humanitarian stuff, cool.  We continue to keep our citizens as safe as possible at home, we focus on conventional enemies with borders and leaders and armies (N. Korea, Russia) and we get the fuck out.  

But there are advantaged to a never ending war.  Dollars and distraction.  It's a tool to divide us, keep us hating the brown man while weapons manufacturers get rich, and keep us looking overseas while our American resources (public lands, public schools, public roads, healthcare, the fucking internet) get divvied up to private interests that can squeeze every last penny of profit out of them while supposedly giving us "choices".  This isn't 1984 as so many fear, this really is A Brave New World.  We are so buried in information that the truth doesn't matter anymore.

okay I'm done, for now.

I dunno. I'm not finding much to disagree with, really. I see merit in what you're saying, but I see merit in some degree of intervention as well. I'm certainly in no position to say which is right.

On some level, I think the whole region just has to sort itself out, and I don't know that anything the West does will really affect that too much one way or the other. But on the other hand, I'm reminded of the old quote "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I'm not one to advocate for America policing the world, but we are the best equipped nation to do something about all the horrible shit that goes on in the world. And, more than that, if we don't someone else might. And if that someone else is Russia, we might not like how they do it.

I'm very conflicted, and the more I think about it, the more conflicted I get.

About the only thing I'm sure of is that we need to be completely energy independent, so that when countries like Saudi Arabia do fucked up shit, we can hit them with whatever kind of sanctions we see fit. As Sam Harris likes to say, absent their ability to pull their wealth from the ground, they don't produce anything of value that anyone in the world wants, so they'd be forced to get their act together at least a little.

Well, I agree in principle to that quote, but the question is which "evil" should good men act against? I feel like we're being exploited to line the pockets of the purveyors of death, and I fucking really resent it.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
I don't wear a lot of t-shirts with words on them.. especially ones that appear to belong at a white supremacist rally.

(I will wear band t-shirts.. but they have to be the right band and the right fit - yes, probably a medium - but not those boxy sorts of cuts that look like something that someone at tRCMB tailgate would wear).

(I'm kinda girly about stuff like that).

Holy shit!  There is actually a band named that!  Probably not your "right band" though.  The fit looks good on the dude wearing it though.

probably not my scene.

I can't believe you guys went ahead and continued this discussion without me.

xsanguine wrote:I can't believe you guys went ahead and continued this discussion without me.

I'm sure you'll catch up with a bunch of memes and Joe Rogan vids.

still not defeated..

keep checking back.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I can't believe you guys went ahead and continued this discussion without me.

I'm sure you'll catch up with a bunch of memes and Joe Rogan vids.  

I wasted all my content last night. Gotta wait for some new stuff to pop up.

I have no shortage of memes, though...

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I can't believe you guys went ahead and continued this discussion without me.

I'm sure you'll catch up with a bunch of memes and Joe Rogan vids.

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I'm sure you'll catch up with a bunch of memes and Joe Rogan vids.

Don't be laughin at me Dwags, we all know about your low T count.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:The Crusades couldn't end Islamic terrorism... politicians and their mercenaries won't either.

I would love for you to expand on the reasons for the crusades.  I had not heard it was to defeat islamic terrorism.

Jihad

vs
Crusades






I couldn't find any Joe Rogan vids but here's a meme...




I'm gonna get tSwill's version of Charlie Hebdo'd for that, aren't I?

not yet..

keep checking back..