Are you kidding? This must be a joke. Nuking Syria would make us an international pariah… No more trade, no more treaties, war crimes trials, everyone hates us, no more support from our allies, known as the biggest mass murderers in human history… We would be as weak as north Korea, in terms of international influence. Our economy would tank. The military would have mass defections and mutinies.
You can’t be serious with this stuff.
Are you prepared, once your tour of duty on this planet is over, to face God and explain that to Him?
Still waiting for an answer on your definition of statehood. Not expecting it, though - you’re just running away from another silly claim, aren’t you?
Well, hell, if we’re going to just admit that we’re the bad guys, we should have nuked Iraq and Afghanistan, years ago. That hearts & minds thing was always just window dressing. We should have stopped wasting our money and just cut to the chase.
And you know - Iran’s right in the middle there. I’m mean, these fuckers have had it coming since Disco was King. Who’s going to cry if we get a little sloppy, right? It’s not like anybody likes those assholes, anyway. Fuck them and fuck their stupid Ayatollahs.
North Korea - can you believe that fat punk thinks he’s divine? Little shit is nuttier than Caligula in a gladiator bath house. Fuck him. North Korea has been a boil on our backside for way too long. Who’s your god now, you little rat bastard?
Who’s next? Who’s next?
I don’t advocate nuking Syria, I just dispute that we refrain from it because it would weaken us. We refrain from it for moral reasons.
If you don’t think that nuking a country that hasn’t attacked us militarily and poses nothing close to an existential threat wouldn’t weaken us in a massive way, then you’re just not thinking beyond the very short term. It’s hard to imagine any action we could take that could weaken us more – becoming the world’s greatest villain, which an unprovoked nuclear attack would mark us as, would make us as weak on the world stage as we’ve been in decades, if not ever.
I’m far from right wing, but I do support an increased concerted effort to deal with ISIS. This is a problem that’s not going to go away. I feel confident that planners in Paris and London, maybe even in Washington too, are busy formulating measures.
Yeah, I saw the original headline and I didn’t even bother to read it, because it would be so dumb it’s impossible for Clinton to have done that. She’s not stupid.
Killing OBL, while certainly weakening Al-Qaeda, certainly wouldn’t destroy Al-Qaeda. Thus, the alternative to a regime change in Afghanistan might be to get/bribe some Central Asian country to let the U.S. lease some of its military bases and then to use these military bases to launch air strikes and targeted assassinations against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (and in Pakistan, if necessary) in the years to come.
Her history? Can you please elaborate on this part?
Her support of the Iraq war, Afghanistan, the war in Libya, her more aggressive proposals in Syria(arming rebels sooner and establishing a no-fly zone)?
Clinton has a pretty long record of being Joe Lieberman hawkish.
Hillary says something about space aliens:
Oh please, we already went through this with Carter and there’s finally a well sourced Area 51 book out.
I think it’s quite possible that Hillary will win in November. She’s not my favorite Democrat in the field (that’s Martin O’Malley), but I would vote for her over any Republican now in the field, and suspect that a majority of other Americans will, too.
Especially since her staff is making great strides with her: Campaign Staffers Making Progress Conditioning Hillary Clinton To Replicate Emotions
The best satire is true and that’s not. The problem with Hillary isn’t that she’s a robot. I 've read tons of accounts of her and she’s a pretty emotional person. But she’s also a very private person who doesn’t like to show her true self to people she doesn’t know well. So in public she puts on a different face. She’s not a fake because she’s trying to hide an evil domineering person from the public, she’s fake because she’s a very private person. Which is really not a quality that is great for campaigning, but also is a far different picture from the one her critics like to paint.
I think that’s actually pretty true. They say she’s warm and funny and empathic in private but behind the podium she seems to put the shields up.
Well when you’ve been taking incoming fire since the early 90s, the shields are kind of understandable.
She can’t show any emotion or else she’s “an emotional woman”. She can’t be unemotional or else she’s “fake and robotic”. She can’t laugh or smile, have you seen people mocking pictures of her smiling? They call her creepy, they think the laugh is like a cackle, they think her voice is shrill. Basically, her opponents have made sure that anything she does in public has a well-trodden narrative to pigeonhole her into. Its a tough life to live for a year, let alone 30 years, but she’s been doing it well and leading in the Democratic primary polls. I think she’s powerful and courageous and strong for being able to take all this shit and turn it back for so long, and if she wins the presidency, it’ll be a giant “fuck you” to the last 30 years of GOP demonizing
I may align more with Bernie, but I kind of want Clinton to win more just to fuck the GOP
Absolutely right, but it does hamper her campaigning ability somewhat. Want a wonky talk about policy? Hillary will make you confident that she is on the right track. Want someone to convince you that she feels your pain? She’s not the one to do that. Not relevant to governing, but relevant to campaigning.
I guess this is the place for Hillary email comments. This latest release includes one email conversation that seems particularly bad. This seems a little more serious than most of the others I’ve seen.
Senator: Newly released Clinton email ‘disturbing’
[QUOTE=CNN]
On June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get “tps” – presumably short for “talking points” that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it’s not clear what topic these points covered.
The next morning, Clinton wrote back to say she hadn’t received them yet, and after a few minutes Sullivan responded that staff were having issues sending the document in a secure fax but that they were “working on it.”
“If they can’t,” Clinton replies, “turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
[/QUOTE]
Am I wrong in looking at this as a serious offense?