[US Foreign Policy] Declare Victory and Come Home

1272830323345

Posts

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Hoz wrote: »
    If a country with a habit of getting involved in proxy wars becomes a nuclear power, it stands to reason that they will only become more belligerent once they are relieved of the fear of direct invasion.

    I'm not sure what will happen but I doubt the middle east will start trending towards peace and prosperity once nukes are added into the mix. And if Iran gets it, SA soon follows and that terrifies me even more.

    uhh... it is an open secret that Israel has nukes.

    if you're worried about a belligerent nation gaining access to nukes then I'm here to tell you that ship has already sailed.

    RingoDouglasDangerpainfulPleasanceMoridin889KarozHappylilElfNeveronKaputaMan in the MistsDocStyrofoam SammichKamarYamiB.Mayabird
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    Yeah....it looks like he's going to transition himself to Prime Minister?

    Again?

    Well, no, last time he swapped places with Medvedev and controlled him like a puppet because he couldn't do a third consecutive term as president. This time he is also swapping the power and role of the offices, basically taking the presidency with him. I suspect he is doing this because doing the same switcharoo as last time would look too transparently corrupt to most Russians.
    How much popular sentiment to tear down Putin’s regime is there though

    Surprisingly little. Putin has managed to make him and his party actually legit popular enough to convincingly pretend they overwhelmingly win elections. Bunch of popular reforms, lot of propaganda, and "allegedly" serious political repression. He is popular. And he remains popular by keeping up the appearance of democracy and changing governments while keeping actual power to himself.

    I know this was like 4 pages ago, but I just opened the thread again and this is what I opened it to and it seems to have been ignored at the time, but

    Stop with this stupid bullshit about Russia "allegedly" politically repressing people. It's a fucking matter of fact, and it's incredibly hard to take anything you say seriously when you keep coming here saying this bullshit every so often. For fuck's sake the Kremlin literally tries to assassinate expat dissidents that speak ill of it

    raoADVy.png
    monikerenlightenedbumCelestialBadgerTicaldfjamFencingsaxJaysonFourArdolGiantGeek2020iTunesIsEvilForarMillNo-QuarterButtersjmcdonaldVishNubDacshrykeEmerlmaster999ShadowfireBloodsheedTryCatcherShadowhopeKnuckle DraggerHappylilElfRaijuHonkNeveronDesktop HippieGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsMrVyngaardMartini_PhilosopherKamarfedaykin666MayabirdElldrennever die
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    Although it’s true that the US is the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons, that strikes me as a pretty banal fact. It doesn’t tell you anything particularly interesting about America contrastively with other countries. We were the only country to use nukes because we were also the only country that had nuclear weapons during WW2. By the time they were acquired by other countries, geopolitical changes had rendered their actual use unfavorable. It’s not like nuking Afghanistan would have helped the Soviets win there, or doing the same to Vietnam would have helped France or whatever.

    enlightenedbumGnizmoshrykePolaritieEvermournFencingsaxJaysonFourProhassDuke 2.0GiantGeek2020SleepiTunesIsEvilButtersMild ConfusionMoridin889Dongs GaloremanwiththemachinegunboogedybooElvenshaeShadowfireNobeardShadowhopeKnuckle DraggerRaijuGONG-00KaputaSkeithPixelated PixieKamarElldren
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Although it’s true that the US is the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons, that strikes me as a pretty banal fact. It doesn’t tell you anything particularly interesting about America contrastively with other countries. We were the only country to use nukes because we were also the only country that had nuclear weapons during WW2. By the time they were acquired by other countries, geopolitical changes had rendered their actual use unfavorable. It’s not like nuking Afghanistan would have helped the Soviets win there, or doing the same to Vietnam would have helped France or whatever.

    Yeah, it's not like we listened to MacArthur or LeMay.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    MrMisterCommander ZoomshrykeTicaldfjamJaysonFourDuke 2.0GiantGeek2020iTunesIsEviljmcdonaldDongs GaloreShadowhopeGONG-00KaputaSkeithMartini_PhilosopherKamarJulius
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Although it’s true that the US is the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons, that strikes me as a pretty banal fact. It doesn’t tell you anything particularly interesting about America contrastively with other countries. We were the only country to use nukes because we were also the only country that had nuclear weapons during WW2. By the time they were acquired by other countries, geopolitical changes had rendered their actual use unfavorable. It’s not like nuking Afghanistan would have helped the Soviets win there, or doing the same to Vietnam would have helped France or whatever.

    Nukes have a special kind of aura around them, but it's certainly true that many modern weapons have the potential to be nearly as devastating in the right circumstances. Nukes can just do more with fewer bombs.

    Doodmann
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited January 18
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    Solar on
    GiantGeek2020BigJoeMKayne Red RobeDouglasDangerDoodmannElldren
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    Yeah....it looks like he's going to transition himself to Prime Minister?

    Again?

    Well, no, last time he swapped places with Medvedev and controlled him like a puppet because he couldn't do a third consecutive term as president. This time he is also swapping the power and role of the offices, basically taking the presidency with him. I suspect he is doing this because doing the same switcharoo as last time would look too transparently corrupt to most Russians.
    How much popular sentiment to tear down Putin’s regime is there though

    Surprisingly little. Putin has managed to make him and his party actually legit popular enough to convincingly pretend they overwhelmingly win elections. Bunch of popular reforms, lot of propaganda, and "allegedly" serious political repression. He is popular. And he remains popular by keeping up the appearance of democracy and changing governments while keeping actual power to himself.

    I know this was like 4 pages ago, but I just opened the thread again and this is what I opened it to and it seems to have been ignored at the time, but

    Stop with this stupid bullshit about Russia "allegedly" politically repressing people. It's a fucking matter of fact, and it's incredibly hard to take anything you say seriously when you keep coming here saying this bullshit every so often. For fuck's sake the Kremlin literally tries to assassinate expat dissidents that speak ill of it

    Aren’t those scare quotes being sarcastic, given the context of the entire paragraph is about Putin taking power to himself?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    GvzbgulexisCalicaJulius
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    The US had Patton and others running around beating the same drum.

    I wonder how the freed Poles would have felt to see the Soviets pushed out and their country hemmed in by mushroom clouds and the resulting fallout.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    The US had Patton and others running around beating the same drum.

    I wonder how the freed Poles would have felt to see the Soviets pushed out and their country hemmed in by mushroom clouds and the resulting fallout.

    MacArthur's Plan A for Korea was "glass half the continent." The Soviet's had their own nuke hawks, too, at one point they were quietly polling the world's opinion on just wiping China off the map to simplify things for everyone.

    It's really quite lucky that the leadership on both sides subscribed to the idea of the nuclear taboo - a Mexican standoff looks a lot different when one or more participants has already pulled the trigger.

    manwiththemachinegunGiantGeek2020Commander ZoomRingomonikerFencingsaxGaddezRickRudeHacksawJaysonFourGvzbgulBrodyMan in the MistsSkeithMrVyngaardDoodmannMartini_PhilosopherStabbity StyleElldren
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    The US had Patton and others running around beating the same drum.

    I wonder how the freed Poles would have felt to see the Soviets pushed out and their country hemmed in by mushroom clouds and the resulting fallout.

    MacArthur's Plan A for Korea was "glass half the continent." The Soviet's had their own nuke hawks, too, at one point they were quietly polling the world's opinion on just wiping China off the map to simplify things for everyone.

    It's really quite lucky that the leadership on both sides subscribed to the idea of the nuclear taboo - a Mexican standoff looks a lot different when one or more participants has already pulled the trigger.

    Thinking on it, I suspect a large portion of that is that even if they could personally survive a nuclear exchange in some deep bunker, all those world leaders would have lost the luxuries they were accustomed to in the flames.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    Hevach
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    The US had Patton and others running around beating the same drum.

    I wonder how the freed Poles would have felt to see the Soviets pushed out and their country hemmed in by mushroom clouds and the resulting fallout.

    MacArthur's Plan A for Korea was "glass half the continent." The Soviet's had their own nuke hawks, too, at one point they were quietly polling the world's opinion on just wiping China off the map to simplify things for everyone.

    It's really quite lucky that the leadership on both sides subscribed to the idea of the nuclear taboo - a Mexican standoff looks a lot different when one or more participants has already pulled the trigger.

    Thinking on it, I suspect a large portion of that is that even if they could personally survive a nuclear exchange in some deep bunker, all those world leaders would have lost the luxuries they were accustomed to in the flames.

    Or maybe they didn't want to destroy the world on the grounds that destroying the world is a bad idea.

    GiantGeek2020cckerberosKarozmonikerButtersFencingsaxMild ConfusionElvenshaeGnizmoMoridin889RickRudeShadowhopeHacksawRedTideKnuckle DraggerEncDouglasDangeriTunesIsEvilGennenalyse RuebenSkeithMrVyngaardMartini_PhilosopherLanlaornJuliusMagell
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    edited January 18
    shryke wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    The US had Patton and others running around beating the same drum.

    I wonder how the freed Poles would have felt to see the Soviets pushed out and their country hemmed in by mushroom clouds and the resulting fallout.

    MacArthur's Plan A for Korea was "glass half the continent." The Soviet's had their own nuke hawks, too, at one point they were quietly polling the world's opinion on just wiping China off the map to simplify things for everyone.

    It's really quite lucky that the leadership on both sides subscribed to the idea of the nuclear taboo - a Mexican standoff looks a lot different when one or more participants has already pulled the trigger.

    Thinking on it, I suspect a large portion of that is that even if they could personally survive a nuclear exchange in some deep bunker, all those world leaders would have lost the luxuries they were accustomed to in the flames.

    Or maybe they didn't want to destroy the world on the grounds that destroying the world is a bad idea.

    I'm not entirely sure that some of them wouldn't have done it if they thought there would be no consequences to them.

    Polaritie on
    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    painfulPleasanceMan in the MistsMrVyngaardAimStabbity Style
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    People are generally more idealogical in their outlook than you tend to think

    Case in point; Rex Tillerson, snake of a man, Exxon CEO, soulless capitalist... only person to take a stand against Trump on a moral point during a tirade when he was Sec of State. I mean don't get me wrong, he's a very bad guy, but largely I think that even people at that level we think of as being completely heartless... they aren't, but they are removed and they are ideologically driven to at least some extent. I think that most people who have control over nukes don't want to use them for various reasons and one of them is "killing that many people is wrong." It's not the only reason but it is an element.

    But some people would definitely override that and do it anyway. Churchill would have I bet.

    Kayne Red RobeGvzbgulDongs GaloreGnome-InterruptusCentipede Damascus
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    We cannot allow a mineshaft gap!

    BlackDragon480Lord PalingtonDiannaoChongEinzeldispatch.oautono-wally, erotibot300
  • madparrotmadparrot Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    The US had Patton and others running around beating the same drum.

    I wonder how the freed Poles would have felt to see the Soviets pushed out and their country hemmed in by mushroom clouds and the resulting fallout.

    MacArthur's Plan A for Korea was "glass half the continent." The Soviet's had their own nuke hawks, too, at one point they were quietly polling the world's opinion on just wiping China off the map to simplify things for everyone.

    It's really quite lucky that the leadership on both sides subscribed to the idea of the nuclear taboo - a Mexican standoff looks a lot different when one or more participants has already pulled the trigger.

    Thinking on it, I suspect a large portion of that is that even if they could personally survive a nuclear exchange in some deep bunker, all those world leaders would have lost the luxuries they were accustomed to in the flames.

    Or maybe they didn't want to destroy the world on the grounds that destroying the world is a bad idea.

    I'm not entirely sure that some of them wouldn't have done it if they thought there would be no consequences to them.

    "We could have complete, eternal domination over the entire world, an end to war and conflict, everyone under our rule. All we have to do is kill a billion people and make it clear we have no qualms about killing a billion more."
    A lot of leaders would find that idea quite tempting. I'm quite sure Bolton is in that camp.

    painfulPleasanceGiantGeek2020NobeardTicaldfjamKayne Red RobeCelestialBadgerShadowhopeHacksawJaysonFourTNTrooperRaijubrynhrtmnMan in the MistsStabbity StyleKaroz
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    madparrot wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    The US had Patton and others running around beating the same drum.

    I wonder how the freed Poles would have felt to see the Soviets pushed out and their country hemmed in by mushroom clouds and the resulting fallout.

    MacArthur's Plan A for Korea was "glass half the continent." The Soviet's had their own nuke hawks, too, at one point they were quietly polling the world's opinion on just wiping China off the map to simplify things for everyone.

    It's really quite lucky that the leadership on both sides subscribed to the idea of the nuclear taboo - a Mexican standoff looks a lot different when one or more participants has already pulled the trigger.

    Thinking on it, I suspect a large portion of that is that even if they could personally survive a nuclear exchange in some deep bunker, all those world leaders would have lost the luxuries they were accustomed to in the flames.

    Or maybe they didn't want to destroy the world on the grounds that destroying the world is a bad idea.

    I'm not entirely sure that some of them wouldn't have done it if they thought there would be no consequences to them.

    "We could have complete, eternal domination over the entire world, an end to war and conflict, everyone under our rule. All we have to do is kill a billion people and make it clear we have no qualms about killing a billion more."
    A lot of leaders would find that idea quite tempting. I'm quite sure Bolton is in that camp.

    The last 100 times we had a war to end all wars it didn't work, but this time…

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    FencingsaxTicaldfjammonikerMild ConfusionKaroznever die
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    madparrot wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    If Churchill or De Gaulle had nukes in early 1945 there wouldn't have been a Germany or USSR for much longer, for example. Especially Churchill. He would have nuked every Red Army position west of the Russian border and plenty on the other side too. Honestly he probably would have tried to persuade the US to do exactly that if he hadn't been ousted as PM immediately after the war was over.

    The US had Patton and others running around beating the same drum.

    I wonder how the freed Poles would have felt to see the Soviets pushed out and their country hemmed in by mushroom clouds and the resulting fallout.

    MacArthur's Plan A for Korea was "glass half the continent." The Soviet's had their own nuke hawks, too, at one point they were quietly polling the world's opinion on just wiping China off the map to simplify things for everyone.

    It's really quite lucky that the leadership on both sides subscribed to the idea of the nuclear taboo - a Mexican standoff looks a lot different when one or more participants has already pulled the trigger.

    Thinking on it, I suspect a large portion of that is that even if they could personally survive a nuclear exchange in some deep bunker, all those world leaders would have lost the luxuries they were accustomed to in the flames.

    Or maybe they didn't want to destroy the world on the grounds that destroying the world is a bad idea.

    I'm not entirely sure that some of them wouldn't have done it if they thought there would be no consequences to them.

    "We could have complete, eternal domination over the entire world, an end to war and conflict, everyone under our rule. All we have to do is kill a billion people and make it clear we have no qualms about killing a billion more."
    A lot of leaders would find that idea quite tempting. I'm quite sure Bolton is in that camp.

    The last 100 times we had a war to end all wars it didn't work, but this time…

    But this time, we'll be greeted as liberators.

    It's just fucking pathetic that Trump is pushing that garbage again. He's run out of things Obama did to oppose, so now he's running the Bush Jr playbook.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Is this because he was in Russia's pocket, or because he refused to be in their pocket?

    JaysonFourTomantaRickRudeMild ConfusionscherbchenBullheadDuke 2.0FencingsaxSmrtnikTicaldfjamDouglasDangerMr FuzzbuttMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenMrVyngaardEmperorSethMartini_PhilosopherStabbity StyleKamardispatch.oAirking850NobeardElldren
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Is this because he was in Russia's pocket, or because he refused to be in their pocket?

    Yes.

    JaysonFourTicaldfjamDee KaeBrodyTetraRayMrVyngaard
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Is this because he was in Russia's pocket, or because he refused to be in their pocket?

    That was the first thing I asked too when reading that.

    What interesting times we are living in.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    GiantGeek2020shrykeMrVyngaardVeagleKamarNobeard
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Reading the article, the guy (named Peek) took over for Morrison after Trump fired him for testifying in the impeachment hearing in November.

    Peek supposedly has ties to Bolton, but the article doesn’t give any details.

    I can’t tell if he was in Putin/Trump’s pocket or not in Putin/Trump’s pocket enough. Hell, it could have just been Trump being petty to Bolton for all we know.

    Details are too sparse for anything other that conjecture at this point.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    TicaldfjamArbitraryDescriptorGiantGeek2020Man in the Mists
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The rumor sounds pretty believable.

    Veteran national security correspondent & SpyTalk columnist. Pvsly Newsweek, WaPo:

    shrykeProhassMild ConfusionBlackDragon480Gnome-InterruptusDesktop HippieSealFencingsaxDarkPrimusEchoArdolRingoGennenalyse Ruebenautono-wally, erotibot300MorganVChanusTicaldfjamElvenshaeShadowfireJaysonFourBullheadToxSolarboogedybooEinzelApogeeKoopahTroopahRickRudeMvrckMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889Stabbity StyleKamarLikeaBoshkimeNo-QuarterExtreaminatusFleur de AlysHefflingElldren
  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited January 20
    If this turns out to be true, Jesus Christ these morons, unbelievable

    This is what happens when you don’t treat threats like Russia seriously and have a who gives a shit attitude towards the roles and responsibilities of governing.

    The standard was set at the top

    Prohass on
    AegisSleepGiantGeek2020Mild ConfusionDesktop HippieshrykeSmrtnikGONG-00FencingsaxDarkPrimusArdolMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenMorganVLabelDouglasDangerElvenshaeShadowfireJaysonFourBullheadToxSolarEmerlmaster999monikerEinzelMvrckMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889Stabbity StyleKamarFoolOnTheHillNo-QuarterFleur de AlysMrVyngaardKarozNobeardElldren
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Wasn't there a rumor flying around last week or so that someone had gotten snared in a Honeypot and it just hadn't come out yet?

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    painfulPleasanceMild ConfusionBlackDragon480shrykeCaptain InertiaSmrtnikFencingsaxViskodArdolRingoSkeithKayne Red RobeRaijuDouglasDangerJaysonFourToxApogeeButtersMvrckMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889Stabbity StyleFoolOnTheHillMrVyngaardElldren
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    The mental gymnastics of being on the NSC and sleeping with Russian prostitutes is mind bending.

    In what universe does someone with that level of access fall for such an easy trick, that it’s a fucking trope?

    This universe apparently.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    Captain InertiaFencingsaxOrcaMan in the MistsTicaldfjamElvenshaeH0b0manJaysonFourBullheadKruitemonikerTNTrooperStabbity StyleKamarkimeNo-QuarterFleur de AlysMrVyngaardthatassemblyguyNobeardElldren
  • painfulPleasancepainfulPleasance Registered User regular
    The rumor was that the unnamed guy lost a laptop, so this might be a different breach.

    zecdc5ftgpmd.png
    Captain Inertia
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Maybe the same bar though

    painfulPleasance
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Prohass wrote: »
    If this turns out to be true, Jesus Christ these morons, unbelievable

    This is what happens when you don’t treat threats like Russia seriously and have a who gives a shit attitude towards the roles and responsibilities of governing.

    The standard was set at the top

    It still happens when you treat threats seriously. This is not the first time (by a mile, and with Russia specifically this goes back to pre-WWII with multiple individuals in government being compromised by or cooperating in some way with the NKVD) and won't be the last time under any administration that someone is targeted for collection by an adversary.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    Commander ZoompainfulPleasanceBlackDragon480JaysonFourToxGiantGeek2020
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited January 20
    It's not necessarily obvious that they are Russian hookers. Like he'd have to give up hookers altogether to be completely safe on that angle, and that is clearly to much to ask for a rich and powerful man.

    rahkeesh2000 on
    Gnome-InterruptusEinzelApogeeTNTrooperDocSmrtnikpainfulPleasanceMoridin889Nobeard
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Although it’s true that the US is the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons, that strikes me as a pretty banal fact. It doesn’t tell you anything particularly interesting about America contrastively with other countries. We were the only country to use nukes because we were also the only country that had nuclear weapons during WW2. By the time they were acquired by other countries, geopolitical changes had rendered their actual use unfavorable. It’s not like nuking Afghanistan would have helped the Soviets win there, or doing the same to Vietnam would have helped France or whatever.

    Yeah, it's not like we listened to MacArthur or LeMay.

    It's worth noting that for quite a while nukes were bespoke, hand-built devices. We didn't really have an appreciable number of nukes until like Eisenhower's second term.

    uH3IcEi.png
    Elvenshae
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    Trump is now at Davos talking about how "USA has started winning again".

    I'm sure the applause will be enthusiastic.

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    ChanusscherbchenBrodyTetraNitroCubaneKoopahTroopah
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Winning what exactly?

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane Registered User regular
    The hearts and minds of xenophobic regressive bigots?

    VuIBhrs.png
    Emerlmaster999Man in the MistsBlackDragon480MrVyngaardHonk
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited January 21
    That Davos meeting also has Juan Guaido, so that's going to be interesting. That comes on the context of the US and Israel designing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group and Colombia following suit:





    Official account of the Prime Minister of Israel

    As a response, Maduro flaunted pictures of his chancellor meeting with Iran's chancellor on Tehran. So, is now possible that Maduro meets his end via drone strike.

    TryCatcher on
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    https://www.ft.com/content/83dcdf74-3c9b-11ea-a01a-bae547046735

    The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia may (*may*) have personally sent Jeff Bezos the malware that compromised his phone in the spring before Khashoggi's murder.
    A report on the hack, which has been seen by the Financial Times, says Mr Bezos’ phone started surreptitiously sharing vast amounts of data immediately after receiving an apparently innocuous, but encrypted video file from the prince’s WhatsApp account in May 2018.

    The file was sent via WhatsApp weeks after the pair exchanged numbers at a dinner in Los Angeles during a trip to the US by the crown prince. While on the trip Prince Mohammed had met a string of top US executives and sought to attract investment to the kingdom.

    Other people who allegedly communicate directly with MBS over WhatsApp: Jared Kushner.

    "No! He wouldn't dare!"

    You're probably not saying, but had you, I would assure you, that this is definitely a man who dares:
    Mr Bezos had already ceased all communications with Prince Mohammed in the wake of the Khashoggi murder. But in February 2019, two days after the billionaire was briefed — via his phone — about the extent of the Saudi online campaign against him, he received another message from the WhatsApp account used by the prince. It said: “All what you hear or told to it’s not true and it’s matter of time will tell [sic] you know the truth, there is nothing against you or Amazon from me or Saudi Arabia”.

    The sheer gall of that. To either be so full of yourself that you think you're being sneaky and Bezos would believe you, or simply to intentionally rub it in the petty billionaire's face knowing you've been immune to any and all consequences from birth.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    So everyone remember the shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola by the Saudi military officer in the US for training?

    Well, it turns out he wasn't the only one the US was really bad at vetting:
    https://www.npr.org/2020/01/12/795696963/u-s-official-a-dozen-saudi-military-students-set-to-be-expelled-in-wake-of-shoot
    The Saudis who will be removed from the country raised a number of concerns among federal investigators, the officials said.

    Some Saudi trainees failed to alert authorities about the shooter's extremist leanings. Investigators believe the gunman and other Saudi trainees watched videos of other mass shootings at a party before the attack.

    Some Saudis are being expelled because they viewed child pornography, according to the officials. Other Saudi officers in the U.S. were involved in extremist online chat rooms, according to one of the officials.

    More then 20 of them are being sent home now. Because they were also viewing either terrorist recruitment material or fucking kiddy porn.

    The complete failure of vetting and control here is insane.

    As usual, this would be a major scandal under any previous administration.

    CelestialBadgerKamarAbsoluteZeroKruiteArbitraryDescriptorBlackDragon480GiantGeek2020DoodmannStabbity StyleMan in the MistsMillJaysonFourFencingsaxmonikerNo-QuarterLabelRickRudeButtersDuke 2.0SkeithShadowfireGnome-InterruptuselectricitylikesmeBullheadMoridin889MvrckkimeMrVyngaardKarozthatassemblyguyElldren
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    It's great that our armed forces were training a bunch of psychopaths to more effectively crush heads in their home countries.

    Kamarautono-wally, erotibot300BlackDragon480Stabbity StyleMan in the MistsJaysonFourmonikerRickRudeButtersSkeithGnome-InterruptusSmrtnikBullheadMoridin889KarozthatassemblyguyVeagleElldren
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    It's great that our armed forces were training a bunch of psychopaths to more effectively crush heads in their home countries.

    Isn't the School of the Americas still a thing?

    RingoCelestialBadgermoniker
  • RingoRingo HE KEEPS REPEATING THE LINE I'M GONNA CRY BLEASE LET HIM LIVE YOU MADE ME WATCH SO MUCH KISSING IN THIS FILM LET INIGO LIVERegistered User regular
    The School of the Americas is still operating in Ft Benning (under a different name) so it's not like the US doesn't already have a preferred curriculum for that

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
    Commander ZoomBlackDragon480moniker
Sign In or Register to comment.