Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: As for Republicans looking to pass fines over stunts like the sit-in.
Here's the most neutral look at this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/can-they-do-these-rules-govern-protests-house-floor-n597161
Can They Do That? These Rules Govern Protests on House Floor
Play House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote 3:49
Democrats, led by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, remained engaged early Thursday in a sit-in on the House floor in an effort to force a vote on gun control measures. Are they allowed to do that? Has this happened before?
Here's everything you need to know about the rules surrounding a protest like this.
What are the rules for this situation?
The House is currently in recess, and under the rules, the speaker is generally empowered "to preserve order and decorum." He has the ability to clear the lobby and galleries in the event of "disorderly conduct" and can direct the House's sergeant-at-arms to do so.
Related: House Democrats Hold Sit-In on Gun Control
Access to the House floor can be limited to "all persons except those privileged to remain," which usually means House members and authorized staff and selected authorized guests.
Bottom line: If members do not leave the floor and no compromise is reached, it is largely up to Speaker Paul Ryan to decide whether to use the authority of the House to seek to clear the floor and/or sanction members, or to keep the House in recess and wait out the issue.
Is there any precedent for this?
There was a stand-off in 2003, at a House Ways and Means hearing on retirement rules, where members broke decorum with insults, made apparent threats and walked out of the hearing.
The chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, said he called the sergeant-at-arms for order in the committee and asked Capitol police to remove the Democrats if needed. That controversial move was discussed on the floor, where Lewis likened the tactics to civil rights-era abuses of a "police state." Thomas later apologized — the issue was essentially resolved without police getting physically involved.
Are pictures allowed?
No. House members are violating rules by sharing pictures and video of the sit-in. House rules state that people on the floor may not "use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum." The sergeant-at-arms is instructing members to refrain from doing so, according to Rep. John Yarmuth. This is a typical restriction on the House floor and not specific to the sit-in.
NBC News' Frank Thorp notes that as speaker, Boehner used to implore members not to use their phones for sharing pictures and video. Ryan has not emphasized that as much to date.
Has this rule been violated before?
Yes. Freshman Congressman Mike Bishop tweeted a picture while presiding over the House last year. He deleted it after Thorp pointed out the violation.
Members also appear to make occasional knowing violations for special occasions. The main example is taking pictures at the State of the Union — which is a special case where the House is not debating or governing. Otherwise, the rule is generally followed.
Is there ever a time when pictures are allowed to be posted from the floor?
Yes. During the opening hour of each session of Congress, House rules have not been technically adopted and members have been known to post photos during that time.
What's the bottom line?
Democrats conducting the sit-in may not care much about violating the rules, since one can argue the entire sit-in is a challenge to how the House normally operates under the rules.
Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
If the Republicans wanted the sit-in to stop they just had to compromise, right?
Compromise WHAT exactly?
The House floor had adjourned, and decorum is a thing.
This was a petulant crybaby reaction when the House refused to vote on new gun control measures after the Pulse shooting... which, these measures WOULD.NOT.HAVE.STOPPED.THAT.SHOOTING.IN.THE.FIRST.PLACE.
I'm going to bookmark this response for future use. Thank you.
Bookmark away, as it'll be shown how silly you are in this instance.
No, not really silly at all. The Democrats may have some "petulant crybabies" in the House, but the Republicans decided to one-up them by electing a petulant crybaby to the White House.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: As for Republicans looking to pass fines over stunts like the sit-in.
Here's the most neutral look at this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/can-they-do-these-rules-govern-protests-house-floor-n597161
Can They Do That? These Rules Govern Protests on House Floor
Play House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote 3:49
Democrats, led by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, remained engaged early Thursday in a sit-in on the House floor in an effort to force a vote on gun control measures. Are they allowed to do that? Has this happened before?
Here's everything you need to know about the rules surrounding a protest like this.
What are the rules for this situation?
The House is currently in recess, and under the rules, the speaker is generally empowered "to preserve order and decorum." He has the ability to clear the lobby and galleries in the event of "disorderly conduct" and can direct the House's sergeant-at-arms to do so.
Related: House Democrats Hold Sit-In on Gun Control
Access to the House floor can be limited to "all persons except those privileged to remain," which usually means House members and authorized staff and selected authorized guests.
Bottom line: If members do not leave the floor and no compromise is reached, it is largely up to Speaker Paul Ryan to decide whether to use the authority of the House to seek to clear the floor and/or sanction members, or to keep the House in recess and wait out the issue.
Is there any precedent for this?
There was a stand-off in 2003, at a House Ways and Means hearing on retirement rules, where members broke decorum with insults, made apparent threats and walked out of the hearing.
The chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, said he called the sergeant-at-arms for order in the committee and asked Capitol police to remove the Democrats if needed. That controversial move was discussed on the floor, where Lewis likened the tactics to civil rights-era abuses of a "police state." Thomas later apologized — the issue was essentially resolved without police getting physically involved.
Are pictures allowed?
No. House members are violating rules by sharing pictures and video of the sit-in. House rules state that people on the floor may not "use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum." The sergeant-at-arms is instructing members to refrain from doing so, according to Rep. John Yarmuth. This is a typical restriction on the House floor and not specific to the sit-in.
NBC News' Frank Thorp notes that as speaker, Boehner used to implore members not to use their phones for sharing pictures and video. Ryan has not emphasized that as much to date.
Has this rule been violated before?
Yes. Freshman Congressman Mike Bishop tweeted a picture while presiding over the House last year. He deleted it after Thorp pointed out the violation.
Members also appear to make occasional knowing violations for special occasions. The main example is taking pictures at the State of the Union — which is a special case where the House is not debating or governing. Otherwise, the rule is generally followed.
Is there ever a time when pictures are allowed to be posted from the floor?
Yes. During the opening hour of each session of Congress, House rules have not been technically adopted and members have been known to post photos during that time.
What's the bottom line?
Democrats conducting the sit-in may not care much about violating the rules, since one can argue the entire sit-in is a challenge to how the House normally operates under the rules.
Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
If the Republicans wanted the sit-in to stop they just had to compromise, right?
Compromise WHAT exactly?
The House floor had adjourned, and decorum is a thing.
This was a petulant crybaby reaction when the House refused to vote on new gun control measures after the Pulse shooting... which, these measures WOULD.NOT.HAVE.STOPPED.THAT.SHOOTING.IN.THE.FIRST.PLACE.
I'm going to bookmark this response for future use. Thank you.
Bookmark away, as it'll be shown how silly you are in this instance.
No, not really silly at all. The Democrats may have some "petulant crybabies" in the House, but the Republicans decided to one-up them by electing a petulant crybaby to the White House.
Pouncey wrote: Do you, like, really NEED a weapon whose only possible use in a war is making innocent civilians die?
There are lots of practical uses for nukes (in a military sense) beyond just killing civilians.
I thought we switched to MOABs for killing civilians as they're more environmentally friendly.
Uh, no. You don't drop those on civilians.
You drop those on minefields and bunker complexes. They flatten them to the point you have no idea how many people in them died, because you spent the week prior to dropping the fuel-airs dropping pamphlets that were translated into the local language detailing EXACTLY what those bombs were going to do when you dropped them, because you wanted to avoid killing enemy soldiers if you didn't have to, and there was nothing they could do to stop you from dropping them even if you told them you were going to drop them a week in advance.
When you wanted to take out Baghdad's air defences and military complexes about 10 years later, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, you just looked for the particular defenses, then spent a few hours taking out the military stuff with precision strikes from cruise missiles.
I mean, just consider something.
The creation of Stealth technology made the Soviet Union finally capitulate to America and become capitalist because they couldn't afford the Cold War financially anymore, even though tens of thousands of nuclear weapons failed to do the same thing.
There's a reason humanity's biggest nuke ever, the Tsar Bomba, was created, what, half a century ago? There's a reason why modern nukes meant to take out cities are only 1MT instead of 55MT with expansions up to 100MT if needed. There's a reason your military's been disarming nukes since the end of the Cold War.
Bigger isn't always better. Just because you can kill someone way, WAY more effectively and totally, doesn't mean that there's a reason to do that instead of something more practical.
Let's examine that a human represents a city. You're not interested in killing every human in the city, just stopping the country from being able to fight a war. If they have nuke silos, those are valid targets. If they have a facility that makes nukes, again, valid target. Some random apartment building? Ehh, just full of civilians, who cares, leave it alone. That apartment building is actually housing an anti-air defence close enough to it that you can't leave that particular missile battery active and still win the war? Ehh, well, there's debate about that, but let's assume the threat to your aircraft is serious enough it's worth taking out even if some people die. Basically, if it's a serious threat to your military or your own civilians that it's worth taking out with a bomb instead of a sniper, you destroy it. Your goal here is to kill the country's ability to fight a war, so whenever the human stops living, the city is no longer a threat to you at all, even if you didn't expend the effort to kill each and every cell in the human's body.
You need to choose one weapon to kill this hypothetical human. Do you choose an M16, because it gets the job done well enough? Or do you choose a fuel-air bomb because even DNA won't be left afterward, so you're absolutely going to kill every cell in the body.
There is no such thing as overkill, but there absolutely IS such a thing as "inappropriate force" and the reality of the US military nowadays is that they have so many options for how to kill people and blow stuff up that nukes are ALWAYS inappropriate force, nowadays.
And even if, for some reason, all Americans die from being nuked and were never able to retaliate, are you really willing to END HUMAN CIVILIZATION simply to have the last laugh? After a nuclear war, we're not back in the Dark Ages anymore. We're back in ANCIENT ROMAN TIMES.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Annoyance wrote: They still have tens of thousands - still enough to blow up the earth hundreds of times over; disarming them has ultimately made no difference in terms of the power of those nations - it's mostly for the materials you mentioned as well as good international PR.
Have you considered what Canada did, and just, like, not giving anyone a good enough reason to want to nuke you in the first place?
I mean, the US military is well-liked enough that after 9/11, you got a crapload of countries to follow you in your invasion of Afghanistan.
It's not like everyone hates you. Other countries like you enough that you're not on your own without nukes, and anyone who messes with you has to mess with your allies too. And enough countries like the USA enough that even without nukes, it damned well isn't gonna be a one-sided fight.
I mean, here I am, a Canadian, an ally of USA whose country has benefitted massively from being a close ally of the USA.
And I am arguing in favor of you guys disarming your nukes, because I am god damned terrified of what will happen to my life if you ever go crazy enough to actually USE them at any point, and this concern is coming up now instead of during the Obama years because you very recently elected a highly erratic man whose actions are strongly driven by flashes of anger who has advocated for the idea of using nuclear weapons any time you fight a war, and STILL GOT ELECTED after arguing in favor of STARTING WORLD WAR 3.
There is now a lunatic with his finger on the button in the USA. The American people put him there after watching his speeches. Hence my current state of "heightened concern."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 17:02:16
Pouncey wrote: Have you considered what Canada did, and just, like, not giving anyone a good enough reason to want to nuke you in the first place?
Good luck making everyone happy all the time
I mean, the US military is well-liked enough that after 9/11, you got a crapload of countries to follow you in your invasion of Afghanistan.
It's not like everyone hates you. Other countries like you enough that you're not on your own without nukes, and anyone who messes with you has to mess with your allies too. And enough countries like the USA enough that even without nukes, it damned well isn't gonna be a one-sided fight.
This is basically point one of my second post, apart from that last point - no amount of military might can compare to nuclear weapons.
I mean, here I am, a Canadian, an ally of USA whose country has benefitted massively from being a close ally of the USA.
And I am arguing in favor of you guys disarming your nukes, because I am god damned terrified of what will happen to my life if you ever go crazy enough to actually USE them at any point, and this concern is coming up now instead of during the Obama years because you very recently elected a highly erratic man whose actions are strongly driven by flashes of anger who has advocated for the idea of using nuclear weapons any time you fight a war, and STILL GOT ELECTED after arguing in favor of STARTING WORLD WAR 3.
There is now a lunatic with his finger on the button in the USA. The American people put him there after watching his speeches. Hence my current state of "heightened concern."
Although this is likely to cause a stir in this thread, I would go to say that there really isn't anything to worry about regarding Trump. Notice how, after he won the election, he pulled the policies that caused the most offence amongst his opponents - now there won't be any wall going across Mexico, nor will there be barred entry to Muslims coming to America.
The guy is a successful businessman - he may be a , but he isn't stupid; he knew exactly how to play a lot of disgruntled Americans, as well as all of his opposition, by making them so outraged that they motivated more outrage from his supporters, as well as getting more neutrals to vote for him as a result of that. He also won't be stupid enough to build a wall, kick out Muslims, or push the button. All I can say is well played to that, despite it being as crude and morally bankrupt as you can get, not that that's entirely new with politicians across the world.
Overall, you have nothing to worry about regarding nuclear weaponry; there were more lunatics in the Kremlin during the Cold War that posed a much greater threat of annihilating the world than who's in power today, and even they knew that nuclear warfare was one step too far.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 17:37:59
When I think about how WW3 will end my life, I'm thinking about how I'll die because the EMP means I won't be able to rely on computers anymore, so I won't be able to do things like eat or get clean water anymore, because those are things that rely on computers when it comes to feeding my city's entire population, and no one will assume I am special enough to be worth feeding over anyone else, so now all our food is being shipped around by horse-drawn buggies instead of by trucks, and the food that's being grown isn't doing so well because farmers don't have computers either.
The most realistic robot apocalypse would simply be one where robots realize that they will never be able to wipe out ALL humans, because things like the Amish exist. Instead they settle for "good enough" and simply refuse to boot up, which on an individual scale means you get a new computer, but on a GLOBAL scale means billions of humans starve to death and die in other ways, like not being able to get medication any more.
World War 3 will not only kill humans with nuclear explosions and radiation poisoning. It will kill way, WAY more simply by the EMPs wiping out all computers on the planet.
He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."
Really? They're just now going to start saying that?
This is why it troubles me that people take Fox seriously.
I doubt Obama's going down as the Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever (not when we have Wilson for comparison), especially when uncritical American support for Israel is already considered a monumental blunder by most of the historical community. But no. Nevermind that, let's talk about how it's completely Obama's fault that the Palestinians are just now saying "we can get a state through the UN. Yeah that makes sense
UN resolution 242 is effectively neutered and absolutely encourages the PA to NOT negotiate with Israel.
Worst part, Obama does this on his way out. Purely a spiteful dick move.
Agreed. Way to the incoming administration there.
On the positive, I'd give Trump evven money on leaving the UN before his termis up.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Just going to point out, there is a belief/rumor that Trump might be starting to suffer from Dementia. He's the right age for it combined with his piss poor care for his own health, and this would explain a lot of why grandpa cheeto goes derp on twitter on occasion.
Pouncey wrote: Have you considered what Canada did, and just, like, not giving anyone a good enough reason to want to nuke you in the first place?
Good luck making everyone happy all the time
You don't have to make someone happy enough to like you for them to tolerate your existence.
There are plenty of people who hate me. They don't ever kill me though, because they don't hate me THAT much, and generally we just argue with each other whenever we disagree without ever coming to blows.
I mean, the US military is well-liked enough that after 9/11, you got a crapload of countries to follow you in your invasion of Afghanistan.
It's not like everyone hates you. Other countries like you enough that you're not on your own without nukes, and anyone who messes with you has to mess with your allies too. And enough countries like the USA enough that even without nukes, it damned well isn't gonna be a one-sided fight.
This is basically point two of my second post, apart from that last point - no amount of military might can compare to nuclear weapons.
In terms of AoE power, absolutely. There will always be a theoretical military use for nuclear weapons. You end up facing a foe that has amassed a number of troops together so large that a fuel-air bomb is insufficient, you need a nuke to disable their effectiveness? That might theoretically happen no matter how advanced tech gets.
Uhh, frankly, I've read Baen sci-fi (Baen has an actual rule about real science in their books, so this is probably true IRL too) that imagines a future where humans are fighting a war for survival so desperate that using an antimatter bomb more powerful than the Tsar Bomba is considered valid. Because one of the US military's scientists was bored, he'd spent a few years making enough antimatter to fuel a starship fleet, because he didn't have anything better to do. The concept of hitting civilians wasn't a reason not to use nukes, because the aliens didn't bring civilians with them when they invaded Earth, and all of ours were living underground in nuke-proof shelters.
When they used that nuke, their own forces were fighting in the area they were used in. Infantry, too, without vehicles at all because they disembarked from their transports far enough away.
So when they told those American soldiers that the masses of aliens they'd been shooting to death without much difficulty for a couple of days without running out of targets or even, like, moving much (yup, they solved the thing about how overloaded human infantry usually are. With power armor. That's how advanced the tech is in this scientifically possible scenario where we still use nuke-equivalent weapons) were about to be nuked to clear them out "for a while" (that's how many of them there were, antimatter bombs were just clearing them out a bit to create some breathing room, not actually wipe them out), their advice upon, "We're about to drop our first antimatter bomb ever on you. It's gonna be destructive enough that we have to spread out the detonation a bit to avoid destroying the planet, too. And also hit a bigger area, of course." was not, "So kiss your butts goodbye," it was, "So, like, just dig into the ground and hide there until after it goes off."
We will eventually create body armor that is so technologically advanced that hugging a nuke when it goes off does not mean you die or are even seriously injured. That STILL will not totally end the hypothetical need for nukes, and your own troops' weapons can STILL kill each other, because the area they impact is small enough that they can put more force there than a nuke can.
So when will tech be advanced enough to give up on nukes altogether? Are you so sure that modern militiaries actually benefit from having as many nukes as possible? Even if you simply always need the deterrent, couldn't you scale down to the point where, like a police officer with a gun, the gun is merely a backup in case they ever are threatened enough, but most cops simply never even entertain the idea of shooting random people, and they probably don't carry enough bullets to do that anyways, because cops don't fight alone, and they can almost always count on other cops to have their backs in situations where their own guns are not enough.
Humans are a species that works best when we work together. This applies to our countries too.
Don't assume you're the only ones who care about your survival. Consider that your allies might've been equally as well protected if they'd sided with Russia during the Cold War, but they didn't, because they sided with YOU instead.
Although this is likely to cause a stir in this thread, I would go to say that there really isn't anything to worry about regarding Trump. Notice how, after he won the election, he pulled the policies that caused the most offence amongst his opponents - now there won't be any wall going across Mexico, nor will there be barred entry to Muslims coming to America.
The guy is a successful businessman - he may be a , but he isn't stupid; he knew exactly how to play a lot of disgruntled Americans, as well as all of his opposition, by making them so outraged that they motivated more outrage from his supporters, as well as getting more neutrals to vote for him as a result of that. He also won't be stupid enough to build a wall, kick out Muslims, or push the button. All I can say is well played to that, despite it being as crude and morally bankrupt as you can get, not that that's entirely new with politicians across the world.
Overall, you have nothing to worry about regarding nuclear weaponry; there were more lunatics in the Kremlin during the Cold War that posed a much greater threat of annihilating the world than who's in power today, and even they knew that nuclear warfare was one step too far.
I really, really hope so.
I also really really hope that US military officers are well-versed enough in military law to remember that the illegal things Trump has suggested, if he ever actually gave the order to do things like use nukes and target civilians, your Generals who are given those orders would remind them, "That's an illegal order. We're legally required to disobey them, and have been since the Nuremburg trials, because, 'I was only following orders' is NOT A DEFENCE ANYMORE."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Way to the incoming administration there.
On the positive, I'd give Trump evven money on leaving the UN before his termis up.
Uhh, doesn't Israel have nukes?
Given what you guys just said about MAD, how can anyone ever feth with them enough to start a war anymore?
Hell, how do you guys believe Hillary could ever have started a war with Russia, since they have nukes still, hence MAD still applies?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 17:44:52
Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
There is probably a slippery slope argument to be made, but who cares!
Go Team Red!
"Purple follows Purple Leader. Green follows Green leader."
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
lonestarr777 wrote: Just going to point out, there is a belief/rumor that Trump might be starting to suffer from Dementia. He's the right age for it combined with his piss poor care for his own health, and this would explain a lot of why grandpa cheeto goes derp on twitter on occasion.
Would explain why he apparently forgot those Duck and Cover drills from when he was a kid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, if Trump actually is suffering from Dementia, so long as people keep that in mind when it comes to his decisions, and actually question his decisions enough to find out whether a weird order was the result of an episode or not, there's no reason Trump can't still be President. If he gets help, he can probably be treated sufficiently well enough that it's a problem, but not a big enough one that he can't live a relatively normal life. And if it IS a big enough problem that you need to remove him from office, you can probably do that anyways if you have to, even without an election. You'll have to follow the procedure for doing so, but if he actually needs to be removed from office, there's absolutely a way to do it without waiting for the next election. If it's not a big enough deal, then meh, whatever.
I'd be kinda interested to find out how people might react to someone with a mental illness becoming President of the USA despite the signs being fairly blatantly obvious that lots of people wonder what the hell is wrong with him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 17:57:44
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
General Annoyance wrote: Although this is likely to cause a stir in this thread, I would go to say that there really isn't anything to worry about regarding Trump. Notice how, after he won the election, he pulled the policies that caused the most offence amongst his opponents - now there won't be any wall going across Mexico, nor will there be barred entry to Muslims coming to America.
Ah that makes sense. Obviously there's not going to be a wall when Trump's group is already planning it! Yeah! Completely makes sense! You only prepare wall if you don't intend to build it!
tneva82 wrote: Ah that makes sense. Obviously there's not going to be a wall when Trump's group is already planning it! Yeah! Completely makes sense! You only prepare wall if you don't intend to build it!
Am I missing some kind of plan that Trump has now to build a wall or something?
Also your attempt at sarcasm is hardly of merit, or useful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 18:34:40
Y'know, given that the US military probably understands the ramifications of WW3 better than I do, given the current situation in the world, why am I worrying about the USA having nukes at all?
If they can only be used to end human civilization, then frankly, they know that too. Probably better than I do. They probably know what would lead to WW3 better than I do.
And they're legally REQUIRED to disobey an illegal order.
So given how many billions of humans would die from WW3 from things like radiation poisoning and starvation, what military official who is in a position to start WW3, could possibly be convinced to do anything they believe will start WW3?
You could try ordering them. Let's skip the "how" here and imagine that the order is so likely to lead to WW3 with nukes that the actual order given is irrelevant, everyone believes that doing this will mean WW3 starts. Well, legal or not, the consequences of obeying that order are severe enough that most people on Earth aren't going to survive. So they're just going to not do it, because starting WW3 is a thing they can do in their position, so they have looked into it.
Well, you might try threatening to put them in prison. Even if they get stabbed to death in prison because they tell everyone he's... that icky kind of prisoner who gets stabbed to death in prisons... well, he's going to that fate knowing that he stopped billions of people from dying by having to die like that, so he considers himself a hero.
There's another thing. This person would be a hero for disobeying, not a monster, the same way we consider people who stopped WW3 from happening during the Cold War by simply not letting it start are heroes. Whenever people find out the truth about what this person went through to stop WW3 and save billions of lives, they're gonna be a god damned hero. And HE or SHE knows what they did, so they can go to their death knowing the truth - that if people knew what they did, they'd call him or her a hero.
What can you possibly threaten someone with in this kind of situation? Their life? Nope. They probably die anyways when the nukes hit their own command centers. Being tortured? They've probably looked up what happens to people who die from radiation poisoning and starvation. They might break eventually, but they might not, because these are, frankly, untested circumstances, and people have acted in direct opposition to what they believe simply to stop this war from happening in real life, purely because they weren't sure if their brand-new, top-of-the-line computers were lying to them or not, so they erred on the side of caution despite believing fully that 2222 incoming soviet nuclear missiles were headed toward the USA. The horrors are simply so bad that people act in direct opposition to what they believe to be true to stop it.
There's the other problem. People have tried to start WW3 before. People have had reason to even launch nuclear-armed aircraft toward enemy territory before. WW3 STILL didn't start.
And the reality of WW3, I suppose, is that it never started during the Cold War, because it was simply too awful for anyone to actually start it.
But then why do the Cold War at all?
Well, I mean, if you grew up when I did, you probably remember things like the McCarthy era as being things like, "Why the hell would you ever prosecute Communists like THAT?"
And you can answer that by looking at the Soviet Union during the McCarthy era. I.E. During the times of Stalin.
Frankly, death is better than living under Stalin, so the Cold War was a thing because living under Communist rule at the time was simply WORSE THAN THE END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.
That's what it'd take to start WW3 and end human civilization. A situation where the end of human civilization is better than the alternative.
I don't think I live in a world like that today. Frankly, living under North Korea today is probably worse than death, but North Korea is simply in no position to impose its will upon anyone, because it's not that powerful.
Which meshes with something I've heard before. Nowadays, the only people who would use nukes if they had them are things like terrorist groups and North Korea. Lunatic nutjobs who no one takes seriously.
Yeah. Even Trump isn't THAT crazy, and if he was, enough sane people are in the command chain that you could order the US military to start WW3 today, and they'd just go, "Why? Who's bothering us enough to make us end human civilization? Why was this order even issued? Is this a computer glitch or something?"
And really, just because something is POSSIBLE, doesn't mean it's LIKELY.
Pouncey wrote: When I think about how WW3 will end my life...
You epitomize the phrase "first world problems."
I understand billions of others will die too.
But my own personal life is the most relevant to the decisions I make, so I imagine how this affects me, personally, without it affecting my grasp on the magnitude of the situation.
General Annoyance wrote: Although this is likely to cause a stir in this thread, I would go to say that there really isn't anything to worry about regarding Trump. Notice how, after he won the election, he pulled the policies that caused the most offence amongst his opponents - now there won't be any wall going across Mexico, nor will there be barred entry to Muslims coming to America.
Ah that makes sense. Obviously there's not going to be a wall when Trump's group is already planning it! Yeah! Completely makes sense! You only prepare wall if you don't intend to build it!
Just a question.
Let's imagine that the US government is stupid enough to build that wall exactly to Trump's specifications.
A large part of the argument is that it wouldn't stop anyone anyways, so it's really just a waste of money.
So basically it's just a waste of money, eventually it becomes a monument to the stupidity of Trump.
You guys build monuments that don't actually do anything useful on purpose, you know? This one's just a more expensive one than most, and the guy who built it didn't know he was building a monument to his own stupidity, instead of a practical barrier. He was simply dumb enough to accidentally build a monument to his own stupidity in a way that managed to wipe out entire species just because it was built.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 19:04:29
The problem with that Pouncey, is that whilst soldiers should refuse to carry out illegal orders, they are still just people, with all the weaknesses inherent in people.
The best way to ensure that your soldiers do not carry out illegal orders is to make sure that those commanding them understand what is and is not an illegal order and who do not give them illegal orders. Sadly, Trump hasn't shown any interest in actually educating himself about the realities of the job he has got himself elected to do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 19:37:31
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."
Really? They're just now going to start saying that?
This is why it troubles me that people take Fox seriously.
I doubt Obama's going down as the Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever (not when we have Wilson for comparison), especially when uncritical American support for Israel is already considered a monumental blunder by most of the historical community. But no. Nevermind that, let's talk about how it's completely Obama's fault that the Palestinians are just now saying "we can get a state through the UN. Yeah that makes sense
UN resolution 242 is effectively neutered and absolutely encourages the PA to NOT negotiate with Israel.
Worst part, Obama does this on his way out. Purely a spiteful dick move.
Agreed. Way to the incoming administration there.
I mean... Can we have an honest debate on this? What is the point of Obama / Kerry doing this? They are going to be out of office in 22 days, and the next administration doesn't seem to share their views. How do they think this plan will work? Or do they know it won't, but want to at least "weaken" Israel in the eyes of the world? What's the point?
Given that, the Palestinian themselves have stated that John Kerry/Susan Rice did indeed push for this resolution...
On the positive, I'd give Trump evven money on leaving the UN before his termis up.
Dreadwinter wrote: The problem is that our elected officials are not going to be able to inform us of events currently going on. This is an issue. We elect them to office and we have a right to know what is going on. We need to know what our government is doing. You don't get to silence the minority party just because you are in power.
I haven't actually read the article describing what the law does yet.
When I do though, what do you think the odds are that I'll discover this law only affects communication devices inside the particular room where Congress votes, and all someone has to do to tweet about something that just happened is step outside into the hallway, where the law does not apply whatsoever?
If that's what I find out, I'm gonna compare it to a teacher insisting that their students keep their smart phones turned off during class so they actually pay attention to what's going on, but not caring if they text someone outside the classroom.
If I find out it's incredibly general, I'm gonna ask how Trump is gonna react to not being legally allowed to tweet things anymore by a law his own party passed.
Do you imagine either of those possibilities going well for your side of the argument?
So, your side of the argument is that you are suggesting our legislature leave their job in order to provide transparency. Then you are suggesting we treat adults with the power to change and create laws the same way we treat school children. Is that about right?
What does it matter how Trump reacts? He has no power unless he wants to use his first executive order to go against his own party, who he already has a very shaky relationship with.
Did you imagine those arguments were good? Because quite frankly, that was a huge let down.
He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."
Really? They're just now going to start saying that?
This is why it troubles me that people take Fox seriously.
I doubt Obama's going down as the Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever (not when we have Wilson for comparison), especially when uncritical American support for Israel is already considered a monumental blunder by most of the historical community. But no. Nevermind that, let's talk about how it's completely Obama's fault that the Palestinians are just now saying "we can get a state through the UN. Yeah that makes sense
UN resolution 242 is effectively neutered and absolutely encourages the PA to NOT negotiate with Israel.
Worst part, Obama does this on his way out. Purely a spiteful dick move.
Agreed. Way to the incoming administration there.
I mean... Can we have an honest debate on this? What is the point of Obama / Kerry doing this? They are going to be out of office in 22 days, and the next administration doesn't seem to share their views. How do they think this plan will work? Or do they know it won't, but want to at least "weaken" Israel in the eyes of the world? What's the point?
Given that, the Palestinian themselves have stated that John Kerry/Susan Rice did indeed push for this resolution...
On the positive, I'd give Trump evven money on leaving the UN before his termis up.
That works out to be just under 5% (where we're currently contributing 22%).
That'll sting...
The point is that they are still doing their job how they see fit while they are still in office. I guess they are setting some kind of precedent by doing their jobs up until their last day. Like some kind of foolish professionals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 21:41:30
He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."
Really? They're just now going to start saying that?
This is why it troubles me that people take Fox seriously.
I doubt Obama's going down as the Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever (not when we have Wilson for comparison), especially when uncritical American support for Israel is already considered a monumental blunder by most of the historical community. But no. Nevermind that, let's talk about how it's completely Obama's fault that the Palestinians are just now saying "we can get a state through the UN. Yeah that makes sense
UN resolution 242 is effectively neutered and absolutely encourages the PA to NOT negotiate with Israel.
Worst part, Obama does this on his way out. Purely a spiteful dick move.
Agreed. Way to the incoming administration there.
I mean... Can we have an honest debate on this? What is the point of Obama / Kerry doing this? They are going to be out of office in 22 days, and the next administration doesn't seem to share their views. How do they think this plan will work? Or do they know it won't, but want to at least "weaken" Israel in the eyes of the world? What's the point?
Given that, the Palestinian themselves have stated that John Kerry/Susan Rice did indeed push for this resolution...
On the positive, I'd give Trump evven money on leaving the UN before his termis up.
That works out to be just under 5% (where we're currently contributing 22%).
That'll sting...
The point is that they are still doing their job how they see fit while they are still in office. I guess they are setting some kind of precedent by doing their jobs up until their last day. Like some kind of foolish professionals.
By fething it up even more?
Yeah... sure... they're still doing their "job" by backstabbing an ally.
Beijing (CNN)What do you get when you cross the year of the rooster with the year of Trump?
A "yuge" statue.
A giant rooster sculpture, sporting the President-elect's signature hairdo and hand gestures, has been erected outside a shopping mall in Taiyuan, in China's northern Shanxi Province.
The sculpture was commissioned by the company that owns the mall and will be its mascot, Cao Mingliang, the deputy director of planning department from N1 ArtWalk Mall, told CNN.
A giant rooster figure, sporting a Donald Trump hairstyle, has popped up outside a shopping mall in downtown Taiyuan, north China's Shanxi Province.
Cao said a series of products and smaller replicas will be available for sale in the future, though some are already being sold on Taobao, the Chinese e-commerce giant owned by Alibaba.
Wei Qing, whose Shenghe Yangtai Business is selling replica roosters, told CNN he thought sculpture was hilarious.
"I think the rooster is very cute and funny, the hairstyle and eyebrows look very much like Donald Trump. I'm sure it will attract a lot of customers," he said.
At least four stores are selling the Trump rooster, with prices starting from $57 to a whopping $1,739 for a statue that's 32 feet tall.
This isn't even the first avian doppleganger Trump has had in China this year.
State-run People's Daily tweeted out an image of a bird sporting a similar hairdo to the President-elect last month.
Trump-related products and gag gifts have proliferated since the real estate mogul announced his candidacy for president.
The most iconic -- the "Make America Great Again" hat -- would eventually go on sale on the Trump campaign website.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 21:59:08
Dreadwinter wrote: Sure, or you can see it as finally getting out of a toxic relationship with a group that only wants to cause problems for us.
Toxic? Israel?
It's so short sighted, it's fething pathetic.
For argument's sake, let's say the UN recognizes that the West Bank & Gaza Strp becomes a Palestinian state (hey, that's how Israel became a state in '48)...
Then all Palestinians who earn daily wages in Israel are instantly aliens...
Foreign currency controls applies...
Visa requirements applies...
The huge proportion of the operating budget of the Palestinian Authority that comes from Israel would vanish instantly...
And the very first FETHING time an overzealous Palestinian killer launches a cross-border attack with the complicity or aid of PA authority(Hamas/Fatah), it becomes an actual State v. State "act of war."
Granting the Palestinians statehood and then Israel destroying them by holding them accountable to the minimums of national behavior has actually been argued by pro-Israeli partisans as a way to finally resolve this.
By the Holy Emprah - Obama and Kerry are fething stupid.
They only chance for peace is for Israel and PA to directly negotiate for Peace. No external UN resolution can force peace in this region.
But hey, we all know you are against Obama, even if he ends world hunger.
Dreadwinter wrote: Sure, or you can see it as finally getting out of a toxic relationship with a group that only wants to cause problems for us.
Toxic? Israel?
It's so short sighted, it's fething pathetic.
For argument's sake, let's say the UN recognizes that the West Bank & Gaza Strp becomes a Palestinian state (hey, that's how Israel became a state in '48)...
Then all Palestinians who earn daily wages in Israel are instantly aliens...
Foreign currency controls applies...
Visa requirements applies...
The huge proportion of the operating budget of the Palestinian Authority that comes from Israel would vanish instantly...
And the very first FETHING time an overzealous Palestinian killer launches a cross-border attack with the complicity or aid of PA authority(Hamas/Fatah), it becomes an actual State v. State "act of war."
Granting the Palestinians statehood and then Israel destroying them by holding them accountable to the minimums of national behavior has actually been argued by pro-Israeli partisans as a way to finally resolve this.
By the Holy Emprah - Obama and Kerry are fething stupid.
They only chance for peace is for Israel and PA to directly negotiate for Peace. No external UN resolution can force peace in this region.
But hey, we all know you are against Obama, even if he ends world hunger.
Wow... he's already sainted in your view.
Dont play dumb whembly we all know you hate obama with a burning passion and will crap on anything he does (good or bad)
Dreadwinter wrote: Sure, or you can see it as finally getting out of a toxic relationship with a group that only wants to cause problems for us.
Toxic? Israel?
It's so short sighted, it's fething pathetic.
For argument's sake, let's say the UN recognizes that the West Bank & Gaza Strp becomes a Palestinian state (hey, that's how Israel became a state in '48)...
Then all Palestinians who earn daily wages in Israel are instantly aliens...
Foreign currency controls applies...
Visa requirements applies...
The huge proportion of the operating budget of the Palestinian Authority that comes from Israel would vanish instantly...
And the very first FETHING time an overzealous Palestinian killer launches a cross-border attack with the complicity or aid of PA authority(Hamas/Fatah), it becomes an actual State v. State "act of war."
Granting the Palestinians statehood and then Israel destroying them by holding them accountable to the minimums of national behavior has actually been argued by pro-Israeli partisans as a way to finally resolve this.
By the Holy Emprah - Obama and Kerry are fething stupid.
They only chance for peace is for Israel and PA to directly negotiate for Peace. No external UN resolution can force peace in this region.
But hey, we all know you are against Obama, even if he ends world hunger.
Wow... he's already sainted in your view.
If you think he is sainted in my view, you did not understand what I said. And also, Israel is absolutely toxic. They flood our government with lobbyists to get our officials sympathetic to their side. I mean, do you have a reason for supporting them? Why are you on Israels side here? What are your reasons? Please do not say "because they are an ally" because that isn't a good enough excuse. What do they do for us? We do a lot for them, but what do they do for us?
Also, we know that they are not going to sit down and negotiate peace. They have been trying to do it for decades. This has been an issue that Israel does not want solved. They want all of it, they think it belongs to them.
Give the Palestinians their land back. Then if they have somebody go rogue and attack Israel, it is on their government to deal with that person. If they do not, so be it. If they do, so be it.
He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."
Really? They're just now going to start saying that?
This is why it troubles me that people take Fox seriously.
I doubt Obama's going down as the Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever (not when we have Wilson for comparison), especially when uncritical American support for Israel is already considered a monumental blunder by most of the historical community. But no. Nevermind that, let's talk about how it's completely Obama's fault that the Palestinians are just now saying "we can get a state through the UN. Yeah that makes sense
UN resolution 242 is effectively neutered and absolutely encourages the PA to NOT negotiate with Israel.
Worst part, Obama does this on his way out. Purely a spiteful dick move.
Agreed. Way to the incoming administration there.
I mean... Can we have an honest debate on this? What is the point of Obama / Kerry doing this? They are going to be out of office in 22 days, and the next administration doesn't seem to share their views. How do they think this plan will work? Or do they know it won't, but want to at least "weaken" Israel in the eyes of the world? What's the point?
Given that, the Palestinian themselves have stated that John Kerry/Susan Rice did indeed push for this resolution...
On the positive, I'd give Trump evven money on leaving the UN before his termis up.
That works out to be just under 5% (where we're currently contributing 22%).
That'll sting...
The point is that they are still doing their job how they see fit while they are still in office. I guess they are setting some kind of precedent by doing their jobs up until their last day. Like some kind of foolish professionals.
By fething it up even more?
Yeah... sure... they're still doing their "job" by backstabbing an ally.
Good job Obama/Kerry. :slow clapping:
To be fair, what some may call "backstabbing an ally", others might call cessation of enabling of poor choices.
The Israeli government engages in practices that the rest of the planet, the US included, sees as unjustified and illegal with regards to srttlements. It has been a consistent sore point in US attempts to do anything with the situation over there. This resolution condemned those practices. Is that "stabbing an ally in the back" or is it calling something out when it needs calling out? Is the US obligated to shut down all criticism and negative motions aimed at Israel, is the US bound to defend and back Israel on absolutely every issue?
If my pal is acting like a doofus, everyone else agrees that said pal is being a doofus, and has ignored or actively balked at previous polite and behind the scenes requests to "tone it down", I'll call him out on acting like a doofus, or, like in this case, Ill stand aside when others do so.
Doesnt mean they arent still my pal, doesnt mean I'm stabbing them in the back, doesnt mean I wouldnt still come to his aid in a fight, but it should mean that pal should probably rethink some choices and behaviors.
Now, sure, the next administration probably isnt going to follow through on the same track, and thats probably not helpful of Obama, but its hardly a stab in the back.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem with that Pouncey, is that whilst soldiers should refuse to carry out illegal orders, they are still just people, with all the weaknesses inherent in people.
The best way to ensure that your soldiers do not carry out illegal orders is to make sure that those commanding them understand what is and is not an illegal order and who do not give them illegal orders. Sadly, Trump hasn't shown any interest in actually educating himself about the realities of the job he has got himself elected to do.
Trump doesn't have to understand it though.
The officers themselves who carry out the orders do.
If Trump needs to ask someone else to carry out an order, that means he's relying on someone else to do it, instead of just DOING IT HIMSELF.
Just, imagine, what would happen if, instead of Trump ordering it, a silo commander tried to launch nukes on their own without orders to do so. They would kill the other people who possess keys, like the Captain killed the Political Officer in The Hunt For Red October (remember, an officer points out, "Dude, the reason we don't let any one person hold both of those keys is so no one person can start World War 3. What the hell are you doing just keeping that thing yourself?") should they prove unwilling to assist them, and they're willing to start WW3 by using nukes in a war, so the concept of "innocent deaths" is not a deterrent for this person that they would not commit fratricide if necessary, but you put them in charge of nukes anyways. A mutiny by a crew could do the same thing, since being an officer doesn't make you any more or less impervious to bullets, and they can just take the keys off your officers' corpses after killing them, so the only thing stopping people from loading nuclear bombs and missiles onto planes and firing them is that you don't trust people with weapons without first figuring out how god damned psychotic and psychopathic they are. You need people willing to use them in the right situation, but people who are ONLY willing to use them in the right situation, not just "Whenever." People like that are rare, but not THAT rare, and your military is large enough, and you need few enough of these people that you can find people like that without them being super-common, so you did a lot of god damned research into making sure no nutjob ended up with control of weapons capable of ending human civilization when you use them.
And really, the fact that the President's a nutjob doesn't mean the military is different. The same people who are in charge of nukes now are the same people who will be in charge of nukes when Trump comes into office. Except for very very few individuals, no military officer's job depends on the outcome of election.
And really, you decided to have people in the loop, instead of simply giving the President a button that launches all nukes at pre-programmed targets and writing humans out of the loop entirely.
When you decide you need a human to decide something, you decided that an individual human's decision-making skills were important enough that it's not worth making a computer that blindly obeys orders. This is why you still have human soldiers at all, because even at the infantry level, our computers aren't THAT smart yet to be given the decision on whether to kill one person or not.
So look at your military, as it exists now.
Would you trust a completely random US soldier being in the same room as you and your family, since at any moment, their Sergeant COULD order them to kill you and they'd have to decide whether to do that or not? Personally, I'd feel safe, because being around an armed US soldier in real life, right now, probably means they're just visiting but because they're a soldier, they still have to have their gun. Because the US military doesn't just accept anyone, they reject people who are so unstable that they'd obey an order like that.
And the same process that went into deciding that a soldier was trustworthy with a gun, went into deciding that an officer is trustworthy with nukes. They were simply way, WAY more stringent than that, because the consequences of being wrong about trusting someone with a nuke are cataclysmically worse than trusting someone with a gun.
And I don't fear a US soldier being near me with a gun during a time of peace.
Why should I fear a US officer having access to nukes during a time of peace?
You know about nutjobs already, so you decided to simply DO something about it.
And really, obeying an illegal order, is in fact illegal. It's not simply a choice, where you can decide whether to obey it. If you obey it, you are actually committing a crime by obeying it.
And that's one of the rules we came up with after simply following illegal orders caused atrocities like the Holocaust in WW2.
Following orders isn't simply not a defence in philosophical arguments anymore.
It's not a legal one either.
A soldier tries to claim they did something illegal purely because they were ordered to? Well, too damned bad, because the law after the Holocaust was rewritten to not let you obey illegal orders anymore, because of the horrors when millions of civilians die in concentration camps.
You're gonna tell me that a US soldier is more likely to do something like kill billions of people by starting World War 3, than they are to do the US version of the Holocaust?
I don't think so. I may not trust your government to tell the truth, but your military is EXCEPTIONALLY competent, and they aren't elected by anyone at all.
Just, imagine, what would happen if, instead of Trump ordering it, a silo commander tried to launch nukes on their own without orders to do so. They would kill the other people who possess keys, like the Captain killed the Political Officer in The Hunt For Red October (remember, an officer points out, "Dude, the reason we don't let any one person hold both of those keys is so no one person can start World War 3. What the hell are you doing just keeping that thing yourself?") should they prove unwilling to assist them, and they're willing to start WW3 by using nukes in a war, so the concept of "innocent deaths" is not a deterrent for this person that they would not commit fratricide if necessary, but you put them in charge of nukes anyways.
This is where I stopped reading. Can somebody tell me what he is talking about? Because I am 99.9% sure that is not how the world works.
Dreadwinter wrote: Sure, or you can see it as finally getting out of a toxic relationship with a group that only wants to cause problems for us.
Toxic? Israel?
It's so short sighted, it's fething pathetic.
For argument's sake, let's say the UN recognizes that the West Bank & Gaza Strp becomes a Palestinian state (hey, that's how Israel became a state in '48)...
Then all Palestinians who earn daily wages in Israel are instantly aliens...
Foreign currency controls applies...
Visa requirements applies...
The huge proportion of the operating budget of the Palestinian Authority that comes from Israel would vanish instantly...
And the very first FETHING time an overzealous Palestinian killer launches a cross-border attack with the complicity or aid of PA authority(Hamas/Fatah), it becomes an actual State v. State "act of war."
Granting the Palestinians statehood and then Israel destroying them by holding them accountable to the minimums of national behavior has actually been argued by pro-Israeli partisans as a way to finally resolve this.
By the Holy Emprah - Obama and Kerry are fething stupid.
They only chance for peace is for Israel and PA to directly negotiate for Peace. No external UN resolution can force peace in this region.
But hey, we all know you are against Obama, even if he ends world hunger.
Wow... he's already sainted in your view.
If you think he is sainted in my view, you did not understand what I said. And also, Israel is absolutely toxic. They flood our government with lobbyists to get our officials sympathetic to their side. I mean, do you have a reason for supporting them? Why are you on Israels side here? What are your reasons? Please do not say "because they are an ally" because that isn't a good enough excuse. What do they do for us? We do a lot for them, but what do they do for us?
Also, we know that they are not going to sit down and negotiate peace. They have been trying to do it for decades. This has been an issue that Israel does not want solved. They want all of it, they think it belongs to them.
Give the Palestinians their land back. Then if they have somebody go rogue and attack Israel, it is on their government to deal with that person. If they do not, so be it. If they do, so be it.
It is on them now, sink or swim.
Palestinians never had the land to begin with.
I'll state this again: The West Bank & Golan Height territories were JORDANIAN and SYRIAN territories respectively.
The people who calls themselves Palestinians are really Jordanian and southern Syrians.
Furthermore, the West Bank & Golan Height territories were acquired in a defensive war where Egypt, Jordan and Syria tried to push Israel into the sea.
If you don't think Israel hasn't been a good friend for the US (and the west for that matter), then there's nothing I can do to persuade you.
Although, can you please show me in the UN Charter, where everything Israel does is bad, and nothing that the Palestinian does is bad?
, but he isn't stupid; he knew exactly how to play a lot of disgruntled Americans, as well as all of his opposition, by making them so outraged that they motivated more outrage from his supporters, as well as getting more neutrals to vote for him as a result of that. He also won't be stupid enough to build a wall, kick out Muslims, or push the button. All I can say is well played to that, despite it being as crude and morally bankrupt as you can get, not that that's entirely new with politicians across the world.
