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.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm laughing so so much, because it's a freaking trainwreck... Missouri Governor looking more & more like a victim of prosecutorial over reach:
Greitens filing claims ex-lover testified to only seeing phone or camera in 'dream'

You read junk and embarrass yourself repeating it here. She has testified she saw a flash through the blindfold, after which he threatened her. None of that was retracted or thrown in to doubt. The big shocking bit of pretend news you've reposted here is that when asked if she saw the camera after the event, she said she wasn't sure, she thought she had, but it might have been in a dream after the event. That's it.

Of course Greitens' lawyer took that bit out of context to mislead the public, and of course the liars in the conservative media rushed to print stories repeating that crap, and of course you believed it.

No... I've read the whole thing... ITS IN MY FREAKING HOMETOWN LIBERAL PAPER.

My point is that this is a huge mess. The prosecutor withheld that part of the testimony as that part is just recently been made aware.

She did in fact say during the deposition that she can't be sure Greitens did the very thing he's being indicted for, and in fact may have only "dreamed" it.

What hasn't changed was that the woman claimed that on multiple occasions that he photographed her without her consent and threatened to release the image if she told anyone about their relationship.

It's a trainwreck for multiple reasons dude... can't you see that?

Dial back the sanctimony seb... jeez, it's reaction like this that gets this thread locked down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
If Trump gets impeached I can't see any way possible Pence remains a viable candidate. I think he's irrevocably tainted by association.

Was Gore tainted from Clinton's impeachment? I don't really recall...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Radio 4 had a US ex-military or security person the other day.

He said what needs to happen is for the USA to make a small coalition. Naming no names it needs to include say the UK, France and Israel, as these countries have regional interests and heritagae, and useful bases. Then build up a significant air force in the area.

Then warn Russia you are going to wipe out Assad's air force, so they need to get their guys out of the target areas.

Then wipe out Assad's air force, including all the airfields, aircraft, refuelling facilities, bomb dumps and maintenance facilities.

I dare say the USA plus France, UK and Israel must have the wherewithall to do this, if the political will could be found. I doubt that Russia actually has the capability to prevent it, without entering into a direct power to power battle over Syria.

It's true that the West lost the best chance to intervene effectively in Syria due to vacillation during the Obama presidency. Crying and wringing our hands about that won't improve the situation now. Neither will doing nothing, or piddling about with a cruise missile strike.

Russia will put modern air defense systems around key targets to help their ally Assad. How many planes and pilots do the countries in the coalition want to lose to make a futile political gesture that won't stop the civil war in Syria? There's a reason that Trump launched missiles at that airfield instead of sending planes. Nobody wants to take casualties for the sake of hurting Assad. Nobody wants to take him out either. A coalition that topples Assad then becomes responsible for the chaotic power vacuum that is created and nobody wants to invest the lives, time and money needed to rebuild Syria. Trump will likely launch some more cruise missiles to create a distraction for a news cycle, not much else will change.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Radio 4 had a US ex-military or security person the other day.

He said what needs to happen is for the USA to make a small coalition. Naming no names it needs to include say the UK, France and Israel, as these countries have regional interests and heritagae, and useful bases. Then build up a significant air force in the area.

Then warn Russia you are going to wipe out Assad's air force, so they need to get their guys out of the target areas.

Then wipe out Assad's air force, including all the airfields, aircraft, refuelling facilities, bomb dumps and maintenance facilities.

I dare say the USA plus France, UK and Israel must have the wherewithall to do this, if the political will could be found. I doubt that Russia actually has the capability to prevent it, without entering into a direct power to power battle over Syria.

It's true that the West lost the best chance to intervene effectively in Syria due to vacillation during the Obama presidency. Crying and wringing our hands about that won't improve the situation now. Neither will doing nothing, or piddling about with a cruise missile strike.

Russia will put modern air defense systems around key targets to help their ally Assad. How many planes and pilots do the countries in the coalition want to lose to make a futile political gesture that won't stop the civil war in Syria? There's a reason that Trump launched missiles at that airfield instead of sending planes. Nobody wants to take casualties for the sake of hurting Assad. Nobody wants to take him out either. A coalition that topples Assad then becomes responsible for the chaotic power vacuum that is created and nobody wants to invest the lives, time and money needed to rebuild Syria. Trump will likely launch some more cruise missiles to create a distraction for a news cycle, not much else will change.

Do you mean Russian troops operating Russian material? Or Russian will sell or donate some AA gear to Syrian forces. Because Russian and Coalition forces shooting directly at each other is not how proxy wars are fought.

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Radio 4 had a US ex-military or security person the other day.

He said what needs to happen is for the USA to make a small coalition. Naming no names it needs to include say the UK, France and Israel, as these countries have regional interests and heritagae, and useful bases. Then build up a significant air force in the area.

Then warn Russia you are going to wipe out Assad's air force, so they need to get their guys out of the target areas.

Then wipe out Assad's air force, including all the airfields, aircraft, refuelling facilities, bomb dumps and maintenance facilities.

I dare say the USA plus France, UK and Israel must have the wherewithall to do this, if the political will could be found. I doubt that Russia actually has the capability to prevent it, without entering into a direct power to power battle over Syria.

It's true that the West lost the best chance to intervene effectively in Syria due to vacillation during the Obama presidency. Crying and wringing our hands about that won't improve the situation now. Neither will doing nothing, or piddling about with a cruise missile strike.

Russia will put modern air defense systems around key targets to help their ally Assad. How many planes and pilots do the countries in the coalition want to lose to make a futile political gesture that won't stop the civil war in Syria? There's a reason that Trump launched missiles at that airfield instead of sending planes. Nobody wants to take casualties for the sake of hurting Assad. Nobody wants to take him out either. A coalition that topples Assad then becomes responsible for the chaotic power vacuum that is created and nobody wants to invest the lives, time and money needed to rebuild Syria. Trump will likely launch some more cruise missiles to create a distraction for a news cycle, not much else will change.

Do you mean Russian troops operating Russian material? Or Russian will sell or donate some AA gear to Syrian forces. Because Russian and Coalition forces shooting directly at each other is not how proxy wars are fought.

Russia already gave Syria Russian operated S-400 missile batteries back in 2015. Which is the most modern Russia sells them. It doesn't seem to have stopped the Israelis. As I said in the ISIS thread:

Any war would require some serious nation building. Imagine the extent of damage that could be done to the overall region if the US just barges in, pushes the Assad regime to the point of implosion and just leaves? It would only make it a worse hell hole. Last time there wasn't a clear power in Syria we got IS and look where that crazy train ended up going. I still support intervention but its going to be so much harder today to do right. I don't doubt the competency of the US military to win, I very much question the civilian administration's ability to finish it.

Trump going to war against Assad needs a nation building plan. Otherwise you would leave a massive power vacuum on the border of a NATO ally and Iraq. Worst of all, not finishing it properly would allow Assad and or Putin a chance to try and get back in it and feth over civilians for another few years, because none of the rebels have the power left to win. There is no power now that can just take over from Assad. Not engaging in nation building after toppling Assad is going to result in Somalian circumstances.

Just throwing a few bombs around isn't going to help anyone besides Trump putting on a show.

Looks like Scott Pruitts claims of being subject to extraordinary threats requiring extraordinary security were... *gasp* not true.

Honestly I don't even know the proper place to post this but here we go.

Trump bombed Russia's ally in a country where Russia is directly supporting their ally.

The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.

I can't for the life of me, remember a time when any of this would have been considered. We are really living in different times.

The US and Soviet Union had a healthy respect for one another, despite all the games they played. I don't think that is going to be the case with the US and Russia in the foreseeable future. I think things are going to go gradually downhill.

Is Trump at that phase of his 'Art of the Deal' where he got what he wanted from Putin and is now just going to walk away from his part of the bargain?

KTG17 wrote:
The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.

Man I remember when I read about that, I was thinking some gak is about to go down. And then.... nothing? Super weird. I don't really understand the motivation behind the attack, and why they were so readily abandoned.

Well, I am sure nothing has been forgotten. . .

KTG17 wrote:
Honestly I don't even know the proper place to post this but here we go.

Trump bombed Russia's ally in a country where Russia is directly supporting their ally.

The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.

I can't for the life of me, remember a time when any of this would have been considered. We are really living in different times.

The US and Soviet Union had a healthy respect for one another, despite all the games they played. I don't think that is going to be the case with the US and Russia in the foreseeable future. I think things are going to go gradually downhill.

increasingly, as Seb put it in the Russia poisoning thread, I am suspecting we may be dealing with people on all sides who just arent actually very good at their jobs.

The current US administration is its own form of circus, while the Kremlin stages its own display, and a lot of actors are on relatively long leashes and blunder into stupid mistakes because theyre not coordinating through centralized channels and are led by people who are far more into politics and causes than being professional at what they do.

Properly coordinated professional forces dont blunder into well supported entrenched and prepared positions held by a global superpower.

KTG17 wrote:
Honestly I don't even know the proper place to post this but here we go.

Trump bombed Russia's ally in a country where Russia is directly supporting their ally.

The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.

I can't for the life of me, remember a time when any of this would have been considered. We are really living in different times.

The US and Soviet Union had a healthy respect for one another, despite all the games they played. I don't think that is going to be the case with the US and Russia in the foreseeable future. I think things are going to go gradually downhill.

I don't want to depress you, but you might want to read up on Africa in the 1980s. Hell, watch 'Siege of Jadotville'. The Russians have a long history of using mercenaries for their expertise and built-in deniability. The US tends to find small 'acceptable' rebel groups and supply them with weapons and training. Then they shoot the hell out of each other.

 Vaktathi wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Honestly I don't even know the proper place to post this but here we go.

Trump bombed Russia's ally in a country where Russia is directly supporting their ally.

The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.

I can't for the life of me, remember a time when any of this would have been considered. We are really living in different times.

The US and Soviet Union had a healthy respect for one another, despite all the games they played. I don't think that is going to be the case with the US and Russia in the foreseeable future. I think things are going to go gradually downhill.

increasingly, as Seb put it in the Russia poisoning thread, I am suspecting we may be dealing with people on all sides who just arent actually very good at their jobs.

The current US administration is its own form of circus, while the Kremlin stages its own display, and a lot of actors are on relatively long leashes and blunder into stupid mistakes because theyre not coordinating through centralized channels and are led by people who are far more into politics and causes than being professional at what they do.

Properly coordinated professional forces dont blunder into well supported entrenched and prepared positions held by a global superpower.

I definitely think that that Wagner mercenaries getting blasted was just a Russian screw up. The Wagner Group is, more or less, part of the Russian war machine. They're fully equipped with armor, and were a big part of the force that invaded Ukraine. (Along with soldiers who were "on vacation," according to Putin.) Russia uses them so they can have thinly veiled plausible deniability for whatever they do. They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up."

Russia said "We don't know them. We have no idea what's going on. Go head."

The theory running around that makes most sense to me is that Russia had no idea Americans were embedded with the Kurds at this position and gave the orders to hit them. When we contacted them to tell them they were about to get lit up, Russia had to let the attack carry on and disown the guys as doing otherwise would unquestionably establish that they are actually pulling the strings with Wagner. There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Honestly I don't even know the proper place to post this but here we go.

Trump bombed Russia's ally in a country where Russia is directly supporting their ally.

The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.

I can't for the life of me, remember a time when any of this would have been considered. We are really living in different times.

The US and Soviet Union had a healthy respect for one another, despite all the games they played. I don't think that is going to be the case with the US and Russia in the foreseeable future. I think things are going to go gradually downhill.

I don't want to depress you, but you might want to read up on Africa in the 1980s. Hell, watch 'Siege of Jadotville'. The Russians have a long history of using mercenaries for their expertise and built-in deniability. The US tends to find small 'acceptable' rebel groups and supply them with weapons and training. Then they shoot the hell out of each other.

Right, but neither side actually shot at each other or in close proximity of each other since the Korean War. Bumped boats, spooked one another in the air, but this is different.

Siege of Jadotville was between the Irish and I thought were Belgian and French mercenaries.

KTG17 wrote:
Honestly I don't even know the proper place to post this but here we go.

Trump bombed Russia's ally in a country where Russia is directly supporting their ally.

The US military obliterated a group of Russian 'mercenaries', much like the ones fighting around Donetsk airport back in the day.

I can't for the life of me, remember a time when any of this would have been considered. We are really living in different times.

The US and Soviet Union had a healthy respect for one another, despite all the games they played. I don't think that is going to be the case with the US and Russia in the foreseeable future. I think things are going to go gradually downhill.

Soviets died in the Vietnam War in small numbers in the North. Korea comes to mind as well. It happens rarely but it does happen. And that's only what we now know about.

As for the mercenaries. Its likely they actually might have been private contractors hired by Moscow to help out the Assad regime. Its certainly not on the scale of Ukraine.

I don't think its historically bad, Russia really isn't going to have open war over Assad. There is too little to gain in an area far outside reasonable force projection levels, with Turkey sitting firmly in between as a NATO member. It's not nearly as tense as Ukraine.

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. I can't believe Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush, or Obama would have green lit this. I am not even sure Reagan would have. Someone would have called the ambassador, or called Moscow directly.

KTG17 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. I can't believe Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush, or Obama would have green lit this. I am not even sure Reagan would have. Someone would have called the ambassador, or called Moscow directly.

TBF the relationship between US and Russia was very different under each of those Presidents, while under Reagan it was still the Soviet Union.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. I can't believe Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush, or Obama would have green lit this. I am not even sure Reagan would have. Someone would have called the ambassador, or called Moscow directly.

TBF the relationship between US and Russia was very different under each of those Presidents, while under Reagan it was still the Soviet Union.

Hey, at least Trump hasn't called Russia the Evil Empire yet, can't be all that bad

KTG17 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. I can't believe Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush, or Obama would have green lit this. I am not even sure Reagan would have. Someone would have called the ambassador, or called Moscow directly.

We didn't have a choice. We had US troops embedded with Kurds who were about to be attacked by the Wagner forces (Russian mercenaries). We told Russia to call off the attack or we'd be force to annihilate those forces before they could attack our troops, Russia feigned ignorance so we lit them up. If we had done nothing those forces would have rolled up onto the Kurds and could have potentially killed some or all of the US troops there. Russia could have averted the skirmish from happening but they would have had to have acknowledged that the Russian govt had the ability to control the Wagner forces in Syria but since that wasn't a tenable political position to take they denied it and Wagner paid for it. I don't think any previous president/administration would have let Russian mercenaries kill US troops.

KTG17 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. Ima would have green lit this.

To be fair what other option do you have? Say for example this happened to some other US ally and Russians started wandering in and Russia goes "whoops, ain't us" a la the little green men. Do you just not do anything?

Why are none of you talking about the Zuckerberg Trial ???

 Formosa wrote:
Why are none of you talking about the Zuckerberg Trial ???

cant watch his testimony live at work, waiting for transcript

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

To be fair what other option do you have? Say for example this happened to some other US ally and Russians started wandering in and Russia goes "whoops, ain't us" a la the little green men. Do you just not do anything?

No, you obliterate them and I am glad that it happened.

Its different from being "No, we do not have soviet pilots in North Korea" to "Yes they are Russians but not under our command." They are still Russians, and they are very much under their command, even if Russia denies it. Russia HQ approves that they are there, equips them, and gets them to do some dirty work the 'regulars' can't be seen doing. They are Putin's tool, and we basically crushed it.

I don't think I've ever seen the US military act so swiftly against Russian interests on a military level, and with overwhelming force. It wasn't like we fired a few warning shots.

Things are different now, I am telling you.

 Formosa wrote:
Why are none of you talking about the Zuckerberg Trial ???

You mean the young Data?


As for the testimony...bah... I'd bet it's a bunch of Senators asking questions that demonstrates the lack of "internet" knowledge....

 whembly wrote:
He needs to get Congressional approval.

Actually the President can have a war for up to 30 days before he needs Congressional Approval.

 Ouze wrote:
I wonder what the end-game for the Mueller investigation is actually going to be.

1.) Impeachment is not going to happen. No matter how badly the GOP gets rocked in the midterms - and that's far from a given since the Dems can always be counted on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - there is no way they are going to get the numbers needed.

2.) Although this is a grey area, I don't think a sitting president can be indicted, criminally.

3.) The most likely outcome, I think, is Mueller is going to be fired. I think some of Trump's inner circle, beyond what has happened already, will be indicted in New York State when there is jurisdiction, which puts them beyond the reach of a pardon.

What do you guys think?

1) This will largely depend on if he fires Mueller. If he does pull the trigger there, he's looking at Impeachment. From both sides, supposedly. Also recall that his Emoluments Clause trial is now going forward. so expect some very interesting legal gymnastics to come out of this.

2) Correct, however, upon Impeachment, he can then be tried criminally without it being Double Jeopardy (Article 1, Section 3: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.")

3) Incorrect, even if tried in New York state courts, the President could still pardon them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. Ima would have green lit this.

To be fair what other option do you have? Say for example this happened to some other US ally and Russians started wandering in and Russia goes "whoops, ain't us" a la the little green men. Do you just not do anything?

Every time I search for this incident, I find that it can't be confirmed, no sources, etc.
I read 15 russian dead, too
Do you have anything more ? Any source ? I am curious about this !

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. Ima would have green lit this.

To be fair what other option do you have? Say for example this happened to some other US ally and Russians started wandering in and Russia goes "whoops, ain't us" a la the little green men. Do you just not do anything?

Every time I search for this incident, I find that it can't be confirmed, no sources, etc.
I read 15 russian dead, too
Do you have anything more ? Any source ? I am curious about this !

The Wagner incident? Yeah man that was all over the news, couple hundred died (both Syrian and Russian)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He needs to get Congressional approval.

Actually the President can have a war for up to 30 days before he needs Congressional Approval.

Yeah... but, has President's adhered to that in the past?

I don't recall Obama getting approval for those "low-level" excursion in the ME...

My point, is Trump can get massive cover in either direction if he'd ask Congress to approve military actions.

 Ouze wrote:
I wonder what the end-game for the Mueller investigation is actually going to be.

1.) Impeachment is not going to happen. No matter how badly the GOP gets rocked in the midterms - and that's far from a given since the Dems can always be counted on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - there is no way they are going to get the numbers needed.

3.) The most likely outcome, I think, is Mueller is going to be fired. I think some of Trump's inner circle, beyond what has happened already, will be indicted in New York State when there is jurisdiction, which puts them beyond the reach of a pardon.

What do you guys think?

1) This will largely depend on if he fires Mueller. If he does pull the trigger there, he's looking at Impeachment. From both sides, supposedly. Also recall that his Emoluments Clause trial is now going forward. so expect some very interesting legal gymnastics to come out of this.

I think he'd be impeached in the House with GOP help... but, won't get the 60th Senate vote to remove him.

As for the Emoluments Clause... it hasn't really been tested... hence the case. I don't think it applies here for Trump.

2) Correct, however, upon Impeachment, he can then be tried criminally without it being Double Jeopardy (Article 1, Section 3: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.")

Yup. As impeachment is a political process... not a legal/criminal one.

3) Incorrect, even if tried in New York state courts, the President could still pardon them.

I don't think that's right... President's Pardon power is plenary in federal jurisdiction. I don't think that applies to the states. (I did quick google to confirm... but couldn't find anything supporting my point. Do you have a resource that states presidents can pardon state conviction? Or maybe I'm getting criminal stuff mixed up with civil stuff... )

 Just Tony wrote:
So am I to assume that everyone would be completely opposed to privatizing all teaching jobs? Because we're fresh out of realistic options at this point.

Are we? Cutting military spending by 25% and closing the myriad tax loopholes exploited by corporations would outpace the money saved by slashing public sector wages by a pretty massive amount.

I'm not against the notion that some public sector figures are overpaid, I just don't care because the amount of money we're wasting by overpaying those people is peanuts compared to the money we're lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin et all with.

 Ustrello wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
They amassed outside of a Kurdish position that had US SF embedded with them. They attacked said position and got merked (pun intended). We spotted them building up, and contacted Russia and said "Your boys are about to royally screw up. . . There won't be any real fallout or escalation from that skirmish because Russia can't admit that they knew about it so they have to continue to feign ignorance and not react to it.

This is my point though. They knew they were Russian troops (call them whatever else you want) and blowing them up was an option. Ima would have green lit this.

To be fair what other option do you have? Say for example this happened to some other US ally and Russians started wandering in and Russia goes "whoops, ain't us" a la the little green men. Do you just not do anything?

Every time I search for this incident, I find that it can't be confirmed, no sources, etc.
I read 15 russian dead, too
Do you have anything more ? Any source ? I am curious about this !

The Wagner incident? Yeah man that was all over the news, couple hundred died (both Syrian and Russian)

Yes, this ! I think French press wasn't as interested as yours in this, I can understand this, but it is pretty huge !

 Vaktathi wrote:

 sebster wrote:
No but seriously, on the night that the FBI raided the office of the President's long time personal lawyer, a man who is also the Deputy Chair of the Republican National Finance Committee, Tucker Carlson didn't have time for that story, because he needed to talk about panda sex.

I'm still wondering what genius at Fox News decided that it was worth paying Tucker Carlson a salary after he flamed out on CNN when John Stewart went on his show and humiliated him so bad on national evening television it got Carlson's show cancelled. That segment alone should have been enough to kill any job prospects.

You made me go to Youtube to look that up. . . I for some reason thought that Crossfire had ended sometime in the early 90s after Frank Zappa did much the same thing to the host/guest at that time