And the asshat regime $5 in tarmac to repair the runwayQuote:
Originally Posted by Seshmeister
And the asshat regime $5 in tarmac to repair the runwayQuote:
Originally Posted by Seshmeister
Donald Trump personally profited from missile-maker Raytheon’s stock jump after his Syria attack
Tom Boggioni
rawstory.com
08 Apr 2017 at 09:48 ET
While the world is dealing with both the implications and the fall-out from President Donald Trump’s missile attack on a Syrian airfield on Thursday, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile used in the attack is seeing their stock surge which is good news for their investors — including the president.
As noted by the Palmer Report, Trump owns stock in Raytheon, which was reported by Business Insider in 2015.
According to Trump’s financial disclosure reports filed with the FEC in 2015, his stock portfolio includes investments in technology firms, financial institutions and defense firms, including Raytheon.
On Thursday, Trump launched an attack on the al-Shayrat military airfield, used by both Syrian and Russian military forces, hitting it with 59 Tomahawk missiles manufactured by Raytheon. Trump’s attack on Syria was reportedly in response to a deadly gas attack launched by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against his own people earlier in the week.
While the Tomahawk attack did little damage to the airfield — with the Syrian air force continuing to launch assaults from the same base on Friday — investors, sensing an increasing escalation in tensions between two countries and the possibility of war , pushed Raytheon stock up.
Since taking office, Trump has refused to divulge all of his financial information — including his income taxes — and refused to place his business and financial holdings in a blind trust allowing Trump and his family to move money and investments around as they see fit.
I understad what you're saying, but the Marines sort of are involved, with fire missions at least, but not infantry combat - at least not yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
The strike was an expensive popgun like something out of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and I am sort of on the fence about it. But I wouldn't underestimate what the blow of losing even a few aircraft and facilities to the Syrian regime military is as they were once one of the most powerful air-forces in the Middle East and have been severally reduced since the war began. They're struggling to maintain sorties...Quote:
Originally Posted by vandeleur
Yeah, but there was a lack of precision in what I said. If the totality of what I said was taken to a logical extreme, it would be easy to infer what I meant was that there were no US troops in Syria at all at the moment, which certainly is incorrect. Ground troops was my reference to what you rightly and concisely termed as infantry combat. US infantry combat troops alone engaging in unilateral conflict with Syrian factions isn't a winning strategy to my way of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT-ctV2WXNkQuote:
Originally Posted by Terry
Terry, this is what happened next. While Nick, FORD, and sesh demand Trump step down, this has been going on for years.
Get rid of Assad.
Spoken like a true commlib. Mutually assured destruction right? No other outcome. Watch the Pacific rim skies shortly, prof. I'm closer to centcom than you'd care to know. No need to sign back up. Shaky ol' jerksmear is doing just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
shuthe t fcku up,you stu pid cu nt
You're dumber than you'd care to know...Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksmar
I didn't say anything regarding MAD, moron...
You can shut the fuck up, too Wiki Liki Diki Niki
No, you didn't prof buffalo. you implied we lose against the iran because the mighty flat broke russian bare is on the low cost oil side of iran. typical. can't fuck with the russians because the dempons are afraid. got to tell the world how mighty russia is, right adlai?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
the party moved on down the road to mar-a-lago and the commander in chief is letting the generals do their job. and they're not afraid of lighting up the arctic to take out an airbase. would the leftovers be an ebb or flow, prof?
Go get high, then fuck off, beauty school dropout...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristy
Kristy is a pothead loser and you're an incoherent drunk. Can you two sober up and actually post to WHAT I FUCKING SAID?Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksmar
I was talking about a war in the Korean peninsula, moron.
http://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51...11482426_n.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Kristy
i'm so sorry prof. it must have been the words iranians and russians that you used that threw you off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
Trump said he would take care of the NK problem with or without China. One more time, Trump said he would take care of the NK problem with or without China.
find this in your common core curriculum: The US is the UN's designated custodian of the NK/SK cease fire and the ongoing negotiations.
try this prof: If NK goes nuke they will invade SK and will nuke Japan. SK and Japan are thinking that what China is suggesting is their destruction. And China is at its best, is a one party Communist regime.
Screw China and NK. They can be comms or whatever they want to be.
BUT, the US simply cannot let NK put a nuclear weapon to our head. ...
Don't worry, Trump isn't going to fix shit and the North Koreans already have a nuke or three. I'm pretty sure our 4,000 or so warheads will turn them into a parking lot and both South Korea can build nukes on a moment's notice...Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksmar
Or maybe the Chinese will just roll in and take Lil' Kim out themselves? They probably don't want to add to their "bully" image, but it becomes a "lesser evil" in their eyes, if the only other option is a shit load of radiation floating around the Northeast provinces of China right when they're trying to clean up their air.
But then of course, there is a little piece of Russia that borders on NK as well, so how would Pooty react if China smacked the Norks down?
The problem is the eternal Powell conundrum of "you break it, you buy it." Who the fuck wants to buy North Korea? The South is terrified of actually winning a war and having to sacrifice their economy to run a unified poverty stricken failed state. China is more worried about potentially millions of refugees that would precipitate a DPRK collapse. Of course they don't want U.S. troops there or a strong, unified Korea either...
I do believe that lil' Kim is on China's last nerve, though...
http://www.slightlyqualified.com/wp-...013/05/un3.jpg
The Chinese probably wouldn't even notice if a few million spilled over from NK to the neighboring provinces, as those areas are culturally more "Korean" than Chinese as it is. Right down to having dog on the menu at some of the restaurants in that region. They don't eat puppies because they have to, but because it's "traditional". :puke:
I'm thinking a unified Korea is the most likely outcome eventually. Yeah, it's going to be tough on Seoul to manage this, but they just need to find themselves a "Franklin Delano Park" who can bring the north into the 21st century.
By leapfrogging the previous two centuries.
We have no idea how shit a condition North Korea is in , the real north Korea not the cities we are shown but a totally uneducated comment is its probably worse than we could even guess at.
The most reasonable assumption is that there hasn't been much advancement there since 1945, when the "divorce" happened between the north & south. So that wouldn't take them back two centuries, but a damn good chunk of one. At least Cuba was fairly modernized for the time before the post Castro blockades left them frozen in a 1958 time warp.
I have a friend who works in China building foundaries .... away from the cities it's like monty pythons the holy grail . Bet a country that thinks it's god like leader was the first person to Land on the sun .... although to be fair he went at night. Has parts of it that still think u2 were good . Just saying :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FORD
I absolutely agree that Assad should go.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksmar
My concern is the details of the mechanism for his removal, and having a plan in place for what happens after he is removed.
The military aspect of Assad's removal is the easy part. I'm not someone who fetishizes our military (or anyone else's), but even having said that I have no doubt our military would be up to the job of removal.
It's the aftermath that concerns me: would the cure eventually prove to be worse than the disease?
I understand all about the best laid plans of mice and men, and no solutions or outcomes are perfect, and inaction within strictly humanitarian terms is not an option.
Rashness is what concerns me, here. That and the fact that seemingly none of the other geopolitical major players are displaying near to the amount of concern that we are: a unilateral action would be a mistake.
With North Korea, we may end up having to do something in a unilateral manner. Particularly if Lil Kim gets desperate and makes a desperate gesture. We're not at that point with Syria, yet.
I agree with you. Assad is my concern. Make an example out of the guy and be done with him. ISIS will try build from that and probably get more power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
Look, if you want me to speak frankly it's easy. I really don't care how Syria ends up or how. You have a guy that has no problem using chemical weapons and his next move before removal will be to use them on Israel. When that happens all bets are off. Everyone has to pick a side.
Syria is 69% Sunni and 11% Alawis so I guess you go back to Bush Sr.'s
Iraq plan where you draw some lines and let them figure it out.
But someone in Syria will become responsible for Saddam's stockpile.
That's the problem we need to keep track of.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-w...da-says/26514/
The problem isn't so much Assad going as what comes after Assad.
As in Iraq. As in Libya. As in Egypt, to a slightly lesser degree.
Sure, it's one thing to say that an asshole dictator should go. But what replaces him? And who gets to decide that? And why should it be anybody who doesn't have to live in that country making that decision.
Hell, I spent the first 8 years of this century hoping that the Chimp would be removed from office, but I damn sure wouldn't have been happy about a foreign army coming in to do it. And if somebody toppled Cheeto right now, we would get the same thing most of these Muslim countries get - a theocratic dictatorship. Only difference here is that it would be considered "legal" because Pence is already in office.
And by the way, the "New York Sun" is such a pile of Likudist propaganda bullshit that it makes the Weekly World News look credible by comparison. Not to mention that article is 11 years old and was debunked THEN.
I'll try to be equally frank: I'm not losing any more sleep over what is happening in Syria now than I have been for the last decade, which is to say none. Truth be told, I didn't lose much sleep over what has been happening in Iraq for the last 14 years. Probably because living in America provides me a psychological sense of remove. Yes, what happened in 2001 was terrible, but you 're still far more likely to be killed driving your car...or be shot by a white man born in the United States...than you are from a foreign attack. Will there be a nuclear suitcase bomb attack in the future? Perhaps. Yes, the images of those conflicts were and are horrible. On a basic human level, any decent person would wish none of these things were transpiring...anywhere. Ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksmar
Tribalism, religious extremism and control over primary global energy resources. For me, that sums up the Middle East: bunch of nations being used as proxy war theaters for larger powers. Al-Qaeda fractures into ISIS/ISIL. Thirty years ago it was Lybian terrorists. Trying to stamp out these small terror cells, even with the technology we have at hand now, still feels like trying to catch a waft of smoke. How many Islamic males are we radicalizing whenever we drone a current Islamic terrorist? Is there an end to this? Ever? Or is it un-American to even think critically about these things, or suggest there may be solutions that don't necessarily involve the use of unilateral military force? I'm not saying that is what you were implying about my comments at all, but when I think aloud like this there is a contingent of people (not even talking about this site specifically) who think anything less than a display of American military force is a pussy-like response.
And you know what's funny? Most of the Americans I encounter who are so gung-ho about reflexively sending troops to all these hot spots at the first sign of trouble and "kickin' some motherfucking ass!" AREN'T EVEN IN THE FUCKING MILITARY!!! Myself, I think it's the height of bullshit cowardice for citizens to jingoistically beat their chests and emit war cries as long as it is someone else who is doing the fighting. I can assure you, the people I know (more than a few) who are actively serving in the military don't approach their service like that...at all. Maybe lessening the requirements for service eligibility and putting all these marginally employed citizens who are so enthralled with going to war INTO the military and shipping them overseas would be a solution to these multiple tours our servicemen are getting burned out from. All these rah-rah, shoot 'em up citizens can be deployed to the Middle East with an M-16, all the MRE's they can eat, a keg of Budweiser while chanting "USA, USA, USA!" as they storm and retake Aleppo. Give 'em a taste of what they're cheering for. Call 'em 'Citizen Warriors'...I mean, not to be glib, but what the fuck? Why not? Beats sitting around America jobless, hooked on opioids with no particular purpose in life other than breeding kids they can't afford to have, right?
Spillover from Syria into Israel WOULD be potentially calamitous. Frankly, I don't care much about Israel, no more than Syria, or Iraq. I suppose Israel does think Iran poses an existential threat. More religious, secular nuttiness from my perspective, but from theirs I have no doubt they take it all with grave seriousness.
Let's say every other Middle Eastern country said they would be willing to guarantee peace in the Middle East, but the price would be Israel permitting Palestine to exist hassle-free, and the US would agree to stop favoring Israel after Palestine received their rightful lands. Would we go along with that? Or would we continue to support whatever Benjamin Netanyahu dictates? How many of our troubles as a nation regarding Middle Eastern blowback can be tracked back to our seemingly unconditional support of Israel? Or is it anti-Semitic to even so much as MENTION these thoughts?
I dunno. What's the expression: the more I know, the less I understand. Seems strange as a species that we spend so much time and effort to build ever-more effective weapons in order to annihilate one another, and the remaining time and effort is spent accumulating money so we can buy...stuff. Things. I'm no better than anyone else, but is this all there is?
I don't see any significant chance at peace in the Middle East until NuttyYahoo is gone. Rabin was Israel's version of JFK and ever since he was murdered (and the "official" story of his killing is about as real as the LHO myth in the US) Israel has taken a hard right turn, with NuttyYahoo being in power the bulk of that time, with Sharon in the middle and a couple of short termers who were supposedly "Labour" but only in the same sense that Clinton and Obama were "Democrats", as their policies mirrored those of the Likud more than the Labour party as it was before Rabin was assassinated.
It's actually comparable to the right wing turn the US took after JFK was slaughtered, only it took place much faster in Israel. Supposedly the majority of the Israeli people want a peaceful resolution with the Palestinians, yet they keep allowing these right wing assholes to control their government. And NuttyYahoo had to go even further to the insane fringe nutjob right just to win his last election, promising his fringe "partners" that there would be no Palestinian state on his watch. These fringers are the type who believe that Israel should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates "because God said so" (God actually told Abraham that land would belong to ALL of his descendants, not just the Isaac branch, but that's beside the point when you're talking about a modern state created by a UN mandate)
Israel needs to stop electing these tools before they can resolve this. And they can't even blame it on massive electronic fraud or Koch funded database. They could blame it on Russians, but that wouldn't be Putin's crew, rather the Trotskyite exiles who occupy more real estate in Israel these days than the genetic descendants of Abraham & Isaac do.
Middle-aged white male dick talk, everybodyQuote:
Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
It's the Iraq thing all over again x10. You have a country where the leader is pretending to be powerful to scare people and our politicians using that fake propaganda as an excuse for war.Quote:
Originally Posted by vandeleur
Also even if their shit worked which I seriously doubt, why wouldn't deterrence nuclear and otherwise work?
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4092/5...9e132059_b.jpg
As opposed to your antisemitic, fascist groupie whore mouth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEep0FuvVOw