Satire is getting so difficult these days
https://politics.theonion.com/entitled-deadbeat-finally-breaks-out-of-20-year-cycle-o-1825185530
https://politics.theonion.com/congress-demands-to-know-how-facebook-got-people-to-giv-1825180873
Oh and I wonder what he sold before speaking...
I've seen more determined flounces in here!!
In other news he will defiantly do something in Syria soon or maybe not so soon, maybe later. He does need to save the missiles for when the lawyer cracks
First thing’s first, Russia is being belligerent because it wants something.
Low oil prices and sanctions have really hurt the Russian economy and NATO has reneged on agreements not to extend its membership beyond the borders of the old Soviet Union. There’s been a deliberate tactic to sow discord, weaken the US, EU and NATO (Turkey and Hungary are increasingly Russia friendly - despite November 2015’s Su 24 shootdown, Turkey is buying Russian S400 anti aircraft missiles). Moreover, Trump having been through three Secretaries of State since 2017 have hardly helped project consistency.
Trumps tweets send mixed messages, it’s obvious that Russia and its allies (Iran and Syria) are going to exploit any sigh of weakness. They know that the American public is tired after seventeen years of constant intervention in the middle east, there’s little domestic appetite for more boots on the ground.
The hard part is steering a course of action that avoids escalation, but ensures adequate response to a rogue state deploying chemical weapons - the US simply has to respond somehow, otherwise they risk a very public humiliation.
I’d bet on a new raft of sanctions at the very least, perhaps the best diplomatic move that America could pull off is to work with China and the EU towards a range of measures which will hit the Russian economy and and strategic reliance upon imports of raw material that might be used in warfare. That won’t be easy given China’s long standing military procurement from Russia, but I don’t see how else it could possibly go.
It’s also very apparent that the west has yet to respond to Russia’s highly effective propaganda machine. That needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Satire is getting so difficult these days
I think satire has packed its bags and taken off to a quiet place in the country somewhere, knowing it can’t possibly compete with reality.
Why are chemical weapons so much worse than normal weapons? (morally)
Didn't USA use chemical weapons in Fallujah?
Start here
https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/
Chemical Weapons especially gas kills and mains with no discrimination, it wafts through an area and kills civilians, children etc. We have some strange levels of moral anguish but the impacts of chemical weapons have been shown around the world.
OK bombs aimed at civilians vs chemical weapons aimed at civilians.
I just don't get how its OK to kill 20,000 people by normal bombs or guns but if you kill 70 with chemical weapons then that's a line crossed.
I hate chemical weapons, the photos I've seen of deformed kids born in Fallujah are just ****ing heartbreaking but still I cant get my head around this red line.
Neither is OK, if conventional weapons are used against civilians then it should be challenged and punished.
If a nation breaks international agreements, goes against things it has signed up to then the challenge and punishment should be higher.
So this is it then, we're all definitely going to die.
It's been emotional.
conventional weapons used against civilians? Like the west has been ding for the last 25 years in the middle east? Like Isreal does all the time? double standards here.
the impacts of chemical weapons have been shown around the world.
Nowhere more than in Vietnam. There is a room in the War Remnants Museum in Saigon that shows the effects of Agent Orange and other defoliants. Truly heartbreaking.
I just don’t get how its OK to kill 20,000 people by normal bombs or guns but if you kill 70 with chemical weapons then that’s a line crossed.
with bombs they are a tool you can at least intend to target. Bombing indiscriminately is no different to using any other weapon indiscriminately though. But with chemical weapons they are by design indiscriminate - even extremely targeted assassinations and assassination attempts - like the one in Salisbury - harmed 3 times as many people as it targeted.
tbh whether you do a drone strike on a market or drop a chemical weapon on it you are going to get "collateral damage" as neither is that surgical or precise.
Its a bit odd to argue there are good ways to indiscriminately kill and bad ways to indiscriminately kill though I do get , and largely agree with, the distinction. Rules of war allways strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron though.
True but in the aftermath of several wars and on the back of the arms races that were going on the world decided to stop developing chemical weapons, along with the scaling back of nuclear weapons and stopping more nations developing them. Hence it's treated differently - had chemical warefare been allowed to continue the potential for massive world changing events would be significantly worse. that is why their use is banned and receives a higher level of condemnation.
In terms of drone strikes and civilian deaths it's partly up to the international community to react strongly to them and put the levels of controls in place that is required.
Jeremy Paxman co-authored an excellent book on the history of chemical weapons way back in the 1980s called A Higher Form of Killing
Worth reading for context.
Well looks like Trumps lawyers in the doo doo and if the Prague visit proof is real.
Wouldn’t be surprised if trump starts sacking now he’s started to hand out pardons as well.
had chemical warefare been allowed to continue the potential for massive world changing events would be significantly worse. that is why their use is banned and receives a higher level of condemnation.
How did that work out in Vietnam? (Google "effects of Agent Orange" if you have a strong stomach)
The difference between "conventional" weapons and Chemical (and Nuclear) ones is their scalability rather than their discrimination (or lack of) imo.
You can indiscriminately bomb civilians, but as long as you stick to conventional weapons then the effect is "relatively limited" (have a look how little damage was actually caused by over 100 cruise missiles fired at Syria yesterday for example). Once you move to chemical or nuclear arms, then the death toll vs effort is suddenly skewed enormously. One high yield nuclear device, or a via of highly aggressive nerve agent could kill everyone in a large city.
This is why we must always ensure that those weapons are not normalised....
So no stopping them reading Cohen's docs then (NY times reporting from court) and turns out fox favourites hanity is also a client, that lot will be a good read 😉
So it’s ok to normalise some weapons as they’re a bit rubbish and only kill a fraction of the people they intend to? Sweet Jesus.
TBH the real difference is just that the cat's still more or less in the bag, so if we can keep it there it's a good idea. It's much harder to outlaw things that are in widespread use and accepted- I mean, one of our allies literally shot a farmer with a high explosive tank shell the other week because he looked a bit suspicious and nobody batted an eyelid so we're not drawing a line between barbaric/not barbaric here.
It's not the only daft line there is- frinstance, it's against the geneva convention to use or develop a laser weapon designed to blind people. It's absolutely fine to use or develop a laser weapon designed to kill people. And it's fine if your killy-laser accidentally blinds someone you actually wanted to kill. But the world's still a better place for it regardless of stupidity.
The USA has a history of playing the moral narrative to its own end. Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein in the Iraq/Iran war and this included turning a blind eye to the extensive use of chemical weapons. At the same time Israel indiscriminately is killing Palestinian civilians it keeps in worlds largest concentration camp. The 'red line' is never quite clear is it?
turns out fox favourites hanity is also a client, that lot will be a good read
Gift that keeps on giving etc.
Surely Trump must be paying Hannity under the table for the rabidly favourable coverage he gives him?
I'm sure it's been said earlier, but do you not think this is all another distraction to the FBI's investigation into Trumps lawyer?
Wouldn't be the first time, would it?
What's a distraction to what?
Everythings a distraction with Trump.
Looks like hes back to blocking the sanctions again after his UN bloke had announced them 🙂
@mikewsmith, Michael Cohen, his personal lawyer had his offices raided this weekend.
yep well aware of that, was what my post was relating too, not sure what it's a distraction from or to though, Muller passed the lead over so it's not his team dealing with it but they will get any pertinent available docs
Donald Trump, a man being investigated for colluding with a foreign government, has just said he is more of a spy than a man on trial for spying...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/986432143189512192?s=20
Mission accomplished
Hands up who wants Trump defending you, it's a hold my beer moment after BoJo tried to help the woman in an Iranian prison.
It's getting increasingly difficult there now from what I've been reading and listening to, everything is riding on coming out of November with control of something.
I thinks it’s a win for him if he comes out of it with control of his twitter account...
Cohen's personal history is fascinating. Married to a Ukranian, as is his brother, lots of contacts and deals with various former Soviet bloc 'personalities', lots of condos bought in Trump properties. I wonder what it could all mean?
Cohen, Sater, Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Kushner...at this point it becomes quicker to list the people in Trump's orbit who don't have suspicious links with Russia or the former Soviet Union countries.
It still wouldn't surprise me if Trump was not entirely aware of just how compromised he has been by the network who have inveigled their way into his inner circle. Truly a useful idiot. I imagine that the FSB knew he was running for pres before he did.
Trump seems to go mental for some reason when anyone mentions sanctions against Russia 🙂
I suppose it’s not good for his business if they can’t buy his property or join his golf clubs.
On Sunday, Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley went on CBS’s Face the Nation and, relying on White House talking points, announced the US would impose new sanctions on Russia.
President Donald Trump, who was apparently watching TV, became furious. He hadn’t yet approved the sanctions, and apparently hadn’t seen talking points his own administration had produced, so he immediately demanded to know what Haley was talking about.
On Monday, the White House announced that Haley was not correct and that sanctions weren’t approved. National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow then told reporters on Tuesday afternoon that Haley had had an episode of “momentary confusion.”
On Tuesday night, Haley issued a statement blasting Kudlow, saying, “With all due respect, I don’t get confused.”
Kudlow apologized to Haley and clarified in a comment to the New York Times that she wasn’t confused — just out of the loop on a vital policy initiative. “As it turns out, she was basically following what she thought was policy,” Kudlow said. “The policy was changed, and she wasn’t told about it.”
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/18/17251484/nikki-haley-trump-larry-kudlow-russia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43908976
<p class="story-body__introduction">Donald Trump has been urged by UK-based supporters to stay away from London and instead focus on his "ancestral home" of Scotland during his trip to Britain.</p>
In a letter to the US president, six conservative groups say the move would allow Mr Trump to avoid "major protests, crime and disorder".
Aye right.
I would make a special effort to protest his scum sucking presence anywhere in the UK .
Nothing serves to indicate just how detached from reality his ‘UK-based supporters’ are, than to suggest that his welcome would be warmer up here than in England 😀
Scotland started hating Trump long before he became President, the response to his visit would be 'colourful'.
I'm preparing my "orange bawbag" sign just in case he's dumb enough to come to scotland
Oh, I hope he does (pic linked not posted as nsfw)
We have done very little to make ourselves proud as a nation over the last few years but surely this is something we can get our teeth into. Quality humorous, cutting and very personally insulting demonstration is our specialist subject. I’ll be off work that day and would love to lend a hand to tell the yanks what we think of the tosser they elected.
{books day off work} never protested or complained about anything in my life - am making an exception for this pussy grabbing flabby sack of orange shit.
^^ pretty much what RustyNissanPrairie brilliantly said^^
