U.S. Politics: High Nunes or Russian to Judgement

[aceluby]

14 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Bold not true.

Trump literally campaigned on that he would order drone strikes against children of known terrorists.

He was cheered for the statement.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

Trump literally campaigned on that he would order drone strikes against children of known terrorists.

He was cheered for the statement.

Well, that plus actual history of doing so. The (by far) most significant USAF commander of all time, Curtis LeMay, who oversaw campaigns in 3 major wars (WWII Japanese theatre, Korea and Vietnam) and established the SAC was repeatedly (and unusually) explicit. He always prioritized urban targets and considered 'military' targets secondary and ephemeral, specifically used firebombs in Japan because Japanese homes were made of wood and he wanted to 'kill as many Japanese as possible as quickly as possible. The more people die the quicker they can't fight.'

In regards to the carpet bombing of civilian targets in Korea, he stated the goal was to 'kill every living thing' and at another time 'everything that moved and every brick that stood'. He described the intention of strategic bombing as 'to destroy the enemy's capability to fight by destroying every man, woman, child, every Ox, goat, dog, cat and rat'.

And of course re: Nam there's the infamous 'bomb them back to the Stone Age' comment, though in fairness his policies mostly weren't carried out there until after he resigned.

Americans might operate under the illusion that they have higher standards...which IMO is semantic nonsense even if you buy the euphemisms...but LeMay certainly didn't, admitting that he would rightly be found guilty of war crimes if he were on the losing side. 

There's lot more, but really the idea is absurd. No one exclusively targets children, but the US is like it's enemies with regards to it's willingness to inclusively target children.

[denstorebog]

No idea if Michael Flynn Jr. really is just some Pizzagater sitting in his basement smoking pot, but apparently he, via Twitter, seems to think that Bannon's ouster was an actual ouster.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

No idea if Michael Flynn Jr. really is just some Pizzagater sitting in his basement smoking pot, but apparently he, via Twitter, seems to think that Bannon's ouster was an actual ouster.

 

I'll take the time to blow the dust off of my psychology degree and come out and say that is son is a nut job. It was pretty well documented during the campaign. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Commodore said:

The distinctions are obvious. 

US doesn't target children, but ISIS lives deliberately immerses within a civilian population. They must be destroyed and they are responsible for whatever collateral damage happens. ISIS is counting on your sort of moral equivalence to ensure their safe haven and weaken our morale/resolve. 

 Assad's use of gas had no military purpose, it was to cruelly target civilians in the most painful way possible. 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like a word.

[TheKitttenGuard]

This should be the standard from now on when Trump was to put out accusations.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/eric-swalwell-donald-trump-susan-rice-declassify-236927

Quote

A Democrat on the House panel investigating Donald Trump’s ties to Russia is issuing an ultimatum: If the president is going to accuse members of the Obama administration of breaking the law, he should prove it.

“If the president wants to say that Susan Rice committed a crime, he has the power to declassify. No one else does,” Rep. Eric Swalwell of California said Wednesday. “So, he could actually show us where the crime was. I don't expect he will, because I think this is just more obstructionism.”

 

[The guy from the Vale]

30 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like a word.

Dresden, too. Or Viet Nam.

[Tibbs]

19 hours ago, Triskan said:

Your humble narrator called Gillibrand as a darkhorse a while ago.  Here's a piece on her and the potential for the future.  

 

And here's a totally depressing piece suggesting it might be foolish to run a woman at the top of the ticket. 

In 2015 I decided that my favorite possible Democratic ticket would have been O'Malley/Gillibrand, and I still like that idea. Gillibrand herself could probably afford to brush up a bit on her public speaking, her convention speech was rather flat. But I wouldn't mind seeing her on any ticket, frankly.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Dresden, too. Or Viet Nam.

I think in recent decades the increased televisation of war has helped to push public sentiment against directly targetting civilian populations, at least in bombing and missile campaigns using conventional weapons. Not that it stopped Republican primary candidates talking about carpet bombing Islamic countries as if that is a desirable and righteous thing. Notwithstanding campaign rhetoric I think as a general rule the US military playbook probably seeks to avoid specifically targetting civilian populations. But I also think that where human shields are being used the US  has no problem sacrificing civilians in order to take out the military objective, up to a point. Not sure where that point is. The US still has nukes that can flatten entire cities, so obviously the US is at least theoretically willing to flatten cities in a nuclear scenario. So I guess in theory there is no point beyond which the US would not go in killing civilians.

And if the US (and Britain, and France) is willing, in theory, to turn large parts of a country into nuclear wastelands, what moral high ground does it really occupy vis-a-vis chemical weapons?

[Fragile Bird]

A panel on CNN was just discussing Susan Rice, and someone said, now, Ivanka Trump caught shoplifting at Macy's, that would be news.

Someone should start tweeting

IVANKA TRUMP CAUGHT SHOPLIFTING AT MACY'S? #heardonCNN

[The Anti-Targ]

I guess this is an example of the truism "we get the government we deserve."

Quote

An undocumented immigrant, whose wife was a Trump supporter, has been deported back to Mexico, the family attorney said in a statement.

Helen Beristain voted for Donald Trump thinking he would only remove undocumented immigrants with criminal records and would never tear up families.

Her husband, Roberto Beristain, was deported last night after being held in detention since February, the attorney said in a statement. He is now back in Juarez, Mexico.

I guess anyone who is living in an unlawful situation and believes their unlawful situation will somehow be exempt when a campaign has specifically targeted that unlawful situation for attention as a campaign promise kinda has it coming if they help that campaign to win the election.

I guess the other truism that applies is karma's a bitch. Though I'm not quite sure what karmic principle applies to people in that same situation who didn't vote for Trump. I guess at least in their case, on 9 November they saw the writing on the wall and could possibly start making contingency plans.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, the US's targeting of obvious places where civilians and children would be could only result in collateral damage and killing of kids, and apparently had no actual military value. Whereas it still isn't even clear who launched the chemical attack. 

And if Assad did it - which I personally am about 50/50 on - one reason is simply to keep his people in line, which may not have a military reason but is certainly a valuable thing to do, and is the reason the civil war was being fought in the first place. He's already killed hundreds of thousands of people for no 'military' reason - you're balking because he killed them with chemicals, now?

 

Alternatively, alternatively, you could also say whether the intention existed, or it was accidental, both outcomes equal one thing: a dead child. The U.S. accidentally killing kids means nothing to the families (and kids) killed by bombing and drone strikes. 

[Ser Reptitious]

14 hours ago, Swordfish said:

We've already had this EXACT conversation.  It's a shame you missed it, but you seem to be pretty good at keeping track of all my posts, so I'd encourage you to go back and read it.  Let me know if you have any questions.

And round and round we go... fuck it, not worth it. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

So how serious is this plagarism stuff with our latest Supreme Court nominee?

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

So how serious is this plagarism stuff with our latest Supreme Court nominee?

From what I can tell, not at all. He did cite the primary source he was using, he just didn't cite the secondary sources. In academic writing this would technically be plagiarism (albeit a minor kind, since the paragraph in question was describing a medical condition; rather than making any sort of argument or opinion); but in judicial writing this, and much more blatant stuff, happens all the time.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Right, its somewhat unfortunate (academically speaking), but in the grand scheme of things probably small potatoes.

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Right, its somewhat unfortunate (academically speaking), but in the grand scheme of things probably small potatoes.

Also, short of video evidence of a scandal such as him having sex with underage boys in exchange for more favorable rulings (or him saying "I am pro-choice"), there is nothing on this planet that will get Republican senators to vote against him. Not after all they've done to get to this point.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

34 minutes ago, Fez said:

From what I can tell, not at all. He did cite the primary source he was using, he just didn't cite the secondary sources. In academic writing this would technically be plagiarism (albeit a minor kind, since the paragraph in question was describing a medical condition; rather than making any sort of argument or opinion); but in judicial writing this, and much more blatant stuff, happens all the time.

Good Lord.  This is such a tempest in a teapot.

[denstorebog]

Aaaand Nunes is out. I can't figure out if this is more like a John Le Carré novel or an episode of Fawlty Towers.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/327570-nunes-steps-aside-from-russia-investigation

 

Note that he doesn't leave without spewing a bunch of bullshit about leftwing smears and how righteous he is.

 

Anyone know anything about Conaway, his replacement? Any anecdotes about any lapdances he may have given Trump in the recent past?

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Anyone know anything about Conaway, his replacement? Any anecdotes about any lapdances he may have given Trump in the recent past?

He's really close to the Bush family, so I doubt he cares about Trump beyond the standard tribal, partisan support. Although, he did once compare the Russian hacking to Democrats bringing Mexican entertainers to rallies in Nevada; saying both were examples of foreign influence. So he's an asshole.