Typical allergic reaction to undisputable facts from an American Exceptionalist.
Typical allergic reaction to undisputable facts from an American Exceptionalist.
Way to completely (deliberately, of course) miss the point. You're (deliberately) confusing tactics and specific weapon use blah blah blah
Reality has a well known anti right-wing, anti-neocon, anti butthurt-American-Exceptionalist butthurt bias.
Oh, please. The Taliban had brutally taken over Afghanistan
After Reagan had given them money, arms and training to provoke the Soviets into an invasion. Not only was it a feature, not a bug, that they were violent fundies, it was the whole damn point.
and was harboring the group that had just killed thousands of Americans
... and refused to turn them over.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong! Taliban offered to expell Osama bin Laddin if Bush had bothered to provide evidence that Osama was guilty. Bush didn't bother, because he wanted his illegal war.
And, Iraq? The UN authorized the use of force because
The UN didn't authorize force against Afghanistan, much less Iraq. This little alternative universe you guys live really is complete with it's own alternate history, isn't it?
among other things, Saddam never even TRIED to honor the agreements he made
You mean with his non-existent WMD's and non-existent yellow cake? Besides, if you're going to wave around the boogyman of Saddam, years after his death, you're going to have to do it to the people who put him in power in the first place. The people who put him in power in the first place and gave him weapons and intel to use in the Iran-Iraq war, which he started. The intel that allowed Saddam to use those gas warheads that caused much bedwetting amongst American Exceptionalists.
The Sea Aye Fucking Eh. Sensing a pattern yet? America creates a force to fight someone they don't like, only to become the new someone they don't like a few years later, someone who needs a good bombing. First it was the Taliban, then it was Saddam, now it's ISIS - who are still "freedum fighters", as long as they're fighting Assad and not Chevron.
the illegal war against Libya
You're deliberately pretending you can't tell the difference between "illegal" and "done poorly by an administration that doesn't know how to do such things."
No, as in fucking illegal, you incompetent boob. Constitution, heard of it? Declaring war is the exclusive purview of Congress, not the President. No, you can't weasel out of this with the War Powers Act or NATO treaties, as Libya was no threat to the U.S. or any NATO member, and the war went long past the time limit set by the WPA. If you were dropped on the head as a child, repeatedly, and need a picture drawn for you as to why the president is not free to take the country to war without consulting the legislative branch:
Imagine that Obama decides to resolve his spat with Putin by ordering the Russian President's plane be shot down on its way back from the recent summit. This naturally leads to reprisals, and nuclear war, and most Americans ending up fucking dead from the ICBM strikes or the nuclear fallout. Should one person be able to make that call, and one person alone - or should the representative branch have a say?
the bombing of even more countries that have never been a threat to us
Ah, the ol' hand-waving vagueness tactic. Again, how do you think this helping you to sound credible?
Are you naturally a complete idiot, or does this take practice? The United States has bombed Yemen, Syria and Libya, among other countries. What threat have the people of Yemen, Syria, or Libya posed to the United States? Hint: the answer is "None".
You mean, the Al Qeda and Taliban and ISIS tactics of putting very bad people and their supplies in and around local women and children specifically to make sure that such deaths occur?
Specifically, the "human shield" bullshit that just fell apart when you fucksticks bombed a hospital of doctors who speak English.
Then there's the fact that this BS never applies to buildings or facilities used by Imperialist Shitbags. Israel drops bombs all over Gaza because they claim buildings are used by Hamas militants, and any civilian deaths are the fault of Hamas for using "human shields".
Yet Israel put their national "defense" headquarters right in the middle of Tel Aviv, which is chock full of civilians. And their airports have both military and civilian plans landing at them. Tell me, BullshitCone - if some Arab country managed to carpet bomb that headquarters or one of those airports, would you accuse Israel of using "human shields"?
Laughable neocon revisionist history is laughable.
The what? Yanukovych campaigned on a promise not to sell the country out to Putin, then promptly turned around and started to sell the country out to Putin.
You mean accepted a low interest, flat-rate loan from Russia over the crushing austerity measures demanded by the IMF in return for one of their loans? Do you also sneer at people taking a 6% interest rate from a credit union rather than 25% from a seedy payday loan company? Makes as much sense.
The people who lost the last election to him, and wanted those crushing IMF loans raised hell about this
FTFY. There's also the slight issue of Victoria Nuland, the assistant Secretary of State, getting captured on video, bragging about spending billions to bring Ukraine 'the future it deserves'? Would you be as blase if Putin had spent $5 billion to subvert the elected government of Canada? Methinks not.
and he fled the country after an illegal coup
FTFY2. This is an easy one, whether you are a right-wing imperialist Democrat, or a right-wing imperialist Republican. Because you can insert the names Reagan or Bush into this little thought experiment, or the names Clinton or Obama, since all four presidents ended their terms in office with Congress in control of the other party.
Imagine the $POTUS of your choice is six months out from the next elections. The opposing party in Congress impeaches him, but falls short of the Constitutionally-mandated number of votes to remove him from office. Rather than accept the fact that they lost - again - they fucking launch a coup and force your $POTUS to flee the country.
Would you have accepted that? Would you have accepted that when those driving $POTUS out of the country had taken billions in money from Putin to subvert the results of the last election, since they just couldn't win at the ballot box?
leaving behind an estate and mansion worth at least 100 million US dollars, which he somehow had been able to afford on a 2,000-dollar-per-month salary.
Obama could never afford to build the White House on his salary, either. WYP? And are you sure you want to throw stones in that corrupt glass house, when the son of the Vice President was promptly made a top exec at a Ukrainian energy company after the coup?
Just that the Russians were the ones to send in underequipped soldiers en mass to overwhelm the enemy with numbers irrespective of casualties, killed a lot of their own people through purges and punishments
American Exceptionalist Bitch, please. American's would have gotten their asses kicked even faster at the start of WWII, if they had shared the same continent with Nazi Germany. No one was capable of going toe-to-toe with the Germans in a ground war at the start of WWII.
I'm not sure it was right, and it sure as fuck doesn't mean that nobody else was fighting Germany at the time.
That's sure as fuck attacking a straw man rather than deal with the fact that the Western and Pacific fronts combined were a sideshow next to the Eastern front, or that over 80% of German casualties came at the hands of the Red Army.
Yet you can still buy new production 12AX7 and other vacuum tubes!
Yeah, but try getting vacuum to put in those tubes -- there's nothing available.
Placing a distinctly military base in some proximity to civilians is not the same as using some poor shmoe's house as a weapon storage, and then instructing him and his family at gun point not to leave, even when the IDF is phoning in telling them they are about to bomb it.
Imperialist equivocation. The purpose of a facility can be made as distinct as you want, but then it's "ermagerd they were using human shields!", and you still have mass slaughter of civilians and imperialists washing their hands of it.
So what you have is a distinction without a difference. Israel also distinctly uses their airports for both civilian and military use, but we all know the "T" word would be used to describe any attack on such an airport. It's like "double tap" bombings - it's only terrorism if their guys are doing it.
That is logically sound, indeed Reagan is too liberal to be a republican.
Hell, these days, he's too liberal to be a democrat. Started prosecutions of bankers when Obama bailed out the banks for a fraud dozens of times as large as the S&N crisis. Insisted that Social Security had nothing to do with the deficit - tell that to Obama's Catfood Commission. Withdrew from Grenada and Lebanon (though he never should have gone in in the first place), whereas Obama has made plans to continue the occupation of Afghanistan through two terms of his successor, whoever they turn out to be.
Carson is a young-earth creationist and a crackpot. He's definitely not "thoughtful".
Carson is a brilliant surgeon - freaking genius, really. Any other subject and he's as smart as a bag of hammers.
Cruz follows Dominionist Theology and keeps trying to shut the government down.
Saw a meme floating around last week....a Canadian, a Cuban, and a white supremacist walk into a bar. Bartender says, 'hello, Senator Cruz'.
but I'll take Trump any day over these two wackos.
Who's primary skillset is losing other people's money in bankruptcy court? Why not get Lincoln Chafee to switch back, since he's not overly bloodthirsty or a Christofascist?
Biden would probably be OK too.
Eh. Supported the Iraq war, supported the 2006 bankruptcy bill that makes it harder to discharge debt (unless it's for your vacation home), and brags about writing the Patriot Act. Unlike Hillary, he's likable and actually has a personality - but agrees with her on policy.
That's no small achievement, they were the first to manage it with smartphones and you have to give them credit for that, and for successfully appropriating all these UI concepts. But that's about where it stops. That's a significant couple of achievements, but still don't add up to innovation.
They had both innovation and invention,, Haterade Distortion Field be damned.
You just described my country Venezuela. Literally. I'm not kidding. And we are supposed to be socialist.
Or maybe you just outed yourself a fascist. I'm not kidding, either.
NeXT never had significant market success.
Apple didn't buy Next for their market success, but for the operating system and development environment, so your observation is a bit of a non sequitur. But congrats for capitalizing the x.
Jobs and Gates took a risk and got lucky that the market was hungry for something.
Luck, and Gates trading on his mom's business connections to sell early Microsoft products to IBM, something Jobs didn't have.
Having dedicated, high-quality keys with excellent tactile feedback is ideal, however it isn't always practical. There's no way you can do that on a phone with apps, for instance, because every app is different and you need to be able to reconfigure it on the fly.
Or connect a bluetooth keyboard, or bluetooth num pad, if you need to do a serious amount of work with your smartphone app. Logitech, at least, makes a few keyboards where you can easily switch between different bluetooth devices.
It is the reason Trump should be.
Because you want him to drive the United States into the ground to the point where it has to declare bankruptcy? Because that is Trump's primary skill set: losing other people's money.
Man I wish I were joking.
Nah, not joking. Trolling.
A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard. -- Prof. Steiner