By:  al Jizzerror  •  one month ago  •  304 comments

WAR?
(We) are "locked and loaded"

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads

Trump, The-Twitwit-in-Chief, tweeted:


Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked.  There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed !

Apparently Trump is awaiting orders from "the Kingdom" (of Saudi Arabia).

Locked and loaded means “locking the magazine into the gun and loading the ammunition into the gun's chamber.” The weapon is now ready to fire on command.


Originated in American English, supposedly as an instructional command to prepare an M1 Garand, the main rifle used during World War II, for battle. the expression was popularized 1949 by John Wayne in the movie Sands of Iwo Jima. Various similar phrases predate it, including in transposed form as “ load and lock ”. https://www.google.com/search?q=locked+and+loaded&hl=en&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO8_eQ-NbkAhUxwlkKHR5yCekQ_AUIDCgA&biw=1440&bih=837&dpr=2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=locked+and+loaded&hl=en&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO8_eQ-NbkAhUxwlkKHR5yCekQ_AUIDCgA&biw=1440&bih=837&dpr=2

So, using that definition, I assume Trump is ready to fire upon Iran when Saudi Arabia gives the order.

Butt, The Donald has no military experience so I don't know what he means when he says "locked and loaded".  The White House spin machine is  already walking his saber rattling back


Marc Short explains Trump’s ‘locked and loaded’ comments


Chief of Staff to Vice President Pence Marc Short argues America is far better prepared under Trump to handle Saudi oil production strikes.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/white-house" target="_blank"> President Trump’s tweet that the U.S. is “locked and loaded” in response to the twin drone strikes on https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/oil" target="_blank"> Saudi oil facilities means “several things,” according to Marc Short, chief of staff to Vice President Pence.

After being asked by FBN’s Maria Bartiromo if the president’s tweet implied that “the U.S. is ready to respond to Iran,” and whether we are “looking at a military response on the horizon,” Short said he wouldn’t comment specifically, before saying that “locked and loaded means several things.”

“One thing it means is that America today under this president is far better prepared to handle these sorts of events because we're now a net exporter of oil,” Short said. “This is not like the 1970s, the oil embargo or the 1990 ... when Iraq invaded Kuwait ... The United States is a net exporter producing 16 million barrels of oil a day and much of that has been because of the deregulatory agenda of this administration that has enabled so much of that."

The U.S. is stronger than ever thanks to fracking, he added.

“You look at today all the https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/election" target="_blank"> Democratic candidates on the stage are basically advocating abolishing of fracking -- fracking is what's enabled America to become far more insulated from these sorts of events enabling us to be a bit better prepared,” said Short.

When Bartiromo asked whether the president is abandoning his pressure against Iran amid https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-john-bolton-fired-national-security-adviser" target="_blank"> John Bolton’s departure , Short replied: “There's no talk of abandoning the campaign.”

“In fact the reality is that ... we've united international communities to put these sanctions on Iran and it is causing Iran to suffer. We want the Iranian people to experience freedom… And we know that they're basically putting this pressure on Iran is helping that cause. But the reality is that they are… struggling enormously because their oil exports have diminished dramatically down to a small fraction of what it was. And so they want to have oil price shocks,” he said.

https://www. fox business.com/politics/marc-short-explains-trump-locked-loaded-tweets

It looks like Marc Short doesn't know what Trump means by "locked and loaded" so he trying to blow smoke up Maria Bartiromo's ass.

What is NOT being addressed is the other even more ominous part of Trumpt's tweet:

but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed !

According to the U.S. Constitution Congress has the power to declare war , NOT the President and certainly NOT Saudia Arabia.  Iran did NOT attack the United States.

Any attack on Iran would be fucking UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

800

 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
al Jizzerror
1  author  al Jizzerror    one month ago

We don't want a fucking war!

President Bone Spur has to ask Congress to declare war before he can attack Iran.

800

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    one month ago
"We don't want a fucking war!"

What happened to:  "ONE! TWO! THREE! FOUR!" ?

 
 
 
Ender
1.2  Ender  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    one month ago

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @1.2    one month ago

He would only threaten a dead man. He's too cowardly to threaten a real, live man

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.1    one month ago

True that.  He's a pussy ass bitch.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2  Freedom Warrior    one month ago

There’s no war. Sorry to disappoint you. 

 And nobody’s  gonna believe the fucking Saturdays anyway 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2    one month ago
There’s no war. Sorry to disappoint you. 

I guess you didn't read the fucking article.

There's no war (yet) and I don't want Trump to attack Iran.

 And nobody’s  gonna believe the fucking Saturdays anyway

WTF? [deleted]

800

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2  cobaltblue  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2    one month ago

Did you read the article? Yeahhhh, we know there's no war. 

Did you read the article? 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.1  WallyW  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2    one month ago

There is no "war" nor will there be one. But Iran needs some pain inflicted

Hillary the Hawk would have already started the bombings

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.2  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago
Hillary the Hawk would have already started the bombings

So now you're a soothsayer, Wally? It must be your opinion. You know the difference between a cheeseburger and your opinion? I asked for the cheeseburger. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago
Hillary the Hawk would have already started the bombings

Libya, Libya, Libya ! 

Hillary and Obama DID IT ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TTGA
2.2.4  TTGA  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago
Hillary the Hawk would have already started the bombings

Probably not Wally.  Hillary would have already been bribed to agree with everything Iran wants (remember "Pay For Play").  Pay For Play means accepting bribes.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago
Hillary the Hawk would have already started the bombings

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  TTGA @2.2.4    one month ago
Hillary would have already been bribed

If you want to attack Hillary you should publish your own article.

This article is about Trump/Saudi Arabia/Yemen/Iran.

512

 
 
 
devangelical
2.2.7  devangelical  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago
Iran needs some pain inflicted

so let the Saudis do it. oh wait, those royal sheep herders can only kill unarmed journalists. fuck the ME. we've wasted enough blood and treasure there. step back and let the shit fly. vape the first side that uses WMD's.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.8  cobaltblue  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.3    one month ago

9790a24f6359a337d65b7966cfaab09e.jpg

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.9  It Is ME  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.8    one month ago

You already forgot what you were discussing in comment #2.2.2 ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @2.2.7    one month ago
so let the Saudis do it.

They have the weapons for it. trmp sold them the weapons

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.11  livefreeordie  replied to  devangelical @2.2.7    one month ago

The agression by Iran is not new. It is been ongoing for 40 years. It is also not simply a middle east issue. If you want to understand what is happening, you must inform yourself about the Ideological beliefs of the Mullahs who run Iran. This has always been a global objective for them.

The Mullahs in Iran believe that the return of the Mahdi is near when he will unite the world under Islamic rule. One needed step in their goal requires vanquishing Sunni beliefs which they see as apostate Islam.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.2    one month ago
So now you're a soothsayer, Wally?

Many if not most religious conservatives consider themselves soothsayers. They can tell you at a glance who's going to inflict socialism on everyone, who would have been a terrible President (with no evidence) and who is a great President (with all evidence to the contrary). They can tell you who's going to try to take all their guns away (even though Obama only passed two gun laws making it easier to carry guns on trains and in national parks) and who's going to round up all Christians and put them in Fema camps. They can tell you that anyone who disagrees with them is an open borders loving socialist even though none of them have ever lived in a country with actually closed borders and even they aren't suggesting a Northern border wall, thus making all of them "for open borders" as well. They can predict everything because they believe God chose them to police the world, to inflict their brand of faith on everyone else and you better believe them or they'll use their stockpile of assault weapons to overthrow the government if you don't, or so they imagine in their Christian Rambo fantasies.

 
 
 
devangelical
2.2.13  devangelical  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.11    one month ago

blah, blah, blah, I don't give a fuck. my biggest concern is how we can toss the born again scum into that quagmire and completely  terminate all the religious bullshit that has plagued this planet for eons, once and for all. put them all in that fucking blender and hit frappe. fuck all of them.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.12    one month ago
Obama only passed two gun laws making it easier to carry guns on trains and in national parks)

Wait.... Are you saying that Obama didn't take our guns, declare sharia law, give us all abortions and force us to marry homosexuals?

I guess Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones were wrong.

512

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.15  livefreeordie  replied to  devangelical @2.2.13    one month ago

it is attitudes like yours that has allowed Islamic jihad to flourish over the past 50 years.  Simply hating religions will not cause the Islamic goal of conquering the world to go unchecked.

Born again Christianity has NOTHING to do with wars of aggression.  Born again Christians are commanded by Jesus to declare Him and His offer of life to the world.  What the world chooses, in accepting or rejecting is up to each individual.  

NOWHERE does the Bible command born again Christians to establish nations of any kind, much less theocratic ones.  Nor does it command us to even establish moral laws.

We have one primary purpose as believers- to share the Good News of Jesus, let them no that they must repent and receive Him as Lord and Savior of mankind to obtain the gift of life. Or they can choose to reject Him and choose hell instead.

And this good news of God’s kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, a testimony to all people and all nations. Then, beloved, the end, the consummation of all things, will come. Matthew 24:14

Everything that has happened fulfills what was prophesied of me. Christ, the Messiah, was destined to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day. 47 Now you must go into all the nations and preach repentance and forgiveness of sins so that they will turn to me. Start right here in Jerusalem. Luke 24:46

So we tell others about Christ, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all the wisdom God has given us Colossians 1:28

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.15    one month ago
it is attitudes like yours that has allowed Islamic jihad to flourish over the past 50 years.

Can't your invisible friend protect you from the Jihadis?

512

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.17  Ender  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.15    one month ago

Go forth and spread the gospel comes to mind.

People going to other countries to minister and change their evil ways comes to mind.

Wanting Christian people on judicial benches comes to mind.

Your quotes are saying to go to every nation and try to convert them...

Oh, since people love to deflect and go back in time...the crusades come to mind.

What is the Roman Catholic church, Vatican city, if not its own little nation.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.18  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @2.2.17    one month ago

the Crusades were a response to hundreds of years of Islamic invasion of Europe.

I don't consider the Church of Rome to be Christian.  there is no biblical teaching of Popes or establishing theocratic nations by Jesus or the Apostles.

The crusades had nothing to do with forced conversions to Christ. They were first and foremost a DEFENSIVE response to over 400 years of Islamic invasions of Europe.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm#.WYi1eumQyUk

Ever hear of the Battle of Tours fought at the gates of Paris in 732 AD?

The Battle of Tours followed 21 years of Umayyad conquests in Europe which had begun with the invasion of the Visigothic Christian Kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula in 711. These were followed by military expeditions into the Frankish territories of Gaul, former provinces of the Roman Empire. Umayyad military campaigns had reached northward into Aquitaine and Burgundy, including a major engagement at Bordeaux and a raid on Autun. Charles' victory is widely believed to have stopped the northward advance of Umayyad forces from the Iberian peninsula, and to have preserved Christianity in Europe during a period when Muslim rule was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires

Ever hear of the Muslim conquest of Spain for over 700 years?

Ever hear about the Muslim invasions of Italy many times over a 1000 year period?

Ever hear about the battle at the gates of Vienna in 1683 where European forces lead by a Polish King/General turned back the Muslim invaders?

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.19  Ender  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.18    one month ago

There are Christian people just as fanatic as Muslim people. Denial is strong in some.

The crusade were also about trying to recapture the Holy land.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.20  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.18    one month ago
So what is the truth about the Crusades?

The truth about the Crusades is that they ended at about the same time Columbus discovered "the West Indies" (1492).  But for some reason both radical Muslims and radical Christians are still pissed about it.

800

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.21  Ender  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.20    one month ago

The funny thing is, they both have the same God.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.22  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @2.2.21    one month ago

Blasphemy!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.15    one month ago
NOWHERE does the Bible command born again Christians to establish nations of any kind, much less theocratic ones.  Nor does it command us to even establish moral laws.

But it does tell them to obey the laws of the nations they find themselves within. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”.

I find it strange that such a person who claims it's not their intention to "establish" a theocracy spends so much time being critical of the political system in which they live. It seems as if a good 90% of your comments are never ending rants about the looming threat of socialism, statists and supposed communists and fascists. You seem to always claim to know what government should replace the current one, claiming we must go back to your interpretation of the constitution, but now you're saying it's not your intent to establish "nations of any kind". So what are we to believe? Your cursory denial of any attempt to establish your imagined Christian utopia in America, or the thousands of words you've posted over the last year or so detailing the imagined Christian utopia you claim was really intended by the constitution?

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.24  WallyW  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.6    one month ago

I'll attack anyone I chose to.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.25  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  WallyW @2.2.24    one month ago
I'll attack anyone I chose to.

Go for it tough guy.

Butt why don't you publish some attack articles/seeds instead of derailing Trump threads?

Or, maybe you could be another cheerleader on the many conservative articles/seeds that infest this site.

Oh, sorry....  You already do that.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.26  r.t..b...  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.15    one month ago
conquering the world

'Pinky and the Brain' is the real root of all evil...

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.27  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @2.2.21    one month ago

Incorrect.  The Muslims deny the true God of Christianity.

Jesus is God and their view of Jesus is that He is just another lying, murdering, deceiver like Mohammad.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.29  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.23    one month ago

I've held a consistent view on government for 60 years.  I believe in following the rule of Law established by our Constitution.  A Constitution our founders clearly stated was that of limiting the ability of government to interfere in our lives and businesses and to prevent infringement of our natural rights.  A government they stated that would be guided by the moral principles found in Christianity while being secular.

It is not my interpretation of the Constitution.  I merely go by the clear statements of the founders in their writings found in the notes on the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, the speeches to Congress or addresses as President, and their letters of correspondence.

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59 
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449 

I have NEVER advocated for establishing a "Christian utopia".  that is contrary to my beliefs.  the only Christian utopia I believe in is the one I will depart for when I leave this mortal body.

Nor have I said that the founders sought to establish a Christian utopia.  I agree with them that government at it's best is a necessary evil and that it should be as small as possible so as not to interfere in our lives or infringe on our natural rights.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.30  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.27    one month ago
their view of Jesus is that He is just another lying, murdering, deceiver like Mohammad.

That's a lie.

The Qu'ran calls Jesus a "prophet".

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.31  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TTGA @2.2.4    one month ago

It worked for Trump.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.32  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.2    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif Oh snap!!!!

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.33  Ender  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.27    one month ago

What are you even talking about? So now Jesus is not the son of God but God himself?

What kind of Christianity do you teach?

 
 
 
devangelical
2.2.34  devangelical  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.15    one month ago
Nor does it command us to even establish moral laws

oh really? does anti-LGBTQ or anti-choice legislation by born again scum ring any bells? fucking go for it and watch what happens next.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.35  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ender @2.2.33    one month ago
What kind of Christianity

It's the "Holy Trifecta" - the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

You know; the "schizophrenic multiple personality" God.

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.36  Ender  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.35    one month ago

I thought he caught the last train for the coast.

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.37  Don Overton  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago

Just blowing in the wind again Wally

Poor Wally

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.38  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.11    one month ago

And you know all this HOW, because you are Sage?

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.39  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.9    one month ago

Did you even know what it was at the beginning?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.40  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @2.2.36    one month ago

n said bye bye

as 

he fuckd an American Pie after losing his flute at band camp, thus, he's now banned from band camp...

whatt were we discussing again...?

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.41  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.15    one month ago

Wow you really read into things a great deal.  I doubt you understand the bible very little and only look up passages that fit your little cubby hole

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.42  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.27    one month ago

Total ignorance

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.43  Ender  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.40    one month ago

Stifler's Mom...I think.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.44  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @2.2.43    one month ago

Eggzactly !

i went swimming with her

on the pool

table of contents

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.45  Don Overton  replied to  WallyW @2.2.24    one month ago

You would pee your pants first

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.46  Ender  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.44    one month ago

Ah, I get it.

So Jesus is a lifeguard and God is the Dewey decimal system.

Now if I could only figure out the ghost part.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.47  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    one month ago

Hillary the Hawk would have already started the bombings

512

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.48  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @2.2.46    one month ago

Now if I could only figure out the ghost part.

Yea, De Jesus is the one who copped a tone on what he nose about people who blow out what they fail to knows, as those, who drown in the puppy puddles, he is bright enough, unlike some other super Nova SS, 

to walk on over water, and reach sum, while God adds it all up till it tallies in the Matrix of Metrics, as

there can only B     NEO for those that are dyslexic, 

while the engineer says Boo Who, as he whistles past the graveyard in a Trane of thought

that also controls the climate, 

while De Jesus blows his whistle across too bare at all those swimming in De Nile

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.49  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @2.2.46    one month ago
Ah, I get it.

U No watts really sadd

oui' mayke moore cents than Trump evher WILL !   no Grace

 
 
 
arkpdx
2.2.50  arkpdx  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.10    one month ago

So did Obama!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.51  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.29    one month ago
"A government they stated that would be guided by the moral principles found in Christianity while being secular."

Then by the end...

"I have NEVER advocated for establishing a "Christian utopia".  that is contrary to my beliefs."

So you've "NEVER" advocated for a "Christian Utopia", yet you frequently seem agitated if not furious over the fact that America is no longer the government "guided by the moral principles found in Christianity".

"Nor have I said that the founders sought to establish a Christian utopia."

No, just a government "guided" by it.

"It is not my interpretation of the Constitution.  I merely go by the clear statements of the founders in their writings found in the notes on the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, the speeches to Congress or addresses as President, and their letters of correspondence."

You say "It is not my interpretation" then you proceed to explain where you garnered your interpretation from claiming they are "clear statements" from the founders that have entire college courses dedicated to figuring out what was "intended". To claim no interpretation is necessary and your "clear" reading of them is so logical, why don't you present that to constitutional law professors and put the whole debate to bed. As far as I know, not even the supreme court justices all agree on what the founders intended on every issue.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2.52  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.30    one month ago

The Qu'ran calls Jesus a "prophet".

I'm guessing that's a Collect call for prophet...

I wouldn't accept the charges, as i'm guilty of in nosense , 

but i do N joy throwing my two non cents in, 4 a change

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.53  Krishna  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.18    one month ago
I don't consider the Church of Rome to be Christian.

I'm pretty sure they'd feel the same way about you!

(So..let's call it a tie! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif )

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2.54  cjcold  replied to  Don Overton @2.2.42    one month ago

Used to live on Meade and Colfax back in the Elway days. Just a short walk to Mile High.

Glad to be living in KC these days with Mahomes and his amazing arm.

Just watched a video of Mahomes throwing a football out of the stadium and onto the concourse at Arrowhead from the end zone. He seemed to be aiming at the channel 41 news copter. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.55  It Is ME  replied to  Don Overton @2.2.39    one month ago
Did you even know what it was at the beginning?

Yep !

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.56  Trout Giggles  replied to  Krishna @2.2.53    one month ago
I'm pretty sure they'd feel the same way about you!

Only some Catholics, like the fanatics. Most Catholics think that if you accept that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and was born of a virgin, you're a Christian. But you can't take communion unless you believe in that whole transubstantiation thingy

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.57  cobaltblue  replied to  WallyW @2.2.24    one month ago
I'll attack anyone I chose to.

How cute. Ha! Btw, not that it matters, but don't you mean "choose"? Not that I'm a spelling/grammar nazi. But grammar is important, Wally. It's the difference between knowing your shit (like how to spelling for instance) and knowing you're shit. 

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.58  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.14    one month ago

Trump is evasive at first, but finally admits that he wants women who have abortions to be punished.

In his own words:

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.59  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.25    one month ago
publish some attack articles/seeds instead of derailing Trump threads?

Wally doesn't publish. Not a thing. He's a talker, not a walker. He's an admitted "I just wanna see demmies cry" sort of guy. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.60  cobaltblue  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.26    one month ago
'Pinky and the Brain' is the real root of all evil...

Omigawd! I LOVED Pinky and the Brain!

pinky-and-the-brain-quote-1.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.61  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.60    one month ago
Omigawd! I LOVED Pinky and the Brain!

That cartoon show is a lot better than America's reality show.

512

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.62  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.61    one month ago

FUCKIN' HILARIOUS!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.2.63  cobaltblue  replied to  devangelical @2.2.7    one month ago
vape the first side

Mom, I wanna vape. ... That's how the first lady got involved. She's got a son ... together ... 

Go to 5:00 . I can't get enough of watching Melania's expression. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.2.64  SteevieGee  replied to  WallyW @2.2.1    4 weeks ago
Hillary the Hawk would have already started the bombings

Hillary would have stayed in the Iran nuclear deal allied with our many allies.  She would have held the Saudis to task for the murder of Khashoggi and for the war they are waging in Yemen.  This attack would never have happened with 'Hillary the hawk'.

Now we have this tough talking idiot and our enemies are quickly learning that he's really just a coward.

 
 
 
JBB
2.3  JBB  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2    one month ago

You and Wally ever considered forming a Buttheads = Liberal Puss group here, too? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @2.3    one month ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  JBB @2.3    one month ago
Buttheads = Liberal Puss

That was some funny shit.

Their little attack Nation on NV was designed to eliminate ButtHeads Nation.

Their barrages of stupidity against BHN's weapons of ass destruction was hilarious.

I was really sorry that TPTB at Newsvine eliminated their ridiculous little NV Nation.

Butt here's a nostalgic "grave dance" to commemorate their demise.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
2.3.4  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.3    one month ago

Al used to clown the right wing trolls on NV. He hit a honey hole here...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.3    one month ago
[delete]

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  JBB @2.3.4    one month ago
Al used to clown the right wing trolls on NV.

There was absolutely no censorshit of any kind in ButtHeads Nation for the first 15 months of its existence.

It was fun sparring no-hols-barred with the White-wingers.

Then RonW cried to the Mods and they fucked the whole thing up.

They required us to ban our opponents so I resigned.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.6    one month ago
There was absolutely no censorshit of any kind in ButtHeads Nation for the first 15 months of its existence.

Wasn't there in the beggining, but in the end, with no mods, i

was obviously most at home

i just ran into a Newsviner here, i'll let her reintroduce herself when she is ready

but 

oh how i enjoyed noholds barred smackdowns with Russian trolls and Righty uptighties

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.8  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.7    one month ago
oh how i enjoyed noholds barred smackdowns

I quickly found out that I can't ridicule the White-wingers here.

The conservative Mods here censor my best material

And what am I supposed to do with their fucking tickets?

Can I use the tickets to get into Trump rallies?

800

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.8    one month ago

i tried to redeem mine for the big fury prize in the back row,

Perrie said NO

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.3    one month ago
Quick now .... report, report, report ....

I have never flagged anything on NewsTalkers.

I'm a "Mod" in this group and I have removed lots of flags.

I am a firm believer in free speech.

I urge all of my friends on this site to allow your comment to stand.

And, I encourage you to continue to exercise your freedumb of speech.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @2.3.4    one month ago

Lol, the biggest clowns over there were the ones piling out of a liberal/progressive ass-clown car.     Some of whom brought their vile existence over here.

No worries though, NT has them pretty well reigned in.

To bad, so sad for them.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.12  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.5    one month ago

Eeeehht .... wrong answer ..... next try the lightning round where the points really start to add up .....

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.13  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.11    4 weeks ago
Some of whom brought their vile existence over here.

Am I one of those totally vile liberals?

512

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.14  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.13    4 weeks ago

Well, since this particular article isn’t about you, feel free to start one in meta if feel you really need your ego assuaged.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.3.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.14    4 weeks ago
since this particular article isn’t about you, feel free to start one in meta 2.3.3   Sparty On

A lot of people in SnB are pathologically impressed with each other.    Sad but hilarious at the same time

Quick now .... report, report, report ....

2.3.11   Sparty On

the biggest clowns over there were the ones piling out of a liberal/progressive ass-clown car.     Some of whom brought their vile existence over here.

Since this is my article, and I'm not a member of Meta, why don't you start an article in Meta?

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.17  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.16    4 weeks ago

Because i'm not the one who asked the question at hand .....

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

Trump may finally get to push his shinny button.

"The missiles are flying.  Hallelujah! Hallelujah! (Greg Stillson...The Dead Zone)

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3    one month ago
Trump may finally get to push his shinny button.

His button is bigger than Kim Jong-un's button.

800

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.1  WallyW  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1    one month ago

Good one!    jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.1.2  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1    one month ago

Ct_B4dpW8AALLQc.jpg

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3    one month ago

I don't want to laugh but if I don't I might sit here and get all nervous. trmp does emulate Stillson doesn't he? Do you think Stephen King has a crystal ball?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2    one month ago

There is one scene where StilIson threatens the local press which is something Trump has done in regards to the media.   I read somewhere that more than one coincidence has happened with King's writings.   I will have to do some research.

 
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.2.1    one month ago

Was that in the book, movie, or both? I have to watch "The Dead Zone" again

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @3.2.2    one month ago

Spot on.  Thank you for the links.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.3    one month ago

The movie.  It was when Stillson and his goon confronted the newspaper owner with compromising photos and threatened to send them to his wife unless he didn't run the hit piece on Stillson.  It was like something butt hurt Donnie would do.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.2.5    one month ago

I remember now, thanks!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  lady in black @3.2.2    one month ago

that's not the one where the pol holds up the kid when about to be shot , is it ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @3.2.2    one month ago

I appreciate the links too Lady.  Thanks!

 
 
 
lady in black
3.2.9  lady in black  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.7    one month ago

Yes.

At the rally, Stillson begins his speech. Johnny attempts to shoot Stillson but misses and is wounded by Stillson's bodyguards. Before he can fire again, Stillson grabs a young child and holds him up as a   human shield . Johnny pauses, unable to shoot, and is shot twice by the bodyguards. He falls off the balcony and fatally injures himself.

A bystander photographs Stillson in the act of using the child as a shield, and when published, the picture destroys Stillson's political future

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  lady in black @3.2.9    one month ago

Thank you, i vaugly remember that movie

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @3.2.9    one month ago

Sounds exactly like something the shitstain would do - hold up a child as a human shield.

His supporters would still support him though.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.2.12  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.11    one month ago
Sounds exactly like something the shitstain would do - hold up a child as a human shield.

The Donald like to use children as props.

512  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.2.12    one month ago

That poor little girl.

Will she ever get the stink off of herself?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.2.12    one month ago

Also sounds like George Costanza on an episode of Seinfeld where there was a fire in the kitchen and he pushes old ladies and kids out of the way as he rushes out of the house.  

 
 
 
Kavika
4  Kavika     one month ago

And now the administration is saying that ''locked and loaded'' doesn't mean what it means.

Welcome to chapter 666 of Bizarro World. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Kavika @4    one month ago
There’s no war. Sorry to disappoint you.   And nobody’s  gonna believe the fucking Saturdays anyway 

They backpeddled fast.

512  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @4    one month ago

Maybe the administration is loaded and realize they may be locked up.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
4.2.1  cobaltblue  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2    one month ago
Maybe the administration is loaded and realize they may be locked up.

Omigawd, that's hilarious! 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5  sandy-2021492    one month ago

Houthi rebels in Yemen have claimed responsibility.  So Trump might not get his excuse to attack Iran, anyway.

 
 
 
nightwalker
5.1  nightwalker  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5    one month ago

I really hope you're right, but he wants to attack Iran sooooo bad.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  nightwalker @5.1    one month ago
he wants to attack Iran sooooo bad.

512

 
 
 
cobaltblue
5.1.2  cobaltblue  replied to  nightwalker @5.1    one month ago
but he wants to attack Iran sooooo bad.

No he doesn't. He just wants to appear that he does. He's all smoke and mirrors. That chickenshit five-time deferment king.

President Donald Trump acknowledged to advisors that he made up a fake injury to avoid military service, because “I wasn’t going to Vietnam,” his former lawyer   told lawmakers during testimony   on Wednesday.

Michael Cohen, who also worked as a fixer for Trump before his election, said he was tasked with tamping down criticism of   the military deferment   as the presidential candidate simultaneously mocked   Sen. John McCain , a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, for being regarded as a military hero. “I like people who weren’t captured," Trump said during a July 2015 interview.

“Mr. Trump claimed (his medical deferment) was because of a bone spur, but when I asked for medical records, he gave me none and said there was no surgery,” Cohen told members of the House Oversight Committee. “He told me not to answer the specific questions by reporters but rather offer simply the fact that he received a medical deferment.

“He finished the conversation with the following comment: ‘You think I'm stupid, I wasn't going to Vietnam.’”

From Military Times .

 
 
 
livefreeordie
5.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  cobaltblue @5.1.2    one month ago

I'm sure you were equally disdainful of "I loathe the military" Bill Clinton when he was bombing a medicine factory in the Sudan or bombing a European country, Yugoslavia so he could defend Muslim Albanians.  No military war authorizations then.

And of course you were equally speaking out against Obama when he bombed Libya and took out Giddafi?

And just to make my view clear, I fully support EVERY president's inherent authority to engage in military action when they believe it is in support of our national security interests.  And Congress delegated by law added affirmation of that authority with the War Powers Act.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.1.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  livefreeordie @5.1.3    one month ago
"I loathe the military" Bill Clinton
against Obama when he bombed Libya

800

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1.5  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @5.1.3    one month ago

More lies

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.6  arkpdx  replied to  Don Overton @5.1.5    one month ago

What lies? Everything said was 100% accurate.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.7  Krishna  replied to  livefreeordie @5.1.3    one month ago
And of course you were equally speaking out against Obama when he bombed Libya and took out Giddafi?

1. The first bombing happened under Reagan-- not Obama!

After several unproductive days of meeting with European and Arab nations, and influenced by an American serviceman's death, Ronald Reagan, on 14 April, ordered an air raid on Libya.

2. The bombing did not kill Ghaddafi! Ghaddafi escaped unharmed -- he had been warned in advance. )

3.Ghaddafi was killed much later-- by Libyan opposition forces, not by American forces

Gaddafi was wounded by grenade fragmentation from a grenade thrown by one of his own men which bounced off a wall and fell in front of Gaddafi, shredding his   flak jacket . He sat on the floor dazed and in shock, bleeding from a wound in the left temple. Then one of his group waved a white turban in surrender. [14]

Gaddafi was killed shortly afterwards. There are conflicting reports; according to one report, Gaddafi said "Please don't shoot!" prior to being shot, [18]   and when questioned by Misratan rebel fighters about the damage done to   Misrata   by his forces, denied any involvement, and begged his captors not to hit or kill him. One fighter demanded Gaddafi stand up, but he struggled to do so. [19]   Gaddafi can be heard in one video saying "God forbids this" and "Do you know right from wrong?" when being shouted at by his captors. [20] [21]   In a video of his arrest he can be seen draped on the hood of a car, held by rebel fighters. [22] [23]   A senior NTC official said that no order was given to execute Gaddafi. [23]   According to another NTC source, "they captured him alive and while he was being taken away, they beat him and then they killed him". [23]   Mahmoud Jibril gave an alternative account, stating that "when the car was moving it was caught in crossfire between the revolutionaries and Gaddafi forces in which he was hit by a bullet in the head." [24]

Several videos related to the death were broadcast by news channels and circulated via the Internet. The first shows footage of Gaddafi alive, his face and shirt bloodied, stumbling and being dragged toward an ambulance by armed militants chanting " God is great " in   Arabic . [6] [7]   The video shows Gaddafi being sodomized with a bayonet. [25] [26] [27]   Another shows Gaddafi, stripped to the waist, suffering from an apparent gunshot wound to the head, and in a pool of blood, together with jubilant fighters firing automatic weapons in the air. [6] [7]   A third video, posted on YouTube, shows fighters "hovering around his lifeless-looking body, posing for photographs and yanking his limp head up and down by the hair." [6] [7] [28]   Another video shows him being stripped naked and verbally abused by his captors. [29

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  Krishna @5.1.7    one month ago

It was rather convenient that you forgot to mention that it was in 1986 that Reagan bombed Libya and only for one day.

Obama bombed Libya from 19 March to 31 October of 2011. 

Those facts just slipped your mind huh?

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.9  Krishna  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.8    one month ago

Nope.

But that's not relevant to his comment.

Which was:

And of course you were equally speaking out against Obama when he bombed Libya and took out Giddafi?

Obama's bombing didn't take out Ghaddafi. (Libyan rebels did).

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  Krishna @5.1.9    one month ago

Then why mention Reagan? He did not take out Ghaddafi either

 
 
 
nightwalker
5.1.11  nightwalker  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.1.4    one month ago

VERY good!!!!

Good likeness, too!

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
5.1.12  cobaltblue  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.8    one month ago
Obama bombed Libya from 19 March to 31 October of 2011.

Not alone:

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, ostensibly to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The United Nations' intent and voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity ... imposing a ban on all flights in the country's airspace – a no-fly zone – and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Gaddafi regime and its supporters." The resolution was taken in response to events during the Libyan Civil War, and military operations began, with American and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces. French jets launched air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles. Despite the use of foreign airstrikes, the intervention did not consist of foreign ground troops. The Libyan government response to the campaign was totally ineffectual, with Gaddafi's forces not managing to shoot down a single NATO plane despite the country possessing 30 heavy SAM batteries, 17 medium SAM batteries, 55 light SAM batteries (a total of 400–450 launchers, including 130–150 2K12 Kub launchers and some 9K33 Osa launchers), and 440–600 short-ranged air-defense guns. The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States. Italy initially opposed the intervention but then offered to take part in the operations on the condition that NATO took the leadership of the mission instead of individual countries (particularly France). As this condition was later met, Italy shared its bases and intelligence with the allies.

From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments. On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces. The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 06:00 UTC (08:00 local time). NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011.

Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year, but on 27 October, the Security Council voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.
 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  cobaltblue @5.1.12    one month ago

So? He still never asked for or received Congressional approval.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2  Krishna  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5    one month ago

The Houthis are supported by Iran.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @5.2    one month ago

They are another of Iran's proxies, like Hezbollah and Hamas.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.2.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @5.2    one month ago
The Houthis are supported by Iran.

Yep.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.2.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Krishna @5.2    one month ago

That's true.  He'll have his excuse, after all.

Dammit.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.1    one month ago
They are another of Iran's proxies, like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Yep!

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.1    one month ago
They are another of Iran's proxies, like Hezbollah and Hamas. 

Yes.

Incidentally, it still hasn't been definitely established that Iran fired the weapons.In fact I was surprised at initial reports-- my guess was that Iran itself wouldn't go that far in provoking the U.S.

While the weapons were Iranian, the reason initial reports said the were from Iran is that they came in from the North or North-East-- meaning Iran or Iraq.

The Houthis are in Yemen-- so if they fired them the weapons would've come in from the South. 

It is possible they were fired by iranians. But there are also Hizb'Allah forces in Iraq-- so my guess is that they were fired by H. (Either on their own accord-- or iran put them up to it). And if they were fired by H, Iran can claim they had nothing to do with it. Its been known they've been arming H for years-- the Iranians can claim they have no control over what H does with the weapons once they give them to H.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2.6  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @5.2.5    one month ago

BTW the Houthis in Yemen have been firing heavy weapons-- IIRC rockets-- in S Arabia for some time. I believe thought that each incident is usually a single rocket-- and their aim usually isn't to good.

(A friend of mine works for the US gov't and has been traveling to S Arabia regularly.. "on business". He doesn't want to say what he does. But maybe next time I see him I'll try to tactfully ask a few questions...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5    one month ago
Houthi rebels in Yemen

They have they most advanced drone technology in the Middle East.

512

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.3.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.3    one month ago

Do the drones have nine lives?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
5.3.2  cobaltblue  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.3.1    one month ago
Do the drones have nine lives?

Man with Megaphone: What do we want??!?
Crowd:  CATDRONES!!
Man: When do we want it??!?
Crowd:  MEOW!!!!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.3.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.3    one month ago

looks like a bunch of pussies to me.

Trumpp could probably handle them with one hand, hows that grab em ?

 
 
 
WallyW
5.3.4  WallyW  replied to  cobaltblue @5.3.2    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.3.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @5.3.2    one month ago
Crowd:  MEOW!!!!

LOVE IT!

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.3.6  MrFrost  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.3    one month ago

512

The cat missile. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.3.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  cobaltblue @5.3.2    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif   Love it!

 
 
 
Kavika
5.3.8  Kavika   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.3.7    one month ago

flygande-hund-hundar.jpg

Warning, hovercraft inbound.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.3.9  r.t..b...  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.3    one month ago
They have they most advanced drone technology in the Middle East.

The results are sure to be catastrophic.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.3.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  r.t..b... @5.3.9    one month ago
The results are sure to be catastrophic.

Nice.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.3.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @5.3.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.3.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @5.3.6    one month ago

I think that kitty smoked too much catnip.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.3.13  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.3    one month ago
They have they most advanced drone technology in the Middle East.

But we have the loyal dog pilots of Dog Fort!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
5.3.14  cobaltblue  replied to  Krishna @5.3.13    one month ago

I loved this ... ! Ha!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.3.15  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @5.3.14    one month ago
I loved this ... ! Ha!

The threat is real.

512

 
 
 
cobaltblue
5.3.16  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.3.15    one month ago

This dude's serious as hell.

d24c38c962d387c4744c4ab49311a01e.png

 
 
 
Kavika
5.3.17  Kavika   replied to  cobaltblue @5.3.16    one month ago

dog-helicopter-pilot.jpg

 
 
 
dave-2693993
5.3.18  dave-2693993  replied to  Kavika @5.3.17    one month ago

OMG, that is hilarious. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
5.3.19  dave-2693993  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.3.15    one month ago

Wow, that is some photo.

Looks like a pre lend-lease soviet Polikarpov.

You would have to be drunk to fly one of those in that kind of weather.

attachment.aspx

attachment.aspx

attachment.aspx

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    one month ago

Trump would be better off doing the "Obama/Libya" thingy ! jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

Just "Go for it" ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

It was "such a Beautiful thing" back then.....according to the media !

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
6.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6    one month ago
the "Obama/Libya" thingy !

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.1    one month ago

What's good and PRAISED for the Goose …..MUST be GOOD and PRAISED for the Gander ……….. and all that ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

One "Good" turn deserves "ANOTHER" ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

"Oh Ya",...… "Bet me" …….. "No way" ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.1    one month ago

what

do you need a gaggle...

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.2    one month ago
do you need a gaggle...

Clowders are cuddly and MORE fun to play with ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.1    one month ago

Cranberry sauce is good for the goose and the gander.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.2    one month ago

Do geese use gaggle to look up stuff?

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1.4    one month ago
Cranberry sauce is good for the goose and the gander.

Oh for Cranberries sake ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.6    one month ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1.5    one month ago

Do geese use gaggle to look up stuff?

Damn...

800

 
 
 
Krishna
6.1.9  Krishna  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.2    one month ago
do you need a gaggle...

No..he's just being a Silly Goose.

 
 
 
Ender
7  Ender    one month ago

So why in the world did we sell all the military weapons if we have to get involved. I thought the point of that was to let them take care of things themselves.

If the Saudis want to do something, sit back and watch. Not our problem.

Drill baby drill, remember? We don't need them.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ender @7    one month ago
If the Saudis want to do something, sit back and watch.

Damn straight!

I've got CNN and plenty of popcorn and weed.

 
 
 
arkpdx
7.1.1  arkpdx  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.1    one month ago

So you're CNN's viewer!

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.2  MUVA  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.1    one month ago

I have heard when you become a CNN believer the give a choice of two pills.

 
 
 
Ender
7.1.3  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.1    one month ago
So you're CNN's viewer!

Haha. That was actually funny.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2  Krishna  replied to  Ender @7    one month ago

So why in the world did we sell all the military weapons if we have to get involved.

We sell them lots of advanced (& extremely expensive!) weaponry because it brings a lot of money into the U.S. economy!

The total Saudi military is probably one of the best armed in the world-- tons of highly sophisticated weapons.

But the calibre of their fighting personnel supposedly is not that great-- even for an Arab army.

Also, the Saudis prefer to have other countries fight for their causes.....

I thought the point of that was to let them take care of things themselves.

If the Saudis want to do something, sit back and watch.

One of the problems with this whole brouhaha is that it goes beyond being an attack on just Saudi infrastructure. A good portion of the world's oil comes from that area-- if it is stopped the entire world might well slip into recession.

A lack of Saudi oil would have some impact-- oil prices worldwide would rise. However the real fea ris that if Iran and its proxies escalate this, they might shur down the Straits of Hormuz:

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's single most important oil passageway, forming a chokepoint between the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The 39km strait is the only route to the open ocean for over one-sixth of global oil production and one-third of the world's liquified natural gas (LNG).Jul 11, 2019

The world is somewhat less dependent on Middle eastern oil then it used to be (thanks to advances in technology-- i.e. "Hydraulic Fracturing"), but still. if the price of oil skyrockets it could really hurt world economies ....

(which, with the exception of the U.S., are already fairly weak for the most part).

 
 
 
MUVA
7.2.1  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @7.2    one month ago

They have weapons for defense we do the smacking down to keep the civil causality's to a minimum .

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.2.2  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @7.2    one month ago
The total Saudi military is probably one of the best armed in the world-- tons of highly sophisticated weapons. But the calibre of their fighting personnel supposedly is not that great-- even for an Arab army.

Excellent point.

At a time when Jordan had top line Mig21s they more than met their match by folks like Ran Ronen and Giora Epstien in dated Mirages and Neshers (a Mirage clone...that is another story right there, and the one most assumed is wrong).

Training and dedication. 

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.3  Krishna  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.2.2    one month ago

training and dedication. 

And once there were Soviet pilots in Egypt-- supposedly to train Egyptian pilots who would go up against Israeli pilots. But once the Soviet pilots themselves went up against the israelis-- several Russian pilots were shot down-- no Israeli plane was lost!

Israel’s Downing of Soviet Planes Indicates Soviet Pilots No Match for Israelis

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.2.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @7.2.3    one month ago

Both Epstein and Ronen spent their fair share of time in the Negev.

Epstein retired as the greatest Jet Ace. His record remains.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.2.5  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @7.2.3    one month ago

Just recalled, there was a time Epstein was outnumbered something like 10 to 1, maybe not that much but it was pretty ridiculous.. Some other IAF jets came in to the area, Epstein aka hawkeye, sees them and calls out "hey these are mine. Go find your own".

I think those were Mig21s.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.6  Krishna  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.2.4    one month ago
Both Epstein and Ronen spent their fair share of time in the Negev. Epstein retired as the greatest Jet Ace. His record remains.

That being said-- the other pilots in the IAF are pretty exceptional as well...

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.7  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @7.2.6    one month ago
That being said-- the other pil,ots in the IAF are pretty exceptional as well...

After a long flight from Israel, Israeli jets destroyed the nuclear reactor Saddam Hussein was building:

Operation Opera  was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June 1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.

Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it, established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.

On 7 June 1981, a flight of Israeli Air Force F-16A fighter aircraft, with an escort of F-15As, bombed and heavily damaged the Osirak reactor.[10] Israel called the operation an act of self-defense said that the reactor had "less than a month to go" before "it might have become critical.

(All Israeli planes returned safely to base without a single Israeli casualty):

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
7.2.8  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @7.2.7    one month ago

Ten years after that successful mission, the Israeli's showed great restraint when Iraq attacked them with their infamous Scud missiles.

27 YEARS SINCE THE GULF WAR - WHY DIDN'T ISRAEL RESPOND?

Politicking and diplomacy made Israel sit on its hands while Scud missiles reined down.

FEBRUARY 12, 2018 21:46
The release recently by the IDF and Defense Ministry archives of interviews with me and the late Lt.-Gen. Dan Shomron, who was defense minister and chief of staff at the time of the Gulf War, has rekindled the debate about whether Israel should have responded to the Iraqi missile attacks during the Gulf War. Thirty-nine Scud missiles were launched from western Iraq against Israeli targets during the five-and-a-half weeks of the war. Only six landed in populated areas, causing considerable property damage and the loss of a single life.

Throughout the war US president George H. W. Bush did his utmost to keep Israel from responding. US deputy secretary of state Larry Eagleburger and undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz arrived in Israel four days before the aerial bombing of Iraq began, on a mission to convince us not to launch a preemptive attack and to stay out of the war. They assured us that the US armed forces would within days eliminate the danger of Scud attacks against Israel, while Israeli participation might well lead to a break-up of the coalition and ensuing difficulties. Should the US not be successful in eliminating the Scud threat to Israel, they said, the US would acquiesce to an Israeli response.
As it turned out, all American attempts to hit the Scud launchers failed, and throughout the war Scuds kept falling on Israel. Raytheon Patriot anti-aircraft missiles sent to Israel by the US, despite a number of attempts, failed to intercept a single Scud. Nevertheless, Bush in almost daily calls to prime minister Yitzhak Shamir urged him to keep Israel out of the war despite Iraqi “provocations.”

Israeli participation could lead to a break-up of the coalition, he insisted.

The Patriots, originally designed as anti-aircraft missiles, despite reports to the contrary during the war were incapable of intercepting ballistic missiles. Israeli programs to develop ballistic missile interception systems, like the Arrow, were in their embryonic stage at the time. As it was, the only way to attempt to put an end to the Scud attacks against Israel was by the use of ground forces that would land in the Scud launching area. (They had been located by then.) It was such an operation, the landing of commando units in the area, to be supported by attack helicopters and provided with air cover, that I had asked the IDF to prepare. They were ready to go after the third week of the war. Since the next Scud attack might cause extensive loss of life or might even contain a chemical warhead, I was convinced there was no time to waste, despite the dangers entailed in landing troops hundreds of kilometers from our bases. The IDF commanders charged with the operation were confident in their ability to attain the desired objective. The operation required coordination with the US aerial forces operating in Iraq to avoid incidents between Israeli and America aircraft.
Bush continued to adamantly oppose any Israeli military action, and Shamir hesitated. When I finally got him to call Bush to inform him that he was sending me to Washington to discuss coordination with the American military in advance of an Israeli action, over three weeks had passed since the war began. When I met him surrounded by his staff in the Oval Office on February 11, 1991, the president was polite but stern. He had been misinformed that the Patriots were successful in intercepting the Scuds over Israel, and saw no need for an Israeli action.

“What can your air force do that the US air force cannot do?” he threw at me. I did not want to provide details of our planned operation, and simply suggested that we would be using other means. From there I met with the secretary of defense Dick Cheney and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to tell them that we would have take action before an another attack caused extensive damage and loss of life. Cheney said that were we to act US forces would leave the area to us.
On my return to Israel our preparations moved into high gear, but Shamir was still hesitating. I felt sure that should a Scud attack cause extensive damage he would give me the green light. But I said, why wait for a catastrophe? On February 27, Bush announced a unilateral cease-fire and the war was over.

SHAMIR’S THINKING was clear. As long as he was not faced with a public outcry for an Israeli response, that would surely follow an attack causing major damage and casualties, he was holding on in the hope that the relationship he was building with the US president would pay off after the war.

He was to be disappointed.

But what was Bush thinking? His secretary of state, Jim Baker, accompanied the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, on a visit to King Fahd in Riyadh on November 2, 1990, two-and-a-half months before the beginning of the war, to obtain the king’s approval for additional deployment of US troops in Saudi Arabia in preparation for the attack on Iraq.

He was told by the king that although they would not welcome Israeli participation in the war he understood that Israel could not stand idly by if it were attacked by Iraq. If Israel were to defend itself the Saudi armed forces would still fight on America’s side, the king told Baker.
So much for the danger to the coalition if Israel were to respond to the Scud attacks. Israel was not informed of this Saudi position.

So why was Bush so intent on keeping Israel out of the war? It seems that he took the position, so dominant in the American foreign policy establishment, that America’s primary interest in the Middle East was the maintenance of good relations with the Arab world, and that the Arab world attached great importance to the Palestinian problem, and that as long as that problem was not resolved Israel remained an encumbrance to the US-Arab relationship.

If Israel were to appear as an ally of the US in the war against Iraq, that was likely to damage the image the US was trying to project to the Arabs.

In fact, immediately upon the conclusion of the war against Saddam Hussein Baker launched a diplomatic effort that culminated in the Madrid Conference in the hope that it would lead to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It didn’t work.

Over the years the paradigm connecting the US-Arab relationship to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has lost whatever validity it seemed to have once had. The drop in the price of oil, the “Arab Spring,” the Shi’ite-Sunni rivalry and the changing priorities of Arab rulers have made that clear.
On the last day of the war a Scud hit a US military compound in Riyadh killing 27 and wounding 98. Israel was lucky.

The author was defense minister during the Gulf War. His book In Defense of Israel, published by Brookings Institution Press, appeared in February.
 
 
 
Ender
7.2.9  Ender  replied to  Krishna @7.2    one month ago

You make it sound as no matter what happened, we would have no choice but to get involved.

In order to save the world economy...

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.10  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2.8    one month ago
Ten years after that successful mission, the Israeli's showed great restraint when Iraq attacked them with their infamous Scud missiles.

I remember that well. There's a lot in that article-- but the key reason Israel didn't join the coalition vs Saddam was that if they did it would have caused a significant decrease in support amongst Arab states for the coalition against Saddam as the other Arab countries hated the Jews so much. (Or at least pretended to in some cases-- it was not "politically correct" in  theArab world to even give the appearance of not hating the israelis-- and pretending they were the spawn of the devil-- the biggest threat in the entire world!).

So they were smart enough not to be openly involved in fighting Saddam-- and that was true for both wars.

Bombing the reactors-- both of them in fact-- was a different matter. They knew a pre-emptive strike was necessary-- if either country developped nukes their existence was at stake. But enterin the coalition vs Saddam wasn't a top priority. 

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.11  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @7.2.10    one month ago
So they were smart enough not to be openly involved in fighting Saddam-- and that was true for both wars.

What is not widely known however, is that they did participate in the war effort. In several ways.

One of the things the Israelis did was to sneak into northern Iraq and do a lot of training of our Kurdish friends. Since elite Israeli military units are some of the best in the world, the training they gave to Kurdish forces was fantastic! 

How were they able to sneak into Iraq? Well here's something else that's not widely known by most Americans. The Kurds are indigneous to that area. Most Kurds are Muslims (Sunni), although unlike the Arabs they tend not to produce the fanatical type of Islamic extremists that are present in the Arab world. But-- over the years some of those Kurds converted to Christianity, some to Judaisim.

Jewish Kurds faced "double persecution" in the Arab world-- because they were Kurds, and also because they were Jews.So when Israel was re-created many were able to flee to safety in Israel.  Israeli then had a pool of native Kurdish speakers-- who also `were native Arabic speakers--- and who spoke both with perfect Iraqi accents! And who had been born and raised in Iraqi Kurdish homes-- so they fitin when smuggled into Iraq!

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.12  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @7.2.11    one month ago

What is not widely known however, is that they did participate in the war effort. In several ways.

One of the things the Israelis did was to sneak into northern Iraq and do a lot of training of our Kurdish friends. Since elite Israeli military units are some of the best in the world, the training they gave to Kurdish forces was fantastic! 

Another crucial role the Israelis played in the war against Saddam-- they snuck into Iraqi deserts in modified beach buggies, and acted as spotters on the ground-- guiding in air strikes ogf coalition forces. 

(Incidentally, both of these things were secret at the time....the full story may still not be widely known publicly)

 
 
 
Kavika
7.2.13  Kavika   replied to  Krishna @7.2.11    one month ago

Currently, there are 200,000 Kurds that live in Israel.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.14  Krishna  replied to  Ender @7.2.9    one month ago
You make it sound as no matter what happened, we would have no choice but to get involved. In order to save the world economy...

That's not my take on the situation. I was just trying to explain why that for some time western powers felt that it was crucial to maintain a strong military presence near the Straits of Hormuz because so much of the world's oil flows through it. ( Map -- note all the major oil producing countries lining The Persian Gulf-- and most of that oil has to pass out through the narrow Straits of Hormuz).

And they had feared that if any hostile power blocked it there would be a YUGE oil shortage. Which would tank the world economies.... ( no pun intended).

Most of the time the large military presence in there area (Al Udeid Air Base) would be enough to deter any hostile entity from trying anything.....

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.15  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @7.2.14    one month ago
That's not my take on the situation. I was just trying to explain why that for some time western powers felt that it was crucial to maintain a strong military presence near the Straits of Hormuz because so much of the world's oil flows through it.

BTW, an attack on any oil facilities, such as the recent attack on those Saudi Refineries, would have precipitated a big Stock market crash. But this time I was surprised at the reaction-- there was only a relatively mild and short lived dip in the market.

Why? Because currently the entire world is a lot less dependent on Arab oil than it used to be.  (due in large part to advances in technology....i.e. "hydraulic fracturing")

In addition, it appears that traders do not believe this attack will result in a major war...of any significant duration...i.e. it will not seriously disrupt the world's supply of oil for any extended period.

Finally, with the exception of mainly the U.S., most of the rest of the world is in a recession or close to one so oil demand is somewhat low-- and its getting worse.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.2.16  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @7.2.6    one month ago
That being said-- the other pilots in the IAF are pretty exceptional as well...

Absolutely.

Just as there were more tank commanders than Avigdor Khalini.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.2.17  dave-2693993  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.2.16    one month ago

Kahalani...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8  author  al Jizzerror    one month ago

Here's the 69 th comment on this thread.

512

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1  MUVA  replied to  al Jizzerror @8    one month ago

We should have never made a deal with Iran they are responsible for a good portion of IED deaths in Iraq .The USA isn't  suppose to deal with terrorist.

 
 
 
devangelical
8.1.1  devangelical  replied to  MUVA @8.1    one month ago
The USA isn't  suppose to deal with terrorist.

... or over throw a democratically elected government and install a shah.

 
 
 
JBB
9  JBB    one month ago

Why in Hell should the US defend the lousy Saudis who attacked us on 9-11 and who have been sucking us dry for oil for the last fifty years? Because Iran? Bullshit! Let the goddamn Sunnis and the godforsaken Shiites fight it out among themselves for once. If Israel wants in the fight so bad they can fight without us, too. There is no good reason on earth that the US should sacrifice any more of our young people and our hard earned treasure on Islam's alter to Allah...

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @9    one month ago
There is no good reason on earth that the US should sacrifice any more of our young people and our hard earned treasure on Islam's alter to Allah

True.   Now that we are largely energy independent, no thanks to any Democrats, we now have that choice as a luxury.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9.1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Sparty On @9.1    one month ago

But we may not have that choice for long if the Democrats get their way they certainly are itching for a fight here and I certainly want to put us at the mercy of oil producers in the future by eliminating our domestic supply capabilities

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9.1.1    one month ago
Democrats get their way they certainly are itching for a fight

I don't know of any Democrats who "are itching for a fight".

Can you provide an example?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.2    one month ago
Can you provide an example?

No doubt he'll reply with "Antifa!" as if the masked anarchists and opportunists represent democrats. He'll ignore the actual dozens of murderers perpetrated by right wing extremists every year as those "itching for a fight" and say its those who showed up to counter those marching with swastikas and confederate flags in Charlottesville that are the real threat to America, not the ones chanting "Jews will not replace us!".

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    one month ago

My guess is he'll say all Dems who are anti US energy independence.   And that is most of them to be sure.

I wonder how many people here remember waiting in line for gas.   I mean really remember it.

Not many i bet.   It was not a very pleasant time for most Americans.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    one month ago

You will get nothing more from Oliver other than baseless claims and not a fact to be found 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9.1.1    one month ago
if the Democrats get their way they certainly are itching for a fight

I checked to see if I could find any Democrats who want to bomb Iran.  I cold only find Republican who are willing to fuck with Iran.

Senators Express Caution About Military Strike Against Iran
By
Lindsay Wise
Sept. 17, 2019 2:33 pm ET
Top senators expressed caution about possible U.S. military retaliation against Iran f or its purported role in attacks on Saudi oil facilities , amid concerns that any strike could sharply escalate hostilities in the region and get America mired in a broader Middle East war.

President Trump, who pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal and has imposed punishing sanctions on Iran, said he would like to avoid a military conflict with the country but hasn’t ruled it out.

Lawmakers, many of whom have soured on Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, were far from unified about how the U.S. should respond—if at all. Republicans were split on whether U.S. military action should be under consideration, while some Democrats said it should be ruled out and that they would try to block any military response.

<redacted some Republican flip flopping>

Meanwhile, most Democratic lawmakers were adamant that the U.S. shouldn’t go to war over the attack on Saudi oil facilities, and that the president would need authorization from Congress before launching any military operation against Iran. They blamed the crisis in part on what they described as the Trump administration’s bellicose strategy toward Iran, and the yearslong Saudi-led war against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-express-caution-about-military-strike-against-iran-11568745214

Okay.  I showed you mine now let's see what you've got to back up your bogus statement. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.4    one month ago
My guess is he'll say all Dems who are anti US energy independence.   And that is most of them to be sure.

Please look at some fucking FACTS.

U.S. Oil production decreased during the Ford years.

U.S. Oil production was relatively flat during Carter and Reagan Administrations.

Production decreased (at about the same rate) while both Bushes and Clinton were in office.

Butt, production dramatically increased while Obama was in office.

800

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.7    one month ago

Energy independence isn't only Crude oil even though production of that has increased significantly since Trump took office

But maybe you weren't sentient when Obama imposed all those Oil and Natural gas drilling restrictions that Trump helped to lift.

Fuckin A eh?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.8    one month ago
Energy independence isn't only Crude oil

Let's look at U.S. energy production.

As you can see it was relatively flat when GW was in office, butt it increased during Obama's years in office.  Although there was a decline when some oil platforms and fracking ops were taken offline when oil prices decline in 2016.

Total energy production:

512

This shows oil & gas prices:

512

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.4    one month ago
My guess is he'll say all Dems who are anti US energy independence.   And that is most of them to be sure.

Total nonsense. I and virtually every Democrat I know here in California are all for American energy independence. Where we may differ from most Republicans is how we get there. It's not going to be through fracking up all our water supplies and destroying the environment by cutting regulations to allow coal and oil to do what they will to generate the most profits, consequences be damned. It will be through disciplined investment in renewal energy, solar and wind farms, tidal surge generators and even new much smaller more efficient nuclear power plants with much less nuclear waste. But simply digging deeper and burning more irreplaceable finite fossil fuels is pure ignorance.

And yes, I remember the gas lines and it was a pain which is why I support fuel efficient vehicles, hybrids and electric vehicles that can plug in instead of having to wait for their sip of the old black gold.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.9    one month ago
Although there was a decline when some oil platforms and fracking ops were taken offline when oil prices decline in 2016.

As you suggest, energy production is frequently more a function of market and technology than it is presidential policy.

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.12  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.10    one month ago

You should just ride a unicorn.

 
 
 
Don Overton
9.1.13  Don Overton  replied to  Sparty On @9.1    one month ago

A comment of pure desperation

 
 
 
Don Overton
9.1.14  Don Overton  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9.1.1    one month ago

A comment of pure bull shit

 
 
 
Don Overton
9.1.15  Don Overton  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.4    one month ago
Dems who are anti US energy independence.   And that is most of them to be sure

Which is nothing more than a total lie

 
 
 
Don Overton
9.1.16  Don Overton  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.8    one month ago

So ruining our country's land is ok with you.  Do you really love trump that much that he can destroy the water, and forests and the land for corporations 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @9.1.12    one month ago
You should just ride a unicorn.

I happen to be fortunate enough to be able to walk my daughters to school (about 3 mile round trip) then walk to work. No unicorn necessary.

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.18  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.17    one month ago

What about work how do you get there see you need a unicorn.

 
 
 
Ender
9.1.19  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.4    one month ago
I wonder how many people here remember waiting in line for gas.

I remember that, I was a kid. I remember one time I was with a neighbor, waited in line and she only had so much $ to put in. They pumped over that and when she didn't have the extra $, they made her pull over and siphoned out the gas.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.20  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1.11    one month ago
energy production is frequently more a function of market

That's true.

In 2016 the oil prices bottomed and certain oil operations (fracking and off shore) became unprofitable which cause a decline in total U.S. energy production.  Butt, total energy production and oil production went up during the Obama years.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.4    one month ago

That was a bogus crisis.  If I recall correctly tankers were lined up off shore 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.22  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.21    one month ago
If I recall correctly tankers were lined up off shore 

They can use fake shortages to raise prices.

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.23  MUVA  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.22    one month ago

I actually agree with  you they do it every day with the stock market some investors are so big their move alone can start a sell off or a buying trend.

 
 
 
Krishna
9.1.24  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @9.1.23    one month ago
I actually agree with  you they do it every day with the stock market some investors are so big their move alone can start a sell off or a buying trend.

Not always as simple as that.

The stock market can only operate if there are differences of opinion.if everyone thought the same way, there'd be no market! A trade take at least two people-- one to sell, one to buy.

If several people want to sell, and there are no buyer-- no trade happens!

Here's what happens: if some of the big players start selling off some stock (and therefore the price dips) some other players will see this as an opportunity to buy some stock they've wanted for a while-- to buy at a bargain price!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9.1.25  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Don Overton @9.1.14    one month ago

 Actually it’s a comment based on everything I know and whatever observed and what I’ve seen particularly on this website and elsewhere in the public eye and you can even throw yourself in the bunch as well 

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.26  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.10    one month ago
I and virtually every Democrat I know here in California are all for American energy independence.

THIS is the total nonsense.  They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Your "disciplined approach" is the total nonsense as it doesn't happen overnight nor is it cost effective in the short run.   I know few Dems who are for the steps required to remain energy independent to get past the short run.   Just like some in our city council who claim they will be on 100% renewable energy in less than ten years.   Not realistic at all without putting a HUGE added financial burden on their consumers.   It's already started and their consumers have already had enough of the price hikes.

The added cost of renewable energy will be borne by the "little guy "Dems claim to be for.   That's the dirty little secret Dems are either too stupid to realize or are trying to cover up.

A truly disciplined approach keeps fossil fuel sources as strong as possible until such time that alternate energy sources can de developed and are robust enough to handle peak power demands.   It's a long game not a short one.

I know few Dems who understand that concept.   You appear to be one of them.   Right along with all the folks who liked your comment.

SOSDD for this place .....

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.27  Sparty On  replied to  Don Overton @9.1.13    one month ago

A comment of pure butthurt

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  Don Overton @9.1.15    one month ago

Lol yeah, keep telling yourself that.

The platform most Dems take reeks of anti energy independence.   Solar power this and wind power that.   In the meantime no one wants a solar panel farm or wind turbine in their backyard or sight-line.   Nor do they want to pay for it.    Unicorn farts won't get you there Don.

Really.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.29  Sparty On  replied to  Don Overton @9.1.16    one month ago
So ruining our country's land is ok with you. 

No i'm not but since that isn't happening i'm not concerned about it.

Woohoo ..... here we go!

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.30  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.21    one month ago

Clearly you didn't have to wait in line then.   Nothing bogus about it.   

OPEC disrupted oil supplies and people were fighting for gas at the pumps.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.31  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.30    one month ago
'Do you ever get tired of being wrong?'

I leave that to you.  

Bogus, bogus, bogus.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.32  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.31    one month ago
I leave that to you.  

Bogus, bogus, bogus.  

Lol ... how old are you again?

But by all means, don't let the truth hit ya, where the good Lord split ya .....

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.1.33  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @9.1.12    one month ago

At least it would have a working horn.jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.34  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.26    one month ago

9.1.26   Sparty On   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @ 9.1.10     3 hours ago

I and virtually every Democrat I know here in California are all for American energy independence.
THIS is the total nonsense.  They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Dismayed Patroit is right. It is NOT "total nonsense".  California is "walking the walk".  California leads the league in pursuing clean renewable energy.  They hit a home run with this solar initiative:

California becomes first state to require solar panels on new homes

The vote by the California Energy Commission again puts the state at the forefront of government controls over climate-warming carbon emissions.

Solar panels will be a required feature on virtually every new home built in California, under a policy advanced Wednesday by California regulators — again putting the state in the forefront of government controls over climate-warming carbon emissions.

The California Energy Commission voted unanimously, 5-0, to recommend energy efficiency standards that are set to be added to state building regulations later this year, effecting all construction after Jan. 1, 2020. The rules will make California the first state in the nation to require solar panels on new homes.

"This will be nothing short of historic for our state and for our country," said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, an industry group. "California is once again betting on the sun and putting real policy behind grand vision."

The requirement will apply to single-family homes and to apartment and condominium complexes of three stories or less. Solar installations have become so cost effective that they are included in more than 15,000 homes built each year in California, even without the directive from the state. In 2020 and beyond that number promises to increase to 80,000, the number of homes built each year in the Golden State.

Crucial in moving the proposal forward was a finding that solar power would be cost effective in all climate zones in the state. The average estimated cost of a solar system is $9,500, or $40 a month when amortized over a 30-year mortgage. But the systems are projected to save customers an average of $80 a month on their utility bills .

 
 
 
cobaltblue
9.1.35  cobaltblue  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.30    one month ago
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Not nearly as much as you do, sparty.

The oil embargo was lifted in March 1974, but oil prices remained high, and the effects of the energy crisis lingered throughout the decade. In addition to price controls and gasoline rationing, a national speed limit was imposed and daylight saving time was adopted year-round for the period of 1974-75. Environmentalism reached new heights during the crisis, and became a motivating force behind policymaking in   Washington. Various acts of legislation during the 1970s sought to redefine America’s relationship to fossil fuels and other sources of energy, from the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (passed by Congress in November 1973, at the height of the oil panic) to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and the creation of the Department of Energy in 1977. As part of the movement toward energy reform, efforts were made to stimulate domestic oil production as well as to reduce American dependence on fossil fuels and find alternative sources of power, including renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power, as well as nuclear power . However, after oil prices collapsed in the mid-1980s and prices dropped to more moderate levels, domestic oil production fell once more, while progress toward energy efficiency slowed and foreign imports increased.

Cite

 
 
 
cobaltblue
9.1.36  cobaltblue  replied to  Don Overton @9.1.13    one month ago
pure desperation

Every time right leaners come in to defend Trump, the place reeks of desperation. Total desperation. Just like this Trumplethinskin defender who got a lifetime ban from the Sesame Street theme park. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
9.1.37  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.34    one month ago

We've got solar panels on our house. I told my newish boyfriend I didn't want the house to look like a battery, so ours are strategically placed so they cannot be seen as you look at the front of the house. Our electric bills are now in the minus column even during these dog days of summer. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.38  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.37    one month ago
We've got solar panels on our house.

The whole planet should thank you for your service in the war against climate change.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.39  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.34    one month ago

What about all the old ones?

Doh!

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.40  Sparty On  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.35    one month ago

Do try to keep up ..... the comment in question related to the Oil Crisis of 73 and was spot on.

Your girlfriends wrong and you're gonna be in trouble

Hey la, hey la, your girlfriend is wrong ..... and so are you

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.1.41  Jack_TX  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.20    one month ago
Butt, total energy production and oil production went up during the Obama years.

True, but Obama didn't impact it one way or the other, really.  That's the point.  

People talk about some president being "anti-oil" or "anti-coal" or whatever, but it's all nonsense.  If the Saudis flood the oil market, US production decreases because the prices are too low.  If technology reduces production costs, production increases because profits are higher.  

I remember the uproar about opening the artic reserve to drilling...only for experts to point out you can only drill there for about 90 days/yr anyway because the weather makes it impossible the rest of the time.

It's like people who blame the decline of American manufacturing on some president and believe another president can somehow restore it.  American manufacturing was crushed by the Panamax freighter.  It became far cheaper to ship goods made with $1.50/hr labor than it was to pay $41.50/hr to US workers.  That hasn't changed, and neither Obama nor Trump nor anyone else has the power to change it.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.42  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.40    one month ago
Hey la, hey la, your girlfriend is wrong ..... and so are you

You are obviously trolling women just like your fearless leader.

800

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.43  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.42    one month ago

Did get it did you?

Not a surprise really.

 
 
 
Ender
9.1.44  Ender  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.37    one month ago

Nice. I would do it if I could afford it. I just have a ranch house and the whole backside of the house is in the sun all day.

Last time I looked an estimate for a DIY job was around 10k.

Sadly the federal solar tax credit is going to expire in 2022.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.45  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @9.1.44    one month ago

I would like to do this, also, even if just heats my hot water. But since I live in Arkansas, I could probably end up selling electricity back to Entergy

 
 
 
Ender
9.1.46  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.45    one month ago

Yeah, my power company is a co-op. Reading from them they almost try to scare people. Talking about how excess power flows back into the system and you are the owner, shoulder responsibility of line staff and how a downed power line could endanger others and how improper connections could endanger the grid. 

It almost reads like they don't want you to do it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.47  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @9.1.46    one month ago

Of course they don't. They don't want to lose money

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.1.48  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.30    one month ago
Clearly you didn't have to wait in line then.   Nothing bogus about it.   

OPEC disrupted oil supplies and people were fighting for gas at the pumps.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

I don't think you two are talking about the same incident.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.49  Tessylo  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.36    one month ago

'Just like this  Trumplethinskin defender  who got a lifetime ban from the Sesame Street theme park.'

Jesus that nasty inbred bitch needs to go back to Satan's asshole where she came from.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9.1.50  Freedom Warrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.34    one month ago

Of course fewer and fewer people can afford a home here thanks to douchebags in Sacto.  And naturally they have no fucking clue as to deal with the rising homeless population that is one of the side of effects of unaffordable housing.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.1.51  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9.1.50    one month ago
Of course fewer and fewer people can afford a home here thanks to douchebags in Sacto.

Are the "douchebags in Sacto" responsible for the homeless people in red states?  

Here's an article about Moscow Mitch's state:

Rural Homelessness, Made Worse By Opioid Crisis, Presents Special Challenges

By MARY MEEHAN & OHIO VALLEY RESOURCE JUN 24, 2019

Charles “Country” Bowers takes long, quick strides down a worn dirt path and is soon in front of a thicket of bushes made deep and tall by spring rains.

He’s leading me on a tour of camps made by homeless people in wooded corners of Fayette County, Kentucky.

____________________

Invisible Problem

Homelessness is often considered an urban problem. But those who work on homeless issues in the Ohio Valley say rural homelessness is a growing problem, too. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, NPR, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health reported in May that one in three rural Americans say homelessness is a problem in their communities. 

As the Ohio Valley’s profound addiction epidemic stresses the social safety net, advocates say more rural people are at risk of becoming homeless. But the scattered and hidden nature of homelessness in rural places makes it an especially hard problem to measure and address. 

According to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council , research shows people without any shelter have, on average, drastically shorter lifespans compared to other Americans, as much as 30 years shorter. And a 2018 homelessness assessment report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development found a greater proportion of rural homeless are unsheltered as compared to suburban and urban homeless populations.

512

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
9.1.52  igknorantzrulz  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.36    one month ago

Used to live not too far from there

pretty cool place, especially the infighting between Christians and Muslims 

I like when they do the American Gladiator battle with giant used Q tips, with greasy Yellow wax build up on the cotton swab ends

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9.1.53  Freedom Warrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.51    one month ago

 It’s not like I’m gonna hold my breath while you try to figure it out 

 
 
 
Krishna
9.2  Krishna  replied to  JBB @9    one month ago
If Israel wants in the fight so bad they can fight without us, too.

Israel has one of the most powerful conventional miitaries in the world (and in addition has had nukes for decades-- Iran of course still doesn't have any nukes). If Israel wanted to start a war with Iran they would've started one years ago.

Let the goddamn Sunnis and the godforsaken Shiites fight it out among themselves for once.

Been there-- done that.

in fact its been going on for a long time-- dies down, then flares up. Here's but one recent example:

Iran-Iraq war

The Iran–Iraq War began on 22 September 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran, and it ended on 20 August 1988, when Iran accepted the UN-brokered ceasefire.

Iraq wanted to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state, and was worried that the 1979 Iranian Revolution would lead Iraq's Shi'ite majority to rebel against the Ba'athist government. The war also followed a long history of border disputes, and Iraq planned to annex the oil-rich Khuzestan Province and the east bank of the Arvand Rud (Shatt al-Arab).

After eight years, war-weariness, economic problems, decreased morale, repeated Iranian military failures, recent Iraqi successes, Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction, lack of international sympathy, and increased U.S.–Iran military tension all led to a ceasefire brokered by the United Nations.

An estimated 500,000 Iraqi and Iranian soldiers died, in addition to a smaller number of civilians. The end of the war resulted in neither reparations nor border changes.

 
 
 
Krishna
9.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @9.2    one month ago
Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction,

FWIW, Saddam started two major wars.

And he used banned WMDs against Kurdish civilians as well as Iranian civilians and Iranian military. (But when Bush had us attack iraq they no longer had WMDs).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.2.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @9.2.1    one month ago
And he used banned WMDs against Kurdish civilians as well as Iranian civilians and Iranian military. (But when Bush had us attack iraq they no longer had WMDs).

Saddam killed as many as 182,000 Kurds.

From Wikipedia:

The Anfal campaign began in 1986, and lasted until 1989, and was headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid , a cousin of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit . The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives , aerial bombing , systematic destruction of settlements , mass deportation , firing squads , and chemical warfare , which earned al-Majid the nickname of " Chemical Ali ".
 
 
 
Krishna
9.2.3  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.2.2    one month ago

And perhaps less widely known than Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds is his use of them against iranians:

Chemical attacks on Iran: When the US looked the other way 

(Apr 2018)

(Excerpts):

US President Donald Trump announced on Friday the operation against Syria, framing his decision as a fight against "evil" while saying days earlier that preventing chemical attacks is "about humanity".

Trump's action against Syria, however, rings hollow to those who lived through the dangers of Iraq's chemical attacks in Iran during the Iran-Iraq War.

To some Iranian analysts, the air strikes reflected the "hypocrisy" and "duplicity" of American foreign policy.

When Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Iranians during the war from 1980 to 1988, not only did the US look the other way, but also "aided and abetted" Iraq in committing "war crimes", Reza Nasri, an Iran-born international law expert at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (GIIDS) in Geneva, told Al Jazeera.  "The claim that the recent US attack on Syria was motivated by humanitarian considerations is not consistent with Iran's own experience as a victim of chemical attacks," he said.

Throughout the Iran-Iraq war, an estimated 7,500 Iranian military and civilians were killed by Iraqi troops using nerve gas and mustard agents, according to a report by Shahriar Khateri, a senior official of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague.

The report said about a million Iranians were "exposed" to chemical agents during the war. Today, about 75,000 victims still receive treatment for "chronic chemical weapons injuries".  (Read it all)

 
 
 
Krishna
9.3  Krishna  replied to  JBB @9    one month ago
Why in Hell should the US defend the lousy Saudis who attacked us on 9-11 and who have been sucking us dry for oil for the last fifty years?

Should we..or would we?

If the question is why would we, there's a one word answer: 

Its all about oil*.

If the Q is why should we, the one word answer is:

We shouldn't!

------------------------------------

P.S: And that's the real reason* we started the last war with Iraq

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9.3.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @9.3    one month ago
Its all about oil*.

Trump said we should have taken Iraq's oil.

That would have been (another) war crime.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
10  dave-2693993    one month ago

War. Good G-d, what is it good for?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  dave-2693993 @10    one month ago

War. Good G-d, what is it good for?

PROPHETS!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.1    one month ago
PROPHETS!

War is good for prophets, profits, and profit prophets.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.1    one month ago

More like...PROFITS.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
10.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  dave-2693993 @10    one month ago
War. Good G-d, what is it good for?

Music?

 
 
 
devangelical
10.2.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @10.2    one month ago

creating or prolonging a war has been a tried and true re-election gambit by rightwing knuckle draggers, for the last 51 years

 
 
 
 
Krishna
10.2.3  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @10.2    one month ago
War. Good G-d, what is it good for?

Well come on all of you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again,
he got himself in a terrible jam, way down yonder in Vietnam,
put down your books and pick up a gun, we're gunna have a whole lotta fun.

CHORUS
and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?
don't ask me i don't give a dam, the next stop is Vietnam,And its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.

now come on wall street don't be slow, why man this's war a-go-go,
there's plenty good money to be made, supplyin' the army with the tools of the trade,
just hope and pray that when they drop the bomb, they drop it on the Vietcong.

CHORUS

now come on generals lets move fast, your big chance is here at last.
nite you go out and get those reds cuz the only good commie is one thats dead,
you know that peace can only be won, when you blow em all to kingdom come.
CHORUS

(spoken)- listen people i dont know you expect to ever stop the war if you cant sing any better than that... theres about 300,000 of you fuc|ers out there.. i want you to start singing..

CHORUS

now come on mothers throughout the land, pack your boys off to vietnam,
come on fathers don't hesitate, send your sons off before its too late,
be the first one on your block, to have your boy come home in a box

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.2.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Krishna @10.2.3    one month ago
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
10.2.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.4    one month ago
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Damn!  You forgot the last line of the National Anthem:  "PLAY BALL!"

The following song was the National Anthem of ButtHeads Nation on Newsvine.

(Please stand and remove your MAGA hat.)

Just kidding.  

You're gonna need to go to View=Full Screen and make sure the Volume=Max.

And move a little closer to the screen so you can absorb the subliminal messages.

Okay, now play the video.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.2.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @10.2.5    one month ago

FUCK YEA

coming to save the MUTHER FCKN DAY !

 
 
 
Krishna
10.2.7  Krishna  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.2.6    one month ago
coming to save the MUTHER FCKN DAY !

Kinda like the famous Flying Toasters...!!!

(Anyone remember After Dark 3.0-- the famous Windows v3.11 Screen-Saver?)

*                     *                      *

Flying out of the sun
The smell of toast is in the air
When there's a job to be done
The Flying Toasters will be there!
And it's flap! Flap! Flap!
Now help is on the way
A victory song they si-ing
We pop up to save the day
On flying toaster wings!

In brightest day or after dark
When times of trouble are at hand
The flying toasters set a spark
And hope is blazing 'cross the land!
And it's flap! Flap! Flap!
Salvation from above
A precious gift they bri-ing
Gleaming angels of love
On flying toaster wings!

 
 
 
Krishna
10.2.8  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @10.2.1    one month ago
creating or prolonging a war has been a tried and true re-election gambit by rightwing knuckle draggers, for the last 51 years

Actually it would be more accurate to say that its been a tactic used to gain power (election or no election) by those with aspirations of power on the Left, Right..and Center. And for more than 51 years..its more like centuries.

 
 
 
bbl-1
11  bbl-1    one month ago

Wouldn't get to excited.  Trump Administration has finally brought it out into the open for all to see--that--the prospect of war, the preparedness of war, and the political investments of war--have become yet another commodity.

The proof.  "The Saudis pay cash."  DJT

 
 
 
Krishna
11.1  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @11    one month ago

What do you think the odds are that we go to war with Iran?

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @11.1    one month ago

Slim to none.  The missiles probably were suppled by Israel.

 
 
 
devangelical
11.1.2  devangelical  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.1    one month ago

... and paid for by the money they saved buying ISIL oil.

 
 
 
Krishna
11.1.3  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.1    one month ago
The missiles probably were suppled by Israel.

WTF?

Israel supplying missiles to Iran (a country that seeks to annihilate israel) -- or one of Iran's terrorist proxies?

Hezb'Allah? Hamas? Islamic Jihad perhaps?

 
 
 
Krishna
11.1.4  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.1    one month ago
Slim to none.

What usually gets discussed is whether or not Trump will start an actual shooting war with Iran-- or vice-versa. There's no doubt in my mind that neither Iran 's leaders nor Trump definitely want to start a "shooting war". And by the same token, both sides love to fire up their base by the use of harsh rhetoric.

All of which isn't all that terrible. 

But what does worry me is that accidents can happen-- and a real shooting war could be started by accident... 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
11.1.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @11.1.3    one month ago
Israel supplying missiles to Iran

Israel would NEVER supply Iran with any weapons period.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
11.1.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @11.1.4    one month ago
But what does worry me is that accidents can happen-- and a real shooting war could be started by accident... 

The leaders of both countries are fucking mistake prone idiots.

 
 
 
Krishna
11.1.7  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.1.5    one month ago
Israel would NEVER supply Iran with any weapons period.

Well-- not to the current Iranian  government. But governments change, realities in the area change.

But as I'm sure you remember-- the Israelis actually colluded with Iran-- to attack a mutual enemy!

Yes-- they (the Israelis!!!) had a secret meeting with iranian representatives in Paris where they jointly conspired to destroy the nuclear reactor Sadam (well, actually the French) was building.

And in fact it was decided that Iran would strike first-- to destroy the reactor. So the Israelis agreed with the Iranians to hold back and let the Iranians do it.

 
 
 
Krishna
11.1.8  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @11.1.7    one month ago

And in fact it was decided that Iran would strike first-- to destroy the reactor. So the Israelis agreed with the Iranians to hold back and let the Iranians do it.

But they didn't suceed (IIRC that was because the Iraqi reactor was so close to Iran that the Iranian were afraid if their strike was too strong it might release radiation which would come to Iran)...

Here-- I just googled it and found this:

Iranian attack

Iran  attacked  and damaged the site on 30 September 1980, with two   F-4 Phantoms , shortly after the outbreak of the   Iran–Iraq War . [50]   At the onset of the war,   Yehoshua Saguy , director of the Israeli   Military Intelligence Directorate , publicly urged the Iranians to bomb the reactor. [50] [51]   The attack was the first on a   nuclear reactor   and only the third on a nuclear facility in history. It was also the first instance of a   preventive attack   on a nuclear reactor which aimed to forestall the development of a nuclear weapon. [51] [52] [53]

Due to last minute Iranian concerns that the reactor had been already fueled and could release   radioactive fallout   if hit, they did not attack the actual reactor dome, but the control room, research/centrifuge facilities, and the adjacent buildings. The targets were struck and the buildings were damaged, along with the plant cooling mechanisms. [54]   Two other F-4s simultaneously hit Baghdad's main power plant, knocking the city's electricity out for nearly two days. The Iraqis denied any major damage. The French and Italian technicians promptly left Iraq, and nearly withdrew from the project, but some later returned in February 1981 and began to repair the damage. [54]

So after the iranian raid on the reactor failed, the israelis had to take it out.

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.9  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @11.1.3    one month ago

Your alarm at my supposition is clearly understood and noted.

However, know this.  There are many ( shady--very shady ) weapons dealers in the ME.  And some are Israeli.

I would count nothing out.  After all, do you really believe the Israelis' are sympathetic to the Saudi Regime funding the Madrassas?  And this is but one thing among many others.

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.10  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @11.1.4    one month ago

Yes unforeseen accidents could happen.  The real danger are the many outside forces which are not controlled by The Coalition or Iran.  These groups have their own agendas and answer to nobody.  Their positions and loyalty are always suspect and shift with changing events.  Unfortunately, they are well funded and have 'some of the major players' in untenable situations.

Neither the US or Iran wants or needs war.  Militarily, Iran would suffer greatly.  The ME would suffer worse.  And the US could lose all standing, economic and political in the ME---possibly for decades. 

 
 
 
Krishna
11.2  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @11    one month ago
-the prospect of war, the preparedness of war, and the political investments of war

That's a good way to put it-- that Trump wants war-- the preparedness owar, the investments of war-- and of course the rhetoric of war.

A while back I heard a news commentator with an interesting theory. When trump panders to his base by talking of his going to build a wall, much of his base doesn't really care all that much even if Trump doesn't succeed in building it-- they just love the fact that he fighting for it-- that he's really , really trying to get it built (over the objections of those evil "progressives" (AKA "Socialists"-- whatever that means) :-)

They know that trump is "fighting for them"--they believe that, and that's enough for most of 'em.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
11.2.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @11.2    one month ago
They know that trump is "fighting for them"--they believe that, and that's enough for most of 'em.

They love Trump because they believe that The Donald hates the same people they hate (liberals, immigrants, minorities, etc.) 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
11.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.2.1    one month ago
They love Trump because they believe that The Donald hates the same people they hate (liberals, immigrants, minorities, etc.) 

They also love Trump because the liberals, immigrants and minorities largely hate Trump. They are literally gleeful, giddy with delight at the thought that they pissed off another group of American citizen simply because they disagree with them or consider themselves superior or their opponents inferior. This is one major difference between the "left" and "right". Those on the left would never wish for a horrible embarrassment of a President simply to anger Republicans and poke religious conservatives in the eye out of spite.

 
 
 
Krishna
11.2.3  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.2.1    one month ago
They love Trump because they believe that The Donald hates the same people they hate (liberals, immigrants, minorities, etc.) 

Until I realized that, I had always wondered why, when Democrats criticize trump by mentioning how he hasn't fulfilled many of his campaign promises-- for example promising to build the Wall which he still hasn't done-- his supporters don't seem to care. How could that be?

Well, its like you just said-- as long as he hates the same people they do... they don't care about his failing to keep promises, lying to them about other stuff, cheating on his wife, etc, etc.

 
 
 
Krishna
11.2.4  Krishna  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.2.2    one month ago
Those on the left would never wish for a horrible embarrassment of a President simply to anger Republicans and poke religious conservatives in the eye out of spite.

And that's the difference.

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.2.5  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @11.2    one month ago

"fighting for them."  ? ?

In other words, to cut to chase, 'fighting for nothing?'

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.2.6  bbl-1  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.2.2    one month ago

"wish for a horrible embarrassment...." 

Very probable Trump will deliver that onto himself.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
12  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago
 Locked and loaded ” means “locking the magazine into the gun and loading the ammunition into the gun's chamber.” The weapon is now ready to fire on command.

You mean a gun just doesn't walk around shooting?  It needs a "command" to fire?  Don't let the anti-gun asshats hear that.

Butt, The Donald has no military experience so...

Not a requirement for the position.   

According to the U.S. Constitution Congress has the power to declare war , NOT the President

Operation Desert Storm was executed before Congressional Approval.  But that will be ignored because...Trump!!!!

It's funny that the people worried about war are those who won't be serving.

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12    one month ago
It's funny that the people worried about war are those who won't be serving.

SOSDD ...... they are easy to spot.    Others, who likely ate the big chicken dinner, not so much.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
12.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12    one month ago
those who won't be serving.

Oh, are you talking about The-Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief.

Trump made up injury to dodge Vietnam service, his former lawyer testifies

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump acknowledged to advisors that he made up a fake injury to avoid military service, because “I wasn’t going to Vietnam,” his former lawyer told lawmakers during testimony on Wednesday.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/02/27/trumps-lawyer-no-basis-for-presidents-medical-deferment-from-vietnam/

800

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
12.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.2    one month ago

And all approved by the War Department (now DoD).  But don't let a fact like that get in your way.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
12.2.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.2.1    one month ago

Podiatrist's daughters say bone spur diagnosis that helped Trump avoid Vietnam draft was 'favor'

WASHINGTON – Two daughters of a New York podiatrist say that 50 years ago their father diagnosed President Donald Trump with bone spurs in his heels as a favor to the doctor's landlord, Fred Trump, The New York Times reported Wednesday .

Trump received five deferments from the draft for military service during the Vietnam War. He received four education deferments while he was a college student and a fifth deferment in 1968 for a medical exemption after he graduated. 

Larry Braunstein, who died in 2007, rented a ground floor office in a building owned by Trump in Jamaica, Queens. His daughters, Elysa Braunstein, 56, and Sharon Kessel, 53, told the Times that their father's role in Trump's diagnosis had become "family lore." 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/12/27/trump-vietnam-war-bone-spur-diagnosis/2420475002/

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
12.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.2.2    one month ago
Two daughters of a New York podiatrist

So nothing official?  Never thought you'd give in to rumor mill garbage.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
12.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.2.3    one month ago
So nothing official?

Are the fucking The National Archives official?

Go to this link to see a screen shot from The National Archives of Trump's Selective Service classifications:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/26/us/politics/trumpfeet-copy.html

According to The National Archives his classifications were:.

2-S 7/28/64 , 2-S 12/14/65, 1-A 11/22/66, 2-S 12/13/66, 2-S 1/16/68, 1-A 7/9/68, 1-Y 10/15/68, 4-F 2/1/72

Trump's campaign released a statement about Trump's draft status:

During the presidential campaign in July 2015, the Trump campaign said Mr. Trump had a "medical deferment for bone spurs on both heels of his feet." The statement also said that Mr. Trump entered the military draft lottery and had received number 356 out of 365. "When the draft occurred, they never got near his number, and he was therefore exempt from serving in the military," the Trump campaign said in a statement at the time. "Although he was not a fan of the Vietnam War, yet another disaster for our country, had his draft number been selected he would have proudly served and he is tremendously grateful to all those who did."

But the lottery was irrelevant to Trump because he received a 1-Y classification BEFORE the 1969 lottery.   The fake bone spur letter got him the 1-Y classification.

Class I – Y       Registrant qualified for military service only in time of war or national emergency

People who had a 1-Y classification did not get drafted (probably because Vietnam was not a real war, because war was never declared).

Trump went on to get a 4-F so he would never have to serve in the military.

Class IV – F     Registrant not qualified for military service

The 4-F classification means he is NOT  qualified for military service so he  should NOT be the Commander-in-Chief.

 
 
 
arkpdx
12.2.5  arkpdx  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.2.4    4 weeks ago

Show where it says that one needs a one A draft classification (or any other classification other than four F) in order to be president. What was Clinton's classification when he skipped out if the ROTC commitment he made and said he loathed the military?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
12.2.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  arkpdx @12.2.5    4 weeks ago
said he loathed the military?

Please cite.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
12.2.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  arkpdx @12.2.5    4 weeks ago
Show where it says that one needs a one A draft classification (or any other classification other than four F) in order to be president.

We've got a 4-F Commander-in-Chief.  Is that cool with you?

I would be cool with a genuine 4-F, butt Trump's 4-F was obtained with a fraudulent medical reason.

800

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
12.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12    one month ago
It's funny that the people worried about war are those who won't be serving.

So does that mean you're not worried about war?

WTF?

Do you look forward to U.S. involvement in a war with Iran?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
12.3.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.3    one month ago

Let me rephrase - It's funny that the people complaining about war are those who won't be serving.  These are the armchair generals who will sit safely in their living room while others actually fight.

Do you look forward to U.S. involvement in a war with Iran?

Unlike MANY here on NT, I've been to war.  But, at any rate, why would we go to war with Iran?  Iran didn't attack the US.  They hit Saudi Arabia.  

 
 
 
Kavika
12.3.2  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.3.1    one month ago
But, at any rate, why would we go to war with Iran?  Iran didn't attack the US.  They hit Saudi Arabia.  

Yet here we are sending troops to SA. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
12.3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @12.3.2    one month ago

We've been sending troops to SA for quite a while.  Been there 3 times myself between  91 and 2017.  

 
 
 
Kavika
12.3.4  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.3.3    one month ago

So what is the point of sending US troops to SA currently...To help defend SA from Iranian attacks?

Gotta protect that oil. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
12.3.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.3.1    4 weeks ago
I've been to war.  But, at any rate, why would we go to war with Iran?

Thank you for serving, I'm a Navy vet.

It's funny that the people complaining about war are those who won't be serving.

There is no war yet.  You won't be serving in a potential war with Iran either butt you are advocating their position:

why would we go to war with Iran?  Iran didn't attack the US.  They hit Saudi Arabia. 

Trump has been backpedaling his threat so hopefully the U.S. will not bomb Iran. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
12.3.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.3.3    4 weeks ago
We've been sending troops to SA for quite a while.  Been there 3 times myself between  91 and 2017.  

So you're aware that on two of those occasions we went to war with Iraq.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
13  author  al Jizzerror    one month ago

I hesitated to post this song because it's so sad.

Butt, unfortunately, the Bone-Spur-in-Chief has made it relevant again.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @13    one month ago

Cool, using your logic that makes draft dodger in chief “Clinton” and never served in chief “Obama” relevant as well.

Prattle on about that for awhile.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
13.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @13.1    4 weeks ago
using your logic that makes draft dodger in chief “Clinton” and never served in chief “Obama” relevant as well.

I don't think either of them are in a position to attack Iran.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Tacos!
FLYNAVY1


25 visitors