NationStates

The Black Forrest wrote:

Telconi wrote:
It was already blatantly false and they said it anyhow. Propaganda isn't restrained by truth.

Love? Probably not. Fall in line? Absolutly.

Jeff Flake was vocally against trump and yet voted with him 86% of the time. I suspect it will be the same with this guy.

Talk is cheap....

Besides, the "all Republicans love trump unconditionally" line wasn't really a thing anyway. Just a childish strawman.

Tobleste wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Love? Probably not. Fall in line? Absolutly.

Jeff Flake was vocally against trump and yet voted with him 86% of the time. I suspect it will be the same with this guy.

Talk is cheap....

Besides, the "all Republicans love trump unconditionally" line wasn't really a thing anyway. Just a childish strawman.

They don't worship him as God-Emperor, they're simply too terrified of his base and getting primaried to fall out of Donnie's line.

In a rare call for impeachment from Republicans, Rep. Justin Amash says Trump has impeachable offenses while Sen. Romney calls Amash's Statement "a courageous one".

Zurkerx wrote:In a rare call for impeachment from Republicans, Rep. Justin Amash says Trump has impeachable offenses while Sen. Romney calls Amash's Statement "a courageous one".

Senator Romney is the big voice there.

Let's hope Donald doesn't dangle a job in front of his nose so he instantly loses any backbone he might have again.

There is supposedly a plan for the US to send 120,000 troops for war with Iran. It hasn't been green lit but if it is, this will be pretty wonderful in that it'll be on a grander scale than Iraq, longer supply lines, more territory to hold, more opportunities to use more payloads of weaponry. The case is maybe being built for war with Iran like it was for Iraq. I'm more in support of a war with Venezuela, I have reason to believe that Venezuela's military would be far easier to defeat than Iran's. Besides, Venezuela's government is unpopular enough to have attempted coups against it, if they're toppled- another one will be on hand to fill any power vacuum. The Iranian regime on the other hand, has more solid control over their country.

Zurkerx wrote:In a rare call for impeachment from Republicans, Rep. Justin Amash says Trump has impeachable offenses while Sen. Romney calls Amash's Statement "a courageous one".

Amash has been against Trump since day one, same with Romney except for that weird flip-flop.

Saiwania wrote:There is supposedly a plan for the US to send 120,000 troops for war with Iran. It hasn't been green lit but if it is, this will be pretty wonderful in that it'll be on a grander scale than Iraq, longer supply lines, more territory to hold, more opportunities to use more payloads of weaponry. The case is maybe being built for war with Iran like it was for Iraq. I'm more in support of a war with Venezuela, I have reason to believe that Venezuela's military would be far easier to defeat than Iran's. Besides, Venezuela's government is unpopular enough to have attempted coups against it, if they're toppled- another one will be on hand to fill any power vacuum. The Iranian regime on the other hand, has more solid control over their country.

American lives are not worth glorified weapon testing. And what reason do we have to go to war with Iran? We made an agreement, we broke it, let's make another. And anyway, Venezuelan war the same. American lives are not worth it. There can be humanitarian aid as needed, though soldiers would merely complicate the problem.

Saiwania wrote:There is supposedly a plan for the US to send 120,000 troops for war with Iran. It hasn't been green lit but if it is, this will be pretty wonderful in that it'll be on a grander scale than Iraq, longer supply lines, more territory to hold, more opportunities to use more payloads of weaponry. The case is maybe being built for war with Iran like it was for Iraq. I'm more in support of a war with Venezuela, I have reason to believe that Venezuela's military would be far easier to defeat than Iran's. Besides, Venezuela's government is unpopular enough to have attempted coups against it, if they're toppled- another one will be on hand to fill any power vacuum. The Iranian regime on the other hand, has more solid control over their country.

I wonder how many of those troops would come home in body bags...

Thuzbekistan wrote:I wonder how many of those troops would come home in body bags...

The US supposedly lost around 4,500 for the entire Iraq project from 2003 to 2011. That's nothing, it was a cake walk compared to the amounts lost in Korea and Vietnam. I'd project that Iran would cause less than 10,000 maximum, but more than 5,000 probably; being that its far larger and more organized than Iraq under Saddam was.

A war with Iran would spiral out of control, it would drag in Saudi Arabia, Israel and who knows who else. It would be absolutely stupid. The end result would just be a bigger sea for Islamist terrorism to swim in.

Thuzbekistan wrote:

Saiwania wrote:There is supposedly a plan for the US to send 120,000 troops for war with Iran. It hasn't been green lit but if it is, this will be pretty wonderful in that it'll be on a grander scale than Iraq, longer supply lines, more territory to hold, more opportunities to use more payloads of weaponry. The case is maybe being built for war with Iran like it was for Iraq. I'm more in support of a war with Venezuela, I have reason to believe that Venezuela's military would be far easier to defeat than Iran's. Besides, Venezuela's government is unpopular enough to have attempted coups against it, if they're toppled- another one will be on hand to fill any power vacuum. The Iranian regime on the other hand, has more solid control over their country.

I wonder how many of those troops would come home in body bags...

About 40.

Although it'd be nice if we could keep the figure below 28.

edit: and yes. Those are the serious estimates. Not counting wounded.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:A war with Iran would spiral out of control, it would drag in Saudi Arabia, Israel and who knows who else. It would be absolutely stupid. The end result would just be a bigger sea for Islamist terrorism to swim in.

Boi, you forgot Russia

But I do agree: Unless we absolutely have to, a war with Iran will just result in thousands dead and increase Islamic Terrorism.

Zurkerx wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:A war with Iran would spiral out of control, it would drag in Saudi Arabia, Israel and who knows who else. It would be absolutely stupid. The end result would just be a bigger sea for Islamist terrorism to swim in.

Boi, you forgot Russia

But I do agree: Unless we absolutely have to, a war with Iran will just result in thousands dead and increase Islamic Terrorism.

But also a decrease in funding for terrorists.

At least until there's an insugency in Saudi Arabia.

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
Boi, you forgot Russia

But I do agree: Unless we absolutely have to, a war with Iran will just result in thousands dead and increase Islamic Terrorism.

But also a decrease in funding for terrorists.

At least until there's an insugency in Saudi Arabia.

I disagree. Various players would be throwing cash at terrorist groups of all kinds.

Saiwania wrote:

Thuzbekistan wrote:I wonder how many of those troops would come home in body bags...

The US supposedly lost around 4,500 for the entire Iraq project from 2003 to 2011. That's nothing, it was a cake walk compared to the amounts lost in Korea and Vietnam. I'd project that Iran would cause less than 10,000 maximum, but more than 5,000 probably; being that its far larger and more organized than Iraq under Saddam was.

Iran has a much better, much more organized military with fanatic support. Try 50-60k in an extended war.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:But also a decrease in funding for terrorists.

At least until there's an insugency in Saudi Arabia.

I disagree. Various players would be throwing cash at terrorist groups of all kinds.

The Great Middle East Proxy Wars will be bigger and better than ever, believe me!

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:But also a decrease in funding for terrorists.

At least until there's an insugency in Saudi Arabia.

I disagree. Various players would be throwing cash at terrorist groups of all kinds.

Various players are already throwing cash at terrorist groups. America backs Sunni terrorism against Iran and their Shia allies, Iran backs Shia terrorism against America and its allies.

Telconi wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:And so it begins

I honestly doubt many will join him.

Most are way too scared to join in. Trump might call them names. They might lose their BS jobs which is more important to them than truth, justice and the American way. Yup. there are no supermen in that crowd.

More information coming out about the soldiers Trump is possibly planning to pardon. Of particular concern, I feel, is Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the SEALs. Chief Gallagher, who is highly decorated for valour under fire, has yet to face trial, but the charges against him and the reports of his behaviour paint a picture of a bloodthirsty psychopath who was protected for years by his superiors. Chief Gallagher routinely opened fire on settlements with his vehicle's machine gun for no apparent reason. Just parked up and emptied the machine gun. He reportedly spent most of his time in a sniper's nest, firing three to four times more often than the other snipers. Two other snipers said that he once shot a girl in the stomach when she was picking flowers with two other girls. When a 15 year old ISIS fighter was brought in by Iraqi soldiers, injured but not in danger of dying, Chief Gallagher walked up to them without a word and, using a hunting knife he bought himself to bring to Iraq, stabbed the boy repeatedly, killing him, and later posed for pictures with the body.

His own platoon, having had no joy in confronting him directly or reporting him to their superiors, discussed how to keep him away from anyone he might hurt. These reports were even leaked from within the military. That Navy SEALs are making these reports about one of their own says a lot. And Trump is considering pardoning Gallagher before he even faces trial, which also says a lot.

Ifreann wrote:More information coming out about the soldiers Trump is possibly planning to pardon. Of particular concern, I feel, is Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the SEALs. Chief Gallagher, who is highly decorated for valour under fire, has yet to face trial, but the charges against him and the reports of his behaviour paint a picture of a bloodthirsty psychopath who was protected for years by his superiors. Chief Gallagher routinely opened fire on settlements with his vehicle's machine gun for no apparent reason. Just parked up and emptied the machine gun. He reportedly spent most of his time in a sniper's nest, firing three to four times more often than the other snipers. Two other snipers said that he once shot a girl in the stomach when she was picking flowers with two other girls. When a 15 year old ISIS fighter was brought in by Iraqi soldiers, injured but not in danger of dying, Chief Gallagher walked up to them without a word and, using a hunting knife he bought himself to bring to Iraq, stabbed the boy repeatedly, killing him, and later posed for pictures with the body.

His own platoon, having had no joy in confronting him directly or reporting him to their superiors, discussed how to keep him away from anyone he might hurt. These reports were even leaked from within the military. That Navy SEALs are making these reports about one of their own says a lot. And Trump is considering pardoning Gallagher before he even faces trial, which also says a lot.

Hmm, it seems that Trump can see no wrong in the military. Sounds like Pre-Geneva Convention mentality there. Not to mention: it's blatant favoritism for the military. Don't get me wrong, I respect our military and the people that serve; they put their lives on the line every day. However, this kind of behavior by this guy is disturbing and pardoning someone before their trial serves Justice no good.

Zurkerx wrote:

Ifreann wrote:More information coming out about the soldiers Trump is possibly planning to pardon. Of particular concern, I feel, is Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the SEALs. Chief Gallagher, who is highly decorated for valour under fire, has yet to face trial, but the charges against him and the reports of his behaviour paint a picture of a bloodthirsty psychopath who was protected for years by his superiors. Chief Gallagher routinely opened fire on settlements with his vehicle's machine gun for no apparent reason. Just parked up and emptied the machine gun. He reportedly spent most of his time in a sniper's nest, firing three to four times more often than the other snipers. Two other snipers said that he once shot a girl in the stomach when she was picking flowers with two other girls. When a 15 year old ISIS fighter was brought in by Iraqi soldiers, injured but not in danger of dying, Chief Gallagher walked up to them without a word and, using a hunting knife he bought himself to bring to Iraq, stabbed the boy repeatedly, killing him, and later posed for pictures with the body.

His own platoon, having had no joy in confronting him directly or reporting him to their superiors, discussed how to keep him away from anyone he might hurt. These reports were even leaked from within the military. That Navy SEALs are making these reports about one of their own says a lot. And Trump is considering pardoning Gallagher before he even faces trial, which also says a lot.

Hmm, it seems that Trump can see no wrong in the military. Sounds like Pre-Geneva Convention mentality there. Not to mention: it's blatant favoritism for the military. Don't get me wrong, I respect our military and the people that serve; they put their lives on the line every day. However, this kind of behavior by this guy is disturbing and pardoning someone before their trial serves Justice no good.

Recall that Trump openly called for murdering the families of terrorists. Shit like this is what he wants to happen. He wants violence against civilians.

Ifreann wrote:More information coming out about the soldiers Trump is possibly planning to pardon. Of particular concern, I feel, is Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the SEALs. Chief Gallagher, who is highly decorated for valour under fire, has yet to face trial, but the charges against him and the reports of his behaviour paint a picture of a bloodthirsty psychopath who was protected for years by his superiors. Chief Gallagher routinely opened fire on settlements with his vehicle's machine gun for no apparent reason. Just parked up and emptied the machine gun. He reportedly spent most of his time in a sniper's nest, firing three to four times more often than the other snipers. Two other snipers said that he once shot a girl in the stomach when she was picking flowers with two other girls. When a 15 year old ISIS fighter was brought in by Iraqi soldiers, injured but not in danger of dying, Chief Gallagher walked up to them without a word and, using a hunting knife he bought himself to bring to Iraq, stabbed the boy repeatedly, killing him, and later posed for pictures with the body.

His own platoon, having had no joy in confronting him directly or reporting him to their superiors, discussed how to keep him away from anyone he might hurt. These reports were even leaked from within the military. That Navy SEALs are making these reports about one of their own says a lot. And Trump is considering pardoning Gallagher before he even faces trial, which also says a lot.

Despite all the hero worship around them pretty much all of the SEAL teams nowadays have some real shitty thing going on. Drug abuse, rape, murder, from stuff I've read all that shit is prevalent in all their units. Dude absolutely does not deserve a pardon.

Ifreann wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
Hmm, it seems that Trump can see no wrong in the military. Sounds like Pre-Geneva Convention mentality there. Not to mention: it's blatant favoritism for the military. Don't get me wrong, I respect our military and the people that serve; they put their lives on the line every day. However, this kind of behavior by this guy is disturbing and pardoning someone before their trial serves Justice no good.

Recall that Trump openly called for murdering the families of terrorists. Shit like this is what he wants to happen. He wants violence against civilians.

The mark of a madman.

Ifreann wrote:More information coming out about the soldiers Trump is possibly planning to pardon. Of particular concern, I feel, is Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the SEALs. Chief Gallagher, who is highly decorated for valour under fire, has yet to face trial, but the charges against him and the reports of his behaviour paint a picture of a bloodthirsty psychopath who was protected for years by his superiors. Chief Gallagher routinely opened fire on settlements with his vehicle's machine gun for no apparent reason. Just parked up and emptied the machine gun. He reportedly spent most of his time in a sniper's nest, firing three to four times more often than the other snipers. Two other snipers said that he once shot a girl in the stomach when she was picking flowers with two other girls. When a 15 year old ISIS fighter was brought in by Iraqi soldiers, injured but not in danger of dying, Chief Gallagher walked up to them without a word and, using a hunting knife he bought himself to bring to Iraq, stabbed the boy repeatedly, killing him, and later posed for pictures with the body.

His own platoon, having had no joy in confronting him directly or reporting him to their superiors, discussed how to keep him away from anyone he might hurt. These reports were even leaked from within the military. That Navy SEALs are making these reports about one of their own says a lot. And Trump is considering pardoning Gallagher before he even faces trial, which also says a lot.

My god. The idea of that fucking monster getting a pardon is disgusting. There is a huge difference between celebrating the brave men and women who risk their lives to fight against terrorism and defending war criminals and it seems that Trump does not get that.