Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Shoot. Frank, of The Atlas Society died in 2012. Young Onset Alzheimer's disease? Crap. So long Frank.

 

Bubb, Frank W., 65, a former resident of Boca Raton, passed away on November 8 after a five-year struggle with Young Onset Alzheimer's disease. Born in St. Louis, MO, Frank grew up in surrounding Webster Groves and earned his bachelor's degree in economics, Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Washington University in St Louis. Frank attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he met his wife, Diana Paulonis. They were married in 1971. Frank was employed by Scott Paper Company as staff vice president and chief financial counsel. The Bubbs relocated to Boca Raton in 1995 where he served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of The Sports Authority until he retired in 2003. Frank was a respected intellectual and influential political activist in the Libertarian and Objectivist movements throughout his adult life. He enjoyed sharing his passion for his principles through dialogue and writing. Through the early and mid-1980s, Frank wrote numerous op-ed articles that were distributed nationally by the Cato Institute or placed directly with such newspapers as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Orange County Register. He also wrote articles for The New Individualist and its predecessor publication, Navigator. Frank was a founding contributor of the Society of Individual Liberty and The Atlas Society - where he served on the Board of Trustees - and was an active member of the Libertarian party. In 1980, he ran as the Libertarian candidate for Pennsylvania State Treasurer. Frank is survived by his wife, Diana, two sons, Daniel of Swarthmore, PA, and David of New York City. He is also survived by his mother, three brothers, and a sister. Frank was an extraordinarily kind and gentle man, a loving father and a devoted husband. He brightened the lives of those around him - quick to engage in intellectual discussion and spur fun and games with friends and family. There will be a Memorial Celebration in Frank's honor on January 5 at Springhaven Club in Wallingford, PA at 11:30 am. Published in Sun-Sentinel on Nov. 16, 2012

You cannot ideologically think your way--the US way--out of the Mideast quagmire for no matter how right and brilliant your analysis the quagmire will remain. If some Yokel President tried to apply that to it it'll be worse than if he hadn't.

As for trade, sanctions are acts of war. That's why Japan attacked us. We pretended they weren't so we got caught with our pants down. But Roosevelt and Churchill were delighted.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

You cannot ideologically think your way--the US way--out of the Mideast quagmire for no matter how right and brilliant your analysis the quagmire will remain. If some Yokel President tried to apply that to it it'll be worse than if he hadn't.

As for trade, sanctions are acts of war. That's why Japan attacked us. We pretended they weren't so we got caught with our pants down. But Roosevelt and Churchill were delighted.

--Brant

Brant wrote: As for trade, sanctions are acts of war.

No they are not. You are trying to conflate the freedom to trade or not to trade involving individual traders,  with the addition of State controls which is still trade . . . but no longer complete or laissez fair, free trade. Darn. You may be partially right, but it is still not war. Define war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter said:

Brant wrote: As for trade, sanctions are acts of war.

No they are not. You are trying to conflate the freedom to trade or not to trade involving individual traders,  with the addition of State controls which is still trade . . . but no longer complete or laissez fair, free trade. Darn. You may be partially right, but it is still not war. Define war. 

State to state economic coercion ranging from mild to over the top de facto trying for a major policy change stated or not. This is prior to any shooting. If your idea of war is shooting we can call it "pre war war dynamics."

Is somebody shooting?

--Brant

semantics can be tiresome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Peter said:

Brant wrote: As for trade, sanctions are acts of war.

No they are not. You are trying to conflate the freedom to trade or not to trade involving individual traders,  with the addition of State controls which is still trade . . . but no longer complete or laissez fair, free trade. Darn. You may be partially right, but it is still not war. Define war. 

Little examined in Objectivist circles, is psychological force (or pressure?). E.g. what many of us tacitly sense coming from some on the viciously angry Left - although not objective, literal "force". It' is wise to beware of such vocal, rhetorical and behavioral pressure from others, since it can turn easily into real force and is often a prelude to that. Sanctions serve a necessary, first-line purpose, economics-wise, of placing a rogue state outside of civilised relations with others. Get your house in order and behave decently - or else no one will deal with you. Gradually, as well as getting poorer and cutting the flow of goods - as critically, people begin feeling left out and alienated from the world at large. South Africans had some experience on the receiving end. Here, I remember when sanctions were placed by the USA and most of Europe on South Africa (the Sullivan Act). Although for various reasons they hardly adversely affected the economy, in fact SA boomed. But what ~really~ hurt SA's people was their image of a "pariah state" leveled at us by the rest of the world. This sense most citizens felt of being excluded and despised by civilised nations, more than some loss of trade, (and more than the ineffective ANC "armed struggle"- which was mostly a romanticized myth) - is what, I am certain, caused a gradual change of political policy: our electorate responded (in the last all-white election) and we the white people brought the end of apartheid. The sanctions should be tightly kept up on Iran, that's their justice - despite the sabotaging efforts of some damned EU appeasers. Eventually more Iranian people will sense their psychological isolation and react to the disgust aimed at the country, caused by their belligerent rulers. After which, who knows? But you can't keep a whole population down forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following letters are from a spirited exchange between Tim Starr and Ghs and it pertains to the aggression from Iran. The thread went on for many letters and the quality of thinking was excellent but I will just put George’s letter and a response from Tim. Peter

From: "George H. Smith" To: Subject: ATL: Re: War and the Constitutional Convention Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:36:02 -0800. Tim Starr wrote: "However, your interpretation still doesn't square with the US military prosecution of the Barbary Pirates and the invasion of Tripoli, since the US wasn't "in the midst" of an attack by the Pirates or Tripoli at the time.  If your interpretation is correct, then it was unconstitutional for the US to invade Tripoli without a declaration of war from Congress.  But that was done within the lifetime of the Founders, under the Presidency of a strict-constructionist like Jefferson, who at other times argued against the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and had serious misgivings about the Louisiana Purchase.  It was also authorized by Congress, which presumably would have declared war if such had been considered a constitutional requirement."

An adequate response to these remarks would require a detailed historical investigation of the extended conflict between the United States and Tripoli, which is something I have not undertaken. Nevertheless, I think the following preliminary observations (and I stress "preliminary"), based primarily on Jefferson's first annual address to Congress (8 Dec., 1801), may shed some light on this subject.

As Jefferson made clear, the Pacha of Tripoli had declared war on the United States ("The bey had already declared war in form"), so a state of war *already* existed between the two countries. This is surely relevant to the lack of congressional protest to Jefferson's unilateral decision to send a naval squadron to the Mediterranean. Although I don't recall the exact protocol in 18th century international law (such as found in Vattel and Burlamaqui), I suspect that a formal declaration of war by ONE side was regarded as sufficient to create a state of war between two sovereign nations. Thus, if there was no insistence that Congress declare a state of war before Jefferson had the authority to act, this is probably because Jefferson and members of Congress understood that the United States was already in a state of war vis-a-vis Tripoli.

The invasion of Tripoli that Tim speaks of did not occur until 1805, when U.S. marines stormed the harbor fortress at Derna, but I don't know enough about the events between 1801-1805 that led up to this to say much about it. But there are several pertinent details in Jefferson's 1801 address that are worth mentioning.

(1) Tim states that "the US wasn't 'in the midst' of an attack by the Pirates or Tripoli at the time." This was not Jefferson's position, who spoke of an imminent threat, one made plausible by a declaration of war: "The bey had already declared war in form. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded. The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger."

(2) It is worth noting that Jefferson did not authorize military action against other nations that harbored Barbary pirates, e.g., Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis. The military response was directly *solely* at Tripoli, which was the only country to declare war against the United States and take concrete hostile actions against American ships.

(3) Jefferson's intent was apparently to confine American warships to the role of immediate self-defense, to be used only when American merchant ships were under an immediate threat of attack by pirates. I say this because of Jefferson's interesting remarks about an incident during which the U.S. schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lt. Sterret, boarded and captured a Tripolitan cruiser. Here is how Jefferson interpreted this incident:

"UNAUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, without the sanction of Congress, TO GO BEYOND THE LINE OF DEFENCE, the [Tripolitan] vessel being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew. The legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offence, also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries."

To sum up, here is how I understand Jefferson's reasoning in this matter.

A declaration of war by Congress was not required to authorize Jefferson's actions, since the Pacha (or "Dey") had already instituted a state of war between the U.S. and Tripoli. Jefferson authorized military action ONLY against this country, which had formally declared war against the U.S., put a blockade into effect, and taken actions that clearly indicated its intention to raid American ships.

Even so, Jefferson felt that he could only authorize defensive actions. The offensive action by Lt. Sterret, though something that Jefferson praised, was unconstitutional, since it did not have the "sanction of Congress."

The essential point here is that there is far more to this series of events than Tim has indicated. To conclude that the founding fathers had no objections whatsoever to a President initiating acts of war, without a declaration of war from Congress, is not justified by the evidence. For one thing, this overlooks the fact that Tripoli had previously declared war against the U.S. -- a fact that is *obviously* relevant to this discussion, since Jefferson emphasized it *twice* in his very brief remarks about Tripoli. Given that Jefferson was attempting to justify his actions to Congress, it is clear that this previous declaration of war by Tripoli was *essential* to his case. Moreover, he candidly admitted that some aspects of the 1801 campaign were "unauthorized by the Constitution."

As I said, I don't know enough about the details to say much more about this, but I have had enough experience with history to know there is more going on here than Tim has represented. Rather than accept Tim's interpretation, I think it is more reasonable to suppose that the technical constitutional issue had to do with whether it is necessary for Congress to make a formal declaration against an enemy that has *already* declared war against the U.S. This is a different issue than the one raised by Tim, and I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that *this* accounts for the lack of constitutional objections by the founding fathers. Ghs

From: Tim Starr To: atlantis Subject: ATL: To the Shores of Tripoli Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:38:26 -0800 (PST)

I stopped at Moe's Books in Berkeley on my way home from my martial arts class tonight, and looked up "Tripoli" in the index of Dumas Malone's multi-volume biography of Thomas Jefferson, to see what he had to say about the war against Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates.

Interestingly, the argument George has made about the declaration of war by Tripoli being sufficient to both establish a state of war between the USA and Tripoli and justify Jefferson in ordering the Navy to attack Tripoli in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, was not made by Jefferson at the time, it was made by Jefferson's political enemy, Alexander Hamilton.

Jefferson's position was that only self-defense by U.S. ships was justified without prior authorization from Congress.  However, Jefferson didn't think that Congressional authorization had to come in the form of a declaration of war, as he neither asked for nor did Congress make any such declaration. That is basically the same argument I've been making about the authority of the POTUS to send the U.S. military to war: it doesn't necessarily require a declaration of war by Congress, it just requires Congressional authorization, such as in the Southeast Asia Resolution (a.k.a., the Tonkin Gulf Resolution), the Resolution which authorized Gulf War I, or the Resolution which authorized the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban.

I would be happy to stipulate that this can only be done when there is a pre-existing state of war between the US and the party against which the US military is going to war, as long as it is understood that such things as violation of international treaties intended to settle prior conflicts can cause such states of war, or other international laws codified in treaties to which both the US and the other State are signatories.  By that standard, the Vietnam War and Gulf War I would both be constitutional, while the Korean War would be arguably unconstitutional and the Kosovo War definitely unconstitutional.

I do not mean to suggest that just because a war may be constitutional that it is good, wise, prudent, or just either in its cause or methods.  Those are separate questions.  After all, both Congress and the President can be wrong, foolish, imprudent, or unjust.

Many anti-warmongers use the constitutional argument as a substitute for arguments against the prudence or goodness of the wars they oppose.  This is a mistake. I really wish anti-warmongers would get beyond silly arguments about the alleged unconstitutionality of the wars they oppose, and stick to prudential or moral arguments.  When the antiwar movement does so, it will be a sign that it has grown out of its adolescence. Tim Starr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more historical letter that pertains to the current crisis with Iran? If I remember Allen Weingarten was not an Objectivist but highly aware of Ayn's philosophy and he was a hawkish conservative. A quote from below, “The key question is whether or not the Arab-Muslim bloc is in a state of war with us.” As of now, Iran is. As I have urged before, search for the opening of the Iranian legislative sessions on the net, and you will ALWAYS hear them chant, “Death to America!”

A defeated and freer Iraq is a “wary, tolerant sort of ally”, since we defeated Sadam. The other Arab nations are now allies or tolerant of our presence in the region. Though they would like to kick the Israeli’s from Arabia they are no longer planning war with them. If any other opinions are out there I would be glad to consider them. Peter

From: Hllw To: objectivism Subject: OWL: RE: Solving the Muslim problem Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:10:54 EST. Mr. James A. Donald writes "Neither are we threatened by Islamic regimes -- the only Islamic regime with any power is Iran.  Saddam's regime is not Islamic." Herein is our fundamental disagreement, for I view the Arab-Muslim bloc as in a state of war with us. I gave my arguments for this in an earlier posting of "Threats versus Clear and Present Dangers." These included the fostering and support of sabotage and terrorism, as well as the propaganda, ideological insurgency, and political dealings that incite sedition. As an aside, although Saddam's regime is not Islamic, it pays homage to Islam and cooperates with Islamists (perhaps with Osama bin Laden). Moreover, let us note the extreme fear that the Muslims have of America defeating Saddam. To them, the enemy of America is their friend.

He argues that war on Muslims is akin to war on Jews, for it is the war against a religion. However, my position is that the war should be on nations that follow an ideology. Thus America waged war on Germany as it followed fascism, and on the USSR as it followed communism. Unlike Islam which will attack Jews and Christians, merely for their religion, our war ought to be waged on the regimes which foster the destruction of America.

Mr. Donald's next point is that "holy war is guaranteed to be long and bloody--guaranteed to cost a great deal, and likely to end inconclusively." I would not refer to this as a holy war. Moreover, the fight with Iraq needn't take any longer than it did in 1991, except to take the added time to destroy his regime. The cost of the war should be offset by taking the oil from Iraq, which never belonged to it in the first place, and was used to subsidize aggression. This would be a conclusive victory, rather than one where Saddam boasts that he remained in power long after President Bush was removed.

We also disagree when he writes that the Muslim power base is not the State. Without their support by States, we would not be threatened by Arabs or Muslims, for they would choose other targets, such as one another, as they did before they were given States. Moreover, the Palestinians are not "Palestinians", but are indistinguishable in history and culture from other Arabs. They did not consider themselves Palestinians when they were governed by Jordan, but only decided upon that "nationality" as a weapon against Israel.

Next, Mr. Donald writes that the rage of Muslims is produced by their failure. He apparently accepts this rationalization for their totalitarian mindset. If their aim were material benefits they would long ago have cooperated and learned from the West. They know for example how much healthier and wealthier the Arabs are in Israel, but that matters less to them than their desire to destroy.

What would the Arab-Muslims have to do before Mr. Donald would conclude that they had hostile intent? If celebrating suicide bombings, or enjoying the destruction of the spacecraft Columbia, does not suffice, then was there ever a regime in history guided by hostile intent?

To my comment that religions competing on equal terms is an affront to Islam, Mr. Donald says that it is an affront to Judaism as well. Here, he refers to selected statements in scripture. However, the practice of Judaism (and Christianity) today is not properly measured in that manner. These religions bespeak a tolerance that is in no way found among the Imams. Jews and Christians decry the few extremists among them, in contrast with the lauding by the Muslims of their extremists. Religion is not to viewed by selected verse, but by how its teachings are put into practice today.

Next, I do not understand his response, that to wage a war of self-defense would be placing a wall around America, making it cease to be America. Self-defense was precisely the sound guide for war of John Quincy Adams and other Founders. We must defeat the Arab-Muslim bloc, for attacking us, which in no way places a wall around America.

Finally, Mr. Donald suggests that my advocacy of war could result "in the same unending war as Israel finds itself in against the Palestinians." That would occur if we engaged in the same accommodation, negotiations and collaboration that Israel practices. Rather we ought to trounce them thoroughly, exacting a price that provides a disincentive for further aggression. To illustrate my perspective, let me recall an event that occurred around 1981. Palestinians demonstrated against Egypt and Israel under similar circumstances. The Egyptians showed up with trucks, opened machine guns, and massacred the demonstrators. The Israelis tried to understand their grievances. The Palestinians harbored no ill will toward the Egyptians, but complained bitterly about the insufficient concessions granted by the Israelis. (Similarly, the Palestinians harbored no grudge against the Jordanians for the massacre of Black September.) If you were a Palestinian, who would you demonstrate against and condemn?

Yet most of the above is secondary. The key question is whether or not the Arab-Muslim bloc is in a state of war with us. If they are not, then Mr. Donald is correct. Why initiate a war, when we can resolve matters by negotiations and education. If Islam is no different from Judaism and Christianity, why not live with radical Islamists as we do with one another. However, if they are in a war with us, and committed to our destruction, then the weaker our response, the more they will threaten, undermine and harm us. Allen Weingarten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thought. “The moral right but not the duty” objectivist opinion is an excellent perspective, but I would carefully think through any particular utilization of force. Very carefully . . . think through. I will venture an opinion that a majority of Iran’s citizens would not cry if there were a regime change but would not sanction civilian casualties which would include them or their families. That sounds dumb after a reread but I will leave it as is. Peter  

 

From the Ayn Rand “Playboy” interview.

‘PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who always want war always make sure there are dramatic well–timed events that make everyone want war.

 

Israel Lobbyist suggests False Flag attack to start war with Iran. Patrick Clawson of the influential neo-con Washington Institute for Near East Studies OPENLY suggests that the US should do this with Iran. Gives historical examples. #NoWarWithIran #HandsOffIran
 
1:54
135.7K views
 
Embedded video
 
 
6:01 PM · Jun 13, 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

The people who always want war always make sure there are dramatic well–timed events that make everyone want war.

 

Israel Lobbyist suggests False Flag attack to start war with Iran. Patrick Clawson of the influential neo-con Washington Institute for Near East Studies OPENLY suggests that the US should do this with Iran. Gives historical examples. #NoWarWithIran #HandsOffIran
 
1:54
135.7K views
 
Embedded video
 
 
6:01 PM · Jun 13, 2019

Clawson: “I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.

Some people might think that Mr Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War Two, as David mentioned. You may recall he had to wait for Pearl Harbor.

Some people might think Mr Wilson wanted to get us into World War One, you may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode.

Some people might think that Mr Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam, you may recall he had to wait for the Tonkin episode.

We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine was exploded.

And may I point out that Mr Lincoln did not feel he could call up the federal army until Fort Sumpter was attacked, which was why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumpter to do exactly that thing that the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack,

So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise it would be best if somebody else started the war.

One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step–up the pressure.

I mean look, people. Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day one of them might not come up — who’d know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either-or proposition.

We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians.

We, we could, get nastier about it.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used Iraq as a base but I don’t know what American forces are still there. We have some need to have troops on the ground in the Middle East, if only to keep the straits open. Tim Starr who is mentioned below, said he “loved” a just war. There may have been some over the top humor to his remark, as in the movie “Apocalypse Now.“ Peter

In a response to Tim Starr, George H. Smith wrote on the “Just War Theory” thread. . . . (2) We should keep in the mind that the concept of war, as commonly understood, refers to a major, sustained conflict between states – or at the very least between politically defined groups -- rather than a conflict between individuals. For this (and other) reasons, war has a collectivistic aspect to it that should make any individualist extremely uncomfortable, even if he concludes that war is necessary as a last resort.

War should always be viewed as a measure of last resort, an activity that should be employed only when all other reasonable options have been exhausted. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that wars always have undesirable, and often disastrous, unintended consequences, such as the loss of innocent lives and the growth of state power. Even so-called victors typically pay an immensely high price for war in blood, money, and the loss of individual freedoms.

"Unintended" does not mean "unforeseeable." Even with the best "smart" weapons that money and technology can provide, we know, with as much certainly as we can know any future event, innocent people will die during war and suffer for years after a war has officially ended. I simply cannot bring myself to "love" a situation that will invariable result in the loss of innocent lives, regardless of who may be deemed morally responsible for this consequence. I may feel that I have no realistic choice but to sanction a just war, and I may feel that the unintended (though foreseeable) loss of innocent life is justifiable in some circumstances, but my regrets will be profound nonetheless. My dominant feeling here would be one of immense sadness, not love.

(3) To declare a state of war is, in effect, to declare a state of emergency in which a respect for innocent life will not be the paramount concern (i.e., a concern that trumps all other considerations) until and unless a given goal is achieved, a goal that is often characterized as "defeating the enemy." Again, I can feel no enthusiasm, much less "love," in supporting what amounts to a suspension of individual rights, even if I should regard this war as necessary and justifiable.

In my book, to love justice is to hate war, since to declare even a "just war" is to commit oneself to the inevitable loss of innocent lives. I agree with Tim that some wars can qualify as "just." But love has nothing to do with it. Ghs

From “Apocalypse Now.” Capt. Benjamin Willard: The bullshit piled up so fast in Vietnam, you needed wings to stay above it.

Colonel Kurtz: I worry that my son might not understand what I've tried to be. And if I were to be killed, Willard, I would want someone to go to my home and tell my son everything – everything I did, everything you saw – because there's nothing that I detest more than the stench of lies. And if you understand me, Willard, you will do this for me.

Capt. Benjamin Willard: The crew were mostly kids; rock & rollers with one foot in their grave.

Lt. Col. Kilgore: Any man brave enough to fight with his guts strapped to him can drink from my canteen any day.

Lt. Col. Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Colonel Kurtz: The horror. The horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Onion is funny. So, what will President Trump and the U.S. do? No Americans were hurt but our property was destroyed. If the drone was in international waters, and not infringing on Iranian space it is a problem. If a foreign drone was observed flying around our coast outside of our territorial waters what would we do? It could be seen as a threat just as any Iranian vessel coming close to an American vessel might be seen as a threat and destroyed. I am sure there is a zone around our ships that cannot be infringed upon or we will blow them out of the water. In another vein, spy satellites are . . . spying, but a drone or even an automated plane or boat can be considered a threat because it may be packing explosives. Well I suppose a satellite could also be a threat if it carries armaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CIA black op sites in Iran? Did Natural News tell you that or did "the voices" inform you?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Peter said:

CIA black op sites in Iran? Did Natural News tell you that or did "the voices" inform you?

You think it far-fetched because you are a naive, mass media-brainwashed idiot.

Do you know how many coups the CIA performed, in the Americas alone? Go find the answer and then run the plausibility of undeclared activities in Iran through your feeble brain again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

You think it far-fetched because you are a naive, mass media-brainwashed idiot.

Do you know how many coups the CIA performed, in the Americas alone? Go find the answer and then run the plausibility of undeclared activities in Iran through your feeble brain again.

And you know this from what source? Come on Jon. You are thinking things and those things become truths to you, and then you present them as obvious and call anyone who wants proof of your assertions an idiot or worse. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter said:

I don't recommend a first strike at this time and certainly no nukes. We could flatten the country in a few hours, killing most of their people and destroying all bases and ships with conventional weapons in a week. 

No, we couldn't. Not even close. "Flatten the country" "kill most of their people", with conventional weapons? Wrong, dumbass. They just took down one of our most advanced drones that flies higher than any before and that no one has been able to take down before. But you imagine we can fly bombers anywhere we want, dropping bombs unmolested for weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   10 minutes ago,  Jon Letendre said: 

You think it far-fetched because you are a naive, mass media-brainwashed idiot.

Do you know how many coups the CIA performed, in the Americas alone? Go find the answer and then run the plausibility of undeclared activities in Iran through your feeble brain again.

3 minutes ago, Peter said:

And you know this from what source? Come on Jon. You are thinking things and those things become truths to you, and then you present them as obvious and call anyone who wants proof of your assertions an idiot or worse. 

From a million sources, Shit-for-Brains.

Go see if you find it. Answer my question, how many coups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

No, we couldn't. Not even close. "Flatten the country" "kill most of their people", with conventional weapons? Wrong, dumbass. They just took down one of our most advanced drones that flies higher than any before and that no one has been able to take down before. But you imagine we can fly bombers anywhere we want, dropping bombs unmolested for weeks.

And you know this how? What branch of the military were you in soldier? What was your MOS? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

How many coups, fucktard?

And you know coooos, Frenchy? How do you know coooos? You do know drunken gutter English, Jon. Poor soul has lost his way.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Peter said:

And you know this how? What branch of the military were you in soldier? What was your MOS? 

Nice appeal to authority. Nice fail.

I know it by understanding the destructive power of conventional bombs and comparing that to the number of structures and the physical extent of the target.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.