Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

Preach brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he was and his daughter is a stupid fat cunt who goes on TV and tells people who want healthcare that they're entitled lol. I guess she would know, she's an expert on that front lol. Fuck McCain, fuck McCain's family and if hating gooks doesn't make you racist, what does?

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love meghan mccain. Nothing like being told Americans are entitled from someone who inherited her money from her mom who inherited her money and her dad who made his money by marrying said mom who inherited her money.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gooks comment is awful. That can't really be argued, but there is some contacts there. Being in one of the worst POW camps in Vietnam definitely jaded the man's perspective on Asian people. I wish this one common, but it isn't. There are a lot of people I know from Iraq who use derogatory terms to describe the people that country. Almost all the time it has to do with an event stemming from the loss of a friend. I don't think this justifies it, but I do think when you look at contacts you can understand why somebody would arrive at that conclusion, no matter how misguided it actually is.

 

It is an interesting history lesson, look at what North Vietnamese soldiers did to US troops. Now, obviously this goes both ways because we weren't exactly what you would call Friendly to the people we captured either. So I can understand why somebody in that country would hate Americans, it really doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see it.

 

I think it's very obvious my position by now, I don't agree with you guys, that being said I do find it interesting. I don't like Bill Clinton, nor have I ever, and I'm not going to use his tweet to defend my point. What I will say though is this, when you look at the history of the American presidents in the last a hundred years, outside of the Roaring Twenties they could all be called warmongers. I am a big fan of Kennedy, but to pretend that he wasn't looking for a fight with Cuba's and sane. Gerald Ford, Nixon (might be one of the most racist, anti-semitic, misogynist presidents of all time), both of the bush's, just about everyone.

 

Now to reiterate, I'm not defending that. just pointing out the fact that when you look at this country's history, we almost always have some sort of enemy that we are looking to fight. I can't stand Donald Trump, but one thing I do appreciate is how he has handled North Korea. It might be all talk, not much is being done, I recognize that. What I can say is that 8 months ago I wanted to blow the doors off of that little country, and the main reason is I don't like living under threats. I would much rather have a fight right now, then get hit with a bomb in Seattle where my wife works and then all of the sudden I lose somebody. We're going to have a fight let me have the opportunity to volunteer and go do it, instead of waiting around to get hit. I only bring that up, because in general that's how our foreign policy has worked. As a country we don't like to be threatened, and honestly I don't think it's all that unreasonable. The hard part, is deciding what is a credible threat.

 

With North Korea they absolutely have missiles that can get here, so I would think that is more credible than any threat we've been under in the last 30-40 years. I don't think Iraq can be misconstrued as a weapons of mass destruction disarmament anymore. They pose no threat to us, and by and large many defense contractors got rich off of it. That being said when you look at the byproduct of the war, we did stop a genocide whether that gets published or not. As another unfortunate byproduct we destabilize the region. So really other than taking an isolationist viewpoint on the world what are we supposed to do? This is a legitimate question, are we supposed to let genocides go? Not to marginalize with the Jewish Community went through in World War II, but I'm pretty happy that we decided to intervene in that genocide, granted it took us getting attacked first. But what if it didn't? Should we have just maintain the status quo?

 

Not to bring this full circle, I only mention these things as an illustration of how sometimes you don't necessarily have to be attacked be able to justify War, at least in a lot of people's minds. Maybe in some people's mind it's never okay unless you're directly under attack, and that's fine. I wish we could get rid of it all together, but I don't see a world in which that happens. I don't think John McCain did either, and I think given how he was treated in the Hanoi Hilton, I think he could draw a lot of personal references to how some people in other countries were being treated. Again, I'm not saying we should get involved in every major conflict, I'm just saying that it is entirely possible to believe we should be in a war, that we weren't attacked as a predication to involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but it's clear that the US doesn't intervene on humanitarian basis. We're helping the Saudi Arabia as commit genocide in Yemen RIGHT NOW. We support an apartheid government. There is a long list of dictators that US has installed. One of them was Iran, who had a democratically elected government which we replaced with the Sha. That's why the Iatola is in power now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've all said racial slurs in our lives. If that makes one racist, we're all fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've all said racial slurs in our lives. If that makes one racist, we're all fucked.

It wasn't something said in a moment of frustration. It was something that when given the chance to clarify or back down from, he instead chose to double down.

 

https://m.sfgate.com/politics/article/McCain-Criticized-for-Slur-He-says-he-ll-keep-3304741.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a legitimate question, are we supposed to let genocides go? Not to marginalize with the Jewish Community went through in World War II, but I'm pretty happy that we decided to intervene in that genocide, granted it took us getting attacked first. But what if it didn't? Should we have just maintain the status quo?

I'm just pointing out that the US could not have cared less about stopping the holocaust. Even when we were already at war with Germany, Roosevelt shot down plans to bomb the gas chambers at auschwitz, knowing full well what was happening, despite it being considered a very low-risk mission. Hell, even when the camps were freed, they governments took the gay people in camps and just sent them to other jails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just pointing out that the US could not have cared less about stopping the holocaust. Even when we were already at war with Germany, Roosevelt shot down plans to bomb the gas chambers at auschwitz, knowing full well what was happening, despite it being considered a very low-risk mission. Hell, even when the camps were freed, they governments took the gay people in camps and just sent them to other jails.

I had not heard that, I would be interested to read your Source on that. Operating under the assumption of what you're saying. In the end doesn't matter? You can debate motives all you want, but will you really can't debate is that without the help of the American Military World War II could have turned out very different. So let's just say we did it for the wrong reasons, I would take a nice ancillary prize of helping save the Jews from extermination. Wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not heard that, I would be interested to read your Source on that. Operating under the assumption of what you're saying. In the end doesn't matter? You can debate motives all you want, but will you really can't debate is that without the help of the American Military World War II could have turned out very different. So let's just say we did it for the wrong reasons, I would take a nice ancillary prize of helping save the Jews from extermination. Wouldn't you?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate

 

And yeah I'm glad the holocaust was stopped. I'm not giving the allies the credit of fighting to stop it though when it was really not a concern of theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not for, but we did stop it. So you kind of have to give us credit for stopping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not for, but we did stop it. So you kind of have to give us credit for stopping.

Not really. It just shows in the eyes of the US, the death of Jews was considered unimportant, rather than something to be actively strived for. Like, congrats. You are one step above the Nazis. Let me kiss your boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then who stopped it? The Axis...

 

And one step above Nazis? You really believe that?

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then who stopped it? The Axis...

 

And one step above Nazis? You really believe that?

So you think the Allies were no better than the Nazis? Wow Edited by blotsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... we we're far better.

 

didn't your God wants say that you're entitled to your opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... we we're far better.

 

didn't your God wants say that you're entitled to your opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts?

I hadn't heard that quote before and don't have much of an opinion on the apparent source, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. His term as a senator of my state was before my real memory.

 

And the facts show that the US government didn't really give a damn about helping the Jews. Just because they did when it was super-convenient for them after years of ignoring it doesn't mean I have to pretend they were these progressive saviors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that I understand, who would want to be a progressive savior? Have you hung around with you people lately?

 

the United States military is a huge reason why the Holocaust ended, so what do you like to us or not is irrelevant. That's a fact, without us it may not have ended until 4 years later or 40 years later. You're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering most of the conflicts/wars we find ourselves in have us entering under.... interesting.... circumstances should tell you enough about our intentions (most of the time)....

 

Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi WMDs...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that I understand, who would want to be a progressive savior? Have you hung around with you people lately?

 

the United States military is a huge reason why the Holocaust ended, so what do you like to us or not is irrelevant. That's a fact, without us it may not have ended until 4 years later or 40 years later. You're welcome.

cool, bra. You didn't do shit anyways. You were fighting for a crime against humanity.

 

I don't even have a problem with the soldiers who generally showed compassion to the prisoners when they encountered them. But the military is represented by those who decide what the apparatus does, and they made their points clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all we have as an example of a justified war in the last 100 years is WWII then what are we really even talking about? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WW1

cool, bra. You didn't do shit anyways. You were fighting for a crime against humanity.

 

I don't remember seeing you there....weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WW1

Without getting into the nitty gritty of the mess that was WW1 it only falls into the "last 100 years" camp by 3 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is within the last 100 years. Gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As bad as some of these leaders are, I think the question has to be asked that are these people really better off after having their country and vital infrastructure leveled? Having all those people killed in the war, most of which were civilians? Would ISIS have infested Iraq if Sadam was in power? I think you can ask the same question with Lybia and Syria (which the CIA has been trying to over throw for 7 years lol)

 

Our military is made up of people that can't afford college/can't find good work, and can't afford healthcare lol. They're the only ones who would volunteer to go kill otger poor people they don't know for no reason.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×